SEABED COUNCIL CONTINUES DISCUSSION ON NEW CODE FOR POLYMETALLIC SULPHIDES, COBALT-RICH CRUSTS

SEABED COUNCIL CONTINUES DISCUSSION ON NEW CODE FOR POLYMETALLIC SULPHIDES,

COBALT-RICH CRUSTS

Elects Additional Vice-Presidents for Eleventh Session

(Reissued as received.)

KINGSTON, Jamaica, 17 August (International Seabed Authority) -- The Council of the International Seabed Authority this morning continued its detailed discussion of provisions of the new draft regulations for prospecting and exploration for polymetallic sulphides and cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts in the international seabed “Area”.

Before the debate, the Council elected Canada and the Russian Federation vice-presidents, representing, respectively, Western European and Other States, and the Eastern European States.   Jamaica was elected vice-president yesterday to represent Latin American and Caribbean States.  The African Group is yet to nominate a candidate, while Asia is already represented on the Council’s bureau as president ( Republic of Korea).  

The 36-member Council began its discussion of the draft text which has 43 regulations and four annexes, by taking up regulation 6, “Annual report” by prospectors.  According to its provisions, a prospector for the minerals shall, within 90 days of the end of each calendar year, submit a report containing a general description of the status of the prospecting and the results obtained, as well as information on compliance with undertakings spelt out under draft regulation 3 par. 4 (d).

Those undertakings include compliance with the Convention on the Law of the Sea and the relevant rules, regulations and procedures of the Authority concerning cooperation in training programmes in connection with marine scientific research and transfer of technology (referred to in articles 143 and 144 of the Convention) and the protection of the marine environment.  Regulation 6 also has provisions for submission of information by the prospector on compliance with the relevant future guidelines for prospectors which would include protection of the marine environment.

Another provision would have the prospector submit a certified annual statement if the company intended to claim expenditures for prospecting as part of the development costs incurred prior to the commencement of commercial production.

Recalling discussions of previous meetings, the Russian Federation warned against blindly copying the code governing the prospecting of, and exploration for, polymetallic nodules (document ISBA/6/A/18).  He felt the Council should examine the whole draft, not just the amended paragraphs, since some regulations for the nodules would not be automatically applicable to the new resources, as the latter were entirely different from one another.

The Russian representative also pointed out that the first set of regulations governing nodules was formulated under very different circumstances:  there were already pioneer investors who had passed the stage of prospecting and already had plans of work approved.  With regard to the draft regulations on polymetallic sulphides and cobalt-rich crusts, notifications for prospecting had not yet been submitted and there could potentially be a number of applications for work plans.

Touching upon regulation 6, the Russian Federation said it was opposed to prospectors being required to submit annual reports on their prospecting activities.  Its representative said that in the past, when contractors submitted their reports, the Legal and Technical Commission (LTC) had made requests which were not in accordance with the regulations.  He noted that data gathered by prospectors was gained at great cost and had significant commercial value.  The investments of the prospectors would be at risk if this data was not closely guarded.

He said that the provisions of regulation 7, which addresses confidentiality of data gleaned from prospecting, did not allay the fears of his delegation.  He, therefore, suggested that both regulations 6 and 7 should be deleted.

Speaking in the debate, Brazil’s representative said his delegation could not accept the deletion of the two regulations, adding that regulation 6 par. 1 (c) was consistent with the purpose of Article 145 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) which sought to ensure the protection of the marine environment.

The Russian Federation and the United States opposed this view on the grounds that article 145 referred to “activities in the Area” which were clearly defined in article 1 of the Convention as “activities of exploration for, and exploitation of, the resources of the Area”, with no mention of prospecting.

On regulation 6, the secretary-general said that the essence was contained in paragraph 2 which sets out the procedure for prospectors to claim prior expenditures incurred before the start of commercial production.  The annual report would serve as verification of the prospector’s activities.  The regulation was not intended, he said, to create a situation where approval would be needed before prospecting.  The intention of regulation 6 par. 1 (c), was to have the prospector provide information on compliance with the relevant recommendations concerning the marine environment

Some new provisions had been added to regulation 7, on “Confidentiality of data and information from prospecting contained in the annual report” to correspond with the regulation in the code for polymetallic nodules.  With the amendment, information relating exclusively to environmental monitoring programmes would not be considered confidential.  The United States felt the original drafting should be kept, while Brazil favoured inclusion of the amendment.

Regulation 8, which deals with the safeguarding of objects of an archaeological or historical nature found in the deep seabed, would have the prospector promptly inform the secretary-general in writing of any such find.

The representative of Chile felt that the regulation should be strengthened to ensure the protection of under sea archaeological sites, while Portugal maintained that the UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) Convention for Underwater Cultural Property Protection already served that purpose.

The next regulation to be debated was regulation 12, relating to the total area to be covered by an application for approval of a plan of work.

A number of delegations again cited the differences between the two types of resources in terms of their nature, location and distribution.   China added that the significant differences between polymetallic sulphides and cobalt-rich crusts might even warrant a separate set of regulations for each.

With regard to the size of each block for prospecting, China, the Republic of Korea and the Russian Federation felt that blocks needed to be larger if the exploitation of those resources was to be economically viable.  On the other hand, the representative of Brazil repeated his call for the blocks to be smaller and endorsed the principle of the contiguity of blocks to protect the interests of developing countries, which did not yet have the technical capacity to engage in exploration and exploitation of the seabed.

Commenting on the issue of the contiguity of blocks, China made the point that the distribution of the new resources varied across the ocean on different seamounts.  He advocated a regime where applicants would be allowed to conduct activities across a number of blocks covering several seamounts.  These blocks would not necessarily be contiguous but could be within the same geographical area and restrictions could be placed on the number of blocks.

The Russian Federation, recognizing the need to safeguard the anti-monopoly principle, suggested that the solution might be to allot exploration areas in separate clusters of blocks.  The blocks in each cluster would have to be contiguous but the clusters could be spread out.  In response to the concern expressed by Brazil about developing states having access and opportunity to exploit the ocean’s resources in the future, he noted that there was a system of reserving areas designed for that purpose.

During the discussion on regulation 12, a number of delegations mentioned the lack of information available on the two new resources.  They felt the Council should call on the LTC to make some clarifications on several issues before continuing their deliberations.

With regard to regulation 13 par. 6 (c), concerning the financial and technical capabilities of firms or States applying for approval of plans of work, the Russian Federation questioned the usefulness of requesting the curricula vitae of certain key personnel employed by applicants, since they could change several times during a 15-year period.  In response, the Secretary-General noted that this was a standard requirement in mining agreements and the requirement had not caused any problem in the past.

The Council will meet again this afternoon to continue its consideration of the draft regulations.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record