EIAs are instrumental and a template will guide us and gives an equal field for contractors and gives them a framework
As we know from BBNJ, we should look into that, as other states have said. The document here has the specific challenge of addressing the Area, but we should look at BBNJ as it may aid us in working on this
Underwater cultural heritage is testimony to the rich history of civilizations and the need to preserve it for future generations. Express support to Micronesia for exemplary international example in facilitating this group, and look forward to further collaboration.
Draft regulation 49 – we would like to recommend that ‘harmful effects’ should be retained. And ‘serious harm’ omitted.
Marine litter and underwater noise should be retained in the definition since underwater noise is pollution – sound pollution. Likely that seismic activities will disturb marine life
The delegation stated that the common heritage of humankind is a harbor of vast biodiversity and treasures playing a crucial role in climate stability and regulation and cannot be underestimated
Bangladesh stated that they are strongly against approving a plan of work without rules and regulations in place.
As it has not been possible to conclude negotiations on rules, regulations and procedures for deep-sea mining within the 2 year rule, Bangladesh asked how can a plan of work can be approved without having these regulations in place, and raised that it would be quite a risk to do so.
Strong and robust regulations are a must.
Bangladesh stated that the simple science actually tells us we must act wisely in ensuring the health and biodiversity of the ocean. Any future mining activity must ensure the health of the sea, biodiversity and the risks are understood.
Monaco declares that it will “clearly and explicitly oppose any mining plan in the current state of scientific knowledge, which is particularly insufficient. It reiterates that no work plan should be carried out without a regulatory framework that takes into account reliable irrefutable scientific data and ensures effective protection of the marine environment as a whole. “
Monaco supports the inclusion of agenda item establishing a general policy by the Assembly related to the consultation of the marine environment under the two year rule, proposed by Chile, Costa Rica, France, Palau, and Vanuatu. Monaco states the Assembly should be able to debate all matters that are important to the various Member States.
Monaco raised the need to ensure the Area benefits from environmental impact studies that are irrefutable in nature. The data from those studies needs to be made available.
Monaco holds it is still not appropriate to approve a plan of work without first ensuring regulations to ensure optimum protection of the Area.
The Seabed is in the preamble to the Convention and indeed the operative part of the 1982 convention devotes the longest part, XI.
Reiterated Monaco’s firm position to take the necessary time to develop the framework, acceptable to all States. Only science can lead us to achieving this vital goal for the climate and all of humanity.
Seeks a self standing compliance committee under the Council to be responsible for overall compliance, not one with in the LTC. AG does not support the LTCCC. It is not viable, it is inconsistent with independence, impartiality and effectiveness on the one hand.
Questions technical expertise of LTC for a compliance committee.
The Compliance committee must be independent and respectful of due process, consistent with CR and Brasil comments and others.
Sierra Leone raised its concerns on underrepresentation of African groups at various levels of Secretariat, particularly at the senior management level.
Sierra Leone states that commercial exploitation of mineral resources in the Area should not be carried out in the absence of rules, regulations and procedures relating to exploitation, and reaffirms its commitment to the adoption of the said rules, regulations and procedures.
Malta stated that “transparency of the ISA is key – the work of the authority must be guided by data and science – these are the best things to tell us what is in the best interest of the common heritage of humankind – future generations will judge us by our actions.”
Highlighted their concern at closing the session without a formal agenda. This means this meeting would not have taken place and we would not have done anything.
Zimbabwe stated that it associates with the position echoed by several delegations that exploitation of the resource in the Area must not commence before requisite regulations are in place that take into account the scientific and environmental considerations.
They also noted the number of the very critical outstanding issues which have to be brought to finality before mining is carried out.
Vietnam stated that the international community is concerned about the marine environment and climate change.
Activities in the area should ensure the protection of the marine environment for sustainable development, equitable benefit sharing, and rise of developing countries on the basis of international law, especially UNCLOS.
Kenya stated that “Approval for exploitation in the area in the absence of rules and regulations is of grave concern as it is not clear. Without clear rules, it can be a threat to humankind, in particular developing nations. Exploitation without regulations defeats UNCLOS, fails to stipulate benefits for equitable sharing. Plans of works should therefore be deferred until regs are adopted in 2025. “
With regards to the development of an Emergency Response and Contingency Plan, Ireland said that matters pertaining to the protection of the marine environment should be given prominence and belong at the top of the list. Whilst other matters, such as safety at sea, are important, Ireland do not think that optically it is a good look for potentially very serious damages to the marine environment to seemingly be an afterthought, after less profound issues.
Ireland questioned the need for a Contractor to receive more than one written warning by the Authority as one violation should be considered to be serious enough.
Ireland also questioned why a violation would need to be persistent and wilful, as for example, it is very often the case that environmental disasters are not wilful, but rather arise from recklessness or negligent conduct.
Maximum participation of observers and civil society is necessary as we continue with the draft regulations.
On the requirement to submit environmental data annually/monthly: some need to be submitted in real time and monthly could be enough for some other type of data.
Suggest to moving to standards and guidelines.
Draft regulation 49: Supports harmful effects over serious harm. Harmful effects is the standard imposed by Art 145 of the Convention. Should be included in this regulation going forward
Marine litter and underwater noise – we support their inclusion in the definition of pollution.
All mining discharges should happen under strict environmental standards
Ireland supports the inclusion of agenda item titled establishment of a general policy by the Assembly related to the conservation of the marine environment, including in consideration of the effects of two year rule proposed by Chile, Costa Rica, France, Palau, and Vanuatu.