- Seeks clarification of last sentence of para. 24(c) of briefing note from the 8 March Intersessional where “provisionally approved plan of work does not equate to a contract for exploitation.” But 23(a) notes that some delegations think that a provisionally approved Plan of Work DOES equal a contract.
- Questioned placing the burden on the applicant contractor to address any stakeholder comments received “we know that not all comments received from stakeholders will be relevant or necessary to address.”
- Questioned the requirement that independent experts conduct monitoring of activities for at least the first seven years of exploitation.
- The delegation considered that it is the contractors obligation to perform its monitoring programme and it appears excessive to require the contractor to have outsourced this obligation for at least the first seven years of exploitation.
- Questioned whether independent experts needed to conduct supplementary monitoring.
- Stated that undue delays in document prep shouldn’t delay contractors and their application and submission of plans of work for exploitation
- Commented that regulations should not impose an undue cost and administration burdens on contractors.
- Nauru recognizes the need for a robust regulatory framework for the responsible exploitation of seafloor minerals to ensure deep-sea ecosystems are adequately protected.
- Remain committed to the conversation on solutions to the global climate crisis, including the sourcing of minerals critical to a low carbon future of which nodule collection, Nauru considers to form an integral part of.
- Echoed questions raised by the Cook Islands, including those concerning France’s two exploration contacts.
- Supports The Netherlands’ proposal for contractors that have ignored calls by the Council to be named.
- Nauru stated that as sponsoring State and in good faith, will not entertain lodging an application in July 2023. We do not wish to prejudice the adoption of regulations by that deadline.
- “Like the UK and others, we remain optimistic that together we can make significant progress between now and July 2023 and feel confident by the end of July session next year, we will be significantly advanced.”
- “We are clear. We propose to reconsider the new agenda item given the limited time Chile submitted this for the consideration of the Assembly.”
- Supported Canada and Pakistan that contractors must not be given the right to speak.
- Stated that “Chile’s submission for this discussion will derail the 27th session and the roadmap” and that the delegation is cognisant that “there may come a time to discuss this, but Chile’s position will lead to polarization and politicizing of Nauru’s legal right to exploration and exploitation, especially as a pacific state, we cannot support this inclusion, there are elements we need to counter, and we have not prepared.”
- Called for contractors to be explicitly mentioned alongside observers and members
- Stated that they did not appreciate NGO attempts to dictate to a member State stating that it is untenable based on the participation of NGOs and that no member State has made such a statement. They added that civil society does not share the State responsibilities and there has to be some respect of State’s treaty obligations. The delegation claimed that this behavior would not be tolerated in the GA and should not be encouraged at the International Seabed Authority.
- Nauru commented that environmental thresholds are “very important for the protection of the marine environment. We fully support this work.”
- The delegation stated that “we seek clarification on wording with “public interest”, what are these implications? This is really important to clarify”