- Exploitation of the seabed could begin soon. Mexico considers it essential to establish this Economic Planning Commission to continue studying its effects on terrestrial producers. The work of the commission will improve the establishment of the Fund, access to it, etc.
- If you decide to establish the Commission, elections must be held and take into account equitable geographical representation and representation of special interests
- Mexico does not want to support an automatic review of regulations.
- Propose instead: Every 5 years, after the approval of these regulations by the assembly, the council shall adopt a decision on whether to undertake a review of the regulations.
- The effort to include traditional knowledge is a good thing, but perhaps we shouldn’t include it for a lot of reasons. We see it as complicated in how it would be implemented. What is traditional knowledge? Is it from the local communities? Who is in charge of defining this and expressing this knowledge? And the way it will be expressed to the entities carrying out exploitation activities?
- Like Russia, that underwater cultural heritage should not be included in the definition of the marine environment.
- Mexico noted the importance of knowledge of the deep sea and ocean and possible impacts of deep sea activities
- Mexico calls for the consideration of reformulating the strategy. “So it can, in a comprehensive way, include in the priorities a way to ensure our obligation to preserve and protect the marine environment is met.”
- Mexico states “my delegation would like to state the need or the urgency of prioritizing a mechanism to collect, evaluate, and manage environmental data which is broader this should be a strategic priority under this plan for the upcoming five year period.”
- Mexico reiterated its commitment to continue to work to strengthen the legal framework.
- Mexico states that mining activities should not begin until we have this legal framework– robust, integral, sustainable and viable–which guarantees the protection and the preservation of the marine environment.
- Mexico does not support 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. States that inclusion of this agenda item is premature and not consistent with legal framework of rules of procedure of the Assembly.
- Mexico requested the removal of the provision on the LTC seeking advice from competent independent experts during the approval process of a Plan of Work, stating it is redundant.
- Mexico stated that they do not believe that the protection of the marine environment is the only principle of UNCLOS.
- Mexico expressed their full support for the LTC, recognising their independence, expertise and the great work that they do for all members of the Authority.
- Mexico expressed concern on comments that have been made on the transparency or integrity of the LTC and are opposed to the creation of a parallel body of independent experts. Mexico is in favour of strengthening the LTC and it is for the LTC to decide whether it needs experts, and what forms of expertise are needed.
- Mexico was opposed to independent review of an Environmental Plan.
- Called for a consolidated version of the text of draft regulations at the end of the 28th session.
- Called to avoid over regulation or unnecessary regulation.
- Stated that the decision to modify plans of work should be the responsibility of the technical rather than the administrative entity of the ISA.
- Mexico stated that we need to develop a legal framework to allow responsible exploitation of the deep sea in the future and we need to take time to do so.
- Mexico noted that we risk falling into “monopolization by contractors since the annex speaks of limits of monopolization for states and not for private entities.”
- Supported the operationalization of the EPC
- Supported mandatory environmental thresholds and stated that they must be adopted before any exploitation activity.
- Called for references to relevant applicable international agreements be deleted. On this issue, the DSCC stated that “We very much regret losing a reference to relevant applicable international agreements- the current proposal would only be referencing ISA documents in isolation to the important body of international law including the BBNJ agreement for example.”
- The delegation also called for streamlining of text.
- Mexico stated that “…Participation by an independent experts should not mean the responsibility is transferred from the contractor. It must be accountable for implementation and any insufficiencies in terms of that implementation. Mexico is not in favour of the plans being of the responsibility of the authority or third party. This is in line with the results based approach under which this draft regulation comes in, which is supported by delegation. In the same vein, my delegation stresses the importance of ramps before expedition activities understand that the planning activities cannot be started unless there’s a ramp in place in the area.”