11 Nov 2022
In line with the progress made in this session, we should have a consolidated text before further negotiations start.
- We now know that the ocean regimes of the Pacific and Indian oceans have grossly different concentrations of nodule sources. The available data suggests that the nodule abundance per meter square in the contract area of the Pacific Ocean Clarion-Clipperton Zone is three times higher than that, then than of the Indian Ocean contract area. As a consequence, it emerges that for the same mined capacity, the area required for mining in the Indian Ocean contract area will be three times larger than the area declared in the Clarion Clipperton Zone contract area.
- The contractor shall submit environmental data to the secretariat in real time. Difficult in understanding real time. How will this be technically feasible? Fixed periodicity is preferred
- Draft regulation 47 – Para 3, e, “Regarding independent scientific assessment of report. Is this like peer review of the document? How will this be included in the report? Will this be a separate appendix with responses to comments of experts? Not meaningful to my delegation and support Mexico. Contractor will generate document instead.”
- Draft regulation 49: Specific references to marine litter and underwater noise is not needed here as already included in the definition of pollution. But we can be flexible here.
- India was opposed to the general public being notified of an Environmental Plan and of an independent review.
- India noted that in the exploratory stage, contractors can play a major role in filling data gaps and therefore imposing a stiff penalty may be too harsh on contractors for first time violations. India suggested other recourses such as severe warnings and naming violators in Council and Assembly should be explored.
- The Indian delegation supported “the efforts for protection of marine environment while harvesting deep sea resources.”
- India stated that “While we appreciated the need to undertaking mining at the earliest, we believe that rules, regulations and procedures acceptable to all are required.”
- Supports views from China and others regarding no need for independent peer review of Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
- India called to avoid, minimize, and rectify, and as a last resort, offset, the impacts from deep-sea mining.
- However, scientists continue to warn us that offsetting any impacts from deep-sea mining would not be feasible.
- Wonders how the LTC can approve an application without final Rules, Regulations and Procedures.
- Contractors should not spend too much time or money on monitoring.
- India stated that “It cannot be the responsibility of the contractor to explore the entire area and identify underwater cultural heritage, at the best it can be a shipwreck.”
- Called for regulations to include ‘mitigate harm.’ The Deep Ocean Stewardship Initiative highlighted that “Any harm is essentially permanent and ecological restoration is an “impossible goal.”
- India called for next year’s meetings to be in hybrid mode.
- Stated that deep-sea mining should only occur under robust regulations and can only proceed when these regulations are in place.
- The delegation stated that “As we are dealing with commercial exploitation of the common heritage of humankind we should not be in a hurry or to be seen to be in a hurry however the 2 year clause did push us to work in this area. We should try to reach consensus and conciliation which is preferred under the convention. India wishes to try to proceed by 2023.
- India stated that the proposed roadmap puts a lot of pressure on us and our resources
- Stated that contractors are not only polluters but innovators