Country Positions

Chile – Key statements

11 Nov 2022

March 2023

27/3/23

  • The delegation stated that the ISA shouldn’t allow exploitation activities before standards, regulations and procedures are robust, solid and complete
  • Chile called for no plans of work for commercial mining to be approved before there is a regulatory framework guaranteeing effective protection through rigorous structure and while applying precautionary approach and ecosystems principle, science, transparency and guarantee a solid inspection mechanism
  • The delegation stated:
    • Since July of last year, Chile has clearly insisted on the need of beginning of precautionary pause for the exploitation activities of the seabed in order to develop and further scientific knowledge and agree on a regulatory and institutional framework that are in concurrence with the frameworks of the convention.
    • We should work on this without the pressure of time upon us.
    • Our delegation firmly believes that the work that we will develop in the Authority should be coherent with the international context, and that we cannot continue to act in isolation from the processes and decisions that are adopted elsewhere.
    • We have a clear mandate. We need to guarantee the health of the long term health of the oceans.
    • Our country considers that the time has come to take decisions on this matter. We appeal to the states to renew our efforts to find the required agreements that will allow us to establish a common vision for the future.

24/3/23

  • For Chile, given that we don’t have the Rules, Regulations and Procedures, it is is legally possible to postpone until conditions are met.

20/3/23

  • Called to add ‘mitigation’ to draft regulations. The Deep Ocean Stewardship Initiative (DOSI) reminded Council that any notion of mitigation is scientifically meaningless.

16/3/23

  • Stated that an application cannot be approved till there is a framework that can guarantee protection and preservation of the marine environment
  • Emphasised that we shouldn’t work under the pressure of a time bound framework and that we need to take a precautionary pause.

October/November 2022

11/11/22

  • Highlighted that in the case of damage to the environment, contractors should not have their contract renewed and shouldn’t have the opportunity to find sponsorship with another country “because we already know that this is a contractor who does not abide by the contract and who puts the environment at risk.”
  • Chile expressed concern that on the transfer of rights and obligations, UNCLOS does not discuss the ability to transfer partial rights.
  • Stated that an Environmental Performance Guarantee should be presented before activities in the marine environment commence

10/11/22

  • Congratulated France and do not believe deep-sea mining should happen until there is sufficient science and regulations to guide operations.
  • Regarding the approval of the NORI EIS, which was approved online through the silence procedure by a small group within the LTC, Chile highlighted that this was a process that generated various reactions including in the international press, questioning procedures not only of the LTC but of the Authority itself.  
  • Chile questioned the use of the silence procedure in important decision-making – such as the approval of the NORI EIS. This procedure was used during the exceptional circumstances stemming from the COVID pandemic and Chile questioned whether the LTC or the Secretariat ensured that all members of the LTC had read the message on time to obtain consensus on the NORI EIS. 
  • Supports the request made by the Netherlands that the names of the contractors that did not fulfill their contractual obligations to be shared. 

9/11/22

  • Agreed with Costa Rica regarding transparency around the appointment of experts and the development of environmental thresholds. The delegation considers that information that needs to be made public, wholly public because we do not believe that there is here any information that needs to be confidential, as has occurred with the LTC.  

4/11/22

  • Chile stated that they do not see how damage from deep-sea mining would be fixed by planting trees or by making our lives greener…
  • They stated that it is no secret that ⅓ of the members of this Council are sponsoring States so it’s no secret they are interested in granting contracts for exploitation. But a lot of these countries agree with us.
  • Chile reiterated the need for a precautionary pause, to protect the heritage of this generation and future generations.
  • Chile stated that a large number of delegations has not been taken into account in the proposed roadmap.

3/11/22

  • Chile highlighted the importance of effective control.
  • The delegation also reminded Council of the need to bear in mind that Article 192 of UNCLOS states that states have the obligation to preserve and protect the marine environment. Article 145 also calls for us to protect the marine environment

2/11/22

  • Chile reminded delegates that fisheries are part of the biological domain which will be affected by the physical domain.

July/August 2022

4/8/22

  • Made the following statement on the two year rule:
  • As we have already mentioned several times including during the council meeting last week actually expresses its concern as to the activation of paragraph 15 of Section One of the agreement”
  • The request, presented by Nauru into 2020 at one of the worst times internationally of the Pandemic has pushed us to a situation that is unprecedented and there are different interpretations as to how to interpret subparagraph C of this paragraph”
  •  We consider that it’s necessary that the assembly as a supreme organ where all the states parties take part on an equal footing can consider and deliberate this topic.
  • There is no better forum than this one, to be able to express ourselves and listen to one another.
  •  And therefore it seems surprising that more than half of the member states are not present today in this room. 
  • To our mind, there are a couple of questions we need to ask ourselves. 
  • Are we really willing to allow the beginning of underwater mining without having to protect the common heritage of mankind? And under that hypothesis, could we look our children into the eye and show them that we have done everything that was possible to defend this heritage? 
  • A week ago, 161 votes four and eight against the UN approved a resolution that states that all beings have the right to a healthy environment. 
  • The contractors that wish to begin activities underwater can they assure us that with their activities we will have a healthy environment and that the submarine ecosystem must suffer severe damage? No they can’t. It’s us. 
  • We who are gathered in this room are called upon to protect the common heritage of mankind, as established by the convention.
  •  And many experts have indicated in all languages, that the scientific knowledge is still insufficient, and that we have a very limited understanding of the effects of the potential exploitation activities on the seabed, and particularly as to the role of the seabed as a carbon sink, and therefore, some of these actions could have devastating consequences on the marine ecosystems and could release untold greenhouse gases into the atmosphere pushing us further away from the objectives of the Paris Agreement. 
  • Are we willing to be accomplices to the unknown and irreparable damages that deep sea mining might cause?
  •  My delegation can only respond on behalf of Chile The answer is no. 
  • As a signatory country, Chile wishes to continue the negotiating process to reach solid rules on exploitation that are solid holistic and protect the seabed but we do not agree that these tasks be carried out by implementing an insufficient deadline or timeline. 
  • This is why Chile is respectfully calling upon this assembly to consider carefully the situation and cooperation with the organs of the authority,  take decisions based on science based on the cautionary approach and with an eye towards sustainability.
  •  As we have already indicated Chile considers it necessary that the authority continue to work towards developing the regulations but without any pressure. 
  • This is why and based on the mandate and powers conferred upon us by articles 151 53 157 161 62 of UNCLOS we suggest the idea that we establish a cautionary pause of 15 years, a period during which we cannot approve plans for exploitation. And this will allow us to continue to work in a serious and responsible way towards developing the exploitation rules that we all wish for. 
  • We need to discuss this idea amongst others which is why Chile will try to create spaces for a dialogue at the highest level during the next meeting of the General Assembly of the United Nations in September in order to continue searching for alternatives which ensure a real commitment towards conservation and the health of oceans in the long run. And we also hope to continue the dialogue in November with the members of the council. 
  • We make an appeal to all the member states to commit themselves towards the authority and to work hand in hand to bring our positions closer and find the best solution to move forward and leave the standstill and devote our energies towards crafting the best regulations that we can whether this takes 15,20 or any number of years necessary.
  • Chile also proposed to bring forward the meeting of the Assembly to the first quarter and if necessary to meet in July, stating that delegates would only need to pay for 2.5 days.

3/8/22

  • Chile stated that “for reasons of transparency that auditing should not be monopolised by one firm. Chile requests that the Assembly should make a decision, as recommended by Finance Committee, a UN board of auditors be used. More will have to be paid to do so.  Chile would like to see reduction in expenses to allow more funding to hire UN board of auditors and respond to transparency requirements called for by taxpayers.”
  • The Secretary General stated that “the audit for this year 2022 will be carried out by Ernst & Young, who have already been appointed as the auditor and the contract in place.”
  • Chile stated on their proposal for a discussion on the two year rule that their proposal “is subject to discussion and some countries have objected, such as Tonga and Nauru. Under the rules of procedure we believe a secret vote would go against what we aspire to. Chile would like to evoke article 12 as established practice for issues which are urgent and important. This is an important and urgent item.”
  • On Belgium’s proposal (detailed below), Chile stated that contractor “motives are very different to most of the other observers whose primary objective is to think about common heritage.”

1/8/22

  • Stated that “We all know that there’s an elephant in the room… and we have not had the opportunity to debate in person and I believe this is the best opportunity to discuss here in the assembly. I believe that more than taking a decision, we need to hear one another and present various ideas in order to find what to do next. We are less than a year away from the deadline mentioned in Part 15 of the implementation agreement, of Part 11 of UNCLOS, and this is why we decided rather than waiting until next year, that we need to consider to  discuss this now and present our ideas on what we hope to do.”

29/7/22

  • The delegation highlighted the absence of certain experts in the ISA’s Legal and Technical Commission, including economic accountants, economists commercial engineers, lawyers, experts in private law and environmental ecologists.

28/7/22

  • Called for transparency in auditing requesting the Council use the UN auditing system.
  • The delegation expressed their displeasure for the timing of conference centre renovations.
  • They highlighted that relating to program expenses, a report stated that “the council approved a roadmap for the study of the draft regs for exploitation in 2022 which will lead to the finalization of regs in 2023.” They called for clarification and whether the ISA Secretary-General meant to say is that the Council agreed it was necessary to accelerate the work, but that nothing was agreed until everything is agreed” and they didn’t understand why that line was included.
  • Chile stated that contributions from all members of the authority are of equal value.
  • The delegation stated the importance of considering ecosystem services.

27/7/22

  • Called for identification and inclusion of principles and approaches that are not covered in UNCLOS such as transparency and public participation.

21/7/22

  • The Chilean delegation requested to return to France’s statement yesterday.
  • The delegation referenced a statement by DOSI stating that “we don’t know how much we don’t know about the deep sea.” They added that “scientific knowledge is currently insufficient and our understanding of DSM activities on the deep sea is limited in particular on carbon sequestration.”
  • They stated that “Chile is in agreement with a process for negotiation of regulations that are robust, holistic and respect the seabed, but can’t agree with the task being undertaken in a way as to prioritise a contractor starting work running counter to interests of humanity.”
  • Chile commented that “As can be observed during this meeting, we are far from reaching a consensus on regulations.”
  • The delegation also highlighted the need for greater transparency across negotiations, stating that “I insist respectfully for this Council to apply the best standards of transparency. We believe it’s necessary to have a space for at least 2 reps of civil society to participate in the meeting in this room. At IGC4 BBNJ, the Secretary General of UN underscored the need for participation of NGOs. That’s why during the second week, space was given to those participants to join in the room.”
  • They also highlighted short window for review of key documents on financial matters

18/7/22

  • Called for full transparency in negotiations and the reinstatement of UN Web TV so that remote delegates, observers and media could follow meeting proceedings.

Australia – Key statements

11 Nov 2022

March 2023

27/3/23

  • We restate – we want clear robust effective Rules, Regulations and Procedures including standards and guidelines in place before any exploitation is approved.

21/3/23

  • Called for protection of the marine environment from ‘harmful effects’
  • Called for contractors to monitor, mitigate, and remediate any harm (DOSI warned that mitigation or remediation of any impacts in the deep-sea would not be possible and impacts would be irreversible)

October/November 2022

11/11/22

  • Called for more time to be allocated to LTC meeting next year.

4/11/22

  • Australia stated that “we think that we should continue in good faith to complete the regulations by July of next year”

July/August 2022

4/8/22

  • “Australia respects that in activating the 2-year trigger, Nauru was exercising their rights under international law. There is a considerable amount of work to do on the regulations.  Australia is committed to finalize the regulations and associated instruments by July next year. We want to meet the deadlines on 1994 agreement.”

3/8/22

  • Stated that “this may risk a conflict of interest in ISA processes.”
  • “We recognize that there is currently no industry group representing DSM, but there is no obstacle to one being formed.”

25/7/22

  • Australia supported New Zealand’s proposal to delete ‘serious’ before the word ‘harm’ in regulations.

21/7/22

  • Australia stated that it fully supported the need for strong environmental protection.

Spain – Key Statements

10 Nov 2022

March 2023

31/3/23

  • The LTC has within its powers to hold open discussions. The LTC should hold open sessions in 2023 and 2024 on issues relating to biodiversity in the Area. The Assembly encouraged LTC to hold more public sessions, but decided to hold usual practice.

27/3/23

  • Spain stated that the primary responsibility of Council is to advance rules, regulations and procedures – without the two year rule obliging us to adopt less then adequate rules, regulations and procedures.
  • The delegation stated that they respect the multilateral framework and that the two-year rule should be applied together with UNCLOS
  • Spain supported the need for the application of the precautionary approach which is implicit in Art 145 – which many delegations have already said
  • The delegation agreed with Canada’s proposal – any plan of work should be assessed by the Council without a automatic need to provisionally approve it -“we also believe we should provide directives to the LTC”
  • Reiterated support for a precautionary pause -and to slow down the transition to exploitation until the draft regulations are established with thresholds.

24/3/23

  • Spain supports a precautionary pause. This precaution is for many reasons, but the reason on which we insist the most is the environmental issue. Until we can guarantee the safety of the marine environment and there is sufficient environmental guarantees, we need to slow down, we need to take a pause.

23/3/23

  • Warned that deep-sea mining is “a high risk activity which can affect the marine and coastal environment”
  • Stated that “public participation is vital -the public should have the right to denounce damage done in the Area – it is the common heritage of humankind”

22/3/23

  • Called to included cumulative effects to be included.
  • Called for regulations to reference the recently approved ABNJ agreement

21/3/23

  • Called for prevention measures to be taken to protect marine environment from possible pollution. The delegation highlighted that commercial mining operations will last for a long time and called for references to marine litter and underwater noise.  

October/November 2022

10/11/22

  • We cannot begin exploitation until there are adequate regulations that guarantee the protection of the marine environment in accordance with the precautionary principle. 

8/11/22

  • Justified the inclusion of the principle of intergenerational equity. The idea is to introduce the concept of equity between the current and future generations which is implicit in the concept of humanity.  

4/11/22

  • Spain stated that “The two-year rule does not matter if we do not have adequate environmental regulations in place.”
  • The delegation reiterated calls for a precautionary pause.

31/10/22

  • Spain stated “At this time, we’re calling for a precautionary pause. It could be a conditional pause, but the principle is the same.”

July/August 2022

4/8/22

  • “We have said that the matter of the 2 year rule is concerning for us. That is because it is a Damocles sword that is hanging over us. The time has come for us to decide something. There are legal arguments pro and anti this proposal.It would be very sad if the LTC was obliged to recommend the approval of a plan of work when provisions are not finalized. However there are other provisions for example Art 15 which allow interested states to express their interest in progressing to an exploitation phase.
  • In my view, there are too many legal uncertainties. Therefore, I support what was said by the delegations who took the floor before me. Perhaps it would not be inappropriate to resort to the ITLOS and ask for an advisory opinion, an advisory opinion that would not be made immediately it would be issued when plans have been discussed because general countries aren’t ready to present exploit exploitation plans and so it could be referred to ITLOS when necessary. So we would reiterate the need to find a consensus based solution
  • Here we are dealing with a common good. I’m a diplomat and there are many diplomats here and it’s important that the spirit that we engage in these discussions is to try and find a compromise solution and compromise between the authority, the interested state, other states represented. 
  • So perhaps as those who have spoken before me, we can agree on a pause because article 15 clearly says that the council, and speaking of paragraph C, must ‘consider’ 
  • But ‘consider’ does not mean that the council is obliged to approve. On the other hand, if provisional approval is granted, well, provisional is the key word provisional until there are adequate regulations governing a mining code. So, approval would be definitive from that point on, but provisional would not necessarily mean approval to exploit.”

1/8/22

  • Supported the inclusion of Chile’s proposed agenda item on the two year rule stating that “It seems to me that it is always good to speak as this strengthens transparency and increases visibility. The goal isn’t to reach position, but to exchange opinions.”

22/7/22

  • Supported the inclusion of Chile’s proposed agenda item on the two year rule stating that “It seems to me that it is always good to speak as this strengthens transparency and increases visibility. The goal isn’t to reach position, but to exchange opinions.”

26/7/22

  • Concerned that some contractors did not undertake environmental studies last year, in spite of the fact that ecosystem studies are improving – this continues to be a point to be monitored. Contractors should rigorously fulfill obligations on enviro matters. Spain added that supervisory and control functions are of utmost importance in environmental matters and the highest level of fulfillment is needed in their regard.

25/7/22

  • Spain requested that noise and litter be included in regulations, which were “particularly important for the fishing sector.”
  • Called for Auditors to be independent so that assessment is rigorous and useful.

21/7/22

  • On financial matters
    • Spain called for more time to assess reports
    • The delegates agreed with recommendations to use UN Court for Auditors as it exists for these purposes and would permit standardisation with other UN Agencies
    • Spain supported Costa Rica on the need to have a study on environmental costs and its relationship to the budget stating that “This was reiterated in March and earlier this week – several delegations have reaffirmed that we need to internalise costs so we need to know what they are.”
  • On environmental matters, the delegation commented that
    • “Firstly, the protection and preservation of the marine environment is a priority for many delegations present here and for my delegation, which has been expressed on various occasions within the organs of the principal organs of the authority, the Assembly and the Council. This is a reflection of the awareness on environmental matters that exists nationally and internationally and we cannot ignore that.We have the obligation to effectively protect the marine environment within the legal framework of the convention and the 1994 agreement.”
    • “Against that backdrop, we support what has been said by France and also the statements made by Chile and other delegations. 
    • That the famous two year clause does not oblige us to move to the exploitation phase if the environmental measures are not adequate. 
    • And if only economic or market based elements are taken care of Spain agrees with our precautionary approach the precautionary principle gives us the opportunity to anticipate negative impacts on the environment and there are consequences such as the loss of biodiversity.
    • They added that “seabed mining should not take place until there is an adequate legal framework that ensures impacts are minimised before contractors undertake exploitation, as we have said on previous occasions, exploitation rules need more legal strength and the strongest possible environmental guarantees.”
    • The delegation also commented that “If polluters are not accountable, the public has to pay the cost, and this is why we have the public interest referenced and justifies this inclusion of public interest in our view.”

18/7/22

  • he Spanish delegation referred to the UN Ocean Conference, stating that “…many voices were raised requesting that, due to the lack of scientific certainty of deep-sea mining effects on environment and need to protect biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction, we slow down the move toward exploitation of seabed mineral resources.”
  • They commented that they are in “agreement with this approach and support countries that share this concern and support protection of marine environments”. They added that Spain “have expressed previously that DSM shouldn’t begin until a regulatory framework that guarantees we will minimize effects before the contracts start running” and finished by stating that “my delegation is fully committed to developing regulations that guarantee effective protection of the environment in accordance with precautionary principle”.
  • However the delegation committed to developing ‘strong’ regulations. This is concerning as no matter how stringent regulations are, they would open the floodgates gates to destructive deep-sea mining

Singapore – Key statements

10 Nov 2022

March 2023

24/3/2023

  • Consistent position that deep-sea mining should not proceed in absence of robust safeguards for effective protection of marine environment.
  • On two year rule, Council has obligation to consider under 15(c), but Council is not obligated to approve it if it does not meet criteria.
  • Provisional approval does not automatically or necessarily lead to contract.

22/3/2023

  • Commented that the sponsoring state should not be the party conducting the EIA.

October/November 2022

10/11/22

  • Cannot support such a proposal for a complete ban on deep-sea mining. Each of us should make every effort to develop the best possible exploitation regulations taking into account environmental protection and benefit sharing in the basis of our cooperation and mutual trust. 

9/11/22

  • Singapore proposed the Contractor should take all measures to ensure activities in the Area do not cause “serious harm” to the marine environment, as opposed to “harmful effects”. 
  • This was opposed by Italy, Costa Rica, Chile, Federated States of Micronesia, New Zealand and Trinidad and Tobago. 
  • Costa Rica, Chile, Federated States of Micronesia proposed the use of the term “threat of harmful effects”.

4/11/22

  • Stated that they joined the emerging consensus that scientific knowledge and robust rules are needed to ensure damage from DSM. With absence of scientific knowledge, exploitation should not proceed.

July/August 2022

4/8/22

  • Stated that: “We recognize that without robust scientific knowledge, deep-sea mining poses risks of irreversible damage. In the absence of safeguards, DSM should not proceed. We note the invoking of the 2 year rule. A year before this deadline remains. If and when deep-sea mining happens there must be a robust safeguard. We are committed to developing an environmentally robust legal framework and ensure DSM is consistent with IL including rules procedures and regulations of the ISA.”

28/7/22

  • Pushed back on OceanCare’s call for the ISA to demonstrate that they take women’s inclusion seriously and changing references to ‘mankind’ to ‘humankind’, stating if there are terms used in the convention these should be maintained in the regulations and not be changed
  • The delegation called for an environmental cost study of the impacts of deep-sea mining to include opportunity costs. They also stated that other forms of non-monetary benefits generate value and should be considered.

27/7/22

  • Called for clarity on to what is being envisioned in concrete terms on transparent communication for sponsoring states.

Russia – key statements

10 Nov 2022

March 2023

27/3/23

  • We would like to emphasize that we should work carefully on the Rules, Regulations and Procedures – we need to provide for Art. 145 and for effective inspections and for benefit sharing.
  • We think it is premature to move to exploitation without Rules, Regulations and Procedures.

24/3/23

  • Russia confirmed that the commercial production from deep-sea mining is premature before the adoption of rules, regulations and procedures. We need the adequate protection of marine environment, including a full set of standards and guidelines.
  • Russia will work constructively with all stakeholders and discuss all possible options.

23/3/23

  • Called for regulations to refer to ‘serious harm’ (many States and observers have warned that this is too high a threshold in line with UNCLOS Article 5)

22/3/23

  • Echoed comments by DSCC, DOSI and Germany that restoration to original state is not possible

October/November 2022

10/11/22

  • Do not believe we can move into exploitation without robust regulations. 
  • Emphasized that the exploitation of mineral resources should be done in the interests of all countries, including developing countries. 

4/11/22

  • The delegation stated that the completion and agreement of regulations need more time, much more than 8 months remaining until July 2023.

3/11/22

  • On standardizing the procedure for development and approval of REMPs, the delegated stated that the draft text was not sufficient for adoption.
  • On the northern Mid Atlantic Ridge REMP, the delegation stated that there is a conflict between the rights of the contractor and the provisions that the active hydrothermal ecosystem located within the current exploration area will be protected from any direct or indirect impact or the development of such resources. They are assigned the status of the sites in need of protection, yet, formally, the plan does not prohibit the contractor from continuing their exploration of work in their areas, including the actor of active harm hydrothermal damp areas.
  • The delegation also added that to be realistic, the contractor does the work not just for itself but in order to move to exploitation in the future.

July/August 2022

4/8/22

  • “We need to think well, not procrastinate, so not be excessively slow. I would like to thank Costa Rica for a solid legal remark which was very well founded. We also agree with the message that in the case of a dispute we would need to refer the issue to the ITLOS.”

3/8/22

  • Russia supported Belgium’s proposal on contractors.

1/8/22

  • The Russian delegation stated that “Along with the Antarctic, atmosphere, and space, the world ocean became a sphere where international governance has been imposed. Large reserves of mineral resources – development potential not fully realized. Minerals such as nodules are only found in the oceans. Will lead to meeting demand of whole range of industries and facilitate more friendly sources of energy.”

25/7/22

  • Asked who would pay for damage to the marine environment if a contractor doesn’t have any funds to cover the damage.

22/7/22

  • The delegation agreed with Costa Rica and others that “indeed it is impossible to offset the harmful effect on the environment”. They continued “However, if any effect is sustained by the region, perhaps the contractor may offset that by taking action. So, to protect the coral reefs in another part of the global ocean, so, this is a type of an offset so, offsetting measures be taken elsewhere therefore, perhaps as far as offset is concerned”
  • The delegation also queried whether “we should give an alternative is that no deep sea mining is done at all.”
  • Russia also stated that “it is evident that some of the guidelines must be adopted before any plan of work is accepted and of course before exploitation. Without standards and guidelines, there will be nothing protecting those areas.”

21/7/22

  • Russia stated that “We should provide for the protection of the marine environment from possible consequences of the processing of extracted minerals, but we think that this would exceed the mandate of this authority. This authority should act in the area, and in the area, we can only do exploration and exploitation”

Portugal

10 Nov 2022

March 2023

27/3/23

  • Stated that activities shouldn’t be allowed before adequate rulers, regs and procedures are in place and plans of work can’t be approved before such framework is in place
  • Approval of plans of work should be predicated on existence of sufficient scientific knowledge
  • Supported France’s proposal

24/3/23

  • Stated that we are bound by UNCLOS Article 145 to ensure effective the protection of the marine environment from harmful effects. The effects of DSM on biodiversity must be sufficiently researched, risks must be understood and technology must show that the environment would not be significantly harmed in line with precautionary principle.
  • We must ensure that before DSM takes place, the appropriate rules are in place in line with precaution, ecosystem and best available science.
  • Regulations must be in place before DSM takes place and must be consistent with UNCLOS. No DSM must happen if the regulations are not in place.

October/November 2022

10/11/22

  • Stressed the need to ensure transparency in the processes related to the environmental management of the common heritage of humankind. 
  • Called for the NORI EMMP to be disclosed to all stakeholders as soon as possible. 
  • Fully supported The Netherlands’ proposal for contractors that have ignored calls by the Council to be named

4/11/22

  • The delegation stated that like many other delegations, we feel it is necessary to conclude these regulations before any exploitation. We need effective compensation, protection of biodiversity and marine environment etc. Technology has to be shown now to demonstrate that it will not hurt the marine environment.

July/August 2022

1/8/22

  • The delegation stated that future generations’ wellbeing is linked to wellbeing of oceans.

21/7/22

  • The delegation stated that their key priority “is that any framework protects the marine environment. We consider all aspects of mining need to be assessed and evaluated – including processing on ships.”

Poland – Key Statements

10 Nov 2022

March 2023

27/3/23

  • The delegation stated that they were: “Fully aware that humankind puts its hope in the rules regulations and procedures that we are working on – they should be the best possible – robust, precautionary.”
  • Poland stated that they were in favor of cooperative conversations to achieve meaningful progress towards the ISA’s mandate 

24/3/23

  • We must make all effort to develop all regulations within deadlines.
  • We must continue our work on the standards, regulations, and guidelines and until we have a robust framework.

16/3/23

  • Poland reiterated commitment to work on the regulations. The delegation also highlighted the need for the equitable sharing of benefits, in accordance with UNCLOS.

October/November 2022

10/11/22

  • Stated that they “Do not understand a complete ban in the Area.” 

Norway – Key statements

10 Nov 2022

March 2023

31/3/23

  • Norway stated that “we look forward to working with other delegations inter-sessionally in the different groups on the independent compliance mechanism and on several of the environmental issues”

27/3/23

  • Called for no mining unless and until we have necessary knowledge about ecosystems – more information is needed
  • Called for no mining before regulatory framework is established – committed to work diligently for purpose of timely adoption of mining code

24/3/23

  • Remains convinced that the Council’s assessment of any Plan of Work must rely on LTC opinion.
  • Stated: “We can’t be led away from our efforts by political consideration, UNCLOS requires us to finalize rules, regulations and procedures within two years.”

20/3/23

  • Stated – “Before proceeding, let me also take this opportunity and thank you facilitator for giving our friends from civil society an opportunity to pronounce themselves and also some representatives of indigenous communities. I think it’s important for us as stakeholders and states to hear different perspectives. So we thank you for that.”
  • Commented that “our national experience suggests that third party certifications can lead to a diffusion of responsibility, at least from our vantage point is very important that we have the contractor being accountable and held responsible for whatever transgressions were to happen.”

October/November 2022

10/11/22

  • A prohibition against deep-sea mining seems an unfortunate departure from our collective endeavors to complete the mining code and thus achieve our legal obligations under UNCLOS. 
  • Norway shares many of the concerns raised and believes in the objective that mining should not occur without complete regulations in place. In our view, the best way to achieve this is to continue and to redouble our efforts to finish these regulations.

4/11/22

  • Norway stated that they are committed to trying to finish the regulations by 2023.
  • The delegation stated they are committed to obligation to finalise and believe council must redouble efforts

3/11/22

  • Called for the LTC to have oversight of REMPs

July/August 2022

27/7/22

  • Queried references to other rules of international law.
  • Stated that there is merit in simplifying the text

26/7/22

  • Agreed with Costa Rica on effective control and the transfer of rights.

21/7/22

  • Norway stated the need for “exploitation regulations with stringent standards while following the precautionary principle”
  • The delegation supported the UK in ensuring that all environmental documents and data are made available.

New Zealand – Key statements

10 Nov 2022

March 2023

24/3/23

  • Provisional approval does not equate to a contract.
  • The Council may only give final approval only when exploitation regulations have been completed.

21/3/23

  • Stated that an independent monitoring program by independent experts; in principle has merit but practicalities may be challenging.
  • The delegation warned that “Monitoring after the fact is too late to protect the marine environment, in our experts’ view.” They also questioned why discharges in line with Reg 50(2) not a notifiable event.

20/3/23

  • Highlighted the need to ensure protection of marine environment
  • Thanked civil society, in particular Indigenous Peoples who shared perspectives this morning
  • Stated that New Zealand believes that consultation should occur with any states that are potentially affected and not just states that have resource deposit, and also just on the subject of consultation

October/November 2022

10/11/22

  • New Zealand reiterated their call for a conditional moratorium in areas beyond national jurisdiction until regulations can be agreed that ensure the effective protection of the marine environment. 
  • On the NORI EIS, New Zealand raised concerns about the stakeholder consultation process and encouraged Council members and the LTC to review stakeholder requirements. 
  • Raised that it is essential to have transparency on matters of great public interest and the issue of Council members being made aware of a situation through press releases of a contractor rather than the ISA.

9/11/22

  • Regarding the role of contractors, New Zealand agreed that contractors should have no role in decision-making.

3/11/22

  • New Zealand welcomed Germany’s proposal and considered the development of binding environmental thresholds an important contribution to ensure the marine environment is effectively protected.

31/10/22

  • New Zealand reiterated support for a conditional moratorium until regulations can be agreed that ensure the effective protection of the marine environment.

July/August 2022

4/8/22

  • New Zealand considered the discussion on 2-year rule important and thanked Chile for proposing it.
  • “We are focused on developing regulations that ensure environmental protection and need to discuss what happens next. New Zealand consider paragraph 15 of the 1994 agreement does not require the council to approve the regulation or a plan of work. It requires the council to adopt those regulations eventually. And if they are not up to the mark environmentally the council should not adopt them. We are committed to protecting our ocean.”

26/7/22

  • Echoed concern expressed about some contractors not complying fully and wanted to take this opportunity to reiterate need for full and effective compliance.

25/7/22

  • The delegation stated: ” New Zealand shares the concerns that others have expressed about the prospect of deep-sea mining occurring before we have appropriate safeguards in place. This includes robust regulations that ensure the effective protection of the marine environment and sufficient scientific knowledge of the deep ocean, which would allow for robust assessment of the environmental effects of this activity.”
  • “It is New Zealand’s view that mining cannot and should not take place in the absence of these safeguards. New Zealand agrees with those who have expressed the view that paragraph 15 of Section One of the annex to the 1994 agreement does not require the council to adopt exploitation regulations at the end of the two year period. Nor does that require the council to automatically approve a plan of work at that time. Rather, this provision requires the council to make best endeavours to complete regulations within the prescribed timeframe. If that work remains unfinished at the end of the two year deadline, the council was not required to adopt regulations that remain incomplete.”
  • “In saying this, New Zealand will continue to work in good faith in the development of regulations with a strong view to ensuring that any regulations adopted above all ensure the effective protection of the marine environment.”
  • The delegation stated that “Test mining itself is likely to result in harm to the environment. In fact, to understand potential effects, it’s almost necessary that it will result in some harm.”
  • The delegation called for the word “serious” to be deleted from regulations, commenting that serious harm is too high a threshold.
  • New Zealand suggested a proactive approach to prevent unplanned events and that regulations currently only require monitoring and mitigation if harm or serious harm has already occurred, which may be too late.

21/7/22

  • The delegation stated that their key priority “is that any framework protects the marine environment. We consider all aspects of mining need to be assessed and evaluated – including processing on ships.”

18/7/22

  • Called for full transparency in negotiations and the reinstatement of UN Web TV so that remote delegates, observers and media could follow meeting proceedings

Netherlands – key statements

10 Nov 2022

March 2023

31/3/23

  • The Netherlands highlighted that when developing environmental thresholds, we need to consider that there will be another main impact, habitat loss due to removal of nodules.
  • They stated that nodules host species that cannot live in surrounding sediments, and inc key structural species, inc glass sponges. Their removal means removal of creatures on geological timescales and key species support a high diversity of associated fauna
  • “We would like to ask council to reflect on how loss of habitat can reflected and included in thresholds”
  • The Netherlands also drew attention to Belgium’s intervention on a recent pollution event that occurred during test-mining and asked if the contractor responded promptly and what procedure was followed subsequently.

27/3/23

  • The delegation reiterated their commitment to engage in the in work of authority to achieve a robust and holistic regulatory framework that protects marine environment from harmful effects.
  • They stated that this means deep-sea mining can only take places if strictly within capacity of marine ecosystems and ensuring continued health and biodiversity.
  • The delegation called for sufficient scientific knowledge, a strict application of the precautionary principle a full understanding risks and that the technology is able to demonstrate no serious harm, stating that these requirements need to be full enshrined in rules and regulations.
  • Only then will the Authority be in a position to review and decide upon licenses for exploitation
  • The delegation also recalled that the they believe that Council should further exchange on what if scenario – support continuing intersessional dialogu and collectively progress work at ISA

24/3/23

  • We need the Council to provide clarity about situation arising after 9 July 2023. The lack of clarity and legal certainty raises a lot of question and concerns and requires explaining at national level.

20/3/23

  • Called for contractors to do no “serious harm”

16/3/23

  • The Netherlands backed Canada’s proposal to allocate more time for discussion on “what if” scenarios.

October/November 2022

10/11/22

  • Drew attention to the LTC annual report which noted that contractors are not complying with the standard clauses of their contract. 
  • It is crucial that contractors during the exploration phase abide by their contractual obligations.  
  • Propose that the Council actually name those contractors that have repeatedly ignored the calls from the Council and the LTC to comply with their contractual obligations. 

4/11/22

  • The Netherlands stated that in the absence of a fit-for-purpose regulatory framework exploitation of deep seabed should not commence.

31/10/22

  • The Netherlands joined Australia, Belgium, the United States, Chile, New Zealand and Costa Rica in pushing back on proposed restrictions by the ISA that would limit observers (including NGOs and scientists) to one intervention at the end of each working group.
  • They stated that it is “crucial to have full participation from observers and we need to have modalities for efficient proceedings.”

July/August 2022

28/7/22

  • Supported the development of “normative thresholds to effectively protect the marine environment and see it as a priority in the development of mining code.”

27/7/22

  • Stated that they do not wish to have such a broad reference to other rules of international law.

21/7/22

  • The delegation stated that “thresholds are important in informing our future work.”