of the Regulations and the Recommendations are broadly summarised in
Table 18.1.
13
2.2 Information Sharing
Due to a lack of publicly-available information, it is difficult independently to assess
the extent to which contractors are complying with the existing ISA Regulations and
Recommendations.
The environmental management plans contained in the exploration contracts are
not published, nor is their implementation specifically reported on to the Council by
the LTC. There have been repeated delays in the launch of a digital database and web
portal that will provide access to the environmental data held by the ISA (provided
by contractors).
14 The ISA’s LTC provides a very brief annual contractor compliance
monitoring report to the ISA’s internal decision-making body, the Council. As the
ISA currently lacks any independent inspection mechanism, this LTC report is based
on information provided to the ISA by the contractors themselves.
15 Even so, the
LTC reports often describe divergence in contractor performance, and at times raise
alarm bells with regard to environmental compliance.
16 But these reports provide
very scant information, and give no details as to the incidents of non-compliance, the
identity of the transgressors, or any repercussions.
This lack of information-sharing about contractor environmental performance
and compliance applies not only to parties external to the ISA, but also internally.
Thus, members of the ISA Council
17 (and possibly sponsoring States also)
18 at
present find themselves without access to data regarding such questions. This
suggests a limited ability to conduct environmental monitoring or enforcement of
standards or requirements by either the ISA or by State sponsors of seabed mining,
despite being the principal regulators of the contractors’ activities. Such an
13 These points are well covered in Durden et al. (2018).
14 https://www.isa.org.jm/news/international-seabed-authority-secretariat-updates-member-statesprogress-data-management. The database was still under wraps at the time of writing, in early 2019.
15 Para. 4, ISBA/24/LTC/3, https://ran-s3.s3.amazonaws.com/isa.org.jm/s3fs-public/files/docu
ments/isba24-ltc3-e.pdf.
16 For example, what inference should be drawn from the LTC’s report to Council of 2015:
“Contractors are reminded that prior environmental impact assessments must be agreed with the
Authority before dredging or other potentially harmful sampling activities are conducted in
sulphide and crusts exploration areas. Contractors are required to verify and report that no serious
harm has been caused to ecosystems by their activities in these areas.”?
17 Para. 12, ISBA/23/C/18, https://undocs.org/ISBA/23/C/18.
18 A Council member (and a sponsoring State) requested the ISA to advise the sponsoring State in
the event of contractor non-compliance during Council deliberations on 19 July 2018, https://rans3.s3.amazonaws.com/isa.org.jm/s3fs-public/files/documents/enb25163e.pdf.
18 Regulating the Common Heritage of Mankind: Challenges in Developing a Mining. . . 337
Table 18.1.
13
2.2 Information Sharing
Due to a lack of publicly-available information, it is difficult independently to assess
the extent to which contractors are complying with the existing ISA Regulations and
Recommendations.
The environmental management plans contained in the exploration contracts are
not published, nor is their implementation specifically reported on to the Council by
the LTC. There have been repeated delays in the launch of a digital database and web
portal that will provide access to the environmental data held by the ISA (provided
by contractors).
14 The ISA’s LTC provides a very brief annual contractor compliance
monitoring report to the ISA’s internal decision-making body, the Council. As the
ISA currently lacks any independent inspection mechanism, this LTC report is based
on information provided to the ISA by the contractors themselves.
15 Even so, the
LTC reports often describe divergence in contractor performance, and at times raise
alarm bells with regard to environmental compliance.
16 But these reports provide
very scant information, and give no details as to the incidents of non-compliance, the
identity of the transgressors, or any repercussions.
This lack of information-sharing about contractor environmental performance
and compliance applies not only to parties external to the ISA, but also internally.
Thus, members of the ISA Council
17 (and possibly sponsoring States also)
18 at
present find themselves without access to data regarding such questions. This
suggests a limited ability to conduct environmental monitoring or enforcement of
standards or requirements by either the ISA or by State sponsors of seabed mining,
despite being the principal regulators of the contractors’ activities. Such an
13 These points are well covered in Durden et al. (2018).
14 https://www.isa.org.jm/news/international-seabed-authority-secretariat-updates-member-statesprogress-data-management. The database was still under wraps at the time of writing, in early 2019.
15 Para. 4, ISBA/24/LTC/3, https://ran-s3.s3.amazonaws.com/isa.org.jm/s3fs-public/files/docu
ments/isba24-ltc3-e.pdf.
16 For example, what inference should be drawn from the LTC’s report to Council of 2015:
“Contractors are reminded that prior environmental impact assessments must be agreed with the
Authority before dredging or other potentially harmful sampling activities are conducted in
sulphide and crusts exploration areas. Contractors are required to verify and report that no serious
harm has been caused to ecosystems by their activities in these areas.”?
17 Para. 12, ISBA/23/C/18, https://undocs.org/ISBA/23/C/18.
18 A Council member (and a sponsoring State) requested the ISA to advise the sponsoring State in
the event of contractor non-compliance during Council deliberations on 19 July 2018, https://rans3.s3.amazonaws.com/isa.org.jm/s3fs-public/files/documents/enb25163e.pdf.
18 Regulating the Common Heritage of Mankind: Challenges in Developing a Mining. . . 337