ISA stakeholders, and may prove difficult to transform into clear guidance for
regulatory purposes, agreed by consensus. Up to fifty different sets of Standards
and Guidelines might be required to operationalise the Regulations.
70 Some Standards are cited in the draft Regulations as a prerequisite to exploitation. If member
governments wish to see those instruments agreed before approving the Exploitation
Regulations, this could throw into jeopardy the ISA’s current plan for Exploitation
Regulations in force by 2020. Or if time pressure wins out, Standards and Guidelines
may be rushed or omitted. Given these uncertainties it is difficult at this stage to
evaluate the role that Standards and Guidelines will play in setting and enforcing
rules for the protection of the marine environment, although they certainly have the
potential to be a key regulatory tool for the ISA.
4 Concluding Remarks
There are environmental regulation gaps in the ISA’s existing exploration regime.
The Exploitation Regulations present an opportunity to fill environmental regulation
gaps left by that exploration regime, but to do so a few areas may need to be
bolstered, including the EIA and environmental permitting processes, and REMPs
and Strategic Environment Assessments as regulatory tools. The status of documents
such as LTC Recommendations, and future Standards and Guidelines, could be
formalised, and some priority Standards should be developed as an integral part of
the Mining Code.
Consideration could also be given to the fact that these issues are potentially
relevant to exploration activities, as well as exploitation, and thus addressing them
only in ‘Exploitation Regulations’ may not be the most logical or effective regulatory approach.
References
Bradley, Swaddling (2018) Addressing environmental impact assessment challenges in Pacific
island countries for effective management of deep sea minerals activities. Mar Policy
95:356–362
Braeger et al (2020) The current status of environmental requirements for deep seabed mining
issued by the International Seabed Authority. Mar Policy 114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.
2018.09.003
impartial experts were not able at that point to progress the matter to the point of measurable metrics
that could be used as a management tool: Levin et al. (2016).
70 Note by ISA Secretariat: ‘Content and Development of Standards and Guidelines for activities in
the Area under the Authority’s Regulatory Framework’, 17 December 2018, ISA/25/C/3. Available
at: https://ran-s3.s3.amazonaws.com/isa.org.jm/s3fs-public/files/documents/25c-3-e.pdf.
348
H. Lily and S. E. Roady
regulatory purposes, agreed by consensus. Up to fifty different sets of Standards
and Guidelines might be required to operationalise the Regulations.
70 Some Standards are cited in the draft Regulations as a prerequisite to exploitation. If member
governments wish to see those instruments agreed before approving the Exploitation
Regulations, this could throw into jeopardy the ISA’s current plan for Exploitation
Regulations in force by 2020. Or if time pressure wins out, Standards and Guidelines
may be rushed or omitted. Given these uncertainties it is difficult at this stage to
evaluate the role that Standards and Guidelines will play in setting and enforcing
rules for the protection of the marine environment, although they certainly have the
potential to be a key regulatory tool for the ISA.
4 Concluding Remarks
There are environmental regulation gaps in the ISA’s existing exploration regime.
The Exploitation Regulations present an opportunity to fill environmental regulation
gaps left by that exploration regime, but to do so a few areas may need to be
bolstered, including the EIA and environmental permitting processes, and REMPs
and Strategic Environment Assessments as regulatory tools. The status of documents
such as LTC Recommendations, and future Standards and Guidelines, could be
formalised, and some priority Standards should be developed as an integral part of
the Mining Code.
Consideration could also be given to the fact that these issues are potentially
relevant to exploration activities, as well as exploitation, and thus addressing them
only in ‘Exploitation Regulations’ may not be the most logical or effective regulatory approach.
References
Bradley, Swaddling (2018) Addressing environmental impact assessment challenges in Pacific
island countries for effective management of deep sea minerals activities. Mar Policy
95:356–362
Braeger et al (2020) The current status of environmental requirements for deep seabed mining
issued by the International Seabed Authority. Mar Policy 114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.
2018.09.003
impartial experts were not able at that point to progress the matter to the point of measurable metrics
that could be used as a management tool: Levin et al. (2016).
70 Note by ISA Secretariat: ‘Content and Development of Standards and Guidelines for activities in
the Area under the Authority’s Regulatory Framework’, 17 December 2018, ISA/25/C/3. Available
at: https://ran-s3.s3.amazonaws.com/isa.org.jm/s3fs-public/files/documents/25c-3-e.pdf.
348
H. Lily and S. E. Roady