26
Y. Fouquet and D. Lacroix
The role and powers of the ISA are growing, in particular in terms of ex-ante
impact assessment for deep-sea mining projects.
Within this context, it is in industrial operators’ interest to seek multiple partnerships to reduce research and development costs and secure their markets according
to international standards. The deep sea therefore appears as a sort of “new resource
boundary”, subject to tight exploitation rules. Consequently, the marine mineral
resources situation becomes that of a “global heritage reserve, liable to measured
exploitation”.
Challenges for France
The first challenge is that of achieving good scientific knowledge incorporating
durability criteria. The second is that of shared, international exploitation, targeting
critical metals (post-carbon), hence the following priorities: establishment of exemplary development and protection solutions (resilience, marine protected areas…)
for French operations; resolutely European approach to development; creation of a
training, technological expertise and engineering centre; increasing number of PPPNGO ventures; support policy for marine protected areas in the EEZ.
Priority
This ambitious vision requires French then European resources for the development
of knowledge of deposits and their environment to be concentrated within a visible
centre, before putting forward sustainable exploitation methods.
Legal Aspects
Marine mineral resources come under a legal regime that is dependent on their location, either within the legally defined continental shelf or in the deep sea beyond the
limits of State jurisdiction, known as the Area. Here it is worth explaining why the
continental shelf is referred to as “legally defined” and what is meant by the Area.
The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides
a definition of the continental shelf which breaks away from that of the previous
convention from 1958, quite close to geologists’ conception of the continental shelf.
UNCLOS aligned its definition of the continental shelf with that of the exclusive
economic zone (EEZ), independently of all depth or exploitability criteria defined
in1958. The new continental shelf is the area over which a coastal State exercises
sovereign rights up to the 200 nautical mile limit, measured from its coasts.
The distance criterion was imposed by harmonisation with the EEZ. This tendency led to an innovative legal outcome: that of the possibility of extending the
continental shelf beyond the 200 nautical mile limit. A State can apply for such an
extension for up to 350 nautical miles, and even beyond, in certain conditions.
Y. Fouquet and D. Lacroix
The role and powers of the ISA are growing, in particular in terms of ex-ante
impact assessment for deep-sea mining projects.
Within this context, it is in industrial operators’ interest to seek multiple partnerships to reduce research and development costs and secure their markets according
to international standards. The deep sea therefore appears as a sort of “new resource
boundary”, subject to tight exploitation rules. Consequently, the marine mineral
resources situation becomes that of a “global heritage reserve, liable to measured
exploitation”.
Challenges for France
The first challenge is that of achieving good scientific knowledge incorporating
durability criteria. The second is that of shared, international exploitation, targeting
critical metals (post-carbon), hence the following priorities: establishment of exemplary development and protection solutions (resilience, marine protected areas…)
for French operations; resolutely European approach to development; creation of a
training, technological expertise and engineering centre; increasing number of PPPNGO ventures; support policy for marine protected areas in the EEZ.
Priority
This ambitious vision requires French then European resources for the development
of knowledge of deposits and their environment to be concentrated within a visible
centre, before putting forward sustainable exploitation methods.
Legal Aspects
Marine mineral resources come under a legal regime that is dependent on their location, either within the legally defined continental shelf or in the deep sea beyond the
limits of State jurisdiction, known as the Area. Here it is worth explaining why the
continental shelf is referred to as “legally defined” and what is meant by the Area.
The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides
a definition of the continental shelf which breaks away from that of the previous
convention from 1958, quite close to geologists’ conception of the continental shelf.
UNCLOS aligned its definition of the continental shelf with that of the exclusive
economic zone (EEZ), independently of all depth or exploitability criteria defined
in1958. The new continental shelf is the area over which a coastal State exercises
sovereign rights up to the 200 nautical mile limit, measured from its coasts.
The distance criterion was imposed by harmonisation with the EEZ. This tendency led to an innovative legal outcome: that of the possibility of extending the
continental shelf beyond the 200 nautical mile limit. A State can apply for such an
extension for up to 350 nautical miles, and even beyond, in certain conditions.