Antarctic prospecting ban of companies sought

Press, 28 April 1984, Page 5

Antarctic prospecting ban of companies sought

NZPA staff correspondent Washington

The Washington-based Antarctica Project, a group dedicated to the preservation of the continent, is suggesting that governments do all mineral prospecting and exploration there themselves rather than license commercial companies.

In a briefing paper, funded partly by the environmental organisation, Greenpeace International, the project says that under a draft minerals regime prepared Ist year by Mr Chris Beeby, New Zealand’s Antarctic Treaty representative, there would be no regulation of mining companies during the prospecting stage. Mr Beeby headed the New Zealand delegation at a closed-door meeting in

Washington in January of Antarctic Treaty consultative parties which considered the draft.

That meeting was notable, in a wide-open city, for being unusually secretive.

The Antarctic Treaty does not deal with mineral resources, but the consultative parties agreed in 1977 to voluntarily restrain exploration and exploitation while work progressed on drawing up a minerals regime.

The Antarctica Project says the scope of this policy is unclear, that several of the governments concerned have said it is not legally binding, and that the pace of geophysical research has quickened markedly since 1977.

“The internal documents from the minerals negotiations indicate that the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties have continued to pass resolutions that recite sufficient progress in the negotiation to maintain the ‘restraint’.”

“They have ignored suggestions that the policy on voluntary restraint is not inhibiting geophysical ‘prospecting’.”

The draft regime prepared by Mr Beeby would require the commercial companies, private or Stateowned, only to produce gen-

eral reports on their activities, the project said. “They would not be required to disclose to any nation or agency detailed ‘proprietary’ data, including information on the physical extent of the resource, geological conditions, and the technology proposed for extraction.

The withholding of that information would make it impossible for the proposed minerals commission and other interested parties to properly assess environmental risks and benefits when considering whether to issue exploration and development licences.

“There is no precedent for the complete withholding of proprietary data. In other parts of the world, where resources belong to one nation, governments require oil companies to share the proprietary data with them, in confidence, so that a proper management plan can be developed. “It will also be a major departure from the current practice of sharing all scientific information and data on Antarctica, as required under the Antarctic Treaty.” The proposed system would also create artificial incentives for mining companies, which would compete to gain exclusive rights to certain areas and seek

subsidies and tax benefits. Diligence requirements would further increase the pressure to begin mineral activities, the project said.

“The entire system will favour those few companies with sophisticated technology and financing, and could result in activities which are neither economically nor environmentally sound.”

If governments themselves did the prospecting and exploration development would be slowed significantly, allowing time for evaluation of the best longterm uses of the continent, the project said. It would also encourage more widespread and open, research, would provide more information to more countries and encourage other countries to join the Antarctic nations.