‘Eleven flaws’ in Antarctic draft

Press, 23 January 1988, Page 4

‘Eleven flaws’ in Antarctic draft

By

OLIVER RIDDELL

in Wellington

Eleven flaws in the draft negotiating text for an Antarctic minerals regime have been criticised by the conservation movement. The draft text is the fifth so far. as Antarctic Treaty countries meet for two weeks in Wellington to agree on a final text for the formal signing scheduled for May. New Zealand is hosting the third informal meeting held in the last nine months to progress far enough for a document to be signed formally when the Treaty nations next meet in Wellington in May. But the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition has found what it calls “11 fatal flaws” in the negotiating text. The 11 complaints by the Coalition are:— ® Applications to prospect, explore or develop under the minerals regime need not contain

evidence of any link between the sponsoring State and the operator, or details of any contingency plans, installations, methods or equipment. • The proposed scientific, technical and environmental advisory committee has power to comment on only one of 23 proposed aspects for applicant management schemes. • Neither the advisory committee nor the proposed Antarctic Minerals Resources Commission can review any management scheme. ® Miners will have the power to define what data is to be confidential, rather than those seeking to regulate the miners. © In each area of Antarctica different operations may be regulated by differing laws — labour laws, for example — and controls according to what bargains the proposed regulatory committee has been able to strike with applicants. ® There is no break-

point between the exploration and development phases set up in the regime in spite of potentially dramatic differences in hard-rock exploration and mining. • It is implied that once an exploration permit has been issued, then development will follow unless the operator loses its link with its sponsoring State: • There is no power to decline an application for development once an application for exploration has been granted, so the original management scheme may only be modified but not rejected. • The commission and advisory committee have been denied the power to monitor. • Inspections systems have still to be negotiated as miners want to limit inspections. • Limits on and defences against liability will enable mining States to avoid paying for damage that results from their activities.