Angry reaction to draft convention

Press, 24 May 1988, Page 6

Angry reaction to draft convention

By

OLIVER RIDDELL

in Wellington

A new draft Antarctic Minerals Convention has been tabled for the delegates from 38 countries meeting in Wellington to try to finalise an agreement this month. The seventh draft appears to be more in favour of mining than before.

It has received an angry reaction from Greenpeace and other non-Government organisations monitoring the talks. i Mr Roger Wilson, of Greenpeace, said that the last two weeks of the meeting would see some frantic horse-trading before it ended on June 2. “There would be no disgrace for delegates to admit they had failed to get agreement,” he said.

“That would be more honest than all the compromise they are being asked to make in this seventh draft text. “The chance, of failure is certainly there and there is still time for delegates to consider alternatives,” said Mr Wilson.

The bogy of an unregulated scramble for minerals as a possible consequence of failure to agree to a convention had been raised.

“This is unlikely because without an agreement no investor will risk exploration funds,” he said. “Calm reflection will reveal that failure to agree to a convention would not be a disaster, far less a disgrace.” The only real consequence of a failure on June 2 would be that the countries involved would provide themselves with a breathing space to consider other options. The convener of the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition, Ms Cath Wallace, acknowledged that there was a gap in the present Antarctic Treaty system in that the extraction of mineral resources was not addressed.

Any of several regimes that prevented minerals activity could fill this gap. Chile had promoted an Antarctic Treaty Park, Australia had promoted an Antarctic Conservation Convention and the non-

Government organisations had promoted a World Park.

Ms Wallace said these should be considered rather than mining rules. Otherwise convention signatories would commit themselves irrevocably not only to the demise of the Antarctic environment but also to a highly dangerous shift in Antarctica’s knife-edge political status.

The article on liability in the draft convention could be a dangerous compromise on incentives for environmental protection, she said. There was no longger specific liability for operators to take remedial action if something went wrong — they could now get away with simply paying a penalty. As redrafted, the liability provisions allowed for defences against three things — a natural disaster of an exceptional character, armed conflict or an act of terrorism. “The first of these is inevitable in the Antarctic while minerals activities would encourage the last two,” said Ms Wallace.