The 2030 Seabed Survey project: re-discussing the definition of marine scientific research and accommodating interest of new stakeholders at sea and of the Caribbean
and Pacific Small Island Developing States (SIDS)
Luciana Fernandes Coelho PhD Candidate, World Maritime University w1903592@wmu.se Abstract
There is reduced knowledge on the Planet Earth's physical, chemical and biological processes. The 2030 Seabed Survey project, launched in 2016 by the Nippon Foundation in partnership with General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans (GEBCO), aims to fill some of these gaps by providing an accurate charter of the ocean floor, which will be helpful to understand the dynamics of tectonic plates and to support extended continental shelves claims (Mayer et al., 2018). Scientific centres around the world will participate in it and, through collaborations with entities like Fugro, commercial vessels will collect data by crowdsourced bathymetry (Mayer et al. 2018). However, the project faces challenges related to Part XIII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of Sea (LOSC), that regulates Marine Scientific Research (MSR), particularly about the (i) classification of hydrographic survey; (iii) environmental impact of the technologies applied; and (ii) legal regime applicable to non- traditional forms of data collection.
(i) The LOSC does not define MSR and, while some articles seem to differentiate between MSR and bathymetric (hydrographic) surveys, the limited available information on state practice is diffuse on how States have been understanding these activities (Mayer et al. 2018, Roach 2007). When bathymetric surveys are considered MSR, the consent regimes stated in articles 245 and 246 are applicable. In the territorial sea, exclusive economic zone, the continental shelf and extended continental shelf, different formats of consent are required from the coastal State and each municipal law may impose additional requirements as well as regulate differently the public availability of the data. (ii) The environmental impact of the technologies used in the project - e.g. multibeam echosounder - is unclear. Besides, these technologies can be deployed by different means - i.e. vessel, glider - what might be relevant to the environmental obligations and regime of liability. (iii) Moreover, it is uncertain if data provided by commercial vessels, not formally licensed to conduct research, is currently governed by any legal instrument.
The literature highlights the special difficulty faced by SIDS in implementing the LOSC regulations for MSR, deriving benefits from scientific discoveries and increasing scientific and technological capabilities (Gorina-Ysern 2003:611, Salpin et al. 2018, Tirpak, 2008, UNGA Report of the General Secretary 2010 A/65/69, IOC-UNESCO 2017). Likewise, scholarship points to the importance of regional approaches in the European Union to balance the multiple interests that are at play in certain geographical and political settings (Long 2012) according to local needs. Considering that, the paper aims to address the three challenges faced by the project focusing on the regional perspective of the Caribbean and Pacific SIDS. First, the paper explores the structure of the 2030 Seabed Survey project specially highlighting which technologies will be applied, the means of deployment and the respective environmental obligations and regime of responsibility and liability. The same topic will also analyse which legal regime would govern the forms of data collection planned.
Second, the classification of bathymetric surveys will be discussed, explaining the consent
regimes and relating the findings here with the ones of the former topic. Third, the information available on the state practice of the Caribbean and Pacific SIDS regarding bathymetric survey will be explored, identifying if there is a regional common approach to it.
In conclusion, the paper canvasses recommendations on how a regional approach for the Caribbean and Pacific SIDS could facilitate the implementation of the 2030 Seabed Project meanwhile advancing scientific and technological opportunities for them.
Key-words: bathymetric survey, marine scientific research, consent regime, small island developing states.
Selected Bibliography:
Gorina-Ysern, M. (2003). An international regime for marine scientific research. United States of America: Transnational Publishers.
Long, R. (2012). Regulating marine scientific research in the European Union: It takes more than two to Tango. Center for Oceans Law and Policy, 15(244273), 428–491.
Mayer, L., Jakobsson, M., Allen, G., Dorschel, B., Falconer, R., Ferrini, V., … Weatherall, P.
(2018). The Nippon Foundation—GEBCO Seabed 2030 Project: The Quest to See the World’s Oceans Completely Mapped by 2030. Geosciences, 8(2), 63. Retrieved from:
<https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences8020063>.
Nordquist, M., Rosenne, S., Neal, G., & Nandan, S. N. (1985). United Nations Convention on the law of the sea 1982, Volume I: a commentary. Retrieved from https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1UK4eE_Pqcxzv7GrXcTOMtyzOsKdOYR8C Proelss, A. (2017). United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A commentary. Nomos
Verlagsgesellschaft.
Roach, C. J. A. (2007). Defining Scientific Research: Marine Data Collection. Law, Science &
Ocean Management. Brill Nijhoff, 541-573.
Salpin, C., Onwuasoanya, V., Bourrel, M., & Swaddling, A. (2018). Marine scientific research in Pacific Small Island Developing States. Marine Policy. Retrieved from:
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.07.019>.
Soons, A. H. A. (1982). Marine Scientific Research and the Law of the Sea. The Hague: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers TMC Asser Instituut.
Tirpak, E. J. (2008). Practices of States in the fields of marine scientific research and transfer of marine technology: an update of the 2005 analysis of Member State responses to questionnaire no. 3. UNESCO Digital Library. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000218773
IOC-UNESCO (2017). Global Ocean Science Report - The current status of ocean science around the world. Valdés et al. (eds), Paris, UNESCO Publishing.
United Nations General Assembly (2010). Report of the Secretary General, A/65/69, Retrieved from:
< https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N10/296/54/PDF/N1029654.pdf?
OpenElement>.
Walker, G. K. (2011). Definitions for the Law of the Sea: Terms Not Defined by the 1982 Convention. Retrieved from<https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004211612>.
Wegelein, F. (2005). Marine Scientific Research: The Operation and Status of Research Vessels and Other Platforms in International Law. Brill Nijhoff.
Wölfl, A. C., Snaith, H., Amirebrahimi, S., Devey, C. W., Dorschel, B., Ferrini, V., ... & Lamarche, G. (2019). Seafloor Mapping–the challenge of a truly global ocean bathymetry. Frontiers in Marine Science, 6, 283.
Outline
The 2030 Seabed Survey Project: Re-Discussing the Definition of Marine Scientific Research and Accommodating Interest of New Stakeholders at Sea and the Caribbean and Pacific
Small Island Developing States (SIDS) Introduction
1. The importance of mapping the seabed to deal with changing circumstances 2. Who are the Caribbean and Pacific SIDS and how they stand regarding MSR
and CB&TT
3. Problem: uncertainty regarding the need of coastal State's consent for hydrographic survey, new technologies, new actors
1. Outline of the 2030 Seabed Project
d. Applications of bathymetric data (EIA, MPA, MEVH)
d. Structure of the project: international cooperation in the backbone d. New technologies
1. Uncertainty regarding Environmental impacts iv. Non-traditional opportunities for data collection
1. New actors (crowdsourced bathymetry, citizen science) 2. Consent, Liability, and Responsibility
3. Transparency, access to data, and confidentiality (development) 2. (Re) Discussing the definition of MSR
a. MSR at UNCLOS III
i. MSR vs. marine data collection 1. Purpose of the activity ii. Consent Regime
b. Hydrographic Survey
i. What is HS and applications for the data gathered 2. State Practice in the Caribbean and Pacific SIDS
i. Part XIII is interwoven with part XIV: the reduced information on the State practice
ii. Implementation of part XIII: is there a regional practice?
1. Bureaucracy and gaps
iii. Synergies and opportunities for a regional approach 1. CB&TT
Conclusion
Bio
PhD Candidate, World Maritime University. SwAM/Germany Land-to-Ocean Leadership Programme, WMU-Sasakawa Global Ocean Institute.
MSc, University College London.
Master of Laws, University of Brazilian.
Member of the board of directors of the Brazilian Institute for the Law of the Sea (BILOS).
Member of the Research Group Natural Resources Law and Sustainable Development (Gern).
