Appendix D 



Ocean Mining Laws of Other Countries 



This appendix summarizes the seabed mining laws 

 of 10 countries. Not all of these countries have declared 

 Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs); thus, their laws may 

 be based on continental shelf or territorial claims. These 

 statutes illustrate the range of choices available for de- 

 veloping marine minerals. The general comparison that 

 follows analyzes the various provisions shared by many 

 of the statutes, but three provisions in particular are of 

 primary interest for assessing the U.S. seabed mining 

 regime: 



1. allocating the right to mine, 



2. payment for the right to mine, and 



3. the division of responsibility between national and 

 state or provincial authorities. 



Allocating the right to mine includes selecting the 

 location and size of a mining site and choosing a mine 

 operator. In all of the countries surveyed, the initiative 

 for prospecting or mining lies with the applicant, who 

 must prove technical and financial capacity for carry- 

 ing out the proposed work. Competing applications for 

 the same area are generally assigned on a first-come ba- 

 sis, but Australia, for one, is considering work-program 

 bidding or cash bidding for cases where some competi- 

 tion is needed. The applicant-initiative system is modified 

 by general requirements for shoreline and environ- 

 mental protection, area and time limits, and proj- 

 ect-specific conditions imposed after an application is 

 reviewed. 



Payment for the privilege to mine may include ap- 

 plication fees, rents, royalties on the value of recovered 

 minerals, a tax on gross or net income, or a combina- 

 tion of these. The rate of payment may be set by law 

 or negotiated on a case-by-case basis. Some countries 

 provide for periodic adjustment based on economic con- 

 ditions or the market for the mineral being recovered. 

 In addition to paying for the minerals removed, miners 

 may be required to spend funds each year for explora- 

 tion or development. Spending above the minimum an- 

 nual requirement may be credited to future years, while 

 spending less may require paying the difference to the 

 government or forfeiting the right to prospect or mine. 

 The United States appears to be the only country which 

 has a cash competitive bidding process to award leases 

 in offshore areas. 



Three of the countries included in this review — Aus- 

 tralia, West Germany, and Canada, have a federal sys- 

 tem of government. Australia is developing a system of 

 joint authority over the continental shelf beyond the ter- 

 ritorial sea; the states or territories have jurisdiction over 

 the territorial sea. In West Germany, the states regu- 

 late activities within territorial waters while the national 



government has exclusive jurisdiction over the continen- 

 tal shelf beyond the territorial limit. Canada has not yet 

 enacted offshore mining legislation, but the Ministry of 

 Energy, Mines, and Resources is drafting a proposed 

 statute. A division of authority between the national and 

 provincial governments will be part of the new law. 



Australia 



Laws 



• Australia claims a 3-mile territorial sea.' Under the 

 Coastal Waters (State Powers) Act of 1981, onshore 

 mining legislation in the states of New South Wales, 

 Tasmania, South Australia, Western Australia, 

 and the Northern Territory can be applied offshore. 

 Activities would be regulated according to stand- 

 ard terms, including environmental conditions. 

 Western Australia is currently revising a model 

 State Minerals (Submerged Lands) bill, particu- 

 larly in regard to registration and transfer of leases. 

 A version to be circulated to the States and Com- 

 monwealth may be ready in early 1987. Although 

 some states are concerned that they cannot proc- 

 ess company applications, offshore state legislation 

 will most likely not be enacted before 1988.^ 



• In 1967, Australia passed a continental shelf act, 

 based on Geneva provisions, for petroleum. In 

 1981, the Submerged Lands Act, which has a "de- 

 gree of complementarity" with petroleum legisla- 

 tion^, was passed to cover other seabed minerals.* 

 However, the complementary state legislation nec- 

 essary to implement it has not been passed yet.^ 



• Australia has not declared an EEZ.^ 



Jurisdiction 



• Territorial waters: The adjoining state/territory has 

 jurisdiction over minerals development.' 



• Continental shelf: Offshore activities are adminis- 

 tered by a Joint Authority, including a Common- 



'Law of the Sea Bulletin, December 1983, No. 2, Office of Special Repre- 

 sentative of the Secretary-General for the Law of the Sea, United Nations (83- 

 35821), p. 13. 



^Letter from David Truman, Assistant Secretary, Minerals Policy Branch, 

 to OTA, Oct. 3, 1986. 



'Letter from the Australian Department of Resources and Energy to OTA 

 through Science and Technology Counsellor J, R. Hlubucek, Australian Em- 

 bassy, May 28, 1987. 



*Letter from Geoffrey Dabb, Legal Counsel, Australian Embassy to OTA, 

 Oct. 6, 1986. 



^Truman, op. cit. 



'Law of the Sea Bulletin, 1983, op. cit., p. 4. 



'Hlubucek, op. cit. 



307 



