Deep sea mining proposals a source of concern for local islanders:

Growing concern over deep sea mining
Related Links oceans and communities

 Opposition Grows to Deep Sea Mining Venture in Papua New Guinea

Villagers Present Key Concerns to Mining Company
October 2, 2007

This week, representatives of tribal coastal villagers submitted a formal letter
to Nautilus Minerals Inc, a Canadian-based mining organization,
expressing their concerns about proposed deep sea mining that will
take place in the Western Pacific Ocean. Central to their concerns
are the need for greater community participation and a broader
Environmental Impact Statement that takes into account social and
economic consequences.

Additionally, nearly 900 members of the public from around the world
have also called on greater accountability from Nautilus, showing a
growing concern for this potentially devastating and untested mining
technology.

“Land-based mining has had devastating impacts on the environment and
peoples of Papua New Guinea,” stated Wences Magun, founder of the
local organization Mas Kagin Tapani, which has been leading the
community response to the mining, “We depend on a healthy, clean
ocean to feed our families as we have done for generations. Any new
venture, such as deep sea mining, must proceed slowly at a village
pace, rather than at the speed of a multinational company.”

Mas Kagin Tapani has helped educate villagers of Bagabag Island about
the deep sea mining issue and help amplify their voices through press
releases, new stories, and full page advertisements.

“Deep sea mining has the potential to disrupt the critical coral
ecosystems on which coastal communities depend for their
livelihoods,” said Peter Fugazzotto, Director of the California-based
Oceans and Communities. “Community concerns must be considered more
important than any potential shareholder profits, especially where
possible environmental and social risks outweigh any short term gains.”

Deep sea mining is a new and untested mining method which would use
remotely operated underwater mine cutters to scour the ocean floor to
pump copper and gold ore to ships on the surface and then transfer to
barges for land-based processing. While deep sea mining is regulated
in international waters, it is not regulated in Papua New Guinea
waters, a country in which coastal villagers depend on healthy marine
ecosystems to feed their families.

"Explorations licences for deep sea mining activity cover vast tracks of  the
most biodiverse coastal seas in Papua New Guinea. The impacts of current
exploration activities on these deep sea environments remain unchecked.
Companies such as Nautilus must come to the table with concerned community
stakeholders to ensure their activities do not destroy some of the most
unique and important underwater resources in the Pacific, and place these
villages livelihoods and cultural values at risk," stated Techa Beaumont
of Australian mining watchdog, the Mineral Policy

Contact:
Peter Fugazzotto, Oceans and Communities, 415-458-8839,
peter(at)oceansandcommunities.org

Wences Magun, Sea Turtle Restoration Project – Papua New Guinea and
Mas Kagin Tapani, 011 (675) 323 2632, wence(at)seaturtles.org

Techa Beaumont Mineral Policy Instiute   +61 (0)409 318
406 or James Courtney  + 61 (0)418927821  advocacy(at)mpi.org.au

More info: at  oceans and communities: http://www.oceansandcommunities.org
 For a copy of the full page ad the Bagabag community ran
questioning Nautilus, go to:  http://www.seaturtles.org/pdf/
BAGABAGAd.pdf

(Further info:
 For background information on deep sea mining, please go to:

http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/736_DeepSeaMining.pdf

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––

A letter from villagers of Bagabag Island  to the CEO of Nautilus Minerals, Inc., expressing their concerns about the proposed deep sea mining operation.

(send your own letter to Nautilus Minerals CEO from the oceans and communities website www.oceansandcommunities.org)

Dear Mr. Heydon:

On behalf of the villages of Bagabag Island, many thanks for your response dated Tuesday, August 14, 2007 to our concerns that the proposed deep sea mining operations will have on the oceans, our livelihoods, our health, and our way of life.

We understand that you have a license to only explore, conduct reconnaissance drilling, and do environmental surveys at this point. We agree that this creates a window for consultation with NGOs, fishermen, and other stakeholders. However, the window already appears to be half closed– you make reference to the fact that the EIS is already half completed.

We have several recommendations that will improve the process of preparing the EIS and ensure that the best available science is applied, that a shared understanding of the facts and potential impacts is created, and that people who depend on healthy ocean ecosystems have an informed voice in decision making processes that affect our lives:

1. That the stakeholder and community consultation process be truly participatory. The building of trust and of a common understanding of the facts and interpretation of the facts requires a good flow of information and transparency. The release of a fully developed EIS for public comment is usually not sufficient for these purposes. Therefore, the process that you suggest (“My suggested way forward is to stay interested and stay involved, let the science and the research take its course, and participate and comment on the EIS when it is available for public comment in early 2008”) may not be effective. Instead, we recommend the development of a series of workshops this fall, winter, spring of 2008 at which interim data and interpretations are shared and discussed. At specified intervals, EIS milestones would be subject to review by a stakeholder advisory committee in order to seek broader public input. These milestones would include: (a) scope of the EIS; (b) project options under consideration, including No Action; (c) potential threats and risks; (d) risk mitigation measures; (e) environmental, social, and economic impacts of each project option; and (f) selection of preferred option. A transparent government-led process with meaningful public participation for assessing the EIS and preferred alternative, approving and disapproving the project, and issuing rules would then ensue.

2. The EIS must estimate the geographic scope of the potential impacts of commercial mining at scale as accurately as possible. Your letter emphasizes the large distances between your exploration sites and coral reefs and fishing grounds. However, the scale and behavior of a 3-dimensional plume arising from deep sea mining is unknown to us. We believe that models of particle dispersion in the deep ocean (or from conveyance systems) and of various physical and biological mechanisms that can transport materials from the deep ocean to the photic zone or shallow water ecosystems are only accurate if sufficient long-term oceanographic data are available from each of the mining sites. Therefore, we believe that empirical tracer experiments with non-toxic tracers will be required to accurately estimate the potential impact area. Furthermore, because ocean circulation is highly variable, time course studies will probably be required to estimate the appropriate sampling rate and variability in order to generate statistically significant results.

As a matter of policy and to maximize social and economic benefits, it will be important for the EIS to consider the option of capturing nutrient-rich bottom water and using it for onshore aquaculture operations in order to remove nutrients and carbon dioxide and to return water temperature to near-ambient levels prior to discharge.

3. The EIS must review the full suite of potential impact mechanisms. In our view, these include, inter alia: local effects of removal of ore; mid-distance effects of heavy sediment plume; adsorption of metals onto fine particles; ingestion and transport by motile organisms; injection of nutrient-rich deep water into the photic zone or nearshore ecosystems; the impacts of high sediment levels resulting from slurry leakage which could limit light penetration in the photic zone; adherence of sediments to plankton, with potential effects on species diversity and productivity; conventional pollution associated with mining operations; introduction of exotic species; acoustic impacts, specifically on marine mammals.

4. The EIS must review the full suite of potential social and economic impacts. These may include, inter alia: impacts on offshore pelagic fisheries, inshore fisheries, ports, jobs, etc. In addition, because deep sea mining is a new industry, and your project is at the vanguard of this industry, you have an opportunity to demonstrate commitment to a new social contract between users of natural resources and people and communities in desperate need of economic development. We recommend that you consider a community grant program to allow the citizens of PNG to benefit directly from the wealth that would be released through your mining operations. These kinds of mechanisms, which would supplement conventional business taxes that flow into the national treasury, may be particularly appropriate in countries that have relatively poorly developed systems to achieve social and environmental goals. Specifically, we propose that a separate foundation be established at the start of the project which would have an initial endowment and then receive annually an agreed upon fixed amount or percentage of the revenue generated from the project. The foundation would be governed by an independent board and would be responsible for using foundation funds to monitor the social, economic and cultural impacts of the project and to provide community grants to ameliorate negative impacts of the project and generally improve the livelihood of communities impacted by the project.

5. That the EIS analyze the full range of management and project options, including a No Action alternative and measures to mitigate major threats identified in the EIS. These may include, inter alia: Performance bonds (held in trust to pay for mitigation of any unanticipated impacts), natural resource damage assessments, in situ mitigation measures, etc.

6. That the team of scientists preparing the EIS include not only deep sea biologists but physical oceanographers, geophysicists, anthropologists, marine economists, and marine ecologists in order to estimate the fullest possible suite of potential impacts.

7. That the research being fed into the EIS be reviewed by an objective panel of scientists not in the employ of Nautilus or its partners. Nautilus would consult with the Public Advisory Group and the PNG government on the establishment of an “Independent Scientific Review Panel” and its composition. The panel would review the scientific research reports informing the EIS and provide their views on those reports.

8. That there be no exploration and mining on or near Bagabag Island. “Our forefathers have stopped explorers from exploring our island of Bagabag for any mineral deposit. Likewise, we the current generation will stand on their words and maintain that there should never be any exploration or mining activity on and near the seas of Bagabag Island,” Kial Dumui sub-clan leader for Maragab clan for and on behalf of the people of Bagabag Island.

We appreciate the civil discourse that we have embarked on and look forward to a positive response to our recommendations. We stand ready to continue our dialogue in person, and to assist through (for example) provision of funding for scientists not in the employ of Nautilus or its partners to participate in the EIS process and by participating in a stakeholder advisory committee.

Yours sincerely,

Wenceslaus Magun
Western Pacific Campaigner
Sea Turtle Restoration Project
Port Moresby - Papua New Guinea

For more information, please contact:

Techa Beaumont


Workphone: +61 2 9557 9019
Mobile: +61 409 318 406

Created: 02 Oct 2007 | Last updated: 02 Oct 2007

This page: http://www.mpi.org.au/ campaigns/waste/deepsea/

Opentracker.net: Web Statistics