Minister’s speech exposes a fundamental flaw in the SOPAC Deepsea Mining Project: It does not have the mandate of the peoples of the Pacific

Pacific Network on Globilization

Monday’s speech by the Vanuatu Minister for Lands and Natural resources, Hon. Ralph Regenvanu opens up the question of ‘mandate’ on which the SOPAC experimental seabed mining project is premised and which it uses to endorse its political legitimacy as well bring a sense of inevitability.

The speech, given at the opening of a Regional Training Workshop on Social Impacts of Deep Sea Mining Activities and Stakeholder Participation, reveals how the Minister made the disconcerting discovery, that in the last five years, successive Ministers had issued 145 licences for seabed mining exploration and 3 for offshore oil exploration without the consent of the Council of Ministers or the Parliament of Vanuatu and without revealing the facts to the people of Vanuatu.

The Minister’s speech was the first time the public was told what had transpired under successive governments. As he states, the government of Vanuatu “has been preceding down a path of action without the people it is supposed to be representing agreeing to or even knowing what we (government) are doing.”

Yet such situations are, unfortunately, not unique to Vanuatu; it is clear that other governments across the Pacific have not obtained the consent and mandate of their own people to pursue this untried and untested form of exploitation of our natural resources. You only have to look at the growing public opposition in PNG, the Solomon Islands and across the wider Pacific to appreciate that our own governments and SOPAC have proceeded down a path of action without the peoples’ mandate.

So what is the SOPAC’s mandate?
In response to growing public criticism and anger at the SOPAC DSM project, SOPAC has been keen to assert that they are mandated by our governments and that criticisms levelled at SOPAC is misplaced.

SOPAC officials have been on a Public Relations offensive arguing that they are ‘independent advisors’ and as an institution do not have a position for or against experimental seabed mining. They present themselves as being ‘neutral servants’ of our governments and therefore the people of this region and as neutral servants are simply trying their best to help engage with all relevant stakeholders.

Yet on closer examination it is very clear that SOPAC (DSM Project) is one of three key drivers along with our governments and the mining industry of the race to exploit mineral resources in the region. SOPAC was ‘expressly set up for the purpose of promoting (and now the exploitation) of mineral potential of the shelves and ocean floor of the South Pacific region’. As such we have seen just how far SOPAC DSM project will go to pursue and promote the exploitation of these natural resources.

SOPAC’s relationship with industry has also come under the spot light with the recent exposure that it has been working on behalf of industry players such as Lockheed Marten rather than for the people of the region. It has also failed miserably in its duty to provide all the necessary information to help governments make informed policy decisions. Instead it has promoted a legislative framework as the tool to reassure the peoples of the Pacific that everything is under control.

SOPAC have ignored the ecological, economic and social arguments against DSM
As well as having no mandate from the people of the Pacific, SOPAC in promoting experimental seabed mining, has ignored the substantial ecological and economic arguments against this new form of mining.

On the ecological front the risks and uncertainties of seabed mining are too great to allow mining activities to proceed with the expectation that the damage can be reversed. The leading scientific thinking, at present, states that we need to adopt a precautionary approach and institute a moratorium on seabed mining activities. This precautionary principle is backed by international law.

While on the economic front, SOPAC has been leaning more and more towards how to better manage supposed revenues generated. Yet it is clear that there is no scientific or economic evidence to determine how experimental seabed mining will affect main industries in the Pacific namely fisheries and tourism industry on which many of our smaller Pacific island nations rely. There is also no evidence of the likely impacts on food security and the sustainable subsistence livelihoods on which so many coastal people rely.

On the social front the closest we get is the experience of land based mining. As pointed out by the Pacific Conference of Churches the evidence is clear – our people have paid a high price, both socially and economically despite the best intentions of our governments. Mining revenues have not justified the associated costs of displacement, dislocation (often accompanied by state and industry violence), damage to livelihoods and environmental degradation.

SOPAC claims that legislation will ensure all of the ecological, environmental and social concerns are recognised and protected. Legislation can only ever be as good as a state’s ability to manage and enforce it. Act Now! has pointed out how naive it is to believe that legislation to govern experimental seabed mining can put the checks and controls in place that will provide clarity and security, ensure the precautionary principle is followed and best environmental practice is followed. With their Deep Sea Minerals Project, SOPAC and the SPC are ignoring the realities of governance in the Pacific, unequal access to the legal system, the power of large corporations and their record of profit before the environment and people. The reality is that anything can be legalised but it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a good thing; after all it’s legal to own high velocity firearms in the in the United States not a great comfort to the parents of school children killed by those same legal firearms.

Vanuatu leads with new mandate that is people driven
What is unique is that the Hon. Minister announced that “wide public consultations will be undertaken before any further activities to do with seabed mineral exploration can occur in Vanuatu”.

Thus he has placed the question of mandate back firmly on the people of Vanuatu: they will determine whether to proceed or not. The Vanuatu Minister Hon. Ralph also demonstrated that experimental seabed mining is not inevitable as is implied by SOPAC DSM project.

The challenge is whether other Governments in the region particularly in PNG, Solomon Islands, Fiji, Tonga, Nauru and the Cooks have the political will and courage to follow Vanuatu and seek a mandate from their own people.