237

and continental shelf) are subject to the provisions of the CBD and Nagoya Protocol relating to the issue of PIC and benefit sharing. In fact the CBD provisions on this topic broadly mirror the provisions in Part XIII of UNCLOS on marine scientific research as regards the need for PIC. Within its EEZ and on its continental shelf, a coastal State has control over marine scientific research – including any research installations or equipment in the marine environment needed for such activities (Articles 60, 80 and 258). Moreover the consent of the coastal State is required for any type of research carried out in these zones. However the coastal State may withhold its consent only under specific conditions. In essence article 246 distinguishes between what may be described as ‘applied research’ and ‘pure research’. There is a presumption in favour of granting consent for pure research in the EEZ and the CS. Article 246 (3) states that: Coastal States shall, in normal circumstances, grant their consent for marine scientific research projects by other States or competent international organizations in their exclusive economic zone or on their continental shelf to be carried out in accordance with this Convention exclusively for peaceful purposes and in order to increase scientific knowledge of the marine environment for the benefit of all mankind. To this end, coastal States shall establish rules and procedures ensuring that such consent will not be delayed or denied unreasonably. Article 246(5), however, goes onto provide that : Coastal States may …in their discretion withhold their consent to the conduct of a marine scientific research project of another State or competent international organization in the exclusive economic zone or on the continental shelf of the coastal state if that project: (a) is of direct significance for the exploration and exploitation of natural resources, whether living or non-living; (b) involves drilling into the continental shelf, the use of explosives or the introduction of harmful substances into the marine environment; (c) involves the construction, operation or use of artificial islands, installations and structures referred to in articles 60 and 80; In other words while in ‘normal circumstances’ (which pursuant to article 246 (4) may exist even in those cases where there are no diplomatic relations between the researching State and the coastal State) consent for pure research should be given, as regards applied research the coastal State has an almost complete discretion whether or not to grant consent if this research is planned to be conducted in the EEZ and/or on the Continental Shelf. Moreover as regards either types of research activity a coastal State can refuse consent where a researcher has provided inaccurate advance information as to the nature and objective of the project or if the researcher has outstanding obligations to the coastal State from an earlier research project (article 246(5)(d)). Consent to undertake marine scientific research in the EEZ or on the continental shelf is in any event subject to conditions imposed by the coastal State regarding a range of issues including coastal State participation in the research project, the provision of preliminary reports as well as data and samples, on request, as well as an assessment of such data, also on request (article 249) in addition to any other conditions imposed in coastal State legislation. While article 255 requires States to endeavour to adopt reasonable legislation and procedures to promote and facilitate marine scientific research beyond their territorial seas and article 252 creates an implied consent regime if the coastal state has not objected to a research project within six months, it is important to note that any dispute over whether a coastal State has improperly withheld consent is not subject to any form of compulsory third-party settlement except compulsory conciliation under Annex V of UNCLOS. Moreover article 297 (2)(b) of UNCLOS provides that the discretion of a coastal State to withhold consent in accordance with article 246(5) may not be called into question. This regime does not contradict the CBD/Nagoya Protocol provisions. 198 Study in support of Impact Assessment work on Blue Biotechnology

238 Publizr Home