Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

The New Paradox in Marine Scientific Research: Regulating the Potential Environmental Impacts of Conducting Ocean Science

2011; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 42; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/00908320.2011.619368

1521-0642

Anna‐Maria Hubert,

Marine and Offshore Engineering Studies

Abstract Concerns about the negative effects of marine scientific research are in clear juxtaposition to the beneficial role that scientific knowledge plays in enhancing the understanding of the oceans and protecting the marine environment. This presents a regulatory paradox that is examined in this article in light of the legal framework in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The article traces how these general principles in the Convention are elaborated in soft law instruments for the promotion of environmentally sustainable research practices. It also looks at an example of state practice in this area by examining regulatory measures instituted in the Canadian Endeavour Hydrothermal Vent Marine Protected Area. Keywords: freedom of scientific researchmarine environmentmarine scientific research Acknowledgments I would like to acknowledge the advice and support of Prof. Dr. Gerd Winter and Dr. Till Markus during the preparation of this article. Notes 1. See GESAMP (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/WMO/WHO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection and Advisory Committee on Protection of the Sea), A Sea of Troubles, Rep. Stud. GESAMP No. 70 (2001), available at unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001229/122986e.pdf. 2. International human rights law expressly recognizes the rights of individuals to partake in the benefits of scientific research. Article 27(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, December 10, 1948, UNGA Res. 217 A(III), states that "everyone has the right [ … ] to share in scientific advancement and its benefits." See also International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 15(1)(b), December 16, 1966, 6 I.L.M. 368: "The State Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone: [ … ] (b) To enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications." 3. Convention on the Continental Shelf, Article 5(8), April 29, 1958, 499 U.N.T.S. 311. 4. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (hereafter LOSC), December 10, 1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 397. 5. United Nations General Assembly, Report of the Secretary General, Oceans and the Law of the Sea, Addendum, UN Doc. A /60/63/Add.1 (July 15, 2005), paras. 174–175 (hereafter Secretary-General's Report (2005)); Philomène A. Verlaan, "Experimental Activities that Intentionally Perturb the Marine Environment: Implications for the Marine Environmental Protection and Marine Scientific Research Provisions of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea," Marine Policy 31 (2007): 210. 6. A. R. Benn, et al., "Human Activities on the Deep Seafloor in the North East Atlantic: An Assessment of Spatial Extent," PLoS ONE 5 (2010): e12730D. 7. Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea Office of Legal Affairs, Law of the Sea: Marine Scientific Research: A Revised Guide to the Implementation of the Relevant Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (New York: United Nations, 2010), 31 (hereafter OALOS Revised Guide); Secretary General's Report (2005), supra note 5, at paras. 174–175. 8. Patricia Birnie, "Law of the Sea and Ocean Resources: Implications for Marine Scientific Research," International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 10 (1995): 229, at 242. 9. J. Breslin, D. Nixon, and G. West, Code of Conduct for Marine Scientific Research Vessels, International Ship Operators Meeting (ISOM) (October 17–20, 2007) (hereafter ISOM Code of Conduct), available at www.eurocean.org/np4/file/140/Code_of_Conduct_for_Marine_Scientific_Re.pdf. 10. Ibid. 11. David Kenneth Leary, International Law and the Genetic Resources of the Deep Sea (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2006), 189; K. M. Gjerde, et al., Options for Addressing Regulatory and Governance Gaps in the International Regime for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biodiversity in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, 2008), 35, available at data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/EPLP-MS-1.pdf. 12. Secretary-General's Report (2005), supra note 5, at para. 174. 13. See Harm M. Dotinga and Alex G. Oude Elferink, "Acoustic Pollution in the Oceans: The Search for Legal Standards," Ocean Development & International Law, 31 (2000): 151; M. Simmonds, S. Dolman, and L. Weilgart, eds., Oceans of Noise: A WDCS Science Report (Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, 2004), available at www.wdcs.org/submissions_bin/OceansofNoise.pdf; J. Firestone and C. Jarvis, "Response and Responsibility: Regulating Noise Pollution in the Marine Environment," Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy 10 (2007): 109; and Michel André, et al., "Low-Frequency Sounds Induce Acoustic Trauma in Cephalopods," Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment (in press). 14. ISOM Code of Conduct, supra note 9. 15. Leary, supra note 11, at 189; Gjerde, supra note 11, at 35; Secretary-General's Report (2005), supra note 5, at para. 174. 16. Verlaan, supra note 5. See, generally, Michael Gibbons, et al., The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies (London: Sage, 2008), 36. 17. V. Smetacek and S. W. A. Naqvi, "The Next Generation of Iron Fertilization Experiments in the Southern Ocean," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 366 (2008): 3947, at 3947. 18. J. A. Beardmore and J. S. Porter, Genetically Modified Organisms and Aquaculture, FAO Fisheries Circular No. 989 (2003), 19–21; P. Bateson, et al., The Use of Genetically Modified Animals (Royal Society, 2001), 20, available at royalsociety.org/The-use-of-genetically-modified-animals. 19. K. O. Buesseler and P. W. Boyd, "Will Ocean Fertilization Work?" Science 300 (2003): 67. See also Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Scientific Synthesis of the Impacts of Ocean Fertilization on Marine Biodiversity, Technical Series No. 45 (2009), 15–22. 20. Smetacek and Naqvi, supra note 17; K. O. Buesseler, et al., "Ocean Iron Fertilization―Moving Forward in a Sea of Uncertainty," Science 319 (2008): 162. 21. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, supra note 19; Rosemary Rayfuse, "Drowning Our Sorrows to Secure a Carbon Free Future? Some International Legal Considerations Relating to Sequestering Carbon by Fertilizing the Oceans," University of New South Wales Law Journal 31 (2008): 919; Aaron Strong, et al., "Ocean Fertilization: Time to Move on," Nature 461 (2009): 347. 22. International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, December 2, 1946, 161 U.N.T.S. 74. See Peter H. Sand, "Japan's 'Research Whaling' in the Antarctic Southern Ocean and the North Pacific Ocean in the Face of the Endangered Species Convention (CITES)," Review of European Community and International Environmental Law 17 (2008): 56; Phillip J. Clapham, et al., "Whaling as Science," BioScience 53 (2003): 210; and Peter J. Corkeron, "Reconsidering the Science of Scientific Whaling," Marine Ecology Progress Series 375 (2009): 305. See also International Court of Justice, press release 2010/16, "Australia Institutes Proceedings Against Japan for Alleged Breach of International Obligations Concerning Whaling," June 1, 2010. 23. Secretary-General's Report (2005), supra note 5, at para. 175. 24. Alfred H. A. Soons, Marine Scientific Research and the Law of the Sea (Deventer: Kluwer Law and Taxation, 1982), 136. 25. Canada, Endeavour Hydrothermal Vents Marine Protected Area Regulations, SOR/2003–87, March 4, 2003 (hereafter Endeavour Hydrothermal Vents Regulations), available at the Web site of the Canadian Department of Justice at http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2003–87/page-1.html. 26. John A. Knauss, "The Effects of the Law of the Sea on Future Marine Scientific Research and of Marine Scientific Research on the Law of the Sea," Louisiana Law Review 45 (1984–1985): 1201–1202; Robin R. Churchill and A.V. Lowe, The Law of the Sea, 3rd ed. (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999), 400. 27. Milner B. Schaefer, "Freedom of Scientific Research and Exploration in the Sea," Stanford Journal of International Studies 4 (1969): 46, at 46, noted that this led to what he referred to as a "paradox" that "scientific progress necessary for a fuller utilization of ocean resources is being retarded by new regimes which were established because of such enhanced utilization." See also Fletcher A. Blanchard and Robert W. Corell, "Man's Adaptation to the Sea: A Key to the Ocean's Resources," Stanford Journal of International Studies 4 (1969): 71; and John A. Knauss, "Development of the Freedom of Scientific Research Issue at the Third Law of the Sea Conference," Ocean Development and International Law 1 (1973): 93. 28. Don Walsh, "Protection and Preservation of the Marine Environment and Marine Scientific Research at the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea: Comment," Law and Contemporary Problems 46 (1983): 167, at 169; Churchill and Lowe, supra note 26, at 401. 29. Geneva Continental Shelf Convention, supra note 3, art. 5(8). 30. C. C. Joyner and E. A. Martell, "Looking Back to See Ahead: UNCLOS III and Lessons for Global Commons Law," Ocean Development and International Law 27 (1996): 73. 31. Mark Talwani, "Marine Research and the Law of the Sea," Columbia Journal of World Business, Winter, (1980): 84. 32. John A. Knauss, "Marine Science and the 1974 Law of the Sea Conference," Science 184 (1974): 1335; P. K. Mukherjee, "The Consent Regime of Oceanic Research in the New Law of the Sea," 5 Marine Policy (1981): 98. 33. Deborah Shapley, "Ocean Scientists May Wash Hands of Sea Law Treaty," Science 197 (1977): 645; Desmond P. D. Scott, "Implications of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea for Marine Scientific Research," Nature 267 (1977): 762; Ocean Policy Committee of the Commission on International Relations NAS-NRC, "Marine Scientific Research Issue in the Law of the Sea Negotiations," Science 197 (1977): 230; Knauss, supra note 32. 34. LOSC, supra note 4, art. 87(1)(f). 35. Soons, supra note 24, at 129. 36. The legislative history of Article 239 of the LOSC indicates that delegates intended to create a legally binding obligation. See Myron H. Nordquist, et al., United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982: A Commentary (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 1991), 453, noting that earlier drafts of Article 239 did not use obligatory language; rather, they merely required that states and competent international organizations "shall endeavour" or "shall to the extent possible" promote and facilitate research. However, given the general formulation of the provision, the issue has been raised as to whether Article 239 actually gives rise to a hard law obligation. According to Soons, supra note 24, at 132, Article 239 "as it stands … cannot be considered to be more than a mere exhortation to States and international organizations to act positively towards marine scientific research." For a contrasting view, see Montserrat Gorina-Ysern, An International Regime for Marine Scientific Research (Ardsley: Transnational, 2003), 291–292. 37. LOSC, supra note 4, arts. 242–245 and 255. 38. Ibid., art. 242(2). 39. Ibid., arts. 238 and 240(c). 40. Ibid., art. 56(2). 41. Ibid., art. 87(2). 42. Ibid., Preamble. 43. Gerhard Hafner, "Meeresumwelt, Meeresforschung und Technologietransfer," in Handbuch des Seerechts, ed. Wolfgang Graf Vitzthum (Munich: C. H. Beck, 2006), 429–430. 44. Amedeo Santosuosso, et al., "What Constitutional Protection for Freedom of Scientific Research?" Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (2007): 342. Regarding the United States, see Robert Post, "Constitutional Restraints on the Regulations of Scientific Speech and Scientific Research: Commentary on 'Democracy, Individual Rights and the Regulation of Science,'" Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (2009): 431; and, for Canada, see Barbara Billingsley and Timothy Caulfield, "The Regulation of Science and the Charter of Rights: Would a Ban on Non-reproductive Human Cloning Unjustifiably Violate the Freedom of Expression?" Queens Law Journal 29 (2004): 647. 45. See Santosuosso, supra note 44, at 342. 46. Tullio Treves, "Marine Scientific Research," in R. Wolfrum (Ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Oxford University Press, 2008, online edition, www.mpepil.com, visited on 4 October 2011, para. 7, noted that state practice on marine scientific research "evidence[s] a restrictive trend in the application of the Convention." Furthermore, according to Florian H. Th. Wegelein, Marine Scientific Research: The Operation and Status of Research Vessels and Other Platforms in International Law (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2005), 325, marine scientific research can be regarded as a "receding right." 47. Gunnar Kullenberg, "Ocean Science: An Overview," in Troubled Waters: Ocean Science and Governance, eds. Geoff Holland and David Pugh (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010, at 81). 48. LOSC, supra note 4, art. 245. Coastal states also exercise sovereignty over marine scientific research conducted in archipelagic waters. See Treves, supra note 46, at para. 8; and Churchill and Lowe, supra note 26, at 404. 49. LOSC, supra note 4, art. 245. See Gorina-Ysern, supra note 36, at 305. 50. LOSC, supra note 4, arts. 87, 238, and 257. 51. Ibid., arts. 143(1) and 256. 52. Ibid., art. 246(1) and (2). 53. Ibid., art. 246(3). According to Article 246(4), "normal circumstances" may exist in spite of the absence of diplomatic relations between the coastal state and the researching state. However, the lack of an express definition of "normal circumstances" is a source of ambiguity in the LOSC regime on marine scientific research. 54. Ibid., art. 246(3). 55. Ibid., art. 252. 56. Ibid., art. 248. 57. Ibid., art. 255. Office for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, The Law of the Sea: Marine Scientific Research: A Guide to the Implementation of the Relevant Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (New York: United Nations, 1991), 8 (hereafter OALOS Guide). 58. LOSC, supra note 4, art. 249. 59. OALOS Revised Guide, supra note 7, at 10. 60. LOSC, supra note 4, art. 245(5)(a). This provision reflects an important rationale for extending coastal state jurisdiction over marine scientific research; that is, the legal recognition of coastal states' sovereign rights to explore and exploit the natural resources in the exclusive economic zone and on the continental shelf. See also LOSC, art. 56(1)(b)(ii). 61. Marta Chantal Ribeiro, "The 'Rainbow': The First National Marine Protected Area Proposed Under the High Seas," International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 25 (2010): 183, at 203–204. 62. OALOS Revised Guide, supra note 7, at 10; Soons, supra note 24, at 171. 63. Ribeiro, supra note 61, at 204. See also Soons, supra note 24, at 172–173. 64. LOSC, supra note 4, art. 246(5)(b). 65. OALOS Revised Guide, supra note 7, at 42. 66. According to LOSC, supra note 4, Article 246(3), marine scientific research must 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." See OALOS Guide, supra note 57, at 11; and Soons, supra note 24, at 165–167. 67. However, according to the OALOS Guide, supra note 57, the coastal state cannot finally refuse its consent to a research project that is not in accordance with the general requirement in Article 246(3). Rather, the OALOS Guide stipulates that, if the coastal state is of the opinion that the proposed research project is not in compliance with the LOSC, it must inform the researching state or international organization of its view and provide reasons in support of its position. The researching state or international organization should then be given the opportunity to modify its proposed project. It is only after this stage, where the coastal state finds that the modified proposal is still not in compliance with the provisions of the LOSC, that the coastal state can refuse its consent. OALOS Guide, supra note 57, at 11; Soons, supra note 24, at 165–167. 68. The general principle in LOSC, supra note 4, Article 240(d), is also embodied in other parts of the Convention, such as Articles 258–263 governing the deployment and use of scientific installations, and provisions governing the responsibility and liability of states and competent international organizations for damage and pollution caused by conducting marine scientific research. See Gorina-Ysern, supra note 36, at 297–298. 69. OALOS Revised Guide, supra note 7, at 21. 70. Rüdiger Wolfrum, "International Environmental Law: Purposes, Principles, and Means of Ensuring Compliance," in International Regional and National Environmental Law, eds. Fred L. Morrison and Rüdiger Wolfrum (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2000), 48; Patricia Birnie, et al., International Law and The Environment, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 387. 71. LOSC, supra note 4, art. 194(1). "Pollution of the marine environment" is defined in Article 1(1)(4) of the LOSC as "the introduction by man, directly or indirectly, of substances or energy into the marine environment [ … ], which results or is likely to result in such deleterious effects as harm to living resources and marine life." 72. Ibid., art. 194(3)(d). 73. Ibid., art. 196(1). 74. Ibid., art. 194(5). 75. According to Soons, supra note 24, at 136, "the intention of this paragraph was to prohibit the use of methods and means which are unnecessarily and unreasonably damaging to the marine environment." 76. Birnie, supra note 70, at 382. 77. Gorina-Ysern, supra note 36, at 297. 78. LOSC, supra note 4, Preamble. 79. Ibid., art. 200. See also ibid., arts. 201 and 242(2). 80. Ibid., art. 204(1). 81. Gunnar Kullenberg, "Reflections on Marine Science Contributions to Sustainable Development," Ocean and Coastal Management 29 (1995): 35; Birnie, supra note 8, at 229. 82. For the conservation and management of the living resources within the exclusive economic zone, see LOSC, supra note 4, arts. 61–67. For the conservation and management of living resources on the high seas, see LOSC, supra note 4, arts. 116–120. See, generally, Birnie, supra note 8, at 236–241. 83. LOSC, supra note 4, art. 61(2). 84. Convention on Biological Diversity, Articles 12(b) and (c), June 5, 1992, 1760 U.N.T.S. 79; Convention on the Conversation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, Article 11(1)(b), September 19, 1979, 1284 U.N.T.S. 209 (hereafter Bern Convention). 85. Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals, Article III(3)(a), June 23, 1979, 1651 U.N.T.S. 333 (hereafter Bonn Convention). 86. Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic, Article 8(1), September 22, 1992, 2354 U.N.T.S. 67 (hereafter OSPAR Convention). 87. Bonn Convention, supra note 85, art. III(5)(a); Bern Convention, supra note 84, art. 9(1); International Whaling Convention, supra note 22, art. VIII. 88. For an argument against a hierarchical interpretation, see Wegelein, supra note 46, at 75–77. 89. Despite its unqualified wording, the duty to protect and preserve the marine environment in Article 192 is still subject to other provisions in LOSC. In particular, the binding obligation in Article 192 must be read in conjunction with Article 193, which recognizes states' sovereign rights to pursue their own economic and environmental policies. See Wolfrum, supra note 70, at 48. 90. According to Churchill and Lowe, supra note 26, at 411, the general principles in Article 240 must be read within the context of the Convention as a whole. 91. This more stringent requirement can be contrasted with the wording of Article 237 of the LOSC, which does not require that agreements relating to the marine environment conform with Part II, but only that they be "carried out in a manner consistent with the general principles and objectives of [the] Convention." See Alan Boyle and Christine Chinkin, The Making of International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 256. 92. Gary E. Marchant and Lynda L. Pope, "The Problems with Forbidding Science," Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (2009): 375, at 375. 93. Ibid., at 375. 94. Helene Marsh and Richard Kenchington, "The Role of Ethics in Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology," Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 300 (2004): 5. 95. Elizabeth J. Farnsworth and Judy Rosovsky, "The Ethics of Ecological Field Experimentation," Conservation Biology 7 (1993): 463. 96. One reason that the international research community has instituted voluntary measures is the inadequacies of the existing international and national legal frameworks for ensuring that marine research is carried out sustainably. See Kim Juniper and Lyle Glowka, "Biology Working Group: A Code of Conduct to Conserve and Sustainably Use Hydrothermal Vent Sites," InterRidge News 12 (2003): 8, at 8. 97. It is even argued that broad consensus among scientists on reasonable standards for conducting marine research may transform regulations into something "other than freedom fettering." Regulations could be absorbed into the general body of principles and conventions that define good scientific practice (e.g., methods and procedures for conducting experiments and publishing scientific findings). See Andrew Askland, "Science and Socially Responsible Freedom," Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (2009): 343, at 345. 98. InterRidge, "InterRidge Statement of Commitment to Responsible Research Practices at Deep-Sea Hydrothermal Vents" (2006), available at www.interridge.org/IRStatement (hereafter InterRidge Code of Conduct). 99. ISOM Code of Conduct, supra note 9. 100. Deutsche Senatskommission für Ozeanographie der DFG and Konsortium Deutsche Meeresforschung (KDM), "Erklärung zu einer verantwortungsvollen Meeresforschung" [Commitment to Responsible German Marine Research], reproduced in English in the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), Report of the ICES NAFO Joint Working Group on Deep Water Ecology (WGDEC) (March 10–14, 2008), ICES CM 2008/ACOM:45, Annex 13.4, 97, available at www.ices.dk/reports/ACOM/2008/WGDEC/WGDEC_2008.pdf. 101. Irish Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, "Code of Practice of Marine Scientific Research at Irish Coral Reef Special Areas of Conservation" (hereafter Irish Code of Practice) (September 2006), available at www.marine.ie/NR/rdonlyres/8DBA2793-B01E-4576-B2BF-C9403ACD06FA/0/file3654en.pdf. 102. European Community, Council Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (hereafter Habitats Directive), 92/43/EEC. The Habitats Directive lists "reefs" in Annex 1 as a natural habitat worthy of the designation of a special area of conservation. 103. The OSPAR Commission is established by the OSPAR Convention, supra note 86. 104. OSPAR Commission, "OSPAR Code of Conduct for Responsible Marine Research in the Deep Seas and High Seas of the OSPAR Maritime Area" (hereafter OSPAR Code of Conduct), OSPAR 08.24/1, Annex 6 (2008), available at the OSPAR Web site at www.ospar.org. 105. These include the European Centre for Information on Marine Science and Technology (EurOcean) and the Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP). 106. OSPAR Code of Conduct, supra note 104, para. 12. 107. Ibid., para. 13. 108. Ibid., para. 14. "Areas of particular ecological vulnerability" include features listed in the OSPAR List of Threatened and/or Declining Species and Habitats, available at the OSPAR Web site, supra note 104. 109. Ibid, para. 19. 110. Ibid., para. 19(c). 111. See supra note 108. 112. OSPAR Code of Conduct, supra note 104, paras. 17–18. 113. See ibid., paras. 21–23; and Commitment to Responsible German Marine Research, supra note 100, paras. 8–9. 114. OSPAR Code of Conduct, supra note 104, para. 22. 115. Ibid., paras. 22–23; Irish Code of Practice, supra note 101, para. 12. 116. This concept is embodied in four guiding maxims for designing marine field experiments established by the Australian Science, Technology, and Engineering Council (ASTEC): 117. For instance, the OSPAR Code of Conduct, supra note 104, para. 8, states that "[m]ost forms of observation and investigation of natural systems involve some disturbance of the systems being studied." 118. Ibid. See also UNEP, "Deep-Sea Biodiversity and Ecosystems: A Scoping Report on Their Socio-economy, Management and Governance" (December 2007), 49, available at www.unep-wcmc.org/biodiversity-series-28_97.html. 119. Irish Code of Practice, supra note 101, para. 5. 120. For example, the OSPAR Commission specifically mentions in relation to its own work program on marine protected areas that the management of these areas must be based on the "best available science." OSPAR Code of Conduct, supra note 104, para. 7. 121. An exception is for marine scientific research conducted within areas of national jurisdiction or sovereign rights (i.e., in the EEZ or on the continental shelf, respectively). Under LOSC, supra note 4, Article 248(a), the coastal state has a right to be informed about the nature and objectives of the research project as a basis for determining whether it will grant its consent to the proposed research project. 122. London Dumping Convention, December 29, 1972, 1046 U.N.T.S. 120; and Protocol to the London Dumping Convention, November 8, 1996, 36 I.L.M. 1. 123. The Thirteenth Meeting of the Contracting Parties to the London Convention and the Third Meeting of the Contracting Parties to the London Protocol, "Resolution LC-LP.1(2008) on the Regulation of Ocean Fertilization," LC 30/16 Annex 6 (adopted October 31, 2008), para. 8. 124. Ibid., para. 7. 125. "Assessment Framework for Scientific Research Involving Ocean Fertilization Resolution LC-LP.2(2010)" (hereafter Assessment Framework) (adopted 14 October 2010). For a discussion of the Assessment Framework for ocean fertilization experiments, see Philomène Verlaan, "Current Legal Developments London Convention and London Protocol," International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 26 (2010): 185, at 194. 126. Assessment Framework, supra note 125, para. 2.2.1. 127. Ibid. 128. ICES WGDEC Report, supra note 100, at 90–91. 129. Ibid., at 91. 130. Convention on Biological Diversity, Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice, "Options for Preventing and Mitigating the Impact of Some Activities on Selected Seabed Habitats," UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/13/INF/13 (January 3, 2008), 66; Juniper and Glowka, supra note 96, at 8. 131. The introductory part of the OSPAR Code of Conduct, supra note 104, para. 5, states: "OSPAR recognizes that marine research scientists appreciate the uniqueness and complexity of the marine environment, and are therefore particularly interested in preserving this scientifically, aesthetically, ecologically, and potentially economically valuable environment." See also Peter J. Auster, et al., "Developing an Ocean Ethic: Science, Utility, Aesthetics, Self-Interest, and Different Ways of Knowing," Conservation Biology 23 (2009): 233, at 234, stating that "a deep understanding and appreciation of the natural world motivates conservation scientists." 132. For example, Farnsworth and Rosovsky, supra note 95, at 468–469, point out that data interpretation is easier if high methodological standards are used and that scientists also benefit by returning to sites that have been preserved for future use. 133. ICES WGDEC Report, supra note 100, at 88. 134. CBD, "Options for Preventing and Mitigating the Impact of Some Activities on Selected Seabed Habitats," supra note 130, at 26. 135. Ibid., at 28. 136. Leary, supra note 11, at 195. 137. For instance, the EU-funded EUROFLEETS project, which aims to coordinate the European research fleet, requires that principle investigators make a declaration that they will "observe and carry out any investigation in accordance with the general principles of the [OSPAR Code of Conduct]." EUROFLEETS, EUROFLEETS Ship-Time Application "Ocean" and "Regional 1" Call 2010 (February 28, 2010), available at www.eurofleets.eu/np4/%7B$clientServletPath%7D/?newsId= 90&fileName=EUROFLEETS_Call_Ship_time_Application.pdf. A similar declaration that researchers will comply with the Commitment to Responsible German Marine Research, supra note 100, and OSPAR Code of Conduct, supra note 104, is required when applying for ship time on German vessels. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) und Senatskommission für Ozeanographie, "Leitfaden für die Antragsstellung für Schiffszeit auf dem Forschungsschiffen METEOR, MARIA S. MERIAN, POLARSTERN, SONNE und den mittelgroßen Forschungsschiffen" (November 23, 2010), 14, available at www.dfg-ozean.de/fileadmin/DFG/Leitfaden/Leitfaden_Antragstellung_23112010.pdf. 138. Helene Marsh and Carole M. Eros, "Ethics of Field Research: Do Journals Set the Standard?" Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (1999): 375; Marsh and Kenchington, supra note 94, at 8–9. 139. Canada, Oceans Act, Statutes of Canada 1996, c. 31, as amended. 140. See Canada, Endeavour Hydrothermal Vents Regulation, supra note 25; Basin Head Marine Protected Area Regulations, SOR/2005–293, September 26, 2005; Bowie Seamount Marine Protected Area Regulations, SOR/2008–124, April 17, 2008; Eastport Marine Protected Areas Regulations, SOR/2005–294, September 26, 2005; Gilbert Bay Marine Protected Regulations, SOR/2005–295, September 26, 2005; Gully Marine Protected Area Regulations, SOR/2004–112, May 7, 2004; Musquash Estuary Marine Protected Area Regulations, SOR/2006–354, December 14, 2006; and Tarium Niryutait Marine Protected Areas Regulations, SOR/2010–190, August 25, 2010. 141. Canada, "Endeavour Hydrothermal Vents Marine Protected Area Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement," available at www.gazette.gc.ca/archives/p2/2003/2003–03-12/html/sor-dors87-eng.html. 142. Endeavour Hydrothermal Vents Regulations, supra note 25. 143. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, "Endeavour Hydrothermal Vents," available at www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/marineareas-zonesmarines/mpa-zpm/pacific-pacifique/factsheets-feuillets/endeavour-eng.htm. 144. V. Tunnicliffe and R. Thomson, "Oceans Background Report: Endeavour Hot Vents Area: A Pilot Marine Protected Area in Canada's Pacific Ocean," Report for Fisheries and Oceans Canada (January 1999). 145. See Lauren Mullineaux, et al., "Deep-Sea Sanctuaries at Hydrothermal Vents: A Position Paper," InterRidge News 7 (1998): 15, at 15; Paul Dando and S. Kim Juniper, eds., Management and Conservation of Hydrothermal Vent Ecosystems, Report from an InterRidge Workshop (September 28–30, 2000) at 6–7; and Leary, supra note 11, at 189. 146. Gjerde, supra note 11, at 35; Mullineaux, supra note 145, at 16; Leary, supra note 11, at 189. 147. Mullineaux, supra note 145, at 15–16; Lyle Glowka, "Putting Marine Scientific Research on a Sustainable Footing at Hydrothermal Vents," Marine Policy 27 (2003): 303, at 304. 148. Glowka, supra note 147, at 304; Colin W. Devy, et al., "Responsible Science at Hydrothermal Vents," Oceanography 20 (2007): 162. 149. Endeavour Hydrothermal Vents Regulations, supra note 25. 150. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, "Endeavour Hydrothermal Vents: Marine Protected Area Management Plan 2010–2015" (Endeavour Hydrothermal Vents Management Plan) (2009), available at www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/protection/mpa-zpm/endeavour/docs/EHV-CHE-mgmtplan-gestion-eng.pdf. 151. Endeavour Hydrothermal Vents Regulations, supra note 25, sec. 2. 152. The term "understanding of the Area" is undefined in the regulations. Although it could be broadly construed to include all manner of basic and applied studies, its meaning is limited by the more specific words in the list that indicate research aimed at understanding and protecting the marine environment. Furthermore, it is arguable that research that undermines the conservation and protection objectives of the MPA should not come within the meaning of scientific research for the understanding of the Area. Thus, applied research aimed at demonstrating, for example, the potential of the site for extractive mining, would not be permitted within the EHV MPA. 153. Endeavour Hydrothermal Vents Regulations, supra note 25, sec. 3. Research plans must include particulars on, inter alia, the research vessel, personnel, research itinerary, and a summary of the research to be conducted including: sampling protocols; equipment to be moored; the discharge of substances; and the use of remotely operated vehicles, radioactive labeling, and explosives. 154. Ibid., sec. 3(3). Foreign states and competent international organizations that wish to conduct marine scientific research in Canadian waters are required to submit an "Application for Consent to Conduct Marine Scientific Research in Areas Under National Jurisdiction of Canada" to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade pursuant to the Coasting Trade Act, Statutes of Canada 1992, section 3(2)(c). 155. Endeavour Hydrothermal Vents Management Plan, supra note 150, at 15. 156. Ibid., at 16–17. 157. Ibid., at 19. 158. Ibid., at 16. 159. Ibid., at 11. 160. InterRidge Statement of Commitment to Responsible Practices, supra note 98. 161. Endeavour Hydrothermal Vents Management Plan, supra note 150, at 19. 162. Ibid., at 24. The conservation objective is set out at 9 to "[e]nsure that human activities contribute to the conservation, protection and understanding of the natural diversity, productivity and dynamism of the ecosystem and are managed appropriately such that the impacts remain less significant than natural perturbations (e.g., magmatic, volcanic or seismic)." 163. Ibid., at 10 and 15. 164. Ibid., at 5, 10, 15, and 24. 165. Ibid., at 24. 166. Ibid. 167. Ibid., at 16. 168. However, the term "undertake to provide" indicates the weak nature of the obligation in LOSC, supra note 4, Article 249(1)(c), in acknowledgment of the fact that the coastal state does not have direct access to the samples that are in the possession of the research institution. Gorina-Ysern, supra note 36, at 338; Soons, supra note 24, at 190. Irish authorities also capitalize on the right of coastal states in Article 249(1)(e) of the LOSC by requiring that foreign scientists and international organizations make research results internationally available through appropriate channels as soon as practicable. Irish Code of Practice, supra note 101, at 7. 169. OALOS Revised Guide, supra note 7, at 43. 170. There is an extensive coastal state right to participate in the planning of the research project, as indicated by the use of the term "especially" in LOSC, supra note 4, Article 249(1)(a). See OALOS Revised Guide, supra note 7, at 43; Soons, supra note 24, at 189; and Gorina-Ysern, supra note 36, at 335. However, Soons, supra note 25, at 189, stresses that "participation in the preparatory stage does not mean that the coastal State gets control over the research project: the coastal State may not fix conditions concerning the content of the research programme to its granting consent, since Article 249(1), does not confer such a right on the coastal State." Furthermore, the coastal state's right to full participation in the research project must be exercised reasonably. 171. Endeavour Hydrothermal Vents Management Plan, supra note 150, at 18. 172. Ibid. 173. According to LOSC, supra note 4, Article 249(1)(d), researching states must provide "the coastal State, at its request, with preliminary reports, as soon as practicable, and with the final results and conclusions after the completion of the research." 174. OALOS Revised Guide, supra note 7, at 45. 175. Soons, supra note 24, at 190. According to Gorina-Ysern, supra note 36, at 335–336, preliminary reports are required within 30 days after the conclusion of the fieldwork (or even before that), and final results and conclusions in 1 to 5 years. 176. LOSC, supra note 4, art. 246(d). 177. K. Juniper, "The Scientific Perspective," paper presented at the Marine Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdictions Workshop at the Marine and Environmental Law Institute, Dalhousie Law School, January 17, 2006, 9, notes the problems with this approach: "Many scientists go to the deep sea to conduct research partly because there are no regulations there, but controls may be key to providing continued opportunities for research." Paper available at law.dal.ca/Files/MEL_Institute/Reports/High_Seas_Report_32p_-_OCT06.pdf.