Version classiqueVersion mobile

Les ressources minérales profondes en Polynésie française / Deep-sea mineral resources in French Polynesia

 | 
Pierre-Yves Le Meur
, 
Pierre Cochonat
, 
Carine David
, 
et al.

III. Summary report

Introduction. Issues and methods of the expert group review

Texte intégral

  • 3 A price super cycle is a long cycle with an increase, up to a certain threshold, and then a decrea (...)

1International interest in deep-sea mineral resources began in the 1970s and has returned to the fore as a result of the tensions surrounding commodities since 2006 (rising prices linked to the Chinese economic boom that took off in 2002). The recent drop in commodity prices caused by overcapacity developed during the 2002-2012 super cycle3 and by a slight slump in Chinese growth should not obscure the fact that long-term demand for mineral resources will continue to grow. Current prices remain higher on average in real terms than for the 1986-2006 period. Higher prices in the future will be driven by: overall population changes, the emergence from poverty of growing segments of the global population, and the shift toward lifestyles and consumption patterns that rely more heavily on natural resources. The energy transition required to mitigate the effects of climate change will also have an impact on mineral resources.

2Many reports and publications have noted a resurgent interest from stakeholders and institutions with direct or indirect interests in the future development of these resources. Given its size, geographic location and geological characteristics, the French Polynesian exclusive economic zone (EEZ) has considerable deep-sea mineral resource potential. This document summarises the primary results of the work conducted by the panel of experts formed by the Institute for Research and Development (IRD) upon request from the governments of French Polynesia and France.

Figure 1. Bathymetric chart of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of French Polynesia.
© IRD/Mapping Service

The Polynesian context: autonomy, income and development

3The territory of French Polynesia comprises 118 islands, of which only 67 are inhabited. It has a population of less than 300,000, nearly two thirds of whom live on a single island, Tahiti. It is surrounded by an immense exclusive economic zone covering approximately 4.8 million sq. km. Colonised by France in the 19th century, French Polynesia has enjoyed broad autonomy since 1984. It is currently undergoing a complicated period in its history, with difficulties arising from four main areas -the economy, politics, institutions and identity.

4The territory is undergoing a profound crisis triggered by the need to find credible economic alternatives to the annual payments for nuclear testing which ceased in 1996 (Al Wardi and Regnault, 2011). The political situation has become extremely unstable, marked by volatility in political alliances and a short lifespan for administrations. From an institutional point of view, the country’s autonomous status, reviewed in 2004, is contested by those in favour of full independence; this group recently added French Polynesia to the UN’s list of countries to be decolonised. Since the 1980s and 1990s, there has been a strong move to reconnect with local culture and identity (Saura, 2009) This newfound “politics of recognition” (Taylor, 1994) has an impact on how development projects and policies are negotiated and on land disputes (Bambridge, 2009). A report from the French Senate (Lanier and Allouche, 1996) highlights the fact that the territory’s centralised structure is ill-suited to the geographic isolation and the social, cultural and natural diversity of the archipelagos.

5Possible exploitation of deep-sea mineral resources in French Polynesia would proceed within this complex institutional context. It coincides with the search for development options (tourism, fishing, pearl cultivation, etc.) and partnerships in the enormous Pacific region, probably the most important economic and geopolitical region of the 21st century. However, unless called into question by periodical institutional volatility, the selected development options will cause a shift in balance between political autonomy, the distributional impacts of socio-economic development and the balance of payments (Overton et al., 2012).

6The possible exploitation of deep-sea mineral resources is relatively new to French Polynesia. In large part, it was triggered by an article (Kato et al., 2011) published in the journal Nature that evoked the presence of rich deposits of rare earth elements in mud on the Pacific seabed at the time of a profound crisis in the supply of these elements. This issue is also part of the territory’s specific history in mineral resource exploitation, a history summed up in two names: Makatea and Mataiva. The phosphate resources of the Makatea atoll were mined from 1908 to 1966 (Decoudras et al., 2005). Those of the Mataiva deposit, which remain unexploited to date, have been the subject of various studies but the operational plan was summarily rejected by the atoll’s inhabitants. The limited mining on Makatea atoll had an onerous local impact — particularly in environmental terms. It was based on a narrow mindset that cared little for the particularities of the territory or the sustainability of the implemented model.

7Meanwhile, from 1966 to 1996, military nuclear tests were conducted in Mururoa and in Fangataufa, an atoll in the Tuamotu archipelago, by the Pacific testing centre based in Tahiti (Mawyer, forthcoming). The creation of this centre (located at the end of a strategic mineral chain) went hand in hand with transfers from the French government that drove modernisation and economic growth while encouraging the development of a system based on annual payments and clientelism; this system has resisted conversion to a more socially and environmentally sustainable economy since testing ceased in 1996.

8The lessons learned from all of this concern the environmental consequences, the non-participatory and very opaque way that the policies are implemented and the resulting clientelistic forms of redistribution, among other things. The experience gained could be built on to contribute to a future strategy for development of French Polynesia’s mineral resources (a strategy known under the acronym SDMPF in French). This expert group review provides Polynesian and French government officials with the information they need to guide strategic thinking and make policy decisions prior to any commercial development of deep-sea mineral resources which, given the current state of knowledge and technology, seems unlikely within the next 10 to 20 years.

The wider context: the scramble to the sea

9The second contextual point is what is referred to as the “scramble to the sea” and its resources. This race has intensified over the past twenty years or so and especially affects the “sea of islands” (Hau’ofa, 1993) and “the people of the sea” (D’arcy, 2006) that make up the South Pacific. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (also known as the Montego Bay Convention), signed on 10 December 1982, created “exclusive economic zones” (EEZ), which determined the conditions for extending the continental shelf; it constitutes the cornerstone of this movement at the international level. The International Seabed Authority (ISA/AIFM - Autorité internationale des fonds marins) was founded in 1994 under the aegis of the United Nations to organise and monitor activities relating to deep-sea mineral resources, including the associated activities of exploration and transport in the international seabed area (outside the EEZ). This reinforces the international regulatory system, the development of which is another result of this “scramble to the sea”.

10It is a race driven by a vision of vast stretches of unappropriated, untamed ocean, a sort of mare nullius, and was the justification for implementing a system of borders and colonising marine territories that were considered as being in an institutional void (Chauveau et al., 2004). It involves a diverse set of strategies and objectives.

11The discourse underlying it often emphasises environmental protection, but there are also obvious economic (mineral resources, fishing zones and quotas, etc.) and political issues.

12The same applies at the European Union level, where two development objectives are expressed, but it is unclear how they dovetail with one another or contribute to sustainable development:

  • Blue growth: a long-term European Commission strategy4 aiming to support sustainable growth in the marine and maritime sectors as a whole. However, this programme does not mention the Pacific;
  • Green growth: based on a low-carbon, resource-efficient approach together with the transition to a circular economy; this will be the subject of some key proposals5 (following a call for projects in late 2015).

13When it comes to the potential exploitation of deep-sea mineral resources in the Pacific, various challenges overlap.

14It is clearly an economic issue, one that raises the question of whether it is worthwhile for the public authorities first to identify and then, if the economic potential is confirmed, develop the deep-sea mineral resources and distribute the wealth generated among the stakeholders. The mineral commodities sector is capital- and technology-intensive. There is a current trend toward concentrating business in the hands of a small circle of multinationals and a flourishing, dynamic and fast-moving sector of junior companies; public-private partnerships, such as CODELCO in Chile or KGHM in Poland, also continue to exist. Moreover, the sector has seen the arrival of companies operating in a non-transparent manner, funded by private capital or directed by countries whose practices in the areas of governance, transparency, and social or environmental responsibility are not always of the highest standards. There is also a high degree of uncertainty in the mining context, generated by the volatility of commodity prices, rapidly developing technologies that use minerals and metals, and the many risks specific to the mineral industry, including the unbridled financialisation of the global economy and future energy prices.

15In this wider context, what consequences might a mining boom bring for the economies of these small islands and their populations? There is no answer at this stage, given the many technical, economic, social and political unknowns, even though the very limited data available seem to point to a very high potential for the polymetallic crusts.

Figure 2. Marine Protected Areas in French Polynesia.
© AMP

16The environmental issues are also important. Available data and information on deep-sea ecosystems are still quite fragmentary. The creation of very large protected marine areas, under pressure from major international NGOs among others, is a factor that will clearly impact deep-sea mining.

17Ultimately, regardless of whether the scramble to the sea aims to protect the ocean or develop its resources, it is also subject to political and geostrategic objectives that may have more to do with short-term tactical aims (economic profit or meeting international targets for protected areas) than a longer-term strategy (spanning 10 to 20 years) that would require an unwavering vision and consistent political choices.

18Several island nations in the Pacific have signed up for this race, notable examples being Papua New Guinea’s involvement in the Solwara seafloor sulphide mining project (Nautilus Minerals), the 2015 call for tenders by the Cook Islands for exploration permits in its exclusive economic zone, and the participation of 16 Pacific nations in the Deep-Sea Minerals Project 2011-2015, initiated by the Secretariat of the Pacific Community and the European Union.

  • 6 With particular reference to goal number 14: “Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and ma (...)

19For these programmes and initiatives, the deep-sea mineral resources are both a strength, because of the potential they represent, and a weakness, because of the many unknowns involved in evaluating and exploiting them, and because of their potential impact on reaching the UN sustainable development goals adopted in September 20156. This same applies in French Polynesia: the questions that the governments put to IRD pertain to overlapping territorial, national, regional and global issues on the one hand, and to strategic decisions about development models on the other. Ultimately, what is at issue is preparation for the future.

A joint request from French Polynesia and the French government

20The request for this expert group review is the third contextual level that needs to be explained. It is in fact is a dual request, coming from both French Polynesia and the French government.

21It is based on a seeming paradox. On the one hand, the existence of deep-sea mineral resources needs to be confirmed, described and assessed with a view to exploiting these resources and boosting the territory’s economy. On the other hand, it was necessary to do away with any mirage of a supposed treasure buried under the sea, the exploitation of which would cure all the socio-economic ills plaguing the territory. This paradox created a productive tension that shaped the work of the panel of experts, requiring it to consider the facts from both angles. In its work, the panel was careful to utilise and synthesise the available information in the areas of anthropology, economics, the environment, law, geoscience and technology in order to provide input for public policy-making.

22The expert review group highlights the world class potential of the polymetallic crusts in the French Polynesian EEZ while emphasising the risks their exploitation would involve. It also underscores the need to deepen knowledge before making any development decisions.

23Instead of merely stating the facts, the panel of experts was also asked to issue recommendations, in accordance with the model for expert group reviews developed by IRD. The dual French Polynesia/French government request comes with an explicit question on the jurisdiction of each of the two bodies. Looking beyond the technical response from the legal specialists on the panel of experts, it is public policy that is at stake.

  • 7 Passage from the terms of the request for this expert group review addressed to IRD by French Poly (...)

24The request includes 1) an exhaustive summary of the “state of knowledge” on deep-sea mineral resources, 2) a summary of recent advances in “knowledge, protocols and methods, technology, and associated effects relating to the prospecting and exploitation of sub-ocean mineral resources”, 3) an “exploratory roadmap making it possible to fully understand the challenges implicit in exploiting these resources in the medium to long term (e.g. mapping, pilot sites, investments, processing industry, local benefits and risks) and, if necessary, to lay the groundwork for the drafting of guidelines for sustainable exploitation of sub-ocean mineral resources in French Polynesia7 .

25As the request involves a downstream element – towards policies laying the groundwork for guidelines – this resulted in the formulation of a set of ordered, explicit, prioritised and detailed recommendations. The number of recommendations was purposely limited so as not to become incomprehensible. Each recommendation is divided into the following points: rationale, timeframe (short, medium or long term: these terms being explained in the recommendations), specific actions, constraints and conditions, links with other recommendations, and references to chapters in the full report.

26In terms of public policy, the expert group review provides analyses and recommendations covering two very distinct levels:

  • “individual” exploration and exploitation projects;
  • the policy for developing deep-sea mineral resources in French Polynesia, which would act as the framework for future projects.

The method for the expert group review

27In response to the request analysed in the preceding section, the resulting expert group review follows the original format created by IRD and described above. It should be noted that the topic of deep-sea mineral resources was recently addressed as part of a joint scientific review undertaken by CNRS and IFREMER that focused on the environmental impact of the exploitation of these resources (Dyment et al., 2014). This provided us with a very useful database and some valuable discussions.

28The differences between the two initiatives are clear and they help place in context the methods of the expert group review presented here. The work coordinated by CNRS and IFREMER, upon request from the Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy (MEDDE) and the Ministry of Public Education, Higher Education and Research (MENESR) had a global geographic scope but, in terms of disciplines, it was limited to earth and natural sciences and went no further than describing the current situation. The expert group review sponsored by French Polynesia and the French government is geographically limited (though that does not prevent comparisons from being drawn) but covers a wide range of disciplines (e.g. anthropology, biology, law, economics, geoscience, mining engineering, geography and sociology) and its remit includes formulating recommendations.

29Traditionally, an expert group review is seen as the process of “producing specific information to be acted upon” (Lascoumes, 2002: 369). However, this expert group review sits at the interface between science and policy, bringing the two together in a way that “has become extremely important with the technification of society and public administration” (ibid.: 371). This involves providing thorough recommendations and, ultimately, putting forward a framework to facilitate the drafting of guidelines for exploiting deep-sea mineral resources in French Polynesia. As such, and contrary to popular belief that expert group reviews simply mobilise knowledge, these reviews constitute a hybrid exercise that produces both knowledge and opinions (regulatory science). and sometimes contribute to the formulation of the request itself, which is often not fully developed at the outset (Jasanoff, 2012). This position is further reinforced by referring to the normative aspect of the law and the uncertainty and lack of knowledge about the baseline situation (of the resource, the locations and the stakeholders involved) and about the impact of future decisions (i.e. whether to explore/exploit deep-sea mineral resources).

30It seemed appropriate to set up a multidisciplinary scientific panel in response to the request, to explore differences of opinion and encourage collaboration in order to produce a cross-cutting analysis. Mutual recognition of each other’s disciplinary expertise, the diversity of professional experiences and positions held by the experts, the shared scientific ethics and a strong sense of mutual respect enabled the panel to produce its analyses and recommendations.

31This expert group review resulted in two distinct documents:

  • First this hardcopy summary report which is intended primarily for the policy-makers, leaders and stakeholders in the decision-making sphere, and anyone looking for access to the key information. This report highlights the main points of the analysis, describes the policy options and provides recommendations.
  • Second, the experts’ full contributions which form the basis for the summary report and are available in digital format on the USB drive included with this document. The whole is divided into 24 detailed chapters written according to the rules for scientific writing. They are grouped into five sections. After an introduction (I-0) accompanied by a glossary (I-00) presenting the context and phases of a mining project, the first section lays out the state of knowledge for the deep-sea mineral potential of French Polynesia and examines its commercial possibilities (I-1 to I-6); the second covers governance challenges from a legal, institutional and socio-anthropological point of view (II-1 to II-6); the third assesses the existing technology available for deep-sea mineral exploration and exploitation while describing current trends and needs in the area (III-1 to III-5); the fourth covers the environment surrounding the possible deep-sea mining activity, looking at the functioning of the relevant ecosystems and use of marine areas (IV-1 to IV-4); and the last section (V) takes a cross-cutting view, reporting on current projects exploiting deep-sea mineral resources in other parts of the world.

Structure of the summary report

32The summary report is divided into six parts, plus an introduction:

  • the first part lays out the main characteristics and phases of a mining project in order to explain the overall priorities and to standardise the terminology;
  • the second part describes the state of knowledge of French Polynesia’s mineral assets and potential, and the natural and social environment in which they exist;
  • the third part discusses current economic thought on the identified mineral assets through the use of scenarios; these are preceded by an overview of markets for the relevant metals and followed by a discussion of the sustainability of developing deep-sea mining in French Polynesia;
  • the fourth part reviews existing and desirable technological developments;
  • the fifth highlights the challenges that exploiting a deep-sea mineral deposit would raise in terms of regulations and democratic, participatory governance;
  • the conclusion uses all this as the basis for discussion on the public policy to be envisioned for potential development of deep-sea mineral resources in French Polynesia.

Notes

3 A price super cycle is a long cycle with an increase, up to a certain threshold, and then a decrease, until the price floor is reached. Often associated with commodities, super cycles may also be found as part of a historic sequence of events in the development/rebuilding of a national economy, such as the incredibly rapid growth of the Chinese economy.

4 Available online: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0494:FIN:FR:PDF

5 View the calls for projects published as part of the H2020 programme in late 2015, e.g. https://ec.europa.eu/eip/raw-materials/en/content/environmentally-responsible-deep-sea-mining.

6 With particular reference to goal number 14: “Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources”, and the goals on the energy transition (goal 7) and sustainable industrialisation (goal 9).

7 Passage from the terms of the request for this expert group review addressed to IRD by French Polynesia and the French government.

Table des illustrations

Légende Figure 1. Bathymetric chart of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of French Polynesia.© IRD/Mapping Service
URL http://books.openedition.org/irdeditions/docannexe/image/9588/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 644k
Légende Figure 2. Marine Protected Areas in French Polynesia.© AMP
URL http://books.openedition.org/irdeditions/docannexe/image/9588/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 375k

Le texte et les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont sous Licence OpenEdition Books, sauf mention contraire.

Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search