|
Foreign & Commonwealth Office London SW1A 2AH From the Secretary of State 5 February 1997
|
 |
Greenpeace
Thank you for your letter of 24 January, in which you expressed your concerns about the future of the Rockall Trough and West of Shetland areas. Thank you also for sending me an advance copy of the interesting paper on Competing Claims to Sovereignty and Maritime Jurisdiction in the Rockall Plateau area, prepared by Durham University.
I should at the outset make it clear that the delimitation of maritime boundaries (for which my Department has responsibility) is a separate issue from the exploitation of natural resources (in this case you primarily have in mind the hydro-carbon deposits lying under the seabed) which is the responsibility of the President of the Board of Trade.
In your letter you ask about the aims, objectives and context of our negotiations with Denmark/the Faroes. Article 83 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea enjoins all states with opposite or adjacent coasts to work for negotiated agreement on the delimitation of the Continental Shelf between them, failing which to seek a settlement by recourse to third parties. As the Durham University paper notes both the United Kingdom and Denmark/Faroes share a wish to achieve a negotiated settlement if at all possible. Agreement with Denmark/the Faroes would (apart from some minor areas) virtually complete the delimitation of the UK's Continental Shelf boundaries. It would also, by clearing up jurisdictional uncertainty in the area, enable both sides to exercise more efficiently their obligations to protect the marine environment.
You also comment on the Continental Shelf in the area of Rockall. The United Kingdom government has no doubt about the United Kingdom's sovereignty over the Island, but the United Kingdom's sovereign rights over the Continental Shelf west of Rockall are based upon the natural prolongation of Continental Crust from the mainland of Scotland in accordance with Article 76 of UNCLOS and not from Rockall itself. Seismic work in the 1980's commissioned by the Oil and Gas Division of the DTI (which has been published) proved this case to the UK's satisfaction.
In this context you also raise the question of the seventeenth round of off-shore petroleum licensing. This is of course, a matter for the President of the Board of Trade. I can, however, tell you that the 200 blocks to which you refer are being offered for exploration and, if economic discoveries are made, development as part of the seventeenth round of off-shore petroleum licensing in which a total of 275 blocks are available for licence. Blocks offered for licence in the Round are in areas of the Continental Shelf that are not subject to any competing claims for jurisdiction. I cannot accept your statement that the seventeenth round has been taken forward in "great haste and secretiveness". The details of the tranches of blocks on offer were announced by Ministers in November 1995, but the closing dates for applications is 25 March 1997. The announcement of the blocks on offer was preceded by a lengthy consultation exercise which included the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, fishing organisation, Government Departments and a number of environmental groups. The results of the consultation exercise were taken into account in deciding which blocks should be offered for licence. In some cases this meant that blocks were not offered for licence while in others, blocks were offered but with strict conditions attached to protect any environmental sensitivities present as well as the interests of other users of the sea.
The Wildlife and Countryside Links Oil and Gas Consortium, which represented the views of a number of environmental bodies, including Greenpeace, objected to 54 of the 671 nominated blocks being included in the Round, Only 2 of the blocks objected to have been offered for licence (these blocks are not in the Atlantic Frontier part of the Round). Should a licence be awarded for these blocks, strict conditions will be attached to reflect the particular local sensitivities. Finally, the oil and gas industry, through the UK Offshore Operators Association, has collaborated to prepare a series of environmental screening studies for the areas that have been offered for licensing in the 17th Round. Applicants for licences are expected to use the information from the reports in their licence submissions.
On the wider questions raised in your letter, I have seen your letter of 21 August to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's reply of 26 September. The Prime Minister's letter sets out the government's views very clearly. I would only wish to add that the concept underpinning the UK Sustainable Development Strategy is the need to reconcile society's wish for economic development to secure higher standards of living, now and for future generations, with their concurrent wish to protect and enhance their environment, now and for their children. There is no reason to suggest that proper use of hydrocarbon resources is incompatible with sustainable development. The UK strategy makes clear that for minerals (including fossil fuels) the key sustainability issues are the use and management of mineral resources and the environmental constraints placed on the availability of resources in the longer term. I see no reason to doubt that the development of hydro-carbon reserves west of Shetland can be undertaken in a way which has no significant adverse effect on the environment.
Finally, you should know that I intend to ensure that the Foreign Office remains fully committed to international action on climate change. It is right that Britain should show leadership in this vital area. We will continue to do so.
Yours sincerely
 |