Nations of the world face a conundrum. Transitioning to a green economy requires some metals that aren’t abundant or are hard to access. Mining for them on land has done untold damage to habitats and despoiled water and soil.
So, when a rich source of those same metals is identified in the deepest reaches of the ocean, where little is yet understood about its ancient ecosystem, what’s the best course of action?
A debate about mining the seabed has been going on for more than 60 years, with initial lofty ambitions to use the seabed’s mineral wealth, which lies beyond national jurisdictions, for the benefit of all mankind.
Fast forward to 2021, when the Pacific nation of Nauru decided to force the pace at the International Seabed Authority, a U.N.-associated body whose role is to come up with the rules, regulations and procedures to govern deep-sea mining, while also protecting the oceans.
Nauru invoked a so-called two-year rule, enforcing a deadline of 9 July 2023 on the ISA to finalise a mining code or face a situation where potentially unregulated mining could take place. Nauru is sponsoring Nauru Ocean Resources Inc (NORI), a subsidiary of Canadian firm, The Metals Company, to explore a nickel- and manganese-rich area of the Pacific known as the Clarion-Clipperton Zone. These resources are held in in polymetallic nodules that have been built up over millions of years. NORI’s remote-controlled collector system moves over the seabed picking up the nodules, which are pumped to the surface for processing.
The July deadline has come and gone; rules are not in place, and the loophole remains.
Pradeep Singh, an expert on ocean governance and fellow at the Research Institute for Sustainability in Potsdam, Germany, argues that setting the clock ticking stimulated resistance against mining the seabed, and 21 nations are now calling for a moratorium, or at least a precautionary pause, alongside the International Union for Conservation of Nature, financial institutions and companies such as Volvo and BMW.
France is the only country to call for an outright ban (a volte face from its position in 2021). The UK and Norway are among those pushing for the opening up of the seabed to mining. So is China, which holds five exploration licences and is now one of the biggest financial contributors to the ISA.
The United States isn’t a member of the ISA, though it has its own legislation on deep-sea mining. Last month, U.S. lawmakers introduced bills calling for a moratorium on deep sea mining in both U.S. and international waters.
The ISA itself has also come under the spotlight, with questions about its procedures, transparency and access being raised by observers. Hours of discussions, timetabled to be open, were held behind closed doors, while access for journalists was restricted.
Getting a discussion on any kind of pause to deep sea mining proved impossible when the ISA’s assembly of 167 nations, plus the EU, met in Jamaica last week. Substantive discussions were stymied because at the outset China refused to agree to the provisional agenda for the week.
This was because Germany asked for an overdue review of the ISA’s performance, while Costa Rica, Vanuatu, Chile and France wanted to include a discussion about protecting the marine environment. The Chinese delegation eventually gave in to Germany’s request, but held out until the final hour of the week’s meeting to agree the assembly might be able to discuss marine protection next year.
The ISA’s council (of 36 member states) had earlier agreed to press on with formulating the rule book, with the hope of completing it by 2025. Singh thinks even that is optimistic. “I don’t see the assembly looking at the actual text of the regulations before 2025. And I don’t think 2025 is also realistic for the council, but let’s see.”