Negotiating the fate of an ecosystem you hardly understand has a subtle, unsettling quality. At the 31st session of the International Seabed Authority, a body established to regulate deep-sea mining in international waters, delegates once again convened in a building under fluorescent lights in Kingston, Jamaica, to discuss an environment that none of them will ever be able to see firsthand. About 200 meters below the surface is where the deep seabed starts. The majority of its inhabitants have never been given names.
Nevertheless, there is growing pressure to start removing manganese, nickel, and cobalt from those depths. These minerals are found in smartphones, electric car batteries, and the green energy transition itself. The pitch is alluring. On the surface, it makes sense. However, if you dig a little deeper, the picture quickly becomes more complex.
Prior to the Kingston session, UN human rights experts issued a stern warning to member states, reminding them that the ocean floor is the common heritage of humanity under international law and is not a resource waiting to be claimed. That is a powerful statement. It implies that those minerals cannot be owned by a single country or private company. Profits must be distributed fairly, particularly to developing countries. It’s a very idealistic legal framework, which may be the reason it continues to be subtly ignored when business interests are involved.
The fact that this isn’t an abstract governance debate for many communities worldwide is something that the most recent discussions seemed to overlook, or perhaps chose to ignore. The people of Small Island Developing States, indigenous peoples, and small-scale fishermen have a deeper appreciation for the ocean than just a philosophical one. They consume it. It shapes their cultures. Its health affects their livelihoods in ways that are hard to measure in a mining impact assessment. It’s difficult to ignore how infrequently those voices can be found in the official negotiation record.
Everyone should pause because the science itself is still genuinely unresolved. Commercial-scale mining at these depths, according to researchers, could release stored carbon, disperse hazardous plumes throughout seafloor habitats, and harm ecosystems that have developed over millions of years under intense pressure and almost complete darkness. These are conclusions from peer-reviewed research, not hypothetical worst-case scenarios created by activists. Both the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea have made it clear that states have legally binding obligations in this regard, obligations that call for extreme caution when irreversible harm is likely.
Beneath all of this is a larger irony. In the name of renewable energy, such as solar cells, wind turbines, and cleaner transportation, the minerals being extracted are mostly justified. However, the enormous amount of energy needed to mine at those depths contributes to greenhouse gas emissions, which exacerbate the very climate crisis that these technologies are intended to solve. It’s the kind of circular contradiction that keeps coming up in policy discussions even though it hardly ever survives contact with a spreadsheet.
It appears that urgency is being created more quickly than knowledge is being acquired as this process has developed over the past few years. This kind of industry was never intended to be regulated by the ISA. The lack of baseline data on deep-sea ecosystems, which would be crucial for assessing damage before it occurs, is openly acknowledged by scientists. The viability of the economics has already been questioned by a number of banks and institutional investors. It is worthwhile to endure the capital markets’ reluctance.
It is not possible to conquer the deep ocean. It is one of the planet’s most delicate ecosystems, according to UN experts, and there is already a legal duty to protect it. Whether those seated in Kingston, or anywhere else these decisions are made, are actually paying attention is the question. The evidence is conflicting thus far.
