Nations to Discuss Future of Deep-Sea Mining Amid a Changing Policy Landscape

World governments must grapple with a shifting global political scene when they convene this month to continue discussing the future of an untested extractive industry that could affect the health of the world’s ocean.

The International Seabed Authority (ISA) – the entity responsible for overseeing future deep-sea mining in areas beyond national jurisdiction – has met several times a year since 2019 for governments to negotiate rules and regulations to govern potential exploitation activities that could occur in these waters. When the Council, the ISA’s executive body, convenes 9 to 20 March at its headquarters in Kingston, Jamaica, it will do so amid growing pressure to advance commercial deep‑sea mining, alongside the implications of a newly binding ocean treaty that is reshaping high seas governance.

New treaty could affect future deep-sea mining

Now that the Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction – shorthanded as the BBNJ Agreement – entered into force on 17 January, countries have committed to advance the creation of marine protected areas in the two-thirds of the ocean that lie outside national borders, with an aim to conserve the vulnerable marine life they harbor. Given the impacts of existing marine industries such as shipping and fishing, the BBNJ Agreement clearly states the need for cooperation and coordination with other international and sectoral bodies that manage those activities. It is equally important that ISA member countries do not view seabed mining in isolation and begin to discuss how that landmark agreement might interact with current deep-sea mining exploration and any future activities under discussion, including those related to potential resource development that could affect ocean ecosystems. 

Legal experts have determined that countries developing the ISA’s deep-sea mining regulations must consider and, where appropriate, incorporate other international laws, including other conservation commitments – namely those connected to the BBNJ Agreement. For example, the regulations, once adopted, would require mining contractors to prepare an environmental impact assessment for consideration by the ISA before any deep‑sea mining activities could move forward. But parties to the BBNJ Agreement are required to ensure this process follows minimum standards aligned with a provision laid out by the treaty, which could in turn help mitigate threats to the marine environment.

During its March session, the ISA Council may consider a proposal to discuss how the ISA and its member countries can cooperate with the BBNJ Agreement’s governance systems and processes. The treaty is designed to function alongside institutions that already oversee different maritime activities within their legal mandates, including the ISA and the International Maritime Organization, among others. Any future ISA decision should align with the agreement’s conservation goals.

Push to mine at odds with agency’s commitments

Last year, a private mining company sought U.S. approval to commercially recover deep-sea minerals in areas of the Clarion-Clipperton Fracture Zone, a vast region of the northeast Pacific that lies beyond national jurisdiction. The application was submitted to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under the U.S. Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act of 1980, a domestic law adopted before the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) entered into force and established the ISA.

While the U.S. has not ratified UNCLOS and is not a member of the ISA, it has been an active observer to meetings of the international body. Two ISA member countries – the Republic of Nauru and the Kingdom of Tonga – each have an agreement linked to subsidiaries of the mining company that’s applying through the U.S. law. These subsidiaries also have a contract with the ISA to explore (but not exploit) areas in the Clarion-Clipperton Fracture Zone.

ISA members and mining contractors have obligations to ensure that any mining takes place within an ISA-approved regulatory framework. Following concerns about potential mining outside the ISA framework, the Council triggered an investigation into whether the ISA’s contractors (including any subsidiaries) and their sponsoring governments are complying with their legal obligations under UNCLOS and their contract agreements with the ISA.

Rules remain far from complete

ISA Council members will continue their ongoing negotiations on draft regulations to govern any future deep-sea mining in areas beyond national jurisdiction. This is the third such version of the text in as many years. While countries have made progress towards reaching agreement on certain portions of the regulations, there are still numerous gaps in the core regulations, including many documented in a study that Pew co-authored in Marine Policy in 2024. The gaps include fundamental issues ranging from what constitutes permissible environmental harm; to compliance, monitoring and enforcement mechanisms; to how to address underwater cultural heritage.

Nations also have not yet discussed a significant number of subsidiary instruments, or complementary rules – called standards and guidelines – that are required by the ISA to accompany the main regulations and would govern important topics such as environmental impact assessments, emergency response and contingency plans and permissible levels of toxic substances.

Furthermore, a wide range of additional policies, procedures and institutional structures is necessary to ensure the effective implementation of the core regulations, as well as the associated standards and guidelines. Many of these do not exist or have barely been considered, including the mechanisms for equitably sharing benefits – such as profits from future deep-sea mineral extraction – among all nations, as well as a whistle-blowing mechanism for reporting any concerns about the activities of a contractor or even the ISA itself. It is not realistic that the ISA can complete the complex task of finalizing these regulations any time soon.

Given the potential risks mining poses to species and ecosystems, as well as to other marine industries, such as fisheries, it is critical that countries proceed deliberately and avoid hastily authorizing novel and untested deep‑sea mining activities. That’s why 40 countries and dozens of private companies, non-governmental organizations and scientists are calling for a moratorium on deep-sea mining. A moratorium would give the ISA time to collect sufficient scientific and baseline data to better inform the development of regulations and prevent irrevocable damage. The deep sea is one of the largest, most fragile and least understood ecosystems on Earth, and ISA member countries should not squander the opportunity to safeguard this common heritage for generations far into the future.

Julian Jackson leads the seabed mining work for The Pew Charitable Trusts’ ocean governance project.