What’s happening with the movement to stop seabed mining?
Despite industry momentum, moratorium backers are hopeful heading into 2024
Seabed mining companies seem to have the wind at their backs.
The Metals Company has wrapped up its baseline environmental assessment and is poised to submit the first ever application to mine in international waters.
Meanwhile, a smattering of countries are inching toward deep seabed mining (DSM) in their own waters—the Cook Islands, Japan, and China, to name a few. The most recent announcement came from Norway. The oil and gas giant will allow DSM exploration, a move hailed by mining firms.
“This is the decision we’ve been waiting for,” said Walter Sognnes, CEO of the Norway-based Loke Marine Minerals, in an interview with the Spotlight. “We’ve gone from an industry that might happen, to where the government has a strong willingness to see if we can make this industry happen.”
But for some outside the industry, the reaction is less triumphant.
“It is a really concerning decision,” said Emma Wilson, a Policy Officer with the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition, which opposes DSM.
Mining firms are quick to point out that their “exploration” means learning more about the mysterious deep ocean—and more science is good, right?
“It lays the ground to move toward exploitation,” Wilson told the Spotlight. “The mining companies that will be investing in exploration activities will at some point want to get a return on their investments by gathering minerals and selling them.”
Despite the apparent headwinds, Wilson is actually enthused about the prospects for a moratorium in 2024. Because now that DSM is suddenly front-page news, more people are learning about it. And they’re pressuring their governments.
Path to a pause on DSM?
Wilson wants to halt DSM before it begins. That was once an obscure mission. But these days, Wilson finds her organization far from alone.
“If you look at the movement in favor of a moratorium on deep-sea mining, it’s grown exponentially,” said Wilson. “Eighteen months ago, there was no opposition from [national] governments. Now there are 24 governments saying no to deep-sea mining. And we’re expecting that number to grow.”
(Note: the 24 governments Wilson cites all mean something slightly different by “moratorium”—from a temporary pause to an all-out ban—but Wilson is correct that nations working to slow DSM’s roll is a new thing.)
All told, the moratorium movement enjoys a widening base of support. The Deep-Sea Mining Science Statement, calling for a pause on DSM until more is learned about its potential impacts, has garnered more than 800 signatures from marine experts. Major manufacturers—including BMW, Volvo, Volkswagen, Rivian, Renault, Google and Samsung—have all pledged not to use ocean-mined metals. A group of financial institutions worth more than $3.5 trillion has called for a halt to DSM. Even some celebrities are jumping into the fray.
The arguments for a DSM moratorium often include:
The deep ocean is poorly mapped and we know little about biodiversity there; mining could harm species before we even know they exist.
Messing with seabed sediments could contaminate fisheries.
We can get enough metal elsewhere, through improved land-based mining and recycling.
It’s a questionable financial investment.
We shouldn’t allow DSM until, at the very least, we can agree on rules for it.
Each of these arguments holds some scientific merit, which I won’t get into here beyond the links above. And these points can be blended and tailored to resonate with the preoccupation of any potential stakeholder.
Together, these arguments have been strong enough to nucleate a real movement with real political influence. And that’s why moratorium advocates like Wilson remain hopeful.
But entering a year of pivotal decisions at the International Seabed Authority, that hope will be put to the test.
(Header image of Casper Octopus, found at greater than 4,000 meters depth in the Pacific Ocean, courtesy NOAA. Public domain.)