Policy Watch: After fraught global meeting, future of deep

A Greenpeace activist holds a sign as he confronts the deep sea mining vessel Hidden Gem, commissioned by Canadian miner The Metals Company, as it returned to port from eight weeks of test mining in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone between Mexico and Hawaii, off the coast of Manzanillo, Mexico November 16, 2022. REUTERS/Gustavo Graf

August 3 - 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.

Workers are seen on the production line of lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicles at a factory in Huzhou, Zhejiang province, China. REUTERS

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, while some members of Congress urged the President to consider deep sea mining..

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.”

Gerard Barron, chief executive of The Metals Company, says his firm will not submit a mining application before next July, when the council will have had another four sessions in which to work on regulations. “What we wanted to do is to take a little bit of heat out of it, to say …. ‘don't be looking over your shoulder’.”

In the meantime, the company will go back to the exploration area, from where it collected 3,000 tonnes of nodules last year, to assess recovery rates of species. “We will spend a lot more time wearing (out) our shoe leather to present our results as they become available, just so people can get a sense of the scientific-based evidence that is going (in) to build that final application.”

The arguments for deep sea mining hinge on the vast amounts of metals such as nickel, cobalt, manganese and rare earth metals required for batteries and other technologies to drive a green economy. Proponents assert they can be made available with less destruction than on land, where mining has led to deforestation, human rights abuses, and the pollution of water and soil from mining wastes. “It's a horrible set of impacts. And so, we need to be prepared to look at new frontiers,” says Barron.

But set against those arguments are concerns about damage to carbon sinks, to poorly understood ecosystems and species, as well as disruption to food webs and fisheries. It’s only in the last 10 years or so that the species richness of the seabed has been revealed.

The impact of climate change is forecast to move species such as tuna into the very areas targeted for deep-sea mining. No one knows what potential benefits to humanity could be lost.

“It's like the first library of marine genetic resources with (a) vast potential societal value. So, to really fully cost out the impacts – the cost benefit – of a mining operation, you should also account for the opportunity cost of what you would lose in terms of the biodiversity, what do you lose in terms of potential medicines or industrial enzymes?” suggests Muriel Rabone, a biologist in the deep sea research group at the Natural History Museum in London.

Workers sort batteries at a lithium-ion battery recycling firm in Kingston, Ontario. REUTERS/Lars Hagberg

Barron estimates that by the time its Pacific mining zone is fully developed it could provide some $10 billion in royalties, for the benefit of developing nations. In addition, an environmental compensation fund has been proposed as part of the mining code being developed by the ISA.

However, research by financial think tank Planet Tracker suggests that trying to restore damage to deep sea ecosystems would cost so much that neither companies or government could pay for it, with restoration of only 30% of potential deep sea mining concessions in international waters likely to cost more than the entire global defence budget.

When they mine on land, companies have to take account of land restoration, so should also account for it in the sea, says Francois Mosnier, Planet Tracker’s head of ocean programmes. “The mining code is currently saying that there will be a fund dedicated to … cover this restoration cost, provided that it's economically feasible, which is a little bit vague, but that's all we have for now. It could be that some states assume that no one's going to pay for that.”

Known damage versus unknown damage. It’s a very difficult call. Estimates of the volumes of metals that are going to be required for the green transition vary hugely. Technology is also advancing rapidly, with new battery chemistries that may reduce demand for some of the metals that are today seen as essential.

But as policymakers weigh the claims and counterclaims, they may want to consider one resource: the materials that have already been mined. Recycling them will also cut carbon emissions.

In a review last year, Europe’s science academies pointed to research suggesting that recycling of clean energy metals could meet a large chunk of Europe’ s needs by 2050.

New recycling techniques are being developed, including the use of micro-organisms, but early investment will have to be made so recycling capacity is available to process the anticipated growth in batteries and solar panels.

Investing in a circular economy could be the least damaging strategy of all.

Angeli Mehta is a science writer with a particular interest in the environment and sustainability. Previously, she produced programmes for BBC Current Affairs and has a research PHD. @AngeliMehta