By David Song
New science is forcing regulators to confront the long-term ecological and economic costs of deep-sea mining.
Deep-sea mining is the process of extracting minerals from over 200 meters below the ocean surface–specifically, minerals such as cobalt, nickel, manganese, copper and rare Earth metals, which are essential components of new technologies such as lithium-ion batteries. It has often been framed as this question: can industry minimize ecological harm enough to justify exploitation? Recent research is pushing the debate in a different direction. For a long time, the general consensus was that much remains unknown; and while it still is, recent scientific research has made progress on sharpening the potential long-term impacts. While regulators had used the uncertainty around deep sea mining to sideline environmental concerns, new scientific developments are forcing them to confront them indirectly through their economic ramifications.
The ISA, established by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, has spent 10 years developing regulations for overseeing seabed mineral exploitation in international waters. For mining in international waters beyond any countries’ EEZ, only ISA has jurisdiction to authorize activities. After failing to set standards for commercial deep-sea mining in July 2023, it planned to finalize the rules by its July 2025 session. However, negotiations at ISA 30th session ended without consensus, and it is unclear when, if ever, the regulations may be ratified.
New evidence weakens the assumption that damage is local and temporary. Seafloor disturbance tracks and altered communities can persist for decades, and industrial-scale test mining has documented measurable biodiversity losses among sediment-dwelling fauna. If recovery is multi-decadal (or longer), then permission authorizes long-term ecological conversion.
Studies on biodiversity have surfaced in the 30th session of the ISA through an economic reframing. Entire food webs also impacted through bottom-up trophic effects, sediment plumes, and industrial waste, with potentially significant economic impacts on the fishing industry. In addition, the polymetallic nodules being mined are central to ocean trophic structures, directly impacting stalked glass sponges, which support marine life. Pertaining to Regulation 64, members proposed “environmental costs encompassing…the future value of marine genetic resources, existence and bequest values for remote and unknown biodiversity.”
Carbon cycling concerns are the hardest to price, yet they too are beginning to appear. Disturbing deep-sea sediments may mobilize stored carbon and release toxins, potentially affecting climate regulation through mechanisms that remain uncertain. These were referenced in the session through royalties on “carbon emissions, and impacts on carbon sequestration by benthic and pelagic ecosystems.” The ISA can postpone quantification, yet it cannot credibly claim costs are negligible while acknowledging they may involve carbon emissions and altered sequestration.
Underneath Regulations 64, a short comment was written: “Council President Laki requested that interested parties discuss this regulation on the sidelines of the meeting.” Very clearly, the ISA does not want these changes to be made, as they would have to clearly define the value impact of mining operations on biodiversity and energy cycling, which would require significant investment into research to do accurately.
Leave a Reply