By AFP
March 17, 2025
Activists rallied against deep sea mining outside the European Parliament in March 2023 - Copyright AFP/File Kenzo TRIBOUILLARD
Amélie BOTTOLLIER-DEPOIS
Several countries united with campaign groups Monday to call for caution in regulating the divisive practice of deep-sea mining at a meeting on the issue in Jamaica.
Members of the International Seabed Authority (ISA) are meeting in Kingston to thrash out the first mining code on deep-sea extraction that has faced accusations of imperiling marine ecosystems.
The clock is ticking because a metals company has said it will imminently submit an extraction license application, raising the prospect that their operations could go unregulated.
“We are still far away from any consensus on a final mining code,” said French envoy Olivier Guyonvarch, with the latest draft text still riddled with caveats highlighting lingering disagreement.
Costa Rica’s representative called for a “precautionary pause” as work continues on gathering data and establishing the legal framework.
The prospect of a pause has gained traction but is far from winning the backing of the ISA’s 169 member states.
“Environmental protection, however, does not mean abandoning exploitation,” countered China’s representative, saying that regulations could be further tailored as mining is carried out.
– ‘Planetary crisis’ –
The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea gives the ISA responsibility for regulating extraction of highly coveted seabed minerals that lie outside of national marine borders.
However, it also directs the organization to protect the little-understood marine environments.
The ISA Council, which currently only awards exploration licenses, has been negotiating for more than ten years over a mining code governing nickel, cobalt and copper extraction — key materials in the energy transition.
The painstaking talks have gained momentum since the activation of a clause allowing any company with national backing to apply for a license — even in the absence of a code — but several issues remain outstanding.
Though the riches of the international seabed are classified as “common heritage of mankind,” African countries fear they will miss out on benefits or even see their economies suffer.
Underwater extraction must “not come at the expense of Africa’s existing mining economies and their sustainable development aspirations,” the continent’s representative said.
Industry on the other hand has been highly critical of delays to the agreement of a code.
In a January letter to the ISA, several companies claiming to have collectively invested more than $2 billion in the development of extraction technology said they faced “escalating legal and financial risks.”
Among them was Nori — Nauru Ocean Resources Inc. — a subsidiary of Canadian firm The Metals Company. In June, it will submit the first application for extraction of “polymetallic nodules” — mineral deposits made up of multiple metals on the deep ocean floor.
Pacific island nation Nauru has given its official backing to Nori’s application, and is pressing the ISA to agree on a mechanism for reviewing and approving applications in the absence of a mining code.
Their request has been opposed by countries such as Chile who maintain the council had agreed rules would only be drafted after such an application is submitted.
“ISA Member States need to stand firm against the unacceptable pressure by an industry that risks wreaking irreparable damage on our ocean and exacerbating the planetary crisis,” Sofia Tsenikli, Deep-Sea Mining Moratorium Campaign Director at the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition (DSCC).
NGOs like the DSCC are placing hope in new ISA chief Leticia Carvalho, a Brazilian oceanographer who replaced Britain’s Michael Lodge after two terms at the helm, during which he was accused of favoring industry.
While the council has set itself the goal of finalizing the mining code this year, Carvalho called Monday for negotiators to make “significant progress” by July while raising the prospect of an amended timetable.
Why are proposed deep-sea mining rules so contentious?
By AFP
March 16, 2025
Infographic showing exploration areas licensed by the International Seabed Authority - Copyright AFP Pablo VERA
Amélie BOTTOLLIER-DEPOIS
After more than a decade of negotiations, a new round of talks to finalize a code to regulate deep-sea mining in international waters begins Monday in Jamaica, with hopes high for adoption this year.
The International Seabed Authority (ISA), an independent body established in 1994 under a UN convention, has been working since 2014 on the new rules for developing mineral resources on the ocean floor.
The huge task has gathered pace, under pressure from corporate concerns eager to cash in on the untapped minerals.
Canada’s The Metals Company plans to file the first commercial mining license request in June, through its subsidiary Nori (Nauru Ocean Resources Inc.), which hopes to extract polymetallic nodules from the Pacific.
Here is a look at the proposed rules, and why they have sparked intense debate:
– What does this mining code entail? –
Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the ISA must both oversee any exploration or mining of coveted resources (such as cobalt, nickel, or manganese) in international waters, and protect the marine environment.
For activists worried about the protection of hard-to-reach ocean ecosystems, this twin mandate is nonsensical. Some groups, and more and more countries, are asking for a moratorium on seabed mining.
With no consensus, the ISA-led negotiations have continued.
The ISA Council, made up of 36 of the authority’s 169 member states, will spend the next two weeks trying to bridge the gaps on finalizing the code.
They are working from a 250-page “consolidated text” already riddled with parenthetical changes, and comments on disagreements.
But then there are dozens of amendments filed by countries, companies and non-governmental organizations.
Emma Wilson of the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition told AFP there were “over 2,000 textual elements that are still being discussed — and that those debates were “not close to being resolved.”
– How would seabed mining work? –
Any entity wishing to obtain a contract to mine the ocean floor must be sponsored by a specific country.
Those applications for mining licenses would first go through the ISA’s legal and technical commission, which NGOs say is too pro-industry and opaque.
The commission would evaluate the financial, technical and environmental aspects of the proposed plans, and then make a recommendation to the ISA Council, the final decision-maker.
But some worry that rules already set by UNCLOS would make it too difficult to reject any favorable recommendations.
The draft code calls for initial contracts lasting 30 years, followed up with extensions of five years at a time.
– What about environmental protection? –
Potential mining companies must conduct a survey of the possible environmental risks of their activities, but details on these surveys are still up in the air, with negotiators not yet even agreed on how to define the terms.
More and more countries, along with NGOs, highlight that even the idea of surveying potential impact is effectively impossible, given the lack of scientific data about the zones.
And some Pacific states insist that the code explicitly state the need to protect “underwater cultural heritage,” but that is under debate.
– What about compliance? –
The draft text calls for inspections and evaluations for deep-sea mining companies, but how such a system would work is under debate. Some even think such mechanisms are ultimately not all that feasible.
– Will there be profit-sharing? –
Under UNCLOS, resources on the ocean floor are seen as the “common heritage of mankind.”
The mining code under consideration stipulates that each company must pay royalties to the ISA based on the value of the metals. But what percentage should they pay?
A working group has proposed royalties of anywhere from three to 12 percent, while African states believe 40 percent is more just.
By AFP
March 16, 2025
Infographic showing exploration areas licensed by the International Seabed Authority - Copyright AFP Pablo VERA
Amélie BOTTOLLIER-DEPOIS
After more than a decade of negotiations, a new round of talks to finalize a code to regulate deep-sea mining in international waters begins Monday in Jamaica, with hopes high for adoption this year.
The International Seabed Authority (ISA), an independent body established in 1994 under a UN convention, has been working since 2014 on the new rules for developing mineral resources on the ocean floor.
The huge task has gathered pace, under pressure from corporate concerns eager to cash in on the untapped minerals.
Canada’s The Metals Company plans to file the first commercial mining license request in June, through its subsidiary Nori (Nauru Ocean Resources Inc.), which hopes to extract polymetallic nodules from the Pacific.
Here is a look at the proposed rules, and why they have sparked intense debate:
– What does this mining code entail? –
Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the ISA must both oversee any exploration or mining of coveted resources (such as cobalt, nickel, or manganese) in international waters, and protect the marine environment.
For activists worried about the protection of hard-to-reach ocean ecosystems, this twin mandate is nonsensical. Some groups, and more and more countries, are asking for a moratorium on seabed mining.
With no consensus, the ISA-led negotiations have continued.
The ISA Council, made up of 36 of the authority’s 169 member states, will spend the next two weeks trying to bridge the gaps on finalizing the code.
They are working from a 250-page “consolidated text” already riddled with parenthetical changes, and comments on disagreements.
But then there are dozens of amendments filed by countries, companies and non-governmental organizations.
Emma Wilson of the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition told AFP there were “over 2,000 textual elements that are still being discussed — and that those debates were “not close to being resolved.”
– How would seabed mining work? –
Any entity wishing to obtain a contract to mine the ocean floor must be sponsored by a specific country.
Those applications for mining licenses would first go through the ISA’s legal and technical commission, which NGOs say is too pro-industry and opaque.
The commission would evaluate the financial, technical and environmental aspects of the proposed plans, and then make a recommendation to the ISA Council, the final decision-maker.
But some worry that rules already set by UNCLOS would make it too difficult to reject any favorable recommendations.
The draft code calls for initial contracts lasting 30 years, followed up with extensions of five years at a time.
– What about environmental protection? –
Potential mining companies must conduct a survey of the possible environmental risks of their activities, but details on these surveys are still up in the air, with negotiators not yet even agreed on how to define the terms.
More and more countries, along with NGOs, highlight that even the idea of surveying potential impact is effectively impossible, given the lack of scientific data about the zones.
And some Pacific states insist that the code explicitly state the need to protect “underwater cultural heritage,” but that is under debate.
– What about compliance? –
The draft text calls for inspections and evaluations for deep-sea mining companies, but how such a system would work is under debate. Some even think such mechanisms are ultimately not all that feasible.
– Will there be profit-sharing? –
Under UNCLOS, resources on the ocean floor are seen as the “common heritage of mankind.”
The mining code under consideration stipulates that each company must pay royalties to the ISA based on the value of the metals. But what percentage should they pay?
A working group has proposed royalties of anywhere from three to 12 percent, while African states believe 40 percent is more just.
‘Dark oxygen’: a deep-sea discovery that has split scientists
By AFP
March 16, 2025
Polymetallic nodules and an abyssal urchin - Copyright National Oceanography Centre / Smartex project (NERC)/AFP/File Handout
Could lumpy metallic rocks in the deepest, darkest reaches of the ocean be making oxygen in the absence of sunlight?
Some scientists think so, but others have challenged the claim that so-called “dark oxygen” is being produced in the lightless abyss of the seabed.
The discovery — detailed last July in the journal Nature Geoscience — called into question long-held assumptions about the origins of life on Earth, and sparked intense scientific debate.
The findings were also consequential for mining companies eager to extract the precious metals contained within these polymetallic nodules.
Researchers said that potato-sized nodules could be producing enough electrical current to split seawater into hydrogen and oxygen, a process known as electrolysis.
This cast doubt on the long-established view that life was made possible when organisms started producing oxygen via photosynthesis, which requires sunlight, about 2.7 billion years ago.
“Deep-sea discovery calls into question the origins of life,” the Scottish Association for Marine Science said in a press release to accompany the publication of the research.
– Delicate ecosystem –
Environmentalists said the presence of dark oxygen showed just how little is known about life at these extreme depths, and supported their case that deep-sea mining posed unacceptable ecological risks.
“Greenpeace has long campaigned to stop deep sea mining from beginning in the Pacific due to the damage it could do to delicate, deep sea ecosystems,” the environmental organisation said.
“This incredible discovery underlines the urgency of that call”.
The discovery was made in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, a vast underwater region of the Pacific Ocean between Mexico and Hawaii of growing interest to mining companies.
Scattered on the seafloor four kilometres (2.5 miles) beneath the surface, polymetallic nodules contain manganese, nickel and cobalt, metals used in electric car batteries and other low-carbon technologies.
The research that gave rise to the dark oxygen discovery was partly funded by a Canadian deep-sea mining business, The Metals Company, that wanted to assess the ecological impact of such exploration.
It has sharply criticised the study by marine ecologist Andrew Sweetman and his team as plagued by “methodological flaws”.
Michael Clarke, environmental manager at The Metals Company, told AFP that the findings “are more logically attributable to poor scientific technique and shoddy science than a never before observed phenomenon.”
– Scientific doubts –
Sweetman’s findings proved explosive, with many in the scientific community expressing reservations or rejecting the conclusions.
Since July, five academic research papers refuting Sweetman’s findings have been submitted for review and publication.
“He did not present clear proof for his observations and hypothesis,” said Matthias Haeckel, a biogeochemist at the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Kiel, Germany.
“Many questions remain after the publication. So, now the scientific community needs to conduct similar experiments etc, and either prove or disprove it.”
Olivier Rouxel, a geochemistry researcher at Ifremer, the French national institute for ocean science and technology, told AFP there was “absolutely no consensus on these results”.
“Deep-sea sampling is always a challenge,” he said, adding it was possible that the oxygen detected was “trapped air bubbles” in the measuring instruments.
He was also sceptical about deep-sea nodules, some tens of millions of years old, still producing enough electrical current when “batteries run out quickly”.
“How is it possible to maintain the capacity to generate electrical current in a nodule that is itself extremely slow to form?” he asked.
When contacted by AFP, Sweetman indicated that he was preparing a formal response.
“These types of back and forth are very common with scientific articles and it moves the subject matter forward,” he said.
By AFP
March 16, 2025
Polymetallic nodules and an abyssal urchin - Copyright National Oceanography Centre / Smartex project (NERC)/AFP/File Handout
Could lumpy metallic rocks in the deepest, darkest reaches of the ocean be making oxygen in the absence of sunlight?
Some scientists think so, but others have challenged the claim that so-called “dark oxygen” is being produced in the lightless abyss of the seabed.
The discovery — detailed last July in the journal Nature Geoscience — called into question long-held assumptions about the origins of life on Earth, and sparked intense scientific debate.
The findings were also consequential for mining companies eager to extract the precious metals contained within these polymetallic nodules.
Researchers said that potato-sized nodules could be producing enough electrical current to split seawater into hydrogen and oxygen, a process known as electrolysis.
This cast doubt on the long-established view that life was made possible when organisms started producing oxygen via photosynthesis, which requires sunlight, about 2.7 billion years ago.
“Deep-sea discovery calls into question the origins of life,” the Scottish Association for Marine Science said in a press release to accompany the publication of the research.
– Delicate ecosystem –
Environmentalists said the presence of dark oxygen showed just how little is known about life at these extreme depths, and supported their case that deep-sea mining posed unacceptable ecological risks.
“Greenpeace has long campaigned to stop deep sea mining from beginning in the Pacific due to the damage it could do to delicate, deep sea ecosystems,” the environmental organisation said.
“This incredible discovery underlines the urgency of that call”.
The discovery was made in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, a vast underwater region of the Pacific Ocean between Mexico and Hawaii of growing interest to mining companies.
Scattered on the seafloor four kilometres (2.5 miles) beneath the surface, polymetallic nodules contain manganese, nickel and cobalt, metals used in electric car batteries and other low-carbon technologies.
The research that gave rise to the dark oxygen discovery was partly funded by a Canadian deep-sea mining business, The Metals Company, that wanted to assess the ecological impact of such exploration.
It has sharply criticised the study by marine ecologist Andrew Sweetman and his team as plagued by “methodological flaws”.
Michael Clarke, environmental manager at The Metals Company, told AFP that the findings “are more logically attributable to poor scientific technique and shoddy science than a never before observed phenomenon.”
– Scientific doubts –
Sweetman’s findings proved explosive, with many in the scientific community expressing reservations or rejecting the conclusions.
Since July, five academic research papers refuting Sweetman’s findings have been submitted for review and publication.
“He did not present clear proof for his observations and hypothesis,” said Matthias Haeckel, a biogeochemist at the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Kiel, Germany.
“Many questions remain after the publication. So, now the scientific community needs to conduct similar experiments etc, and either prove or disprove it.”
Olivier Rouxel, a geochemistry researcher at Ifremer, the French national institute for ocean science and technology, told AFP there was “absolutely no consensus on these results”.
“Deep-sea sampling is always a challenge,” he said, adding it was possible that the oxygen detected was “trapped air bubbles” in the measuring instruments.
He was also sceptical about deep-sea nodules, some tens of millions of years old, still producing enough electrical current when “batteries run out quickly”.
“How is it possible to maintain the capacity to generate electrical current in a nodule that is itself extremely slow to form?” he asked.
When contacted by AFP, Sweetman indicated that he was preparing a formal response.
“These types of back and forth are very common with scientific articles and it moves the subject matter forward,” he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment