Explore the vast range of titles available.

Rising demand for minerals and metals, including for use in the technology sector, has led to a resurgence of interest in exploration of mineral resources located on the seabed. Such resources, whether seafloor massive (polymetallic) sulfides around hydrothermal vents, cobalt-rich crusts on the flanks of seamounts or fields of manganese (polymetallic) nodules on the abyssal plains, cannot be considered in isolation of the distinctive, in some cases unique, assemblages of marine species associated with the same habitats and structures. In addition to mineral deposits, there is interest in extracting methane from gas hydrates on continental slopes and rises. Many of the regions identified for future seabed mining are already recognised as vulnerable marine ecosystems. Since its inception in 1982, the International Seabed Authority (ISA), charged with regulating human activities on the deep-sea floor beyond the continental shelf, has issued 27 contracts for mineral exploration, encompassing a combined area of more than 1.4 million km2, and continues to develop rules for commercial mining. At the same time, some seabed mining operations are already taking place within continental shelf areas of nation states, generally at relatively shallow depths, and with others at advanced stages of planning. The first commercial enterprise, expected to target mineral-rich sulfides in deeper waters, at depths between 1,500 and 2,000 metres on the continental shelf of Papua New Guinea, is scheduled to begin early in 2019. In this review, we explore three broad aspects relating to the exploration and exploitation of seabed mineral resources: (1) the current state of development of such activities in areas both within and beyond national jurisdictions, (2) possible environmental impacts both close to and more distant from mining activities and (3) the uncertainties and gaps in scientific knowledge and understanding which render baseline and impact assessments particularly difficult for the deep sea. We also consider whether there are alternative approaches to the management of existing mineral reserves and resources, which may reduce incentives for seabed mining.

While the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) Agreement establishes a comprehensive environmental impact assessment (EIA) regime, its application of the EIA provisions to the international seabed area (the Area) presents significant challenges. First, International Seabed Authority (ISA) Member States have differing ratification and signature statuses regarding the BBNJ Agreement, leading to fragmented and asymmetrical obligations. Second, normative ambiguity surrounds the “not undermine” proviso, and an institutional disconnection exists between the Clearing-House Mechanism under the BBNJ Agreement and the ISA. Third, the “equivalence exception” under Article 29(4) of the BBNJ Agreement generates a critical interpretive dilemma. The absence of institutional mechanisms for determining equivalence risks unilateral self-assessment and forum-shopping. Furthermore, substantive disparities exist between the BBNJ Agreement and ISA regulations, particularly regarding the screening process, Cumulative Environmental Effects, and Strategic Environmental Assessment, alongside asymmetries in procedural transparency and stakeholder engagement. Finally, an empirical analysis reveals that the EIA practices in the Area remain scarce and inaccessible, and existing Environmental Impact Statements appear not fully aligned with the standards prescribed by Article 33(2) of the BBNJ Agreement. Therefore, this article puts forward recommendations to optimize the application of the EIA provisions under the BBNJ Agreement. First, concerted efforts must be made to advance the ratification and accession of the BBNJ Agreement by ISA Member States. Second, the “not undermine” proviso should be interpreted narrowly to ensure the BBNJ Agreement’s implementation does not actively dismantle the effectiveness of the ISA. Third, Parties should facilitate the determination of equivalence through harmonization and scientific advice, leveraging the supplementary role of the Scientific and Technical Body. Fourth, cooperation must be formalized through institutional frameworks, specifically by signing a Memorandum of Understanding and enhancing inter-institutional expert consultation. Finally, stakeholders must enhance EIA practices by standardizing the mechanism for updating reports and ensuring that dual-member States comply with the standards of both regimes.

As land-based mining industries face increasing complexities, e.g., diminishing return on investments, environmental degradation, and geopolitical tensions, governments are searching for alternatives. Following decades of anticipation, technological innovation, and exploration, deep seabed mining (DSM) in the oceans has, according to the mining industry and other proponents, moved closer to implementation. The DSM industry is currently waiting for international regulations that will guide future exploitation. This paper aims to provide an overview of the current status of DSM and structure ongoing key discussions and tensions prevalent in scientific literature. A narrative review method is applied, and the analysis inductively structures four narratives in the results section: (1) a green economy in a blue world, (2) the sharing of DSM profits, (3) the depths of the unknown, and (4) let the minerals be. The paper concludes that some narratives are conflicting, but the policy path that currently dominates has a preponderance towards Narrative 1—encouraging industrial mining in the near future based on current knowledge—and does not reflect current wider discussions in the literature. The paper suggests that the regulatory process and discussions should be opened up and more perspectives, such as if DSM is morally appropriate (Narrative 4), should be taken into consideration.

The latest negotiating text from the International Seabed Authority (ISA) on the Environmental Compensation Fund (ECF) system shows significant progress compared to the provisions in the 2019 Draft Exploitation Regulations. First, the formulation of the ECF rules and procedures has been further elaborated. Second, the scope of application of the ECF has been more precisely delineated. Third, the mechanisms for funding the ECF have been improved. Fourth, the “polluter-pays principle” has been introduced for the first time. Fifth, a periodic review mechanism has also been incorporated for the first time. Nevertheless, the 2025 Draft continues to exhibit certain deficiencies. First, the financial foundations of the ECF remain unreliable. Several new or modified sources of funding, such as voluntary contributions from member States, targeted contributions from sponsoring States, and donations from international or non-governmental organizations, are inherently uncertain. Second, the text fails to establish clear and operational criteria for determining eligibility to submit claims to the ECF. Third, the scope of compensation available under the ECF remains inadequately defined. Fourth, transparency for stakeholders with respect to the operation of the ECF is insufficient. This study proposes the following recommendations to deal with the abovementioned deficiencies. First, the principles, mechanisms, and specific measures for the ECF fundraising and management should be optimized. Second, with respect to eligible claimants, a multi-tiered and sequential framework is recommended. Third, the scope of the ECF’s compensatory mandate should be refined, and detailed standards developed to ensure that the ECF is used exclusively to address liability gaps where environmental harm cannot otherwise be remedied. Fourth, stakeholder transparency must be enhanced.

The ocean plays a key role in sustaining life on our planet and is inextricably linked to biodiversity, climate, human well-being, and health. However, the governance of the ocean is primarily pursued through sectoral-based legal and institutional frameworks that falls short in ensuring the long-term protection of the marine environment and the sustainability of marine resources. This is especially concerning in areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction (ABNJ) where human activities continue to expand. The existence of two distinct regimes in ABNJ, namely the High Seas (applicable to the water column, which is a global common) and the Area (applicable to the international seabed and its mineral resources, which are the common heritage of mankind), that have been largely regulated separately, impede the development and implementation of integrated marine environmental governance and biodiversity conservation in ABNJ. On the one hand, the International Seabed Authority (ISA), which is mandated to administer the mineral resources of the Area, is currently discussing a set of regulations to enable future exploitation activities. On the other hand, multilateral negotiations are taking place for the development of an internationally legally binding instrument for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (referred to as the proposed ‘BBNJ’ Instrument). Both processes offer a unique opportunity to foster an ecosystem approach to management (EAM) in ABNJ. In this article, we elaborate on options for stronger governance integration and the development of a coherent and collaborative interplay between these two processes. To this end, we explore the potential of Regional Environmental Management Plans (REMPs) established by the ISA as a case study to contribute to global biodiversity conservation, and the opportunity for the proposed BBNJ Instrument to promote overarching coherence to biodiversity conservation in ABNJ, premised on EAM. We conclude that the proposed BBNJ Instrument could have a pivotal role to streamline multilateral action for the conservation of biodiversity in ABNJ by adopting an ambitious, overarching environmental vision and strategic goals, accompanied by strong implementation and enforcement mechanisms.

Generating environmental baseline knowledge is a prerequisite for evaluating and predicting the effects of future deep seabed mining on the seafloor and in the water column. Without baselines, we lack the information against which to assess impacts and therefore cannot decide whether or not they pose an acceptable risk to the marine environment. At present, the International Seabed Authority (ISA), which is the international regulator for seabed mining, requires contractors engaged in mineral exploration to establish geological and environmental baselines for their respective contract areas. However, there are no criteria for evaluating what a robust baseline entails. This paper seeks to address this gap by not only analyzing the role and importance of baselines for environmental management but also suggesting criteria for evaluating the quality of baselines. Such criteria (which we present in tabular format) should include at least a minimum amount of technical information, based on best available scientific information and process, in standardized format to enable comparison between contractors and regional synthesis. These criteria should also allow baselines to be used for before-after comparisons through the choice of appropriate zones for comparison of impacts, and to prepare and test a suite of monitoring indicators and their metrics. Baseline studies should identify uncertainties, vulnerable species and habitats, and include transparent reporting as well as exchange with independent scientists and other stakeholders. The quality criteria suggested in this paper build on the ISA’s existing Mining Code and seek to support the development of a more standardized catalogue of requirements for environmental baselines. This will allow states, mining operators, the ISA, and the public to gain a better understanding of the environmental impacts of seabed mining and available mitigation measures.

Although commercial deep seabed mining could provide the international community with new sources of metals and minerals, it can potentially cause adverse effects on the marine environment and biodiversity of the Area. To date, insufficient scientific knowledge has been obtained about the complex deep seabed ecosystems and the detailed impacts of deep seabed mining. The International Seabed Authority has begun to make provisions for exploiting mineral resources and related environmental protection requirements. The draft exploitation regulations take precautionary approaches such as stipulating rules, including environmental standards and guidelines, environment impact assessment, environmental management and monitoring plan, and regional environmental management plan. However, there are still apparent differences and controversies about these rules between States. This article elaborates on the evolution and content of drafted rules and explores the manifested specific divergences and interest conflicts in formulating these rules. Implementing precautionary approaches requires balancing potential serious environmental risks, available scientific evidence, and cost-effectiveness. This article also explores the essential requirements of taking precautionary approaches for governing commercial deep seabed mining. The ISA, sponsoring States, Contractors, scientists, experts, and public all play roles in the governance of imminent commercial deep seabed mining. Strengthening multi-subject participation in the ISA’s law-making process for deep seabed environmental protection can be conducive to promoting consensus on taking precautionary approaches to govern commercial deep seabed mining.

Deep seabed mining operations, if permitted, could present significant risks to ocean ecosystems. Disturbance on any scale is likely to be long lasting and irreversible. Scant research to date has examined the impact that deep sea minerals extraction would have on cetaceans. The Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ) is of particular interest to mining companies aiming to exploit polymetallic nodules. The CCZ, with an average depth of 5,500 m and an area of approximately 11,650,000 km 2 , is a habitat for cetaceans including baleen (mysticetes) and toothed whales (odontocetes). Of particular concern is anthropogenic noise. If permitted, commercial-scale mining is expected to operate 24-hours a day, at varying depths. The sounds produced from mining operations, including from remotely operated vehicles on the seafloor, overlap with the frequencies at which cetaceans communicate, which can cause auditory masking and behavior change in marine mammals. Cetaceans are already facing numerous stressors, including climate change, and many species are still recovering from centuries of exploitation. We argue the need for urgent research to assess more fully the potential impact of deep seabed mining on cetaceans.

The growing importance of cobalt to the US economy has led to its categorisation as a critical mineral. Cobalt demand is increasing due to its requirement in lithium-ion batteries, which will significantly contribute to the energy transition. Supply is threatened for various reasons, primarily regarding supply chain concentrations, with the majority of the world’s cobalt originating in terrestrial deposits in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and being refined in China. There remain environmental and ethical concerns over the present supply chain. Previous discussions around reducing cobalt’s criticality have suggested diversifying processing locations to reduce geographical and jurisdictional reliance where possible. This study assesses the viability of extracting cobalt from polymetallic nodules (PMNs) located on the deep-seabed in the Area, as an alternative strategy to reduce cobalt’s criticality. Assessments are made of the viability of PMN extraction considering ongoing barriers to introduction, contrasted with current arguments supporting PMN extraction. PMN mining offers a more stable and decentralised alternative to current cobalt supply. There exist impediments to its introduction, notably potential environmental impacts, which remain poorly understood. Technical and political restrictions must also be overcome. It is argued that the wider environmental benefits of increased cobalt supply from PMN mining may offset its detrimental environmental impacts. It is suggested that PMN mining be used in a wider strategy to improve supply security of cobalt to US markets.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) include the term of “effective control” in its sponsorship provisions but do not clarify its meaning. To arrive at a consensus on its connotation, the International Seabed Authority (ISA) began discussions on the concept of “effective control” that have been ongoing since 2014 but have still not yielded any definite conclusion. The interpretation and application of this concept tend to be construed as a regulatory standard in current discussion documents and practices of the ISA, where this allow contractors from developed countries to easily use the method of “sponsoring states of convenience” to apply for and obtain contracts to reserved areas. This is inimical to the goals of effective marine environmental protection and the implementation of preferential treatment for developing countries. The international community should pay attention to this issue and correct the unreasonable tendencies of the ISA in this regard.