Deep Dives

Long read: An alternative path for the International Seabed Authority? Ten conservationists re-imagine it

Keriann Lee

03 May 2025 • 8 min read

Solomon “Uncle Sol” Kaho'ohalahala, Maui Nui Makai Network, at the ISA in March 2025. Photo by IISD/ENB | Angeles Estrada Vigil

What if the International Seabed Authority didn't have to concern itself with Deep Sea Mining and the regulations it's been drafting for over a decade?

In a 28 page collection of four papers, published by the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition in the same week Donald Trump signed his executive order, ocean experts reflect on exactly such a scenario.

The Report is titled Delivering Benefits to Humankind: Opportunities for the International Seabed Authority Under a Deep-Sea Mining Moratorium.

Or ISA 2.0, as Sylvia Earle and Theresa Rodriguez-Moodie describe the vision in their foreword.

The four expert reflections, presented relay style, make one cohesive argument for an alternative approach to the way the regulator interprets its duties under the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Noting the ISA's "uniquely weighty responsibility" to protect "the heritage of all mankind" as the high seas are described by the treaty, these conservationists conclude that deep sea mining is not just incompatible with that mandate, but a distraction from the real work of being a steward of the deep.

Delegates at the ISA in March 2025. Photo by IISD/ENB | Angeles Estrada Vigil

ISA 2.0

In the executive summary, DSCC conjures an image of a very different ISA. One where its members are less concerned with sediment plumes from mining operations and more with mapping the ocean floor, carbon sequestration, and marine genetic resources:

Relieved of its focus on mineral exploitation, the ISA is instead able to spearhead exciting multi-state deep-sea expeditions to study and map the vast abyssal floor and share the findings with the world.

Discovery, not destruction, the report dreams.

In this brave new world, the collection of papers asks what if the ISA and its multilateral community of scientists, diplomats and technocrats focused on building capacity across the planet for activities like carbon and nutrient cycle observation or research into the marine genetic resources that could deliver life-saving medical breakthroughs?

And what if it truly included the global south so that resource and knowledge gaps on deep sea science can close, and job creation can centre around marine scientific research instead?

It doesn't have to be a dream, but an obvious choice on a planet struggling with climate change, pollution, and loss of biodiversity, the papers argue.

The legal set up

In chapter 1 entitled Global Ocean Governance: The ISA as a Steward of the Deep Sea, authors Kristina Gjerde and Pradeep Singh, set out opening legal arguments for this new alternative.

Interrogating Part XI of the treaty, they argue that the ISA has an overriding obligation to protect the high seas more than it does the development of its sea-bed resources.

That by pressing ahead without scientific certainty, the ISA might actually be breaching its obligations and opening itself to legal liability by violating the CHM principle: the area and its resources are the common heritage of all humankind.

On this, they were strident:

Asserting that the development of the mineral resources in the Area must take place even if all or some of the remaining policies under Article 150 are not achievable is an interpretation that does not hold water.

For Gjerde and Singh:

A more coherent interpretation, considering the letter and spirit of UNCLOS as a whole and the CHM principle in particular, is that Member States must ensure that the other applicable policies are respected and not compromised when deciding to develop these resources.

One footnote includes legal opinion from top ranked European firm Matrix Chambers, which backs their argument. On the matter of a Deep Sea Mining moratorium, already supported by 32 countries and some global brands, the firm opines:

"We consider...a moratorium or precautionary pause is not only consistent with UNCLOS, but is actually required by it. It is a core obligation of States Parties to protect and preserve the marine environment; it would be a violation of that obligation to enable the commencement of exploitation of the Area at a time when scientific understanding of the deep sea, the existing regulatory arrangements, and the ISA’s institutional capacity are insufficient to ensure that outcome.

In making the case for a redirection at the ISA, Gjerde and Singh note that UNCLOS Part XI does not mandate a specific timeframe for deep sea mining to occur.

They also argue that the ISA is not the sole arbiter of UNCLOS and that the multilateral has an obligation to respect other agreements developed under the treaty, like the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction, or BBNJ Agreement.

That agreement, adopted by the UN in 2023, paves the way for the creation of marine protected areas in international waters, mandatory environmental impact assessments before large-scale commercial activities can occur, and the development of an ocean conservation fund paid by companies that use marine genetic resources.

BBNJ is not yet ratified, requiring 60 signatories with only 20-something so far, but Gjerde and Singh make the case for the ISA treating it normatively and conducting its operations as if it were.

Delegates consult at March 2025 ISA session. Photo by IISD/ENB | Angeles Estrada Vigil

The opportunity cost

Chapter 2: Advancing Deep-Sea Scientific Research: The Least-Explored Areas of Our Planet takes the legal baton where authors Diva Amon, Lisa Levin, and Hannah Lily argue that marine scientific research (MSR) is woefully neglected by the ISA and that, here, it also misinterprets its treaty obligations.

Arguing from "a legal perspective", Lily insists that marine research must be explicitly distinguished in funding and categorisation from the exploration data being collected by commercial miners with ISA contracts.

There would be an inherent bias if the only data that the ISA took into account in its decisions were supplied by the contractors themselves. To ensure the effective protection of the marine environment from harmful effects of exploitation in the Area, MSR decoupled from an extraction agenda must play a key role in informing the ISA’s measures.

To drive home the point, she points to controversy surrounding the ISA's Endowment Fund for developing country researchers, which she said was being used for mining related projects.

She took aim at the suggestion that the ISA should fund marine research using revenue raised from mining, writing:

The ISA will serve humankind poorly if it accepts commercially driven mineral exploration as the delivery of its MSR mandate, or makes MSR capacity development opportunities dependent on future mining. This reduces rather than promotes opportunities for truly independent, inclusive and accessible MSR, and is contrary to both the spirit and the letter of UNCLOS.

Bringing "the scientist perspective", colleague writers Amon and Levin paint a picture of marine researchers stifled by the regulator's bullseye focus on deep sea mining data.

They argue that while exploration activity has been useful in acquiring new information about our oceans, they are also severely limiting:

...research of limited scope and geographic extent, with scientific teams having little freedom to ask big-picture questions and find larger-scale patterns. They have also prevented these teams from taking the time to fully analyze samples, resulting in a minimal and often incomplete baseline. There has been little incentive to report the amazing biological discoveries to broader audiences, or to ensure that scientific teams are diverse and global through the provision of opportunities for those from the Global South.

The two scientists paint a disturbing account of the kind of work environment in the deep that this so called imbalance causes among researchers with different objectives:

And, perhaps most importantly, this has resulted in unhealthy power dynamics, with participants feeling pressured, bullied and unsafe.

In the ISA of which they dream, Amon and Levin see the ISA setting up a scientific committee or technical body to oversee marine research, establish it own journal, sponsor research cruises, commission scientific reports, and support scientists at all stages of their careers.

Cirrate Octopod: *Image courtesy of the NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration and Research, Discovering the Deep: Exploring Remote Pacific MPAs*

Missing the mark

Chapter 3: Prioritizing Capacity-Building and Transfer of Knowledge and Technology on Deep-Sea Research supports this structured approach.

Authors Angelique Pouponneau, Elisa Morgera and Marjo Vierros criticise the ISA's approach to training developing country personnel amidst its mandate to ensure knowledge sharing between richer countries and the global south.

Noting that the ISA has established three capacity- building mechanisms to achieve the above: the Contractor Training Programme (CTP), the Endowment Fund for Marine Scientific Research (EFMSR), and the Internship Programme, they write:

The CTP lacks standardization in training delivery and relies heavily on individual contractor negotiations. The EFMSR is constrained by limited funding and complex application processes, while the Internship Programme’s ad hoc nature and brief duration hinders meaningful skill development.

And then, more worrisome claims:

The programs also lack comprehensive safety protocols, including for preventing sexual harassment at sea.

In addition, they claim it's hard to track the success of these programs as there are no robust metrics.

Pouponneau, Morgera and Vierros call on the ISA to prioritise those most affected by climate change or with deep connections to marine areas beyond national jurisdiction. But in doing so, they require a fundamental change of approach - where information flows both ways.

...Women, Indigenous Peoples, small-scale fishers and children (are) holders of distinctive knowledge systems that should be integrated in international scientific cooperation.

They called on the ISA to open its DeepData database, collated primarily by miners, so everyone can benefit. Although they couldn't help but snark that there were challenges with the data.

(Don't) show me the money

In Chapter 4: The Economics of a Deep-Sea Mining Moratorium, authors Torsten Thiele and U. Rashid Sumaila take the final leg in this relay with two main arguments - deep sea mining isn't financially viable in the long run, and its value does not outweigh the larger cost to mankind.

The first is purely about dollars and cents for would-be miners as the authors discuss the financial projections, arguing that the expected income would be mostly wiped out by operating costs, low mineral prices, unexpected expenditure from tech failure, damage to equipment and costly litigation.

Given these financial uncertainties and the scale of investment required, the projected returns appear uncertain - as do the potentially small and economically insignificant royalty payments that states would potentially receive [Wilde et al., 2023]... any expected payments for developing and developed countries under the benefit-sharing mechanism are highly uncertain and probably derisory.

The authors go on to do a predictable cost benefit analysis weighted in favour of research, over mining the sea-bed.

They ague that the benefits of deep sea mining just aren't worth the likely incalculable damage to ecosystems, marine life, and ultimately mankind's heritage.

From an economic standpoint, it is far more prudent to avoid deep-sea mining until these impacts are fully assessed and can be prevented

But Thiele and Sumaila aren't against any form of money making from the sea. They keenly point to alternatives noting:

Research into marine genetic resources [Collins et al., 2019] and related digital sequence information [Scholz, 2020] is critical for breakthroughs in drug development and health care, with deep ocean benthic extremophiles showing particular promise. Marine-derived compounds have already proven invaluable, for instance, in COVID-19 testing and early Alzheimer’s drug development.

In addition to economic value, the paper makes the case for better knowledge of tsunamis or allowing vulnerable marine ecosystems to naturally recover, which it says should form part of a more comprehensive cost/benefit assessment among ISA technocrats when considering the merits of a moratorium.

In conclusion, the papers ask the Authority to reimagine itself not as a regulator of deep sea mining, but a facilitator of a different kind of progress. One that doesn't feel like Groundhog Day to conservationists every time it holds another meeting in Kingston.

Deep Sea Conservation Coalition is an international lobby that works with NGOs, governments, and scientists to protect vulnerable marine ecosystems and it is staunchly against deep sea mining. It enjoys Observer status at the International Seabed Authority.

Resources:

Read the full DSCC paper here: Delivering Benefits to Humankind: Opportunities for the International Seabed Authority Under a Deep-Sea Mining Moratorium.