Deep-sea mining is the latest frontier in extraction of natural resources for profit and growth, at the expense of sustainability. Another economic paradigm is possible.
With a lifelong commitment to environmental activism and an MSc in Environmental Psychology, Simon Holmström is a former Green MP who transitioned to civil society to advocate for system change. He serves as Deep-Sea Mining Policy Officer for the European umbrella organisation Seas At Risk, representing over 30 environmental NGOs focused on ocean conservation.
Cross-posted from Green European Journal
Nestled in the ocean floor are vast quantities of minerals – metals like cobalt, nickel, and rare earth elements, which are crucial for batteries, electronics, and green technologies. These resources ensure that the deep sea, which covers more than half of the Earth’s surface, is fast becoming a key point of interest for the green transition. That in turn raises the prospect of an intensification of deep-sea mining (DSM). Although technological advancements have made exploration activities increasingly feasible over recent decades, the deep sea remains one of the least explored and understood ecosystems.
The dangers that come with deep-sea mining are many. It risks harming undiscovered species and disrupting intricate food webs that have evolved over millennia. Disturbing these ecosystems may furthermore compromise their role in regulating global climate patterns, including the sequestration and storage of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
The DSM industry often promotes new technologies as being safe for biodiversity. However, these claims lack comprehensive, independent scientific validation. The deep-sea ecosystem is complex and largely unexplored, and even seemingly small disturbances can have significant and unpredictable impacts on biodiversity and ecological functions. They may generate changes in species composition, for instance, which in turn threatens food webs and commercial fish stocks. Coastal communities that depend on healthy marine ecosystems for their livelihoods could therefore face unprecedented disruptions. The ocean, a source of food and income for these communities, might be turned into a battlefield for resource extraction, with few benefits trickling down to those who need them most. That is why scientists are warning of large-scale and irreversible damage to the marine environment.
Yet the question is larger than ocean protection. It is about how we manage all the world’s resources, whether or not they lie in the deepest reaches of the ocean. The rush to secure access to deep-sea minerals may even divert attention and resources away from improving practices and mitigating the impacts of on-land mining, which already has a long record of generating conflicts with local communities and indigenous populations in mining areas. This diversion could lead to increased social, human rights, and environmental violations in already vulnerable communities and ecosystems where terrestrial mining is prevalent.
The irony is stark. The rush to manufacture technologies that we see as solutions to our environmental crisis – electric cars, wind turbines, and solar panels – means we are repeating, on the seabed, the very same patterns of exploitation that have so degraded terrestrial resources. Solving one problem within the same extractive and colonial paradigm that created the problem in the first place is bound to fail. Instead, we should pursue a more sustainable and equitable approach to resource management that addresses the root causes of conflict and promotes the well-being of both terrestrial and marine environments.
Challenging the growth impulse
The European Critical Raw Materials Act, hailed as a landmark achievement of the previous EU mandate, aims to diversify Europe’s supplies by ensuring a steady flow of critical minerals both from within Europe and through strategic partnerships. Built on the assumption that constant growth and increasing material consumption are both necessary and inevitable, the Act promotes the extraction of raw materials through various measures.
But there is an alternative to the assumption that we need to delve deeper into the Earth’s crust. What if, instead, we chose to address the root cause of our resource demands?
The UN Global E-Waste Monitor shows that global electronic waste has reached record highs and is increasing five times faster than recycling rates. The recycling rate for rare earth elements in e-waste is only around 1 per cent. If we look at smartphones alone, about 16,000 tonnes of cobalt are lost annually due to inadequate collection and recycling of these devices, which represents approximately 10 per cent of the global cobalt production. There should be huge economic interest in turning waste into valuable secondary or tertiary products, yet the transition to a circular economy seems slow. Despite the EU boasting a circularity rate of 11.5 per cent in 2022 – indicating that Europe consumes a higher proportion of recycled materials than other world regions – progress in the EU has stagnated, and it continues to fall far short of its ambition to double the circularity rate by 2030.
The battery industry is among the highest consumers of minerals. Yet its demands are changing. Traditional lithium-ion batteries are being replaced by lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries, which do not require nickel or cobalt – two critical raw materials (CRM) that deep-sea mining proponents seek to obtain. By 2030, increased use of LFP batteries could reduce demandfor nickel, manganese and cobalt by more than 50 per cent. Moreover, sodium-ion batteries, which avoid the constrained and often unpredictable supply chains of lithium, cobalt, and nickel are on the rise following positive research and innovation efforts. This kind of technology will prove significant for future energy storage systems too.
However, circularity, substitution and technology development will not be enough to halt the increasing demand for CRMs. Here is where sufficiency comes into play. Sufficiency is all about finding a balance – meeting our needs without overstepping the planet’s ecological boundaries. It challenges the notion that more is always better, and asks profound questions about human needs. In this context, it would mean that we would not only ask how cars can be more efficient, but also ask whether we need to have two cars per household. For instance, car sharing can cut the materials used in transport by 50 to 70 per cent per passenger-kilometre. Yet greater reductions come with public transport, cycling, and walking. Public policies have the potential to transform the shift to transport sufficiency through, for instance, investments in public transport, improved urban planning, and railway networks stretching to rural areas. By emphasising needs-based consumption, sufficiency measures encourage the use of fewer resources without compromising functionality or quality.
The transition to sustainable mineral resource management is a monumental task requiring engagement across multiple sectors. To this end, the latest Environment Council Conclusions suggested the implementation of an entirely new legal framework on resource management. Various suggestions on how to achieve this have been put forward, with increasing support. Suffice to say, there are high expectations on the new Commission’s proposed Circular Economy Act.
Advocating a precautionary approach
In the face of an aggressive industry narrative, momentum is growing for a precautionary approach to deep-sea mining. Just three years ago, not a single country in Europe defended a moratorium, precautionary pause, or ban (the concepts are interchangeable) on deep-sea mining. Today, 12 out of 27 member states do. They share the European Commission and the European Parliament’s position that no DSM should proceed until knowledge gaps are filled, environmental safeguards are ensured, and governance issues are resolved. France and Germany stand out as virtuous actors. They have been particularly vocal against DSM, having driven the push for a moratorium, and having advocated for thorough environmental safeguards and governance before any DSM activities proceed.
But significant actors still advocate DSM. In Europe, Norway and Poland have been particularly driven by their interests in exploiting seabed resources for economic gain and technological development. Key companies involved include Norway’s LOKE Minerals, which is interested in the Arctic, and Global Sea Mineral Resources (GSR), a subsidiary of Belgium’s DEME Group, whose focus is on the Pacific Ocean. Another significant player is Allseas, a Dutch company known for its offshore activities, including DSM research and technology development.
In 2023 the International Seabed Authority (ISA), the UN-affiliated body mandated to manage the deep sea in international waters, has committed to advancing negotiations on a so-called mining code with a view for adoption by July 2025. This mining code would enable the ISA to begin issuing exploitation contracts, building on the 31 exploration contracts already granted. This accelerated timeline raises concerns that critical gaps in the scientific understanding of deep-sea ecosystems may not be adequately addressed before commercial activities commence.
A study published in Marine Policy earlier this year pointed out at least 30 unresolved issues in its latest mining code draft. One of the most pressing concerns is how the ISA plans to effectively protect the marine environment from potential harm caused by seabed mining, as mandated by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Governance issues within the ISA itself pose additional challenges. Allegations of corruption and procedural irregularities have cast doubt on the authority’s ability to effectively manage and regulate DSM activities.
Adding to the pressure, The Metals Company, a major player in the DSM sector known for extensive exploration in the Pacific Ocean, plans to submit a mining application this year. In a strategic move, they intend to invoke the so-called two-year rule within UNCLOS which allows expedited consideration of their application even without a mining code adopted. This move puts pressure on the ISA to fast-track the adoption of a mining code and, in turn, has intensified the push for a moratorium, with ISA’s structural and voting mechanisms favouring a potential application.
This is why the ISA Assembly will next week discuss for the first time a motion to consider a General Policy for the protection and preservation of the marine environment, suggested by nine states. This is one legal tool by which a precautionary approach could be enacted, meaning that it would set the overarching conditions required to be fulfilled before DSM is considered.
Historic examples, such as the whaling moratorium or ban on mining in Antarctica, show us that the international status quo can be altered through political will and decisive action. This raises hopes that the ISA too can be transformed into an international body which effectively ensures marine protection.
A new ethic of care
As we stand at the brink of this new frontier, we must choose a path that reflects our responsibility to the planet and future generations. The debate over DSM forces us to confront a fundamental question: What kind of custodians of Earth do we aspire to be? Our current trajectory – one of endless extraction and consumption – is both unsustainable and morally indefensible. Instead of plunging into the abyss in search of resources, we need to cultivate a culture that values quality over quantity, repair over replacement, and conservation over consumption.
The call to action is clear: we urgently need bold policies with ambitious material footprint reduction targets to shift business as usual. These targets must be followed up with a range of sufficiency initiatives across various sectors. There are plenty of ideas, creativity, and proposals on how to move forward.
The global momentum behind a precautionary approach to DSM not only highlights the urgent need to address the environmental and social risks associated with the emerging industry, but reflects a shift in how we believe we should govern our natural resources. There is a growing recognition that the traditional, growth-at-all-costs approach is incompatible with our planet’s finite resources. Beyond the immediate action to adopt a General Policy in the ISA, we are seeing a larger understanding of the need for deeper systemic changes that reflect a true recognition of our planet’s limits, transcending the realm of international seabed management.
Such a narrative would ensure that a precautionary pause on DSM does not create a gold rush in other mineable areas, but rather that financial streams would be redirected to research, innovation, and circular economy. To make this a reality, governments and international bodies must implement robust legal frameworks, invest in sustainable technologies, and prioritise education and public awareness about the importance of resource conservation. Collaborative efforts between nations, industries, and civil society will be essential to create a resilient and sustainable resource management system. This system can act as a catalyst for rethinking raw material dependencies, ensuring sufficiency, strengthening strategic autonomy, and promoting planetary wellbeing.
In the grand tapestry of Earth’s ecosystems, the deep sea remains a dark, mysterious place, weaving its own intricate story of life. It is a story that has unfolded over aeons, far removed from human influence. As we ponder the depths, let us also consider the heights of our potential for stewardship.
Due to the Israeli war crimes in Gaza we have increased our coverage from five to six days a week. We do not have the funds to do this, but felt that it was the only right thing to do. So if you have not already donated for this year, please do so now. To donate please go HERE.
Be the first to comment