Ethics and Deep-Sea Mining - 2021

Mining & Minerals - Evaluations / Deep Sea Mining

Pollard reported via MarineBio that the idea of Deep Sea Mining has been floating around since the 1960s, the cost and technical difficulty of extracting metals and minerals from the ocean floor once kept this habitat safe but this time has come to an end. The demand for cobalt, a key component in the lithium-ion batteries common in portable electronics, and other precious metals alongside technological developments are making deep sea mining an increasingly attractive prospect.

Indeed, the race to harvest the resources of the deep has already begun with Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corporation (JOGMEC) mining the Izena cauldron (a hydrothermal vent field in the Okinawa Trough) in 2017, the Cook Islands passing the Sea Bed Minerals (SBM) Act of 2019, Sea Bed Minerals (Exploration) Regulations Act (2020) and the Sea Bed Minerals Amendment Act (2021) in preparedness for exploiting the estimated 12 billion tons of polymetallic nodules within their Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and 18 different contracts with governments and private companies held by the International Seabed Authority (ISA) for exploring polymetallic nodule mining in the Clarion-Clipperton Fracture Zone (4.5 million square kilometres of the Northern Pacific Ocean between Hawaii and Mexico).

Mining the Deep Sea

Ventures into deep sea mining have not been easy, the Solwara 1 Project to mine hydrothermal vents in the Bismarck Sea off the coast of Papua New Guinea floundered with delays leading to the collapse of the Nautilus Minerals Inc. mining company in 2019 and calls for a deep sea mining moratorium from Papua New Guinea and its neighbors. Yet the interest in this fledgling industry continues to grow.

Deep Sea Mining is almost unique in that we can regulate and legislate for it before large scale operations begin instead of looking in hindsight to mitigate the impact of a well-established industry. While the regulation of mining within EEZs falls to individual nations, the regulations for the mining of the deep sea in international waters are contained within United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and managed by the International Seabed Authority (ISA).

However, major players in this arena, such as the USA, have not ratified the UNCLOS and so do not operate under the authority of the ISA, instead abiding by the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act of 1980. Furthermore, few countries have established legal and institutional frameworks for the future development of deep seabed mining within EEZs. Indeed, one of the first countries to grant permits for deep sea mining, Papua New Guinea, did so despite three independent reviews of environmental impact statements finding it was not fit for purpose – with gaps and flawed science. While the ISA is working to bring scientific experts, industry representatives, legal specialists and academics together to strengthen protections and prevent serious and permanent damage to the marine environment, there are still major concerns about the ethics surrounding dep sea mining.

 Professor Sven Thatje, of the National Oceanography Centre Southampton (NOCS), discussed the importance of ethical considerations in developing the framework for deep sea mining in his letter “Ethical considerations surrounding deep-sea mining do matter” (published in Trends in Ecology & Evolution).He raised the fact that we still need a better understanding of the ecological cost of these mining operations, pointing out that:

“There is a series of studies now available regarding the environmental impacts of deep sea mining, based on which Smith et al. conclude that there are miscalculations on environmental impacts of deep-sea mining that need to be overcome to allow for an effective management of the industry.”

He also highlights that there is a distinct lack of practical oversight:

“The ISA is developing mineral exploitation regulations; however, any means of enforcement of law are currently lacking. Thirty ISA exploration contracts covering over 1.5 million square kilometres are due to be issued, despite the lack of knowledge about deep-sea processes.”

With this in mind it seems irresponsible to proceed at the current rate without the necessary science and enforcement in place. Prof. Thatje goes on to call for ethical reasoning to inform the developing deep sea mining industry, explaining that:

“Ethical reasoning pertains to the right and wrong about human conduct and aims at developing common values of long-term prospect, rather than targeting, for example, short-term economic benefit.”

We have already seen that countries and companies are already engaging in the exploitation of these resources – with gaps in the necessary scientific knowledge to protect these environments it seems likely that it is the short-term economic benefits which are being targeted irrespective of the long-term impacts. Indeed, we have evidence of this in the criticisms of the Environmental Impact Assessment in the Slowara 1 project which was given a permit regardless. Instead of letting financially-motivated parties control the process, Prof. Thatje argues that:

“…the development of ethics surrounding deep-sea mining, to influence informed decisions, should involve the public at large. This needs to involve sustained outreach activities by scientists and journalists, while monitoring mining developments. As part of this process, public opinion and acceptance can change over time, as ethical considerations develop. This can cause political adjustments on a subject.”

You may well have seen articles, documentaries and TED talks which communicate deep-sea mining to the general public but, as Prof. Thatje mentions, the scientific knowledge has been mostly shared through academic publishing and conferences targeting interested parties. Deep sea mining projects have garnered political and public support by offering independence from relying on sources such as China or in addressing the ethical dilemma in sourcing cobalt from the Democratic Republic of Congo. Such support has allowed mining ventures to receive subsidies to support their work. As Prof. Thatje points out, this raises the question of:

“…whether society needs the resources offered by deep-sea mining to maintain our industrialized, technology-led way of life, as opposed to potentially more acceptable alternatives of lower environmental risk.”

Terrestrial mining operations have never been environmentally friendly and there is little cause to think that mining the deep sea would somehow prove different. Yet, as the letter highlights, environmental damage may be a price worth paying if it does not reduce biodiversity or damage how the ecosystem functions. However, without careful consideration we risk repeating the same damage as terrestrial operations or worse, but with less public outcry as the damage remains remote and inaccessible in the deep ocean.

This is particularly poignant when we recall that physical impacts are likely to last millennia with the tracks of nodule collection vehicles slowly filling in while the exhaust plumes from the operations may double the deposition of sediment in surrounding areas. Beyond the ethics of damaging near pristine environments, the letter notes that extricating deposits and nodules that take millions of years to form are not sustainable in the long-term, this is a practice which will form short-term economies. As such, these ventures will, by necessity need to expand their area of operation or close down.

As Prof. Thatje goes on to explain, this is particularly short-sighted when we know that deep ocean processes are globally connected yet our current knowledge is insufficient to judge the environmental impacts of deep sea mining – including their impact on seafood entering the human food chain.

With all this in mind, I leave you with Prof. Thatje’s closing statement:

“Consequently, ISA, governmental institutions, as well as concerned industries, have the responsibility to judge which exploitation techniques are environmentally and ethically acceptable for application. In the absence of any enforcement of existing law, self-control by industry, by scientifically monitoring mining impacts, is paramount. Ultimately, and in case of ethical concerns, and as a precautionary measure, we must step back, conform, and protect what we do not yet fully understand. In this case, a moratorium on deep-sea mining is mandatory, supporting several recent initiatives.”

If you would like to read Prof. Sven Thatje’s letter “Ethical considerations surrounding deep-sea mining do matter“, it is available through Trends in Ecology & Evolution.

Many thanks to Prof. Sven Thatje for making his letter available to us for this MarineBio blog post.

Leave a comment and let us know what you think.

Andrew Pollard

[For the recent history of sea-floor articles and reports from the I2M Web Portal, see (here)]