Deep thoughts: why deep-sea mining poses more questions than it answers

The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) is mandated to keep the environment under review and has been monitoring proposals for deep seabed mining, both within and beyond national jurisdictions.

While no commercial activities exist at present, several countries have signalled their intention to assess the environmental impact of the activity in their national waters or apply to the International Seabed Authority (ISA) for approval to extract minerals and metals from the deep seabed. These include cobalt, copper, gold, lead, manganese, nickel, silver, zinc and other rare metals.

Romie Goedicke, UNEP Finance Initiative

In an interview with Insurance Day, Romie Goedicke, co-lead for nature at the UNEP Finance Initiative (UNEP FI), outlines the concerns.

What is the purpose of deep-sea mining?

Deep-sea mining refers to the extraction of mineral deposits and metals from the deep seabed, which is the area of the ocean below 200 metres. This activity has been gaining attention due to the anticipated rising demand for minerals and metals found there, but significant concerns have been raised by many stakeholders. To date, 27 countries have asked for a moratorium on deep-sea mining activities, along with more than 45 companies and financial institutions and other key players such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

A key concern of this activity is about three-quarters of the deep seabed is still unexplored and, since the ecosystems found there are unique and fragile, there could be many environmental impacts derived from this activity if it is conducted commercially.

No commercial-scale deep-sea mining has taken place yet, so how would you describe the state of play with its evolution?

The deep seabed is located in zones where states have national jurisdiction or in international waters.

For the former, some nations, such as Norway, are considering allowing deep-sea mining in their exclusive economic zones (where they have rights over natural resources). As for the latter, the ISA – mandated both to regulate exploration for and exploitation of deep seabed minerals found in the seabed and subsoil beyond the limits of national jurisdiction and to ensure the effective protection of the marine environment – has been co-ordinating the process of developing regulations on the exploitation of the deep seabed since 2014 but has yet to determine whether it can be conducted commercially.

In either case, adhering to the precautionary principle as recognised in international law, such as the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, it would be essential to have science-based knowledge about the environmental, social and economic impacts of deep-sea mining before deciding if and how it can take place.

What is your response to the claim deep-sea mining is an environmentally friendly alternative to terrestrial mining that is essential for the transition to renewable energy?

There is no scientific evidence available that confirms the assertions suggesting one (between land or deep-sea mining) is more environmentally friendly than the other. Echoing what UNEP has stated in its issue brief on deep-sea mining from May this year, the environmental impacts of exploiting the deep seabed are currently uncertain and potentially grave, which entails these should be studied further before making any such claims.

What are the potential reputational, financial, operational and regulatory risks for re/insurers and investors from deep-sea mining?

Potential investors or re/insurers in deep-sea mining would face numerous risks, as described in UNEP FI’s briefing paper titled Harmful Marine Extractives: Deep-Sea Mining.

To list some of these, there is a notable reputational risk for companies engaging in or supporting deep-sea mining, especially considering the increase in global calls for a moratorium on deep-sea mining, or even just expressions of concern on its potential impact.

Since these calls come from many actors, including companies, those actively supporting deep-sea mining might be excluded from the supply chains of companies with a stance on the matter, such as Microsoft or Ford.

From an operational standpoint, consideration must be given to how the mining companies’ operations could bring discontent with communities or with civil society, the latter of which has already been voicing its capacity and willingness to protest against marine extractive industries.

Another risk is the current lack of a regulatory framework. The ISA is still working on developing one for maritime zones beyond national jurisdiction and UNEP, through its issues brief on deep-sea mining, has suggested creating a common reporting framework for the valuation of ecosystems across exclusive economic zones and international waters.

Neither is yet in place and it is likely if any future deep-sea mining activity were to cause significant environmental damage, legal action could be taken for damages and regulatory changes may follow as well.

UNEP FI has concluded that the extraction of seabed deposits cannot be considered sustainable and urges financial institutions not to support the sector. Why have you reached this conclusion?

A key challenge to the viability of deep-sea mining is the lack of certainty of environmental impacts for marine ecosystems, as well as social ones. Until the need for and the consequences of deep-sea mining commercially are better understood, it is difficult to state deep-sea mining could align with the definition of a sustainable blue economy and whether it could be part of a net-zero and nature-positive future.

Taking into account the goals of the Paris Agreement and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, UNEP FI advises financial institutions against supporting the sector until and if there is clear evidence the social and environmental impacts can align with a sustainable pathway.