Pacific Islands may receive ‘less than a CEO’s annual income’ if deep sea mining goes ahead
For the US, controlling key resources is now almost indistinguishable from power projection.This has become increasingly noticeable with deep sea mining.Seabed minerals have gained geopolitical importance in recent years as the energy transition drives up critical mineral demand and supply chain concentration raises security concerns around choke points.Countries are seeking to diversify supply chains in numerous ways, from forming progressive bilateral trade frameworks, increasing domestic production investment and now exploring non-terrestrial resources.Rich in polymetallic nodules containing nickel, cobalt, copper and manganese — metals crucial to green energy infrastructure and advanced technologies — the sea floor of the Pacific Ocean is of particular interest to deep sea miners.The Clarion-Clipperton zone (CCZ), an abyssal plain stretching between Hawaii and Mexico, is a hotspot for deep sea mining exploration. The International Seabed Authority (ISA) regulates mineral-related activities in ‘the Area’ — the seabed beyond national jurisdiction — which covers about 54% of the world’s ocean area.Deep sea mining has been controversial from the get-go due to complex and often unclear authority associated with international waters.ISA secretary general Leticia Carvalho says current policy settings allow countries to pursue deep sea mining within their own territorial waters or “exclusive economic zones”.“But, under international law, the deep seabed belongs to no single country or corporation,” she said.“It is our common heritage.”Early last year, US President Donald Trump issued an executive order to advance deep-sea mining that would bypass the ISA in a move that reflects growing unilateralism within the US.Independent choices such as these places tension on already strained relationships that rely on collaboration and multilateral treaties for stability — especially when it comes to complex oceanic issues.The US’ move to fast-track deep-sea mining exacerbates existing tensions, such as those seen in the South China Sea where China and Japan have long disputed claims over territorial waters.Following the US’ move, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) consolidated previously fragmented permitting process to streamline deep sea mining approvals in the US.NOAA’s National Ocean Service also launched a new hydrographic survey project to map and characterise more than 55,000km2 of federal waters — an area abundant in polymetallic nodules rich in nickel, cobalt and rare earth elements — off American Samoa.Under international law, companies cannot mine in international waters without being officially sponsored by the relevant national government. This becomes particularly contentious within Pacific nations as they lie close together but are separately governed, like Samoa which is about only 80km from American Samoa.As a result, deep-sea mining companies see Pacific states as crucial partners to allow access reserved areas of the international seabed. This is potentially problematic as many of these states are considered developing countries and may lack the governance and authority to regulate the use of their territorial waters.New independent research commissioned by Greenpeace International shows that under a scenario where six deep sea mining sites begin operating in the early 2030s, the revenues that states would receive are extraordinarily small. This is in contrast to the mandate of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which requires mining to be carried out for the benefit of humankind as a whole.The research by legal professor Dr Harvey Mpoto Bombaka and development economist Dr Ben Tippet reveals that, under mechanisms proposed by the ISA profit sharing from deep sea mining, Pacific Island nations would receive about $65,000 per year in the short term, then about $350,000 per year in the medium term, averaging out to about $540,000 per year for 28 years.In contrast, according to the research, mining companies are projected to earn more than $19b per year."What’s described as global benefit-sharing based on equity and intergenerational justice increasingly looks like a framework for managing scarcity that would deliver almost no real benefits to anyone other than the deep sea mining industry,” Dr Mpoto Bombaka said.“The structural limitations of the proposed mechanism would offer little more than symbolic returns to the rest of the world, particularly developing countries lacking technological and financial capacity."Currently, 40 ISA member countries back a moratorium or precautionary pause on deep sea mining. The ISA will meet in March for its first session of the year.
