‘This would be the largest mining operation in the history of humanity’
Interview with oceans campaigner Emma Wilson about plans to mine global seabeds
The International Seabed Authority (ISA) Assembly met in Jamaica last month to discuss an almost unimaginably big subject: opening up the world’s oceans and seas to mining. The good news: no mining code for international waters - making up almost two thirds of the planet - was agreed or adopted. The bad news: a legal loophole permitting companies to apply to mine, even though no regulations exist, wasn’t closed. Here, via email, British-French activist Emma Wilson, from the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition (DSCC), explains what has been going on:
DH: This issue might seem rather removed from most readers, so before discussing the recent negotiations I want to start by asking a couple of basic questions. The first: when we talk about “mining the ocean”, what exactly does that entail? I.e. how is it done?
EW: The first thing to note is that, although deep ocean issues might well seem removed from your average reader, these ecosystems affect all of us through the vital role they play in climate regulation. It is commonly said that three out of every four breaths we take come from the ocean. It is one of our most important carbon sinks - we need to prioritise its protection, rather than launch an activity that will result in irreversible harm to these fragile environments.
DH: Point taken. What does it involve then?
EW: Deep-sea mining - DSM - involves lowering 100 tonne bulldozers onto the sea floor where they suck up polymetallic nodules and anything else that happens to be in the target zone. These nodules are then transported up to a surface ship via a wide collector pipe, several kilometres long. On the collector ship, the nodules are processed and a discharge of sediment and potentially toxic wastewater is released back into the water column. There would be a second sediment plume coming from the mining vehicles on the seafloor. These dual plumes are concerning because they will travel far beyond the mining sites and are likely to have impacts on many marine organisms, including iconic species such as whales, whose migration routes happen to pass through or near the mining sites currently targeted. On top of the plumes and the direct destruction of habitat and marine life on the seabed, this whole operation would generate a lot of noise and light, which is also predicted to have impacts on entire marine ecosystems. It was also recently discovered that some of the polymetallic nodules are radioactive. The impacts of DSM are said by scientists to be irreversible and it is technically impossible to restore deep-sea ecosystems. If it were to go ahead on the scale currently planned, it would be the largest mining operation in the history of humanity.
DH: I’ve got so many questions in response to that! Next is a historical one for context: to date, how much DSM has there been?
EW: Commercial scale DSM has never happened to date. However, there are currently 31 exploration contracts for DSM in international waters, which collectively cover 1.5 million km2. This is an area the size of Mongolia, but, of course, the impacts could travel well beyond the mining zones themselves. The Canadian venture, The Metals Company, is pushing aggressively to be the first to start actual exploitation, with a view to launching their activities within the next couple of years, despite the significant environmental risks and gaps in scientific understanding. There have been some attempts to launch DSM in the national waters of countries such as Papua New Guinea and New Zealand, but in all cases the initiatives have been shut down due to the potential environmental consequences. In fact, New Zealand is now calling for a moratorium on DSM.
DH: I see. So, so far there has been no exploitation, but there has been exploration. What does exploration involve then?
EW: This ranges from scoping for mineral deposits, to environmental impact assessments, to carrying out test mines. The first full-blown test mine took place late last year. There was a breakdown of process that resulted in an unplanned spill - indicating once again the risky nature of this activity, even on a small scale.
DH: I understand from the recent negotiations in Jamaica that no agreement on a mining code was agreed or adopted. How significant would you say that was?
EW: This was a big blow to the DSM industry - their stocks have plummeted - and a big win for nature. The adoption of a code would essentially mean giving the green light to DSM. The fact that hasn't happened is demonstrative of the global resistance to the industry - which is growing fast. One short year ago, not a single country had stood up and made the call for a moratorium, and now there are 22, whereas there are only a handful of countries that seem intent on adopting a code and starting DSM as soon as possible. We should also look beyond country positions to what is happening in other sectors: over the past couple of months, the UN High Commission on Human Rights, the global seafood sector, 37 global financial institutions, scores of parliamentarians, leading scientists, indigenous groups and youth groups have all called for a halt to DSM.
DH: I understand that the UK is one of the “handful of countries” that have been pushing it. As a British citizen, that particularly concerns me. How has the UK been doing that exactly?
EW: The UK's position is somewhat ambiguous. On the one hand, they have committed not to sponsor or support the issuing of any exploitation licences for DSM unless and until there is sufficient scientific understanding about the potential impacts on deep-sea ecosystems. But on the other hand, the UK delegation at the ISA is one of the most vocal advocates for an accelerated adoption of regulations. As I said before, the adoption of a code would open the gates to DSM, with or without sufficient scientific understanding of the impacts. Why? Firstly, because a code is made to be used - it will not simply sit in a drawer and gather dust. Secondly, the ISA is structured in such a way that the whole system is weighted in favour of granting contracts. The UK is becoming increasingly isolated among Western European countries, most of which have taken bold leadership positions calling for a precautionary pause on DSM. It would be good to see the UK step up to the mark and become part of that group of environmental leaders.
DH: Do you know who exactly made up the UK delegation in Jamaica? From the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), or others?
EW: I won’t drop the names, but the UK is represented at the ISA by the FCDO and a couple of people from the UN Ocean Negotiations Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
DH: Why do you think the UK, rather than other countries, has been such a vocal advocate?
EW: It's really hard to say.
DH: But the threat of a code remains, right? Certain governments will keep pushing for it?
EW: Yes, the threat remains real and urgent. There are a number of governments and industry players keen to get a code in place and open up the deep to extraction asap. Worse still, due to an obscure loophole in international maritime law, a company could actually apply for a contract now, even in the absence of a code. We’re expecting The Metals Company to submit their application next year, in a last ditch attempt before they run out of money. A moratorium would prevent the ISA from granting the first contract that would launch the industry.
DH: Can you explain what exactly that loophole is?
EW: The loophole is found in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea - an important piece of international maritime law, but one that was negotiated several decades ago in a very different social, political and environmental context. Basically, this loophole, referred to as “the two-year rule”, can be triggered by any member state of the ISA and it essentially starts a sort of legal countdown, giving states two years to adopt a mining code. If a code is not adopted by that time, any company then has free reign to apply for a mining contract anyway. Two years ago, the Pacific Island state of Nauru triggered the countdown and member states of the ISA were delivered an ultimatum: adopt a mining code by July 2023 or be faced with the potential of unregulated mining. In either case, the intention was to start DSM. In either case, the result is the ocean being ravaged by human hands once again.
DH: How come it’s Nauru that has been playing such a key role?
EW: Nauru has been playing a key role because they are in a difficult situation and looking for opportunities for economic diversification, which is completely understandable. They are at the origins of triggering the two-year rule, in the hopes it would speed up the process.
DH: Final question. As you said, more and more governments, financial institutions and individuals have been coming out against DSM. But how can members of the public get involved too?
EW: They can visit www.defendthedeep.org where they can send a pre-prepared email to their government representatives to urge them to call for a moratorium.
DH: Emma, thank you very much.