Image credit: © Stephanie Keith / Greenpeace
As publishers connecting the global ocean conservation community, we’ve watched with growing concern as the United States government signals a controversial shift on deep-sea mining. The plan is to support mining operations outside the established United Nations framework – specifically bypassing the International Seabed Authority (ISA). This UN body is responsible for regulating mineral activities in international waters. An executive order signed April 24 directs U.S. agencies to fast-track permits using only national law. For us, and for the many working on the front lines of ocean protection whom we connect with daily, this move raises significant alarm and challenges the collaborative international approach vital for protecting our shared seas.
Why Bypassing Global Oversight Matters
This move leverages the U.S. Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act (DSHMRA), essentially creating a separate, national pathway for mining permits. It sidesteps the environmental standards and collective decision-making the ISA is painstakingly developing. What makes this particularly jarring is that the U.S. benefits substantially from the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)—the very treaty that established the ISA—even though it hasn’t officially signed it. We’ve seen the U.S. use UNCLOS provisions to claim vast seabed territories, making this departure from its spirit even more concerning.
This action feels like it undermines the ISA’s authority when international cooperation is most needed. It follows recent ISA meetings where over 20 nations pushed for stronger environmental rules. Furthermore, the new ISA Secretary-General, Leticia Carvalho, has clearly condemned efforts to bypass the Authority’s governance structure.
Weighing Corporate Interests and Environmental Risks
The immediate focus is on The Metals Company (TMC) and its ambition to mine the resource-rich Clarion-Clipperton Zone in the Pacific – an area teeming with unique life far outside U.S. waters. Their apparent willingness to proceed without full ISA approval is a major point of contention. Indeed, during the ISA’s recent 30th Council session, ISA Member States and Secretary-General Carvalho swiftly condemned an earlier announcement from TMC as a blatant attempt to sidestep international law and undermine multilateral governance.
From our vantage point, connecting researchers and conservationists globally, the potential ecological fallout is immense. As Arlo Hemphill of Greenpeace USA aptly put it, “Authorizing deep-sea mining outside international law is like lighting a match in a room full of dynamite… It threatens ecosystems, global cooperation, and U.S. credibility all at once.” While this order speeds up the process, it’s crucial to remember, as Greenpeace notes, that significant resistance is likely, just as previous attempts faced.
A Divided World and a Fractured Consensus?
This unilateral stance feels increasingly out of step with the global mood. We see a growing international coalition – now 32 countries – calling for a moratorium or at least a precautionary pause on deep-sea mining. Alongside these governments, millions of people worldwide have spoken out against this dangerous emerging industry. They rightly cite the risk of irreversible harm to fragile deep-sea ecosystems. These are habitats critical for biodiversity and climate regulation, ecosystems we strive to highlight and explain. The simple truth is, we still know far too little about the potential impacts of large-scale mining in these remote environments.
This U.S. action risks damaging the global consensus on ocean management carefully built over decades. It forces us to ask hard questions about how we manage shared resources fairly and responsibly. We hear constantly from scientists and conservationists working tirelessly, often in isolated conditions, and for them, this disregard for multilateralism can feel like a significant setback.
The Path Forward
The push for deep-sea mining is gaining speed against a backdrop of serious global opposition. We believe this puts the international community at a critical crossroads. Protecting our shared ocean demands robust global cooperation, transparent rules, and decisions grounded in science – principles we know resonate deeply across the network of people dedicated to ocean health. How the world navigates this challenge will profoundly shape the future of ocean stewardship.