idw – Informationsdienst Wissenschaft
Nachrichten, Termine, Experten
Nachrichten, Termine, Experten
Pressure on the International Seabed Authority (ISA) to finalise and adopt regulations for deep-sea mining is increasing. While some ISA member states are hoping to see progress soon, a growing number of states are demanding more time to research the environmental impact of mining raw materials on the seabed and to develop an appropriate regulatory framework. What are the legal forms such a delay could take and what would the political consequences be? A team of researchers led by Pradeep Singh from the Research Institute for Sustainability (RIFS) have addressed these matters in the journal “Ocean Development & International Law”.
A sizable number out of the 169 member states of the ISA have spoken out in favour of a precautionary pause or moratorium on deep-sea mining. Many of them likely felt compelled to do so when the island state of Nauru triggered a treaty provision known as the "two-year rule" in 2021. The provision requires the International Seabed Authority (ISA) to develop and adopt regulations for deep-sea mining within a 2-year period. However, the ISA was unable to agree on any regulations before the passing of the deadline. Many states and observers are worried that an application for exploitation could now be submitted for approval with no regulations in place.
Moratorium has more legal force, but a precautionary pause can deliver the needed outcome
With many of the outstanding issues requiring further study and debate, a suitable legal measure is needed to delay any mining activities. Environmental concerns are at the forefront of calls for a moratorium or precautionary pause on deep-sea mining, but there are other "gaps" that need to be filled before mining activities can be properly regulated, assessed, and authorised. These gaps relate to research, technology, regulation, institutional and procedural ambiguities and other issues related to global governance more broadly.
According to the researchers, the legal basis to defer deep-sea mining is clearly present under international law, given that states have many obligations and responsibilities that are yet to be fulfilled before such activities can commence responsibly. “There are more convergences between the terms ‘precautionary pause’ and ‘moratorium’ than differences. The effect is more important than the label or terminology,” says Pradeep Singh. Both a pause or moratorium at the ISA can effectively have a “freezing effect” – in accordance with the precautionary approach – on the transition from exploration to exploitation.
Postponement can have unintended consequences but is still a sensible pathway to take
The authors describe a moratorium as a formal and binding stop. It carries considerable weight in international law and usually requires a formal agreement or resolution. In view of the interests involved and the tendency of the ISA to operate based on consensus, this could be difficult to achieve at the first instance. A precautionary pause in some ways could be seen as a weaker measure in legal terms, as it can result from informal agreements and feature softer parameters. For pragmatic reasons, however, the ISA might prefer it, as it might face less resistance and preserves the intention to continue the development of the necessary frameworks and define the acceptable parameters with the view to apply them in future. The moratorium option would then be ripe for consideration further down the line if it becomes apparent that a fit-for-purpose regulatory framework for the responsible governance of extraction activities is not achievable. The paper notes that there is already a clear pattern from the position of the ISA Council and many states that commercial mining should not commence in the absence of regulations, and that more time and knowledge is needed to develop a strong, enforceable, and robust framework that is fit for purpose.
However, a decision to postpone activities at the ISA could also have unintended consequences, the authors concede. This includes possible geopolitical tensions or turning the attention towards seabed mining in areas within national jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the paper concludes that the benefit of implementing a pause would outweigh any decision to go ahead with commercial exploitation on the international seabed.
Negotiations remain complex
Previously, ISA members agreed to continue negotiations on regulations with a view to their adoption in 2025. However, this now seems highly unlikely given the many outstanding matters that remain to be negotiated and the lack of scientific knowledge to inform decision-making. “It is quite inevitable that a revised roadmap would have to be agreed”, says Singh. Moreover, if an application for exploitation is submitted for consideration in the absence of regulations later in the year, this would further prolong the negotiations. “ISA members will be compelled to take a stance when faced with the potentiality of exploitation occurring in the absence of regulations, which might mean even more states coming out in support of a pause or moratorium”, he adds. Whatever the terminology or label that is used, postponing the commencement of exploitation activities until such time when conditions are met is a logical and responsible way forward.
Pradeep Singh
pradeep.singh@rifs-potsdam.de
Singh, P., Jaeckel, A., & Ardron, J. A. (2025). A Pause or Moratorium for Deep Seabed Mining in the Area? The Legal Basis, Potential Pathways, and Possible Policy Implications. Ocean development and international law, 56(1), 18-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2024.2439877
States that have expressed a specific position at the International Seabed Authority
RIFS@GFZ
Criteria of this press release:
Journalists
Economics / business administration, Environment / ecology, Oceanology / climate, Politics
transregional, national
Research results
English
States that have expressed a specific position at the International Seabed Authority
RIFS@GFZ
You can combine search terms with and, or and/or not, e.g. Philo not logy.
You can use brackets to separate combinations from each other, e.g. (Philo not logy) or (Psycho and logy).
Coherent groups of words will be located as complete phrases if you put them into quotation marks, e.g. “Federal Republic of Germany”.
You can also use the advanced search without entering search terms. It will then follow the criteria you have selected (e.g. country or subject area).
If you have not selected any criteria in a given category, the entire category will be searched (e.g. all subject areas or all countries).
