“Preventive measures” are the logical method for deep sea mining, researchers say

Pressure on the International Submarine Authority (ISA) has finalized and adopted regulations on deep sea mining. While some ISA members hope for immediate progress, more and more states are demanding more time to study the environmental impact of raw material mining on the seabed and develop appropriate regulatory frameworks. What legal forms can such delays take, and what are the political outcomes?

A team of researchers led by Pradeep Singh of the Institute for Sustainability (RIF) is working on these issues at Journal Ocean Development & International Law.

Many of the 169 members of the ISA spoke in support of a preventive suspension or moratorium on deep sea mining. Many of them felt compelled to do so in 2021 when the island’s Nauru province triggered a treaty clause known as the “two-year regulations.”

However, the ISA was unable to agree to regulations before the deadline passed. Many states and observers are worried that applications for exploitation can be submitted for approval.

Moratoriums have more legal forces, but preventive suspensions can have the necessary consequences

There are many notable issues that require further research and discussion, and appropriate legal action is required to delay mining activities. Environmental concerns lie at the forefront of calls for a suspension of deep-sea mining or precautions, but there are other “gaps” that need to be filled before mining activities can be properly regulated, evaluated and allowed. These gaps are related to research, technical, regulatory, institutional and procedural ambiguity, and other issues related to global governance.

According to researchers, legal basis for the deferral of deep-sea mining clearly exists under international law, given the many obligations and responsibilities that have not yet been met before the state begins responsibly.

“There is more convergence between the terms “preventive pause” and “moratorium” than the difference. The effect is more important than labels and terminology,” says Singh. Both ISA suspensions or moratoriums can effectively have a “freezing effect” in the transition from exploration to exploitation, following a preventive approach.

Deferrals can have unintended consequences, but they are still a wise route to take

The author describes the moratorium as a formal and binding halt. It has considerable weight in international law and usually requires formal agreement or resolution. Given the tendency for ISAs to work based on the benefits involved and consensus, this may be difficult to achieve in the first example.

Preventive suspensions in several ways can be considered a weak measure of legal conditions, as they may be characterized by informal agreements and soft parameters. However, for practical reasons, ISAs may prefer it as they may have less resistance. It also retains the intent to continue developing the necessary frameworks and define acceptable parameters for the purposes of applying them in the future.

Moratrium options ripen for further consideration if it becomes clear that an appropriate and appropriate regulatory framework for responsible governance of extraction activities cannot be achieved.

The paper points out that there is already a clear pattern from the position of the ISA council, and that in many states, commercial mining should not begin without regulations, requires more time and knowledge to develop a strong, enforceable, robust framework suitable for their purposes.

However, the authors acknowledge that decision to postpone activities in the ISA could have unintended consequences. This includes focusing on the potential for geopolitical tensions and the submarine mining of areas within national jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the paper concludes that the advantages of implementing a pause outweigh the decision to advance commercial exploitation at the international seabed.

Negotiations remain complicated

Previously, ISA members agreed to continue negotiations on regulations in 2025 with adoption goals. However, this seems highly unlikely given the many notable issues currently unnegotiated and the lack of scientific knowledge to inform decisions.

“It is inevitable that we must agree on a revised roadmap,” Singh says. Furthermore, this would further extend negotiations if an application for exploitation is submitted for consideration in the latter half of the year if there is no regulation.

“ISA members are forced to take a stance when faced with the potential for exploitation that occurs in the absence of regulations. This could mean that more states will come out in favor of suspension or moratorium,” he adds.

Whatever the term or label used, it is a logical and responsible way to postpone the initiation of exploitation activities to the point where the conditions are met.