The International Seabed Authority: Governing the Common Heritage of Humankind, Protecting the Marine Environment, and Regulating Deep-Sea Mining

About this Event

Established under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in 1994, the International Seabed Authority (ISA) is the organization through which States Parties to UNCLOS organize and control all mineral-resources-related activities in the Area for the benefit of humankind as a whole. In so doing, the ISA has the mandate to ensure the effective protection of the marine environment from harmful effects that may arise from deep-seabed-related activities. 

At a time when increased demand for critical raw materials is shaping discussions and geopolitical interests, the mandate of the ISA is ever more important to protect and manage the resources of the deep seabed and to defend the legal principle and the moral responsibility to manage these resources, not for the few but for the benefit of current and future generations. 

This event, organized within the framework of the Geneva Dialogues on Minerals and Metals, took stock of the outcomes of the 30th Session of the ISA, concluded in July 2025 and provided information, perspectives and expectations on the first part of the 31st Session, to be held from 9 to 20 March 2026 in Kingston, Jamaica.

Speakers

Highlights

Video

Live from CAV 

Summary

Opening Remarks

Andrin STUDER | Deputy Head, Swiss Maritime Navigation Office, Switzerland

The International Seabed Authority (ISA) holds a unique mandate. Through the authority, member states collectively organize and oversee all activities related to mineral resources in the area, designated as the common heritage of humankind.

• The ISA mandate has a double nature. The authority can enable the orderly, safe, and responsible development of deep-sea minerals. They do so whilst ensuring that the marine environment is effectively protected from harmful effects from activities.
• Today, in a world where global demand for critical raw materials is intensifying and shaping geopolitical planning and interests, the world tends to focus on the first aspect, the development of the mineral.

Switzerland sees it as their duty to remind everyone of the second aspect of the ISA’s mandate: only if we effectively protect the marine environment will we be able to develop the mineral resources for the benefit of humanity as a whole – across nations, communities and generations.

• Today’s event offers us an opportunity to look at the outcomes of the 30th session of the ISA, and to look ahead to what we can expect of the 31st session. Speakers will share their insights, perspectives and expectations on the evolving regulatory landscape, on the state of negotiations, and on the broader implications for sustainable resource governance.

Keynote | International Seabed Authority

Leticia CARVALHO | Secretary-General, International Seabed Authority

It is a pleasure to join you here in Geneva, a city that has long served as an epicenter of multilateralism, where complex global questions are not avoided, but faced, negotiated, and shaped into institutions that endure.

The International Seabed Authority

We meet at a moment of profound consequence for the future of the ocean, and for humanity’s ability to govern what it shares. 2026 is not simply another year in ocean diplomacy. It is the year in which the global ocean governance architecture under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea finally becomes whole.

• In 1994, a historic step was taken by the international community, and the International Seabed Authority was created with a mission to regulate the sustainable use of the Area and equally protect the unique ecosystems of the deep seabed.

With the entry into force of the BBNJ Agreement, the international community is now taking a bold step toward a consolidated ocean governance. For the first time, we now have a comprehensive legal framework that spans areas beyond national jurisdiction, from the deep seabed to the surface, to help ensure the sustainable use of all ocean resources, be they mineral or biodiversity related. It is the moment when the UNCLOS system, carefully constructed over decades, moves from design to maturity. And with maturity comes responsibility.

The ocean covers more than 70 per cent of the Earth’s surface. It regulates our climate and seasons, sustains biodiversity, provides food, and supports the livelihoods of billions of people. It also contains untapped critical mineral resource reserves that belong to us all.

• In 1967, Maltese diplomat Arvid Pardo stood before the United Nations and called on humanity to treat the seabed beyond national jurisdiction as the common heritage of humankind. His words were visionary. He urged us to prevent conflict, to protect the ocean for peaceful purposes, and to ensure that the wealth of the seabed would serve not the powerful, but all States, especially developing ones. That vision gave birth to UNCLOS. And it gave birth to the International Seabed Authority.
• This principle remains the cornerstone of our mandate and is central to consolidated global ocean governance. It means that no nation, no corporation, and no single interest group can claim rights over the Area. It means that benefits and responsibilities must be shared equitably and intergenerationally. And it affirms that the sustainable use of ocean resources is inseparable from justice, equity, peace, and stability, that only multilateralism can deliver,

Before the technology to reach the seabed even existed, the international community made a collective choice: to ensure that governance would guide activity, not follow it. This is rare in human history. And it is history worth protecting.

• For more than 30 years, the International Seabed Authority has carried out this mandate, to regulate and to protect, and to design a pathway by which to share benefits with foresight and consistency. During this time, the Authority has:
  • Overseen exploration under a strict legal framework.
  • Generated millions of environmental data point, openly shared through DeepData
  • Designated nearly two million square kilometers of Areas of Particular Environmental Interest where mining will be prohibited.
  • Built capacity and enabled technology transfer for developing States.
  • Advanced deep-sea science in one of the Earth’s latest understood environments.
• Building and transferring knowledge, no less than minerals, is part of the common heritage of humankind. This operational experience matters because governance of the global commons is not theoretical. It is built through practice, institutions, and trust.

The BBNJ Agreement

The Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement) constitutes a new building block of UNCLOS and represents a milestone in multilateral efforts toward global ocean governance. Its success will depend on coherence, coordination, and complementarity. This is why the International Seabed Authority is so relevant.

• With more than three decades of operational experience and the world’s most extensive deep-sea environmental database, ISA provides a strong scientific and institutional foundation to our understanding of the deep sea. This can enhance effective BBNJ implementation, while respecting distinct mandates and avoiding duplication. Together, these regimes allow us to finally govern the ocean as what it is: one interconnected system; and through a more comprehensive and holistic approach.
• If 2026 is the year of consolidation of global ocean governance, then we must also be honest about what consolidation requires. It requires that the governance architecture under UNCLOS is not only legally complete, but operationally complete.

For the deep seabed, this means that 2026 must be the year when we complete our rules and regulations, finalizing the mining code and the protection of this unique environment.

• This is a critical milestone to work towards because the deep seabed is not a peripheral space in the ocean system, it covers 54 per cent of the total area of the world’s ocean — an area larger than the land mass of all continents combined. Until the rules, regulations and procedures are in place, the architecture of global ocean governance cannot yet be considered complete.

Incompleteness creates risk: risk of fragmentation, unilateral action, uneven standards, and risk to the very principle of equity that the common heritage of humankind was meant to protect.

• If the deep seabed becomes the wild west, so too the depths to reach it. Therefore, completing this framework is how we close the gaps, securing protection, sustainable use, and benefit sharing.
• Let me speak to the environmental community, a community that I deeply respect and am deeply a part of. Your concerns about the seabed are valid. These ecosystems are ancient, fragile, and still being discovered and understood. But the strongest environmental safeguards to ensure that they are conserved and protected adequately are built through the regulatory framework itself, not outside of it.
• Sharing from my perspective, a moratorium on deep-sea mining as a claim would not align with the principle of the rule of law as defined by UNCLOS. Beyond this, it would not guarantee protection as it has no teeth against unilateral actors. And any unilateral action outside the multilateral arena would destroy the hopes of the common heritage that visionary ocean leaders projected more than 60 years ago. If we fail to adopt a strong, regulated, environmentally sound multilateral framework, we risk witnessing – powerless – a true race to the bottom.
• Because when multilateralism retreats, the vacuum does not remain empty. It is filled by opportunists and by the erosion of equity. That is the real race to the bottom. This is why the Mining Code matters now. Not because of mining itself. But because without rules, there are no safeguards.

The Mining Code is the instrument through which precautionary principles, scientific thresholds, monitoring systems, regional environmental management plans, benefit-sharing, and strict compliance obligations will come together. Getting the rules in place means that when humanity considers exploitation activities in the deep seabed, they must occur only under collectively agreed rules, for the benefit of all, and with the highest environmental safeguards.

• If you want the highest level of protection, your support is greatest now, as these foundations are being finalized. In a year of consolidation, our task is not to deepen divisions, but to find common ground. The completion of the regulatory framework will require consensus.

What we need now is cohesion and responsibility. The responsibility to finish what is asked of us. The responsibility to complete the governance architecture we designed together. The responsibility to protect what belongs to everyone before it is lost.

This is something already happening: there are countries that are doing activities in their Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). This is not a matter of projection, but a matter of fact. As a Secretary-General, I am due to request reports from all countries that respond to ISA of what they are doing over the years. It’s a matter of fact that there is real activity within EEZs. So we need to be able to properly regulate areas that belong to all of us.

If we succeed, 2026 will be remembered as a year of consolidation and decision, the year when global ocean governance became whole. And that is a legacy worthy of our collective stewardship.

Statements and Perspectives

Astrid PUENTES RIAÑO | UN Special Rapporteur on the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment

As a UN Special Rapporteur on the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, it is a privilege for me to share the main reasons why international law and human rights must be included and can also help ISA in implementing their mandate.

First, international law and human rights help to ensure ISA regulations to guarantee effective protection of the deep sea and to contribute states to implement their obligation to protect the environment and the climate system and to avoid further harms in line with the ICJ advisory opinion on climate change and also in the ITLOS advisory opinion in the interpretation of UNCDLOS.

• This obligation of states is also an ergo omnes obligation, meaning it is binding for states because they are part of an international community.
• Accordingly, states must act with astringent due diligence regarding activities that might present significant risks as deep sea mining, because it possesses potentially severe, irreversible risks to marine ecosystems, biodiversity, carbon sequestration and there is scientific uncertainties regarding key aspects.
• This is why regulations in relation to the deep sea, including deep sea mining, must incorporate and implement the precautionary principle. That is essential, as explained in my policy brief about this matter but also in my report on the ocean & human rights (A/HRC/58/59).

Secondly, including human rights, ISA will effectively make sure that all actions respect, protect and fulfil human rights and prevent any further violations.

• The human right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment has been expressly recognized by the majority of states worldwide and has been concluded by the ICJ that the right to a healthy environment is essential for the fulfillment for all other human rights. This is also recognized by the UN.
• The right to a healthy environment includes substantive and procedural elements. One of the key aspects of the substantive elements is safe climate and healthy biodiversity and ecosystems, which includes the ocean and deep sea. There are also procedural elements which include access to information, public participation, and access to justice. These elements are essential and can support ISA to make sure regulations, activities, and processes in the working methods are also transparent, and guarantee effective participation of everyone, including indigenous people, coastal communities as well as others.

Thirdly, it helps to advance consistency in the incorporation of international law and human rights because it reduces the siloed view and compartmentalization of ocean governance and benefits for clarity and the existing standards that the ISA can use and should be using in the regulations.

• Siloed mandates in ocean related organizations is one of the main challenges for stronger ocean governance including in relation to the deep sea that were identified and analyzed in my report on the ocean and human rights.
• Thus, including international law and human rights can benefit ISA and member states to advance and more comprehensively incorporate an integral perspective. This also allows us to benefit from existing standards on key aspects.
• One environmental impact assessment that I described as the need for states to undertake environmental, social, and human rights impact assessments. This is also an obligation under international customary law as the ICJ concluded.

Dario LIGUTI | Director, Sustainable Energy, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe

[Referring to the ISA Secretary-General’s speech] The question now is how to put this into practice, especially since 2026 is being framed as a pivotal year for the governance of the international seabed and the oceans. How do these principles translate into action?

In response to the high-level and clear political direction provided by the Secretary-General and the Special Rapporteurs, I would like to share some concrete instruments, tools and practical experience developed over several decades of work on land-based mining, which may offer useful lessons.

• The demand for critical minerals for the energy transition, digital technologies and increasingly for the defense industry is rising exponentially. An electric vehicle, for example, requires six times more minerals than a traditional internal combustion engine. This has created immense pressure on mining and on the extraction of critical minerals from land, and increasingly from the deep sea and from countries’ exclusive economic zones.
• Markets are already pricing in shortages. For instance, copper prices have risen sharply due to anticipated deficits linked to the energy transition. Copper is not the only concern: minerals such as nickel and cobalt are also estimated to be abundant on the deep seabed.
• This is a profound paradox. The minerals needed to mitigate climate change and transform energy systems are located in an area that is itself poorly understood and critically important for climate regulation. Very little is known about seabed dynamics, chemical processes, carbon cycles, microorganisms, and broader ecosystem interactions.

Energy security has overtaken energy sustainability. This is a reality. Short-term geopolitical pressures are pushing interest toward seabed mining, even though deep-sea mining risks irreversible damage to the common heritage of humankind if undertaken before scientific baselines are established and appropriate technologies are available to minimize impacts.

• Turning to industrial practices, standard mining reporting systems, such as the CRIRSCO family of reporting codes, are designed for land-based mining and focus narrowly on “reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction.” These frameworks are inappropriate for the complexity of deep-sea environments.
• Standard mining reports assume sampling densities that are currently unattainable in the deep sea, where only about one quarter of the seabed has been adequately mapped. As a result, current estimates are highly uncertain and based on limited confidence.

In contrast, the work carried out at UNECE together with a global community of mining experts, offers two complementary and practical tools: the United Nations Framework Classification for Resources (UNFC) and the United Nations Resource Management System (UNRMS).

• UNFC provides a framework for classifying deposits and resources, while UNRMS guides decision-making once an investment is being considered. These tools are unique because they integrate environmental, social, economic, financial and technical dimensions, as well as the degree of confidence associated with available data. The approach explicitly recognizes uncertainty, probabilities and statistical ranges rather than assuming certainty.
• Traditional mining frameworks prioritize investor protection. UNFC, by contrast, incorporates non-commercial and undiscovered data into decision-making. This is essential for strategic policymaking and long-term resource management, covering the full value chain from exploration to extraction, refining, transformation and end use.
• Circular economy principles are embedded throughout, with the ultimate objective of minimizing primary extraction over time and maximizing the use of secondary and anthropogenic resources through recycling and other initiatives.
• Once a decision to proceed is made, UNRMS applies a system of 12 interlinked principles and 55 requirements, all of which must be met to ensure that environmental, social, economic and intergenerational dimensions are fully respected. This represents a paradigm shift from blind extraction toward regenerative stewardship.
• The framework requires assessment of cascading effects of mining on connected marine ecosystems, moving beyond single-project efficiency to evaluate cumulative impacts on planetary boundaries. It also mandates full consideration of circularity and post-extraction regeneration from the outset.
• Intergenerational impacts are assessed upfront. Mining decisions affect ecosystems and communities for generations, yet these considerations are often addressed only at the end of a mine’s life cycle. This framework corrects that imbalance.

In conclusion, there is readiness to support the International Seabed Authority and policymakers in ensuring that the search for critical minerals does not deprive future generations of a healthy ocean.

Minna EPPS | Director, Global Ocean Policy, IUCN and Executive Director, BBNJ High Ambition Coalition Secretariat

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), an international intergovernmental organization, and the world’s oldest and largest environmental network, is a union comprised of both state agency members, civil society organizations as well as Indigenous Peoples organizations.

• We draw our expertise from 19,000 different experts and we’re considered the global authority on the natural world. Members come together every four years at the World Conservation Congress, which is where the agenda on conservation is set.
• Here are some examples of recent achievements of the IUCN in the area of conservation:
  • Many different Multilateral Environment Agreements (MEA) have emerged from our world conservation congress: Convention on Biological diversity, the Ramsar convention also referred to as the lighthouse convention, the world heritage convention as well as the trade and endangered species uh of wild fauna and flora.
• How does it work in practice?
  • Members define the IUCN’s general policy collectively, adopting positions during the Member’s Assembly at Congress
  • The council, which is comprised of representatives from all regions, interprets the policy and provides complimentary guidelines
  • Director general of the IUCN together with the secretariat that implements the policy and program of IUCN
  • The commissions, who are there to provide expert findings, technical and scientific expertise to contribute to IUCN’s hosted many different commissions with a global reach.
• We just concluded the world conservation congress in October last year in Abu Dhabi where many resolutions were adopted. This is the moment when existing resolutions are reviewed to determine which remains active and which may be considered completed.

The focus here is on IUCN Resolution 122, which addresses the protection of the deep ocean through a moratorium on deep seabed mining.

• This resolution was adopted at the previous World Conservation Congress in Marseille, where the largest number of ocean-related resolutions in IUCN history were passed. A reference to the resolution has been provided so that the full text (available in multiple languages on the IUCN website) can be consulted.
• The resolution calls for the protection of deep-ocean ecosystems and biodiversity through a moratorium on deep seabed mining unless and until a number of conditions are met. Six key conditions are outlined: these include a comprehensive understanding of mining risks; the ability to ensure effective protection; and the conduct of rigorous and transparent impact assessments based on comprehensive baseline studies.
• IUCN has long advocated for the precautionary principle as well as the polluter pays principle, both of which must be demonstrably implemented. Policies incorporating circular economy principles for the reuse and recycling of marine minerals must be developed and put into practice. Public consultation must take place throughout the decision-making process.
• In addition, governance of deep seabed mining must be transparent, accountable, inclusive, effective and environmentally responsible.
• The resolution also refers to the need for financial mechanisms that ensure fair access and benefit sharing.
• The resolution sets out a range of conditions, some of which will be addressed in greater detail by other speakers. The focus here is on environmental impact assessments and the current state of the scientific evidence base.
• Scientific knowledge is increasing but significant gaps remain, particularly regarding the nature and scale of impacts. Examples are drawn from a publication in Marine Policy, illustrating different categories of environmental impacts as well as data needs related to deep seabed mining. A reference is also provided to a statement signed by more than 900 marine scientists and policy experts from over 70 countries, warning that deep seabed mining would add additional stressors leading to irreversible biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation over multi-generational timescales. Current scientific understanding is still considered insufficient to determine environmental impacts with confidence, especially given the variability of habitats and ecosystem functioning across different deep-sea sites.
• Looking ahead, reference has been made to the mandate of the International Seabed Authority and to the growing interest in its role. Human rights considerations and other governance dimensions have also been raised. Continued dialogue and collaboration among member states, stakeholders, and scientific communities are therefore essential to improving understanding.

In this context, during the 30th session of the International Seabed Authority—Part II—held in Jamaica in July, IUCN, together with the Dona Bertarelli Foundation and Oceano Azul, and in collaboration with the International Seabed Authority, convened independent scientists, policy and legal experts, and leading economists in dialogues.

• The objective was to examine governance issues and strengthen the evidence base through open dialogue. This event was open to all ISA member states and observers attending the session. The increased willingness of the International Seabed Authority to engage in this exchange was greatly appreciated, as was the opportunity to report back to the Assembly.
• This initiative provided a strong example of the kind of open dialogue needed going forward, underscoring the importance of a transparent, inclusive and science-based approach to shaping the future of the deep-sea environment.
• Finally, to recall IUCN’s role in this space: the IUCN Secretariat works to set the direction of IUCN ocean policy, translate scientific knowledge into actionable advice, advance international and national environmental law, and ensure the credibility and impact of IUCN and its members in ocean governance and policy processes.

David VIVAS EUGUI | Chief, Ocean and Circular Economy Unit, Trade, Environment, Climate change, and Sustainable Development Branch, UN Trade and Development

The relationship between the law of the sea, UNCLOS Part XI and trade is difficult. Most people tend to see trade rules as operating separately, yet there are many linkages. This requires a step-by-step explanation.

• The approach will be pyramidal, moving from constitutional principles to more specific rules.
• Trade is mentioned only a few times in UNCLOS, but where it is mentioned, it is significant. The references mainly concern commodities and activities at sea. One example is the objective of promoting balanced growth in international trade, including the participation of developing countries and landlocked countries like Switzerland.
• There are also explicit references to trade rules, specifically in relation to unfair trade practices. This is important not only in terms of obligations, but also for dispute settlement. Areas such as dumping, subsidies and illegal activities are directly relevant.
• Turning to the implementing agreements to Part XI and the BBNJ Agreement, we see more and the references become more explicit particularly in the annexes.
  • First, the International Seabed Authority has an obligation to monitor and review deep-sea mining trends and world metal market conditions, including the relationship between land-based and seabed mining.
  • Second, the Authority must assess impacts on developing land-based producers because changes in supply and demand could affect trade flows once exploitation begins.
• In the section on production, it is explicitly stated that GATT and successor agreements, including WTO agreements, apply to activities in the Area. This provision is often overlooked. It also establishes two non-discrimination principles that do not exist explicitly in WTO law:
  • The first is non-discrimination between minerals sourced from the Area and minerals from other sources.
  • The second is the prohibition of preferential market access based on discriminatory non-tariff measures or the nationality of enterprises. This is particularly important for exploration and exploitation permits, as exclusive sourcing agreements could otherwise exclude others.

The BBNJ Agreement adds an new regulatory layer in terms of environmental impact assessments and area-based management tools. These requirements will apply alongside the rules developed by the International Seabed Authority.

• From a trade perspective, several clarifications are important. WTO law does not govern in situ resources or sovereign rights over resources. However, when certain trade measures affect the flow of resources, especially when resources are transformed into raw materials through extraction and processing, WTO rules may apply. This distinction is well established in WTO jurisprudence, including cases involving tuna, shrimp, softwood lumber, metals and rare earths. Relevant measures include non-tariff measures, standards, subsidies, exclusive rights and monopolies. This could happen especially in the mining sector, where these things tend to be quite concentrated.
• Article 20 exceptions may provide limited safeguards, but coverage still exists.

UNCTAD is the only UN agency with a database on ocean-related trade in goods and services. In goods, minerals are included, but currently only marine sand and brine salt minerals.

• Oil and gas were excluded at the request of member states, as were deep-sea minerals. The reasons included political sensitivity and the absence of large-scale exploitation. These exclusions could be revisited in the future.
• Trade tracking relies on HS codes for goods, which apply only to extracted and processed raw materials. It is currently impossible to distinguish, through HS codes, between land-based and seabed-sourced minerals, except in limited cases such as salt, where production methods differ.
• Many deep-sea mining activities like exploration, data collection, drilling, extraction, transport, environmental mitigation are services not goods. These fall under WTO services classifications and the UN Central Product Classification, but no methodology currently exists to track deep-sea mineral-related services. Without new tools, meaningful monitoring will be extremely difficult.
• Deep-sea mining remains largely at the exploration stage. There are arguments in favor of development but additional factors must be acknowledged.
• Interest extends beyond energy transition minerals to precious metals such as gold, platinum, silver and diamonds. There is also a strategic interest in reducing dependency on geographically concentrated land-based mineral supplies, including cobalt and rare earths, for technological, energy, defense and financial reasons.
• At the same time, existing evidence suggests that exploitation may not yet be economically or environmentally viable, particularly when full environmental costs and permanent ecosystem damage are considered. Studies to date do not indicate a clear path forward. The precautionary approach remains central. Advisory opinions have emphasized due diligence, but the appropriate level of due diligence must be defined given the fragility and interconnectedness of marine ecosystems. Moratoria should be understood as temporary measures, intended to remain in place until sufficient scientific and regulatory certainty is achieved.

Three key messages emerge:

• First, policy coherence is essential. Human rights law, environmental law, mineral policy, and trade policy must be aligned. The UN Secretary-General’s Task Force on Critical Minerals currently focuses on land-based resources, with little attention to seabed sources. This gap risks the development of parallel and potentially contradictory standards. Engagement is needed before this becomes entrenched.
• Second, stronger institutional coordination is required within the International Seabed Authority and across the UN system. Inter-agency mechanisms can help clarify mandates and ensure coherence in trade, environmental, and resource governance.
• Finally, an invitation is extended to continue this discussion at the UN Ocean Forum in Geneva, the largest ocean economy event in the city, held every three years. The next edition will take place in 2027–2028 ahead of the 4th UN Ocean Conference. This could provide a valuable platform; particularly in Geneva, where economic agencies are concentrated; to deepen analysis and dialogue on these issues.

Jessica BATTLE | Lead, No Deep Seabed Mining Initiative, WWF

There is one issue I would like to place squarely at the center of this discussion. It has perhaps less to do with the International Seabed Authority itself and more to do with what we are really talking about here: minerals that may or may not enter circulation in the global economy, depending on future decisions.

• There is a clear need for much greater investment in the circular economy. In 2022, we released a report, The Future is Circular Circular Economy and Critical Minerals for the Green Transition, researched and written by a European research consortium based in Norway, examining various scenarios to assess whether deep-sea mining would be required as part of the mineral mix for the energy transition (when we talk about the energy transition, we are talking about a transition from a fossil-based economy to a fossil-free economy). The clear conclusion of that analysis was that deep-sea minerals are not needed for this transition. This conclusion does, however, depend on investment in alternative technologies.
• Circularity is central to this discussion, and circularity is not limited to recycling. It also includes substitution of raw materials. For example, cobalt is already being phased out in many applications due to the risks associated with its extraction on land.
• The study explored four different scenarios. While there is no time to go through them in detail, the overall finding was that by embracing circularity, recycling, technological innovation, and material substitution, mineral demand could be reduced by approximately 58 percent by 2050. The remaining demand could be met through existing mines, re-mining, and mining waste.
• From this broader demand perspective, there is no need to open the deep sea to mining. There may be other motivations for doing so, but necessity is not one of them, according to this analysis.

It is also important to emphasize that every year is the year of the ocean, not just this one. The ocean is not going away, and its problems are not temporary. They must be addressed continuously, not only in 2026. There is no need to rush a decision simply because a particular year has been designated as significant. All relevant information must be on the table before decisions are taken.

• From WWF’s perspective, as a civil society organization and observer to the International Seabed Authority, positions are developed internally through a unified process. WWF is not only an ocean organization; it works across biomes and issues, including forests, climate change, and finance. This integrated approach informs its position.
• That position is a moratorium on deep-sea mining. A key reason for this stance is the lack of scientific knowledge. Informed decisions about whether deep-sea ecosystems can be protected alongside mining activities require robust scientific evidence. That evidence does not yet exist. Scientists estimate that at least another 15 years of research are needed to build a sufficient knowledge base.
• Deep-sea science is extremely expensive. It requires specialized vessels, advanced equipment and sustained investment over time. Given this reality, the international community should prioritize two actions: investing in the circular economy and investing in deep-sea ocean science. Once those investments have been made and the evidence is available, the question of deep-sea mining can be revisited if it is still deemed necessary.

Regulation is indeed essential, but it cannot be effective unless it is strict enough to prevent mining in the absence of adequate scientific understanding. It is difficult to see how current decision-making structures could ensure that outcome.

• These remarks reflect a deeply held concern. The discussion today has been extremely valuable, and the interventions from all speakers have been very interesting.

Open Discussion

Q, Arthur Dahl: [I would like to] Raise two underrepresented issues in discussions on deep-sea mining:

• Cultural and spiritual dimensions: Drawing on co-authored research with Pacific Island communities, emphasizes that for many Indigenous Peoples, the ocean is not external to human life but an integral part of identity, culture, and spirituality. Any harm to the ocean is experienced as harm to the community itself.
• Ecological function of polymetallic nodules: Highlights recent studies showing that nodules are active sites of chemical and microbial processes that generate oxygen on the ocean floor. These nodules are not inert resources but central to deep-sea ecosystems, meaning their removal could destabilize life on the seabed.

Q, Daouia Chalali, researcher from UNU-CPR: As we’re heading to the Human Rights Council that a group of leading experts including experts and UN Special Rapporteurs have developed the Maastricht Principles on the Human Rights of Future Generations in 2023 that states that we cannot discriminate against future generations of people that do not exist yet in our decision-making simply because they do not exist yet.

• Many national constitutions already reflect this principle through sustainable resource management provisions. At the multilateral level, there is the idea of repurposing the UN Trusteeship Council into a board overseeing global commons for present and future generations, building on the ISA model, which is applicable to many other areas as well.

Q, from the floor: Following up on what Jessica has said on the high cost of research on the deep sea, I wanted to ask how the ISA ensures that scientific research informing deep-sea mining decisions is independent, particularly research not funded by industry?

Leticia Carvalho

• All research is welcomed by the ISA, from all spaces. We do not monopolize science or knowledge—this includes all forms of knowledge, not only scientific. As a regulatory body, the ISA has processes to integrate science into decision-making. Independent science exists within the Legal and Technical Commission, whose members are nominated by states but selected for their professional expertise.
• Contractors are obliged to collect data, but the science itself is not commissioned by them. Environmental data are shared openly through the ISA’s DeepData repository and transferred to UNESCO’s IOC, with only commercial data remaining confidential.
• The precautionary principle is a pillar of UNCLOS and the ISA framework. Through regulations, we translate this principle into concrete precautionary approaches. This is a year of consolidation for regulatory frameworks, including BBNJ and the ISA Mining Code. What we need is common ground, not deeper divisions.

Q, Jean-Pierre Reymond, Executive Director, 2050Today: First, a reminder about critical minerals. In 2024 alone, around two billion mobile phones were sold. Do we actually need all of them? If we answer that, we can answer whether we need these minerals.

• My question is: if rules on deep-sea mining are defined, who ensures they are implemented and respected? We already see how difficult enforcement is in the fishing sector.

Jessica Battle

• I’ll respond by referencing a company symbolized by a fruit – Apple. In 2025, they reached 99% recycling rates on their iPhones. They have incredible sustainability and recycling targets in their business model. In 2024, they avoided 6.2 million metric tons of emissions by going circular. In 2025, 100% of their rare earths and cobalt were recycled. This shows the potential of circular economy approaches.

Leticia Carvalho

• I want to be very bold here. First, the need comes from the market. It is not for the ISA to predict whether a need exists. We regulate activities if they are in the interest of member states and the private sector – we do not determine whether the activity happens. Second, the need can be economic, geopolitical, or linked to security of supply. Regardless of the reason, if there is a claimed need, it must be regulated and monitored.
• Second question on enforcement: it depends on your faith in multilateralism. As secretary general of ISA, I have full faith in multilateralism. There’s no authority above us. Without multilateral rules, activities already happen under national jurisdictions without collective oversight. Multilateral action maximizes robustness and transparency.

Comment, Cecilia Atherton, Panama:

I want to briefly share our position. Panama is a small country surrounded by ocean, everywhere. We do not engage in deep-sea mining, but we strongly support the precautionary principle. Nationally, 54% of our coastal areas are protected from mining. If a small country like ours can commit to this, others can too. We support your work and thank you for the invitation.

Closing

What is your wish for the upcoming ISA meetings?

• David Vivas Eugui: Success in developing the regulations, regardless of when they are going to be applied. We also need greater coherence, especially with non-UNCLOS parties.
• Dario Liguti: For me its progress, because lack of progress leaves regulatory gaps that will be remain open without oversight.
• Jessica Battle: I hope there will be a proper discussion at the Assembly on the need for a precautionary pause or moratorium. This has never been fully debated. I hope there will be an open discussion about the needs for the cautionary pause and that all voices, including Indigenous peoples, will be heard.
• Minna Epps: We should not rush regulation. My wish is that we have a renewed faith in multilateralism and a continued open, transparent, and inclusive dialogue for all.
• Leticia Carvalho: My wish is consensus on completing the regulatory framework. All voices are needed, and I hope to welcome you all in Kingston in early February.

Andrin Studer: Switzerland will be present in Kingston together with the Federal Office for the Environment, and we look forward to continuing these discussions.

 

Photos

Documents

• Presentations made during the event

Links

• Geneva Dialogues on Mineral and Metal Resources
• Deep-Sea Mining Governance and the Role of Geneva