The International Seabed Authority, a United Nations body established under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea to regulate mining in international waters, elected a new leader today. Brazilian oceanographer Leticia Carvalho of Brazil won with 79 votes compared to the incumbent British marine lawyer Michael Lodge’s 34 votes. Ms. Carvalho has pitched herself as “an arbiter between cutting-edge science, corporate interests and states’ competing positions.” This is indeed an admirable but challenging task for a topic where selective interpretations of science is being used by proponents and opponents of deep-sea mining.
A case in point is the revelation by a group of researchers last month that “dark oxygen” was being generated by electrolysis from polymetallic nodules that are to be extracted in the first phase of extraction. Earlier studies had found net oxygen consumption and in a relatively swift review by only two peer reviewers, the journal Nature Geoscience still published the findings in their “brief communications” section. As one of the most influential journal family for scientific credibility, this news has been picked up widely by the media, but we need to be cautious about its interpretation. Science is a journey and not a destination. As the lead authors have noted themselves, we need to replicate the results and more significantly gauge if such oxygen is playing any biogeochemical role at scale. For example, the methane release from permafrost, gets reabsorbed and actual release to the atmosphere was found to be one tenth of initial estimates.
The journal Nature has itself taken an unusually strident editorial position against deep sea mining by rebuking Norway for merely allowing exploration of deep-sea minerals in its territorial waters. To their credit, Nature’s editorial team did publish my letter criticizing this mingling of activism and science. Editors of this journal and its ever-expanding progeny of specialized publication venues have immense power to make or break academic careers. Activists are in full campaign mode to name and shame any researchers who disagree with their agenda through innuendo on funding or speculating on ulterior motives. Interestingly, the dark oxygen research was also partially funded by industry and yet led to results which are not favorable to their interests.
As with other polarized issues such as nuclear energy, there has been a tendency for science and advocacy to get intertwined. The ISA’s new leader will need to pay special attention to how science is validated through multiple venues. She will need to ensure that policymakers, specially from small donor-dependent states, do not succumb to intimidation from well-intentioned activists or wealthy industrialists — both of whom will always be selective in their use of science. The argument for deep sea minerals extraction largely resides on the immediate need of metals needed for the green transition. Had there not been a time-sensitive need for this transition, a precautionary pause would certainly be in order. Yet we are constrained to mine these minerals on land as well due to direct impacts on communities.
The social impact comparisons of oceanic mining with terrestrial mining equivalents should also be considered by Ms. Carvalho. The most plausible systems-level argument for oceanic mining is for there to be some offsetting of riskier mines on land. Indeed, her home country Brazil has faced major recent disasters from terrestrial mines whose impacts I have studied with local researchers. Social conflict from human rights abuses, child labor, human trafficking or property appropriations and resettlement beset many terrestrial mines but would not be relevant to oceanic minerals.
An area of potential social contention is the interaction between deep sea mining activities and fisheries which could indirectly have social consequences. However, the single biggest threat to fisheries is commercial and often illegal fishing of vulnerable stocks. The impact of such extraction on fisheries should certainly be monitored closely as the infrastructure is tested. There are also some interesting comparisons on fisheries in terms of noise and infrastructure development that can be compared with the oil and gas sector with which we have considerable long-term experience of measuring impacts. With oil and gas infrastructure there is far greater danger of catastrophic failure and large leaks or explosions from the deposit itself.
The ISA’s role is therefore intertwined with broader conversations about climate change mitigation and comparative measures of biodiversity protection on land and at sea. The organization also deserves more respect for at least attempting to have a global governance system for minerals. Thos seeking to undermine the ISA’s credibility should be warned that in its absence or impotence, the deep seas could become a proverbial “tragedy of the commons” with no international enforcement recourse. Rather than being a reductionist body focused on just one industrial ecosystem, the ISA is well-positioned to be part of broader conversations about the green transition. Given her prior experience of working at the United Nations Environment Programme, I am hopeful that Ms. Carvalho will approach the task at hand from a planetary systems perspective.
