Theresa Rodriguez-Moodie | Deep-sea mining not worth the risk

Over the last few months, the conversation around commercial deep-sea mining (DSM) has intensified, with more scientists, organisations, groups and countries calling for a moratorium. As of March 2023, twelve countries have called for a moratorium, and companies, including BMW and Volvo Group, along with Samsung and Google, which are battery-reliant, have pledged to refrain from sourcing deep-sea minerals.

The calls for a moratorium have emerged following a growing appreciation of how little we know about the life that exists in the deep sea and the potential impacts of the extraction of these minerals. DSM poses potential large-scale environmental impacts, including habitat destruction, disturbance of marine ecosystems, pollution and could exacerbate the climate crisis.

WHAT IS A MORATORIUM?

A moratorium is a long-term ‘time-out’ that will allow the science to catch up with mining technology and industry interest. It is essentially a legal measure to defer commencement of deep-sea mining until it could be carried out without risking significant harm to the marine environment. It will allow time for the proper development and adoption of regulations for exploitation and the issuing of exploration and mining contracts. The Deep-Sea Conservation Coalition (DSCC) explains that this time-out should continue until a number of conditions are met, including:

- The environmental, social, and economic risks and impacts are comprehensively understood;

- It has been demonstrated that the impacts can be so managed to prevent damage and loss to the environment and biodiversity,

- There is exploration of alternative sources of critical metals, including the reduction in demand for the primary metals along with the transformation to a resource- efficient and closed-loop materials circular economy.

- Greater transparency, accountability, inclusivity, and environmentally responsible decision-making by the International Seabed Authority (ISA).

- Public-consultation mechanisms have been established, and there is broad and informed public support, including from Indigenous peoples and potentially affected communities, for DSM.

What is the position of the Government of Jamaica (GOJ)?

The GOJ has said:

- They will not support DSM without a suitable regulatory framework being in place.

- Mining will not take place in Jamaican or Caribbean waters.

- Mining is not imminent.

DOES NOT GO FAR ENOUGH

This simply does not go far enough. How is a suitable regulatory framework to be developed in the absence of robust data? Who will monitor and enforce such regulations? The only means of monitoring compliance within the terms of exploration contracts (and any future exploitation contracts) is self-reporting by the relevant contractor as part of the annual report cycle. Will we not be setting up ourselves for once again relying on mining companies to self-regulate, with the associated significant impacts?

The insistence that mining will not take place in Caribbean waters is just a diversion and a hope that the public will believe that the impacts will not be felt here. But Jamaica, like the Pacific and other small island states in the Caribbean, is affected by global environmental threats such as the climate crisis. Moreover, sediment plumes formed during the mining process could travel thousands of kilometres beyond the area mined. This plume would not only affect organisms in the deep sea, but could also affect fisheries in shallow water, resulting in greater competition in fisheries far away from the mining site. There are also potential long-range impacts of underwater noise from extractive activities that could also affect living organisms such as whales and other marine mammals.

Nor is it accurate to say that mining is not imminent. In 2021, the ‘two-year rule’ was triggered by Nauru. This means that if there is a failure to adopt regulations, then the default position will be for mining to begin as early as July 2023. As of April 2023, there are still no regulations agreed on. Mining will go ahead if more nations do not join the call for a moratorium.

SIGNED CONTRACT

It is worth noting that the GOJ has already signed a 15-year contract with Blue Minerals Jamaica for the exploration of polymetallic nodules in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone of the Pacific Ocean, the details of which have not been revealed. Is this the reason Jamaica has not joined other nations in calling for a moratorium on DSM?

As a party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and a sponsoring state, Jamaica is expected to exercise due diligence. It is not only lawful, but required for a State (including a sponsoring State) to adopt a moratorium position in the interest of protecting the marine environment. This is also confirmed in a legal opinion prepared in February 2023 by Douglas, Heather-Latu, et al. “It is a core obligation of States Parties to protect and preserve the marine environment; it would be a violation of that obligation to enable the commencement of exploitation of the Area at a time when scientific understanding of the deep sea, the existing regulatory arrangements, and the ISA’s institutional capacity are insufficient to ensure that outcome”.

The Jamaica Environment Trust urges the GOJ to rethink its position on DSM, considering the points above and the opinions of many well-respected scientists and organisations worldwide. Do not support environmental destruction and irreversible damage to the ocean, the common heritage of humankind. Deep- sea mining is simply not worth the risk.

Theresa Rodriguez-Moodie, PhD, is an environmental scientist and the CEO of the Jamaica Environment Trust. Send feedback to jamaicaenvironmenttrust@gmail.com.