Theresa Rodriguez-Moodie | Protecting the ocean or exploiting it?

In the Senate, on November 8, Kamina Johnson Smith, minister of foreign affairs and leader of government business, addressed five questions from Sophia Frazer-Binns, opposition spokesperson on the environment, about deep-sea mining (DSM) and Jamaica’s involvement with Blue Minerals Jamaica (BMJ). The minister’s responses were sometimes unclear, leaving those outside this specialised field without sufficient insight. Below, some of her responses are summarised and highlight the questions they raise.

To start, however, readers need to be reminded about why the deep sea matters. The deep sea, from 200 metres to 11 kilometres below the surface, contains high concentrations of valuable minerals like nickel, cobalt, and manganese. Consideration for deep-sea mining is for the seafloor and its minerals beyond any country’s national jurisdiction (The Area), designated by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) as ‘the common heritage of [hu]mankind’. This means we all have a stake in its management and protection. DSM is a new, risky, and potentially destructive industry with consequences that may impact us all.

ANALYSING THE ARGUMENTS

Let’s now get into a few of Johnson Smith’s responses, which have been paraphrased:

• Deep-sea mining will not take place in Jamaican waters. This is correct. Currently, DSM exploration (and eventually exploitation) is to be concentrated in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ), a vast, largely unexplored, pristine area in the Pacific Ocean. Studies have shown, however, that sediment plumes generated by DSM could potentially spread widely, affecting marine life and even fisheries in other regions. Does Jamaica’s stance suggest indifference to the possible harm DSM could bring to other countries? Are we comfortable with backing an industry that could harm the ocean, which plays a critical role in climate regulation?

• Jamaica has no formal DSM policy but supports mining only if comprehensive regulations and a strong environmental protection framework are established. Developing effective regulations requires comprehensive environmental data, but the deep sea — covering 70 per cent of Earth’s surface — remains largely unexplored. Scientists worldwide have, therefore, called for a moratorium (a long-term pause) on DSM to allow time for more research. How can we create adequate regulations without fully understanding the environment in question?

• Jamaica’s DSM policy position aligns with UNCLOS principles. UNCLOS permits exploitation and exploration of the ‘common heritage of [hu]mankind.’ Importantly, however, it also requires states to safeguard the marine environment, and experts warn that starting DSM without sufficient knowledge and a strong regulatory framework could violate this duty. UNCLOS’s dual mandate — allowing exploitation while requiring protection — presents a contradiction. Without a defined policy, the GoJ’s exact position on DSM remains unclear.

• Science-based decision-making is essential. This precautionary stance is usually welcomed, but here, it is unclear to the public whose science is being prioritised — independent research or studies funded by DSM companies? Over 800 global marine science and policy experts have warned of DSM’s unknown risks to the environment and marine life. Has this scientific caution had any influence on Jamaica’s position on DSM?

• Details of Jamaica’s agreement with BMJ are confidential. Jamaica has no financial obligations. The GoJ entered into the sponsorship agreement on behalf of the Jamaican people. Full or partial disclosure is essential for the public to understand the due diligence undertaken by the GoJ. Partial disclosure of the agreement would not harm the contractor as sensitive commercial information could be redacted, as is done by other states, like the island of Tonga.

• Jamaica could potentially benefit from DSM. DSM has promised economic benefits, but profit-sharing mechanisms are still undefined and under discussion. Studies, including Planet Tracker’s, warn that DSM may lead to over $500 billion in value destruction, mainly due to habitat and natural capital loss. Additionally, the International Seabed Authority (ISA) projects a low return for Sponsoring States, estimating an annual net present value of only $97,800 over 30 years per member. Against this background, the minister’s lack of acknowledgement of the ocean’s vital role in climate regulation and biodiversity protection, particularly for Small Island Developing States like Jamaica is highly concerning. What are the specific benefits promised in Jamaica’s agreement and at what cost to our environment and future generations?

• Jamaica is not liable for BMJ’s actions, and Jamaica’s liability arises only if it doesn’t meet due diligence obligations by the time mining begins. UNCLOS outlines sponsorship arrangements requiring contractors to be nationals of or “effectively controlled’ by the sponsoring state or its nationals. In the case of Jamaica, a foreign parent company (Blue Minerals Switzerland, a company that operates for the AllSeas Group) has set up a local company (BMJ) in a developing state (Jamaica), and the local company (BMJ) holds the ISA contract with that state’s sponsorship. This ‘shell company’ setup, however, enables domestic incorporation without meaningful local presence and has been widely criticised by experts as creating legal loopholes that complicate enforcement and potentially expose the sponsoring state to liability.

UNCLOS also mandates that a sponsoring state must ensure that its contractors comply with its regulations, rules, and the ISA contract. This requires the state to have domestic laws and measures in place to impose and enforce legal obligations on the company. Despite the minister’s claim that Jamaica’s due diligence obligations only need to be in place by the time mining begins, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea has indicated that contractual agreements alone may not substitute for domestic legal measures. Legal opinions suggest that a framework should, ideally, be established at the time the contract is signed to uphold due diligence immediately upon sponsorship. A recent Access to Information request by the Jamaica Environment Trust revealed that Jamaica still has no such local laws despite entering into a sponsorship agreement with BMJ in 2021. Without these domestic laws, a written sponsorship agreement alone falls short of fulfilling Jamaica’s obligations.

SIGNIFICANT RISKS

Deep-sea mining poses significant risks to the health of our oceans, which will ultimately affect all of us. Despite Johnson Smith’s assurances, there are still questions about whether the GoJ has thoroughly considered the long-term consequences of deep-sea mining.

With increasing global calls for a moratorium, JET urges the Government to support such a halt. This would provide more time for scientific understanding of the deep sea’s role before considering advancing such a destructive industry. Jamaica must prioritise the ocean’s role in our survival, especially as we grapple with the intensifying climate crisis.

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