Less than three months ago and after a decade of negotiations, the UN agreed on a Global Ocean Treaty. Its adoption recognized that the oceans are currently facing an unprecedented climate emergency and biodiversity crisis. The Treaty contains measures designed to address this crisis by moving away from the systems that caused it. Marine biodiversity, however, remains at risk, including from the imminent threat of Deep Sea Mining, an industry that would introduce a new era of resource exploitation in the oceans with the potential to cause irreversible harm to deep sea ecosystems.
If allowed to begin, deep sea mining could lead over time to the loss of many species, including some that have yet to be described and named by scientists. A recent study by the Natural History Museum pointed to the possibility of thousands of species new to science present in a deep sea mining target zone. The data suggest that over 90% of species in the Clarion Clipperton Zone (CCZ)—one of the most likely future mining sites—have not been described by scientists, with potentially thousands more still yet to be discovered. But some of the scientists behind this groundbreaking work are also working closely with deep sea mining companies, companies that are pushing to open up these biodiverse areas to mining, raising legitimate questions about possible conflict of interests.
Progress in scientific understanding relies upon collaboration, transparency, and peer review, and no more so than in the case of deep sea research, which, because of the high costs and difficulties of operating in such an extreme environment, inevitably remains the preserve of the biggest and best-funded research vessels. But there has been a growth in what might be called proprietary data. Ostensibly gathered in the name of science, often using taxpayer money, such data are effectively owned by industry and are denied to the public (including other scientists). This stands in stark contrast to principles of open sharing of knowledge.
If allowed to begin, deep sea mining could lead over time to the loss of many species, including some that have yet to be described and named by scientists.
Take as an example the recent expedition aboard the UK’s Royal Research Ship James Cook. This ship is a publicly-funded capital asset, but available for charter by, or through partnerships with, commercial companies with interests in exploiting marine resources. This vessel was deployed recently on a 50-day expedition to the Pacific Ocean, funded by UK taxpayers through the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC). There are several academic partners in the so-called SMARTEX project (Seabed Mining And Resilience To EXperimental impact)—but also part of the partnership is the prospective deep sea mining company UK Seabed Resources (UKSR).
The SMARTEX expedition has been conducting research that has, as its primary aim, the ambition to “reduce risks of deep-sea mining.” Given the number of risks, uncertainties and unknowns that scientists have warned about, and which we ourselves have explored in a series of peer-reviewed published papers,this ambition is in itself quite revealing, because it starts from the assumption that seabed mining is inevitable and that the best that science can offer is an exercise in damage limitation.
It also therefore misses the point: marine scientists shouldn’t be asking where to set thresholds for “acceptable” damage to ecosystems in order to facilitate mining, but rather whether extracting minerals from the seabed could ever be sustainable, given what we already know. Our contention is that, given the systematic degradation of the deep ocean benthic environment which deep sea mining will inevitably cause, sustainable exploitation is simply not possible.
Given the systematic degradation of the deep ocean benthic environment which deep sea mining will inevitably cause, sustainable exploitation is simply not possible.
Indeed the SMARTEX scientists themselves acknowledge that “the nature and importance of the Pacific abyssal ecosystem is largely unknown, as are the capacity of the ecosystem to cope with and recover from mining impacts.” There are already clues emerging as to what deep sea mining does to the ecosystem, evidence which could be crucial not just to advancing scientific understanding, but also to informing policy decisions. The trouble is that some of those insights are being treated as commercially confidential property. The expedition’s blog reveals that thousands of photographs showing the seafloor before and after mining tests conducted 44 years ago, in 1979, are locked up in UKSR’s corporate archive. Those could represent an invaluable resource to independent science, if only SMARTEX and its industry partner would share them. That knowledge should belong not to a mining company or a single government, but to us all.
Those hidden images from 1979 could help to document the state of the seabed immediately before and after mining tests were carried out all those decades ago. Furthermore, for a scientific community racing to inform governments, who are themselves playing catch up with the headlong rush by industry towards full-scale mining in the planet’s last remaining true frontier, the catalogues of new images and footage being collected under the SMARTEX project through revisiting this same site are arguably of even greater value. And yet, as things stand, the public has no right to see those either. We can only wait for the project partners to decide what they will publish and when.
In our view, natural sciences should serve to understand and protect ecosystems, and not simply to document, and perhaps even facilitate, their degradation and destruction. The SMARTEX expedition is described by the UK’s deep sea mining company as part of its exploration programme, paving the way for their mining equipment tests later this year. This same company lobbied governments to allow deep sea mining to start back in 2020. It clearly has no interest in waiting for a full scientific understanding, if such was possible, of the deep ocean before kickstarting mining there. In the meantime, however, it is relying on publicly-funded science to provide a veneer of legitimacy to the fallacy that deep sea mining can be managed as a sustainable activity.
Natural sciences should serve to understand and protect ecosystems, and not simply to document, and perhaps even facilitate, their degradation and destruction.
With the current lack of scientific knowledge and understanding of the consequences of mining on the deep sea ecosystem, approving a commercial mining project would undermine the objectives of the recently agreed Ocean Treaty and breach UNCLOS provisions related to the protection and preservation of the marine environment. It would be the antithesis of the precautionary principle which should guide the formulation of all policy. Right now there’s very little that stands between the natural wonders of the deep ocean and the mining machines. Plans of work for deep sea mining could be approved as soon as the 9th of July. This is in contradiction to governments’ obligations to protect the oceans and halt biodiversity loss. These obligations should be reflected through the rejection of any contract application to start deep sea mining at the upcoming International Seabed Authority meeting, ensuring the deep ocean remains off-limits to this industry.
The clock is ticking towards the opening of a new frontier in mining. Governments, and ultimately taxpayers, are assisting in this industrial speculation on a number of levels. It is vital that the scientific community does not end up, whether deliberately or inadvertently, doing the same. The seabed has no time for corporate secrets, and nor should we.
