Billboard advert on a street corner. The advert reads 'One ocean. One Planet. Our future. You decide. Hashtag stop deep sea mining' with images of deep sea creatures alongside.
|
  • Briefing

Briefing: International Seabed Authority 30th session, July 2025 

In July 2025, world governments will again convene at the International Seabed Authority (ISA) in Kingston, Jamaica, to continue negotiations on whether to open international waters to deep sea mining.

  • Council takes place from 7-18 July.
  • Assembly takes place from 21-25 July.

What’s new?  

  • 37 states (including UK) now support a moratorium on deep sea mining.
  • 950 scientists now support a moratorium.
  • President Trump has signed an Executive Order in support of deep sea mining in international as well as US waters.
  • The Metals Company has submitted an application to the US government to commercially mine the international seabed, bypassing the ISA and receiving international condemnation.
  • The Norwegian company (Loke) that owned UK Seabed Resources, who own the UK’s 2 exploration licences has gone bust and the UK government is remaining tight lipped about the new owners – newly established UK company Glomar.
  • The President of the ISA Council is trying to rush through approval of a mining code.
  • Observers could be excluded from the ISA process.

What’s happened since the ISA meeting in March? 

During the March ISA, The Metals Company announced its intention to apply to commercially mine the seabed via the US government. 

This was met with strong criticism from the new Secretary General of the ISA – Leticia Carvalho – and governments around the world: 

Nevertheless, in April, Trump signed an Executive Order supporting the idea to unilaterally start deep sea mining the international seabed as well as US waters. This was swiftly followed by TMC’s formal application to the US government to commercially mine the international seabed in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone. 

Following the application, the ISA responded by republishing a set of FAQs reiterating that it remains the only legal authority to regulate deep-sea mineral activities in international waters and that any attempt to bypass this process would be a “violation of international law.”

In May, TMC admitted its new strategy is risky and difficult in its latest financial filing.

Louisa Casson, deep sea mining campaigner at Greenpeace International, said: “The Metals Company’s application is an insult to multilateralism and a slap in the face to all the countries and millions of people around the world who oppose this dangerous industry.

“The deep sea must not fall victim to predatory corporate seizure. It is time for governments at the ISA to commit to a moratorium – this is the only viable path to prevent the irreversible harm that deep-sea mining would unleash.”

Greenpeace commissioned expert legal analysis of Trump’s Executive Order. It concludes that:

“The Executive Order ‘Unleashing America’s Offshore Critical Minerals and Resources’ clearly breaches international customary rules which bind the U.S. in its activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction. It also triggers a series of obligations for UNCLOS state parties to not participate and to prevent the participation and the possible commercial outcomes of mining activities performed on the basis of the Executive Order.”

A copy of the legal analysis is available on request.

In May, UN Special Rapporteurs published their position, concluding that “States must urgently decide to implement a precautionary pause on DSM activities.”

In June, the OSPAR states sent a clear and united message in defence of multilateralism, pushing back firmly against Trump’s recent attack on global governance. Their show of solidarity lays important groundwork ahead of key decisions at the upcoming ISA meeting. It also signals to Norway that its deep sea mining ambitions in the Arctic will face close scrutiny from OSPAR members—most of whom support a precautionary pause or moratorium on this harmful and high-risk industry.

At the UN Oceans Conference (UNOC) in June, deep sea mining was high on the agenda for many states. The number of countries supporting a moratorium rose to 37 during UNOC.  Interestingly, although the makeup is different, this now exceeds the number of states on the ISA Council. The UN Secretary General António Guterres issued a strong call at UNOC to stop this dangerous industry saying “The deep sea cannot become the Wild West.” French President Emmanuel Macron said that a moratorium on seabed mining was “an international necessity”.

Also at UNOC, 24 states signed a statement to reaffirm a principle: “Protecting deep-sea ecosystems is not only a legal imperative but above all a scientific, environmental and economic one… Any potential deep-sea mining in areas beyond national jurisdictions outside the international legal framework, as reflected in UNCLOS, would be contrary to international law.”

Greenpeace has accused the UK government of losing control of the DSM licences it sponsors, why? 

In April, the owner of UK deep sea mining company UK Seabed Resources (UKSR), Norwegian company Loke, went bust. Its assets, which include two UK government sponsored deep sea mining exploration licences, quickly became the subject of a fire sale under the rules of Norwegian bankruptcy. See also FT: UK says transfer of deep-sea mining permits could prompt security review 

Greenpeace entered the bidding process for the licences with a symbolic bid of £1 and, as a prospective buyer, gained access to a suite of documents containing communications between Loke and the Department for Business and Trade (DBT). 

On April 4 in a seemingly panicked attempt to regain control and protect the licences, an email from DBT to one of Loke’s founders, Walter Sognnes, urges him to restructure Loke as a UK holding company stating: “Any sale of UKSR to a new parent company – and any UK decision to continue sponsorship – will come under significant scrutiny.”

On April 16, Greenpeace UK lawyers wrote to the UK government to express serious concern about its lack of control over the two licences. Greenpeace called for the Secretary of State to conduct a full and public review of the Exploration Licenses and set out a process which permits interested parties to make submissions.

In an FOI dated May 27, Greenpeace asked DBT who the new owners of UKSR, and therefore the licences, were. The government responded on June 20 saying the process was ongoing and it was not yet known who the new owners were. 

However, on June 12, the ISA published an update which revealed that a new company, Glomar, had entered the bidding process and were the highest bidders. Loke founder Walter Sognnes and ex UKSR director Chris Williams were the company directors. 

Greenpeace has now written to ask the UK government why it did not reveal the information about UKSR’s new owners, as per legal requirement, through the FOI process. 

UKSR was acquired by Norwegian company, Loke Marine Minerals, in March 2023, having previously been owned by US weapons company Lockheed Martin. 

What is the UK government’s official position? 

The UK government’s official public position is in support of a moratorium “until sufficient scientific evidence is available to assess the impact on marine ecosystems, and strong, enforceable environmental regulations, standards and guidelines are adopted by the ISA.”

However, the UK government sponsors two deep sea mining exploration licences through the UK deep sea mining company UKSR covering 133,000km2 of the Pacific Ocean. That’s an area larger than England. 

Erica Finnie, Greenpeace UK Oceans Campaigner said: 

“The UK government’s continued sponsorship of these two exploration licences is completely at odds with its public position in support of a moratorium.

“Rather than working overtime behind closed doors to desperately secure new ownership for the UK’s licences where it lost control, the government should be leading the effort to secure a global moratorium on this dangerous and risky industry. It should also drop its sponsorship of UK deep sea mining licences immediately.”

In February, the first meeting of a new group, convened by Defra – the UK Deep-Sea Mining Environmental Science Network – took place. A meeting report has just been published with the next meeting scheduled for September 2025. 

In March 2021, the deep-sea mining evidence review was commissioned by the UK Conservative Government. It was overseen by a project board, which included representatives from UK Government departments and was undertaken by a team of independent experts from BGS, the National Oceanography Centre and Heriot-Watt University.

Conclusions from this review were that mining in the deep sea would cause adverse effects to the environment. 

  • “Mining of deep-sea minerals will affect the composition, structure, and functioning of the biological communities” (P91; P110)
  • “The actions of the mining vehicle are highly likely to lead to habitat destruction and elimination of most living organisms within its direct path (Jones et al., 2020)”  (P92; P111)
  • “Recovery estimates are centuries or longer and some aspects may never recover. Regional-scale impacts could result in local extinctions and population declines.” (P95; P114)
  • “Sediment plumes are expected to extend the impacts beyond the path of the mining vehicle. Releasing sediment-laden water could have far-reaching impacts on the marine environment. Deep-sea ecosystems are expected to be particularly sensitive to disturbance.” (xii; P15) 

What’s important to know about the July 2025 ISA? 

UNFAIR AND UNREALISTIC TIMELINE: A Council decision in 2023 on a timeline for the completion of a mining code stated that no mining should take place in the absence of regulations but also sought to complete those regulations by the 30th session in 2025. 

In March 2025, the President of the Council, H.E. Duncan Laki, circulated instructions to ISA parties to speed up discussions in an attempt to finalise the Mining Code in 2025. On June 4, he followed this up with a further note which outlines a desperate attempt to rush the mining code through a set of draconic modalities, significantly limiting participation of smaller delegations with limited resources and civil society participation.

The issues relating to the proposed modalities are expanded upon in a joint letter together with DSCC, WWF, EJF and Oceans North, to the President of the Council and the Secretary General. 

Independent scientific assessments warn that we are at least 10-15 years away from having the necessary knowledge to make informed, responsible decisions regarding deep sea mining. Additionally, more than 30 major regulatory issues remain unresolved within the ISA framework, many of which have not even been substantively discussed. 

The artificial urgency created by the proposed timeline is counterproductive, undermining trust and threatening the credibility of the ISA process.

A Council decision making it clear that there will be no mining without regulations, nor without sufficient scientific knowledge to protect the marine environment, could not only safeguard the ocean, but also contribute to cooling the increased tensions emerging over potential deep sea mining. 

PROPOSAL TO EXCLUDE OBSERVERS: We also note with great concern the suggestion that observers are excluded from participation in the informal informals, which constitute the bulk of the July agenda.

Observers include:

  • Independent scientists whose expertise is vital to informed decision-making;
  • Indigenous representatives whose cultural and ecological knowledge must be respected;
  • Civil society organizations that represent millions of concerned global citizens.

Repressing these essential voices sends a message of exclusion and marginalization.

PROPOSAL FOR A THIRD SESSION: Finally, the proposal for a third session in November 2025 to adopt the regulations directly contradicts the concerns previously raised by many developing States. These States have consistently raised financial and human resource constraints as a barrier to effective participation. The same challenges are faced by many Observers. The legitimacy of the ISA and its processes depends on the decision making processes being equitable, transparent and aligned with the precautionary principle. The proposed process fails to meet these standards.

Has there been any new scientific research since March? 

In June, a new scientific survey confirmed the presence of whales and dolphins, including sperm whales which are listed as vulnerable on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, in the two areas targeted by The Metals Company for deep sea mining in the Pacific Ocean.

Read more on this here: Threatened whale species found in areas targeted by The Metals Company for deep sea mining, scientists warn – Greenpeace UK 

In March, research published in Nature and widely covered by media showed that the scars from deep sea mining tests conducted 40 years ago are still visible on the ocean floor.

Adrian Glover from the Natural History Museum  co-led the expedition that assessed the mining site. He said: “Forty-four years later, the mining tracks themselves look very similar to when they were first made, with an 8-metre-wide strip of seabed cleared of nodules and two large furrows in the seafloor where the machine passed.”

What were scientists, businesses and civil society saying already? 

In 2023, UK scientists from the Natural History Museum published evidence showing the CCZ supports upwards of 5,000 species yet to be recorded or studied. 

To date, more than 950 scientists, governments from Europe to the Pacific and businesses including Google, Apple, Samsung, BMW, Volvo and Renault are all calling for a pause. Major UK banks have also ruled out funding for deep sea mining and other international investors are also pulling out. Objections have also been raised by Indigenous Peoples in the Pacific whose lives and livelihoods rely on the ocean.

How can a moratorium be achieved and how would it help? 

States must take back control and press pause on decisions on deep-sea mining so that the protection of the marine environment can be guaranteed. Such a decision can be taken by the ISA Assembly where ALL states – as opposed to just 36 members of the Council – have an equal voice through a so-called General Policy.

Chile has proposed agenda point 16: Need for a general policy of the Authority for the protection and preservation of the marine environment: scope and parameters. This is not a proposal for voting on a moratorium, but seeks to create a process where States can discuss the protection of the marine environment – an ask most States should be able to support. 

The only responsible response to TMC’s application for an exploitation licence is to establish a global moratorium on deep sea mining. This would send a clear signal to any State or company that acts outside the ISA, that the global community is united in defending international law, including UNCLOS, and that unilateral action by a single company or country will not be accepted.

Some states might argue that a mining code would resolve the pressure from TMC. On the contrary: Gerrard Barron has made it clear that he has no plans to adhere to a Mining Code adopted by the ISA. 

A moratorium on exploitation decisions by the ISA would set the international seabed off limits to exploitation until certain conditions are met. If a State or a company decides to act unilaterally, this would then be against the ISA precautionary decision. This raises the political and diplomatic stakes, as going against what other governments have agreed could have bigger implications for maritime issues and international law.

A moratorium would create space and much-needed time for scientific research to better assess the ecological, economic, and social impacts of mining activities. This would ensure that any future decisions are based on sound, evidence-based information, rather than rushed, poorly informed choices that could cause irreversible and permanent damage.

Additional resources

From the Greenpeace Science Unit:

Notes

What is Deep Sea Mining? 

Deep sea mining is the extraction of materials from the seabed; namely nickel, cobalt, copper, and manganese, which are used in battery production. It is a very new industry, and apart from a few small tests, no commercial mining has happened yet, but some of the companies involved are preparing to start full-scale production. 

What is the International Seabed Authority (ISA)? 

The ISA is the governing body that decides if/when deep-sea mining can take place in international waters. Established under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), it is responsible for the governance of deep-sea mining in areas of the ocean beyond national jurisdiction, including the adoption of rules, regulations and procedures relating to deep sea mining.

The ISA Council is made up of 36 elected governments. This is where negotiations on the ‘mining code’ take place. 

The ‘mining code’ is a set of rules, regulations and procedures, including standards and guidelines, that would regulate (and, if agreed, allow) commercial deep sea mining.  

The ISA Assembly comprises 167 member states + the European Union. This is the group that could decide and implement a moratorium in the medium to long term. 

Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), States are obligated to protect and preserve the marine environment (Part XII, Article 192). The ISA is obligated to apply the precautionary approach and best environmental practice to its management of deep-sea mining. 

To date, the ISA has granted 31 deep sea mining exploration contracts covering a total of over 1.5 million km² (579,153 mi²) of the world’s seabed. This is an area four times the size of Germany. 17 of these contracts cover exploration in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ), an area in the equatorial Pacific between Hawaii and México. These contracts do not allow companies to mine, but to explore and test-mine.