Policy 360: Exploring the Impacts of Deep-Sea Mining
As the world continues to heat up due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, the world of deep-sea mining is heating up alongside it. In the transition to a greener economy, rare earth metals that can be mined from the ocean floor will be integral for the manufacturing of technologies like electric vehicle batteries, wind turbines, and solar panels. Over the past year, interest, competition, and opposition toward deep-sea mining have risen significantly across the globe. In March, the UN International Seabed Authority (ISA), the organization tasked with developing regulations and policies around deep-sea mining, hosted its annual summit to discuss these issues. Notable topics included the Greenpeace organization’s protest, which involved environmental activists boarding a research vessel in the Pacific Ocean run by The Metals Company (TMC), and the announcement of oceanographer Leticia Carvalho as a candidate for the position of ISA secretary-general. In the United States, where the failure to ratify the treaty establishing the ISA has prevented the country from actively participating in its deliberations, several former government officials have urged the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations to ratify the ISA treaty to increase future involvement.
The split among ISA members surrounding deep-sea mining underscores the debate over balancing economic development and environmental priorities. This roundtable explores the positions of Norway, India, China, Nauru, and France regarding the advent of deep-sea mining. The decision to support or oppose deep-sea mining—whether for economic, environmental, or geopolitical reasons—offers each country a unique opportunity to establish its reputation in the world’s green future.
Paving the Way: Should Norway Terminate Deep-Sea Exploration?
By Claire Thornhill, CC ’27
In January, Norway’s parliament voted 80-20 to dedicate an extensive area mostly above the Arctic circle for commercial-scale deep-sea mining. Norway is now the first country in the world to make this step toward this new exploratory horizon. The passage of this proposal has engendered overwhelming condemnation worldwide. The unknown environmental impacts of deep-sea mining concern most critics, and Norway’s decision puts the northern European country in the spotlight.
Norwegian government officials believe that extracting minerals from the seabed would help Norway transition away from fossil fuels and urge other countries to follow suit. Norwegian Energy Minister Terje Aasland claims that Norway’s methods of deep-sea exploration only promise positive results. He insists that Norway depends on Russia and China’s dominant supply of rare earth minerals. For Norway, opening the Svalbard region to deep-sea mining will break Russia and China’s grip on this crucial energy sector. India, also an emerging ocean explorer, agrees with Norway’s decision. Hence, Norway is not only gaining power but also support.
However, the Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) disagrees with the Norwegian government, arguing that Norway’s vote threatens its reputation as an international leader in marine conservation. Along with the United Kingdom and the European Commission, the EJF also disagrees with Norway’s assertion that other forms of mining will decrease if deep-sea mining becomes a regular practice. The international pushback might lead Norway to reconsider their decision.
Norway’s plan to open 280,000 square kilometers of its national waters to deep-sea mining is still a go, despite warnings from several organizations and scientists. Dredging for minerals is not going to begin immediately, however. Norway has required that Parliament approve mining licenses on a case-by-case basis, effectively delaying the deep-sea mining process for now.
The problem that arises in Norway’s promises that there will be no environmental harm is the scientific uncertainty about the effects of deep-sea dredging. Norway’s claims of no oceanic destruction are not backed by solid evidence, leading to the conclusion that deep-sea exploration should not occur until there is sufficient evidence that ecosystems will not be harmed. The nonexistence of this support forces Norway to make the decision to either pause these plans or continue a potentially harmful project that will also damage its relations with close Nordic allies, such as Finland.
Norway is at a crossroads. It will either remain one of the world’s most respected climate leaders or fall off the ladder. Norway’s best option to both save the environment and its reputation is to terminate its deep-sea mining plans. However, Norway is unlikely to back down from challenging China and Russia’s mineral dominance and prioritize evidence-based policy over state power, which presents its high confidence to the rest of the world.
Indian Deep-Sea Mining, or the Importance of a Balanced Strategy
By Meghraj Kaveesh Naggea, GS ’25
Rare earth minerals stand at the nexus of natural resources, technology, and geopolitics. Minerals such as nickel, manganese and cobalt are vital for the manufacture of green technologies like wind turbines, EV batteries, and solar panels, and demand for these minerals is expected to increase three- to seven-fold by 2040, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). Despite consensus on the vital importance of rare earth minerals for the clean energy transition, a rift over environmental concerns has emerged between nations calling for a moratorium on deep-sea mining and those favorable to the issuance of commercial mining licenses. The result was the recent failure of the International Seabed Authority (ISA) to develop a rules-based framework for commercial exploitation by a July 2023 deadline, which has been pushed back to July 2025.
With increasing interest in the security of mineral supplies, India stands with countries like Norway, Nauru, and China, all who favor giving a green light to commercial exploitation. Since 1987, India holds the exclusive rights from the ISA over a zone of 75,000 square kilometers in the Central Indian Ocean Basin to explore deposits of polymetallic nodules. Crucially, the country is currently developing deep-sea mining technology through government-led research and development initiatives. It has recently launched a Deep Ocean Mission, the Samudrayaan program, a key objective of which is to improve deep-sea mining technologies and engineer an indigenous submersible for deep-sea exploration and the mining of polymetallic nodules, with the Indian government eyeing commercial exploitation and self-sufficiency for the purposes of battery production. According to the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, India’s prioritization of deep-sea missions are an “inescapable necessity” for geopolitical and economic growth. In particular, the allure of oceanic rare earth minerals is accentuated by the Indian government’s ambition to achieve leadership in semiconductor manufacturing—of which rare earth minerals are a vital input—as part of a broader “Make in India” strategy.
As Indian policymakers continue to develop their ambitious plans, they must factor in recent industry trends with respect to rare earth minerals in electric vehicle design and manufacturing. Of note, several large auto-manufacturers—including Tesla, BMW, and Renault—have recently committed to or began eliminating the use of rare earth minerals in electric vehicle motors. Yet, given their wide range of applications, rare earth minerals will retain their fundamental strategic importance. In particular, the Indian drive toward deep-sea mining would square with the American “friend-shoring” strategy, outlined by US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen to prevent the US’s adversaries from gaining “unwanted” geopolitical strength. As noted by a Carnegie report, the “friend-shoring” of certain key minerals within the compass of the democratic world would require massive investments in mining capacity, thus highlighting the advantages of Indian exploration, extraction, and scaling-up of rare earths processing capacity.
While mining the seabed is arguably less destructive of biodiversity than the exploitation of terrestrial deposits, an Indian push toward deep-sea mining should factor in the latest science on the environmental effects of deep-sea mining activities and attempt to minimize sediment plumes and mining waste which are particularly detrimental to deep-sea organisms. Efforts by the Indian Mines Ministry to encourage research in “green mining” are thus welcome, but the actual extent to which ecological concerns will be more thoroughly integrated into a sustainable Indian deep-sea mining approach—possibly through innovations in robotics—remains to be seen. The imperative to develop greener, more discriminate mining technologies and adequate exploitation guidelines—and to do so rapidly—in the face of increasing demand for the purpose of the clean energy transition, is a challenge that India, a rising power with growing maritime ambitions, will have to navigate through a balanced resources policy. In so doing, the country will have to leverage its remarkable engineering talent pool and formulate more specific ecological commitments in its endeavors to explore and exploit the Indian Ocean’s mineral wealth.
Chinese Monopoly on Maritime Mining
By Alaina Parent, CC ’27
Chinese deep-sea dredging ships are now swarming the Matsu Islands, a cluster of Taiwanese islands along the Chinese coast. This is one of China’s latest attempts at using its deep-sea dredging technology to rapidly expand its maritime war capacity in the Western Pacific, dwarfing the US’s oceanic economic capabilities and further infringing on Taiwanese territory.
Since the ROC’s split from the Chinese communist government in 1949, mainland China has been using irregular military tactics to undermine Taiwan’s sovereignty. With a significantly smaller military, Taiwan has been struggling to counter the ongoing Chinese threat. Deep-sea dredging, the act of removing sand and other debris from the sea floor, is used by President Xi Jinping as another form of psychological warfare to intimidate Taiwan. In 2020, the Taiwanese Coast Guard expelled almost 4,000 sand dredgers from within its maritime boundaries, a 560% increase from 2019. Besides quickly taxing Taiwan’s civilian-run Coast Guard Administration, which now deploys 24/7 patrols, and terrifying Taiwanese residents, the sand dredging has had other corrosive impacts on the people of Matsu, damaging the economy by disrupting local fish populations and destroying under-sea cables.
How is this legal? China currently holds five of the International Seabed Authority’s (ISA) 31 licenses for deep-sea exploration, more than any other country. This gives China exclusive mining rights to 92,000 square miles of international seabed—an area of ocean the size of the United Kingdom—and control of 95% of the world’s rare minerals. According to Carla Freeman at the US Institute of Peace, a lead in seabed mining could give China a “lock” on key minerals in the green economy of the 21st century. Contrarily, the US does not have any contracts with the ISA, falling behind its Asian rival in terms of resources and maritime authority.
Taiwan is not the only victim of China’s illegal dredging. The Philippines and other parts of the Western Pacific have been subject to Chinese mining of black sand, which contains a valuable type of iron ore. Affected areas are now experiencing loss of fish life and extreme erosion, harming coastal communities. China, meanwhile, is using mined materials to further support its various construction projects. In 2015, China was able to create two artificial islands, each the size of Manhattan, as well as a 34-mile bridge connecting the Chinese mainland and Hong Kong, destroying local aquatic ecosystems and coral reefs at the “most rapid rate.” Contrasting China’s policies, countries like France are passing moratoriums to end deep-sea dredging and slow the speed of environmental erosion. Countries with a higher economic dependence on mining, like Nauru, are receiving more restrictions from the ISA to limit deep-sea dredging. While the world stage is slowly realizing the effects of mining on the oceans’ ecological environment, Xi Jinping’s regime continues flexing its dominance in the Western Pacific to monopolize precious minerals and threaten Taiwan’s government, all to the detriment of the world’s oceans.
Through its hegemony within the ISA and the United Conventions on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), China has become a “central rulemaker” in international deep-sea policy with significant access to the most valuable strategic mining sites along the seafloor. The United States and its partners, however, lack memberships in the ISA and UNCLOS that have been critical to Chinese Power, indicating a failure of the US in the “rules-based international order” it claims to lead. To counteract the environmental and Western political threats posed to China’s mining monopoly, Chinese policymakers need to develop a cross-government strategy, establishing a universally accepted recognition of maritime boundaries and territorial mining agreements, to promote diplomacy between itself and the West. This would both ease political tensions in the Western Pacific and prevent the West from capitalizing on its monopoly within the diplomatic, economic, informational, and cyber domains to politically pressure President Xi Jinping and weaken China’s capacity for control over the deep sea.
Nauru’s Fraught Deep-Sea Mining Gamble
By Alex Vilarin, GS ’25
Nauru, a microstate in the Pacific Ocean, has made headlines for its attempt to force the International Seabed Authority (ISA) to institute a code for deep-sea mining. This move from Nauru coincides with its Canadian partner, The Metals Company’s prediction of long-term rising demand for critical minerals like cobalt, while also coupling with the island’s desperate need for cash. Proponents of Nauru’s deep-sea mining strategy argue that operations thousands of feet underwater may prove less disruptive than land extraction tearing through rainforests and communities. Indeed, the current land-based extraction of these minerals in countries like the Congo has not been immune from criticism either, not only from environmental groups but human rights advocates, too.
Deep-sea mining may not be as safe or as lucrative as Nauru expects. Uncertainty still shrouds both the deep ocean’s largely unexplored ecosystems and the financial viability of deep-sea mining. Critics warn of wide-ranging impacts that affect rare and oftentimes undiscovered species at the base of the food chain. The profits reaped by foreign corporations could also dwarf rewards trickling down to Nauru itself. Tonga, another partner of The Metals Company, revealed the payments could be as low as $2 per ton, far below the $45 to $100 per ton gross returns expected, and below the royalty rate demanded by most land-based extraction.
Nauru’s government owes the world a careful balancing of the needs of Nauruans with the warnings of scientists, heeding calls for prudence as much as pleas for haste in the climate-imperiled Pacific. Today’s climate crisis shows that actions taken on one side of the globe can impact the whole planet. This is especially true when one considers the location of the proposed mining: not in Nauruan waters but instead in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, thousands of miles away between Hawaii and Mexico. A nuanced compromise must develop, limiting deep-sea mining while emphasizing Nauruans’ welfare, ensuring any glittering wealth drawn from below actually buoys the islanders still dwelling above.
Nauru’s precarious position heightens the stakes. Over 90% of the island’s food is imported because its land was ravaged by phosphate stripping, leaving 70% of the landmass uninhabitable. Nauru frittered away the phosphate royalties, tanking the country’s GDP per capita from the second highest in the world to one of the most economically troubled today, with investments ranging from a massive national airline to a failed musical about Leonardo DaVinci. In weighing deep-sea mining’s murky fortunes today, the country risks repeating its history of selling out—whether it be phosphate strips, Australian refugee detention centers, or diplomatic allegiances—for fleeting infusions of cash.
In many respects, The Metals Company and the Nauruan government’s mindset echoes the colonial exploiters of its past who enriched themselves on the island’s mineral wealth while leaving chaos in their wake. True change hinges on Nauruan leaders fostering sustainable industries that steward and share gains with citizens for generations. The choices made today will steer the trajectory of the Nauruan nation and the green transition at large.
Much depends on perspective. Where some see profits from below, others, like French Polynesian President Moetai Brotherson, see threats compounding woes above. He recognizes Oceania’s history as “guinea pigs” for nuclear testing and articulates the danger of history repeating itself if deep-sea mining commences before scientific understanding and technology are fully developed. Avoiding a rush into the unknown while balancing the very real needs of the Nauruans will be key to weathering the storm. Nauru does not necessarily need deep-sea mining, but it does need the world to understand its position and take action to save yet another small island state on the brink.
France for the Environment: France for Unity
By Sönke Pietsch, CC ’26
France’s recent policy record has endowed the country with a new status as a leader in fighting climate change. Banning domestic flights in favor of high-speed rail and outlawing plastic packaging, France is pioneering large-scale climate legislation. Most recently, the French Parliament voted to ban deep-sea mining in its waters. Now, France must expand this initiative beyond its borders, using its diplomatic gravitas to safeguard ocean floors and marine ecosystems.
By banning deep-sea dredging, France set a powerful precedent. At COP 2024 in Dubai, French President Emmanuel Macron joined leaders from Germany and Spain to oppose the potentially highly destructive exploitation of the ocean, promising to ban “all exploitation” of the seafloor through international agencies such as the UN, particularly in the International Seabed Authority (ISA). Now, it must act on that promise.
The ocean, particularly the deep sea, is crucial in climate regulation and in fighting global warming. Research indicates that the seafloor’s carbon burial is integral to the carbon cycle. Scientists have identified substantial carbon dioxide reserves in the continental shelves of coastal states that, if mined, could dramatically decrease our ability to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Furthermore, hydrothermal vents located on the seafloor’s bottom serve as biodiversity hotspots for unique deep-sea creatures and could be affected by this mining.
At the UN Ocean Conference in Lisbon in June 2022, Macron also articulated the need for legal protections for ocean ecosystems endangered by sea mining. Yet, actions speak louder than words. No legal framework has been suggested since he made these comments. In the meantime, Nauru, joined by Tonga and Kiribati, greenlit private exploration of its ocean floors in cooperation with The Metals Company, allowing exploration to begin as soon as July 2025, barring new regulation from the ISA.
Proponents of deep sea mining articulate that mineral demand could increase by up to 500% for some minerals used in energy storage applications. To meet demand, mining companies argue that deep-sea mining results in less environmental damage than terrestrial extraction, particularly in rainforests, and assert that it is a more cost-effective alternative. These benefits stand separate from possible increases in welfare, economic opportunity, and political power that Pacific Small Island Developing States (PSIDS) may receive from the burgeoning trillion-dollar industry.
As France advocates for a global ban on deep-sea mining, it must remain vigilant to avoid perpetuating historical colonial power dynamics. Promoting a ban should not be paternalistic or imposed on other nations but rather achieved in the spirit of collaboration and respect for sovereignty. France should strive for inclusivity in decision-making processes, ensuring that affected communities, particularly those in regions where deep-sea mining is prevalent and promising, have a voice in shaping policies that directly impact them. In light of the need for compensation, cooperative settlements should allow PSIDS to receive a proportion of technology revenues to reinvest into ecological sustainability efforts and preserve the deep ocean for what it currently is.
Perhaps then, France is to build a cooperative that extends beyond just its domestic policies and ministers. Corporations like Google, BMW, Volvo, and Samsung have already expressed their disapproval of deep-sea mining, not speaking of environmental groups. In using its clout, France must elevate the vulnerability and actions of nations like Fiji, the Solomon Islands, and Vanuatu, which have already banned mining from its expansive oceans, to the attention of the world. Only then, can France guide the world in acting together to build a greener future, that did not destroy itself in becoming so.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the issue of deep-sea dredging is one that poses a question about trade-offs—what economic benefits and geopolitical boons are worth the potentially hazardous consequences for ocean ecosystems, the scale of which is still unknown? Despite these environmental concerns, however, deep-sea dredging detractors must also confront a serious problem: the rare metals found on the surface of the ocean floor are crucial for a concerted effort toward growing renewables, including wind and solar. They are additionally crucial for environmentally friendly EV batteries, which might phase out or reduce emissions from transportation that account for nearly one-third of carbon emissions in developed countries like the United States.
For some countries, such as Norway, deep-sea dredging presents a path to energy independence. It allows for a transition away from fossil fuels such as natural gas, of which Russia is the primary exporter, and could also break China’s long hold on the mining and production of rare earth metals. For India and China, dredging is a means of accelerating their geopolitical ambitions, providing them the potential for rapid growth underscored by increasing investments in green technology both domestically and abroad. For others like Nauru, it is a grasp at salvaging a wounded economy by allowing foreign investors and companies in. And for France, it is yet another battle in the global effort—that it often finds itself at the forefront of—to rescue ecosystems and protect the environment, thereby preserving the country’s image as a flag bearer for issues of environmental safety. Thus, complicated geopolitical and economic issues underlie the motivations and policies of the various countries discussed in this roundtable. The full consequences of deep-sea dredging have yet to be discovered, but in the meantime, it seems that the boons outweigh the potential risks for the many countries approving mining in their territorial waters.