Latest News and Updates

9 Nov 2023

On Presidents text Annex IX

Good morning Mr. President, dear delegates,

This intervention is delivered on behalf of the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition, Oceans North, Greenpeace, WWF, the Environmental Justice Foundation, the Ocean Foundation and the Sustainable Ocean Alliance.

Firstly, we share the concerns expressed by Germany on paragraph 4.1

Secondly, referring to Part D of Annex IX, Entry into force and contract terms. The proposed term of contracts, as is referenced in Regulation 20, is completely unacceptable.

This amounts to saddling multiple future generations with decades of damage from deep sea mining, irreversible over human timescales.

30 years plus two 15 year renewals or three 10 year renewals could result in 60 year contracts. This is completely unconscionable in this era of our reckoning with environmental degradation and climate change. 

The scale of industrial deep-sea mining, both geographical and temporal, would pave the way for multi-decadal damage in an unknown future. 

It would lock future generations into the schema of extraction, pollution, ecosystem degradation and species extinction, at a time when we know our collective behaviours must change if we wish to preserve the planet that is home to all of us. 

When UNCLOS was concluded 40 years ago, our species was operating in a very different social, economic, and environmental context. 

Today, we have triggered environmental changes worldwide that are accelerating rapidly, and both politics, markets and ultimately our societies will have to respond to those shifts. 

We must assume that the world will look significantly different in 30 to 60 years. We are not in a position to make multi-decadal commitments to an industry which, under this regulation, could stretch far into a future we are unable even to imagine and would saddle future generations with unacceptable environmental burdens. 

This is not merely a legal discussion, but a human one that has implications for ourselves, our families, and our communities. This is a grave responsibility. 

Such a decision requires time, which adopting a moratorium on deep-sea-mining allows for. It is the only truly precautionary approach. 


This intervention is on behalf of Greenpeace, Sustainable Ocean Alliance, WWF, the Environmental Justice Foundation, AIDA and DSCC


Firstly, we object to having been excluded from the informal consultations on the LTC decision. This is inconsistent with the transparency process described in the draft decision itself.
Secondly, we strongly urge Council to instruct the LTC that the use of the silence procedure for substantive decisions is unacceptable. The LTC can, when it needs to, meet virtually, using zoom or similar video conferencing.If necessary changes need to be made in the rules of procedure that should be addressed.


Use of the silence procedure should be limited to procedural matters which cannot otherwise be decided, such as urgent procedural decisions which need to be taken and a meeting cannot be organized on time.


Quite simply, LTC members may not even see the email, or be able to reply in time; it is impossible to assess a quorum via email, LTC members may not be comfortable being the first to interrupt the silence, and it is important to have a clear understanding of how and why decisions are made. If objections are made to a decision, who will stand up and take responsibility? And of course this is all taking place behind closed doors.


Mr President, judging by this draft decision, this body is clearly not fit to regulate. It is not befitting the Council. The current decision is an abject abdication of responsibility by the Council instead of transparency and accountability and clarity in decision-making.


If ever there was a reason to adopt a moratorium on deep-sea mining, we are looking at it.


Dear delegates, we are taking the floor on behalf of the Environmental Justice Foundation, WWF, Sustainable Oceans Alliance, The Oceans Foundation, Deep Sea Conservation Coalition and Greenpeace.


After 8 days of Council meeting discussing mining regulations, we would like to emphasise that the attempt to rush the negotiation and adoption of the mining code that we are witnessing over the last couple of years is a fundamentally wrong approach to the work of this Authority.


There are too many unknowns about deep sea ecosystems, and deep sea biodiversity and the ecosystem services it provides are far too critical to just rush this process.


The sheer pace of meetings is already creating inequities among States, which struggle to attend too many sessions every year and process and respond to a phenomenal amount of information and documentation. The same can be said of observers. This process needs to be much more inclusive and respect the interest and capacity of states ,including developing states, observers and other stakeholders and members of the public with an interest in these negotiations involving the common heritage of humankind.


Rushing these negotiations must also not be done at the expense of transparency. Transparency requires that observers not be excluded from further discussions – informal informals must not mean exclusion of transparency. This is about the common heritage of humankind.


In our view, the international community of States represented in this room is being pushed by the interests of a few and the use of a provision, the two-year rule, that is forcing the hand of the members of the Authority under the threat of unregulated mining.


The adoption of a mining code will not solve the two-year rule, nor can it provide effective protection of the marine environment. Mining contracts would be in place for many decades.


We urge states instead to step back, apply the precautionary principle and rethink this process that would pave the way for the start of a new extractive industry in one of the most intact environments on the planet, and focus instead on putting in place a moratorium or precautionary pause on deep sea mining. A moratorium is not an “alternative narrative”, as described by the Secretariat; it is the only responsible way for states to fulfil their obligations under the Law of the Sea Convention to effectively protect the marine environment and numerous international commitments and agreements to protect marine biodiversity.

9 Nov 2023

The International Seabed Authority (ISA) Council meeting concluded on November 8 in Kingston, Jamaica. States continued to negotiate a mining code that, if it is adopted, would open the fragile deep sea to deep-sea mining, raising the need for a moratorium on this destructive industry now. The Deep Sea Conservation Coalition (DSCC), representing over 100 non-governmental organizations around the world, has been present in Kingston during the negotiations from October 30 – November 8. 

Since the beginning of the 28th Session of the ISA in March 2023, momentum for a moratorium or precautionary pause has continued to grow, with 11 new states calling to halt the industry. The United Kingdom was the latest to announce its support for a moratorium on the opening day of the Council meeting (30 October), bringing the total number of countries to 23 calling for a moratorium, precautionary pause, or ban on the industry.

The DSCC’s Global Deep-Sea Mining Campaign Lead, Sofia Tsenikli, stated: “Humanity is at a crossroads. Deep-sea mining is a once-in-a-generation decision to either destroy or protect the deep sea – one of the last remaining pristine areas on our planet. The growing consensus is that deep-sea mining should not go ahead; it is not needed, not wanted, and not worth the risk. We look forward to welcoming more countries into this wide-ranging coalition of States, scientists, businesses, Indigenous leaders, youth, and other stakeholders to safeguard our ocean for future generations.” 

Despite efforts by some countries at the ISA to fast-track the adoption of mining regulations by 2025, huge inconsistencies, gaps, and differences amongst negotiators were evident in the draft regulations throughout the 8-day Council meeting, many of which appear insurmountable.

Civil society continued to be a strong voice within the negotiations, giving powerful interventions regarding the lack of science and understanding of the deep sea, the need for greater transparency and independence from mining companies and contractors, the need for free, prior, and informed consent by Indigenous Peoples and protection of cultural values, why deep-sea minerals are not needed to fuel the green transition, and how the current draft regulations will not prevent the irreversible harm and destruction of the marine environment. 

The DSCC’s Policy Officer, Emma Wilson, commented: “States understand that deep-sea mining will cause irreversible harm and destruction to the marine environment. Due to the ISA’s pro-mining structure, we know that adopting a mining code will simply pave the way for this damaging extractive activity to begin in the context of sparse scientific understanding and harmful operational practices. The only truly precautionary approach to deep-sea mining  is a moratorium.”

As the ISA now begins preparations for its 29th session in 2024, key issues beyond the mining code still remain unsolved, including the arcane 2-year legal loophole that could allow for a mining application to be received and approved without mining regulations in place.

Duncan Currie, the DSCC’s legal advisor, added: Would-be deep-sea miners, The Metals Company, have indicated their clear intention to submit an application to mine in August 2024, or soon after that, regardless of whether rules and regulations are in place, defying States that have directly called for no mining until regulations are agreed. If States do not take the necessary steps to safeguard the ocean now, there is a very real risk that the world will sleepwalk into deep-sea mining beginning due to the actions of one company bent on making a quick profit from the destruction of the deep sea.” 

A paper published in Nature on November 8 concludes that while deep-sea mining may generate short-term profits for mining companies, long-term benefits would likely be minimal because of business model and litigation risks, public opposition, and competition from land-based mining. The paper also stated that deep-sea mining licensed by the ISA “may marginally benefit low-income countries under ISA, if at all, and countries sponsoring deep seabed mining in the Area. However, this would come with dire, irreparable loss to humanity and nature, making it difficult to justify.”

Furthermore, during the ISA Council meeting, a new report was released refuting the common misconception, promoted by mining interests, that it’s necessary to mine the ocean for metals for the electric vehicle battery market.

The DSCC’s co-founder, Matthew Gianni, added: Reports continue to show that deep-sea mining is a false solution to the climate crisis, will come at a high environmental cost, and is not needed to fuel a green energy transition. Alternatives to mining metals in the deep sea are a reality, with next-generation batteries and technologies either reusing metals in circulation or not requiring metals found in the deep ocean. As we combat the climate crisis, we must move away from ‘business as usual’ extractive economies and single-use metals and other materials, and focus on building more sustainable and circular approaches, making better use of what we already have.” 

END

About the DSCC

The DSCC is made up of over 100 non-government organizations, fishers organizations and law and policy institutes working together to protect vulnerable deep-sea ecosystems. We aim to substantially reduce the greatest threats to life in the deep sea and to safeguard the long-term health, integrity and resilience of deep-sea ecosystems.

Contact

For media enquiries, please contact patricia@communicationsinc.co.uk 

Notes to editors

  • In preparation for Climate COP28 and the upcoming #DeepDay, the DSCC will be hosting a webinar on November 16 entitled ‘Beneath the Waves: The Deep Sea, Climate Change and COP28’. The webinar will focus on the intricate connections between the deep sea and global climate, the threats to the critical services the deep sea provides, and discuss whether the deep sea is on the agenda at COP28. Register for the webinar here
  • The International Seabed Authority (ISA) is the UN intergovernmental body charged both with regulating any deep-sea mining in areas beyond national jurisdiction and with ensuring the effective protection of the marine environment. 

DSCC MEMBER QUOTES: 

François Chartier, head of the Greenpeace International delegation attending the negotiations: “We urge states to move away from negotiating a mining code that would pave the way for the start of another extractive industry and focus instead on putting in place a moratorium on deep-sea mining. A moratorium is the only responsible way for states to fulfill their obligations under the Law of the Sea Convention to protect the marine environment.”

Jessica Battle, Global Lead for WWF’s No Deep Seabed Mining Initiative: “We rather need to invest in the right technologies and reshape our societies to reduce our energy and mineral demands. There are other sustainable alternatives available that do not require minerals from the deep sea as we transition to a fossil free economy.”

Julian Jackson, Senior Manager, Ocean Governance, The Pew Charitable Trusts: “We should not mistake process for progress. There are still significant scientific uncertainties related to the deep-sea ecosystem and potential harmful impacts of mining on this fragile and unique environment that are leading more countries to pause and call for a moratorium on these activities.” 

Madeline Warner, Program Manager, The Ocean Foundation: “We are concerned about the lack of equity in the process of the ISA negotiations. Many countries and stakeholders have not been able to participate – in part because of the grueling and intense meeting schedule – but their voices are important to the conversation. Meetings about the shared fate of our global ocean, and whether to allow an industry that would negatively impact the common heritage of humanity, should not be progressing so quickly.”

Nicole Zanesco, International Policy Advisor, Oceans North: “The United Nations General Assembly acknowledges our collective right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment—a right that extends to both present and future generations. However, deep-sea mining will impact ecosystems in such a way that they are unlikely to ever recover. As states at the International Seabed Authority negotiate how and whether this industry should go ahead, we ask them to consider not merely the legal questions, but the human ones: how can we govern the international ocean in a way that provides our descendants with a secure and healthy future? A moratorium on deep sea mining is the only way to be responsible stewards of these ecosystems.”

Stan Rowland, CEO of the Blue Climate Initiative: “We often hear from those who are now getting wealthy promoting deep sea mining that we must mine the ocean to get more nickel and other deep sea metals for EV batteries.  But the rapid adoption of next-generation batteries that don’t use these metals demonstrate that deep sea mining is nothing more than an irresponsible and reckless choice. It’s unfortunate that mining company executives don’t embrace the new technology and the promise it provides for a healthier ocean and a cleaner world.  Let’s hope that the International Seabed Authority does.”  

7 Nov 2023

Thank you Mr Co-Facilitator

This intervention is on behalf of Greenpeace, WWF, the Ocean Foundation, Oceans North, Environmental Justice Foundation, Sustainable Ocean Alliance as well as the DSCC. 

Firstly we support Pew’s intervention earlier about stakeholder participation. Secondly, we support Ghana’s intervention and we strongly urge the need for a formal review procedure. We believe there is value in a formal regular review procedure undertaken regularly, as well as a structured review more frequently if needed. Environmental effects cannot wait 5 years, particularly if an environmental issue arises, there is a need to keep regulations under review. When the need arises to review the regulations, that should not be delayed such as for a five year period review. We would also note that completely removing the regulation would also require the Council to reach a decision via consensus every time to review the regulations. 

Lastly on paragraph 5, we are concerned about paragraph 5 that pertains to conditions for the amendment of regulations. Issues relating to the detriment to the environment must prevail over any detriment to contractors. It is critical that any amendment would be applicable to any and all contracts.

Thank you Mr Co-Facilitator.

6 Nov 2023

DR 70

On behalf of Oceans North and DSCC.

Thank you Mr Facilitator and Fakamālō Atu Tonga on their constitution day over the weekend.

The suggestion in paragraph 1 of contractors paying in advance for proposed damage to ecosystem services and natural capital contradicts Article 145 of the Convention by implicitly acknowledging and accepting damage to the environment as necessary and acceptable.

Not only can natural capital not be valued, but the anticipated damage to the environment is a reason for not doing the mining in the first place, rather than to stimulate an advance payment to facilitate the damage. Such damage is exactly why a moratorium is needed, now.

3 Nov 2023

Delivered intervention OEWG

The debate that began in 2022 on compensation to humankind as a whole, and not simply to contractors, sponsoring states, and the ISA, was an important step forward toward recognizing the obligation of the ISA to act on behalf of, and for the benefit of, humankind as a whole. If the ISA allows for degradation of ecosystems, species depletion, biodiversity loss, or the extinction of species, including rare species or species which have not even yet been discovered – how can the ISA ensure humankind as a whole is compensated for the damage?

These are not hypothetical scenarios. For example, scientists from the Natural History Museum in London found that of the 5,578 species in museum collections worldwide from the Clarion Clipperton Zone, over 90% are unnamed, in effect undescribed and unidentified. Scientists don’t yet know what they are – for example their life history characteristics, how they reproduce, how long they live or their reproductive strategies, what significance they could hold for advancements in marine science and genetic resources, and much less how they interact with other species in the CCZ in forming community and ecosystem structures and functions. Other scientists estimate that up to half of the larger animals discovered to date in the CCZ may be rare or endemic species. The ISA led Sustainable Seabed Knowledge Initiative “aims to describe over one thousand new species from the regions of the Area that are currently being explored for mineral resources and may be targeted for future exploitation” by 2030.  With such a limited knowledge of the benthic environment and even less knowledge of species and ecosystems in the water column, the risk of species depletion, ecosystem degradation and species extinction is very real. And in direct opposition to States’ commitments and obligations to protect and restore ecosystems and to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. 

So what is “adequate” compensation for humankind as a whole? How to value future generations’ right to live in a healthy environment, as highlighted by the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights? Or will the ISA ignore this, and simply externalize these environmental costs to the ocean as well as to humankind as a whole, for both present and future generations?  All so that a few, mainly contractors, make a profit? This would profoundly compromise not just the ocean but the obligation to act on behalf of humankind as a whole, a foundational principle of UNCLOS.

We argue that instead, the ISA should ensure that harm to the marine environment, biodiversity loss, ecosystem degradation and species loss in deep-sea ecosystems be prevented in the first place.  To do this, far more environmental baseline information and knowledge is required before an assessment of risks can be meaningfully conducted and informed decisions can be made on whether harm or damage to the flora and fauna of the marine environment can be prevented, as required under article 145 of the Convention. In July we commented on the Report on the value of ecosystem services and natural capital of the Area which concluded that it is currently not feasible to estimate robust, or even indicative, global values for the Area. We were disappointed that after all of the discussion on this in 2022, the study, completed in May, was neither presented nor discussed at the July meeting. We agree with the comments of Brazil, Germany, Costa Rica, Spain, Chile and our colleagues from Pew that the environmental externalities are an essential element of the discussion and that the authors of the Report present its recommendations on the value of ecosystem services and natural capital of the Area at the next meeting of the OEWG. A thorough recognition by the ISA of the interests of humankind as a whole on the collective stewardship of our global commons is paramount if the ISA is to fulfil its obligations. Unless and until such matters can be satisfactorily resolved, we join our colleagues from Pew in emphasising the need for a moratorium or precautionary pause.

2 Nov 2023

DR 44

Madam Facilitator

This is being delivered on behalf of Greenpeace, Oceans North, WWF, the Ocean Foundation,  The Pew Charitable Trusts, Sustainable Ocean Alliance, the Environmental Justice Foundation and DSCC.

 The recognition of traditional and indigenous knowledge in decision-making processes, as per para 1(a)(iiii), is critically important.  We would specifically like to highlight the commitment under the 2022 CBD decision on marine and coastal biodiversity to obtain the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous Peoples, prior to the adoption of any rules, regulations and procedures for exploitation by the ISA.

We would also like to underline that States have made commitments to halt and reverse  biodiversity loss and are subject to legal obligations under other international agreements, for example the BBNJ Agreement and, in the case of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement (article 5(g)), the the second of the implementing agreements of UNCLOS, to ensure the protection of biodiversity in the marine environment. In light of BBNJ and many other international commitments, it is incumbent upon the ISA to ensure there is no loss of biodiversity, damage to the flora and fauna of the marine environment, or degradation of ecosystems and ecosystem services.

On the new paragraph 2(g) 

On climate mitigation and ecosystems and nutrient cycling, we still believe that the obligation as phrased is far too weak. 

An EIA would need to ensure that no plan of work could be approved if it harms, degrades or otherwise negatively affects any of these processes.

In all of DR 44 there is still no reference to cumulative impacts, including for example the impacts of climate change, fishing and noise, and the need to prevent environmental damage not only in areas directly impacted but in all affected areas. All cumulative impacts must be taken into account.

Finally, in relation to para 1(c), science has repeatedly demonstrated that the mitigation hierarchy is not applicable to deep-sea mining due to the unique nature of the biodiversity and ecosystem functions of such environments that are not replicable elsewhere as well as the longevity of impacts. This is why it is imperative to uphold the obligation in article 145 paragraph (b) to prevent damage to the fauna and flora of the marine environment in the first place. 

Prevention of damage sets a threshold of “no harm” – anything less departs from the provisions of Article 145 and is inconsistent with numerous international commitments. The commitments to halt and reverse biodiversity loss for example, in the Rio+20 outcome document and more recently in the CBD COP-15 Global Biodiversity Framework presupposes the prevention of biodiversity loss in the first place. 

The adaptive management approach referred to in para 1(c) is not applicable to situations such as this where there is inadequate baseline information on the species and ecosystems likely to be affected by deep seabed mining, the consequences are likely to be serious and potentially permanent and thus would be inconsistent with the precautionary principle. The only way the precautionary principle can truly be enacted in the context of the deep sea is through a moratorium on deep-sea mining.

1 Nov 2023

Madam facilitator

It is good to see you in the chair again

This intervention is on behalf of DSCC [and Oceans North]. The DSCC thanks the UK for facilitating this group. We do need to point out that wording such as “the group agreed” and that there was consensus is, respect, not accurate. There was no unanimity in the group. We do note that due to timezones it was difficult for many delegations to attend the meetings. 

In particular, the sidelining of public participation in favour of consultation in the scope of the outcome report is unacceptable. 

For example, we have many times in the group and in the Council highlighted the importance of stakeholders and observers being able to participate in all processes including LTC meetings, the provision and assessment of science and the contribution of cultural perspectives, including free and prior informed consent by Indigenous Peoples. These activities go far beyond consultation. We refer delegates to BBNJ Article 48 of the BBNJ Agreement, which requires the promotion of transparency in decision-making processes and other activities carried out and which requires and the facilitation of participation.

—-


On behalf of DSCC, WWF,  and Greenpeace, 

We want to thank the Federated States of Micronesia facilitator for his thorough and transparent facilitation and thorough report. In particular, this working group has identified the importance of cultural values, and in particular indigenous values, associated with the deep sea as well as intergenerational equity and their cross-cutting nature.

We strongly endorse the contributions of the indigenous leaders engaged into the conversations in earlier sessions  who unfortunately are not able to be here today. We particularly endorse their call for safeguarding cultural values and heritage, the right to free, prior, and informed consent, and the right of future generations to inherit the same diversity in natural and cultural  resources enjoyed by previous generations and to have equitable access to the use and benefits of these resources and in doing so, that no community faces a disproportionate share of environmental hazards.

—-


Thank you Mme. Facilitator, it’s good to see you again. This intervention is on behalf of the DSCC, the Environmental Justice Foundation, Greenpeace, Oceans North and WWF.

This regulation would explicitly permit the disposal, discharge, and dumping of waste into the marine environment “in accordance with” a number of elements. This would be a systematic rather than an exceptional occurrence, because, as Brazil points out, under the current operational practices of DSM, the activity cannot take place without the dumping of waste products (potentially toxic), due to the sediment plume and wastewater that would be generated from the surface vessel. This habit of spreading our debris throughout the natural environment is characteristic of our broken global system: it is what has led us into the triple planetary crisis we face today. As this regulation stands, even if discharge results in harm to the marine environment, there is not even any requirement for the contractor to stop mining. We would also suggest that it is premature to dismiss the London Convention and Protocol without further consideration and analysis. We need to stop treating our ocean as a dumping ground, which means that deep-sea mining must not proceed unless it can be ensured that there would be no harmful effects, including from polluting discharges. 

This regulation is a prime example of why we are concerned about the potential adoption of the mining code. Because let’s be realistic: a mining code is not developed to apply to a dormant industry, and the ISA’s entire structure and function is weighted in favour of granting exploitation contracts once a mining code is in place. The adoption of the code will simply pave the way for an inherently damaging extractive activity to begin in a context of sparse scientific understanding and harmful operational practices. States do have a right not to adopt a mining code if such a code would impede them from fulfilling their obligations to prevent harm to the flora and fauna of the marine environment. DR50 is just one example of many in the draft mining code that would actually open the gates to harming fragile marine ecosystems. There is another option, an option that has already been tried and tested by the international community in the context of the Madrid Protocol, which places a moratorium of at least 50 years on extractive activities in Antarctica. Similarly, a commercial moratorium was agreed under the whaling convention, and most recently, a moratorium on fishing was agreed in the Central Arctic Ocean Agreement. It’s happened before, it can happen again. It is the best way to truly protect the marine environment. 

—-


This intervention is on behalf of  Oceans North, The Ocean Foundation and DSCC

All performance assessments should be independent of the contractor, including the selection of the auditor, which is instead a task for the regulator – in other words: the ISA. A regulator must regulate.  

This regulation is becoming increasingly weak with each version,  now with proposals in paragraph  1 to downgrade the obligation of the performance assessment from “ensure” to “assess” compliance, and with the intervals between assessments in paragraph 2 now at two years, rather than one. 

Paragraph 5 does not even allow the Commission to require further reviews unless there is an unsatisfactory performance assessment.

This is the Common Heritage of Humankind. It is unacceptable to fail to ensure compliance in protecting the marine environment.

—-


This intervention on DR 55  is on behalf of Oceans North, The Ocean Foundation, Greenpeace, WWF as well as DSCC

This draft regulation ignores the fact that much of the damage inflicted on marine life by deep-sea mining would be technically, ecologically and economically impossible to remediate, restore, or rehabilitate. Deep-sea mining would impact marine life and the substrate upon which many species depend, as well as the water column. 

This fund also raises some insoluble questions: should damages not be payable to future generations? How, for example, can persons affected by damage to carbon sequestration processes be compensated? Who is to be compensated for damage to biodiversity? Moreover, the report commissioned by the ISA earlier this year to examine environmental externalities concluded that it is impossible to quantify the “value” of marine ecosystems and ecosystem services – findings which present a further barrier to this fund being in any way effective. 

This provision also highlights the absence of an appropriate definition of effective control consistent with the Convention, since contractors may have only thinly capitalised shell companies in sponsoring States and then leave when damage was caused, as was noted by the Seabed Disputes Chamber in the seabed Advisory Opinion, as well as a liability regime, as was highlighted by the UK.

30 Oct 2023

This week countries will convene in Kingston, Jamaica for the International Seabed Authority’s Council meeting to negotiate a mining code that, if agreed and adopted, would open up our ocean to the largest mining operation humanity has ever seen. The Deep Sea Conservation Coalition (DSCC) urges governments to draw a line in the sand and support a moratorium on the destructive, emerging industry.

Continue reading PRESS RELEASE: Humanity faces a triple planetary crisis as the International Seabed Authority rushes ahead to approve deep-sea mining

1 Sep 2023

November 2023

8/11/23

  • Fundamental obligations of states to protect & preserve the marine environment.
  • States have specific obligations to take measures necessary to preserve rare ecosystems and threatened species.
  • Also, highlight the recent adoption of the BBNJ agreement which is intended to ensure sustainable use of biological diversity
  • DSM impacts are not yet fully known, more research is needed
  • Urges states to ensure that regs promote full compliance by states of their obligation to protect & preserve the marine environment with UNCLOS, 1994, and emerging international law.