ISA rules leave seabed mining stuck without benefit sharing

Core Viewpoint - The International Seabed Authority (ISA) cannot legally approve deep seabed mining without establishing benefit-sharing rules, which remain unresolved despite increasing pressure for commercial extraction [1][4][14] Industry Overview - The debate surrounding deep seabed mining focuses on the ISA's timeline for finalizing exploitation regulations, especially after Nauru invoked the two-year rule in 2021 to expedite the process [2] - Mining companies and certain states believe that the adoption of exploitation rules would facilitate commercial activities, but legal experts argue that these rules alone do not fulfill the requirements of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) [3][4] Regulatory Challenges - Under UNCLOS, the ISA Assembly holds the authority over benefit-sharing regulations, which must be approved separately from exploitation rules, leading to a slower process [6] - The absence of clear benefit-sharing rules prevents states from assessing whether seabed mining serves the interests of humanity as a whole, with African nations emphasizing the need for demonstrable shared benefits [7] Geopolitical Context - Geopolitical interest in seabed minerals is rising, particularly from the US, which is not a party to UNCLOS but seeks access to critical minerals from the ocean floor, causing concern among treaty members [8] - Companies like Lockheed Martin and Impossible Metals are actively pursuing seabed mining opportunities, despite ongoing regulatory uncertainties [8][9] Financial Developments - The Metals Company from Canada has made strides by filing for a commercial permit and securing an $85.2 million investment from Korea Zinc, positioning itself as a viable alternative for refining extracted materials [10] Progress on Benefit Sharing - Progress on establishing benefit-sharing regulations has been slow, with the ISA's Finance Committee only releasing its first draft framework in 2024, decades after initial discussions began [11] - Current discussions are leaning towards creating a Common Heritage Fund to finance research and capacity building, although critics argue this diverts from the goal of reducing global inequality [12] Future Considerations - The ISA Council has requested further development of the Common Heritage Fund concept, while legal experts warn that proceeding with mining before resolving benefit-sharing issues would violate UNCLOS and hinder future negotiations [13]