By RISE UP

The latest International Seabed Authority (ISA) Council meeting in Kingston concluded without the adoption of a Mining Code, without approval for commercial deep-sea mining, and without resolving the major scientific, legal and governance questions that continue to shape the debate over the future of the deep ocean. As the ISA Assembly continues its work this week, one message is becoming increasingly clear: the world is not ready, and should not be rushing, to open one of Earth’s last largely untouched ecosystems to industrial extraction.

Momentum for a moratorium or precautionary pause continues to grow. For RISE UP for the Ocean, this moment reinforces what ocean advocates, scientists, Indigenous Peoples, coastal communities, civil society organisations, community leaders and a growing number of governments have been saying for years: the deep sea should not be mined before the science is understood, safeguards are in place and governance systems are strong enough to protect this shared global resource.

The question is no longer only whether a Mining Code can be completed. The deeper question is whether commercial exploitation of the deep ocean should proceed at all when scientific knowledge remains incomplete, potential impacts may be irreversible, and the current governance framework is not yet strong enough to protect marine ecosystems or uphold the principle that the deep seabed is the common heritage of humankind.

The Council ended without a Mining Code

Perhaps the most significant outcome of the ISA Council meeting is what did not happen. 

This is significant because the pressure to finalise the regulations has been intense. Industry actors and pro-mining states continue to push the idea that the rules must be completed quickly so that commercial mining can move forward. But the Council discussions showed that major questions remain unresolved, including environmental safeguards, liability, inspection, compliance, benefit-sharing, scientific uncertainty and institutional accountability.

The Council also chose not to set a final deadline for adopting the regulations. This is an important development. Artificial deadlines risk creating political pressure to approve incomplete rules simply to meet a timetable rather than ensuring the framework is fit for purpose. 

At the same time, references to the “timely adoption” of regulations mean that pressure to move the process forward has not disappeared. Without stronger safeguards, transparent decision-making and greater scientific certainty, the absence of a deadline alone is not enough. 

A Roadmap Doesn’t Mean We’re Ready  

Another key outcome was the Council’s decision to ask the ISA Secretariat to prepare a draft Roadmap for future negotiations. This does not mean the Roadmap has been agreed. Rather, it establishes a process for developing one. 

A milestone-based approach could help shift negotiations away from arbitrary deadlines and towards meaningful progress. But its value will depend entirely on what those milestones require.

If the Roadmap ensures that environmental safeguards, scientific evidence, governance reforms and equitable benefit-sharing are achieved before commercial mining applications are considered, it could strengthen the integrity of the process.

However, if it simply becomes another mechanism for accelerating negotiations without addressing the underlying concerns, it risks undermining public confidence and increasing pressure to move towards exploitation before the world is ready.

Process matters because process shapes outcomes.

Contractor Accountability Remains Unresolved

The Council also continued discussions on the ongoing inquiry into potential contractor non-compliance with contractual obligations, including obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

While reaffirming the importance of the inquiry, the agreed timeline raises legitimate concerns.

Contractors now have until July 2027 to respond, and there is currently no clear deadline for the Legal and Technical Commission to complete its work or for the Council to consider any resulting action. In practice, meaningful accountability could be delayed until 2028 or beyond, while contractors continue to retain rights under existing exploration contracts.

Public confidence in international governance depends on accountability being timely as well as thorough. Where questions are raised about legal compliance, transparency or adherence to international obligations, they should be addressed through clear and credible processes that inspire trust.

Benefit-Sharing Must Mean More Than Revenue 

One of the more encouraging developments was the Council’s decision to place benefit-sharing more firmly on the agenda by requesting further discussion during the 32nd session. 

This matters because benefit-sharing lies at the heart of the principle that the international seabed and its mineral resources are the common heritage of humankind.  Any conversation about commercial mining must answer fundamental questions. Who benefits? Who bears the environmental risks? Are proposed financial arrangements fair for developing states and Small Island Developing States? And how should humanity value ecosystems that may never recover once disturbed? 

Benefit-sharing cannot be discussed only in terms of potential revenue. It must also include the value of intact ocean ecosystems, the cost of irreversible damage, the protection of biodiversity, the climate-regulating role of the ocean and the rights of present and future generations.

More Countries Are Saying “Not Yet” 

The Kingston meetings are taking place against a context of growing international support for a moratorium or precautionary pause on deep-sea mining. Today, 45 countries have publicly called for either a moratorium, a precautionary pause or a ban on commercial deep-sea mining. 

During the ISA Assembly, the Republic of Mauritius formally expressed its support for a precautionary pause. As a Small Island Developing State, Mauritius emphasised that its sustainable development depends on a healthy, resilient ocean and argued that decisions on activities in the area must continue to be guided by the best available science and the precautionary approach.

Mozambique has also confirmed its support, marking another important step in growing African leadership on deep-sea protection.

These announcements reflect more than changing political positions. They demonstrate an increasing recognition that ocean-dependent nations are questioning whether commercial mining should proceed before scientific understanding, environmental safeguards, monitoring systems and governance frameworks are sufficiently robust.

The debate is no longer simply about whether mining is technically possible. It is about what responsible ocean governance looks like when the environmental risks remain uncertain and potentially irreversible.

The Conversation Is Far From Over

The latest ISA Council meeting did not deliver the Mining Code that some had hoped would pave the way for commercial deep-sea mining. Instead, it highlighted how many fundamental scientific, legal, environmental and governance questions remain unanswered.

That should not be viewed as failure. It should be recognised as an opportunity to proceed with caution.

Around the world, momentum for a moratorium or precautionary pause continues to grow because more governments are recognising that precaution is not an obstacle to progress. It is responsible governance.

Protecting the deep ocean today gives the international community the time it needs to strengthen science, improve regulation, build public trust and ensure that decisions about the common heritage of humankind are made with the care they deserve.

At RISE UP for the Ocean, we believe the future of the deep sea should not be determined by pressure to move quickly, but by evidence, transparency, equity and accountability. The choices being made today will shape the health of our ocean for generations to come.

The deep sea may lie thousands of metres beneath the surface, but the decisions being made now are anything but distant.

A moratorium is not the end of the conversation. It is the responsible beginning of a better one.