After two weeks inside the International Seabed Authority Council negotiations in Kingston, Jamaica, I can say this clearly: the world is not ready for deep-sea mining. Not scientifically. Not technically. Not in terms of governance. And yet the pressure to move forward continues undeterred by the scale of what remains unresolved.
I was present at the 31st ISA Council session as part of the Oceano Azul Foundation delegation, representing RISE UP for the Ocean. Being in the room was not incidental. These negotiations are determining the future of the deep ocean, a space that belongs to all of humanity, and they need voices that centre ocean health, community impact and long-term accountability, not just commercial interests. For me, with these decisions being made in my region, they feel close to home. The Caribbean’s ocean economies, the ecosystems that sustain us, the legacy we leave, all of it is bound up in what gets decided at these sessions.
What I witnessed over those two weeks made the case for a precautionary pause more clearly than any report could.
When transparency fails, trust follows
The session’s problems began on day one. Within hours of opening, the public livestream was cut. For nearly two days, observers, governments, civil society and the public could not follow what was happening. It was only restored after a lot of pushback from civil society.
I want to be direct about what that represents. This is not a process governing a private commercial matter. The deep seabed is part of the common heritage of humankind. Decisions about it must be made openly, with full public access. When the cameras go off, even briefly, even for technical reasons, it sends a message about whose participation is valued and whose is not. That message is damaging and it needs to be taken seriously.
So does the question of impartiality within the Secretariat. Recent public comments from the Secretary-General have raised concern that the institution is more focused on completing the Mining Code than on safeguarding the integrity of the process itself. At a moment when so much remains scientifically and legally unresolved, that is a credibility problem the ISA cannot afford.
The rush is political and it should be named as such
Nauru’s Minister of Foreign Affairs delivered a lengthy intervention defending the push to advance exploitation regulations. The argument was that the Council is stuck, that the delay is unreasonable, and that calls for a moratorium or precautionary pause have no legal basis.
I heard that argument. I do not find it convincing.
The urgency being applied to this process is not coming from scientific readiness. It is not coming from a completed governance framework or settled questions around environmental safety, liability or benefit-sharing. It is coming from a small group of pro-mining states and contractors with commercial interests in moving extraction forward. Nauru has been central to that push since triggering the two-year rule in 2021 and its interventions here were consistent with that position.
Calling it political is not a criticism, it is simply an accurate description. Understanding it as political is important, because it means the counter-pressure from states and civil society calling for caution is equally legitimate and equally important.
The Mining Code is not close to finished
One of the most striking things I observed over these two weeks was how openly states acknowledged how much work remains, even as some continued to advocate for moving forward.
Before the session began, the Secretariat itself had identified 32 outstanding matters in the draft regulations. Two weeks of negotiation did not resolve them. By the final day, states were still debating the most fundamental question of all: what are these regulations meant to cover?
Germany argued the text should apply only to polymetallic nodules for now, a clarification it called “necessary and overdue.” China and India both indicated a broader understanding, encompassing all three resource categories. This was not a minor technical disagreement. If states cannot agree on the scope of the rules, the claim that the Mining Code is nearly complete simply does not hold.
Ireland acknowledged that “very considerable work remains to be done.” Germany noted that of more than 50 technical standards referenced in the draft, only five have been drafted. Benefit-sharing arrangements and compensation mechanisms are not yet in the text at all. I left Kingston with a clear sense that the regulatory framework is far further from finished than the pressure to adopt it implies.
We are making decisions ahead of the science
Across both weeks, I heard states and scientific observers raise the same concern repeatedly: we do not have the environmental data needed to assess the impacts of deep-sea mining responsibly.
Baseline data on sediment plumes, toxicity, noise and light pollution, the foundations of any credible impact assessment, could take ten to fifteen years to gather adequately. That is not a fringe position. That is the scientific community’s honest assessment of where we are.
China noted that “the adoption of the regulations does not mean the start of exploitation activities.” I understand what that argument is trying to do, but it does not reassure me. Frameworks built ahead of the knowledge needed to make them functional are not precautionary, they are premature. In an ecosystem as sensitive and poorly understood as the deep sea, premature decisions carry consequences that cannot be walked back.
The world is not ready for deep-sea mining — not scientifically, not technically, not in terms of governance — and yet the pressure to move forward continues undeterred. Khadija Stewart, RISE UP Senior Campaigner
Compliance and accountability are already under strain
One of the more serious moments of the session came during discussion of the Legal and Technical Commission’s report, which pointed to significant compliance concerns involving at least one contractor. Several states argued that a meaningful review cannot rely solely on contractor self-reporting, I agree.
This matters beyond the immediate case. The ISA’s credibility as a regulatory body depends on its ability to enforce its own rules. If compliance cannot be addressed rigorously at the exploration stage, it raises a fundamental question: how could exploitation ever be governed responsibly?
This will return in July, when the Council will also face questions around contract renewal, including for Nauru Ocean Resources Inc. (NORI), a subsidiary linked to The Metals Company (TMC). I will be watching closely.
Financial questions remain equally unresolved. Royalty rates, liability, environmental compensation and fairness in benefit-sharing are all still being negotiated. The economic case for deep-sea mining, rather than strengthening, continues to weaken. This combination of weakening economics, unresolved governance, incomplete science makes the drive to accelerate even harder to justify.
The ISA exists within a wider ocean governance landscape
Something that came through clearly in the second week was the relationship between the ISA and the new High Seas Treaty (the BBNJ Agreement). Several states pushed for coherence between the two frameworks. The Bahamas put it well: coherence is “not merely a technical exercise,” because both regimes govern the same interconnected ecosystems. It also warned that we cannot afford governance approaches where environmental risk outpaces scientific understanding.
That framing resonates with me. The ISA does not operate in isolation. Its decisions exist within and must be accountable to, a broader set of international commitments on ocean protection and precaution. The momentum being built through the BBNJ Agreement should strengthen, not be undermined by, what happens at the ISA.
What comes next
No mining was approved at this session. No Mining Code was adopted. The scientific, regulatory, financial and governance gaps remain as wide as when we arrived.
When the Council meets again in July, those gaps will still be there. What I hope will also be there is greater resolve from states to match the seriousness of what is at stake with the caution it demands.
For something as delicate as this, ecosystems that took millions of years to form, decisions that could alter them permanently, we are operating in a realm of time-bound chaos. That is exactly why a precautionary pause is needed: so we can stop, fully assess the task at hand and not rush toward consequences we cannot reverse.
If your organisation wants to stand with that call, I invite you to sign our collective statement. If you want to get more involved or learn more about deep-sea mining, please reach out directly: khadija@riseupfortheocean.org.