The deep sea, covering over half the world’s ocean floor, holds immense ecological value as a carbon sink and biodiversity hotspot, yet it faces unprecedented threats from mining for polymetallic nodules, sulfides, and crusts. Governed by the ISA under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, regulations aim to balance economic development with environmental protection. As of July 2025, the ISA Council did not approve exploitation rules, postponing commercial activities due to concerns over ecological risks, financial mechanisms, and governance (ISA, July 2025) {1}{3}. Negotiations, ongoing since 2019, have produced a consolidated draft text in February 2024, with a partial first reading by July 2024, but consensus remains elusive (ISA) {5}. This regulatory limbo reflects broader tensions, amplified by industry pressures and global calls for moratoriums.
Regulatory Framework and Recent Developments
The ISA’s Mining Code regulates exploration for polymetallic nodules, sulphides, and cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts through specific documents, requiring phased standards and guidelines: Phase 1 by regulation adoption, Phase 2 before exploitation applications, and Phase 3 before commercial mining (ISA) {1}{2}. These include legally binding measures for environmental protection, such as outcome-based approaches and monitoring protocols. However, the draft exploitation regulations remain incomplete, with negotiations resuming in 2026 after the 2025 failure to reach consensus (WRI, July 2025) {4}.
Recent news underscores the impasse: The July 2025 ISA Council meeting ended without a mining code, amid opposition from stakeholders highlighting unresolved issues (DSCC, 21 July 2025) {3}. The Council also launched an investigation into contractors’ compliance with UNCLOS obligations, prompted by reports of unilateral actions by entities like The Metals Company (TMC), which pursued mining plans outside consensus, raising legal and ethical alarms (DSCC, July 2025) {3}. Such developments signal a precarious path forward, where regulatory gaps could enable premature exploitation.
Environmental Impacts and Knowledge Gaps
Studies reveal profound ecological risks from deep-sea mining, including sediment plumes that could smother marine life over vast areas, habitat destruction, and the release of stored carbon and heavy metals, worsening ocean acidification (WRI, 2023–2025) {4}; (Frontiers, May 2025) {G3}. WRI analyses emphasize knowledge gaps on the magnitude and extent of impacts, questioning if mining can align with UNCLOS goals for sustainable development (WRI, July 2025) {4}. For instance, up to 90% of deep-sea species may be undiscovered, and mining could eradicate them before cataloging (IUCN, March 2024) {G5}.
Expert perspectives critique regulations as inadequate: A Nature Reviews article calls for improved monitoring to manage effects within acceptable limits, stressing baselines for biodiversity (Nature, August 2025) {G10}. Critics argue the framework lacks binding harm thresholds, allowing industry-funded assessments that may be biased (Greenpeace, July 2025) {G14}. Social media on X echoes this, with activists labeling mining “ecological theft” and highlighting test sites’ long-term devastation, fueling hashtags like #BanDeepSeaMining {G15}{G17}.
Industry Influences, Geopolitical Tensions, and Greenwashing
Industry lobbying, exemplified by TMC’s controversial proposals for advanced nodule extraction technologies, pressures the ISA despite regulatory non-compliance concerns (DSCC, 2025) {3}; (CSIS, August 2025) {G12}. Geopolitically, U.S. President Trump’s April 2025 executive order bypasses UN rules to accelerate mining for EV minerals, aiming to reduce China dependency but risking legal challenges and environmental harm (Discovery Alert, September 2025) {G8}; (WebProNews, 2025) {G13}.
Greenwashing is rampant, with claims of “sustainable” robotic tech downplaying impacts like noise and light pollution (Mongabay, August 2025) {G1}. Proponents argue mining supports green transitions, but degrowth advocates counter that it undermines climate goals by disrupting carbon-sequestering ecosystems (Greenpeace) {G14}.
Balanced Viewpoints and Alternatives
Balancing views, some experts see regulations as a potential shield if enforced rigorously, incorporating innovations like real-time monitoring (ISA, 2024) {2}. However, over 20 countries and 800 scientists support moratoriums until science catches up (NZ City, September 7, 2025) {G9}.
Constructive solutions include advancing circular economies: WRI suggests developing recycling to cut mineral demand by up to 50%, reducing mining needs (WRI) {4}. Degrowth perspectives promote lifestyle shifts and urban mining from e-waste (Mongabay) {G1}. Indigenous communities, facing fishery disruptions, advocate for community-led protected areas to ensure equity (IUCN) {G5}. Emerging trends like unilateral actions highlight the need for hybrid models—stricter ISA rules with no-go zones—to balance exploitation and protection.
KEY FIGURES
- The ISA Council did not approve deep-sea mining exploitation regulations as of July 2025, citing unresolved environmental, financial, regulatory, and governance issues, reflecting widespread concerns on ecological risks (International Seabed Authority, July 2025) [3].
- The draft exploitation regulations have been under negotiation since 2019, with a consolidated text released in February 2024 and a partial first reading completed by July 2024 (ISA) [5].
- Exploration regulations cover polymetallic nodules, sulphides, and cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts, regulated under specific ISA documents (ISA) [1].
- The ISA Mining Code requires phased implementation of standards and guidelines: Phase 1 by regulation adoption, Phase 2 before exploitation plan applications, and Phase 3 before commercial mining begins (ISA) [2].
- The International Seabed Authority faces significant pressure from industry actors such as The Metals Company (TMC), which pursued unilateral mining plans outside ISA consensus, raising legal and ethical concerns (DSCC, July 2025) [3].
RECENT NEWS
- July 2025: ISA Council meeting ended without adopting a mining code for exploitation, postponing commercial deep-sea mining commencement due to unresolved issues and stakeholder opposition (DSCC, 21 July 2025) [3].
- The ISA Council initiated an investigation into mining contractors’ compliance with UNCLOS and ISA obligations amid reports of rogue industry actions (DSCC, July 2025) [3].
- Negotiations on deep-sea mining regulations will resume in 2026, following the failure to reach consensus in 2025 (WRI, July 2025 update) [4].
STUDIES AND REPORTS
- Draft Exploitation Regulations (ISA, 2019–2025): Developed through expert workshops, public consultations, and multiple drafts, aiming to balance economic needs and environmental protection; however, they remain incomplete, reflecting the complexity of regulating deep-sea mining activities responsibly [1][5].
- WRI analysis (2023–2025): Highlights critical knowledge gaps on the scale and ecological impact of deep-sea mining, the social and economic consequences, and the need for a circular mineral economy to reduce mineral demand and environmental intrusion [4].
- DSCC media release (2025): Emphasizes unresolved environmental risks, the fragility of deep-sea ecosystems, and calls for a moratorium on deep-sea mining until robust regulations and scientific understanding are assured [3].
TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS
- ISA’s Mining Code development includes phased standards and guidelines that will be legally binding on contractors, incorporating outcome-based approaches to environmental protection (ISA, 2024) [2].
- Technological innovations in environmental impact assessments and monitoring are prerequisites within draft regulations, although specific new technologies are under development and have not yet been widely implemented or tested in commercial deep-sea mining contexts [2][5].
- Industry actors like The Metals Company have proposed advanced mining technologies for polymetallic nodules extraction in international waters, but these remain controversial due to potential ecological impacts and regulatory non-compliance [3].
MAIN SOURCES
- https://www.isa.org.jm/the-mining-code/ — Official ISA Mining Code overview and regulatory framework for deep-sea mining.
- https://www.isa.org.jm/the-mining-code/standards-and-guidelines/ — Details on phased standards and guidelines development for exploitation.
- https://deep-sea-conservation.org/media-release-no-deep-sea-mining-approved-as-isa-council-ends-despite-continued-push-to-start-a-failing-industry/ — DSCC media release on 2025 ISA Council decision and industry concerns.
- https://www.wri.org/insights/deep-sea-mining-explained — WRI’s updated explanation of deep-sea mining regulatory challenges and knowledge gaps (July 2025).
- https://www.isa.org.jm/the-mining-code/draft-exploitation-regulations-2/ — Status and process of draft exploitation regulations with negotiation updates to 2024.
Propaganda Risk Analysis
Score: 7/10 (Confidence: medium)
Key Findings
Corporate Interests Identified
The Metals Company (TMC) is prominently mentioned in the article as pursuing mining activities and nodule extraction technologies. Web and news sources reveal TMC’s involvement in controversial timelines, U.S. license applications, and amended sponsorship agreements with states like Nauru. Proponents, likely including TMC, argue for mining to support green technologies (e.g., electric vehicles), potentially benefiting companies in critical minerals sectors like nickel and cobalt extraction.
Missing Perspectives
The article appears to include activist voices labeling mining as exploitative and mentions degrowth perspectives, but it may exclude detailed scientific or industry counterarguments. For instance, web sources from Reuters and World Resources Institute highlight ongoing debates on environmental unknowns, but these are not fully represented. Indigenous Pacific voices or small island nations opposing mining (e.g., via Greenpeace reports) seem underrepresented in the provided excerpt.
Claims Requiring Verification
Claims about regulations being a ‘facade for exploitation’ and executive orders ‘bypassing UN rules’ lack specific sourcing in the excerpt. Web results reference a 2025 Trump executive order fast-tracking mining, but details on its legal bypassing of UN frameworks (e.g., ISA regulations) are debated and not fully verified. Assertions on nodule extraction reducing land-based mining impacts are presented without quantifiable data, mirroring unverified environmental risk claims in activist posts.
Social Media Analysis
X/Twitter posts predominantly feature anti-deep-sea mining sentiments from environmental accounts, highlighting risks to biodiversity, oxygen-producing nodules, and ecosystem destruction over millions of years. Multiple posts criticize TMC, Trump policies, and countries like Norway for approving mining, with calls to ban the practice. Sentiment is overwhelmingly negative toward exploitation, with some mentions of alternative solutions like space mining, but little pro-mining content in the results, indicating a skewed online discourse driven by activists.
Warning Signs
- Balanced title masks potentially alarmist framing, questioning regulations as a ‘facade’ without equal weight to proponent views.
- Fragmented references to ‘unprecedented threats’ and ‘controversial proposals’ suggest sensationalism, aligning with greenwashing accusations in web sources like Greenpeace, where mining is portrayed as environmentally destructive despite industry claims of sustainability.
- Potential greenwashing in proponent arguments for ‘reducing mining’ via deep-sea methods, which web articles (e.g., from WRI) counter with evidence of serious marine ecosystem risks.
- Lack of citations for key quotes or statistics, making it hard to verify claims about biodiversity loss or technology benefits.
Reader Guidance
Analysis performed using: Planet Keeper real-time X/Twitter analysis with propaganda detection
Other references :
news.mongabay.com – Source
wri.org – Source
frontiersin.org – Source
nature.com – Source
iucn.nl – Source
oceanfdn.org – Source
frontiersin.org – Source
discoveryalert.com.au – Source
home.nzcity.co.nz – Source
nature.com – Source
discoveryalert.com.au – Source
csis.org – Source
webpronews.com – Source
greenpeace.org – Source
x.com – Source
x.com – Source
x.com – Source
x.com – Source
x.com – Source
x.com – Source
