Essential Points:
China is rapidly expanding its deep-sea mining ambitions across five strategic zones, from the Indian Ocean to the Pacific, to secure critical minerals.
Donald Trump signed an executive order, titled ‘Unleashing America’s Offshore Critical Minerals and Resources’, on April 24, to bypass the International Seabed Authority (ISA) and accelerate the U.S.’s deep sea mining ambitions.
The United States remains outside the ISA framework as it never ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
Compared to terrestrial mining, deep sea mining is seen by some as a more sustainable alternative. However, critics argue it risks decimating fragile ecosystems and releasing carbon stored in the sea floor, especially as the ISA struggles to finalise environmental regulations and manage exploration.
Alex Gilbert, Vice President of Regulation at Zeno Power, a company specializing in nuclear power systems for remote environments, warns: “The broader concern…is that the U.S. actions would be ‘system-breaking’ in that they would contribute to a broader deterioration of maritime norms and respect for freedom of the seas.”
Overview:
Critical minerals are indispensable to the green energy transition, and are essential to the production of solar, wind, and electric vehicle batteries as well as military technology, making them a crucial component of both the renewable sector and international strategic competition. As the securitization of critical minerals has become increasingly important, efforts to safeguard stable supply chains have fueled geopolitical tensions. Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) serves as a prime example, with the country holding over 50 percent of the world’s cobalt reserves. However, persistent conflict and a lack of regulation in the DRC continue to complicate reliable access to these supplies. Political instability and competition have underscored the strategic need for diversification, prompting large economies to explore alternative routes, including deep-sea mining, in order to reduce dependency on unreliable partners.
China is exploring commercial mining in five strategic zones, including the Southwest Indian Ridge, the Clarion Clipperton Zone, the South Pacific and its surrounding islands, as well as contested maritime areas near Japan and the South China Sea. Globally, Beijing holds the most exclusive exploration contracts granted by the International Seabed Authority (ISA), with these licenses covering vast areas, notably within the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, a seabed region rich in polymetallic nodules containing nickel, cobalt, manganese, copper, and rare earth elements. At present, the ISA has not given the green light for deep-sea mining in international waters.
The U.S. has opted to move at its own pace, as President Donald Trump issued an executive order on April 24 to expedite U.S. deep-sea mining activities, effectively sidestepping the ISA. This has raised international concerns about existing maritime law and the potential to undermine collective efforts to manage environmental standards for deep-sea mining under UNCLOS. Gilbert cautions, “ (the) ISA must establish a mining framework as soon as possible if it hopes to remain a viable institution.” By refusing to ratify UNCLOS and remain outside the ISA framework, the U.S. has relinquished its ability to influence global mining regulations to the same extent as member states like China.
China has declared the international seafloor to be “the common heritage of mankind,” condemning Trump’s approach and asserting that “no country should bypass the ISA or international law to unilaterally authorize exploration and development activities in the international seabed area”. While China broadly operates within ISA rules, its mining ambitions in the contested South China Sea, in what it claims to be its exclusive economic zones, continue to fuel regional tensions over maritime boundaries. Gilbert adds, “China, which often lags in environmental standards, has questionable maritime labor practices, and exhibits wanton disregard for environmental protection or state sovereignty with its global fishing practices,” which could set a “bad precedent” for deep sea mining as one of the ISA’s leading member states.
Forecast and Implications
Without a unified approach under the ISA, deep-sea mining risks becoming an unregulated venture, threatening a fragile ecosystem, and releasing stored carbon. The unknown environmental impacts of deep-sea mining require a multilateral approach. By pursuing independent paths, actors like the U.S. risk weakening international norms and creating a fragmented regulatory landscape where environmental safeguards are inconsistently applied or ignored. While Gilbert points out that the U.S.’s approach could “promote good state stewardship of deep sea mining”, due to domestic regulations and ESG pressures, he acknowledges that, overall, “the lack of an ISA regulatory framework has led to substantial pressures for states to start mining in their own exclusive economic zones…and the lack of a precedential multilateral framework threatens a race to the bottom in global environmental practices.”
