The E-Waste Column no. 210
- 1 day ago
- 3 min read
Today, we are looking at the outcomes of the 31st Annual Session of the International Seabed Authority (ISA).
🌱 What was discussed at the ISA meetings?
The ISA is a UN body that regulates mining activities on the seabed in the high seas. In areas beyond countries’ national jurisdictions, the seabed is considered the common heritage of humankind under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). During its annual three-week talks and five-day General Assembly in Jamaica, which ended on 31 July 2026, the 172 member states of the ISA discussed the creation of a regulatory framework to govern the deep-sea mining industry and the potential commercial extraction of raw materials from the seabed. The 31st annual session, however, ended without reaching an agreement and without a clear timeline for when a regulation would ultimately be adopted.
🌱 What role did the lack of science play?
There is still considerable scientific uncertainty around the (cumulative) impacts of deep-sea mining on biodiversity and ecosystem functions. The financial and security risks of deep-sea mining are also still not fully understood. This lack of science or knowledge, notably, also played a central role in the discussions of the 31st annual ISA session. Many states said “that sufficient science is a prerequisite before any decision is taken about whether to open the fragile deep sea to mineral extraction”. 46 countries, or over a quarter of ISA member states, are now calling for a precautionary pause or moratorium on deep-sea mining. The proposal Vanuatu’s government put forward to establish a mechanism to assess knowledge gaps and make progress towards closing these was, however, not adopted – and this will only be revisited at the next annual assembly.
🌱 What remained unclear by the end of the meetings?
By the end of the annual meetings, several provisions of the ISA’s planned mining code remained unresolved. There is a lack of agreement on “the sharing of financial or economic benefits from seabed mining activities”. There is also a lack of clarity on what “sufficient science” is, “how to measure impacts from deep seabed mining”, and “what level of harm to the ocean is acceptable”. Moreover, there is no agreement on the standards and guidelines for this. Across the board, supporting documents explaining how the mining code should be implemented in practice are still missing. It is, therefore, still unclear if the mining code will “only apply to the mining of polymetallic nodules […] or to other forms of deep-sea mining” such as the mining of mineral deposits in hydrothermal vents or in seamounts.
🌱 What happens next?
Despite the many ongoing developments around deep-sea mining globally, the ISA’s council members have decided to only continue the negotiations at their next session, which is scheduled for March 2027. In this context, it is worth noting that UNCLOS mandates the functioning and governance of the ISA to be reviewed every five years to assess whether the institution is “fulfilling its mandate effectively and for the benefit of all humanity”. This type of a review has, however, only taken place once in the 31-year history of the ISA, and the review process was postponed once again by a small number of member states at the 31st annual session of the ISA.
💡 In next week’s column, we will be taking a look at the future of deep-sea mining in the Pacific Ocean – so stay tuned.
Read more about the ISA session here:
Comments