The E-Waste Column no. 213

1 day ago
3 min read

Today, we are taking a closer look at the role deep-sea mining plays for economic development and security.

🌱 What do the proponents say about its advantages?

Advocates of deep-sea mining say that it can provide critical raw materials in ways “far less destructive than land-based mining”. In line with this, The Metals Company – which is planning to undertake commercial deep-sea mining in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone – says that “deep-sea mining will create fewer carbon emissions than land-based mining”. The Metals Company also says that it plans to address environmental concerns by “leav[ing] behind nodules to provide habitats for organisms to recolonize areas after mining”.

🌱 Can it alleviate the harms from conventional mining?

In their paper titled “Deep seabed mining as a response to abuses in the Democratic Republic of the Congo? (Un)intended consequences of a new extractive frontier on a land-based producer”, Deberdt et al. examine whether deep-seabed mining could truly alleviate the environmental and human rights issues associated with conventional mining. Their research concludes that this narrative does not hold up. The researchers argue “that portraying a new extractive industry – driven largely by foreign commercial interests – as the solution to harms created by extractive industries risks obscuring the structural causes of those harms”. They say that “[r]ather than alleviating existing injustices, [deep-sea mining] may ultimately exacerbate the very Human Rights conditions its proponents claim it will remedy”.

🌱 Can it strengthen long-term security?

A recent study from the German Institute for Global and Area Studies (GIGA) and WWF examines the broader security context of deep-sea mining. It explores if the promise of deep-sea mining to improve access to more minerals can really hold up and solve shortages in critical raw materials. The study finds that deep-sea mining is “unlikely to eliminate many of the structural vulnerabilities that shape mineral supply chains today”. In other words, even if deep-sea mining were to proceed, key issues in the supply chains stemming from “dependencies in refining, processing, finance, logistics and technology” would continue to exist. The study also finds that deep-sea mining is likely to bring about new financial risks and dependencies. In this context, it highlights that deep-sea mining can particularly jeopardize “food security, economic stability and climate resilience” and “weaken trust in multilateral governance”. The study therefore argues that resource access alone is not enough to build “long-term security”, but that “economic, social and ecological resilience” play a key role in this.

🌱 What alternatives are there?

Mineral circularity can “reduc[e] material demand and dependence on primary extraction”. The study from GIGA and WWF therefore concludes that “[c]ircular economy strategies may offer more durable pathways to long-term resilience” than deep-sea mining. In line with this, through their new project “Before we go deeper: Circularity before the seabed”, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation and the Minderoo Foundation will examine if deep-sea mining is “actually needed to meet the demand for critical minerals?”. The project aims to compile “an evidence base that demonstrates the systemic potential and economic, environmental, and social benefits of circular economy strategies before irreversible decisions are made”. The two foundations plan to turn their findings “into insights and tools for stakeholders including businesses, policymakers, and investors”.