By Ron Rocky Coloma
As the sun rose over Suva’s harbor, the rhythmic crash of waves echoed against the conference halls where Pacific Island leaders gathered. Fishermen cast their nets nearby, a daily ritual passed down through generations. But beneath those same waters, far beyond the horizon, a debate raged: Should the Pacific allow deep-sea mining?
The Pacific Islands Forum Talanoa on Deep Sea Minerals, which opened on Feb. 18 and will continue until Feb. 21, brings together policymakers, civil society organizations and environmental advocates to address the emerging industry's risks and uncertainties.
"The Pacific Island nations are at a critical juncture," said Pacific Blue Line Collective, a network of civil society organizations, faith groups and community advocates. "Our collective response to the proposed expansion of deep-sea mining in the Pacific region will significantly shape the future of our ocean and our communities."
Deep-sea mining has become a divisive topic among Pacific nations. While some governments argue that mining the seabed for minerals such as nickel, cobalt and manganese could provide economic benefits, others warn of potentially irreversible damage to fragile marine ecosystems.
Currently, no commercial-scale DSM operations exist. However, the Cook Islands, Kiribati, Nauru and Tonga have secured exploration contracts in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ), which spans millions of square kilometers in the Pacific Ocean. They join 13 other international entities with similar contracts.
The Pacific Blue Line Collective maintains that these early-stage agreements pose a significant risk without proper safeguards in place.
"The narrative that DSM is an essential economic and climate solution for the Pacific is patently false," the organization said. "This is an intentional move to open up our region to a new, perilous extractive industry without comprehensive, independent scientific assessments or meaningful consultations with affected communities."
For Pacific Islanders, the ocean is more than a resource—it is central to their identity, culture and way of life. Fishing, traditional navigation and coastal livelihoods have long been integral to Pacific communities.
The CSO Policy Brief on Deep Sea Mining released this year highlights that the CCZ, located in international waters between Hawaii, Kiribati and Mexico, has high biodiversity and plays a crucial ecological role. However, mining activities threaten to cause irreversible harm to this largely unexplored ecosystem.
Scientists caution that disturbing the seabed could disrupt marine life and carbon sequestration processes, with consequences that are still unknown.
The year 2025 is shaping up to be a crucial one for ocean governance. Nauru Ocean Resources Inc. (NORI), a subsidiary of The Metals Company, has applied to begin commercial mining in the CCZ. If approved, it would set a precedent for other DSM projects in the region and beyond.
The CSO Policy Brief warns that The Metals Company has been granted access to vast swathes of the Pacific Ocean floor, with its application scheduled for consideration by ISA member states as early as June 2025, despite the absence of finalized regulations governing mineral extraction.
This development coincides with major global milestones, including the UN Decade of Ocean Science, the third UN Ocean Conference and ongoing efforts to implement the Convention on Biological Diversity’s 30x30 target—aiming to protect 30 percent of global oceans by 2030. Pacific nations have an opportunity to take a leading role in shaping international ocean policy.
Pacific Blue Line Collective maintains that Pacific leaders must ensure their stance on DSM aligns with broader environmental protection goals, sustainability, and climate resilience.
The International Seabed Authority (ISA) was established under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to regulate DSM activities in international waters.
Under UNCLOS, the resources of the international waters are designated as the Common Heritage of Humankind, meaning they must benefit all nations, not just a select few. However, the governance of DSM has been fraught with issues.
The CSO Policy Brief outlines concerns over the ISA’s lack of transparency, built-in conflicts of interest and decision-making rules that favor mining interests.
Member states have been negotiating the regulatory framework for years, yet significant gaps remain unresolved. Experts argue that without effective protection of the marine environment, mining activities should not proceed. The ability of affected Pacific nations to appeal mining-related decisions is limited, making oversight and accountability a major challenge.
Critics of DSM warn that mining operations could have severe ecological, cultural and economic consequences. The CSO Policy Brief notes that polymetallic nodules, which take millions of years to form, provide breeding and feeding grounds for deep-sea organisms. Mining them would destroy habitats permanently, leading to biodiversity loss before scientists can fully understand the extent of marine life in the CCZ.
The Pacific region’s fisheries, particularly tuna stocks, are at risk from DSM-related sediment plumes, which could disrupt breeding and feeding grounds. Pollutants from mining could spread over vast distances, potentially reaching Kiribati and Hawaii. The CSO Policy Brief highlights concerns that mining companies are pushing misleading narratives, suggesting DSM will alleviate the need for terrestrial mining, despite evidence that clean energy technologies are evolving to require fewer deep-sea minerals.
There are also socioeconomic risks. Pacific economies rely heavily on marine-based industries such as tourism and fisheries, which could suffer long-term damage from DSM. Many indigenous groups, environmental organizations and policymakers oppose DSM due to its uncertain economic benefits and high environmental costs. Furthermore, legal questions remain over whether Pacific nations sponsoring DSM contracts would bear liability for environmental damage affecting neighboring countries.
Pacific environmental groups and policymakers advocating for ocean protection are calling for a moratorium on DSM until further research can be conducted. They argue that the risks far outweigh the speculative benefits, particularly when factoring in climate change and existing economic resources such as fisheries.
The policy brief recommends that Pacific nations withdraw from existing sponsorship contracts and focus on sustainable marine economies instead of extractive industries.
As the forum progresses, leaders are faced with an urgent decision—one that could define the Pacific’s environmental future for generations. With mounting global opposition to DSM, Pacific nations have an opportunity to lead the movement toward stronger ocean governance and conservation.
As the forum nears its end, the sun dips below the horizon, casting golden hues over Suva’s waterfront.
The same fishermen who started their day before dawn return, their boats heavy with their catch. Their way of life, rooted in centuries of harmony with the ocean, hangs in the balance.
The decisions to be made by Pacific leaders this week will determine whether the region embraces conservation or risks irreversible damage to the very waters that sustain its people.
Subscribe to
our digital
monthly edition
Comments