Seabed Mining: The Final Frontier Of Geopolitical Dominance – OpEd
The seabed or the “final frontier” for resource exploration is increasingly evolving into a strategic axis for the major nations in constant pursuit to gain economic viability and regional dominance by securing strategic minerals. Recently, China and India have made substantial headway in the deep seabed mining efforts, motivated by their interests to enhance and modify their supply chains and industrial capacity, respectively.
Conversely, Article 76 of UNCLOS grants Pakistan rights to exercise sovereignty on the maritime territory expanding up to 290,000 square kilometers. This expansion appoints the nation as a critical player in regional maritime affairs, having a significant legal victory Pakistan has the leverage to unveil the untapped potential for the exploration and exploitation of seabed resources. Subsequently, an emerging avenue for economic growth and resource development awaits a productive exploration.
In this regard, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the International Seabed Authority (ISA) provide the legal framework for deep seabed mining exploration. However, laws to regulate the sustainable extraction of resources are underway. Primarily, Articles 140 and 143 of UNCLOS highlight that the conduct of mining activities in high seas will bear equitable benefit for mankind as a whole keeping in view the regulation of environmental protection of marine resources. As states, especially those along the coast, attempt to define the boundaries of this “Area” of uncertainty, the high seas serve as a battlefield for their strategic interests. One potential avenue for claiming sovereignty is thought to be underwater resources. Although the deep seafloor is considered a “common heritage of mankind,” it has the same problems with fair sharing as other res nullius.
ISA is criticized, meanwhile, for its lack of objectivity across its operations. For instance, the organization’s finance strategy prevents it from ceasing to give licenses without endangering its own survival. ISA mostly depends on the revenue from the exploration licenses it issues to support itself, receiving $500,000 for each license granted and an annual fee of $47,000 per contractor. Because of the way it operates, it is more likely to function as a regulator than a protector. Additionally, it prioritizes its regulatory goal over its protective one in its operational mode.
The organization has come under fire for its lack of openness and for not taking scientific advice seriously enough. China’s veto of a proposal to put a prohibition on granting exploitation licenses until regulations are adopted on the agenda has raised concerns that it may silence opponents of deep-sea mining within the ISA. There are two opposing viewpoints: on the one hand, nations like China and Nauru favor expediting the approval process (fast track); on the other hand, nations like Canada and Peru favor a moratorium of 10 to 15 years; Brazil and Ireland support a “precautionary pause”; and France calls for a ban.
Within established alliances, whether they are strategic (OPEC, MSP, etc.), geographical (CELAC, African Union, AOSIS), or economic (G7, BRICS+, EU), deepwater mining creates a new rift. States are forced to create new and more ad hoc alliances to defend their interests as a result of the complexity of international affairs. States use four different narratives that conflict in the media to support or oppose seabed mining.
By lowering environmental pressures on land, the first two highlight the potential advantages of mining: a) access to metals required for the ecological transition; and b) revenues made in the Zone that would be shared with poor nations, serving as a mechanism for redistributive justice. However, the next two stories highlight c) our ignorance of the seafloor and the ecosystem services it offers to the earth, and d) the necessity of a stringent conservation strategy that prioritizes metal recycling over a new extraction front. Three division lines within allied blocs—between small island states, Western nations, and what is referred to as the Global South—can be seen as these arguments collide, illuminating these new tensions.
Deep seabed mining signifies a $20 trillion prospect to extract critical minerals to drive green technologies. Taking note of the preceding framework, deep seabed mining activities have become more relevant lately due to the continuous depletion and dislocation of terrestrial resources such as nickel, aluminium, manganese, lithium and cobalt. Additionally, increased dependence on valuable minerals, economic interests, and strategic opportunities stimulate the sustainable exploration of yet-to-be-explored rare earth metals and minerals. This endeavor offers a potential alternative to land-based exploration opening new frontiers of mineral discovery.
Therefore, the world has shifted its eyes towards deep-seabed resources. China’s seabed mining expeditions fueled by advanced technologies and institutionally centralized governance make it a leading nation in this venture. In contrast, India is demonstrating its intent to secure the “seabed hegemony” driven by a multi-institutional approach within the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) as a counterbalance to China. Regrettably, despite having established bodies like the Ministry of Energy, Ministry of Maritime Affairs, and the National Institute of Oceanography, Pakistan remains notably behind in this program. Concerning this, Pakistan is over-hauled by numerous challenges encapsulating technological limitations, weak or no concerned regulatory framework, poor environmental preservation techniques, and marginal investments. This deep seabed mining industry calls for advanced technologies coupled with complex regulations to ensure sustainable practices further supported by crucial funding- areas where Pakistan currently lags.
To sum up, the seafloor is becoming a new geopolitical theater with its own fault lines and justifications. The function of states is under scrutiny, as is common in contemporary geopolitics. In such a field, businesses play a crucial role – as to run million dollar venture Metal companies would advocate for the use of the seabed, which will directly profit them.
Nevertheless, they can also limit the economic benefit of these new resources by opposing their usage, as evidenced by the 49 multinational corporations who have endorsed a moratorium. Additionally, some states, beginning with France, have changed their minds and are now in favor of a ban on seabed mining due to the proactive engagement of NGOs under the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition and the mobilization of the scientific community and civil society. It is unclear if this spectrum of opinions will be represented in the ISA negotiations that are scheduled for this summer.
