Summary report, 17–28 March 2025

“Any unilateral action” on deep-sea mining “would constitute a violation of international law and fundamentally violate the principles of multilateralism and the collective framework under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.” The words of Leticia Reis de Carvalho (Brazil), at the end of her first session as Secretary-General of the International Seabed Authority (ISA), revealed the significance of negotiations under the ISA on rules, regulations, and procedures (RRPs) to govern the commercial exploitation of deep-sea mineral resources in the Area (the seabed and ocean floor and the subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction).

The ISA stands at a crossroads. To fulfill its mandate under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to “organize, control, and regulate activities in the Area,” the Authority will need to balance or resolve competing interests and approaches toward commercial deep-sea mining. It is no secret that 32 ISA members are calling for a moratorium or precautionary pause on deep-sea mining, while others want to initiate commercial exploitation of deep-sea mineral resources as soon as possible.

Secretary-General Carvalho’s words, however, reflect an even greater concern. Just before the meeting’s last day, The Metals Company USA LLC (TMC USA) announced that it has formally initiated a process with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) under the US Department of Commerce to apply for exploration licenses and commercial recovery permits under existing US legislation, the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act of 1980. Such a prospect poses a serious risk for negotiations under the ISA since the US is not a party to UNCLOS. Both Secretary-General Carvalho and many delegates reiterated that the Area and its resources are the common heritage of humankind, highlighting the principle as a cornerstone of international law and a fundamental pillar of ocean governance, widely upheld by the international community.

Many members expressed serious concerns and disappointment over the TMC USA decision and highlighted the 2023 Council decisions that exploitation activities should not commence until the necessary RRPs are in place. They reiterated their strong commitment to UNCLOS, the 1994 Implementing Agreement Relating to the Implementation of UNCLOS Part XI (the 1994 Agreement), and the ISA, and emphasized that the Council is working in good faith toward developing a robust regulatory framework for deep-sea mining.

Deliberations during the session were a testament to this work. Under the guidance of Council President Duncan Muhumuza Laki (Uganda), delegates dived into their main task, the consideration of the draft exploitation regulations for commercial deep-sea mining. After two weeks of hard work, they managed to conclude the second reading of draft exploitation regulations 1-55, out of 107 contained in the consolidated text.

Some delegates emphasized that a lot of ground was covered and pointed to progress in certain provisions. These include agreement to refer to prevention of “harmful effects” rather than “serious harm” to the marine environment in accordance with UNCLOS, and a joint proposal submitted by three Council members on pilot mining and test mining, which attracted support as a good basis for further discussion. Most delegates, however, underscored that many major issues remain unresolved. Among the ones discussed during the meeting are regulations that guarantee the effective protection and preservation of the marine environment, including environmental impact assessments; provisions on liability and insurance; coordination with other existing international frameworks and initiatives on ocean governance; the rights and legitimate interests of coastal states; and underwater cultural heritage (UCH).

Other than their work on the draft exploitation regulations, which included a thematic discussion on UCH, delegates held a high-level discussion on standards and guidelines, which will support the implementation of the exploitation regulations, and addressed the report of the Chair of the ISA Legal and Technical Commission.

Delegates also discussed next steps, including modalities for intersessional work and an agenda item on “further consideration of actions that the Council may take if an application were to be submitted before the Council has completed the RRPs relating to exploitation.”

Recent developments are indicative of the complex environment the new Secretary-General and the ISA need to navigate. In that respect, the second part of the session, scheduled for July 2025, will be met with great interest by both delegates and observers.

The ISA Council convened for the first part of its 30th session from 17-28 March 2025, in Kingston, Jamaica, attracting more than 250 delegates and observers, including representatives from all 36 Council members.

A Brief History of the ISA

The 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which entered into force on 16 November 1994, sets forth the rights and obligations of states regarding the use of the ocean, its resources, and the protection of the marine and coastal environment. UNCLOS established that the Area (the seabed and ocean floor and subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction) and its resources are the common heritage of humankind. All parties to UNCLOS are automatically members of the ISA, which currently includes 169 States and the European Union.

Polymetallic nodules were detected for the first time on the deep seabed by the HMS Challenger expedition in 1873. They are distributed on the surface or half-buried across the seabed, principally in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone in the Pacific Ocean. They contain nickel, copper, cobalt, and manganese, among other metals. Additional minerals have since been discovered in the Area: cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts, which are mineral accumulations on seamounts that contain cobalt, nickel, copper, molybdenum, and rare earth elements; and polymetallic sulphides, which are formed through chemical reactions around hydrothermal vent sites, and contain copper, zinc, lead, silver, and gold.

Under the common heritage regime, UNCLOS provides that:

• no state can claim or exercise sovereignty or sovereign rights over any part of the Area or its resources;
• activities in the Area must be carried out for the benefit of humankind as a whole, irrespective of the geographical location of states, taking into particular consideration developing states’ interests and needs;
• the Area and its resources are open to use exclusively for peaceful purposes by all states, whether coastal or land-locked, without discrimination; and
• financial and other economic benefits derived from activities in the Area must be equitably shared, on a non-discriminatory basis.

To address certain difficulties raised by developed countries with the UNCLOS regime for the Area, the 1994 Implementing Agreement was adopted on 28 July 1994 and entered into force on 28 July 1996. The Agreement addresses fiscal arrangements and costs to state parties, institutional arrangements, the ISA decision-making mechanisms, and future amendments.

The ISA is an autonomous institution established under UNCLOS Part XI and the 1994 Implementing Agreement to organize and control activities in the Area, particularly with a view to administering the resources of the Area. Among other things, the ISA is mandated to provide for the necessary measures to ensure the effective protection of the marine environment from harmful effects that may arise from mining activities in the Area.

The ISA organs include the Assembly, the Council, the Finance Committee, the Legal and Technical Commission (LTC), and the Secretariat. The Assembly consists of all ISA members and has the power to:

• establish general policies;
• set the budgets of the ISA;
• approve the RRPs governing prospecting, exploration, and exploitation activities in the Area, following their adoption by the Council; and
• examine annual reports by the Secretary-General on the work of the ISA, which provides an opportunity for members to comment and make relevant proposals.

The Council consists of 36 members elected by the Assembly, representing:

• state parties that are major consumers or net importers of the commodities produced from the categories of minerals to be derived from the Area (Group A);
• state parties that made the largest investments in preparation for, and in the conduct of, activities in the Area, either directly or through their nationals (Group B);
• state parties that are major net exporters of the categories of minerals to be derived from the Area, including at least two developing states whose exports of such minerals have a substantial bearing upon their economies (Group C);
• developing state parties, representing special interests (Group D); and
• members elected according to the principle of equitable geographical distribution in the Council as a whole (Group E).

The Council is mandated to establish specific policies in conformity with UNCLOS and the general policies set by the Assembly, and to supervise and coordinate implementation of the Area regime.

The LTC is comprised of 41 members elected by the Council on the basis of personal qualifications relevant to the exploration, exploitation, and processing of mineral resources, oceanography, and economic and/or legal matters relating to ocean mining. The LTC reviews applications for plans of work, supervises exploration or mining activities, assesses the environmental impact of such activities, and provides advice to the Assembly and Council on all matters relating to exploration and exploitation.

The ISA has been developing a Mining Code, which is a set of RRPs to regulate prospecting, exploration, and exploitation of marine minerals in the Area. To date, the ISA has issued: Regulations on Prospecting and Exploration for Polymetallic Nodules (adopted on 13 July 2000, updated on 25 July 2013); Regulations on Prospecting and Exploration for Polymetallic Sulphides (adopted on 7 May 2010); and Regulations on Prospecting and Exploration for Cobalt-Rich Ferromanganese Crusts (adopted on 27 July 2012). The ISA is in the process of developing exploitation regulations.

Recent ISA Sessions

27th Session: The 27th session of the ISA was split into three parts in March, July, and November 2022. Throughout three meetings, the Council continued negotiations of the draft exploitation regulations.

At its first meeting, the Council agreed to consider a draft to operationalize the Enterprise at the next Council session. At its second meeting, the Council: approved a memorandum of understanding between the ISA and the African Union; and adopted a decision on the mechanism of the election of LTC members for 2023-2027, among others. At its third meeting, the Council adopted decisions related to: the reports of the Chair of the LTC; the commissioning by the Secretariat of a study on the internalization of environmental costs of exploitation activities in the Area; the development of binding environmental threshold values; and the possible scenarios and any other pertinent legal considerations in connection with section 1, paragraph 15, of the annex to the 1994 Implementing Agreement.

During the Assembly session in July, members adopted, among others, decisions on: the approval of the budget for the financial period 2023-2024 in the amount of USD 22,256,000; the election to fill the vacancies on the Council; and the implementation of a programmatic approach to capacity development.

28th Session: The 28th session was split into three parts in March, July and November 2023. Council Members continued negotiating the draft exploitation regulations; addressed the possible scenarios and any other pertinent legal considerations in connection with section 1, paragraph 15, of the annex to the 1994 Implementing Agreement, the so call “two-year rule”; reviewed and adopted the LTC report; considered matters about the Enterprise and the status of contracts for exploration and related issues; and discussed the operationalization of the economic planning commission. The Council agreed on further intersessional work, including by the establishment of several informal groups.

The Council adopted decisions on: the establishment of the position of an interim director-general of the Enterprise; the understanding and application of the two-year rule; and the timeline following the expiration of the two-year period. At its third meeting, the Council adopted a decision recalling its request to the LTC to hold open meetings, where appropriate, and requesting the LTC to: annually name those contractors that have responded insufficiently, incompletely, or failed to respond regarding their contractual obligations; clarify the LTC criteria for using the silence procedure; and recommend further improvement for transparency measures while maintaining effective operation and ensuring data and information confidentiality. The Council further requested the Secretary-General to continue to pursue dialogue with contractors who have not yet submitted public templates on their plans of work.

The Assembly struggled to agree on the meeting’s agenda with regard to the addition of two suggested supplementary agenda items: the establishment of a general policy by the Assembly related to the conservation of the marine environment; and terms of reference for the periodic review of the international regime of the Area pursuant to UNCLOS Article 154 (periodic review). The Assembly decided to include the periodic review as an agenda item for its 29th session in 2024 and to extend the current Strategic Plan 2019-2023 by two years. The proposal on a general policy on the protection of the marine environment was to be resubmitted for consideration at the 29th session.

29th Session (First Part): During the first part of the 29th session (18-29 March 2024), for the first time, the Council’s deliberations were based on a consolidated text containing all the draft regulations. Council members managed to discuss one-third of the draft regulations contained in the consolidated text. Member-led intersessional working groups deliberated on several outstanding issues.

The Council also conducted elections to fill a vacancy on the LTC; addressed the report of the Chair of the LTC; discussed the report of the Secretary-General on cooperation with the Commission of the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR Convention); and heard the report of the Secretary-General on incidents in the NORI-D contract area, in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone in the Pacific Ocean, inciting a discussion on the right to protest in the high seas and the contractor’s right to conducted authorized activities in the area, arising from a Greenpeace protest in December 2023.

29th Session (Second Part): The second part of the 29th session (15 July – 2 August 2024) culminated in the election of Leticia Reis de Carvalho (Brazil), as the new ISA Secretary-General. She assumed office on 1 January 2025.

The meeting also saw the ISA Council conclude the first reading of the consolidated text. This milestone was celebrated by some as a step closer to adoption, although others stressed that despite this progress, many unresolved issues remain. Delegates also held lengthy discussions on the report of the Finance Committee, eventually forwarding the proposed ISA budget for the next biennium to the Assembly for its consideration. The Assembly ultimately adopted the budget, despite concerns by some members.

Some contentious issues emerged during the meeting, including disagreement over initiating a second periodic review of the international regime of the Area and developing a general policy for marine environmental protection, both of which lacked consensus and will be revisited at the next Assembly meeting in July 2025.

ISA- 30 Council (Part I) Report

On Monday, 17 March, Olav Myklebust (Norway), outgoing Council President, opened the first part of the 30th annual session of the ISA, welcoming delegates and observers. He noted that “this is a special session for the ISA,” highlighting this first session under Secretary-General Leticia Carvalho’s leadership also marks three decades of work by the ISA.

ISA Secretary-General Carvalho stressed the need to ensure both continuity and adaptability in the ISA’s work in the face of evolving challenges. She noted that her election as the first woman, oceanographer, and Latin American marks an important milestone for diversity and inclusion. She highlighted three decades of ISA work in advancing the stewardship of the Area and its resources and stressed the need to reinforce the ability to regulate deep-sea activities, advancing the regulatory work mandated by UNCLOS.

Chile, on behalf of the LATIN AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN GROUP (GRULAC), expressed their support, trust, and confidence in Secretary-General Carvalho.

CHILE stressed the importance of the principles governing the Area: protection of the marine environment; equitable benefit-sharing; promotion and encouragement of marine scientific research; and capacity building and marine technology transfer.

COSTA RICA underlined the need for more detailed consideration of the revised consolidated text, saying it is unrealistic to attempt to cover the entire text over the two-week session. They suggested that the Council should identify elements of convergence and map those requiring further discussion.

JAMAICA appreciated the revised consolidated draft regulations, noting the opportunity to deliver a comprehensive, effective, coherent, and equitable regulatory framework that safeguards the marine environment.

CUBA stressed the need for a constructive dialogue for equitable economic development, social justice, and environmental protection. They highlighted progress in the development of the exploitation regulations, underscoring that a great deal of work remains, including on environmental protection, as well as on provisions on benefit-sharing and oversight.

PANAMA highlighted the potential consequences of deep-sea activities for marine ecosystems, supporting a precautionary pause. They called for a regulatory architecture that ensures the highest standards of environmental protection, intergenerational equity, effective benefit-sharing, independent oversight and monitoring, inspection, and compliance. TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO stressed the need for balancing exploitation and fair and equitable benefit-sharing for all humankind.

Sierra Leone, for the AFRICAN GROUP, expressed concerns about outstanding issues in the exploitation regulations, including: potential impacts on land-based mining countries; strengthening the economic assistance fund; clear environmental thresholds; development of a robust compliance and enforcement mechanism; adoption of anticorruption and transparency measures; and a financial model for benefit-sharing.

TANZANIA stressed the need for balanced geographical representation and gender parity within the Secretariat. With ZIMBABWE, they noted that the exploitation regulations must balance protection of the marine environment with sustainable activities for the benefit of all humankind. ZIMBABWE further called for a robust compliance mechanism, including a compliance committee.

Poland, for the EU, expressed their full solidarity with Ukraine after three years of unprovoked invasion by the Russian Federation. The RUSSIAN FEDERATION, in response, cautioned against politicizing ISA’s work.

PORTUGAL stressed that the common heritage of humankind principle must guide ISA’s work, and said this must include, among other things: a clear framework for sharing the benefits of deep-sea mining; and sufficient understanding of the short- and long-term consequences of deep-sea mining activities to ensure that they will not harm the marine environment.

FRANCE called for more time to evaluate the potential environmental consequences of deep-sea mining. They stressed that a delicate balance is required between implementing the mining code on the one hand and protecting the common heritage of humankind to ensure equitable sharing of benefits, on the other, expressing their support for all delegations in favor of a moratorium or precautionary pause.

IRELAND called for a realistic timeframe for the development of a regulatory framework that ensures high standards of environmental protection, benefit-sharing, and accountability of any activity in the Area, reiterating that no exploitation activity should be carried out in the absence of RRPs. They announced a contribution of USD 160,000 to support the ISA Sustainable Seabed Knowledge Initiative.

ITALY called for minimizing impacts based on the precautionary principle and ecosystem approach, upholding the UNCLOS architecture, and ensuring the highest level of environmental protection for activities in the Area. They stressed that delays will create a legal vacuum, increasing vulnerability to unilateral actions and undermining the credibility of the process.

GERMANY and POLAND, noting that 2025 could be the year the first exploitation plan of work application is submitted, recalled that in 2023, the Council clearly stated that commercial exploitation should not take place in the absence of RRPs.

SPAIN highlighted that “urgency must not be to the detriment of the legal quality of the regulations,” calling for avoiding ambiguous formulations that might allow different interpretations.

SWITZERLAND noted that despite progress, basic questions regarding the draft exploitation regulations are pending and require considerable efforts. They reiterated their national position in favor of a moratorium, and stressed, with SPAIN and others, that ISA’s work should be coherent with the Agreement under UNCLOS on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement).

The RUSSIAN FEDERATION reminded delegates of the July 2023 Council decision that the RRPs must be elaborated with a view to be adopted at the 30th ISA annual session, stressing that “while we accelerate our work, quality should not be undermined.” They highlighted the need for a transparent inspection mechanism, ensuring the sustainable use of resources in the Area on a non-discriminatory basis.

CHINA underlined the development of deep-sea mining regulations and their early adoption as the Council’s top priority. They noted that exploration has contributed to protecting the deep-sea environment, with contractors providing essential data to better understand deep-sea ecosystems.

INDIA drew attention to their application for a plan of work for exploration of cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts in the Central Indian Ocean, hoping for its approval and highlighted the organization of the annual contractors’ meeting in India.

BANGLADESH called for a robust regulatory framework, ensuring activities are conducted in a fair, responsible, and equitable manner for the benefit of humankind and preventing irreversible damage to the marine environment. They called for strengthening capacity building and technology transfer.

PALAU highlighted the potential impacts of deep-sea mining activities on fisheries. They emphasized the need for inclusive deliberations, noting that the voluntary trust fund supporting participation of developing countries in Council meetings should be expanded to all developing countries rather than limited to Council members.

Calling for managing activities in the Area in a responsible and equitable manner that is reflective of the needs of all, THE BAHAMAS stressed the need to work collaboratively, taking into account the rights of small island developing states, land-locked countries, and geographically disadvantaged states, as well as the urgent reality of climate change.

The DEEP SEA CONSERVATION COALITION (DSCC) highlighted that science shows there is no way to avoid irreversible and permanent damage to the marine environment from deep-sea mining and underscored that deep-sea mining risks disrupting the ocean, which is the Earth’s largest carbon sink, during the ongoing climate emergency.

GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL emphasized that Indigenous Peoples, scientists, businesses, civil society, and millions of concerned citizens are opposed to deep-sea mining. They pointed out the mining code is far from being completed and called for a moratorium or precautionary pause, urging countries to continue to improve understanding of the deep ocean.

TETIAROA SOCIETY lamented that although Pacific residents will be first and worst impacted by deep-sea mining in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, ISA members continue to ignore the cultural traditions and input of Pacific Indigenous Peoples in order to benefit a few.

MAUI NUI MAKAI NETWORK delivered a traditional Hawaiian oli (chant) to bring the spirit of the ancestors into the negotiating space.

The DEEP OCEAN STEWARDSHIP INITIATIVE (DOSI) underscored the importance of science-based and inclusive marine regulations, urging countries to make science the basis of decision-making.

WORLD WILD FUND FOR NATURE (WWF) underlined there is no demonstrable need for deep-sea mining, pointing out that rapid technological advancements and improved recycling continue to reduce the demand for materials. They highlighted the organization’s new report, “Analysis of the Implications of Deep Seabed Mining for the Global Biodiversity Framework and the Sustainable Development Agenda,” and urged all member states to join the call for a moratorium.

Organizational Matters

Adoption of the Agenda: On 17 March, ISA-29 Council President Myklebust introduced the agenda (ISBA/30/C/L.1/Rev.1) and highlighted two alternative texts for item 12, based on proposals from Nauru and Chile. He invited the proponents to present their proposals.

NAURU explained their proposal on an agenda item on the “process for consideration of applications for plans of work for exploitation in the absence of adopted exploitation regulations” is based on the intention of their sponsored entity, Nauru Ocean Resources Inc. (NORI), to submit an application for a plan of work for exploitation in June 2025. They said it is appropriate for the Council to commence the process for consideration of an application in the absence of the exploitation regulations, in accordance with UNCLOS.

CHILE stressed the Council must continue to consider the measures that can be adopted if an application for an exploitation plan of work is presented before the adoption of the exploitation regulations, but noted it is premature for the Council to consider a process to consider an application for a plan of work. In response, they suggested an alternative agenda item on “further consideration of actions that the Council may take if an application were to be submitted before the Council has completed the RRPs relating to exploitation.”

Delegates agreed to continue work on the basis of the provisional agenda pending the outcome of informal consultations between Chile and Nauru.

On 19 March, the Council President announced that, following informal consultations, Chile and Nauru agreed to use Chile’s proposal. The agenda (ISBA/30/L.1/Rev.2) was adopted.

Election of Officials: On Monday, delegates elected by acclamation Duncan Muhumuza Laki (Uganda), as Council President for ISA’s 30th session, following his nomination by Sierra Leone, on behalf of the African Group.

President Laki welcomed Secretary-General Carvalho and emphasized that the roadmap adopted by the Council provides a structured framework for future work. Noting that “the world is watching our work,” he urged delegates to move forward with purpose, a spirit of consensus building, and a shared vision for the common heritage of humankind.

Brazil, for GRULAC, and France, for the Western European and Others Group, were elected as Vice-Presidents, and Singapore, for Asia-Pacific, was elected on 18 March. The election of a representative of the Eastern European Group remained pending.

Credentials: On 27 March, Secretary-General Carvalho presented the credentials report, noting 32 states submitted credentials and four states submitted related information. The Council took note of the report.

Report of the Chair of the Legal and Technical Commission

On 27 March, President Laki introduced the LTC report (ISBA/30/C/4) and highlighted the draft revised standardized procedure for the development, establishment, and review of regional environmental management plans (REMPs) (ISBA/30/C/3). He noted that an LTC representative will be present during the second part of the session in July 2025 for further exchanges.

Delegates thanked the LTC members for their hard work and dedication, underlined the Commission’s important role, and congratulated LTC Chair Erasmo Lara Cabrera (Mexico) and Vice Chair Sissel Eriksen (Norway) for their reelection.

COSTA RICA, FRANCE, GERMANY, MEXICO, the NETHERLANDS, NORWAY, PORTUGAL, SPAIN, and the UK expressed concern over the low attendance recorded at LTC meetings. Some delegates, including CAMEROON, COSTA RICA, and others, stressed the need to strengthen the Voluntary Trust Fund established to cover the cost of participation of LTC and Finance Committee members from developing countries. The NETHERLANDS drew attention to their EUR 35,000 contribution. IRELAND announced a EUR 20,000 contribution. 

Morocco, for the AFRICAN GROUP, noted contractors should fully cooperate in providing full data with respect to their contractual obligations and highlighted the role of inspection activities. COSTA RICA, MEXICO, PORTUGAL, and others stressed the need for the LTC to identify contractors who are not fulfilling their contractual obligations. GERMANY, IRELAND, and the NETHERLANDS recalled that since 2022, the Council has been requesting the LTC to provide the names of contractors at risk of non-compliance. PORTUGAL added that analyzing the status of contracts for exploration is a key mechanism to evaluate contractor performance. COSTA RICA underscored the importance of such information for decisions on requests for contract extensions.

Many delegates, including the AFRICAN GROUP, CHILE, GERMANY, IRELAND, MEXICO, PORTUGAL, and the RUSSIAN FEDERATION, welcomed progress in the development of environmental threshold values. The AFRICAN GROUP welcomed work on toxicity and other topics. The RUSSIAN FEDERATION noted further work is needed on temporal and spatial parameters, as well as on light and noise pollution.

The NETHERLANDS called for developing thresholds for other topics and for other categories of mineral resources. SWITZERLAND welcomed the will to adopt an evolutionary approach and requested more clarity on the consultation process. CANADA noted threshold values as key for a strong regulatory framework. The FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA (FSM) drew attention to the guidelines on underwater noise developed by the International Maritime Organization (IMO).

The AFRICAN GROUP, CHILE, IRELAND, ITALY, JAPAN, MEXICO, NORWAY, PORTUGAL, the RUSSIAN FEDERATION, and others highlighted the development of a draft revised standardized procedure for the development, establishment, and review of REMPs, noting it constitutes a good basis for further discussion.

CHINA and ITALY drew attention to an expert workshop on the development of a REMP for the Area of the Indian Ocean in late April. ITALY and the UK opposed establishing an independent expert committee on REMPs, noting existing arrangements and mechanisms should cover the needs of the REMP structure and ensure effective engagement with relevant experts.  

FSM called for REMPs workshops to be as inclusive as possible, including Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs) and adjacent coastal states. The RUSSIAN FEDERATION stressed the need to accelerate the process of developing REMPs for different regions with active exploration contracts. Many delegates underlined that establishing a REMP is a prerequisite for any exploitation activity in the Area. Eden Charles, Interim Director-General of the Enterprise, expressed appreciation for the work on REMPs for the Indian and West Pacific regions

COSTA RICA, FRANCE, INDIA, POLAND, PORTUGAL, and SPAIN welcomed the LTC decision to hold open meetings “where appropriate and in accordance with its rules of procedure.” They stressed that holding open meetings on non-confidential issues contributes to transparency and meaningful participation.

CAMEROON, CÔTE D’IVOIRE, INDIA, PORTUGAL, ZIMBABWE, and others emphasized the importance of capacity building, including training opportunities for developing parties, to enable participation in activities in the Area. CHINA noted that they will continue offering courses and training opportunities.

COSTA RICA highlighted the role of accessible, inclusive, and transparent stakeholder consultations. DSCC and the PEW CHARITABLE TRUSTS lamented the lack of a clear procedure for conducting stakeholder consultations. They noted they had submitted comments as part of the stakeholder consultations but have no clarity as to whether and how these comments were taken into consideration.

DOSI highlighted the work of the working group on thresholds and underscored the need to consider potential synergistic and/or cumulative effects of impacts. They urged setting the environmental thresholds at stringent and precautious levels, which can then be reviewed as scientific knowledge increases over time.

DSCC highlighted two key flaws: the LTC only reviews environmental impact assessments (EIAs) for completeness, accuracy, and statistical reliability, but not against a test such as harm prevention; and the Council has no role even if a test has a significant chance of harming the environment.

The PEW CHARITABLE TRUSTS urged the Council to initiate a review of the EIA process, underscoring that the current procedures are not fit for purpose to meet UNCLOS Article 145 (Protection of the marine environment) and the BBNJ Agreement.

The ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON PROTECTION OF THE SEA emphasized the need for enhancing cooperation for reviewing REMPs, particularly regarding scientific analysis and data analysis. THE CENTRE FOR COMMUNITY AND OCEANIC LAW applauded the increasing engagement of African countries in the various training initiatives.

The Council took note of the report.

Draft Decision on the Deferral of the Schedule of Relinquishment: President Laki introduced the draft decision annexed to the LTC Chair’s report on the deferral of the schedule for the second relinquishment upon request by India for its contract for exploration for polymetallic sulphides in the Central Indian Ocean.

MEXICO suggested changing the legal basis for recommending the deferral from “exceptional circumstances” arising from the residual impacts of COVID-19 to “non-discriminatory and equal treatment of all parties.” MEXICO clarified the need to treat India’s request equally with previous requests submitted by other contractors.

The ISA Legal Counsel explained that during the 28th session in 2023 the Council had already approved the request of the same contractor to defer the first relinquishment by two years due to COVID-19, which qualified as exceptional circumstances. He clarified that a similar practice has been followed by other contractors due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Following a brief discussion, the Council adopted the decision to defer the schedule of relinquishment based on exceptional circumstances.

Final Decision: In its final decision, the Council defers the schedule of the second relinquishment to 30 September 2028 due to “unforeseen exceptional circumstances arising in connection with the operational activities of the contractor.”

Consideration, with a View to Adoption, of the Draft Regulations on Exploitation

The Council held informal discussions over the course of the two-week session on the draft exploitation regulations. Delegates concluded the second reading of draft regulations 1-55 out of the 107 contained in the revised consolidated text (ISBA/30/C/CRP.1), which comprises the entire set of regulations, and the compilation document (ISBA/30/C/CRP.3).

Delegates also held a thematic discussion on UCH and a high-level discussion on the standards and guidelines that will support the implementation of the exploitation regulations. On the last day of the meeting, they listened to reports from informal groups’ facilitators, reviewed progress, and discussed modalities for intersessional work.

Informal Discussions on the Consolidated Text: Some delegates underscored the need to future-proof the regulations and ensure their alignment with UNCLOS. They also expressed general concern about the working modalities, including on:

• the absence of brackets on issues without consensus;
• the need to discuss the annexes and glossary, as well as the standards and guidelines and their categorization; and
• the inclusion of proposals with little backing and the omission of others that had attracted considerable support, as well as the traceability of proposals.

On the preamble, delegates underscored the need to:

• ensure the effective protection of the marine environment, with no objection to referring to the prevention of “harmful effects” rather than “serious harm,” with one delegate explaining that UNCLOS clearly sets out the general threshold for harm as “harmful effects” and that “serious harm” is only used in specific circumstances such as a trigger for emergency orders;
• clarify the regulations’ scope, with some suggesting explicitly stating the type of mineral resources to which they apply, and a member noting that these draft regulations should focus only on polymetallic nodules; and
• address preambular text acknowledging scientific uncertainties and the need to revise the regulations in light of advancements in scientific knowledge.

On the latter point, a participant suggested specific language, “recognizing the inherent uncertainties and the evolving state of scientific knowledge regarding deep-ocean ecosystems and the potential impacts of activities in the Area, these regulations shall be subject to periodic review and revision to reflect advancements in scientific understanding, thereby ensuring adaptive management.” Some delegates noted that the regulations themselves include a provision for their review, rendering the preambular reference redundant.

FSM, as facilitator of the intersessional working group on UCH, emphasized that the group had submitted draft textual proposals, including new paragraphs for the preamble, which were not included in the revised consolidated text. An observer lamented the decision not to include the outcomes of the working group on UCH in the text, noting it “damaged the relationship between Indigenous Peoples and the ISA” and looked forward to working with the new Secretary-General toward repairing it.

Other observers emphasized that: a regulatory framework that precedes full scientific knowledge risks creating irreversible environmental consequences and undermining the principle of the common heritage of humankind; and the definitions of the terms “harmful effects” and “serious harm” must be resource-, ecosystem-, area-, and site-specific, noting different deep-sea environments and ecosystems have different characteristics and requirements.

On regulation 1 (use of terms and scope), delegates expressed divergent opinions on including a reference to REMPs. Many delegates supported retaining the reference. One member noted that REMPs cover both exploration and exploitation, while this regulation only addresses exploitation. Many appreciated the offer by the Netherlands to facilitate an intersessional working group on REMPs as a cross-cutting issue and expressed willingness to participate. 

Some members supported making the regulations subject to provisions of UNCLOS, the 1994 Agreement and “other rules of international law not incompatible with the Convention,” with one delegate noting the latter reference includes the BBNJ Agreement. Others preferred deleting the reference to other rules of international law, with one noting that not all ISA members would be subject to other rules of international law.

Some delegates preferred general reference to the rights, jurisdictions, and duties of states, and opposed “cherry-picking,” while others preferred outlining some of the rights, including the right to conduct marine scientific research in the Area. A delegate suggested retaining text stating that the regulations shall be applied in a uniform and non-discriminatory manner.

On regulation 2 (principles, approaches, and policies), discussions revealed divergent views among members on a variety of issues. On a provision noting the regulations shall be applied in conformity with the principles in UNCLOS Part XI (The Area) and Part XII (Protection and preservation of the marine environment) or in accordance with UNCLOS Articles 150 (Policies relating to activities in the Area) and 151 (Production policies), some noted that other principles governing the Area also apply. Some delegations supported having a more general reference to conformity to “the principles embodied in UNCLOS and the 1994 Agreement.” Many others requested reintroducing a reference to the general policies adopted by the Assembly according to UNCLOS Article 160 (Powers and functions of the Assembly). 

Many delegates supported explicitly listing the conditions that need to be fulfilled for exploitation to commence. Many also supported a reference to the environmental policy of the ISA, which is yet to be developed. Some opposed a provision stating that exploitation shall not commence until the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity is well on track. A few delegations questioned the necessity or appropriateness of such a reference, noting that it is more a political statement than a legal obligation. Other members supported including some formulation referring to other relevant frameworks, noting that commercial exploitation cannot be considered in isolation.

A regional group suggested that the implementation and enforcement of the regulations shall be informed by relevant and widely accepted international frameworks, rather than listing them. A delegation emphasized that exploitation and environmental protection are not contradictory to each other and should be mutually reinforced.

Several members supported working on the basis of an alternative language proposal not currently included in the draft. A participant proposed alternative language stating that “exploitation in the Area shall not commence until a comprehensive legal framework consistent with UNCLOS Articles 145 and Part XII is adopted to ensure the protection and preservation of the marine environment.”

On a sub-paragraph listing principles and approaches that shall guide the application of these regulations, a delegate suggested removing references to: intergenerational equity, arguing it is covered by the principle of the common heritage of humankind; and to the traditional knowledge of IPLCs, noting it is covered in the provision on stakeholder involvement and public participation.

In contrast, many delegates strongly supported the reference to traditional knowledge of IPLCs. Several observer organizations also called for deleting “where available,” affirming that such traditional knowledge is available and essential. A member expressed concerns over the deletion of inclusivity and accountability from the list of principles. Another noted that the list is non-exhaustive.

A few delegates suggested deleting a provision noting that ISA members, contractors, and the Authority shall not engage in decisions in which they have a conflict of interest. Another underscored the need to address the issue of conflict of interest.

On regulation 3 (duty to cooperate and exchange of information), several delegates highlighted the importance of technology transfer and capacity building for equitable sharing of non-monetary benefits. Some noted the effectiveness of “incentive mechanisms” depends on strong enforcement mechanisms and proposed including reference to compliance measures. A participant underscored the need to separately address technology transfer and capacity building, highlighting that technology transfer on a fair and equitable basis needs to be provided to the Enterprise, according to the 1994 Agreement.

Some delegates supported retaining text specifying that ISA members, the Enterprise, applicants, and contractors shall cooperate with the ISA “to facilitate the performance of its duties and responsibilities under UNCLOS.”

Regarding the inspection of sites for the purpose of monitoring compliance and enforcement, several delegates opposed deletion of the reference to “items that may fall outside the Authority’s jurisdiction,” noting the need to facilitate access to such items where they lie within members’ jurisdiction. One delegate said the text should specify that the inspection is to be undertaken by ISA inspectors, while others considered such specification redundant.

Some delegates called for retaining a paragraph requesting the Council to adopt standards and guidelines establishing requirements, obligations, and procedural arrangements. Others noted that further work is required, stressing that guidelines are not legally binding and cannot impose obligations.

Observers underscored the need to retain reference to adopting standards and guidelines, which establish requirements, obligations, and procedural arrangements, including standardized data templates and methodology for data collection and analysis. They stressed these are necessary for an integrated approach to environmental management and further highlighted the “due and reasonable regard” obligations under UNCLOS.

A lengthy discussion took place on regulation 4 (rights and legitimate interests of coastal states and duty to notify), portraying the delicate nature of provisions concerning coastal states. The issue will be further addressed in the relevant intersessional working group, facilitated by Portugal.

A regional group and several members underscored that the regulation as drafted exceeds its intended scope and requires further work, including on the placement of various provisions. A member stressed that the current wording is insufficient to safeguard against adverse environmental effects. Another noted that a broader scope might be needed.

Delegates did not agree on a provision stating the elaboration of standardized criteria for the definition of “potentially affected coastal states.” Those opposing the concept stated that no criteria are needed, and suggested deleting the provision. Some delegates noted that the category of “potentially affected coastal states” is not included in UNCLOS Article 142 (Rights and legitimate interests of coastal states). Others supported the development of such criteria.

Members expressed different views on the Secretary-General informing potentially affected coastal states upon the submission of an application for exploitation and the development of appropriate consultation and notification procedures. Many delegates, including a regional group, supported the provision, while others suggested its deletion. A delegation noted that coastal states could participate as stakeholders, making it unnecessary to have a separate provision.

Some suggested inserting the paragraphs proposed by the UCH working group, which address the protection and safeguarding of UCH and the potential role of the compliance committee when communicating coastal states’ concerns.

Observers emphasized that the current draft:

• does not set out the rights of coastal states or the difference between interests and rights;
• seems weak in terms of identifying or upholding individual states’ rights not to suffer from harmful environmental effects of activities in the Area; and
• does not fully encompass the obligation of the contractor nor of the ISA to properly execute their respective consultation obligations to coastal states and coastal Indigenous Peoples within the impact assessment process.

Regulation 5 (qualified applicants) regulates who may apply to the Authority for approval of plans of work. Delegates underlined the need to clearly define “effective control,” noting the options of economic or legal effective control, or a combination of both. In this regard, some highlighted the relevance of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) Advisory Opinion on the responsibilities and obligations of states sponsoring persons and entities with respect to activities in the Area.

Many delegates called for reinserting text requiring contractors to demonstrate they will only use vessels flagged to ISA member states and only use ports located in ISA member states, except where non-member states accept to be bound by the ISA RRPs relating to compliance and enforcement. They underlined that the deletion of this requirement creates a loophole as only ISA member states are bound by the regulations. Others opposed the text, pointing out that UNCLOS imposes no such restriction and noting this provision will exclude the use of US-flagged vessels and ports, asserting this is unrealistic given the proximity of the US to the Clarion-Clipperton Zone.

The issue of effective control resurfaced during discussions on regulation 6 (certificate of sponsorship), with delegates agreeing that additional intersessional work under the relevant working group, facilitated by Costa Rica and Chile, will be required. A delegate urged considering both the legal arguments and practical implications of any decisions on effective control.

Some delegates, including a regional group, expressed concerns over ambiguity on a provision noting that “when a corporation is controlled by nationals of another state or states and has no substantial business activities in the state of incorporation, and the seat of management and the financial control of the corporation are both located in another state, that state shall be regarded as the state of nationality.” Others supported retaining the provision, noting that its formulation could be simplified.

A regional group suggested as an alternative that “when the corporation has no substantial business activities, the nationality shall be determined by the state in cases where the seat of management and financial control are allocated in the same state. If it differentiates, the state most involved in regulating the corporation shall be considered the corporation’s nationality.”

On regulation 7 (form of applications and information to accompany a plan of work), delegates expressed divergent views on various provisions, including on:

• parent or holding companies assuming liability for “damages to the ISA,” with many delegates supporting the concept, a few noting that a parent company should not undertake collateral responsibilities for subsidiaries, and others requesting clarifying the concept of “damages to the ISA”;
• whether the applicant shall demonstrate access to the necessary financial and technical capability and resources at the time of application, with many supporting such an approach while some noted that it may create barriers to participation, including for small island developing states; and
• a provision on test mining, noting that in cases where an applicant utilizes mature mining technology, there should be no requirement to conduct test mining, with many urging further discussions, including on potential exemptions from test mining obligations.

Delegates agreed that liability is cross-cutting and needs to be resolved holistically. They further discussed a provision noting that an application shall be prepared “taking into account” these regulations, the applicable standards and guidelines, as well as the respective REMPs, with some preferring “in accordance or in conformity with.”

Some members suggested reinstating deleted language requiring that all contractors comply with the rules and regulations of the sponsoring state as well as a requirement for technology transfer. A regional group urged the development of an annex to guide the implementation of the training plan, noting the current reference to the relevant guidelines does not suffice.

Observers underlined the need for undertakings to ensure that parent companies benefiting from their subsidiaries’ activities cannot evade liability. One observer called for legally binding commitments with compliance mechanisms that ensure enforceability of awards against parent companies. Another suggested a requirement for applicants to identify existing or planned submarine cable systems within the contract area and outline their plans to protect them.

On regulation 8 (area covered by an application), delegates considered, among other things, which areas would be eligible for exploitation. Several delegates supported text requiring that an area under application must: have previously been subject to an exploration contract; have adequate and satisfactory environmental baseline studies covering it; and be covered by a relevant REMP. An observer urged the Council to set clear and binding rules for what constitutes “adequate and sufficient baseline studies.”

Delegates also debated whether to delete or retain a paragraph requiring an applicant to provide an overview of other potential legitimate activities in the area under application and to confirm whether the area is managed or under active consideration of other processes. In this regard, some suggested adopting language from the BBNJ Agreement to ensure consistency with the principles set out in the Agreement.

Delegates addressed regulation 9 (receipt, acknowledgment, and safe custody of applications), which outlines steps the Secretary-General must conduct after receiving an application, including acknowledging receipt in writing, placing the application in safe custody, and notifying members of the ISA, the LTC, and the Finance Committee.

A regional group said adding a provision on notification procedures in this regulation goes beyond its scope. They noted it creates confusion in the application process and suggested its deletion or rewording. A delegate called for harmonization and coherence among regulations addressing the application process, drawing attention to inconsistencies in the deadlines.

On regulation 10 (preliminary review of an application by the Secretary-General), several delegations expressed concern over a formulation stating that where the Secretary-General considers that an application does not contain all the information, it shall be submitted to the LTC. A delegation supported the provision. A regional group suggested distinguishing between cases where all information is provided and those where some is missing. A delegation stressed the need to provide for the procedure after the Secretary-General submits the application to the LTC, while several others suggested deleting the provision.

Regarding where a potential applicant claims preference and priority in the same area and the same resource category under an exploration contract, delegates differed over two alternative formulations. Several supported that the Secretary-General shall, before progressing the original application, request confirmation of the intention of such a potential applicant to apply for approval of an exploitation plan of work. In contrast, some delegations supported an alternative formulation by which, based on an LTC recommendation, the Council shall decide whether the operator’s preference and priority shall be withdrawn.

In cases where an application concerns a reserved area, many delegations requested deleting “that is not or has not been subject to an Exploration Contract.” A member emphasized that there are no reserved areas that have not been subject to an exploration contract. Many members requested harmonization with relevant provisions on regulation 8 (area covered by an application).

An observer suggested having two separate regulations: one addressing the Secretary-General’s preliminary review and the other regarding the decision on preference and priority.

Between two alternative titles for regulation 11, many delegates expressed preference for “publication, notification, and review of the application.” Noting the need for further discussions, they suggested a streamlining exercise to remove duplicated language and ensure consistency with other regulations.

Many members stressed that provisions for stakeholder consultation should not be limited to environmental plans and to the non-confidential parts of the test mining study, but rather address the entire application excluding confidential information. A delegate noted that only the environmental plans should be subject to stakeholder consultations.

Members further discussed the timeframes for the LTC to revise stakeholders’ comments and for the Secretary-General to publish such comments. A few delegates cautioned against expediting the process at the expense of quality, suggesting that revision of stakeholder comments be done “in a timely manner,” rather than within a specific timeframe.

On a provision noting that the LTC “may/shall” seek advice from competent independent experts, many delegates supported that the LTC “shall” or “should” seek such advice, when necessary. Others preferred “may,” wishing to provide additional discretion to the LTC. Some noted that such a provision is not necessary, as potentially resorting to independent experts is provided for in UNCLOS Article 165 (the LTC). Many delegates agreed on the need to specify criteria for expert selection, avoiding conflicts of interest and maintaining geographical balance.

Observers emphasized, among other things, the need for: an open process where stakeholders can present independent scientific evidence; open LTC sessions for meaningful engagement; and a transparent protocol for expert selection.

Discussions on regulation 12 (rules for considering applications) focused on the timeline for the LTC to consider applications. Delegates discussed whether to provide fixed deadlines for the LTC to commence considering applications and to submit its reports and recommendations to the Council. While some delegates opposed fixed deadlines and preferred specifying that the LTC should commence its consideration and submit its reports “expeditiously,” others considered setting deadlines as necessary for maintaining fairness and environmental responsibility and avoiding unnecessary delays.

Regarding whether the LTC should consider applications only during its scheduled meetings or intersessionally, views remained divergent. Some delegations supported the convening of intersessional meetings to consider applications. In contrast, others preferred limiting application consideration to the LTC’s regular scheduled meetings, among other things, to avoid the use of the “silence procedure.”

One delegate proposed a new paragraph to explicitly give the LTC the faculty to request additional information from the applicant. A couple of delegations opposed the deletion of a provision by which the LTC, when considering a proposed plan of work, shall take into account concerns raised by adjacent coastal states. A delegation suggested addressing the provision under the intersessional working group on coastal states.

An observer supported a provision noting that the LTC may delay its reports and recommendations if additional information or consultations with experts are necessary.

On regulation 13 (assessment of applicants and application), many delegations expressed overall support for its intent and emphasized the need for further work and refinement.

Drawing attention to the powers, nature of functions, and composition of the LTC, some delegations queried how the LTC will be able to assess, among other things, whether an application provides for benefits to humankind as a whole. Some cautioned that the current wording limits the concept of benefits to humankind to economic benefits only.

Observers underscored that no amount of money can offset the cost of damaging the marine environment and emphasized that “deciding if an application benefits humankind as a whole cannot be done without consulting Indigenous Peoples.”

A regional group stated that, when considering the technical capability of an applicant, simply providing information is not sufficient, noting the need to sufficiently demonstrate such capability. An observer added that the financial resources of applicants must be assessed based on reality and evidence, not future hypotheses.

When considering whether an application provides for effective protection of the marine environment, delegates focused on, among other things:

• adequate environmental baseline data, with some members and observers suggesting adding adequate “and sufficient”;
• environmental impacts outside of the relevant contract area or any area designated as protected areas, with several delegates noting this should apply only to protected areas designated by the Authority;
• a reference to climate change, with many members and observers supporting reinstating the reference; and
• a reference to the evaluation of harmful effects individually, in combination, as well as cumulatively, including effects from other activities in the area under application.

A few delegations opposed using the term “cultural rights or interest,” noting it falls outside UNCLOS’s mandate. Others highlighted references to traditional knowledge or cultural interest as essential.

An observer noted references to the identification of submarine cables and pipelines are insufficient. Another expressed concern that the LTC’s considerations take place behind closed doors with no public participation.

Many delegates urged reinstating two deleted provisions in regulation 14 (amendments to the proposed plan of work). These relate to the publication on the ISA website of any amendment, additional information, or revised application received, so as to provide the opportunity for public consultation in cases where modifications are significant, before the LTC makes relevant recommendations to the Council. Some delegates insisted on deleting the provisions, noting that only environmental plans should be published.

Delegates further discussed:

• the timeframe for an applicant to respond to LTC requests, with many noting that “90 days after the receipt of the request” requires clarification and some suggesting adjusting the timeframe according to the significance of the amendment; and
• cases where the applicant may refuse the LTC request for additional information, with a delegate underscoring that such refusal shall be justified in detail explaining why the modification in the plan of work has no effect on its review by the LTC.

A lengthy discussion took place on regulation 15 (LTC’s recommendation for the approval or disapproval of a plan of work), with delegates focusing on whether the LTC “shall” or “may” recommend approval of a plan of work if all the criteria set out in regulation 13 (assessment of applicants and application) are met. Some members supported “may,” stressing it provides greater discretion to the LTC in approving plans of work. Others noted that such formulation would allow the LTC to decline approval of applications that meet all criteria, preferring the use of “shall.”

A regional group suggested that “the LTC may recommend the approval of a proposed plan of work only if it determines that it fully complies with the requirements in regulation 13 and there is sufficient information to confirm compliance with these requirements.”

Delegates further discussed, without reaching consensus:

• provisions noting that the LTC shall not recommend the approval of a plan of work if it undermines or contradicts binding goals, objectives, or measures set out in other relevant global frameworks and agreements or if the Council has set a spatial or temporal protective measure, as indicated in the applicable REMP;
• the process for representations by the applicant in cases where the LTC decides not to recommend approval of a plan of work, with some suggesting that the LTC should consider the response in 30 days, including through intersessional or virtual meetings, and others emphasizing that adequate opportunities are already provided to contractors in other draft regulations to rectify problems in their applications; and
• reinstating a provision noting that the LTC also has the competence to refuse an application and return it to the applicant, providing reasons for the refusal.

Some delegates requested adding that the LTC shall not recommend approval of a plan of work if: it is unable to determine that the plan of work, either alone or in combination with other activities and impacts, ensures effective protection of the marine environment; and the approval would undermine or contradict the ISA’s strategic environmental goals or objectives. They further emphasized that no approval should be recommended by the LTC if an area is not covered by a REMP or is “designated for preservation for reasons of special biological, scientific, archaeological, historic, cultural, aesthetic, or wilderness significance.”

A delegate noted that the LTC, alongside any recommendation for approval, should provide a list of stakeholders that have been consulted. Another suggested distinguishing between the requirements for the applicant and those for the application. Some members highlighted the importance of prohibiting LTC members that are nationals of the sponsoring state from participating in the assessment of a plan of work to avoid conflicts of interest.

On a provision noting that the LTC shall not recommend approval “if the applicant or its predecessor in law previously violated the general obligations of contractors in a non-negligible way,” some delegates urged clarifying the notion of “predecessor in law.”

Observers cautioned that, according to the rules of procedure, in cases where the LTC recommends approval of a plan of work even by a simple majority vote, it would be challenging for a different decision to then be taken by the Council, as a two-thirds majority in each of the five Council groups will be required. They further underscored, as suggested by some delegates, that the LTC should be tasked to indicate a recommended initial term for an exploitation contract, to avoid providing the maximum term by default.

During discussions on regulation 16 (consideration and approval of plans of work), delegates questioned the reference to the Council considering the reports and recommendations of “any other relevant subsidiary body.” Some suggested deletion, noting the LTC is the only body tasked with considering applications. Others underlined that bodies that have been mandated but not yet established, such as the economic planning commission, should have the opportunity to contribute to the process, where relevant. One observer further noted calls to establish bodies, such as a scientific body, and underlined that if established, such bodies should be able to contribute to the process.

On a reference to a 60-day period for considering applications, many delegations opposed the possibility of automatic approval of plans of work. They suggested deleting text stating that a plan of work shall be deemed to have been approved by the Council if the Council does not take a decision on a recommendation for approval within the 60-day period. Some also called for reinserting text allowing the Council to not approve a plan of work if any of the requirements in regulation 13 (assessment of applicants and application) are not fulfilled.

Discussions on regulation 17 (the exploitation contract) focused on whether the Council needs to request the Secretary-General to prepare an exploitation contract once a plan of work is approved. Some delegates opposed the imposition of an additional administrative step and preferred deleting this stipulation. Others underlined its importance, noting the possibility of conditional or provisional approvals, highlighting this as an important administrative step.

On regulation 18 (rights and exclusivity under an exploitation contract), delegates discussed whether the Enterprise should be included in the definition of contractor. A participant reminded the Council that not all contractors’ obligations apply to the Enterprise, and called for maintaining both references separately.

On a paragraph stating that the ISA shall not permit any other entity to exploit or explore the same resource category in the contract area, delegates expressed divergent opinions with a few supporting deletion. Regarding two alternative formulations on the ISA ensuring that no other entity operates in the contract area, delegates also expressed different views. Some delegations pointed to many other legitimate activities that can take place in a contract area, noting that ensuring no other activity takes place goes beyond the ISA mandate.

Several members and observers supported using UNCLOS language, noting that the current wording of the alternative formulation is inconsistent with Article 16 (Exclusive right to explore and exploit) of UNCLOS Annex III (Basic Conditions of Prospecting, Exploration and Exploitation). A member noted that accepting other activities within a contract area could create conflicts of interest. An observer drew attention to underwater cables and pipelines, emphasizing the need for cooperation and communication between contractors and cable operators.

On a proposed provision on the adverse environmental impacts from activities in the Area being limited to the contract area, some members and an observer supported the content but noted it is misplaced given it does not refer to contractors’ rights. Others suggested having a broader provision referring to adverse impacts in general, deleting “environmental.” Yet others proposed adding a provision on preventing transboundary harm.

Several members supported references to the applicable exploration regulations continuing to apply in relation to exploration activities in the contract area under an exploitation contract. A few opposed, suggesting deleting references to exploration regulations, noting the regulations serve different intents.

Obligations of the contractors, addressed in regulation 18 bis, revealed divergent opinions among delegates, including on: the use of vessels with flags of, and ports located in, states that are not ISA members; and issues around the parent company liability statement and the liability of the contractor and its managing company.

Some members noted that UNCLOS does not stipulate only use of vessels and ports of ISA members, with one delegate emphasizing that the contractor should have the right to choose vessels and ports. Another highlighted practical considerations, pointing to the proximity of US ports to the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, given that the US is not an ISA member. Others preferred retaining the provision, underscoring the need to avoid flags or ports of convenience. A few members suggested retaining some flexibility to address commercial realities and emergency situations. 

Some delegates noted the need to define “managing company” and hold further discussions on liability. A member explained that the managing company would be bound by the provisions of the parent company liability statement, adding that the obligations arising from that statement should be distinguished from those in the exploitation contract. Others reiterated that the parent company should not be requested to assume joint responsibility or liability.

Some members highlighted that contractors shall comply with the terms and conditions of their exploitation contract and the RRPs of the ISA, “as well as the applicable REMPs, as amended from time to time,” highlighting that further discussions on REMPs are pending.

Many delegates emphasized that regulation 18 ter (suspension or termination of an exploitation contract) should focus on termination, while issues of suspension should be addressed in regulation 29 (reduction or suspension in production) and regulation 29 bis (procedure for suspension of exploitation activities). Some delegates suggested further distinguishing between provisions on termination or suspension of rights under an exploitation contract and those on the termination of exploitation activities. 

Regarding cases in which a contractor disputes the Authority’s right to terminate the exploitation contract, a delegate suggested suspending the contract until a final decision is made. A member proposed giving the contractor a reasonable opportunity to pursue legal recourse in cases of suspension or termination of a contract.

Many members supported retaining a provision noting that a contractor shall remain responsible and liable to the ISA for the performance of its obligations under the exploitation contract in the event of any termination. A delegate suggested referring to “continuing” obligations.

An observer cautioned that section 12 of Annex X (standard clauses of an exploitation contract) of the draft regulations contains no provisions that would apply in cases of environmental damage.

On regulation 19 (joint arrangements), many delegates stressed the need to address reserved areas, further discuss joint venture arrangements, and strengthen the role of the Enterprise. Many supported including a provision noting that before approving any exploitation contract, the ISA shall adopt standards and guidelines providing for joint arrangements between a contractor and the Enterprise. Some stressed the need to ensure that such standards and guidelines only apply to contractors engaged in joint arrangements with the Enterprise. They further underscored that joint arrangements must remain optional, without creating competitive disadvantages to small sponsoring states.

On regulation 20 (term and renewal/extension of exploitation contracts), delegates continued to express divergent views on whether the title should refer to “renewal” or “extension” of exploitation contracts. The length of the initial exploitation contract also generated debate. Many members pointed at the novel nature of deep-sea exploitation and its unknown impacts, thereby preferring a shorter period of 20 years. Others insisted on 30 years, noting matters such as pilot mining will take up some of the granted time before commercial exploitation commences. Most delegates supported that the contract term should commence from the execution of the contract.

On applying for extension/renewal, many delegates stressed that any such application should be accompanied by a revised plan of work, not only in cases of material change. They said such a revised plan of work must consider, among other things, the cumulative impacts of the initial contract period.

Most delegates also supported that the consultation process on the revised plan of work should be undertaken by the Secretary-General, rather than by the contractor. Regarding the status of an exploitation contract for which an extension/renewal application has been made, some delegates proposed that while the contract may remain in force, contractors should be required to suspend exploitation activities pending consideration of the application.

Regarding regulation 21 (termination of sponsorship), delegates discussed, without reaching consensus, whether the termination of a contractor’s sponsorship should be accompanied by a sponsoring state’s written justification of the reasons for such termination and the date the termination is to take effect. A few members emphasized that it is not pertinent to request states to justify their sovereign decision to withdraw sponsorship.

Regarding the date the termination of a sponsorship is to take effect, two subparagraphs provide for different timeframes based on the reasons for such termination: six months after the date of receipt of the notification of termination, where the termination is due to a contractor’s material non-compliance with its terms of sponsorship; and 12 months after the date of receipt of the notification for reasons other than material non-compliance. A regional group and some members supported deleting the subparagraphs and fixed timeframes. Another underscored the importance of having such timeframes to give contractors time to find a new sponsoring state.

In the event of termination of sponsorship, if the contractor fails to obtain a new sponsorship, a regional group suggested that exploitation activities should be suspended until a new sponsorship certificate is obtained and that the contract should be terminated only if, after one year, there is still no new sponsoring state. Delegates agreed to further discuss the relevant provisions within the working group on effective control.

On regulation 22 (use of exploitation contract as security), a few delegations requested that contractors file with the seabed mining register the totality of any agreement that results or may result in a transfer or assignment of an exploitation contract. They stated that just a summary would not be sufficient.

On regulation 23 (transfer of rights and obligations under an exploitation contract), a regional group and several delegates and observers supported the levying of a transfer profit share by the ISA. Other members questioned the provision, stressing that: transfer of rights and obligations should not be considered as activities in the Area; these issues are usually considered under national legislation; and such transfer requires further clarity. A few members underscored the importance of the sponsoring state’s written consent prior to any transfer.

Some delegations questioned the LTC’s role and the timeframe of the procedure for providing consent for the transfer. They noted that given that the LTC meets only twice a year, unnecessary delays might happen, suggesting a 90-day period for the LTC to assess intersessionally.

A paragraph amending the Exploration Regulations regarding the transfer of rights and obligations attracted different opinions. Several delegations supported the paragraph, while others opposed amending Exploration Regulations through the exploitation regulations, suggesting deletion.

President Laki noted that, regarding regulation 24 (change of control), the definition of “change of control” has been included in the glossary. Delegates decided to defer relevant discussions, further agreeing that deliberations on effective control should be deferred to the relevant working group. A delegate emphasized that this regulation should not create a backdoor to avoid requirements contained in other regulations.

On regulation 25 (documents to be submitted prior to production), delegates discussed the feasibility study without reaching consensus on, among other things, whether it should be open to stakeholder consultation. A member emphasized that the feasibility study should be done in line with the applicable standard, which should include a reference to good industry practices. Another proposed changing the regulation’s title to “feasibility study.”

Many delegates suggested changing the title of regulation 26 (environmental performance guarantee) to “decommissioning and emergency response guarantee” or “decommissioning bonds.” Members could not reach consensus on, among other things: whether a contractor shall lodge an environmental performance guarantee before the commencement of commercial production or upon execution of the exploitation contract; and provisions for reviewing and replenishing the amount of the guarantee.

Some delegates, including a regional group, supported considering installments for the payment of the environmental performance guarantee. Others noted that if installments are included, the provision should note that, in such cases, commercial production may only commence once the full amount has been provided.

A regional group suggested deleting a provision on a “performance security provided by the qualified commercial bank,” noting details of the provision should be included into a standard in the section on standards and guidelines. A delegate suggested developing clear criteria on what constitutes a “qualified” commercial bank. Some delegates suggested retaining a provision noting that the environmental performance guarantee “shall take the form of a letter of credit or security bond guaranteed by a reputable financial institution.”

On reviewing and updating the amount of the environmental performance guarantee, many delegates suggested clarifying who will be in charge of the review and relevant modalities. Many delegates supported retaining a provision stating that the ISA should provide for the replenishment of any environmental performance guarantee or part thereof by the contractor. Others noted that the basis for such replenishment should be specified and that further discussions are required.

Observers distinguished between the environmental performance guarantee and insurance, underscoring that both are required. They stressed that the purpose of the environmental performance guarantee is to provide a source of finance if the contractor fails to uphold its obligations under the exploitation contract. They emphasized it must therefore cover all issues arising during mining upon the execution of the exploitation contract, throughout its duration, and after its termination.

On regulation 27 (commencement of commercial production), delegates supported the need to include a definition of commercial production in the glossary but did not agree on its content. One member proposed commercial production should be identified as when at least 60% of the designed capacity is maintained for at least 30 days; another proposed maintenance of at least 80% of designed capacity for 90 days. One delegate proposed that any definition should be without prejudice to definitions adopted by states in their national jurisdictions.

Addressing regulation 28 (maintaining commercial production), several delegates pointed out that discussions on the session’s first day revealed that “harmful effects” to the marine environment is the appropriate term to use instead of “serious harm” except in very specific circumstances.

Discussions focused on the notification of failure or inability to maintain commercial production. Delegates debated whether once such notification is conveyed by the contractor to the Secretary-General and sponsoring state, the Secretary-General should transmit the notification to the compliance committee, the LTC, or both. One delegate further proposed including consequences for cases where a contractor does not notify the Secretary-General or sponsoring state of a failure to maintain commercial production.

During the consideration of regulation 29 (reduction or suspension in production), most delegates supported the proposed amendments stating that the notification of a reduction or suspension in production should be made to the Secretary-General and sponsoring state in writing as soon as practicable but not later than seven days from the date of reduction or suspension.

Several delegates noted that where a reduction or suspension is to last for more than 12 months, such reduction or suspension should be subject to review and approval by the compliance committee, LTC, or Council, with a member adding that the sponsoring state should also be involved in the process.

On regulation 29 bis (procedure for suspensions in exploitation activities), President Laki noted a proposal to split the regulation into two to deal separately with suspensions imposed by the ISA or voluntary suspensions by the contractor. Many delegates expressed general support. One delegate noted the regulation does not specify the timeframe within which the LTC and Council will review and make their decision regarding a contractor’s notification of intention to recommence activities, highlighting the importance of such a timeframe.

Several delegates highlighted that the compliance committee should be involved in the decision making, particularly where the suspension was a result of non-compliance. One delegation suggested that when a suspension is voluntary, contractors should be able to resume activities when they are ready. They further said the grounds on which the ISA may order suspension should be specified and limited to cases of a material breach of the exploitation contract or where suspension is necessary to prevent serious harm to the marine environment.

Most delegates supported the inclusion of regulation 29 ter (certification of origin). A delegation suggested, gathering some support, that ISA members shall automatically “recognize” rather than “accept” any certification of origin. Another suggested developing a mechanism for its effective use and implementation.

On regulation 29 quater (risk reduction principles), a few members called for adding risk reduction to the listed principles of regulation 2 (principle, approaches, and policies). In contrast, a member requested deleting “principle” from the title. A delegation, urging for a “zero damage” approach, called for deleting “limiting” harm or danger of harm in order to focus on preventing them. Others argued that it is not always possible to eliminate all risks.

Many members queried the references to the marine environment. Stressing that this regulation addresses safety, labor, and health at sea, they suggested deletion. Some delegations and a regional group proposed stating that risk reduction is a contractor’s responsibility.

On regulation 30 (safety, labor, and health standards), some members requested deleting text stating that “international maritime safety and navigational rules shall apply to all ships on all voyages engaged in activities in the Area,” noting this goes beyond the Authority’s mandate. A regional group supported retaining the provision.

Regarding the contractor ensuring that records of the experience, training, and qualifications of its personnel are kept, an observer suggested the data should be disaggregated by gender, asserting that mining is renowned as one of the worst sectors globally for gender diversity, owing to deep structural inequalities.

On regulation 30 bis (human health and safety management system), discussions focused on provisions on an independent verification of the human health and safety management system, with some delegates emphasizing that the responsibility for maintaining the system should be placed solely on the contractor.

Delegates jointly addressed regulation 31 (reasonable regard for other activities in the marine environment) and regulation 31 bis (reducing risk of damage to submarine cables and pipelines), supporting the need for a standalone regulation on submarine cables and pipelines. Some emphasized the need to cover all important activities in the marine environment, including those associated with fishing, navigation, and environmental protection. In this regard, some delegations highlighted ISA’s technical study 33 on potential interactions between fishing and mineral resource-related activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

On a provision noting that contractors shall exercise reasonable regard for other activities in the marine environment, delegates expressed divergent opinions regarding references to: UNCLOS Article 87 (Freedom of the high seas); the plan of work; the environmental management and monitoring plan; the applicable REMP; the closure plan; and any applicable international rules and standards established by competent international organizations. On the latter, some delegates underscored provisions of the BBNJ Agreement and the establishment of ecologically or biologically significant marine areas under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Some members noted that regulation 31 bis should refer to “reasonable regard” rather than “reducing risk of damage” to submarine cables and pipelines. A regional group called for considering both in-service and out-of-service cables and pipelines. A few delegates drew attention to the memorandum of understanding between the ISA Secretariat and the Secretariat of the International Cable Protection Committee (ICPC), noting that the ICPC could provide information on existing cables. An observer noted the ICPC does not possess location data for submarine cables, stating these remain with operators and suppliers, and often constitute commercially proprietary information.

Others stressed the need for contractors to consult relevant commercially-available data and resources on cables, pipelines and other current and future uses of the marine environment, including on environmental protection measures and area-based management tools established by competent international, regional, or sectoral bodies.

A few delegates suggested incorporating consideration of submarine cables and pipelines in the application and assessment processes for an exploitation plan of work. Some stressed the principle of reciprocity, underlining that, in addition to contractors’ obligations, other users of the marine environment need to exercise reasonable regard for exploration and exploitation activities.

One observer suggested a distinction between uses or activities relating to submarine cables and pipelines and other marine activities, noting different requirements and degrees of protection. While one observer opposed the distinction, noting this misses the opportunity to apply this protection to other marine users, others supported it, but called for also protecting other marine activities such as scientific research and fishing. One called for the ISA to engage more closely with fishery organizations, similar to its engagement with the ICPC.

During the discussion of regulation 32 (emergency response and contingency plan), several delegates called for the regulation to include the definition of an “incident” that would trigger a contingency plan, noting the glossary refers to an IMO Code that is not necessarily applicable to the exploitation regulations.

Members also debated whether an applicant shall develop an emergency response and contingency plan “in accordance with” or “taking into account” the exploitation regulations. Regarding the frequency of reviewing and testing such plans, several delegates supported a quarterly review, while others preferred an annual review.

The discussion of regulation 33 (preventing and responding to incidents) focused, among other things, on the threshold for the contractor to suspend its exploitation activities. Several delegates proposed lowering the threshold from “reasonably foreseeable” to “a risk” that proceeding with exploitation activities would cause or contribute to an incident. Others preferred retaining the original language, arguing that the lower threshold of “risk” would not be workable in practice.

Delegates reiterated the need to define “incident.” A delegate supported retaining the requirement for the Secretary-General to publish incident reports on the ISA website and proposed also publishing such reports in the sea-bed mining register.

Delegates discussed regulation 34 (notifiable events), with many suggesting further discussion on what would constitute a notifiable event and the differences between an incident and a notifiable event.

A delegation suggested merging regulations 33 and 34, noting the submission of a relevant written proposal. Another queried if this regulation is required, noting its content may be covered in regulations addressing stakeholder and coastal state consultations and emergency response and contingency plans, as appropriate. A delegation and an observer suggested reviewing regulations 33 and 34 once the discussion around the inspection, compliance, and enforcement mechanism is finalized.

A delegation queried the deletion of a provision stating that “contractors shall ensure that all regulatory authorities are notified and consulted, as appropriate.” A few others supported the deletion, noting it could be placed elsewhere. Some delegates suggested that, upon receipt of a notification of a notifiable event, the Secretary-General should seek instructions from the compliance committee rather than the Council.

Delegates engaged in a lengthy discussion regarding regulation 35 (human remains and objects and sites of an archaeological or historical nature) and regulation 35 alt (chance discovery of human remains and UCH). Most delegates supported using 35 alt as the basis for further discussions. Several noted that it is better structured and provides clear procedures, while it could benefit from some streamlining.

Delegates expressed a diverse range of views, focusing on, among other things:

• the inclusion of references to UCH in other parts of the regulations, such as EIAs- and REMPs-related provisions;
• the scope of the regulation, with a few noting that the current scope of regulation 35 alt goes beyond its title, suggesting amending the title, while others supported maintaining the regulation’s focus on responses to specific events;
• alignment with UNCLOS Article 149 (Archaeological and historical objects), with a delegation also pointing to Article 303 (Archaeological and historical objects found at sea);
• references to intangible UCH, traditional knowledge, cultural rights, and prior informed consent, with a few members welcoming such references and noting that the prior informed consent requirement should be formalized in the mining code;
• the establishment of a UCH committee, which had support for and against; and
• compensation mechanisms for contractors, with a couple of members stressing the need to find ways to incentivize contractors to protect UCH and others suggesting deleting the provision.

Observers stressed that without an explicit definition of UCH, the draft regulation has a totally different meaning, stating that UCH encompasses tangible and intangible UCH.

Many delegates emphasized that further discussion is necessary on regulation 36 (insurance), stressing the need for concrete and comprehensive provisions clarifying how insurance will work in practice. Many members underlined the need to develop a dedicated standard. Some suggested inviting contributions from external experts.

Deliberations focused on:

• a provision noting that the insurance should cover all harms to people, property, natural resources, and environment that may occur, wherever located, or howsoever caused, as a result of the contractor’s activities in the Area, with some delegates suggesting clarifying the provision according to insurance industry practices;
• whether the contractor shall notify the compliance committee or the Secretary-General in the event of termination or modification of the terms of the insurance, with many expressing their support and others noting that the Authority should not be involved in every insurance modification;
• whether a contractor shall notify the compliance committee “immediately,” “without any delay,” or “as soon as practicably possible” regarding the termination or modification of the insurance terms; and
• the requirement for contractors to include evidence of the existence of insurance in their annual reports.

A few members suggested that insurance be required from when a vessel departs from a port, while others noted it should be in effect from the start date of the exploitation contract. A delegate clarified that parent company liability statements and insurance are not mutually exclusive legal instruments but rather complementary, designed to resolve the same issue.

Members highlighted regulation 37 (training obligations) as an essential non-monetary benefit. A few delegates suggested developing a relevant standard to set the specific areas and requirements for training. A member stressed that UNCLOS contains no provision on training representatives of adjacent coastal states, requesting deleting the provision. Some members highlighted ISA’s training programme.

Members further debated a provision noting that contractors shall demonstrate in the training plan their approach to implementing gender equality, inclusivity, non-discrimination, and diversity. A delegate proposed as a compromise, a requirement to give due regard to the aforementioned objectives. Some queried the reference to diversity.

On a provision noting that the training plan shall take into account the special needs of developing states, in particular geographically disadvantaged states and landlocked states, a delegate noted relevant priorities should also be considered, while others suggested references to small island developing states.

Delegates supported inclusion of regulation 37 bis (transfer of technology), but most underlined that, as currently drafted, it is too vague and inadequate to comply with UNCLOS. Most delegates proposed expanding the regulation to properly reflect the technology transfer obligations contained in UNCLOS Article 144 (Transfer of technology) and Section 5 (Transfer of technology) of the Annex to the 1994 Implementation Agreement. Several delegates also suggested considering the technology transfer provisions in the BBNJ Agreement.

During the discussions on regulation 38 (annual report), delegates considered what issues should be included in the annual reports, expressing divergent views on: details on annual actions to reduce environmental footprints such as air pollution, waste-water discharges, and waste generation; environmental monitoring programmes, reported against the strategic environmental goals and the relevant REMP; and a statement of payments made by the contractor to the ISA, governments, state enterprises, and other contractors.

Several delegates supported including in the annual report, a statement indicating whether and how the results obtained from environmental monitoring programmes “help to support the identification and improvement of environmental practices.” One delegate opposed this addition, noting it is not an obligation of contractors. Delegates also underlined the need to define “accident” and one proposed replacing “accident” with “notifiable event.”
During consideration of regulation 39 (books, records, and samples), most delegates supported requiring contractors to keep a record of liabilities, in addition to the other information listed. They also considered where the books, accounts, and records should be kept, with most preferring this to be agreed between the contractor and the compliance committee, while some considered it should be decided by contractors.

Regarding biological samples obtained during exploitation, delegates expressed diverging views on how long such samples should be retained. Some supported retaining the samples until the termination of the closure plan, noting this will enable assessment of whether a site has recovered. Others considered that samples should only be retained “in line with best scientific practice,” pointing out that retaining samples until the end of the closure plan would be onerous.

An observer pointed at overlaps between this regulation and regulation 74 (proper books and records to be kept).

Discussions on regulation 40 (prevention of corruption) focused on streamlining the regulation’s language. Most delegates agreed that the language prohibiting “direct” gifts or rewards from contractors to the Authority suggests that indirect ones may be acceptable. They suggested either deleting the reference to “direct” or adding “and/or indirect.” Most delegates supported the provision extending the prohibition to applicants, but called for further clarifications.

Delegates also noted a provision requiring the Secretary-General, upon becoming aware of any act in contravention of this regulation, to refer the information to the compliance committee. They underscored the need to include a timeline, as well as the means for such communication. Several delegates supported the creation of an ombudsperson but noted the need for careful consideration of how it would work.

An observer called for broader ISA-wide policies and procedures on transparency and public accountability, including an independent ombudsperson, internal review procedures, whistleblower protection, and complaints and grievance procedures.

On regulation 41 (other resource categories), delegates focused on, among other things:

• the required level of detail of the contractors’ notifications in cases of finding within their contract area resources other than the category to which the exploitation contract relates, with a regional group and a couple of delegations suggesting that the notification shall include all the information and data that the contractor has on the new resource at the time of the discovery;
• whether to include a provision outlining the application process for newly discovered resources, with many members suggesting its deletion, noting the applicant should follow the same procedure as for any application;
• references to “any interim exploration activities,” with several delegations supporting its deletion and a few members and an observer noting it is inappropriate to provide for any kind of exploration without the proper approval procedure; and
• explicitly prohibiting the contractor from exploring or exploiting any other resource category than the one approved in the exploitation contract in the absence of an approved plan of work for the newly discovered resource category.

On regulation 42 (restrictions on advertisements, prospectuses, and other notices), a regional group and a few delegations supported two paragraphs outlining the process in cases where the regulation is contravened, and suggested amendments, including the need to confirm that the contravention is based on verified evidence. An observer suggested prohibiting Authority representatives from undertaking activities that could create a reasonable perception of one contractor being preferred over others.

A participant reiterated the need to discuss whether the definition of “contractor” includes the Enterprise when addressing regulation 43 (compliance with other laws and regulations). On a reference stating that nothing in an exploitation contract shall relieve a contractor of its obligations under national law, a regional group suggested referring to “national, international, or other law.” A few members sought clarification on references to “policy” and “insurance policies.”

A lengthy discussion took place on regulation 44 (general obligations relating to the marine environment), with some delegates underscoring its importance for the effective implementation of UNCLOS Article 145. A few delegations urged further alignment with the BBNJ Agreement. Some members stressed the need for consistency between this regulation and regulation 2 (principles, approaches, and policies).

On a provision on “ensuring reasonable regard for climate change mitigation and avoidance of impacts on the ocean’s capacity to function as a carbon sink,” some members noted that the language does not adequately reflect states’ legally binding obligations vis-à-vis mitigating climate change. Some suggested reflecting the ITLOS advisory opinion and the one to be issued by the International Court of Justice. A delegate suggested referring to “the ability of the ocean and its ecosystem to act as a climate regulator.”

Some delegates highlighted the importance of a provision on not undermining “relevant legal instruments and frameworks, and relevant global regional, subregional and sectoral bodies.” Others suggested placing it in a different part of the draft regulations, noting it should extend beyond environmental provisions. Yet others did not support the provision, underlining that UNCLOS, rather than the BBNJ Agreement, is the appropriate reference point for exploitation activities in the Area. A delegation proposed, as a compromise, acknowledging the need for cooperation with other relevant frameworks.

Members further debated provisions on:

• harmful effects that may arise “directly or indirectly” from exploitation activities, as well as references to REMPs, with some calling for reference to the coastline and querying a reference to “port states”;
• applying a scientific-based approach and using the best available science and scientific information as defined in the glossary;
• applying the best environmental techniques and best environmental practices, with some delegates noting that the terms are complementary, while others preferred the latter;
• the precautionary principle or approach, with many delegates supporting language from the BBNJ Agreement that refers to “the precautionary principle or precautionary approach, as appropriate”;
• the ecosystem-based approach, with some members underlining the need for it to be defined in the glossary;
• the mitigation hierarchy, with many members suggesting including the definition in the glossary;
• whether the regulations are “the floor rather than the ceiling” for environmental requirements, with a regional group emphasizing that minimum ISA environmental standards can be exceeded in line with national, regional, or project-specific conditions;
• the polluter pays principle, with many supporting the reference and a delegate suggesting instead “that the polluter should bear the cost of pollution, endeavor to promote practices whereby those engaged in exploitation activities bear the cost of meeting the pollution prevention and control requirements for the authorized activities, having due regard to the public interest”; and
• ensuring accountability and transparency in the evaluation and management of environmental risks, expressing divergent views on references to stakeholder consultations and some requesting clarifications regarding “access to justice.”

Observers highlighted, among other things, the need to: rigorously apply the precautionary principle; incorporate multiple knowledge systems; take into account that restoration and offsetting are not realistic options for the deep-sea; and ensure public involvement and meaningful stakeholder engagement.

On regulation 44 bis (REMPs), many delegates emphasized that the LTC shall consider an application for a plan of work only if a relevant REMP has been adopted for the particular area and type of resource, in line with the Council-approved procedures and templates. They further highlighted relevant intersessional work in an informal working group led by the Netherlands.

On prioritizing the drafting of a REMP in the event that an application for a plan of work is submitted and no REMP exists for the area in question, many delegates suggested deleting the text that the REMP should be “adopted without any undue delay,” stressing that REMPs “cannot be rushed to the detriment of efficiency.”

Some members suggested that if a plan of work is submitted, the ISA should finalize the relevant REMP within two years. A regional group called for adding a requirement for stakeholder consultations on REMPs.

Members expressed general support for regulation 44 ter (environmental goals and objectives), currently marked as deleted in the revised consolidated draft regulations. While a few delegations expressed flexibility to include the provisions within an ISA general environmental policy, most delegates insisted on reinstating the text in the exploitation regulations. They lamented that a small number of countries have consistently blocked the development of a general environmental policy and stated that once the general environmental policy is finally developed, this regulation’s content can be incorporated into it. One observer underlined that the regulation is central to the fulfillment of UNCLOS Article 145. The regulation will be reinstated in the draft exploitation regulations.

On regulation 45 (development of environmental standards and guidelines), many delegations welcomed an updated list of subject matters of the environmental standards to be developed. Several supported adding that they should be “resource and region specific, where appropriate.”

Some delegates requested reinstating a reference to “baseline environmental studies” and deleting a reference to “restoration measures,” noting that such measures are not always applicable to the deep sea. A delegation requested the reinstatement of light, noise, and vibration emissions in the list. An observer suggested the inclusion of ecological or functional connectivity.

A delegation sought clarity on the inclusion of greenhouse gas emissions, while another welcomed it, noting that emissions from deep-sea mining are not covered by the IMO or the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and called for the ISA to take the lead in establishing clear rules on the matter.

Regarding the listed standard on “minimum technical requirements for environmental protection with regard to all the equipment, operational procedures, and processes taking place onboard the vessel,” most delegates requested deleting “taking place onboard the vessel.” A few members opposed the deletion of the EIA scoping report from the listed procedural and substantive requirements.

Many delegates requested reinserting the provision that “the Authority shall not approve any exploitation unless the environmental standards and guidelines have been adopted.”

Observers highlighted that the fundamental purpose of this regulation is to adopt standards before any exploitation plan of work is approved, noting that the only request to delete the provision was made by a coalition of private sector contractors. Stressing that standards are an essential part of the RRPs, they said it would be irresponsible for the ISA to consider a plan of work in the absence of these completed standards.

Many delegates concurred that regulation 46 (the impact assessment process or EIA process) could benefit from streamlining. They discussed the regulation’s title and focused, among other things, on:

• including references to potential “impacts” and “effects” on the marine environment, with many delegates supporting having both terms and several calling for inclusion of their definitions in the glossary;
• deleting references to sponsoring states, with a few noting that the responsibility for the EIA process lies with contractors;
• whether the EIA process shall be carried out by “competent,” “qualified,” and/or “independent” experts;
• whether environmental baseline data should be “based on sufficient scientific information,” with an observer highlighting that the sufficiency criterion includes quantity of data, confidence, integrity, and statistical power;
• the need for alignment with relevant provisions in the BBNJ Agreement; and
• whether an independent scientific assessment prior to the submission of the proposed environmental impact statement (EIS) is pertinent, with several observers stressing the importance of such an independent review.

Observers called for reinstating paragraphs on: the EIA process conducted in accordance with the terms of reference developed during scoping; EIAs aiming to prevent harm to the marine environment arising out of the proposed activities; EIAs being carried out by an independent expert; and specific requirements for stakeholder consultation.

During the discussions on regulation 47 (EIA), many delegates suggested this regulation should follow regulation 47 bis (scoping) to reflect the actual EIA process. They considered the list of issues to be assessed when undertaking an impact assessment, with some delegates suggesting moving this list to a relevant standard or, alternatively, indicating that the list is not exhaustive. Others stressed the need to clarify terms used and potentially include them in the glossary.

One delegate highlighted the proposals by the intersessional working group on UCH to:

• insert a new paragraph referring to the extent to which human remains or UCH may be altered or impacted; and
• add a UCH monitoring plan to the list of contractor requirements, which several delegates supported.

A few preferred incorporating UCH in the environmental monitoring and management plan (EMMP). A delegate explained that the EIA’s role is to identify environmental risks and how to mitigate them, while the EMMP should describe how this mitigation will be implemented.

Regarding the requirement to describe the life history stages of species, one delegate highlighted the impracticality of this requirement, while others preferred retaining it and further work on wording. Many delegates also supported: changing the references in the regulation from “harm” to “harmful effects”; and requiring the applicant or contractor to identify measures to “prevent” environmental effects in addition to measures to mitigate and manage such effects and risks.

Observers highlighted the need, among other things, to: recognize in the EIS that some species are entirely reliant on certain components of the marine ecosystem; include a requirement for wide and meaningful stakeholder consultation; broaden the scope beyond environmental impacts; and develop a UCH management plan.

On regulation 47 bis (scoping), some delegates suggested further streamlining and called for considering, in addition to environmental impacts, “any associated impacts, such as economic, social, cultural, and human health.” Several members supported the identification of potential risks associated with UCH or human remains at the scoping stage.

A few members called for reference to consultations with coastal states. Some delegates suggested clarifying the LTC’s role in this regard and including all relevant stakeholders in the consultations. Members expressed divergent views on references to “available relevant traditional knowledge of IPLCs that should be reviewed.” An observer called for clarifying the expectations of stakeholder consultations on scoping.

Delegates expressed overall support for regulation 48 (EIS). A few delegations and an observer supported the deletion of “substantive and relevant” regarding the comments the applicant should engage with. In contrast, a few others opposed, cautioning against overburdening contractors.

A regional group suggested adding IPLCs to the list of stakeholders the applicant shall engage with. A few members called for harmonization with the relevant provisions under the BBNJ Agreement. Many members supported moving the detailed content of the EIS to an annex or standard.

On regulation 48 bis (new EIA and revised EIS), many delegates requested deletion of the words “significantly” and “consistently and persistently,” which appear several times in the regulation in relation to the threshold of impacts, effects, or risks that trigger action, opposing any weakening of the triggers. They also requested deletion of the phrase “in a manner that results in demonstrated non-compliance with these regulations,” underscoring that instances of non-compliance should not require further demonstration. One delegate opposed such deletion and also proposed text stating that changes resulting from the natural variation of the marine environment will not trigger an EIA.

Many delegates stressed that all modifications to an existing plan of work are covered by regulation 57 (modification of a plan of work by a contractor), suggesting deleting a reference to environmental effects and risks not covered by regulation 57. One delegate reported that the UCH intersessional working group had considered whether to request: preparation of a revised UCH management plan; and a UCH management plan modeled on EMMPs.

Delegates decided to jointly address regulation 48 ter (pilot mining) and regulation 48 ter alt (test mining). Belgium, China, and Germany, co-facilitators of the informal working group on test mining, presented a joint proposal, which includes a two-phase process with test mining during the exploration phase and pilot mining before commercial mining can commence. The co-facilitators noted that intersessional work will continue on, among other things, modalities for test mining.

Delegates thanked the co-facilitators for the work and the joint proposal. They requested more time to study the proposal, with many stressing that it constitutes a good starting point for further discussions.

A regional group stressed that test mining and pilot mining represent distinct and important processes that must include environmental monitoring. They agreed that test mining and pilot mining must be prerequisites for exploration and exploitation, respectively, and underlined the need for the regulation to clearly articulate their objectives. They further stressed the need to: rely on real in situ data; incorporate digital tools; continuously monitor environmental risks; and, supported by some delegates, prevent test mining from becoming a pathway to commercial exploitation.

Delegates, among other things:

• debated whether the pilot mining reports should be reviewed by the Council upon an LTC recommendation prior to the commencement of commercial production;
• discussed the scale, duration, and procedures for test and pilot mining;
• addressed the definition of test mining;
• suggested stages of component, system, and full-scale testing followed by validation monitoring;
• noted the need to discuss what will happen in cases where pilot mining reveals impacts more significant than those envisaged in the plan of work;
• addressed the need for clear criteria and mechanisms for data evaluation; and
• discussed whether test mining should be voluntary in cases where the relevant information has been provided through other test mining undertaken by the contractor or other contractors in the context of another approved plan of work for the same environmental conditions. 

Observers stressed that the current process is insufficient and unsatisfactory, and queried the independent verification of the outcomes of pilot mining. They further underlined the importance of test mining for each site, noting that expected outcomes should not be assumed to be the same, even for the same technology and timeframe, due to the high heterogeneity of the areas in question in terms of biodiversity and nodule density.

On regulation 49 (environmental management and monitoring), many delegates expressed preference for “continuous” monitoring and management of environmental impacts, effects, and risks, noting these will result not just in addressing harmful effects when they occur but also help detect and address them before they occur. Others preferred “continual” monitoring, saying for instance, that water quality does not need to be monitored and managed every day of the year for the 20-30-year period of the exploitation contract.

Delegates suggested deleting text referring to a contractor’s determination of whether a matter is an incident or notifiable event, opposing “self-identification and determination” by contractors.

One delegate proposed replacing “harmful effects” with “serious harm,” saying this aligns with UNCLOS language and intent. Most delegates opposed this proposal, with several highlighting the issue has already been resolved. Another delegate proposed referencing “significant harm” as defined by the International Law Commission.

Norway reported back from the informal working group on environment management and monitoring. Another reiterated their proposal for including an independent monitoring programme for the first seven years of a mining operation, which would operate alongside the contractor’s mining programme.

On regulation 50 (EMMP), delegates considered two alternative paragraphs on the content of the EMMP. Several supported reference to the ISA’s environmental policy and objectives, while others preferred deleting the reference.

Several delegates proposed deleting the provision that a draft EMMP or proposal to amend an existing EMMP shall be subject to stakeholder consultations, noting it duplicates requirements in other regulations. Others preferred retaining it. One delegate noted that their proposal for an independent monitoring programme is reflected in the regulation, but the amended language altered its intent.

During the discussion of regulation 50 bis (reporting on environmental monitoring and management), some delegates made textual suggestions for restructuring and clarifying elements of the regulation. One delegate proposed a new paragraph that requires the LTC to evaluate the monitoring data produced by both the contractor and the independent monitoring programme, using the relevant baseline data and EIS. Another proposed including references to UCH following the suggestions from the relevant working group.

On regulation 50 ter (environmental management system), one delegate welcomed the reference to independent audits and highlighted the need for objective criteria and a clear process for selecting independent experts.

On regulation 51 (compliance with the EMMP), many delegates called for reconsidering the timeframes stipulated in the regulation. Several delegates suggested the deletion of “without undue delay” in relation to the LTC referring a matter to the compliance committee where it considers the contractor does not meet its obligations.

Delegates also considered how frequently the LTC should review the data submitted by contractors, with some preferring not to specify any timeframe, noting the frequency of review will depend on the nature and complexity of the data.

On regulation 52 (performance assessments of the EMMP), one delegate proposed a new provision referring to the outcome of the performance assessment by the independent auditor. Another proposed including newly identified UCH and other existing ocean uses in the list of items to be assessed by the contractor when conducting a performance assessment of the EMMP.

Former regulation 53 (emergency response and contingency plan) is now regulation 32.

On regulation 53 bis (pollution control), several delegates called for aligning the language with UNCLOS Article 145. A few delegations noted that the “marine environment” encompasses the coastline. Some members opposed listing sources of pollution, while others supported having a list and suggested adding greenhouse gas emissions to it. A member questioned the reference to REMPs in the context of pollution control.

An observer drew attention to treaties on pollution under the IMO, such as the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), and the London Convention and London Protocol on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter.

On regulation 53 ter (mining discharges), a regional group and a few delegations supported the amendments to two paragraphs, which state that contractors shall not introduce non-permitted mining discharges into the marine environment and outlines the instances where such action may be necessary for safety reasons.

Some delegations questioned the deletion of references to dumping and the procedure for contractors in such cases. They noted that even if a mining discharge occurs for safety reasons, it has an impact on the marine environment that needs to be addressed. An observer cautioned against creating a legal loophole by not including dumping in this regulation.

A regional group and some delegates requested reinstating a paragraph stating that any unauthorized mining discharge constitutes a notifiable event. A member suggested that mining discharges should be considered an “incident.”

Between two alternative formulations regarding the register of mining discharges, a few delegates preferred the original paragraph stating that such cases shall be reported in the contractor’s annual report. In contrast, a few others preferred the alternative paragraph that requests a weekly report to ISA in addition to the annual report.

During the discussions of regulation 54 (establishment of an environmental compensation fund), most delegates supported the amendments to the text. Several delegates underlined the need to establish the fund before the first plan of work is approved. One delegate further noted there are several conceptual questions, such as the standard of proof required for claims against the fund, that need to be addressed before the fund’s details can be finalized.

Discussing regulation 55 (purpose of the environmental compensation fund), many delegates drew attention to the explanation of the purpose of such a fund provided by ITLOS in its Advisory Opinion. They proposed language based on the liability gap and the definition outlined in the Advisory Opinion.

One delegate proposed changing “responsibility of the contractor to pay for any necessary measure” to “responsibility of the contractor to pay the cost of reasonable measures.” Another noted the reference to damage caused to third parties and questioned which third parties would qualify, highlighting their understanding that the compensation fund would be for the benefit of coastal states.

One delegate underlined the need to incorporate the precautionary and polluter pays principles in the regulation. An observer noted that the purpose of the fund is to address a critical liability gap given the potential for irreversible damage to the marine environment due to deep-sea mining, but underscored that no financial mechanism can compensate for irreversible damage.

Thematic Discussion on Underwater Cultural Heritage: The thematic discussion on UCH took place on Thursday, 20 March, facilitated by Clement Yow Mulalap (FSM). Following a traditional prayer offered by representatives of Indigenous Peoples, Facilitator Mulalap introduced three guiding questions on whether:

• the draft exploitation regulations should address UCH matters beyond draft regulations 35 (human remains and objects and sites of an archaeological or historical nature) and 35 alt (chance discovery of human remains and UCH), following the practice of the working group;
• regulation 35 alt, as proposed by the working group, constitutes a good basis for discussions and, if so, what are delegates’ substantive contributions; and
• participants have input with respect to the proposals that the working group transmitted to the Council on UCH in regulations other than 35 alt.

Many delegates supported addressing UCH beyond regulations 35 and 35 alt, ensuring the systematic protection of UCH throughout the draft exploitation regulations. Many further supported regulation 35 alt as a good basis for deliberations, offering suggestions for improvement. Other members said regulation 35 strikes an appropriate balance between exploitation and protection of the marine environment, identifying UCH as part of the marine environment.

Some members underlined the need to incorporate protection of UCH, including Indigenous cultural connections to the deep seabed, throughout the application process. They suggested, for instance, assessing impacts on UCH in the EIA process and EIS, as well as environmental management plans, and developing strategies on monitoring and mitigating impacts on UCH.

Many supported establishing a standing UCH committee under the ISA, like other multilateral environmental agreements, to ensure specialized input for informed decision making. Others highlighted the roles of the Secretary-General, the Council, and the LTC in that regard.

Some delegations underscored that when assessing an application for a plan of work for exploitation, the ISA should determine whether the application protects UCH interests. Others emphasized that UCH should not be limited to shipwrecks and human remains, but should include “oral histories, and spiritual beliefs and ties as a place of origin and transformation, connecting past, current, and future generations.” In this regard, delegates underlined the need for a clear definition of UCH, with some identifying both tangible and intangible UCH as equally important. They also called for detailed instructions for contractors and clear protocols for UCH identification and notification.

Observers explained the significance of UCH, highlighting the ocean as the place of creation of all things in nature and the relationship between nature and humans as one of reciprocal responsibilities rather than one of dominance. They supported the establishment of a UCH committee and highlighted, among other things:

• the definition of intangible cultural heritage developed by the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), stressing that it dissolves divergences between tangible and intangible cultural heritage, which are intrinsically linked;
• Article 31.3(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which notes that “the context for the purpose of the interpretation of a treaty shall comprise,” in addition to the treaty text, “any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties”; and
• a proposal by the intersessional working group on UCH noting that the ISA, contractors, and states shall, at all times, ensure the protection and safeguarding of UCH, and that no application for a plan of work shall be granted if it does not protect and safeguard UCH.

An observer underscored UNCLOS’s mandate and legal obligations, stressing that issues around UCH should be addressed within the framework of the Convention in an orderly manner, in line with Article 149 (Archaeological and historical objects), but not included in the exploitation regulations.

A representative of Indigenous Peoples closed the session with a traditional oli (chant).

Discussion on Standards and Guidelines: On Thursday, 27 March, delegates held a high-level discussion on standards and guidelines to be developed to support the implementation of the draft exploitation regulations, on the basis of a draft list of standards and guidelines (ISBA/30/C/CRP.4) developed by the Secretariat in accordance with previous LTC recommendations. Delegates affirmed that standards will be mandatory and legally binding while guidelines will serve as recommendations under the overall regulatory framework.

The development of standards and guidelines is structured around three phases:

Phase 1: those deemed necessary to be in place by the time of adoption of the draft exploitation regulations;

Phase 2: those deemed necessary to be in place before the receipt of an application of a plan of work for exploitation; and

Phase 3: those deemed necessary to be in place before commercial mining activities commence.

During the discussion, many delegates underscored the need to develop the standards and guidelines in a coordinated manner with the ongoing negotiations on the draft regulations. Several noted that the standards and guidelines need to be adopted before commercial deep-sea mining commences but not prior to finalizing the exploitation regulations, urging Council members to focus on the task at hand.
Delegates expressed a diverse range of views on, among other things:

• prioritizing and agreeing on working procedures for the development and adoption of the standards and guidelines, including clear timelines for each phase;
• identifying criteria for defining what should be covered under the regulations and what should be addressed in a standard or guideline;
• establishing a formal and clear procedure for relevant stakeholder consultations; and
• re-evaluating what phase the listed standards and guidelines belong in.

Discussions will continue during the second part of the session in July 2025 based on a revised draft list of standards and guidelines.

Review of Progress and Modalities for Intersessional Work: On Thursday, 27 March, President Laki suggested establishing informal, volunteer-facilitated arrangements, named “Friends of the President,” to support further intersessional discussions on specific draft regulations and topics. He stressed that their role would be to coordinate discussions and propose text for inclusion in the draft consolidated text for the second part of the 30th session in July 2025. He noted that this approach “does not replace existing informal working groups but complements them by providing an additional pathway.” He indicated that a list of draft regulations and topics under discussion, as well as their respective facilitators, will be uploaded to, and regularly updated on, the ISA’s website.

Many delegates expressed general support for the proposal, noting it will assist in advancing discussions. They stressed the need for transparency and inclusivity.

ARGENTINA, AUSTRALIA, BRAZIL, CAMEROON, CHILE, COSTA RICA, CÔTE D’IVOIRE, IRELAND, JAMAICA, JAPAN, the PHILIPPINES, PORTUGAL, SWITZERLAND, and others suggested presenting the proposal in writing to clarify the details and allow for further review and analysis. Delegates further discussed whether a formal Council decision would be required, with many noting that it would not be necessary for such a voluntary arrangement.

AUSTRALIA, CHILE, COSTA RICA, IRELAND, NAURU, NEW ZEALAND, and PORTUGAL suggested clarifying the relationship between existing informal working groups and those under Friends of the President.

Regarding working modalities, SINGAPORE emphasized the need for clear deliverables and volunteered to facilitate a Friends of the President group on matters related to submarine cable detection. CHINA and NAURU suggested a strict timeframe for intersessional work to submit proposals for the second part of the 30th session in July 2025. CHINA further urged focusing intersessional discussions on the draft regulations rather than broader conceptual issues. BRAZIL underscored that the intersessional work should continue until a new draft of consolidated text is presented.

ARGENTINA, COSTA RICA, the PHILIPPINES, and others underscored the limitations of small delegations, cautioning against the proliferation of intersessional informal groups. AUSTRALIA and JAPAN called for taking into account different time zones when scheduling virtual meetings.

The ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE PROTECTION OF THE SEA and the PEW CHARITABLE TRUSTS highlighted the need for transparency and inclusivity. They stressed the need for meaningful stakeholder participation and the constraints associated with virtual meetings.

On Friday, 28 March, FSM presented a report on the thematic consultation on UCH and Portugal reported on progress in the informal group on rights and legitimate interests of coastal states.

Reviewing progress, President Laki noted “meaningful progress in refining the text, clarifying positions, and identifying areas where further work is needed.” He highlighted:

• the offer by the Netherlands to facilitate an informal working group on the nature and status of REMPs;
• additional intersessional work on effective control, to be led by Chile and Costa Rica; and
• the joint proposal by Germany, Belgium, and China on test mining and pilot mining.

Turning to the modalities for intersessional work, President Laki invited delegations to further consider the proposed additional work modality “Friends of the President,” based on the written proposal available on the ISA website.

BRAZIL suggested considering the participation of observers and further reviewing the timeframe for the delivery of textual proposals. ARGENTINA and ITALY suggested that the Secretariat should notify the delegations in a timely manner of any Friends of the President meetings, allowing for coordination and preparation. CHINA suggested that volunteer facilitators submit their draft proposals at least one month ahead of the Council’s July session.

CHILE sought clarification on deadlines for delegations to indicate willingness to coordinate and/or participate in a Friends of the President group, and on whether textual proposals should be submitted in writing prior to the second part of the session in July 2025. INDIA called for fixing deadlines on those matters.

The PHILIPPINES stressed that to ensure transparency, those delegates engaged in preparing bridging text proposals should be identified when volunteer facilitators table them.

IRELAND and BELGIUM suggested that if not enough delegates volunteer, the President, supported by the Secretariat, could identify suitable candidates, ensuring diversity and geographical balance. NAURU noted that the Friends of the President groups will allow for focused discussions on specific topics and complement the existing working groups.

DSCC thanked all delegates that endorsed observer participation in the new arrangements.

Chile, for GRULAC, reiterated their firm belief that UNCLOS is the sole international legal framework within which all activities in the ocean and seas must be carried out. They urged that discussions during this Council session should be reflected as accurately as possibly in the next iteration of the draft regulations. They further suggested that a transition process for new Council presidents should be established to facilitate exchange of views between incoming and outgoing ones. They urged all regional groups to nominate their representatives as early as possible, ideally by the end of the preceding Council session.

The Secretariat will amend the written proposal and circulate the revised version to all delegates.

Further Consideration of Actions that the Council may take if an Application were to be submitted before the Council has completed the RRPs relating to Exploitation

On Friday, 28 March, President Laki introduced the agenda item, drawing attention to a non-paper submitted by Nauru.

NAURU expressed their full commitment to the ISA and its work, and noted they are working with Nauru Ocean Resources Inc. (NORI) to prepare an application for a plan of work for exploitation, which they intend to submit to the ISA in June 2025. They highlighted the need to discuss the procedure for considering NORI’s plan of work.

CHILE stressed the ISA and Council must be allowed to make progress on the draft exploitation regulations at a pace they deem appropriate in order to establish a robust system for exploitation. They emphasized that the next steps must focus on continuing the negotiations of the exploitation regulations and developing an ISA general policy on the protection and preservation of the marine environment.

Following a discussion on adjourning the debate to the second part of the session to allow for in-depth analysis of the non-paper, delegates proceeded in the discussion, with many noting that their comments are preliminary.

Many delegates, including the AFRICAN GROUP, BANGLADESH, CAMEROON, COSTA RICA, FRANCE, GERMANY, INDONESIA, IRELAND, MOROCCO, the PHILIPPINES, PORTUGAL, SWITZERLAND, TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO, and the UK, highlighted previous Council decisions, adopted by consensus, stressing that commercial exploitation of mineral resources in the Area should not be carried out in the absence of RRPs. They reiterated their commitment to UNCLOS and underscored the need to uphold the principles of precaution and the common heritage of humankind, cautioning against rushing negotiations. They stressed that, despite progress, several outstanding issues remain.

South Africa, for the AFRICAN GROUP, stressed that short-term commercial gains must not outweigh long-term protection of the marine environment. CAMEROON called for operationalizing the Enterprise and for provisions on equitable benefit-sharing. TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO stressed the need for operationalizing the economic planning commission. PORTUGAL drew attention to outstanding provisions on the payment regime, compensation for land-based mining countries and other socioeconomic impacts, environmental baselines, threshold values, mechanisms for inspection, compliance, and enforcement, insurance, liability, and standards and guidelines.

IRELAND and others emphasized that any provisional approval under the two-year rule could not include the awarding of an exploitation contract or permission to start exploitation activities, stressing that “to assess an application, a regulator needs regulations.” JAPAN underscored that even if an application for a plan of work for exploitation is provisionally approved, the exploitation contract cannot be issued without formal approval. INDONESIA called for clarifying “provisional approval.”

CHINA underscored that the Council decision that no commercial exploitation should begin without the RRPs does not preclude the consideration of a plan of work for exploitation in the absence of RRPs and invited further consideration of detailed procedures for such consideration. TONGA acknowledged that the Council can discuss its institutional readiness for deep-sea mining, provided such discussions are transparent and inclusive.

The PEW CHARITABLE TRUSTS questioned how an application for a plan of work for exploitation can possibly be addressed, practically or legally, in the absence of regulations, and stressed the need for clear guidelines from the Council to the LTC for the review of such applications.

The DSCC, also on behalf of Oceans North, Te Ipukarea Society, Maui Makai Network, the Environmental Justice Foundation, Greenpeace International, the Sustainable Ocean Alliance, and WWF International, questioned if it is “credible that the operations of this company could benefit humankind as a whole.”

DOSI underscored the challenges associated with assessing any application without the RRPs in place and stressed the lack of sufficient scientific information and knowledge to ensure the effective protection and preservation of the marine environment. Observer organizations reiterated the call for a moratorium until a robust scientific framework is in place to safeguard the marine environment.

Other Matters

On Friday, 28 March, Secretary-General Carvalho informed Council members that The Metals Company USA LLC (TMC USA) has formally initiated a process with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) under the US Department of Commerce to apply for exploration licenses and commercial recovery permits under existing US legislation, the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act of 1980.

Secretary-General Carvalho expressed deep concern and reaffirmed the ISA’s exclusive mandate to organize, control, and regulate activities in the Area to ensure the sustainable use of marine mineral resources for the benefit of humankind. She stressed that any unilateral action would constitute a violation of international law and fundamentally violate the principles of multilateralism and the collective framework under UNCLOS.

Secretary-General Carvalho added that for three decades, the absence of claims under any regime other than the ISA indicates the international community’s confidence in the system. She underscored that the principle of the common heritage of humankind is a cornerstone of international law and a fundamental pillar of ocean governance, widely upheld by the international community.

Sierra Leone for the AFRICAN GROUP, ARGENTINA, THE BAHAMAS, BELGIUM, BRAZIL, CAMEROON, CHILE, CHINA, the COOK ISLANDS, COSTA RICA, DENMARK, FIJI, GERMANY, GHANA, GREECE, INDIA, INDONESIA, ITALY, JAMAICA, JAPAN, LESOTHO, MAURITIUS, MEXICO, the NETHERLANDS, NEW ZEALAND, NORWAY, POLAND, the PHILIPPINES, PORTUGAL, the RUSSIAN FEDERATION, SINGAPORE, SPAIN, SWITZERLAND, TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO, the UK, and ZIMBABWE emphasized that they are working in good faith toward developing a robust regulatory framework for deep-sea mining, and reiterated their strong commitment to UNCLOS, the 1994 Agreement, the ISA, and multilateralism. They underscored that the seabed, subsoil, and resources thereof in the Area are the common heritage of humankind and under the exclusive mandate of ISA. Many expressed serious concerns and disappointment over the intention of TMC USA, and highlighted the 2023 Council decision that “the commercial exploitation of mineral resources in the Area should not be carried out in absence of RRPs.”

DENMARK, GERMANY, GREECE, SPAIN, and SWITZERLAND reaffirmed their support for a precautionary pause. CHINA stressed the early adoption of RRPs as an effective way to address the current complex challenges.

BRAZIL, GREECE, MEXICO, and others highlighted UNCLOS Articles 136 (common heritage of humankind) and 137 (legal status of the Area and its resources) as well as relevant UN General Assembly resolutions. Many delegates emphasized that according to Article 137, “no State shall claim or exercise sovereignty or sovereign rights over any part of the Area or its resources, nor shall any State or natural or juridical person appropriate any part thereof. No such claim or exercise of sovereignty or sovereign rights nor such appropriation shall be recognized.” COSTA RICA, MEXICO, and others underscored that infringing it constitutes an attack on multilateralism and the rule of law. FRANCE called for preserving the integrity and universality of the UNCLOS legal framework. GERMANY and others noted Article 137 as customary international law.

IRELAND, JAMAICA, SINGAPORE, and others rejected the allegation that ISA is in breach of its obligations under UNCLOS and the 1994 Agreement, as asserted in the TMC announcement. UGANDA noted that if the formal process initiated with the US authorities will cover the same areas for which NORI, a wholly-owned subsidiary of TMC, has signed an exploration contract with ISA, the company may be in breach of its obligations.

Eden Charles, Interim Director-General of the Enterprise, drew attention to the reserved areas, which, under UNCLOS, are areas contributed by developed states when they apply to the ISA for exploration rights, keeping them held in a site bank reserved for access by developing countries or the Enterprise. Interim Director-General Charles noted that, through reserved areas, the ISA ensures that the Enterprise can participate in activities in the Area.

GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL underlined the timing of TMC’s announcement just before the end of this Council session as an attempt to pressure the Council’s proceedings for its own benefit, stressing TMC’s decision is not about the green transition but about investments and profits. DSCC expressed concern at the efforts of a private company to try to apply the “shock doctrine” to the ISA to force the adoption of flawed regulations, shortcutting inclusiveness, equity and transparency.

TE IPUKAREA SOCIETY, speaking also for MAUI NUI MAKAI NETWORK, lamented the TMC’s continuing efforts to “carve up” the Pacific for their own benefit, denouncing these attempts at colonialism and appropriation of the Pacific. The SUSTAINABLE OCEAN ALLIANCE called for decisions that prioritize intergenerational equity, environmental protection, and multilateral cooperation over corporate interests.

The INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE expressed concern at the persistent attempts by one private entity to proceed with deep-sea mining in the absence of rules, and their latest attempts to proceed outside of UNCLOS and the ISA, contrary to international law. Observer organizations called for a moratorium on exploitation to prioritize a sustainable future for generations to come.

Secretary-General Carvalho expressed her appreciation to all delegates for their support and unwavering commitment to UNCLOS. She said the Secretariat will continue to monitor developments.

Closing Plenary

On Friday, 28 March, JAMAICA, as the host country, thanked President Laki, Secretary-General Carvalho, delegations, and participants for the progress made during the session in reviewing the consolidated text due to the collaborative efforts of all delegations.

President Laki thanked all delegates and closed the meeting at 6:04 pm.

A Brief Analysis of the Meeting

Critical minerals are considered to be one of the keys for unlocking the green transition. Some see the commercial mining of mineral resources of the deep seabed as essential to satisfy ongoing and projected demand. 

In contrast, others warn of the potentially irreversible impacts on one of the most unknown, wild, and untamed ecosystems that remain beyond corporate reach. They stress that studies show that “recycling and other circular economy strategies can play a significant role in reducing demand for critical minerals and should be the primary focus of industry and government efforts.” So far, 32 states have called for a moratorium or precautionary pause on deep-sea mining.

The International Seabed Authority (ISA), established by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), has the exclusive mandate for the regulation, control, and management of resources in the Area, which comprises the seabed, ocean floor and subsoil beyond national jurisdiction. Any commercial exploitation of the mineral resources of the Area should only happen under its supervision and based on its rules, regulations and procedures (RRPs), which have yet to be adopted. Two recent developments have increased the pressure to finalize these RRPs: the expressed intention by Nauru to submit an exploitation application to the ISA; and the decision by The Metals Company USA LLC (TMC USA) to initiate a similar application, but under the laws of the US, a non-UNCLOS party.

This brief analysis will address the ongoing negotiations on the draft exploitation regulations, focusing on the past, present, and future of the regulatory framework for deep-sea mining.

Slow and Steady Wins the Race

ISA members have held several meetings almost entirely devoted to developing regulations for the commercial exploitation of the deep sea. A process that began back in 2019 suddenly acquired a sense of urgency when in 2021, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, Nauru triggered what is known as “the two-year rule.” This rule is based on an Article in the 1994 Agreement relating to the Implementation of Part XI of UNCLOS, which states if a state notifies the ISA of its intention to submit an exploitation plan of work, the Council must finalize the relevant regulations within two years.

That deadline expired in 2023, at which point, due to many outstanding issues, Council members reiterated in a decision that “commercial exploitation of mineral resources in the Area should not be carried out in the absence of rules, regulations and procedures relating to exploitation.” They also agreed on a roadmap to continue negotiation with a view to their adoption during the ISA’s 30th session.

States have been tirelessly negotiating the RRPs. In 2024, they completed the first reading of the consolidated text, which was celebrated by some as a milestone. However, as a seasoned participant grumbled, “The document was nothing more than a ‘copy-paste’ of the inconclusive results from the four thematic working groups addressing a wide range of topics.” A great diversity of proposals, approaches, and positions—often on opposite sides—remains in the revised consolidated text, which was produced ahead of the 30th session.

While urgency persists, now more than ever following the TMC USA announcement, many delegates welcomed the new leadership of ISA Secretary-General Leticia Carvalho, and highlighted it may bring an era of trust and confidence toward achieving the ISA goals. In the Secretary-General’s voice: in this new era, “the responsibility to deliver a robust, balanced, science-based regulatory framework is shared…my priority is to support member states in navigating the complexities of this stage of negotiations while fostering an environment conducive to constructive dialogue and meaningful progress.”

Focusing on the Here and Now

Discussions on the revised consolidated text were lengthy and detailed. After two weeks of hard work, delegates managed to conclude a second reading of approximately half of the regulations in the consolidated text. This defines progress in quantitative terms.

Real progress is more difficult to assess. Some delegates pointed to advances in certain provisions, including agreement to refer to prevention of “harmful effects” rather than “serious harm,” a significant breakthrough because it confirms the threshold of serious harm to the marine environment that states must prevent, and is consistent with UNCLOS Article 145 (Protection of the marine environment). The alternative had initially been proposed by a contractor and was considered a serious obstacle to meaningful further negotiations. Others highlighted a joint proposal submitted by Belgium, China, and Germany on test mining and pilot mining, which attracted positive initial comments and was widely considered a good basis for further discussion.

Disagreement on major overarching issues, however, overshadowed further progress on other provisions, such as the discussion on regional environmental management plans and the compliance committee. At the end of the session, a seasoned participant joked that “we have not even started to scratch the seabed,” when asked to predict how close the negotiations are to reaching consensus on the overall regulatory framework for commercial deep-sea mining.

Most delegates admitted that significant effort will be required to reach agreement. Provisions on environmental protection are particularly challenging, including modalities around environmental goals and objectives, environmental impact assessments, and compensation for environmental damage. As a delegate noted “this should not be surprising given the uncertainties surrounding deep-sea mining activities” and the lack of sufficient scientific knowledge on benthic ecosystems.

Technical and institutional considerations, such as provisions on the application and review of a plan of work for exploitation, constitute an additional obstacle. Discussions are often linked to the respective roles of the Secretary-General, the Legal and Technical Commission (LTC), and/or the compliance committee.

Some Council members indicated throughout the negotiations their resolve to retain control of any future decisions, rather than cede this to the LTC. As one observer explained, based on the rules of procedure, in cases where the LTC recommends approval of a plan of work even by a simple majority vote, the Council would require a two-thirds majority in each of its five groups to take a different decision.

This led to calls to strengthen and secure the Council’s control, including through the regulations. A delegate underscored the obvious: “the Council and the LTC should be working collaboratively toward the common objective,” but was quick to add that “for that to happen, trust needs to be fully restored in the functioning of the Authority.”

Provisions on inspection, compliance, and enforcement also demand particular attention. Many delegates emphasized that no matter how robust a regulatory framework is, for it to be effective, it requires independent, transparent inspection and enforcement mechanisms to secure compliance.

Further stumbling blocks facing delegates include cross-cutting issues around liability and insurance, consideration of cultural issues under the umbrella of underwater cultural heritage, and the special rights and obligations of coastal states. Draft regulations at the core of the economic model addressing royalties, benefit-sharing modalities, and environmental externalities were not discussed during this session, but most delegates recognize these are among the most difficult ones, due to their controversial, technical, and sensitive nature.

If one adds all the other elements that need to be in place for a complete regulatory framework, such as provisions on prevention of corruption, stakeholder engagement, compensation for land-based mining countries and other socioeconomic impacts, the annexes to the regulations, and the standards and guidelines that will accompany them and ensure their implementation, the statement about not having started to scratch the seabed seems logical.

Many participants pointed to the fundamental challenges associated with regulating the various aspects of a novel extractive activity, never performed before in human history. These obstacles are intertwined with inherent uncertainties and the evolving, but still limited, state of scientific knowledge on deep-sea ecosystems.

Some delegates pointed to the new modality of “Friends of the President” groups for intersessional work, noting they could complement existing informal arrangements. A delegate emphasized that, in addition, further focus is required in developing middle-ground, compromise proposals, rather than restating well-known entrenched positions, further noting that work on pilot and test mining is a testament in that regard.

A Regulator Needs Regulations to Regulate

The last day of the Council session opened with discussions of TMC USA’s “shocking” announcement that they are moving ahead to apply for exploration licenses and commercial recovery permits under existing US legislation, effectively bypassing the ISA and the safeguards it imposes on seabed mining. This announcement has made the possibility of deep-sea mining in the Area an “anything-goes situation” more than just rhetoric.

Following the expiration of the “two-year rule” in 2023, Nauru has once again expressed its intention to work with its sponsored entity, Nauru Ocean Resources Inc. (NORI), to submit an application for an exploitation plan of work in June 2025. TMC USA, at the same time, has formally initiated a process to apply for commercial recovery permits under US legislation in the second quarter of 2025. Both intended applications, if submitted and considered, would be addressed in the absence of the RRPs that delegates have been laboriously developing. This possibility set the alarm bells ringing in ISA headquarters and worldwide, and was the main topic of deliberations both within and outside the Council meeting room on the last day of the meeting.

For many delegates, what made this announcement particularly troubling is that both TMC USA and NORI are subsidiaries of TMC, with some arguing that this new announcement may be a tactic to put pressure on the ISA both from within, through NORI, and outside, through TMC USA. Several delegates and observers put their concern on record and lamented the “singular and continued persistence by one private entity” to proceed in the absence of the RRPs even outside of the Authority and in contradiction with international law.

Given its importance, and following Secretary-General Carvalho’s diligent approach, the Council decided to discuss this announcement under “other matters,” on the last day of the meeting. While the TMC USA announcement was a disappointing and worrying development for many, as a delegate noted, “It was heartening to see overwhelming support expressed for international law, multilateralism, and the exclusive mandate of the Authority.”

This discussion took time away from the Council’s considerations on the actions to take if an application for an exploitation plan of work were to be submitted before the Council has completed the RRPs. Given the limited time available to discuss the Council’s possible actions, as well as the polarized views on the issue, limited progress was made. Delegates mainly restated their long-held views: one group affirmed that deep-sea mining cannot commence without RRPs in place, pointing out that “to assess an application, a regulator needs regulations.” Others emphasized that if an application for an exploitation plan of work is submitted, the Council “shall nonetheless consider and provisionally approve it,” according to the 1994 Agreement. There is, however, no clarity as to the meaning of “consider” or “provisionally approve” in this context and delegates have divergent legal and practical interpretations.

In such a challenging environment, opportunities to work more efficiently and effectively are a priority for delegates. One of the avenues will be the new “Friends of the President” working modality. This intends to provide a flexible arrangement for interested delegates and observers to deep-dive into specific issues and attempt to produce compromise text to aid discussions at the July session.

Although well-received by many, this new modality also raised several questions in the minds of delegates. They questioned how this arrangement would interact with the existing intersessional working groups, which seem to be tasked with the same or a similar mandate. Some of these concerns were addressed in a written proposal by President Laki, which notes that the new groups will take place in parallel with already existing working modalities but differ from them by focusing only on textual proposals for the draft regulations. While some delegates expressed their full support, with one describing the new arrangement as “a dynamic new working modality that should result in more efficiency,” time will ultimately judge its efficacy and effectiveness.

What will July Bring?

Regardless of what happens over the next few months, the July session of the Council and Assembly is set to be an important crossroad for the ISA. Will NORI and TMC USA go through with their intention to apply for commercial deep-sea mining? What will it mean for the future of the ISA to have one applicant within the remit of UNCLOS and ISA, and another outside? Will delegates be successful in their monumental task to develop a robust regulatory framework, ensuring the potential impacts on the marine environment are fully considered and benefit-sharing obligations are honored?

If this backdoor attempt at deep-sea mining proves successful, this unilateral action may fundamentally disrupt the delicate balance in areas beyond national jurisdiction, thereby not only corroding UNCLOS foundations, but also deeply affecting the stability of the international system, cooperation, and peace.

Citation

For summary report citation, please use: Tsioumanis, Asterios, Tomilola Akanle Eni-ibukun, and María Ovalle. 2025. Summary of the 1st Part of the 30th Annual Session of the International Seabed Authority. Earth Negotiations Bulletin/IISD, Vol. 25 No. 257.