Summary report, 7–25 July 2025

The deep sea is a vast, still mostly uncharted, space that holds incredible treasures from majestic tree corals and glass-sponge gardens to submerged ancient landscapes and hydrothermal vent communities. It also contains extensive reserves of some of the mineral resources that might support the clean-energy transition. The quests to preserve the former and to harness the latter often clash.

The International Seabed Authority (ISA) was established to organize and control activities in the seabed and ocean floor and the subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction (the Area). Its mandate includes managing the Area’s resources for the benefit of humankind as a whole and ensuring the effective protection of the marine environment from the harmful effects that may arise from deep-sea mining and related activities.

The ISA Council continued its work on the draft regulations for the commercial exploitation of deep-sea minerals, a responsibility tasked to the ISA by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the 1994 Agreement Relating to the Implementation of UNCLOS Part XI. Picking up from where it left off during the first part of its 30th session (ISA-30) in March 2025, when it considered regulations 1-55, the Council resumed the second reading of the revised consolidated text and completed the remaining regulations (56-107).

Alongside the negotiations on the draft regulations, the Council also addressed:

• an equalization measure to ensure that the effective tax rate for deep-sea mining is similar to land-based mining, regardless of tax exemptions provided by sponsoring states;
• an inspection, compliance, and enforcement mechanism, particularly a compliance committee; and
• underwater cultural heritage (UCH), including tangible heritage, such as shipwrecks, artefacts, and human remains, and intangible, such as sacral and cultural values broadly associated with the marine environment.

However, despite progress, Council members continue to have divergent views on many issues and the text remains heavily bracketed. Discussions will therefore continue during the intersessional period ahead of the ISA-31 Council meetings in 2026, through Friends of the President and working groups. The ISA Secretariat will also prepare a further revised consolidated text ahead of ISA-31, to serve as the basis of further discussions.

The ISA’s work on the exploitation regulations is one part of managing the resources of the Area for the benefit of humankind. This mandate also includes ensuring that the financial and other economic benefits of deep-sea mining are equitably distributed to all states, regardless of their geographical location or developmental status.

For many developing countries, the Economic Planning Commission (EPC), tasked with advising the Council on economic aspects of deep-seabed activities, is essential for equitable benefit-sharing. The EPC, although established by UNCLOS, is not yet fully operational. During the Council meeting, ISA Secretary-General Leticia Carvalho outlined steps towards its operationalization. Many delegations supported operationalizing the EPC before the approval of the first exploitation plan of work, highlighting the need to safeguard the interests of developing countries and manage the economic assistance fund. The Council agreed to initiate necessary steps to operationalize the EPC as a subsidiary organ. As a corollary, the ISA-30 Assembly, which convened after the Council, adopted a decision recommending that the Secretariat develop the concept of the common heritage fund as one of the possible ways to distribute the income from activities in the Area.

The Assembly, as one of the ISA’s principal organs, is empowered to establish the general policies for the Authority. During its 30th session, the Assembly addressed a proposal by Chile to consider the need for a general ISA policy for protecting and preserving the marine environment. This proposal was before the Assembly for the third consecutive session, since it lacked consensus during ISA-28 and ISA-29. The proposal, grounded in UNCLOS Article 145 (Protection of the marine environment), highlights that such a policy would embed environmental considerations across all ISA activities and ensure coherence of ISA’s work with other relevant global frameworks.

Many delegations supported the proposal, emphasizing the need for an overarching policy to complement the environmental measures contained in the exploitation regulations. Others opposed the proposal on two grounds: first, they considered that such action by the Assembly would undermine the Council’s authority, asserting that the Assembly should only take such a step following a formal recommendation from the Council; and second, they emphasized that UNCLOS and the 1994 Agreement already contain adequate provisions on marine environmental protection. Ultimately, the Assembly was once again unable to agree on the need for such a policy.

The Assembly also took up the item on the second periodic review of the operation of the international regime of the Area, a review that UNCLOS requires every five years. In the 30 years since entry into force, however, only one such review has been completed, in 2017. However, although there was broad support for undertaking the review now, several members maintained that the ISA should first complete the exploitation regulations. As no consensus could be reached, the Assembly deferred discussion of the second periodic review to ISA-31.

One of the normally routine “organizational matters” on the Assembly’s agenda is consideration of requests for observer status. At ISA-31, the Assembly approved 12 of 13 requests. The 13th request, submitted by Seafloor Mineral Developers Association, was a cause of concern for some Assembly members, because it is a group of deep-sea contractors. While some members were concerned about potential conflicts of interest and corporate capture, others believed the Association, as a stakeholder, should also be entitled to participate as an observer. Following informal consultations, the Assembly agreed that: contractors will be able to participate in the next Assembly session in their individual capacity; and draft guidelines on contractors’ participation will be prepared by the Secretariat for Assembly consideration by ISA-31.

The ISA Council convened for the second part of its 30th session from 7-18 July 2025, in Kingston, Jamaica, attracting more than 250 delegates and observers, including representatives from 33 of the 36 Council members. The Assembly took place from 21-25 July 2025 and was attended by more than 300 delegates and observers, including representatives from 83 ISA 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 170 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 rules, regulations and procedures (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 provide 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 comprises 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 these meetings, the Council continued negotiations of the draft exploitation regulations.

At the 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 (EPC). 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 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 faced difficulty in finding consensus 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 conduct 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 were scheduled to be revisited at the next Assembly meeting in July 2025.

30th Session (First Part): During the first part of the 30th session (17-28 March 2025), the Council commenced the second reading of the revised consolidated text, completing regulations 1-55. Among other things, the negotiations resulted in delegates agreeing to refer to prevention of “harmful effects” rather than “serious harm” to the marine environment in accordance with UNCLOS.

During the session, delegates held a thematic discussion on UCH, as well as a high-level discussion on the standards and guidelines that will support the implementation of the exploitation regulations. Delegates also discussed next steps, including modalities for intersessional work. A new working modality, called “Friends of the President,” was created by the ISA-30 Council President to provide a flexible arrangement for interested delegates and observers to deep-dive into specific issues.

Just before the final day of the meeting, delegates learned that The Metals Company USA LLC (TMC USA) had announced their intention to initiate an application for commercial deep-sea mining under the laws of the US, a non-UNCLOS party. Responding to this announcement, Secretary-General Carvalho, on the meeting’s final day, warned that “any unilateral action on deep-sea mining would constitute a violation of international law.”

ISA-30 Council (Part II) Report

On Monday, 7 July, Duncan Muhumuza Laki (Uganda), President of the 30th annual session, welcomed delegates and observers and declared open the resumed meeting of the Council. He noted that the LTC and Finance Committee had successfully concluded their meetings and acknowledged the intersessional work conducted under informal working groups and Friends of the President groups. He announced that four Friends of the President groups have been established, facilitated by Canada, Singapore, Mexico, and the UK. He emphasized that these groups have proven to be an effective mechanism for finding practical solutions to build consensus and drive progress.

Laki noted that several members have endorsed the working modalities proposed in his scenario note for this session, stressing the aim is to continue reviewing the revised consolidated text and finalize pending issues. Highlighting the ISA’s central role in leading the process of regulating deep-sea activities, he emphasized the need to avoid creating a regulatory vacuum that could be used by others. He noted the need for action, stating that the time for proposals has passed.

ISA Secretary-General Leticia Carvalho underlined these negotiations as a matter of legacy, noting that the deep-sea needs rules. Recalling UN Secretary-General António Guterres’s words during the Third UN Ocean Conference in June 2025, “the deep sea cannot become the Wild West,” Carvalho stressed that a strong, science-based exploitation framework is essential to fulfill the mandates of UNCLOS and the 1994 Agreement. Appreciating the work and progress of the LTC and Finance Committee, as well as contributions from experts and scientists, she noted that the precautionary approach provides a way to manage uncertainties in an adaptive manner. Drawing attention to the commemoration of 30 years of the ISA, she invited delegates to engage in a spirit of cooperation and enthusiasm and to ensure that decisions are based on wisdom and stewardship.

As host country, Jamaica welcomed all delegates and participants and thanked the Secretariat for facilitating dialogue. Appreciating the urgency of the negotiations, they supported the proposed working modalities and called for fruitful deliberations toward finalizing a comprehensive, effective, and coherent framework that safeguards the common heritage of humankind.

COSTA RICA, supported by CHILE and FRANCE, emphasized the need for transparency and accountability during the meeting, expressing concern about the proposed negotiating modalities.

Organizational Matters

Adoption of the Agenda: On Monday, 7 July, the Council agreed on the indicative programme of work for the second part of the Council meeting based on the meeting’s agenda adopted during the first part of the 30th session in March 2025.

Credentials: On Monday, 14 July, Secretary-General Carvalho provided an oral report on the credentials of Council members, noting 29 states submitted credentials and four states submitted related information. The Council took note of the report.

Elections to Fill a Vacancy in the LTC: On Monday, 14 July, President Laki introduced the document (ISBA/30/C/13). He noted that, following the resignation of LTC member Andrés Camaño (Chile), on 4 July 2025, Rodrigo Miguel Urquiza Caroca (Chile) was nominated to fill the vacant seat and the Council elected him.

Report on the Status of the Contracts for Exploration and Periodic Reviews of the Implementation of Plans of Work for Exploration: President Laki noted that during the March meeting, the Council took note of the relevant report (ISBA/30/C/2) covering the period to 24 January 2025. He said the report is now complemented with two addendums: the first containing an update to 31 May 2025 (ISBA/30/C/2/Add.1); and the second containing the identification of contractors that have responded insufficiently or incompletely, or failed to respond, to the calls from the Council to address issues identified by the LTC in relation to their contractual obligations (ISBA/30/C/2/Add.2).

PORTUGAL emphasized the importance of informing the Council on the suspension and termination of exploration contracts. They also joined others in expressing concern over an expected request to extend an exploration contract from a contractor that is a subsidiary of TMC, which has applied for a deep-sea mining license outside of the ISA regime.

The COOK ISLANDS lamented that the report does not reflect all actions conducted by contractors aimed at ensuring improvement and compliance. They said the naming of the contractor for which they are the sponsoring state may have been premature and requested a review of the LTC process to ensure that assessments are completed before any naming of contractors.

Secretary-General Carvalho stressed the LTC follows a three-step process to assess and report issues of concern. Stating that four contractors have been identified and informed, she assured the Council that the Secretariat is working closely with the LTC to maintain engagement with the contractors concerned. The Council took note of the report and its addenda.

The Council also took note of the report on the relinquishment of the area allocated to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation under the contract for exploration for cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts (ISBA/30/C/7)

Report of the Secretary-General on the Status of National Legislation Relating to Deep Seabed Mining and Related Matters: On 14 July, the Council considered the Secretary-General’s report on national legislation relating to deep seabed mining (ISBA/30/C/9). The Council took note of the report.

Report of the Secretary-General on the Implementation of the Decision of the Council in 2024 relating to the Reports of the Chair of the LTC: The Council considered the Secretary-General’s report (ISBA/30/C/10). COSTA RICA, supported by FRANCE, welcomed the naming by the LTC of contractors with incomplete or inconsistent reporting and requested clarity on corrective measures to be applied. COSTA RICA underlined the importance of the Voluntary Trust Fund established to cover the cost of participation by developing country members of the LTC and the Finance Committee, and underscored the need for balanced participation in the LTC. Secretary-General Carvalho confirmed that the Authority will continue to monitor and report potential non-compliant contractors and sponsoring states.

The Council took note of the report.

Report of the Secretary-General concerning the Operationalization of the Economic Planning Commission (EPC): On Monday, 14 July, Secretary-General Carvalho presented her report (ISBA/30/C/11) outlining steps towards operationalizing the EPC, which includes a draft Council decision setting out a proposed approach for its operationalization.

Most delegations, including the AFRICAN GROUP, MEXICO, CHILE, RUSSIAN FEDERATION, and BRAZIL, supported operationalizing the EPC before approval of the first exploitation plan of work. They highlighted the need to safeguard the interests of developing countries, particularly land-based mining states, and manage the economic assistance fund.

IRELAND, JAPAN, and several others considered it premature to adopt the draft decision at this stage. FRANCE, BRAZIL, PORTUGAL, and CANADA called on the Finance Committee to carry out a detailed assessment of the costs of the operationalization. ITALY called for an assessment of the EPC’s impact on the Secretariat’s workload and budget.

The UK noted that while operationalization will take time, it is not too soon to begin, including planning for resource allocation and elections. Several members, including CHILE and TRINIDAD and TOBAGO, supported this and highlighted the need to develop a mechanism and timeframe for electing EPC members, stressing geographical representation and expertise.

The Council took note of the report and agreed to undertake further consultations on the decisions through a Friends of the President group, facilitated by Portugal.

On Friday, 18 July, the Council adopted its draft decision on the operationalization of the EPC.

Final Decision: In its decision (ISBA/30/C/17), the Council:

• decides to initiate necessary steps with a view to operationalizing the EPC as a subsidiary organ of the Council;
• requests the Secretariat to prepare a proposal for EPC election mechanisms, in consultation with the LTC for technical input only, for consideration by the Council during the first part of the 31st session; and
• requests the Finance Committee to report to the Council during the second part of the 31st session detailing the financial implications of the establishment of the EPC and provide a report on the most practical timelines when the EPC can commence its work.

Report of the Chair of the LTC

Delegates addressed the report of the LTC Chair on Wednesday, 9 July, Monday, 14 July, and Friday, 18 July.

Oral report of the Chair of the LTC: On Wednesday, 9 July, Erasmo Lara Cabrera (Mexico), Chair of the LTC, delivered an oral report on the work of the LTC during the second part of the 30th session (ISBA/30/C/4/Add.1), held from 23 June to 4 July 2025, noting it should be read in conjunction with the report from the first part (ISBA/30/C/4). He reported that out of the 41 current LTC members, 30 attended the meeting in person and two participated remotely, and that all eligible members received Voluntary Trust Fund support.

Chair Lara noted that most of the meeting was devoted to reviewing the 30 annual reports submitted by contractors on their 2024 activities and highlighted:

• generally, contractors have performed adequately;
• some contractors have limited their offshore exploration activities, including environmental studies and sampling, and have instead, focused on desk work and data analysis; and
• such contractors have invoked reasons such as the continued absence of exploitation regulations, uncertainties in global economic conditions, and best industry practices.

Chair Lara further briefed the Council on the LTC’s work in assessing the contractors whose performance had been identified as potentially not fully aligned with their contractual obligations. He reported the LTC identified four contractors, named in the report, that have responded inadequately, or failed to respond, to the Council’s calls to address issues of concern in relation to their contractual obligations. Highlighting that these contractors are facing varied challenges, he said the LTC will continue to work with them and monitor their performance.

On the environmental aspects of the annual reports, Chair Lara highlighted that two major baseline data requirements have still not been adequately addressed by contractors, namely: systematic surface observations of seabirds, marine mammals, sea turtles, and other megafauna; and sampling of pelagic biological communities in the water column.

On the implementation of training programmes under exploration plans of work, Chair Lara highlighted the selection of 37 candidates, from a total of 319 applicants, to participate in 10 training programmes offered by eight contractors. He reported improved gender parity in candidate selection, noting the current selection ratio is 60% men to 40% women, and stressed the need to raise the visibility of training opportunities in order to encourage more applications from different regions, especially from women.

Regarding the applications for extension of exploration contracts, the Chair noted nine exploration contracts are due to expire in 2026 and that the LTC therefore expects that between 2025 and 2026, it will need to consider extension applications by the contractors.

Chair Lara reported that the LTC noted the outcomes of expert workshops organized to support the development of regional environmental management plans (REMPs) for the Northwest Pacific and Indian Oceans and decided to work intersessionally to prepare for the next phase of expert deliberations, which will focus on management assessment and drafting of REMPs. He said although both regions will be considered, the Northwest Pacific REMP discussions are more advanced and would therefore be prioritized.

In the subsequent discussion, Council members and observers thanked the LTC members for their hard work in, among other things, reviewing contractors’ annual reports. Several delegates, including COSTA RICA, ARGENTINA, and FRANCE appreciated the naming of the four contractors that have responded inadequately or failed to respond to the Council’s calls, highlighting that identifying them enhances transparency and accountability. FRANCE and GERMANY underlined that uncertainty about the exploitation regulations is not an excuse for not complying with contractors’ exploration contracts.

GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL asked whether one of the named contractors, UK Seabed Resources Ltd, was in compliance with their contract obligations prior to the bankruptcy of their parent company. They requested clarification of LTC procedures for cases where a contractor is undergoing a change of parent company or implementing partner, to ensure financial review of the new owner.

The PEW CHARITABLE TRUSTS highlighted the need for an ISA process to revise potential financial and technological implications when contractors change owners or implementing partners. COSTA RICA and IRELAND urged that meetings of the LTC be open to non-LTC members.

FRANCE, BELGIUM, OCEANS NORTH, DEEP SEA CONSERVATION COALITION (DSCC), and GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL voiced concern over an expected request to extend an exploration contract from a contractor whose parent company is planning to undertake deep-sea mining outside the UNCLOS framework. They urged the LTC to scrutinize the extension application thoroughly when it is submitted.

COSTA RICA and GERMANY expressed concern about contractors’ failure to provide adequate baseline data, noting this would impact the development of an environmental baseline and proper conduct of an environmental impact assessment (EIA). DEEP OCEAN STEWARDSHIP INITIATIVE (DOSI) lamented that contractors are not adequately collecting megafauna information and are limiting their exploratory environmental studies and sampling, meaning that important baseline information needed for adequate EIAs and to inform environmental management and monitoring plans (EMMPs) is not being captured.

The AFRICAN GROUP referred to contractors that had difficulty fulfilling their 2025 training obligations due to the Secretariat’s decision to discontinue some training options, and, with the UK, asked the LTC Chair and Secretariat for clarification regarding the Secretariat’s decision. They asked what other measures have been put in place to revise or replace the discontinued programmes. Several members, including MEXICO and PORTUGAL, urged the Secretariat to continue to publicize training opportunities.

OCEANS NORTH, DSCC, and GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL lamented that comments and concerns of stakeholders have not always been fully addressed by contractors in the environmental impact statements, and called for transparency and accountability in all processes for which the LTC is responsible.

WWF INTERNATIONAL stressed that UNCLOS Article 145 language on prevention of damage implies a zero-harm threshold, which implies that no harm is acceptable. They noted that UNCLOS does not allow this to be weighed against social, political, or economic interests and called for open meetings of the intersessional expert group developing environmental threshold values.

Chair Lara thanked delegates for their reactions and comments, noting there is still room for improvement in the LTC. The Council took note of the report.

On Monday, 14 July, Secretary-General Carvalho responded to the questions some Council members asked on Wednesday, 9 July, regarding the Secretariat’s decision to discontinue some training options, particularly the Deep Dive and the National Expert Deployment programmes. She explained that previously, contractors could implement their training obligations through the ISA’s Deep Dive and National Expert Deployment programmes, effectively paying the Secretariat to fulfil their training obligations for them. Stressing this arrangement as “inappropriate,” Secretary-General Carvalho said contractors should instead, develop their own programmes in a meaningful and tailored way.

She clarified that although both initiatives continue to run, they will no longer be options under contractors’ training programme.

Discussions on this item continued through a Friends of the President group, co-facilitated by Australia, Canada, and Singapore.

On Monday, 21 July, the Council adopted its decision.

Final Decision: In its decision (ISBA/30/C/19), the Council, inter alia:

• urges the relevant sponsoring states to provide any information relating to non-compliance by its sponsored contractor and measures taken to ensure compliance under the contract, in accordance with Article 139 of UNCLOS;
• requests the Secretary-General to continue to report to the Council on an annual basis the instances of alleged non-compliance and regulatory action in accordance with the UNCLOS, the 1994 Agreement and the regulations on prospecting and exploration, identified by the Commission, inter alia, taking into account the results of the Secretary-General’s consultations with contractors;
• requests the Secretary-General to negotiate with Contractors’ robust and comprehensive capacity-building programmes covering different aspects of deep-sea minerals exploration activities, with particular emphasis on the practical and technical elements of deep-sea mineral exploration activities, and to ensure that such programmes are needs-based, transparent, and designed to facilitate the meaningful participation of developing states, including through access to data and equipment necessary for performance of such capacity-building programmes; and
• welcomes the informal open dialogues with the Council, reiterates the importance of transparency in the Authority, and urges the Commission to take further steps to hold open meetings, where appropriate and in accordance with the rules of procedure of the Commission, while maintaining its effective operation and recognizing the need to ensure the appropriate confidentiality of data and information, so as to allow for greater transparency in its work.

The Council also requests the Secretary-General to continue the practice of communicating the various issues identified during the Commission’s review of contractors’ annual reports to the relevant contractors and sponsoring states, to follow up in writing with those contractors that repeatedly perform insufficiently or incompletely against an approved plan of work, or have indicated that the implementation of the plan of activities will be made conditional on external factors regardless of the applicable contractual requirements, to request meetings with them and to write to the respective sponsoring states to bring that issue to their attention and request a meeting with the sponsoring states to address it and to provide relevant information to the Council.

Deferrals of Schedules of Relinquishment: Under the exploration regulations, contractors are required to relinquish parts of the contract area(s) allocated to them on a set timeline: at least 50% of the original area must be relinquished by the end of the eighth year from the contract date; and at least 75% must be relinquished by the end of the tenth year. The Council may, at the request of the contractor, and on the recommendation of the LTC, in exceptional circumstances, defer the schedule of relinquishment.

President Laki introduced two draft decisions on the requests by the French Research Institute for Exploitation of the Sea (Ifremer) and the Government of Poland to defer their relinquishment schedules.

The Council adopted both decisions approving the deferral requests, as recommended by the LTC.

Final Decisions: In its final decision on Ifremer’s request (ISBA/30/C/14), the Council:

• determines that the reasons presented by Ifremer qualify as “unforeseen exceptional circumstances arising in connection with the operational activities of the contractor;”
• defers the schedule of the second relinquishment to 18 November 2026; and
• requests the Secretary-General to communicate the present decision to Ifremer.

Regarding the Government of Poland’s request (ISBA/30/C/15), the Council:

• determines that the reasons presented by the Government of Poland qualify as “unforeseen exceptional circumstances arising in connection with the operational activities of the contractor”;
• defers the first relinquishment to 11 February 2028 and the second relinquishment to 11 February 2030; and
• requests the Secretary-General to communicate the present decision to the Government of Poland.

Draft Revised Standardized Procedure for the Development, Establishment and Review of REMPs: On Wednesday, 9 July, delegates considered the draft standardized procedure (ISBA/30/C/3). The RUSSIAN FEDERATION proposed that the science-focused workshops for development of REMPs be in person, as hybrid and online workshops are less effective. They also highlighted the value of disseminating workshop results to a broad set of stakeholders to ensure public awareness. With respect to how new data and information have been considered by the LTC, they noted that since new data collection takes time, it is important to first compile existing data and assess gaps to be addressed through other procedures such as workshops.

Several delegates, including CHILE, ARGENTINA, and the AFRICAN GROUP, supported adopting the proposed standardized procedure. PORTUGAL, while appreciating the improvements, asked for additional time.

On Friday, 18 July, the Council resumed its discussions, using a draft revised standardized procedure for the development, establishment, and review of REMPs (ISBA/30/C/3/Rev.1).

PORTUGAL supported by the RUSSIAN FEDERATION, CHINA, INDIA, CANADA, and others, proposed: first to include exploration activities among the types of activities and impacts to be considered in a scientific assessment; and second to ensure that a plan of work for a new type or category of mineral resource triggers a review of the relevant REMP.

The Council adopted the draft procedure, as amended, and the related decision.

Final Decision: In its decision (ISBA/30/C/L.3/Rev.1), the Council:

• adopts the revised standardized procedure for the development, establishment, and review of REMPs;
• requests the LTC and Secretariat to implement the procedure in future work related to the development and review of REMPs, including by applying the template and recommendations referenced in the document;
• requests the LTC to advance the development, implementation, and review of REMPs in specific regions, with a view to recommending to the Council new REMPs for priority areas where exploration contracts exist; and
• encourages member states, observers, contractors, sponsoring states, relevant stakeholders, and competent international organizations to contribute data, knowledge, and expertise in accordance with the standardized procedure.

Report of the Interim Director-General of the Enterprise

On Monday, 14 July, Eden Charles, Interim Director-General of the Enterprise, reported on the activities related to the Enterprise (ISBA/30/A/5-ISBA/30/C/8). He focused on:

• the study of managerial and administrative policy options for when the Enterprise becomes fully independent of the Secretariat, and proposed a policy-driven organizational model;
• monitoring and reviewing trends in deep-sea mining activities, including a desk analysis of world metal market conditions and metal prices, trends, and prospects;
• assessing potential approaches to joint venture arrangements, highlighting that Impossible Metals, Inc. has conveyed a statement of interest for a joint venture with the Enterprise; and
• the conclusion of a letter of cooperation with the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, which will focus on capacity-building programmes and tailored training programmes.

In the subsequent discussion, most Council members welcomed the report and commended the Interim Director-General’s efforts. Many also endorsed the proposed managerial structure for when the Enterprise becomes fully independent of the Secretariat.

The AFRICAN GROUP, supported by CHILE, urged that going forward, the Enterprise should focus on concrete activities, such as establishing strategies for governance and for participating in joint ventures, and beginning preparatory work for potential exploration and exploitation activities. They suggested that in the next phase of work, the Enterprise could provide forward-thinking insight regarding opportunities for marine scientific research, project development, and plans of work.

CHINA questioned whether the Enterprise could enter a joint venture with an entity that is registered to a non-party to UNCLOS. Responding, Charles clarified that this is for the Council to decide.

The RUSSIAN FEDERATION called for the Interim Director-General and the Secretariat to work together to define applicable principles for operating the Enterprise for consideration and adoption by the Council. 

TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO highlighted the importance of reserved areas, which, under UNCLOS, are areas reserved for activities by or on behalf of developing countries or the Enterprise.

THE BAHAMAS underscored that the full operationalization of the Enterprise is not just a legal obligation but is a test of countries’ commitment to an inclusive and effective regime for the benefit of all humankind.

SPAIN encouraged the Interim Director-General to continue negotiations on the offer for a joint venture with Impossible Metals, Inc., instead of relying on a reserved area.

The Council took note of the report.

Cooperation with other Relevant International Organizations

On Monday, 14 July, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) drew attention to the launch of the International Advisory Body for Submarine Cable Resilience in November 2024, which aims to enhance the resilience of the global submarine cable network by pooling technical expertise, best practices, and collaboration across different stakeholders, both public and private. They noted that an invitation to ISA to have a consultative role within the Advisory Body has been sent to ISA’s Secretary-General, highlighting the willingness to engage further with the ISA to explore potential areas of collaboration.

Report of the Finance Committee

On Thursday, 17 July, Kenneth Wong, Canada, Chair of the Finance Committee, presented the report (ISBA/30/A/8-ISBA/30/C/12). He highlighted that the Committee debated the Secretary-General’s note (ISBA/30/A/7/Rev.1) regarding the restructuring of the Secretariat and had an exchange of views on the legal framework and conditions of the restructuring, without reaching a conclusion.

Wong reported that the Committee inquired about the ongoing litigation before the Joint Appeals Board and the UN Appeals Tribunal and received an update from the Secretariat, including an overview of potential financial scenarios, while noting the confidential nature of the proceedings.

Wong also reported on the Committee’s work in identifying a suitable mechanism for equitable sharing of financial and other economic benefits derived from activities in the Area. He highlighted the Committee’s recommendation to the Council and Assembly that the Secretariat develop the concept of the common heritage fund to distribute income from activities in the Area.

Remarking on the Finance Committee’s progress, Secretary-General Carvalho highlighted that the proposed common heritage fund will bring the ISA a step closer to the “aspirations of equity and the fair sharing of resources from areas deemed as civilization’s global commons.” She urged the Council to act on the Finance Committee’s recommendation.

Secretary-General Carvalho also offered some reflections on her time as Secretary-General so far. She acknowledged that the ISA has sometimes been viewed as slow and opaque, and portrayed as “everything from dysfunctional to corrupt.” She, however, reiterated her commitment to guiding the Authority towards greater transparency, inclusivity, accountability, and effectiveness, and urged the Council to grant her the time needed to “get the house in order.” She cautioned that personal attacks on her and the Secretariat will only disrupt the ISA’s important work.

In the subsequent discussion, Council members, including TONGA, POLAND, CHILE, the UK, GERMANY, and others, expressed concern about the unpaid contributions to the ISA budget and urged all those with outstanding contributions to clear their arrears.

Some members, including CHINA, IRELAND, the PHILIPPINES, and PORTUGAL, noted their contributions to the Voluntary Trust Fund. They called for more details on how these contributions are being used.

Several, including the AFRICAN GROUP, also urged the Secretary-General to provide an update on the ongoing litigation and an overview of the potential financial implications, without prejudice to confidentiality.

The AFRICAN GROUP, SINGAPORE, FRANCE, JAPAN, the UK, and others, voiced their concern about the Secretariat’s reclassification of posts, especially considering the Assembly’s decision requesting the Secretariat to comply with the Finance Committee’s recommendation that no reclassification decision should be carried out without prior Assembly approval. These Council members asked the Secretary-General to provide: an explanation of why the reclassification was done without the Assembly’s prior approval; a breakdown of the legal and financial implications of the restructuring; and a description of its effects on the affected staff members. In response, the Secretariat reiterated its commitment to openness and transparency, as related to issues of post and staffing management.

The AFRICAN GROUP, CANADA, TONGA, INDIA, MOROCCO, FIJI, ITALY, and others, supported requesting the Secretariat to develop the concept of a common heritage fund. TONGA and FIJI urged that when elaborating the concept, special consideration should be given to the needs of small island developing states (SIDS).

CHINA expressed a preference for a direct distribution of benefits using a distribution formula that contains different options and parameters in order to ensure equitable sharing.

COSTA RICA, supported by BRAZIL, IRELAND, PORTUGAL, CHILE, FRANCE, SWITZERLAND, and others, questioned why the option of a common heritage fund is the singular benefit-sharing option being considered. They said the Council can only decide on the best option after considering all possible options and urged the Finance Committee to explore various options, which may include the fund, for the Council’s consideration.

BRAZIL proposed amending the Finance Committee recommendation and related Council decision to clarify that the common heritage fund is one of the possible ways to share the benefits arising from activities in the Area.

The PEW CHARITABLE TRUSTS queried the legal and practical challenges of a common heritage fund managed by existing organs of the ISA. They noted that, under international best practice, sovereign wealth fund management is typically run by a central bank with significant financial expertise, staffing, and experience in managing foreign exchange reserves.

Responding to the various questions and comments, Wong, among other things, thanked members that expressed their support for the development of the concept of the fund. Noting that “we are not closing any door,” he explained that a direct distribution of benefits would not allow for intergenerational distribution.

Wong underscored the relevance of the way the fund is managed, noting the need for a professional and fully developed governance or management system. He clarified that estimating the potential revenue from commercial deep-sea mining falls outside the Finance Committee’s mandate, but noted that in discussing benefit-sharing, the Committee used a “small amounts” scenario, working on the assumption that deep-sea mining activities would “deliver very little money.”

The Council adopted its decision relating to financial and budgetary matters, as orally amended from the floor by Brazil.

Final Decision: In its final decision (ISBA/30/C/L.2/Rev.1), the Council recommends that the Assembly adopt a decision based on the recommendations of the Finance Committee, as amended by Brazil.

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

During the first part of ISA-30 in March 2025, the Council concluded the second reading of draft exploitation regulations 1-55 contained in the revised consolidated text (ISBA/30/C/CRP.1). During this second part, the Council continued discussion of the draft regulations and completed the second reading of the rest of the regulations (56-107).

In addition, delegates held focused discussions on specific issues, within informal working groups and Friends of the President groups. This section summarizes the discussions in the informal working groups, as well as the discussions of regulations 56-107, but not the more informal discussions undertaken in the Friends of the President groups.

Informal Working Group on Equalization Measures: This session on Tuesday, 8 July, facilitated by Robyn Frost (Australia), focused on an equalization measure to ensure that the effective tax rate for deep-sea mining is similar to land-based mining, regardless of tax exemptions provided by sponsoring states.

Frost stressed the need to decide on the specific equalization option to be used, noting that draft regulation 64 bis (equalization measure) currently contains “high level,” that is, broad and non-specific, text on this issue.

In a virtual presentation, Daniel Wilde, Commonwealth Secretariat, presented and discussed two alternative options for an equalization measure and a possible way forward. He noted that under the hybrid model, contractors who receive tax exemptions or subsidies must pay an additional royalty of 8%, against which payments to the sponsoring state are creditable. In contrast, under the profit share option, contractors pay a 25% profit share (on profits from all related entities from mining activities) to the ISA, from which royalty payments to the sponsoring state and all mining payments by related entities are credited.

Noting the importance of agreeing on the equalization measure in order to develop the relevant standard and finalize the regulation text, Wilde said that the profit share option has much to commend it, including being a well-established fiscal instrument in other extractive industry taxation and, unlike the hybrid option, has all the definitions complete, except for some administrative provisions.

Noting its purpose to ensure a level playing field for contractors and addressing disparities arising from state tax exemptions, some delegates expressed preference for the hybrid model and many others for the profit share model.

In the ensuing discussion, a participant called for clarifying the stage at which the equalization measure becomes applicable for the Enterprise and emphasized that while the current definition of contractor includes the Enterprise, the provisions of UNCLOS Annex IV, Article 4.10 (Statute of the Enterprise), should apply with respect to the equalization measure. The participant suggested the regulation include language specifying this Statute.

Council members noted the need to differentiate how the selected equalization measure applies to commercial versus state-owned enterprises.

Frost invited comments on draft regulation 64 bis (equalization measure). She explained that the regulation states that a contractor shall pay the equalization from the date of approval of its plan of work because equalization is calculated using the contractor’s profit, meaning the contractor’s costs, including costs from the point of plan approval, must be taken into consideration. She clarified that this does not mean an equalization payment will need to be made upon approval of the plan of work.

 Council members highlighted the need for a decision on the option to take forward. One delegate called for factoring in externalities, such as species loss, and the interests of future generations in the additional payment to be made.

Informal Working Group on the Inspection, Compliance, and Enforcement Mechanism: On Thursday, 10 July, Dagny Marie Aas Hovind (Norway), facilitated the informal working group on the inspection, compliance, and enforcement (ICE) mechanism, where delegates discussed regulation 102 (compliance committee).

Several delegations remarked that draft regulation 102 is a good basis for deliberations and called for streamlining with regulation 103 (non-compliance notice, suspension, and termination of exploitation contact), noting overlaps.

Delegations supported the establishment of a compliance committee as a subsidiary organ of the Council, and that it must be in place before the commencement of any exploitation activities. The discussion also addressed whether its establishment can be included directly through the exploitation regulations or if it would require a dedicated Council decision. On the compliance committee’s scope, members expressed different views on whether it should cover only exploitation or also exploration activities. A delegation pointed out that UNCLOS does not make any distinction between exploitation and exploration regarding compliance. Some observers supported this, reiterating that a robust regulating regime for compliance cannot rely on self-reporting by contractors.

Regarding its composition and membership, members highlighted the need for expertise, independence, transparency, and responsiveness. One member proposed an additional paragraph to reinforce the importance of independence, so that the committee is responsible only to the Council.

Members also supported equitable geographical representation, alongside gender balance and special interest considerations. Delegations also suggested adding a provision stating that members of the compliance committee shall serve in an independent and personal capacity, and not serve in any other ISA subsidiary body, or have been a former employee of a contractor.

There was general support for a compliance strategy to improve effectiveness and allow a fair regulatory system. However, a few members questioned its added value. Another noted that if the strategy is a policy document, it should be approved by the Council based on the recommendations of the compliance committee. Observers reiterated that the compliance committee requires legal authority to hold hearings, consult with other authorities, and be involved in inspections, and thus a strategy is key for enabling the ICE mechanism.

Many delegations emphasized the need for the Council to clearly define the compliance committee’s tasks, functions, and mandate, with several members drawing attention to the clear delimitation of mandates and functions between the compliance committee and the LTC. Some noted that it should be the Council that determines a solution when overlaps are reported. Observers said this will enhance accountability and support management of undue influence, bias, and potential conflict of interest.

Delegates also called for enforcement measures commensurate with the non-compliance of contractors. Some suggested public reporting of alleged non-compliance as lessons for other contractors and for public awareness.

Informal Working Group on Underwater Cultural Heritage: This session was held on Thursday, 17 July, co-facilitated by Antonio Otavio Sá Ricarte (Brazil), Clement Yow Mulalap (Federated States of Micronesia), and Anastasia Strati (Greece).

Mariano Aznar Gómez, University Jaume, Spain, presented Spain’s proposal on regulation 35 (human remains and UCH), which: focuses on the protection of tangible UCH such as shipwrecks, artefacts, and human remains; and aims to address intangible elements through pre-exploitation measures such as environmental impact assessments and REMPs. He noted the link to the 2001 UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage.

In the ensuing discussion, some delegations welcomed Spain’s proposal as a constructive basis for deliberations, supporting the distinction between tangible and intangible UCH, and the inclusion of Indigenous perspectives, knowledge, and recognition of spiritual relationship with the deep sea. One delegate proposed including Indigenous representatives in advisory processes.

Regarding alternative proposals to establish a UCH committee or advisory board, several delegates objected to creating additional subsidiary bodies, citing the added institutional and financial burden. They suggested instead relying on expert advisory arrangements or involving archaeologists during the exploration phase.

There was general agreement on the need for contractors to report discoveries of UCH, but views differed on how. Many delegations supported prompt notification and halting of activities near discoveries, while others raised concerns about feasibility, costs, and lack of incentives for reporting, particularly when such findings are rare. Some emphasized the importance of clear guidelines and others proposed inclusion of archaeologists in exploration, while others cautioned against placing undue burdens on contractors or requiring active searches. Members also raised the need for compensation in situations where a discovery of UCH disrupts exploitation plans.

The co-facilitators acknowledged diverging views and noted the need for further informal discussions.

Informal Discussions on the Revised Consolidated Text: The Council held informal discussions over the course of nine days and concluded the second reading of the remainder of the draft regulations (56-107) on Thursday, 17 July.

On regulation 56 (funding of the environmental compensation fund), President Laki reported that the Friends of the President group facilitated by Mexico has proposed a new draft and that the group would continue to review it.

On regulation 57 (modification of a plan of work by a contractor), the UK, as facilitator of the Friends of the President group, presented outcomes from the group’s meeting on 5 July 2025, outlining the proposed draft, which includes:

• amendment of the definition of material changes by clarifying the list of changes that are included as material changes;
• change of the regulation title to delete “contractor” since the regulation also addresses modifications proposed by the LTC;
• requirements that a contractor proposing a modification notifies the Secretary-General, who in turn notifies the Council and LTC within a timeline of seven days;
• clarification that the LTC is required to consider any proposed modification in accordance with any applicable standards and apply the procedure (including timelines) in regulation 12 (rules for considering applications);
• clarification of the role of the LTC and the Council in recommending whether the EIA and EMMPs should be revised and the procedures for their submission and assessment; and
• clarification of procedures that the Council should follow regarding the Commission’s approval or disapproval of proposed modifications.

Several members agreed the UK version is a good basis for discussions, supporting, among others, the change of the title, and the procedure for modifications or changes of the plan of work. One noted the need for involvement of the LTC in the requirements to revise EIAs and environmental plans. Some noted that the decisions of the LTC are adequate for revision of EIAs or environmental plans, another noted the need to discuss how much this additional workload will impact the LTC’s work.

One participant commented on the need to resolve ambiguity on how the Enterprise would be referred to in the regulation. A delegate urged involvement of observers in Friends of the President groups.

On regulation 58 (review of a plan of work), discussions focused on what changes or circumstances should trigger a more frequent plan of work review beyond the fixed periodic review. On a proposed material change in the implementation of the plan of work, or when previously unavailable information comes to light as triggers, some Council members preferred qualifying that such changes or information must be “significant.” Regarding changes in best available techniques, best available scientific information, or best environmental practices as triggers, one member proposed that only major changes should trigger a review.

On the conduct and verification of the review, members disagreed on whether the review should be undertaken by the contractor and verified by an independent expert or undertaken by an independent expert or a panel of experts. One Council member underscored that allowing the contractor to conduct the review would amount to a self-assessment and is unacceptable, and called for both the review and verification to be independently undertaken. On unanticipated adverse impacts on the marine environment as a trigger, one Council Member called for criteria for identifying these adverse impacts. Several members highlighted the review should be undertaken “in line with applicable regulations.”

Regarding a review triggered by a request from “another international body,” one Council member noted this phrase is too broad and called for better defining entities that can request a review. An observer requested expanding to include stakeholders, particularly affected stakeholders. They also called to specify the timeline for such a review.

On regulation 59 (closure plan), some members and a regional group called for a streamlined version.

One member suggested adding a cross-reference to regulation 93ter (consultation with coastal states). A few noted the need to include, as closure plan objectives, the “protection” or “effective protection” of the marine environment.

Several members queried the reference to the marine environment having a “clear and healthy status” following the end of exploitation, asking the language “clear and healthy” to be clarified or deleted. An observer suggested using UNCLOS Article 145 (protection of the marine environment) language, “ecological balance of the marine environment.”

Delegations expressed differing views regarding the determination of the technical feasibility of active or passive restoration. A member opposed the proposed text and, and with an observer, cited the UNCLOS Article 145 provision that, if restoration is not feasible, the contract should not be granted. Another proposed a simpler text: “the mining area is rehabilitated to the extent it is technically feasible for restoration.” Yet another member emphasized the importance of assessing the feasibility of a closure plan before commencing commercial production.

A member suggested that closure plans should have a minimum duration, proposing that it shall not be less than five years, and that it can be extended as necessary. A few members opposed references to “potentially directly affected” stakeholders.

On the role of the LTC in examining a closure plan, a regional group suggested clarifying the procedure and including “and shall make the recommendations to the Council on approval of the revision of the plan.”

On regulation 60 (final closure plan: cessation of production), delegates discussed the draft from the Friends of the President group, facilitated by Fiji. Several proposed that the issue of temporary suspension should be addressed in a separate regulation, as the final closure plan primarily focuses on cessation of production. The term “temporary suspension” was also proposed to be included in the glossary.

Delegates also called for referring to “updated closure plan” rather than “final closure plan,” as the plan has not been approved by the Council. They further proposed that the LTC give a written notice of “recommendation” rather than “decision” to the contractor regarding the closure plan.

Delegates also discussed regulation 61 (monitoring pursuant to closure plans/closure monitoring), with some noting that the title is not representative of the content. One participant suggested “implementation and monitoring of the final closure plan.” Delegates discussed the monitoring report schedule, with some requesting clarity on the types of significant adverse effects warranting more frequent reporting.

On the purpose of the closure monitoring, they called for among others, verifying that no further environmental effects occur as a result of prior exploitation activities. Delegates called for clarification of the selection of an independent auditor to conduct a final compliance assessment on delivery of the objectives of the final closure plan. One participant called for retaining the description of the auditor as, “competent, independent, and accredited.”

Some delegates noted that regulation 62 (equality of treatment) is unnecessary as this has already been dealt with among other cross-cutting issues in UNCLOS. Some called for reverting to an earlier proposed draft focusing on ensuring technology transfer, training, and scientific knowledge to developing countries, and providing incentives for joint ventures between the Enterprise and developing states.

Regulation 63 (incentives) addresses the provision of incentives, including financial incentives, on a uniform and non-discriminatory basis, to contractors following UNCLOS Article 13(1) of Annex III (Financial terms of contracts).

Many Council members queried the necessity of this regulation, stressing, among other things:

• the relevant UNCLOS Annex provision regarding financial incentives is not mandatory;
• there is no reason to provide incentives for contractors to comply with their contractual obligations;
• the need to establish the EPC before giving any incentives, given that its recommendations and that of the LTC’s are required for adoption of any rules, regulations, and procedures related to incentives;
• the lack of a clear definition of incentives, both financial and non-financial;
• it may create an unnecessary burden to the ISA; and
• such incentives may create uneven conditions compared to land-based mining.

They supported deletion of the resolution, noting that if maintained, its scope should be narrowed to apply only to joint ventures between the Enterprise and developing states or their nationals. Several observers supported the deletion of the regulation, noting that incentives for deep-sea mining contractors should not be permitted.

A regional group appreciated the regulation, stating that it eliminates ambiguity, while also noting the need for special considerations for developing countries, particularly SIDS. They stressed that the transfer of technology to, and training the personnel of, the Authority and of developing states is essential and opposed stimulating it “where applicable.”

 A few members called for further and careful consideration of the matter. A participant emphasized the need for consistency between UNCLOS language and the language used in this regulation. President Laki invited interested members to work towards a harmonized position.

On regulation 64 (contractor shall pay royalty), delegates considered whether to include a reference to the concept of a “self-supporting” Enterprise as outlined in Article 10(3) of Annex III of UNCLOS (financial obligations of the Enterprise), in order to reflect their position on royalty payments. Some delegations suggested that a separate reference to this provision is unnecessary and invited the Enterprise to provide further justification.

Delegations discussed whether implementing standards is suitable for technical rules relating to royalty payments. Delegations proposed the reinstatement of paragraphs on environmental costs specifying the payment of additional royalties by contractors to cover environmental costs of exploitation activities, reflecting their impact across the value chain. They similarly called for reinstatement of a paragraph on further royalty for environmental costs encompassing among others, the future value of marine genetic resources, existence and bequest values for remote and unknown biodiversity, carbon emissions, and impacts on carbon sequestration by benthic and pelagic ecosystems. Council President Laki requested that interested parties discuss this regulation on the sidelines of the meeting.

Delegates considered and provisionally agreed to regulations 66 (form of royalty returns), 67 (royalty return period), 68 (lodging of royalty returns), and 69 (error or mistake in royalty return).

Regarding regulation 70 (payment of royalty shown by royalty return), most delegates opposed reference to contractors declaring the currency to be used in the payment of royalties, stressing this choice should not be left to contractors. Some proposed alternatives, including developing a list of eligible liquid and credible currencies, or allowing contractors to propose a currency that the Council can approve or disapprove.

Council members also considered the paragraph relating to making royalty payments by installments, with most opposing this provision. One noted this is not an option generally available in land-based mining and another member pointed out that contractors must have the financial capacity to undertake deep-sea mining and related responsibilities, and requiring installment payments would throw doubt on their financial capacity.

On regulation 71 (information to be submitted), a regional group suggested splitting a provision into three smaller parts, for clarity and avoiding the mixing of elements of different natures, such as the quantity of mineral-bearing ore and revenues. A member sought clarification regarding the timeframe for determining, for instance, the quantity of wet metric tons of the mineral-bearing ore.

A member suggested a definition for “certified laboratory” as a “testing or calibration facility that has been formally accredited by a recognized accreditation body to demonstrate compliance with the relevant international standards.”

On regulation 72 (Authority may request additional information), a regional group, supported by a member, suggested changing the title to “request for additional information.” On regulation 73 (overpayment of royalty), a regional group suggested language to clarify the timeframe in cases where there is no request for a refund due to any overpayment of royalties, “within 90 days of the due date or within 90 days of the actual submission.”

On regulation 73 bis (underpayment of royalty), some Council members supported the regulation and provided text suggestions to avoid ambiguities. A member, supported by many others, proposed to revert to a previous wording, “where a royalty return shows any underpayment of royalties, the contractor shall pay within 7 days from the notification of the Secretary-General.” A delegation suggested expanding from 7 to 30 days, and another suggested 14 days, both options gathered some support.

One member, pointing to overlaps with regulation 79 (interest on unpaid royalty), called for a more streamlined version. Another suggested merging both regulations.

On the provision stating that “proper measures shall be taken against contractors who do not pay the underpaid royalty in due time,” a few Council members noted that “proper measures” is unclear and sought clarification. A regional group proposed developing the specific measures in a standard. A delegation suggested adding that “a lack of payment constitutes a breach of contract and proper measures shall be taken.” Another opposed, noting that underpayment is not necessarily a breach of contract. Yet another added that legitimate errors may also occur.

On regulation 74 (proper books and records to be kept), deliberations addressed among others, the location, content, and retention period of records. Regarding the location of records, some delegations supported referring to “a place specified in the exploitation contract.” Others proposed specifying the requirement of both digital and physical records.

Several delegations noted overlap with regulation 39 (books, records, and samples) and called for streamlining and possible consolidation of the details regarding the content of records. Regarding the supplying and filing of records, one delegate proposed introducing a regular mandatory filing requirement to ensure timely access to relevant information by the ISA.

Regarding the records retention period, while the draft regulation requires that records be maintained for the duration of the exploitation contract, and ten years following completion of the closure plan, one delegate proposed its retention for the duration of the exploitation contract and post-closure monitoring period.

Several delegates proposed deleting regulation 75 (audit by the Authority), noting its content is covered by regulation 96 (the inspection mechanism). Some suggested returning to this regulation after regulation 96 has been considered. Some Council members also noted that the regulation title is misleading since the audit is undertaken by an independent auditor and not the Authority.

On regulation 76 (assessment by the Authority), delegates suggested various textual amendments including on the Secretary-General’s role and the need to involve the compliance committee when making decisions about royalty-related irregularities on the part of the contractor.

On regulation 77 (general anti-avoidance rule), regarding the threshold for contractors in non-compliance with payment obligations, most members expressed preference for “serious, persistent, and willful violation” rather than “gross and persistent breach.”

Discussing regulation 78 (arm’s-length adjustments), one member suggested that operations by state-owned enterprises should be considered non-arm’s-length by default and proposed text to this effect. “Arm’s-length” in this context refers to the contracts and transactions that are entered into freely and independently by parties that are not related parties and without one party influencing another.

On the Secretary-General’s role in reviewing arm’s length adjustments of payments, several members suggested involving other ISA organs such as the compliance committee and the Finance Committee, particularly on matters that are not purely administrative.

On regulation 79 (interest on unpaid royalty), discussions focused on the rate of interest on royalty that remains unpaid for more than three months, with most members expressing flexibility on the options of 15% and 20% currently in the text. One member, supported by several others, suggested changing reference to interest remaining unpaid for a specific number of “months” to “30-day periods” and also adding a paragraph accounting for partial months.

Regarding regulation 80 (monetary penalties), the Council agreed to its deletion, following previous suggestions that all contractual breaches should be tackled under draft regulation 103 (non-compliance, notice, suspension, and termination of exploitation contract).

Delegates discussed regulations on the review of the system of payments (regulation 81) and the review of rates of payment (regulation 82) under the relevant Friends of the President group facilitated by Canada.

On regulation 83 (recording in the seabed mining register), one member proposed an alternative streamlined formulation: “all payments received by the authority from contractors shall be recorded in the seabed mining register and shall be publicly available.” Members supported this amendment.

On regulation 83 bis (beneficial ownership registry), several members emphasized the need to define the beneficial ownership registry as well as the need for more details, including on the operational structure and procedures. Some delegates drew attention to the need to also include references to beneficial ownership in regulation 7 (form of applications and information to accompany a plan of work).

On regulation 84 (annual reporting fee), a participant cited UNCLOS Annex IV (Statutes of the Enterprise) Article 10(3) (Allocation of net income), drawing attention to the exemption accorded during an initial period required for the Enterprise to become self-supporting, which shall not exceed 10 years from the commencement of commercial production. Several delegations supported this with one specifying that in the case of joint ventures with the Enterprise, the exemption does not extend to others involved.

Several delegates said annual fee payments should be effective from the signing date of the exploitation contract. Some called for flexibility where reporting and/or payment is delayed due to circumstances beyond the contractor’s control.

Several members supported the paragraph stating that when the fee remains unpaid after the due date, this constitutes a violation of the fundamental terms of the contract for the purposes of regulation 103 (non-compliance, notice, suspension and termination of exploitation contract).

On regulation 85 (the annual fixed fee), delegates discussed whether the annual fixed fee should be paid from the date of commencement of commercial production or the date of the signature of an exploitation contract.

Many members and a regional group supported the signature date option. Pointing out that Article 1(d) of Section 8 of the Annex of the 1994 Agreement states that “annual fixed fee shall be payable from the date of commencement of commercial production,” several other delegations supported that option.

One member suggested deleting a provision regarding the date when the fee is due and payable to ISA. A regional group proposed adjusting the language to state: “the annual fixed fee shall be paid to the Authority within 30 days of the effective date of the exploitation contract and thereafter within 30 days of the commencement of each calendar year for the duration of the contract.”

A member proposed language addressing when interests cease to run. Many members requested the deletion of a paragraph stating that the annual fixed fee may be credited against any royalty or other amount payable. Others noted that this paragraph is consistent with language of Section 8 of the Annex to the 1994 Agreement and requested that it be retained.

Delegates considered ways to simplify regulation 86 (application fee for approval of a plan of work). Some supported that the Finance Committee, alongside the Secretary-General, jointly determine any discrepancies in the amount of the application fee, and the administrative costs incurred by the Authority. They also agreed to ensure reimbursement of all costs incurred by the Authority.

On regulation 87 (other applicable fees), one delegate stated that other fees to be paid by a contractor may also apply to other areas under the exploitation contract outside the mining area.

On regulation 88 (review and payment), delegations proposed that the Council take a decision on the review of annual, processing, or other applicable fees based on the technical recommendation of the Finance Committee. They agreed that review of fees be undertaken at least once every two years. Regarding the fee conversion from USD, some proposed listing possible freely-convertible currencies.

On regulation 89 (confidentiality of information), one member emphasized that the general rule regarding data and information is for open access and sharing, with confidentiality as an exception. Several delegations opposed confidential designation of environmental data related to the preservation of the marine environment, calling for deletion of related clauses, including on delaying the release of such information for bona fide academic reasons. An observer said the decision to delay the release of such information is a technical issue that should be tackled by the LTC.

Regarding what confidential information does not mean or include, several Council members asked for the reinsertion of alternative text stating that “environmental data, including all baseline and monitoring information,” and to delete a provision requiring delayed disclosure, to protect the marine environment or human health and safety, noting it is too prescriptive.

Delegates opposed the confidential designation of exploration data and information, noting among others, that such data should be public in order to support its use for joint exploitation agreements and technological advancements for the sector.

Regarding regulation 90 (procedures to ensure confidentiality), delegates noted that some of the provisions specifying who is barred from disclosing confidential information and to whom it must not be disclosed, are too narrow. They suggested expanding confidentiality obligations to “all relevant organs of the Authority” and called for defining “any person external to the Authority.” One member proposed that the Secretary-General establish and maintain a confidential information register to record all instances of confidential designation.

Discussions on regulation 91 (information to be submitted upon expiration or termination of an exploitation contract) focused on what information should be submitted and how to make the determination. One delegate proposed moving the list of required information to a standard, while others preferred retaining the list in the regulation. Another member called for deleting the provision that the contractor and the Secretary-General shall consult on what information should be transmitted, stressing the need for uniformity in data and information submission.

One member opposed any requirement to transmit biological samples to the ISA, noting the Authority is not equipped to handle such samples, preferring transmitting them to scientific institutions equipped to maintain and share them in accordance with best practice. Another member, supported by many others, proposed including “data” in the regulation title, noting the regulation deals with both data and information.

On regulation 92 (seabed mining register), several members supported the regulation, suggesting it could benefit from some restructuring and streamlining. They suggested, among other things, deleting the reference to confidential information; and including in the register any modifications and changes to an exploitation contract, a copy of each Council decision regarding exploitation, and any modifications to the plans of work. A member cautioned against creating an unusable repository.

Delegations also requested definitions of “instruments of transfer” and “assignment” in the glossary (schedule). A participant stressed the importance of such a register for an adequate performance of the Enterprise. An observer proposed a new provision to clearly state that documents pertaining to the impact assessment process should be posted within the registry.

On regulation 92 bis (publication of environmental data and information), delegates focused the discussion on whether to include a reference for the contractors to provide environmental data and information obtained outside the contract area, but in connection with activities within it. A delegation suggested referring to areas adjacent to the contract area.

Highlighting its importance, several members supported including a reference to data collected during the post-closure monitoring. A participant emphasized that transparent access to environmental data is fundamental for building public trust in deep-sea mining.

One member stated that geological and geochemical data published during the contract span may influence contractors’ interest, noting that in their domestic law, such data is considered protected.

Some delegates drew attention to the usefulness of having a set publication timeline and frequency. A regional group provided alternative text aimed at reducing ambiguity during the implementation of the provisions. One delegate pointed out that storage and management of this data should be part of the ISA data management strategy and underscored the need to define environmental data.

An observer recommended all environmental reference collections be handed over to a museum, academic institution, or other repository for cataloging, to make them available to the public and usable for future scientific purposes.

On regulation 93 (notice and general procedures) proposals were made to include a general reference to the fact that this regulation applies to all communications by and with the Authority. Delegations also agreed to move the definition of “communications” to the glossary. A new paragraph was proposed for all communications to the Secretary-General or the designated representative to be transmitted to them at the Authority’s headquarters.

Delegations considered regulation 93 bis (stakeholder consultations) and agreed that the Secretary-General shall determine the consultation period for each case, which shall begin on the date of the publication of a notice of consultation and may not be less than 90 days.

A delegate mentioned that terms like “may,” “shall,” and “will” in UNCLOS have different legal weight and connotation, and the terms cannot be used interchangeably. Delegations therefore differed on whether the applicant or contractor “shall” or “may” revise the documentation upon considering the submissions received. Several preferred “may” as it is not imposing.

Several supported maintaining the provision referring to regulations, applicable standards, and consideration of guidelines. Some also requested clarity on the scope and intent of public meetings organized by the applicant or contractor during consultation period.

An observer noted that the current EIA process is flawed, urging early initiation of consultations with states. Observers also emphasized the key role of rights-holders, and Indigenous Peoples, and their traditional knowledge.

On regulations 93 ter (consultations with potentially most affected/coastal states) and 93 quater (consultations with coastal states pursuant to Article 142(1) and (2) of the Convention), President Laki noted the informal working group on rights and interests of coastal states is continuing to deliberate on relevant regulations.

 One member noted the difficulty of discussing the regulation without clarification on whether the focus is on “potentially most affected states” or “coastal states” as the regulation title currently includes both alternative formulations.

Several members welcomed an explicit requirement to consult with coastal states, stressing this aligns with UNCLOS Article 142 (rights and legitimate interests of coastal states). Several members highlighted relevant provisions on rights on coastal states, contained in the BBNJ Agreement (Agreement under UNCLOS on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction), and suggested using some of these provisions to support discussions of the regulations. Others opposed, noting the different context of the BBNJ Agreement and pointing out it is not yet in force.

An observer queried the need for this regulation, calling for broad and efficient stakeholder consultations, and questioned whether coastal states would be allowed to self-identify as “potentially most affected.”

On regulation 94 (adoption of standards), regarding the LTC making recommendations to the Council on the adoption and revision of standards, delegates focused on whether to include a reference for the LTC to take into account the views of stakeholders, Indigenous Peoples, local communities, and competent experts. One delegate pointed out that Indigenous Peoples and local communities are also stakeholders, and another called for ensuring that the definition of stakeholders is clear regarding the inclusion of these groups. An observer suggested developing an annex concerning the use, need, and selection process for experts, noting this is a cross-cutting issue throughout the regulations.

A member proposed importing the list of standards set out in regulation 45 (development of environmental standards and guidelines) to avoid overlap. An observer cautioned that such a proposal would allow the approval of an exploitation contract without standards being in place.

Several delegations emphasized the need to maintain the provision, stating that compliance with standards is a fundamental term of the exploitation contract. Delegations provided different views and alternatives regarding the frequency and modality for the review of the adopted standards.

On regulation 95 (issuance of guidelines), there was broad support for retaining subsidiary bodies’ role in developing technical guidance for implementation of the regulations. On stakeholder input, delegations requested clarity on who qualifies as a stakeholder and how their views would be incorporated.

Several delegations proposed that the compliance committee or the LTC, rather than the Council, request explanations from contractors in cases of divergence from the guidelines, as a means to enhance transparency and accountability, while some preferred to delete the provision entirely.

On regulation 96 (inspection mechanism), divergent views emerged on the appointing authority for the chief inspector. Some delegations preferred the Secretary-General, while others supported appointment by the compliance committee, with one preferring appointment by a decision of the Council.

Divergent views also existed on the reference to the compliance strategy, with some noting that it is still under discussion by the ICE Working Group, while many others reserved their position. On the code of conduct for inspectors, some delegations noted that the list of principles may not be conclusive but expressed that proportionality and expertise should not be included. Others supported the inclusion of integrity, impartiality, and gender balance.

On regulation 96 bis (inspections), several delegations suggested streamlining, restructuring, and redrafting many of the provisions in the regulation.

On the inspector deciding upon the manner of execution of the inspections, a member requested deleting “announced and unannounced” inspections. Another requested deletion of “unannounced,” pointing toward logistical difficulties of this manner of executing inspections.

Many delegations supported onsite, remote, and virtual inspections as well as announced and unannounced inspections, with a delegate underscoring that unannounced inspections are part of any credible inspection regime. One delegate suggested that inspection sites may include the contractor’s ships, installations, office premises, or a combination of these.

On contractors providing facilities, including food and accommodation to inspectors, a member proposed, and others supported, including a reference to a ship voyage in compliance with the inspectors’ code of conduct. An observer opposed, noting that regulation 85 (annual fixed fee) states that the annual fixed fee is likely to cover, among other things, the conduct of inspections and that therefore, contractors should not be required to cover these.

Regarding regulation 96 ter (request for inspection in the event of harm to the marine environment), consensus emerged to include reference to inspection in the event of “harmful effects” and “risk of harmful effects” in alignment with UNCLOS Article 145, which refers to protection from harmful effects of activities such as drilling, dredging, and excavation.

On entities that may request inspection to determine such harm or risk of it, several members supported extending eligibility from coastal and adjacent states to all states. Some also called for inclusion of coastal communities in accordance with UNCLOS Article 195 (Indigenous Peoples and local communities rights). A regional group proposed alternative text for aligning with regulation 4 (rights and legitimate interests of coastal states and duty to notify), to include all relevant documentation and evidence supporting an inspection request.

An observer expressed concern on overlaps with regulation 4, recommended deletion of this regulation, and suggested replacing it with a general provision empowering the chief inspector to assess and act upon any credible information, regardless of the source, that may potentially harm the marine environment.

One observer noted it will be challenging to determine responsibility for harmful effects when multiple contractors are operating in the same area, urging development of clear procedures or mechanisms for such cases.

Deliberations on regulation 97 (appointment and supervision of inspectors), focused primarily on how appointments should be made to the roster of inspectors, with three main positions emerging: state nominations only; self-nomination or application by the experts themselves, with no state involvement; or a combination of the two, whereby states can nominate and interested experts can also apply to join the roster. Questioning the need for state involvement, one member stressed that the application process should be “totally unpolitical,” transparent, and inclusive.

Delegates also expressed diverging views on whether inspections need to align with countries’ national enforcement processes, with many questioning the need for this. An observer clarified that alignment would help ensure the outcome of inspections can be used as evidence in countries’ enforcement processes.

Council members also addressed which ISA organ should make recommendations to the Council regarding the inspectors’ qualifications and experience, with views split between the LTC and the compliance committee.

One member noted that UNCLOS Article 165.3 (LTC) refers to the LTC members “carrying out their function of supervision and inspection” and asked if this means LTC members are automatically inspectors.

On inspectors’ functions and responsibilities (regulation 97 bis), many delegates suggested moving most of the provisions to the inspectors’ code of conduct, with a few calling for some high-level references to be retained. Another member suggested merging this regulation with regulation 98 on inspectors’ powers.

Regarding the paragraph stating that inspectors must have no conflicts of interest, no financial interest, and not disclose any confidential data, some delegates suggested separating these requirements into different paragraphs.

Some delegations and observers drew attention to the role of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and its International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS). They underscored the need to separate safety at sea issues from the inspectors’ functions, stressing that the latter should relate exclusively to deep-sea mining-related operations. A delegation suggested using language from UNCLOS Article 146 (Protection of human life).

On regulation 98 (inspectors’ powers), several members raised concerns about the fragmentation of inspection-related provisions across multiple regulations. Many members supported the concept of unannounced inspections and their discretionary use by inspectors.

On the power to question persons engaged by the contractor, views diverged on whether inspectors should be allowed to question any “relevant” person. Some delegations emphasized that inspectors should have unrestricted authority to question any person engaged by the contractor. Others preferred maintaining language that limits this to “persons deemed relevant by the inspector,” in order to preserve the inspector’s discretion.

There was broad support for a proposal to delete the clause subjecting inspector powers to legal restrictions on access to documents, with many members arguing that this would undermine inspectors’ authority and create loopholes. One delegate called for a mechanism to justify non-disclosure, while another stressed the need to respect contractor confidentiality and avoid conflicts with other international legal obligations.

On inspection procedures, several Council members and an observer emphasized that equipment testing should be carried out by qualified contractor personnel, rather than by inspectors, for safety reasons. Another delegate supported extending inspections to office premises, while a few members suggested including installations, equipment, and facilities used in exploitation activities within the scope of inspection.

Regarding seizure of documents, some delegates emphasized that inspectors should have full authority to access all documents. In contrast, others advocated that documents should only be copied rather than seized, except in exceptional circumstances such as when there is evidence of concealment.

On regulation 99 (inspectors’ power to issue instructions), many Council members called for the restructuring and streamlining of the regulation. Some suggested moving the provisions dealing with the compliance committee to regulation 102 (compliance committee), and to cross-reference regulations 29 (reduction or suspension in production) and 29 bis (procedure for suspensions in exploitation activities).

Delegates discussed cases when written or oral notifications apply, with a member noting the latter should be used in urgent situations where the issuance of written instruction is impracticable. Another suggested that any oral instruction should be confirmed in writing within 12 hours. An observer noted that the grounds for using this inspector power should be a threat of non-compliance with regulations, standards, or contracts, and not be limited to the risk of harm to humans or the environment.

On regulation 100 (inspection reports), delegates considered the sequencing and timing for submission of inspection reports. One member suggested that inspection reports should be submitted by the chief inspector to the Secretary-General and the compliance committee, and that the Secretary-General should thereafter send the reports to the contractor, sponsoring state(s), and adjacent coastal states. Another member argued that reports should only be sent to the compliance committee when potential non-compliance is identified.

There was also some debate on who should have the right to comment on such inspection reports, with one member proposing extending this right to all state parties and stakeholders.

One member highlighted overlap between references to urgent and routine inspections in this regulation, and to announced and unannounced inspections in regulation 98 (inspector powers), noting announced inspections are likely routine and unannounced inspections are likely urgent.

On regulation 101 (complaints relating to inspections), the Council debated on who should handle such complaints, with members proposing options including the compliance committee, an ombudsperson, the chief inspector, or the Council. Several members noted the need for language addressing situations where the complaint is against the chief inspector or the compliance committee.

A regional group, supported by several other delegates, pointed out that the text allowing complaints against any organ or official of the Authority exceeds the mandate of this regulation as it could apply to administrative or personnel-related complaints. Suggesting that such complaints should be handled through a distinct accountability mechanism such as an ombudsperson, they proposed language limiting the scope of complaints under this regulation to those concerning the “conduct of an inspector or a contractor in connection with inspections or compliance activities.”

Others opposed the establishment of an ombudsperson, suggesting that broader complaints can be handled by the Council, with one member cautioning against overburdening the process with multiple bodies.

Regarding who has the right to complain, several members opposed restricting this right to contractors, stressing this is “unnecessarily narrow.” They called for extending the right to others such as sponsoring states, adjacent coastal states, inspectors, or other affected stakeholders.

Many delegations supported retaining the placeholder language of regulation 101 bis (whistle-blowing procedures), pending the development of a broader Authority-wide policy. Several proposed inserting specific reference to a “whistleblowing mechanism,” within the regulation to make clear that such a mechanism should be initiated and adopted. One member recalled that elements related to whistleblowing were moved to the suspense document (ISBA/30/C/CRP.2/Rev.1).

An observer strongly advocated for the urgent establishment of such a mechanism, highlighting that an ombudsperson and independent oversight are core elements of good governance. One member also stressed the need to include protection measures for whistleblowers.

In regulation 102 bis (ship notification, electronic monitoring, and data reporting), there was general support for real-time and continuous monitoring systems. A few members pointed out that limiting monitoring to exploitation activities only is inadequate and proposed referencing “all activities related to the exploitation contract.”

Several members recommended adjusting the language around redundancy measures to better reflect technical limitations, noting that backup may not be feasible in all circumstances. Several delegations suggested deleting the provisions on compliance notices and corrective plans, noting these provisions are more appropriate for the regulations dealing with enforcement and penalties.

On regulation 103 (non-compliance notice, suspension, and termination of exploitation contract), President Laki thanked the Netherlands for offering to facilitate a Friends of the President group to streamline and restructure the regulation. A regional group suggested moving the content of the compliance notice into a standard.

A member queried how the compliance committee would apply the principle of graduality regarding the actions specified, which should be “commensurate with the gravity, frequency, or other circumstances of the breach.” One member proposed language on the procedure regarding making public any compliance notice, including any received response, and publishing them in the seabed mining register.

Some delegates sought clarification on how decisions involving monetary penalties would work and called for more details.

A Council member drew attention to a previous proposal on establishing a public complaint mechanism. Stressing its necessity, they pointed to UNCLOS Articles 136 (Common heritage of humankind), 137 (Legal status of the Area and its resources), and 145 (Protection of the marine environment), noting that the general public has the right to be informed of the damages to the marine environment caused by mining activities in the Area under the ISA regime.

Regarding the power to take remedial action (regulation 104), a few delegates supported the provision that contractors must pay the Authority the costs and expenses related to remedial actions or measures taken, and that contractors may recover such costs from the environmental performance guarantee lodged by the contractors. Some other members opposed, noting that such a guarantee should be limited to the closure plan, including post-closure monitoring, emergency response, and contingency plan as indicated in regulation 26 (environmental performance guarantee).

One member proposed a new paragraph stating that the Secretary-General shall notify the sponsoring state(s) about the decision of the Council and remedial actions or measures under this regulation. A few members supported the Council determining the nature of the measures based on the recommendations of the LTC.

On regulation 105 (sponsoring states), delegates provided some minor and editorial amendments. Some drew attention to the need for sponsoring states to have adequate national legislation in place. An observer pointed out that UNCLOS Annex III, Article 4, sets criteria and procedures for implementing the sponsorship requirements, stressing that this regulation does not.

Delegations considered revisions to regulation 105 bis (periodic review of ICE mechanism), including a proposal to change the title to better reflect the comprehensive scope of the ICE mechanism. One member supported this title change.

Supported by other members, a delegate questioned the need to include confidentiality language in the publication of review reports, noting that confidentiality is addressed elsewhere. Some delegations stressed the importance of making review reports publicly accessible, with sensitive content handled according to existing confidentiality rules.

On the topic of frequency of the periodic review, while the draft proposed a five-year interval from the establishment of the compliance committee, several delegates proposed a review every three years during the first ten years of commercial production, followed by a five-year cycle thereafter, to allow more flexibility in early stages.

One member proposed wording that reviews be conducted “at least every five years” initially, while another preferred retaining a five-year interval from commencement, citing concerns over insufficient data for more frequent reviews.

Delegates also debated whether the Council should consider the recommendations of the LTC, the chief inspector, or the compliance committee for amendments to the mechanism.

On regulation 105 ter (other member states), many Council members requested deletion, stating it exceeds the mandate of the Authority.

On regulation 106 (settlement of disputes), several members supported deleting the provision that affirms that nothing in the regulation prejudices the Authority’s or sponsoring state’s ability to act under UNCLOS.

Several delegates voiced reservations about a provision stipulating that final decisions of competent courts or tribunals “shall be enforceable in the territory of each state party as if they were final judgments of that state’s own courts,” citing constitutional and legal compatibility concerns. One member argued that ISA standards and guidelines do not grant jurisdiction to courts or tribunals and thus should not be referenced.

One member supported including language that ensures that disputes are subject to international adjudication under UNCLOS and not limited by ISA rules and regulations, affirming that ISA instruments do not override international law mechanisms.

An observer proposed alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, including non-judicial and administrative mechanisms within the ISA framework, to manage disputes more efficiently and cost-effectively.

Deliberations on regulation 107 (review of the exploitation regulations) focused on, among other things, periodicity, revision procedures, public consultation, and how amendments affect existing contracts. On the timing of the review, some members supported retaining the proposal for the first review to be held five years after the approval of the regulations.

Another member suggested the first review should be after signing the first exploitation contract, or upon commencement of commercial production. A regional group suggested a 10-year periodic review aligned with UNCLOS Articles 150 (policies relating to activities in the Area) and 151 (production policies). They also proposed expanding the scope of the review to include benefit-sharing, prevention of monopolization, and interests of developing countries and SIDS.

One member cautioned that frequent revisions could create an excessive workload and proposed revision based on improved knowledge, technological advances, implementation experience, or identification of regulatory gaps

Regarding entities that can request revision, several members supported maintaining a broad list consisting of states, the LTC, Enterprise, contractors via sponsoring states, and stakeholders via states, while another member preferred limiting such entities to member states and ISA organs.

Several delegations supported a transition period to apply amendments to existing contracts while another member preferred the original proposal of a non-retroactive application. Discussions will continue through a Friends of the President group.

Discussions on the Way Forward: On Thursday, 17 July, President Laki commended the finalization of the second reading of the draft regulations and proposed working modalities for addressing the annexes and schedule, proposing that under the coordination of the Secretariat, the annexes and outstanding topics will be clustered to conduct conceptual discussions on their purpose and scope, before delving into a detailed analysis either within existing informal working groups, or under ongoing or new Friends of the President groups. Laki encouraged delegations to volunteer as facilitators for the Friends of the President groups.

Several delegations welcomed the overall proposal. A few members, pointing out the struggles of small delegations, cautioned against an overloaded schedule of meetings or creation of too many groups, stressing this would make it impossible for them to follow all meetings and topics. One delegate proposed creating broader thematic clusters to facilitate discussion of all regulations.

Consultations on the way forward continued in a Friends of President group facilitated by Portugal.

On Friday, 18 July, Vice-President Beatrice Chen (Singapore) invited the Council to consider the draft decision on a thematic approach to the continuation of the elaboration of rules, regulations, and procedures relating to resolve key outstanding issues that remain. Following some minor editorial amendments indicated by PORTUGAL, the Council adopted the decision.

Due to time constraints, delegates agreed to postpone the discussion on the updated list of standards and guidelines, as well as the review of the status of advancement on draft regulations, including text proposals by informal working groups and the Friends of the President, until the next Council session.

Delegates exchanged proposals on the deadline for submitting written proposals to be included in the next iteration of the consolidated draft regulations. Provisionally, they agreed that the deadline for individual submissions would be 1 October 2025, and for the intersessional working group, including both informal working groups and the Friends of the President groups, would be 31 January 2026.

On Monday, 21 July, Council President Laki noted that the Friends of the President and informal working groups will continue their work during the intersessional period to advance discussion of the regulations. He highlighted the proposal that in order to ensure that the Secretariat is able to provide a revised consolidated text by 1 February 2026, delegations should submit their proposed amendments by 31 October 2025 and groups by 31 December 2025.

CHILE, SINGAPORE, and the UK supported the proposed submission dates and, with other members, noted the need to align these discussions with the discussions on the dates of the next session. AUSTRALIA suggested that the working group chairs should provide status reports on the draft regulations so that delegates absent from the meetings can be kept up to speed regarding the evolution of the language. Delegates agreed to this proposal.

The Secretariat will compile all the submissions and prepare an updated, revised consolidated text well in advance of the first part of the 31st session in 2026, for the Council’s consideration.

Final Decision: In its decision on a thematic approach to the continuation of the elaboration of rules, regulations, and procedures relating to exploitation to resolve key outstanding matters that remain (ISBA/30/C/18), the Council:

• decides to take a thematic approach toward resolving the key outstanding matters in the elaboration of the exploitation rules, regulations, and procedures, with the view to set milestones for their timely adoption;
• agrees on the following themes, which require further attention and resolution: (i) environmental matters, (ii) financial matters, (iii) regulatory, procedural, and institutional matters, and (iv) governance matters;
• requests the Secretariat to prepare well in advance of the first meeting of the 31st session: a further revised consolidated text; a draft indicative list of outstanding issues that would potentially fall under the four main themes identified; and an indicative programme of work;
• decides to continue intersessional work on the basis of working groups and Friends of the President groups;
• decides to examine at the beginning for the 31st session the draft indicative list prepared by the Secretariat with a view to informing the programme of work of the 31st session; and
• decides to assess at the end of the 31st session, the remaining work, if any, that would be needed prior to the adoption of rules, regulations, and procedures, and to establish a road map to that end.

Dates of the Next Session

On Monday, 21 July, President Laki presented the proposed dates for the 31st session of the Council as follows: Part I, 16–27 March 2026; Part II, 13–24 July 2026; and Part III, 28 October – 6 November 2026. BRAZIL, supported by several delegates, expressed concern that the proposed dates for Part I conflict with the third session of the BBNJ Preparatory Commission (PrepCom) scheduled for 23 March to 2 April 2026. The Secretariat clarified that the dates for ISA were set three years in advance, and that this was before the finalization of the BBNJ Agreement. CHILE and SINGAPORE noted this was not mentioned when the BBNJ PrepCom dates were set.

CHILE, supported by FRANCE, BRAZIL, and several others, also opposed confirming a Part III meeting, arguing that this decision should be made during the first part and depend on evolving priorities, taking into consideration financial resources, logistical possibilities, and challenges faced by small delegations. The COOK ISLANDS, supported by GERMANY, proposed holding Part I during the dates proposed for Part II, and holding Part II during the proposed dates for Part III.

Delegates called on the Secretariat to hold consultations with the BBNJ interim secretariat to resolve this conflict of dates. They agreed to President Laki’s suggestion that the proposed dates remain indicative, allowing the Secretariat to consult with the UN Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea and the BBNJ interim secretariat, with the possibility of invoking rule 4 of the ISA Council Rules of Procedure (Alteration of the date of a regular session).

Closing Plenary

President Laki thanked all ISA members, staff, and everyone who had participated in the session and contributed to the progress made, especially in completing the second reading of the draft regulations. JAMAICA, as host country, thanked all ISA staff and all delegates for their active participation and continuing cooperation.

President Laki gaveled the meeting to a close at 11:35 am on Monday, 21 July.

ISA-30 Assembly Report

On Monday, 21 July, Allieu Koroma (Sierra Leone), on behalf of Amara Sowa, ISA-29 Assembly President, opened the meeting and invited representatives to observe one minute of silence dedicated to prayer or meditation.

Olivier Poivre d’Arvor, Special Envoy of the French President for the Third UN Ocean Conference (UNOC3) and French Ambassador for the Ocean and the Poles, stressed the ambition and commitments of UNOC’s leaders and participants for the protection of the Ocean, warning about the urgent need to protect the high seas on the one hand and address the threats of deep-sea mining on the other. He drew attention to the Global Consultation on the Deep Seabed, a report led by the International Panel on Ocean Sustainability, noting it states that “current green transition strategies favor the Global North, maintaining a certain mode of consumption while exploiting the resources of the Global South.” The report recommends a moratorium or a precautionary pause on deep-sea mining for at least 10 to 15 years, or until sufficient knowledge is available to make informed decisions.

D’Arvor emphasized French President Macron’s desire to convince ISA members to ban deep-sea mining and invited countries, particularly those that do not have exploration permits, to join the call for a moratorium or precautionary pause. He invited ISA members to take “the time to draft a mining code that is much more rigorous and robust than the one some would like to adopt in a hurry.”

In her opening remarks, ISA Secretary-General Leticia Carvalho drew attention to the scope and ambition of the Assembly’s indicative plan of work, and urged the Assembly to take stock of how far the Authority has come, and how both she, as Secretary-General, and the ISA can help the Assembly deliver the ISA’s mandate. She highlighted that only through dialogue, consensus, institutional trust, and broader participation can the ISA uphold the long-term stewardship of the deep sea for the present and future generations.

Jamaica, as host country, welcomed delegates and commended those who attended the just-completed Council meeting for their engagement in advancing the exploitation regulations.

Organizational Matters

Adoption of the Agenda: On Monday, 21 July, Acting President Koroma invited the Assembly to adopt the provisional agenda (ISBA/30/A/L.1/Rev.1).

CHINA and the RUSSIAN FEDERATION condemned the unilateral actions of the US regarding authorizing deep-sea mining in circumvention of the ISA, highlighting that such actions are in violation of international legal rules and will jeopardize the overall interest of all humankind. The RUSSIAN FEDERATION further noted that by signing the 1994 Agreement and participating in the ISA’s work, the US is obliged to refrain from activities that would defeat the objects and purpose of UNCLOS and ISA.

Regarding the agenda item on “need for a general policy of the Authority for the protection and preservation of the marine environment: scope and parameters,” proposed by CHILE, CHINA, SAUDI ARABIA, RUSSIAN FEDERATION, and the AFRICAN GROUP questioned the need for such a general policy.

CHINA asserted that UNCLOS and the 1994 Agreement are overarching and sufficiently address environmental protection issues, and there is no urgent imperative to formulate such a general policy. SAUDI ARABIA highlighted the need to ensure a balance between environmental protection and the right to development.

INDIA suggested that consideration of such a general policy can be undertaken after the exploitation regulations have been finalized. The AFRICAN GROUP called for strengthening the environmental protection-related regulations.

Many delegates, including CHILE, PANAMA, GERMANY, COSTA RICA, BRAZIL, GREECE, FRANCE, and others, supported inclusion of the agenda item, expressing their interest in considering all points of view. 

CHILE underscored that the Assembly has the powers to establish a general policy on any matter within the ISA’s mandate. Highlighting growing concern for the protection of the marine environment and limited scientific understanding of the impacts of deep-sea mining on the environment, he affirmed that it is the Assembly and ISA’s responsibility to develop a general policy to protect and preserve the marine environment. 

The Assembly adopted its agenda.

Election of Officials: On Monday, 21 July, the Latin American and Caribbean Group nominated, and the Assembly elected by acclamation, Dwight Gardiner of Antigua and Barbuda, as ISA-30 Assembly President. Ghana, Fiji, and the Netherlands were nominated and elected as Vice-Presidents.

Credentials: On Monday, 21 July, delegates appointed the following ISA members to the Credentials Committee: The Bahamas, Dominican Republic, Ireland, Kuwait, Nauru, Switzerland, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe.

On Friday, 25 July, Miguel Balaguer (Dominican Republic), Chair of the Credentials Committee, presented the credentials report (ISBA/30/A/10), noting 74 states submitted credentials and nine states submitted related information. The Assembly approved the report.

Election to Fill Vacancies on the Finance Committee: The Assembly held elections to fill three vacancies on the Finance Committee (ISBA/30/A/3, ISBA/30/A/6, and ISBA/30/A/9),  and elected by acclamation Lee-Anne Yarr (United Kingdom), Mahmudul Hassan (Bangladesh), and Yedla Umasankar (India).

Consideration of Requests for Observer Status

On Monday, 21 July, the Assembly approved requests for observer status from 12 out of the 13 observer organizations (ISBA/30/A/INF/1 – ISBA/30/A/INF/13).

The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, International Copper Study Group, Lead and Zinc Study Group, and the International Nickel Study Group requested to participate as observers in accordance with Rule 82.1(d) of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure, which allows the UN, its specialized agencies, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and other intergovernmental organizations invited by the Assembly to participate as observers.

The International Manganese Institute, Cobalt Institute, Earth Law Center, Ocean and Us, Kōrero o te ‘Ōrau, China Oceanic Development Foundation, World Resources Institute, and Oceano Azul Foundation requested to participate as observers in accordance with Rule 82.1(e) of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure, which allows non-governmental organizations (NGOs) with which the Secretary-General has entered into arrangements, and other NGOs invited by the Assembly to participate as  observers.

Regarding the Seafloor Mineral Developers Association’s request for observer status as an NGO, CHILE, COSTA RICA, and PANAMA raised concerns.

CHILE pointed out the lack of clarity regarding the association’s aims, stressing that the association comprises deep-sea contractors. COSTA RICA recalled unresolved concerns during last year’s Assembly session over the same applicant. PANAMA pointed out potential conflicts of interest.

In contrast, NAURU, TONGA, and CHINA supported the request. NAURU, noting that contractors lack formal avenues to participate in the ISA’s discussions, drew attention to the potentially meaningful contributions to the ISA’s work that this international non-profit organization, representing contractors engaged in deep-sea activities, can provide.

TONGA added that contributions from contractors would foster robust regulations. CHINA, stressing that contractors are important stakeholders in the ISA’s work, noted there are no grounds for preventing contractors from forming a non-profit organization and becoming observers.

President Gardiner invited interested member states to conduct consultations on the matter and come up with a solution. SINGAPORE, SAMOA, and JAMAICA expressed their willingness to join the consultations.

On Friday, 25 July, President Gardiner reported that following the informal consultations, members agreed that:

• contractors would be able to participate in ISA-31 in their individual capacity;
• the Secretariat will prepare draft guidelines on contractors’ participation for consideration by ISA-31; and
• an item on contractors’ participation will be added to the ISA-31 agenda.

 COSTA RICA called for the Assembly to consider the parameters of contractors’ participation and suggested that the Secretariat prepare a note on the matter ahead of ISA-31, to enable delegates to prepare for the discussion. BRAZIL asked if the ISA Rules of Procedure would need to be amended if there is a change to contractors’ accreditation status. SINGAPORE, supported by JAMAICA and several others, clarified that contractors would be considered as NGOs and no amendment would be required. The NETHERLANDS clarified that contractors can, in the interim, submit requests for observer status.

GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL cautioned that the proposed change requires proper consultation and consideration, highlighting that granting observer status to contractors contradicts the spirit and intent of UNCLOS and increases the risk of corporate takeover.

The matter of contractors’ participation was deferred to ISA-31.

Statement by the Council President on the Work of the Council

On Tuesday, 22 July, Council President Laki presented the Council’s work during the first and second parts of ISA-30, noting that the main focus was on the draft exploitation regulations. He expressed appreciation to all delegations for their constructive engagement and urged continued collective responsibility to deliver a fair and effective legal framework that upholds the principle of the common heritage of humankind.

He reminded delegates that the regulations are legal instruments, not policy documents or treaty amendments, and must remain within the scope of UNCLOS and the 1994 Agreement. He called for continued transparency, accountability, and good faith, and emphasized the importance of advancing the Council’s work with both speed and efficiency, without compromising quality.

Delegates welcomed the report and progress made. Several, including MONACO, SAMOA, KENYA, FRANCE, the PHILIPPINES, SWITZERLAND, MEXICO, and the AFRICAN GROUP, stressed that safeguarding the marine environment is fundamental, referencing UNCLOS Article 145 and acknowledging progress through the decision relating to the standardized procedure for the development, establishment, and review of REMPs. They also underscored the need for a strong regulatory regime as a prerequisite for any commercial exploitation.

MONACO emphasized that the protection of the marine environment is a core mandate of the ISA, not a secondary task. They stressed that this obligation must guide the development of the regulations, with decisions grounded in science and broad consultation.

SAMOA reiterated support for a moratorium on deep-sea mining and referenced the SAMOA Pathway, which recognizes the impacts of deep-sea mining on the environment and biodiversity and calls for the application of the precautionary principle, transparency, and effective participation of all stakeholders.

COSTA RICA, the UK, and the PHILIPPINES welcomed the measures taken on contractor compliance and enhanced transparency. The UK, FRANCE, and others also drew attention to the operationalization of the EPC and applauded the decision.

COSTA RICA, FRANCE, the UK, and others supported the thematic approach for intersessional work and called for a clear schedule of work, and with ARGENTINA, timely availability of documents to facilitate progress.

KENYA called for a dedicated workshop for African Countries of the Western Indian Ocean region on REMPS to share scientific knowledge and build capacity.

The PHILIPPINES underscored the need for consistency between the ISA’s regulatory framework and the BBNJ Agreement, particularly in upholding the principle of the common heritage of humankind. COSTA RICA requested that the ISA calendar for future Council meetings in 2026 avoid conflicts with BBNJ meetings, calling for sufficient time between meetings to allow small delegations to prepare and engage effectively.

The Assembly took note of the President’s statement.

Report of the Finance Committee

Finance Committee Chair Kenneth Wong (Canada) reported to the Assembly on the work of the Committee (ISBA/30/A/8-ISBA/30/C/12). Highlighting the discussions on a suitable mechanism for the equitable sharing of financial and other economic benefits derived from activities in the Area, he noted that the Committee developed a tentative draft of the objectives of the common heritage fund, initially proposed as the seabed sustainability fund.

He further drew delegates’ attention to the Authority’s technical study No. 31, “Equitable Sharing of Financial and other Economic Benefits from Deep-Seabed Mining,” and urged the Secretary-General to develop an interactive tool based on the study, allowing for the theoretical calculation of the potential share each state would receive under different scenarios.

COSTA RICA reiterated their request for a financial audit by the UN, and the need for alternative pathways for equitable benefit-sharing mechanisms beyond the fund for the Council’s and Assembly’s consideration. They proposed including the topic as a standalone agenda item for the next Council and Assembly sessions. They also requested the Finance Committee to develop a comparative analysis of alternative options for benefit-sharing.

SINGAPORE requested confirmation that the relevant Assembly decision on reclassification will be fully respected and asked the Finance Committee to share their considerations regarding the restructuring of the Secretariat.

The AFRICAN GROUP reiterated their position delivered during the Council session, calling for a review of the administrative instruction amendment that allows for the conduct of reclassification of posts without prior submission to standard classification procedures.

The PEW CHARITABLE TRUSTS noted with concern that neither the Council nor the Assembly has ever had an opportunity to discuss in depth the Finance Committee reports and findings regarding the equitable distribution of the financial proceeds for the benefit of all humankind.

Responding to the comments and questions, Wong drew attention to, among other things, the challenges associated with achieving intergenerational equity in benefit-sharing; and the flexibility that developing a fund would provide compared to direct distribution.

ISA Deputy Secretary-General Bruno Pozzi responded that the Secretariat has taken note of the request for information regarding the work conducted by consultants and the need to withdraw the amendment to the administrative instruction related to the reclassification of posts, and issue a new one.

The Assembly adopted the decision as orally amended.

Final Decision: In its final decision (ISBA/30/A/11), the Assembly:

• approves the increase of the annual overhead charge for the administration and supervision of contracts for exploration to USD 100,000 per contract, effective 1 January 2027;
• appoints CalvertGordon Associates as the external auditor of the Authority for the financial period 2025–2026;
• decides that the rate of assessment and the amounts of contribution of San Marino to the General Administrative Fund and the Working Capital Fund shall be as recommended in paragraph 27 of the report of the Finance Committee;
• recommends that the Secretariat develop the concept of the common heritage fund as one of the possible ways for distribution of income from activities in the Area, which should be accompanied by a comprehensive report describing and explaining the concept; and
• reiterates its request that, in the future, no reclassification decision be implemented without prior approval of the Assembly on the recommendation of the Finance Committee.

Annual Report of the Secretary-General

Delegates addressed the annual report of the Secretary-General on Tuesday, 22 July, Thursday, 24 July, and Friday, 25 July.

On Tuesday, Secretary-General Carvalho presented her annual report (ISBA/30/A/2), the  note on the Secretariat restructuring (ISBA/30/A/7/Rev.1), and the implementation of the action plan for marine scientific research ISA in support of the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (ISBA/30/A/4). She noted the near-universal membership of the Authority and urged the 17 countries that have yet to do so, to accede to the 1994 Agreement.

Secretary-General Carvalho highlighted that, among other things:

• 17 ISA members have deposited with the Secretary-General, their charts and lists showing the outer limit lines of their continental shelf;
• eight new permanent representatives were appointed and accredited to the ISA, and three members appointed permanent representatives to the ISA for the first time;
• the Secretariat undertook a restructuring to enhance the efficiency, transparency, accountability and cost-effectiveness of its work;
• the Secretariat’s Compliance Assurance and Regulatory Management Unit conducted two inspections in relation to four exploration contracts; and
• the Secretariat has signed letters of cooperation and memoranda of understanding with countries and organizations, such as the Republic of Korea and the International Labour Organization, to enhance information sharing and capacity building.

Delegates thanked the Secretary-General for the comprehensive report.

Surangel Whipps, President of PALAU, condemned the framing of deep-sea mining as a “green” solution, warning of the risk of irreversible harm that would “leave an ecological debt so vast that our children will pay the price for lifetimes.” He questioned the urgency to complete the regulations, suggesting the rush is shaped by external, corporate interests, and reiterated his country’s support for a moratorium on deep-sea mining. He further called for the establishment of a standing committee under the ISA, which “would ensure that cultural heritage is not treated as an afterthought but is systematically considered before any deep-sea mining activities commence.”

PANAMA, emphasizing the ethical and legal duty of ISA members to uphold the common heritage of humankind as enshrined in UNCLOS, underscored that the greatest risk lies not in delaying adoption of the mining code but in irresponsible advancement without the necessary safeguards. They further emphasized the importance of an ISA general policy for protecting and preserving the marine environment, in order to create synergies and coherence with the BBNJ Agreement, the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies, and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF).

Most delegates welcomed the report by the Secretary-General and commended the progress made by the ISA on, among other things: operationalization of the Enterprise and actions undertaken by the Interim Director-General; efforts for strengthening engagement with states, including through the Deep Dive platform; the network of national focal points for capacity development; developments of REMPs; the briefing on plastics in the deep sea; and the policy brief on challenges and opportunities of using environmental DNA approaches.

Many members commended the Secretariat’s efforts in capacity building and training, including the See Her Exceed global mentoring programme, and other efforts to increase the presence of women in deep-sea activities. KENYA urged that further capacity development should focus on deep-sea research and strengthening institutional readiness for meaningful participation in activities in the Area.

TONGA welcomed the Secretariat restructuring, including the new office of Contract Management and Capacity Building, highlighting the new structure will help increase cost-effectiveness, transparency, and coordination. They urged continuous evaluation of the Secretariat’s staffing needs in accordance with the evolution of the Secretariat’s work and expected future responsibilities. The AFRICAN GROUP noted that the financial sustainability of the ISA remains a concern, underscoring the critical role of the voluntary trust funds in supporting developing countries.

MONACO encouraged sound decision making based on scientific evidence, noting that with effective governance of the Area, the exploitation of mineral resources should not compromise the rights of future generations.

Several members highlighted the need for continued coordination with the BBNJ Agreement. ARGENTINA encouraged the Secretariat to maintain active participation in BBNJ-related meetings. BANGLADESH stressed the importance of enhancing scientific cooperation, biodiversity conservation, and data sharing. GERMANY supported aligning the mining code with the BBNJ Agreement, in order to ensure complementarity and coherence between them.

On issues relating to marine scientific research and the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development, members commended the Secretariat’s efforts in promoting technology transfer and marine science, including through the Deep-Sea Biobank Initiative, Deep Seabed and Ocean Database (DeepData), and the One Thousand Reasons campaign focused on deep-sea taxonomy.

TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO stressed that the highest scientific standards and principles of sustainability must guide exploration and potential utilization and exploitation of the Area. ARGENTINA called for increased investment in deep-sea science and technology, underscoring the need for science-based, sound decision-making. TONGA urged increased SIDS representation in marine scientific research activities.

TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO also stressed that marine science is a core pillar of the legal regime governing the Area and commended the ISA’s allocation of USD 8.4 million over the past decade to promote marine scientific research in the Area.

VIET NAM noted the limited understanding of deep-sea ecosystems and drew attention to the need for a comprehensive effort by the international community, coordinated by the ISA, to assess and fill those knowledge gaps.

Regarding the exploitation regulations, several members underscored the need for developing a comprehensive and robust legal framework before commencing commercial exploitation activities in the Area. ZIMBABWE underscored the need to ensure environmental protection, promote equitable benefit-sharing, and balance the interests of land-based mining countries that might be adversely affected.

NIGERIA called for an inclusive and equitable approach, highlighting the need to adequately consider the potential effects on land-based mining countries. CUBA supported the establishment of an independent compliance committee with clear mandates to avoid overlap with the LTC, Secretariat, and Council.

AUSTRALIA, CANADA, NEW ZEALAND, and SENEGAL called for concluding the regulatory framework as swiftly as possible. CHINA emphasized the need to demonstrate determination by promoting the early introduction and implementation of the mining code. They underscored that delivering the exploitation regulations is mandatory in accordance with the UNCLOS mandate to the ISA.

NAURU noted that the full realization of ISA’s objectives depends on the collective will of the institution and its members, stating the need to decide between taking or delaying action.

IRELAND noted that states are negotiating the regulations in good faith, but that time is needed to complete a mining code containing robust environmental protection provisions. GREECE cautioned against haste, saying the risk to the ocean due to irreversible damage would be inconceivable.

MAUI NUI MAKAI NETWORK and TE IPUKAREA SOCIETY reiterated the request to the ISA to codify the cultural values of Indigenous Peoples into the structure of the ISA and any future mining code. TETIAROA SOCIETY stated that deep-sea mining threatens Pacific people’s cultural heritage and called for their prior informed consent.

OPES OCEANI FOUNDATION encouraged the ISA to deliver the mining code. Noting that science is a never-ending quest for knowledge, they called for delivering functional regulations as a political and ethical decision.

Several delegates, including ITALY, THE BAHAMAS, and CHILE, underscored the importance of the precautionary principle and ecosystem approaches in ensuring protection of the marine environment against exploitation activities. CHILE also highlighted the impacts of the climate crisis on the ocean and emphasized the need for a general environmental policy.

SLOVENIA underlined that the precautionary principle must guide all decisions related to the exploitation of deep-sea resources and ensure the protection of the marine environment.

Many members continued to express their support for a ban, moratorium, or precautionary pause on deep-sea mining. CROATIA announced they are joining the call for a precautionary pause on deep-sea mining, bringing the total number of countries supporting a moratorium, precautionary pause, or ban to 38.

Noting that the current scientific knowledge of the deep sea is insufficient, GERMANY urged continued support for efforts to expand marine scientific knowledge. They stressed that deep-sea mining should not be undertaken until there is sufficient scientific evidence demonstrating that the marine environment is effectively protected from harmful effects.

THE OCEAN AND US, thanking ISA members for being accepted as an observer, expressed concern about the rush to open the ocean to deep-sea mining. Among other things, they stressed that deep-sea mining is “ecocide” and will compound the multiple environmental crises and create irreversible damage on human time scales.

MADAGASCAR underscored that no technology currently exists to make deep-sea mining possible in a sustainable manner. The INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE (IUCN) emphasized that deep-sea mining remains technologically unproven. DSCC and OCEANS NORTH stressed that protecting marine biodiversity and the world’s largest carbon sink is an imperative and should not be the subject of debate.

SUSTAINABLE OCEAN ALLIANCE questioned how inheriting destruction for uncertain financial benefit equates to the common heritage of humankind. DOSI underscored that based on current scientific knowledge, deep-sea mining will result in irreversible damage to the deep sea and its ecosystem functions.

Regarding unilateral deep-sea mining activities outside ISA, most delegates and observers, including SPAIN, the UK, QATAR, AUSTRALIA, CANADA, NEW ZEALAND, IRELAND, CHINA, MAUI NUI MAKAI NETWORK, TE IPUKAREA SOCIETY, TETIAROA SOCIETY, and others, underlined the ISA’s exclusive mandate to regulate activities in the Area for the benefit of humankind as a whole. Many further pointed to UNCLOS Article 137 (Legal status of the Area and its resources), which confirms that: all rights in the resources of the Area are vested in humankind as a whole; no state shall claim or exercise sovereignty or sovereign rights over any part of the Area or its resources; and no such claim or exercise of sovereignty or sovereign rights nor such appropriation shall be recognized.

Many members of the Assembly therefore condemned the actions of TMC USA in attempting to bypass the ISA and pursue deep-sea mining outside the ISA framework. BRAZIL called for safeguarding the integrity of contractual obligations under the ISA. They underlined the ISA-30 Council’s request to the Secretary-General to investigate whether The Metals Company, which is TMC USA’s parent company and holds exploration licenses under ISA, is in breach of its contractual obligations as an ISA licensee.

JAPAN expressed concern about such attempts to carry out exploitation outside the ISA framework and, with SINGAPORE, reaffirmed that the adoption of the mining code is a prerequisite to exploitation and remains ISA’s highest priority. 

ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA emphasized that the ISA and its mechanisms are the only competent authority for the regulation and stewardship of the deep sea as the common heritage of humankind. VIET NAM noted UNCLOS and the 1994 Agreement as the legal basis for all activities in the Area.

AUSTRIA, with the RUSSIAN FEDERATION, CUBA, and CHILE, added that any unilateral action would undermine the integrity and stability of global ocean governance. GERMANY recognized ISA as the cornerstone of multilateral cooperation. GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL underscored that TMC USA’s action is not simply a procedural issue but is a reckless step to exploit what belongs to all humankind. They urged the ISA to place protection of the deep sea at the center of its mandate, underscoring that “this sacred space teeming with life belongs to all of us and its purpose must be peaceful, thoughtful, and for the shared benefit of present and future generations.” Recalling that Pacific peoples continue to carry the trauma of the actions of mining companies who “came with promises but stripped their land and waters, and left behind cultural and spiritual scars,” they further affirmed that there is no place for deep-sea mining in a just and sustainable future.

The US, referring to their written intervention submitted to the Secretariat, reaffirmed their long-held view that only those UNCLOS provisions on traditional uses of the ocean, such as freedom of navigation and overflight, reflect customary international law binding on all states. They underscored that this excludes UNCLOS Part XI (The Area) and the 1994 Agreement, and maintained that as a non-party to UNCLOS, the US is not bound by the Convention’s deep-sea mining rules. They added that “mining of the seabed is a lawful use of the high seas open to all states.”

In response, CHINA, supported by BRAZIL and FRANCE, asserted that the principle of common heritage of humankind is widely recognized by the international community, pointing out that no state opposed its declaration by the UN General Assembly (UNGA) in 1970, contained in UNGA Resolution 2749. They added that the US engages with the ISA as an observer and has signed the 1994 Agreement and asserted that as per Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties, a state is obliged to refrain from acts that would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty when it has signed the treaty. CHINA therefore urged the US to uphold international law and to stop acting contrary to the common heritage of humankind principle.

Several delegates, including CHILE, SWITZERLAND, DSCC, and OCEANS NORTH, reiterated support for the establishment of an ISA general environmental policy.

TUVALU asserted that the ISA faces an inherent conflict of interest: it regulates deep-sea mining activities while also safeguarding the marine environment. Underscoring that tying ISA revenue to mining through the benefit-sharing mechanism may skew priorities toward exploitation over protection, they stressed that any action must be undertaken with strict caution and full transparency.

WWF INTERNATIONAL urged states to “think deeply, take your time, gather the facts and understand the long-term consequences before you go forward” and called for “common sense for a common heritage.”

ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA drew attention to the 2024 International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) Advisory Opinion on states’ obligations to protect and preserve the ocean from the impacts of climate change, noting it as an important step toward climate justice. AUSTRIA drew attention to the 2011 ITLOS Advisory Opinion on the responsibilities and obligations of states sponsoring persons and entities with respect to activities in the Area.

On Friday, responding to comments from delegates, Secretary-General Carvalho expressed her appreciation for all the expressions of support and underscored that all comments will be taken into consideration. She affirmed that, from now on, any matter related to restructuring and reclassification will be handled in accordance with Assembly decisions and the ISA regulatory framework.

Secretary-General Carvalho confirmed the continuation of the practice of:

• following up in writing with those contractors that repeatedly perform insufficiently or incompletely against an approved plan of work; and
• providing the necessary support in identifying and assessing contractors at risk of non-compliance, in accordance with the criteria for identifying contractors that have responded insufficiently or incompletely, or failed to respond, to the calls from the Council to address issues identified by the LTC.

THE NETHERLANDS noted that the Secretary-General’s report to ISA-30 Assembly, as well as the previous one by the former Secretary-General, did not cover the entire year. He sought confirmation that future annual reports would cover full years, and also requested the Secretariat to report on the months left out of both annual reports. Secretary-General Carvalho confirmed that the next annual report will cover a full year, from 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2026, and that the months missing from the current and previous annual reports will be reported on and issued as an addendum to the current report.

The Assembly took note of the report.

Report of the Interim Director-General of the Enterprise

On Friday, 25 July, Eden Charles, Interim Director-General of the Enterprise, presented his report (ISBA/30/A/5–ISBA/30/C/8) on work related to the operationalization of the Enterprise. The report includes updates on:

• participation in discussions on the draft regulations on exploitation of mineral resources in the Area;
• study of managerial and administrative policy options, advocating for a structured, policy-driven organizational model aligned with the Authority’s broader regulatory framework;
• monitoring and review of trends in the mining industry;
• participation in the seventh ISA’s annual contractors’ meeting held in the Republic of Korea in September 2024; and
• cooperation and capacity-building initiatives, including the letter of cooperation with the British Institute of International and Comparative Law.

Several delegates, including the AFRICAN GROUP, ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA, TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO, TONGA, THE BAHAMAS, and ARGENTINA, underscored that operationalization of the Enterprise is vital both for fulfilling its mandates under UNCLOS and the 1994 Agreement, and for enabling fair participation of developing countries in activities in the Area. The AFRICAN GROUP urged the Enterprise to focus on concrete activities, such as establishing strategies for governance, and for participating in joint ventures, and to recruit additional staff as needed.

TONGA and BARBADOS warned of the risk of benefits being skewed towards large multinational corporations and urged broad, inclusive benefit-sharing frameworks. BARBADOS called for an analysis of the societal and economic impacts of major mineral discoveries, drawing parallels with past oil and gas booms that yielded uneven benefits.

TONGA, CAMEROON, THE BAHAMAS, ZIMBABWE, ARGENTINA, and TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO underlined the Enterprise’s role in capacity-building and technology transfer, with TONGA calling for marine science, infrastructure development, and environmental monitoring support tailored to SIDS.

CAMEROON, SPAIN and ZIMBABWE urged advancing proposals on managerial and policy options. SPAIN urged cost-effectiveness of proposed options. TONGA advocated for regional partnerships and called on the Enterprise to develop transparent benefit-sharing guidelines, and a strategic roadmap with steps for operational independence with timelines.

Responding to delegates’ comments, Interim Director-General Charles said that with regard to staffing and recruitment, UNCLOS enshrines cost-effectiveness. He asked whether countries have the appetite to provide additional funding to enable the Enterprise to recruit staff. He further highlighted that UNCLOS and the 1994 Agreement permit voluntary contributions to be made directly to the Enterprise.

The Assembly took note of the report.

Periodic Review of the International Regime of the Area Pursuant to UNCLOS Article 154

On Friday, 25 July, Secretary-General Carvalho highlighted it has been 10 years since the last and only periodic review of the international regime of the Area, and underscored that now is an appropriate time for another review because, among other things:

• the adoption of the BBNJ Agreement has introduced a new architectural pillar into ocean governance and the ISA needs to examine it in order to ensure coherence and coordination;
• global international focus on critical minerals is reshaping discussions around deep-sea mining and sustainable development, and the ISA must remain grounded in its unique mandate to act on behalf of humanity as a whole; and
• a review will provide the space for strategic reflection and shared understanding for the way forward for the ISA and to strengthen the Authority’s foundation as “it moves into the era of implementation and accountability.”

Secretary-General Carvalho expressed the Secretariat’s willingness to support the periodic review and identify funding within the approved budget for this biennium for this purpose.

GERMANY, CANADA, SPAIN, TONGA, the AFRICAN GROUP, COSTA RICA, AUSTRALIA, SWITZERLAND, AUSTRIA, FRANCE, TUVALU, IRELAND, the UK, PANAMA, GREECE, MARSHALL ISLANDS, and BELGIUM supported the adoption of the decision to undertake the second periodic review and the annex containing its terms of reference (ISBA/30/A/L.2). Some stressed that ISA members should not pick and choose which obligation under UNCLOS to fulfil.

They noted, among other things, that a second review:

• represents a vital opportunity to reaffirm the commitment to good governance practices, identify areas for improvement, and enhance effectiveness;
• will assess if the ISA has the technical and financial capacities to face current challenges and prevent having a regulatory framework that exceeds the operational capacities of the Authority, contributing to the development of the ISA’s next strategic plan and high-level action plan;
• can provide for institutional alignment with other global regimes and challenges, including climate change, human rights, and intergenerational equity; and
• would not interfere with the ongoing Council work on developing the exploitation regulations, noting that such a review is to be conducted under the Assembly.

In contrast, CHINA and JAPAN opposed the adoption of the decision and the launch of the periodic review. They stressed that the ISA’s priority at this moment is to develop and adopt exploitation regulations, following which the second review can be conducted.

In the absence of consensus, the ISA Assembly deferred the agenda item to the next session.

Need for a General Policy of the Authority for the Protection and Preservation of the Marine Environment: Scope and Parameters

On Friday, 25 July, CHILE presented their concept note outlining the need for a general policy of the Authority for the protection and preservation of the marine environment and their proposal to initiate work on it, grounded in UNCLOS Article 145 (Protection of the marine environment). Many delegations, including BRAZIL, CANADA, FRANCE, PALAU, TONGA, SPAIN, BELGIUM, GERMANY, JAMAICA, the PHILIPPINES, and COSTA RICA, supported the proposal, emphasizing the need for an overarching policy to complement environmental measures in the exploitation regulations. BRAZIL, with the AFRICAN GROUP and others, noted the fragmented nature of global environmental frameworks including the GBF and BBNJ Agreement.

Several members supported discussions through an intersessional working group to focus on the scope and content of such a policy, with FRANCE suggesting regular virtual meetings. TONGA urged that working group co-facilitators report to the Assembly on progress on a regular basis. CANADA said discussions on the policy should complement and not impede progress in the exploitation regulations. NORWAY underscored the environmental policy should: conform with relevant rules under UNCLOS and the ISA; not interfere or conflict with the ISA’s primary duty of finalizing the exploitation regulations; and include participation of, and guidance by, ISA organs.

A broad division ensued between those advocating for an ISA general environment policy, justifying the Assembly as a supreme ISA organ has authority to initiate discussions to develop and eventually adopt general policies, and those cautioning that this is not procedural as such a policy should follow a formal recommendation from the Council.

BRAZIL, CHILE, COSTA RICA, SPAIN, and VANUATU emphasized the Assembly’s supremacy on policy initiation. GREECE said that while the Assembly has authority to initiate a policy, it should be in collaboration with the Council.

The AFRICAN GROUP raised the procedural issue, cautioning against undermining the Council’s authority, and particularly the role of the LTC on decisions and policies. CHINA emphasized that there is no policy vacuum in this area, highlighting that UNCLOS and the 1994 Agreement contain adequate provisions on marine environmental protection. SINGAPORE, ITALY and ARGENTINA emphasized that a Council recommendation must precede Assembly action. CHINA, INDIA, the RUSSIAN FEDERATION, and others advocated for the completion of the regulations followed by recommendations by the Council on gaps to be filled by policies.

The Assembly could not reach consensus on taking this matter forward.

Dates of the Next Session of the Assembly

President Gardiner recalled the ISA-30 Council’s request to the Secretariat to coordinate with the UN Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea on the dates for ISA-31 meetings to avoid overlapping with the dates of the Third Preparatory Commission for the BBNJ Agreement. He noted that these discussions are still ongoing and that the proposed dates of 27-31 July 2026 for ISA-31 Assembly remain provisional pending further consultation, depending also on confirmation of the dates for the ISA-31 Council. He invited the Assembly to raise no objections to the provisional dates, and the Assembly agreed.

Commemoration of the Thirtieth Anniversary of the International Seabed Authority

On Wednesday, 23 July, the ISA held a special session to mark 30 years since the ISA came into existence upon the entry into the force of UNCLOS and the 1994 Agreement on 16 November 1994. ISA-30 Assembly President Dwight Gardiner opened the session, noting that ISA is rooted in equity, stewardship, and multilateral cooperation, and has lived up to the aspirations envisioned by UNCLOS and the 1994 Agreement. He outlined some of ISA’s achievements over three decades, including: establishing frameworks for exploration and environmental protection; supporting capacity development in deep-sea research matters; and building institutional resilience and capacity. Gardiner noted that the future ISA must be guided by transparency, inclusivity, and integrity in order to remain relevant and fit for the challenges ahead.

ISA Secretary-General Leticia Carvalho reaffirmed her commitment, as ISA’s first female Secretary-General, to public service and cooperation, and declared that the seabed must not become a battleground for a few interests, but a space of shared responsibility.

The commemoration included a panel discussion featuring some of the Assembly’s former presidents and a report from the Deep Sea Dialogues that took place on Sunday, 20 July. Delegates were also treated to a musical performance by TruTone, an award-winning band from Dinthill Technical High School in Jamaica. Many ISA members delivered statement to congratulate the 30th ISA anniversary.

Other Matters

Tonga, as Chair of the PACIFIC ISLANDS FORUM, presented on behalf of Australia, Cook Islands, Fiji, the Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Palau, Samoa, and Tuvalu, a message from Pacific countries to the Assembly. He reported that following the Pacific Islands Forum’s Deep Sea Minerals High-level Talanoa, in February 2025, Pacific leaders support development of a regional repository to consolidate regional science and address knowledge gaps. He urged the Assembly to support Pacific countries’ efforts to increase investment in marine science in the Area for the benefit of developing states.

Closure of the Meeting

On Friday, 25 July, JAMAICA reiterated their longstanding support for the ISA and thanked all delegates and participants for a progressive meeting.

President Gardiner thanked the Secretariat for their hard work in facilitating the meeting and commended delegates for their cooperation and engagement in the Assembly. He gaveled the meeting to a close at 7:03 p.m.

A Brief Analysis of ISA-30

The International Seabed Authority’s 30th session (ISA-30) unfolded across three intense weeks in Kingston, Jamaica, revealing both how far the body has come in its three decades of existence and how far it must go before it can effectively fulfil its mandate of controlling deep seabed activities for the benefit of humankind, while protecting the marine environment.

Many delegates had one goal in sharp focus: finalize the regulations for commercial exploitation of deep-sea mineral resources. Those emphasizing “regulations first” argued that delaying the regulations erodes the ISA’s credibility and could open the door to unilateral deep-sea mining outside the ISA framework. Others countered that rushing ahead without stronger science, a general environmental policy or a long-overdue periodic review, places the deep sea at risk of irreversible harm.

This brief analysis will address the development of the so-called “mining code” and other key topics on the ISA agenda that, like the ocean itself, are interrelated, interconnected, and interdependent, and can be conceptualized as elements within and beyond the exploitation regulations.

Regulating the Deep

From the start, it was clear that many delegations wanted to keep the spotlight on completing the exploitation regulations. The prospect of having a work plan for commercial exploitation submitted to the ISA before a robust regulatory framework is put in place, along with the risk of unilateral deep-sea mining being authorized outside of the ISA framework, amplified the sense of urgency.

Indeed, some states, such as China, believe that given the risk of unilateral mining actions, it is about time that the ISA “shows determination through early adoption of deep-sea mining regulations.” Conversely, delegates advocating a precautionary stance, among them a growing bloc of countries calling for a ban, moratorium, or precautionary pause on deep-sea mining, now numbering 38 countries, warned that hasty adoption could lock in inadequate safeguards and cause irreparable harm to the deep sea. They stressed that deep-sea ecosystems remain poorly understood and there is insufficient baseline information to establish how much harm mining may cause and to understand what measures would effectively protect the marine environment.

This debate is not new, but has been sharpened by real-world events. The Metals Company USA LLC (TMC USA) has submitted an application for commercial recovery of deep-sea minerals in the high seas, under US domestic legislation and outside of the international framework established by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The US, a non-party to UNCLOS, attended ISA-30 as an observer, and asserted that “mining of the seabed is a lawful use of the high seas open to all states.” They repeated their long-held position that they are not bound by the UNCLOS rules on deep-sea mining. Yet, the Council remained divided, with persistent tension between urgency and caution.

Charting the Details

Against this political backdrop, the Council completed the second reading of the consolidated draft regulations. For some, this was a milestone. For others, it reinforced pre-existing doubts about the qualitative progress achieved so far: nearly every contentious or technical issue was moved to an annex or standard, which, to date, has not been properly discussed. The draft regulations themselves also remain heavily bracketed, containing a plethora of divergent opinions.

Despite this, some elements did arrive at a landing zone. For instance, delegates agreed in principle to establish a compliance committee as a subsidiary body of the Council, although they postponed the question of whether the committee can be established directly through the exploitation regulations or whether this requires a separate Council decision.

The equalization measure, designed to ensure that the effective tax rate for deep-sea mining is comparable to that for land-based mining, regardless of the tax exemptions provided by sponsoring states, also gained traction among delegates. Although two alternative options to promote the desired level playing field between deep-sea and land-based mining remain on the table, most members expressed their preference for the profit-sharing option. Under this option, contractors would pay 25% of their profits to the ISA, and the royalty payments to the sponsoring state and all mining payments from related entities would be credited against this amount.

However, seasoned delegates flagged that this option, although it has been successful in other extractive industries, should be carefully considered given its vulnerability to transfer pricing or profit shifting, where contractors can manipulate their costs and prices, shifting profit to their affiliates and showing only a small, or no, profit on their own books. Some therefore called for this option to cover the profits of all related entities derived from mining activities. As one participant noted, “This option can be risky if contractors manage to hide their profits in such a way as to minimize the available amount for profit sharing.”

Still, a formidable list of technical items remains under discussion: inspection protocols, environmental externalities, payment systems, underwater cultural heritage, coastal state rights, and environmental performance guarantees, to name but a few. Add to this list the annexes and standards, and the task ahead appears monumental.

Beyond the Depths

While the mining code may be top of the ISA’s agenda, it was only one of several interrelated issues that the ISA-30 Council and Assembly were tasked with. The Council’s decision to operationalize the Economic Planning Commission (EPC) was one such issue. The EPC is tasked with advising the Council on pricing mechanisms, payment systems, and compensation for land-based producers harmed by seabed mining. For many members, the agreement to operationalize this body is a step in the right direction in understanding the potential economic impacts of activities in the Area.

Linked to the operationalization of the EPC is the issue of equitable sharing of the benefits of deep-sea mining. One statement that caught some delegates’ attention was delivered by the Chair of the Finance Committee, Kenneth Wong, who, while explaining that estimating the potential revenue from commercial deep-sea mining falls outside the Finance Committee’s mandate, noted that in discussing benefit sharing, the Committee used a “small amounts” scenario, working on the assumption that deep-sea mining activities would “deliver very little money.” The Committee’s recommendation, which was adopted by the Assembly, is that the Secretariat should develop the concept of a common heritage fund as one of the possible ways for distribution of income from activities in the Area. Costa Rica addressed the elephant in the room by asking “if deep-sea mining will generate little money, is all the effort worthwhile?” Only time will tell.

Many delegates also commended the Legal and Technical Commission (LTC) for naming, for the first time, four contractors that had responded inadequately or failed to respond to the Council’s calls to address issues of concern related to their contractual obligations. Many delegations applauded the move as a long-overdue step toward transparency and accountability. Observers also urged the LTC to go even further by publishing its procedures for financial review of new owners in cases when there is a change in contractors’ parent companies or implementing partners.

While some broader issues saw progress, others were less successful. For a third consecutive year, the Assembly was unable to launch deliberations on a general environmental policy, despite broad support. Proponents believe a general policy would stitch together the fragmented system of safeguards and provide strategic guidance covering all of the ISA’s work. Others, including Japan and China, considered such deliberations to be premature, and in the case of China, unnecessary. They preferred to continue to focus on the exploitation regulations and discuss a general environmental policy only after the regulations are finalized. Chile, which had put forth the proposal, voiced disappointment and, citing the broad support it had garnered, pledged to keep the issue alive through informal consultations.

Similarly, the Assembly postponed the long-overdue second periodic review of the operation of the Area’s international regime, a stocktake required under UNCLOS every five years. Only one review has occurred in the ISA’s 30-year history, meaning the Authority is years behind schedule. However, China likened the idea to “a box of chocolates—you never know what you’ll get” and urged waiting until the exploitation regulations are in force. This matter, too, was deferred due to lack of consensus.

Full Steam Ahead

The road ahead for the ISA seems daunting, but the incremental gains at ISA-30 seem to have invigorated efforts to finalize the exploitation regulations. Council members agreed to undertake intersessional work and to adopt a thematic approach to resolve key outstanding matters. So far, the intersessional modalities have proven successful in unblocking certain issues, therefore, intersessional work will continue under existing and new Friends of the President and informal working groups. The thematic discussions will be organized around four themes: environmental matters; financial matters; regulatory, procedural, and institutional matters; and governance matters.

Some veterans welcomed the thematic structure, noting that similar informal groups in the recent past broke logjams and helped resolve conceptual differences that cannot be fully addressed solely through textual review of draft regulations. Others pointed out that negotiations were once structured around four working groups and feared this was a step backwards. What appears clear to most is that significant work remains outstanding and that the process is not yet mature enough to consider an imminent adoption of the regulations.

The celebration of the ISA’s 30th anniversary was seen as a timely moment to reflect on the Authority’s past and reassess its present and future direction. As one delegate remarked, 30 years marks a stage of maturity, no longer influenced by the uncertainty of a 20-year-old, or the curiosity of a 10-year-old. Recognizing that it is not an easy task to balance deep-sea mining with environmental protection, many still believe it is time for the Authority to demonstrate its ability to lead with integrity, independence, and purpose as the regulator of activities in the Area.