Mining firms see the deep-sea bed as the last frontier for a mineral extraction boom. Technological hurdles have been overcome. Exploration permits for the international seabed already cover an area equivalent in size to France and Germany combined, and that area is likely to expand rapidly, despite the risks to biodiversity. 20 countries are now actively engaged in deep-sea mining exploration.
A handful of corporations in Europe and North America, mining firms and arms companies, are exerting a hidden and unhealthy influence on the fate of the deep-sea bed and increasingly dominating exploration contracts.
They have at times taken the place of government representatives at meetings of the oversight body, the UN’s International Seabed Authority (ISA).
Greenpeace said this undermines effective environmental management and fair distribution of risks and rewards from the ocean floor, which some states and companies want to open up for exploitation next year. Given the potential risks of fisheries disturbance, water contamination, sound pollution and habitat destruction, the campaign group said no new licences should be approved. It has said governments should instead implement an ocean treaty, to ensure adequate protections.
The ISA’s recently re-appointed secretary-general Michael Lodge – from the UK – wants member states to agree on a rulebook next year that would set standards for working practices and allow commercial mining to begin. Greenpeace suggests this would be premature, because the industry is secretive and inadequately regulated.
Its findings are:
1. Deep sea mining is deeply destructive. Excavation of mineral nodes, for example, is done by giant tractors that chew through the sea bed
2. The oversight organisation, ISA, has no environmental or scientific assessment group. Instead, applications are vetted by a legal and technical commission, which is dominated by lawyers and geologists. Only three of the 30 members of the commission are biologists or environmental specialists
3. ISA has not rejected any of the 30 exploration applications it has received. It has potential conflict of interest because it receives $500,000 (£374,000) for each licence
4. Seabed resources are supposed to benefit all of humanity and promote sustainable development, but just three companies from wealthy nations have a hand in eight of the nine contracts to explore for minerals in the Pacific Clarion-Clipperton zone that have been awarded since 2010: Canadian-registered DeepGreen, Belgian corporate Dredging Environmental and Marine Engineering NV (Deme), and a UK-based subsidiary of the US arms manufacturer Lockheed Martin
5. The role of these companies is opaque. None of these parent companies are listed by the ISA in its list of contractors. Many operate through subsidiaries or by taking shares in partners in small island states, often in conjunction with national governments. This leads to concerns about accountability in the event of an accident – the subsidiaries are often small, which could leave poor nations with huge liabilities
6. Corporate influence on some governments is so great at ISA that DeepGreen executives temporarily stood in for Nauru delegates in a February 2019 session of the ISA council, where Deme executives also spoke on behalf of Belgium
7. Ties between the UK government and the industry have also been unhealthily cosy. Cabinet-office officials have worked for Lockheed Martin after retirement. Former prime minister David Cameron used Lockheed Martin estimates of the potential value of the deep-sea mining industry, rather than independent analysis.
No comments:
Post a Comment