IGP Hosts Panel Discussion On Evolving Landscape of Deep-Sea Mining
On May 7, the Institute of Global Politics (IGP) hosted a full-day convening on the rapidly evolving landscape of deep-sea mining, culminating in a panel discussion with experts examining the geopolitical, environmental, and economic questions surrounding access to critical minerals beneath the ocean floor.
The discussion was part of an IGP faculty grant received by Scott Barrett, Lenfest-Earth Institute Professor of Natural Resource Economics, and John Mutter, professor of earth and environmental sciences and of international and public affairs, who are jointly developing a framework to guide decision-making on deep-sea mining.
The panel explored the risks and opportunities of deep-sea mining, with panelists focusing on how governments and institutions can balance demand for critical minerals with concerns over marine ecosystems and global governance.
“The resources of the deep sea reflect the new world we’re living in,” Barrett said, framing deep-sea mining as a broader geopolitical challenge. Situating deep-sea mining within debates over multilateralism, Barrett noted that most countries view seabed minerals as part of the “common heritage of humankind” under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. In contrast, the United States – which has never ratified the treaty – has historically favored a more national approach to access and regulation.
Panelists included Susan Biniaz, former deputy special envoy for climate and former deputy legal adviser at the US State Department; Marcia McNutt, geophysicist and former president of the National Academy of Sciences; Monica Medina, Arnhold Distinguished Fellow at Conservation International and former US special envoy for biodiversity and water resources; Dan Schrag, professor of geology and of public policy at Harvard University; and Dale Squires, adjunct professor of economics at the University of California, San Diego and special economics adviser at the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission.
The discussion first turned to the economic pressures of deep-sea mining. Speaking from the perspective of a climate scientist, Schrag argued that the energy transition will dramatically increase demand for critical minerals used for energy storage technologies. “I’m convinced that the ecological benefits of not doing mining on land outweigh the risks of mining it at the deep sea,” Schrag said, while acknowledging the environmental risks of seabed extraction. At the same time, he noted that the economics of deep-sea mining remain uncertain, pointing to high capital costs and long-term political risks – like China’s dominance in critical mineral supply chains – which could influence investment decisions.
Complementing Schrag’s remarks, Squires argued that the future of deep-sea mining will be shaped by market forces and geopolitical concerns. “Let the market play out,” Squires said, noting that while “the finances are uncertain now,” investment decisions will be driven by supply chain diversification and geostrategic competition. He cautioned against unilateral approaches that could leave countries “worse off” and advocated instead for adaptive management strategies involving controlled experiments, monitoring, and international oversight. Squires described deep-sea mining as a potential complement to terrestrial mining, emphasizing the need to weigh its environmental and economic tradeoffs carefully.
Acknowledging the environmental consequences of deep-sea mining, McNutt stressed that industrial interest has accelerated scientific understanding of the ocean floor. Without such investment, she noted, fewer resources would be dedicated to studying deep-sea ecosystems. “We don’t have the money to map out the deep sea to preserve those places absent industrial interests,” McNutt said.
Panelists also addressed the governance challenges. Biniaz discussed recent US moves to authorize deep-sea mining beyond national jurisdiction, which would bypass international governance norms. Biniaz warned that unilateral action could weaken existing legal norms, noting that “the US would be seen as a rogue actor flying against the international regime.” Binaz added that inconsistent environmental standards could emerge depending on which companies ultimately pursue extraction projects.
Medina underscored the global significance of ocean governance, noting that “50 percent of the planet lies in the ocean, so the rules we make now will have lasting consequences.” While competition over seabed minerals could create a “race to the bottom,” she also highlighted the emerging role of middle powers and island coalitions in shaping governance norms as global consensus becomes more difficult to achieve.
In closing, panelists reflected on the challenge of governing shared resources in an increasingly fragmented international system.
Barrett acknowledged mounting frustration with multilateral negotiations, particularly as the International Seabed Authority struggles to finalize rules governing seabed mineral exploitation. “If people don’t believe in multilateralism, they won’t want to invest in it,” Barrett said.
McNutt concluded by emphasizing the need for institutional reform within the scientific community as countries confront increasingly complex environmental challenges. “We as a scientific community need to look more carefully at how we are running our own organizations and need to make changes,” she said.