Earth Protect Blog

The 28th meeting of the International Seabed Authority resumed this July with two weeks of Council meetings and one week of Assembly meetings. The Ocean Foundation was on the ground for all three weeks to raise our topline messages on finance and liability, underwater cultural heritage, transparency, and stakeholder engagement.

Want to learn more about the inner workings of the ISA Council? Check out our March meetings wrap-up for a detailed look.

WHAT WE LIKED:

• No Mining Code was adopted and no deadline for finishing the Mining Code was decided. Delegates agreed to work toward finishing the draft regulations by 2025, but with no legal commitment.
• For the first time in the ISA’s history, a discussion on the protection of the marine environment, including a pause or moratorium on deep-sea mining was placed on the agenda. The conversation was initially blocked, but with an hour til the close of the meetings, States agreed to consider the item again at the July 2024 Assembly meetings.
• Countries agreed to undertake a discussion of an institutional review of the ISA regime, as required every five years, in 2024. 
• While the threat of deep-sea mining still remains a possibility, resistance from the NGO community, including The Ocean Foundation, is strong.

WHERE THE ISA FELL SHORT:

• The ISA’s poor governance practices and lack of transparency continued to affect both the Council and Assembly meetings. 
• The proposed pause or moratorium on deep-sea mining was on the agenda, but the conversation was blocked – largely by one delegation – and interest was voiced in an intersessional dialogue on the topic, leaving open the possibility to attempt to block future related discussions. 
• Key negotiations took place behind closed doors, across multiple days and agenda items.
• Significant restrictions were placed on the media – the ISA purported to ban the media from criticizing the ISA –  and NGO and scientist observers attending the meetings. 
• The ISA Council failed to close the “two year rule” legal loophole that would allow the industry to begin.
• Concerns continued to grow regarding the influence of prospective mining companies on the Secretariat’s decision-making process and the Authority’s ability to act both independently and in the best interests of the global community.