As the push for critical minerals accelerates in the name of climate action, a new publication by Dr. Chiara Macchi from the Law Group raises sharp questions about the environmental and human rights costs of deep seabed mining (DSM). Framed by some as essential for the energy transition, DSM could soon be authorised by the International Seabed Authority (ISA), but is the world ready?
A recent publication critically examines whether the current legal framework is prepared to prevent environmental and human rights risks associated with DSM, an activity often promoted as essential for sourcing critical minerals for the energy transition.
The International Seabed Authority (ISA) is currently reviewing draft exploitation regulations that could green-light mining activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Macchi's analysis shows that while the proposed regulations include general environmental principles, they fall short of providing stringent, enforceable due diligence obligations for the corporations involved.
"There's a real risk that environmental compliance becomes a box-ticking exercise," Macchi explains. "We lack clarity on what counts as an adequate environmental impact assessment, and there are no independent monitoring systems or robust accountability mechanisms in place."
Scientific uncertainty, legal gaps
Macchi warns that the high-risk profile of DSM, combined with significant scientific uncertainty, should activate the precautionary principle embedded in international law. Instead, the current regulatory path leaves open the possibility of irreversible damage to deep-sea ecosystems, carbon sinks, and the rights of communities reliant on marine biodiversity.
Macchi highlights several critical shortcomings:
- No clear standards for evaluating environmental impact statements;
- No requirement for independent third-party review;
- Limited stakeholder engagement, transparency, or public oversight.
These regulatory gaps could lead to approval of mining projects without sufficient safeguards, particularly given the difficulty of monitoring activities in remote ocean regions. These risks are compounded by the limited ecological expertise of the Legal and Technical Commission, the body tasked with reviewing the plans of work, and with a general lack of transparency and inclusivity of the ISA processes.
Who benefits?
Macchi also raises concerns about equity and justice. The deep seabed beyond national jurisdiction and its mineral resources are defined as 'common heritage of humankind' under international law. Although DSM is often framed as an activity that would be carried out in the interest of humanity as a whole, it is not yet clear whether its benefits (financial and otherwise) will be shared fairly. Nor is it certain that DSM is even necessary: some studies suggest existing mineral supplies could suffice, and the cost-effectiveness of DSM remains unproven.
"DSM is being promoted in the name of the energy transition," Macchi says, "but it may in fact undermine environmental protection and human rights in the process." There are serious concerns that its impacts on marine ecosystems would harm the livelihoods, well-being and cultural habits of coastal ocean-dependent communities. DSM is expected to negatively affect fishing activities even beyond the mining areas and may affect food security through the reduction or displacement of fish stocks, and food safety due to contamination of marine organisms.
A call for a precautionary pause
Macchi joins voices from civil society, science, and some governments in calling for a precautionary pause. She argues that until the environmental and social consequences of seabed mining are better understood, and legally protected, states and corporations should not rush to open up the ocean floor.
Her work is part of WUR's broader contribution to global legal and environmental governance, reinforcing the university's commitment to responsible research at the intersection of sustainability, policy, and human rights.
