The Struggle for the Exploitation of Seabeds

Mario Calvo-Platero
Columnist for la Repubblica, Guarantor for the Italian edition of the New York Times, 
President Gruppo Esponenti Italiani New York, Chairman Palazzo Strozzi Foundation USA

“Quaedam enim naturali iure communia sunt omnium”. The Latin metrics of Emperor Justinian’s code are poetic. The meaning, prescient already 1500 years ago: “And in fact ­– states the article – according to natural law some things are common to everyone”. It is the premise for identifying, in an immediately following article, the sea waters as a heritage to be protected among the “res communes” of humanity. I don’t know if the Greenpeace environmentalist who weeks ago protested in a canoe in front of the ship The Hidden Gem against its seabed-mining activities was aware of the Justinian codes. But his banner “Stop Deep Sea Mining” derives from an intellectual context that since the times of the Roman Empire has been asking how and to what extent our marine waters should be protected, in the lack of a guardian authority if they are beyond 12 and in some cases 24 nautical miles from national coasts. A trifle; and outside that perimeter the waters can be sifted, explored, the seabed excavated and drilled without anyone really being able to protect those pristine natural resources from the violation of modern technology.

The Hidden Gem, for example, is an enormous, super-technological ship equipped with towers and cranes that deposit a sort of tank equipped with mechanical arms and instruments in the water to explore and rake the deep seabed of the Pacific. The objective is to extract and collect polymetallic nodules essential for the production of batteries and other key components for the transition from the internal combustion engine powered by fossil fuel to the electric motor. We are talking about rare metals of various kinds, disputed between some exclusive producing countries – China first and foremost – and the user countries. An increasingly dangerous geopolitical tug of war for the provision of these raw materials necessary for realizing the new industrial revolution, the electrification of the Planet. The problem is that in order to protect ourselves from environmental risks like global warming, of which we have had direct proof in recent weeks, despite the denial of some, we produce other risks which can have equally unpredictable consequences. The Canadian mining company The Metals Company, which operates The Hidden Gem, explains to us that mining activities in the ocean floors at depths of 2500 meters could fill the gap in the supply of these rare metals, essential, in addition to copper and zinc, for the economy of the future. They explain that the “vehicle” can already operate remotely, maneuvered from the ship under a pressure 250 times higher than that at sea level without suffering damage. And announce that the new generation, already at hand, will be capable of extracting from depths up to 5000 meters with pressures 500 times higher than those at sea level, to find precious natural resources. To give you an idea, the OceanGate’s Titan submersible, which imploded last June with the instant killing of the 5 people on board, was at a depth of 3,800 meters, close to the remains of the Titanic.

As always, the debate is difficult. If the need to find new deposits of rare metals becomes necessary to keep pace with the needs of the global macroeconomy, also outlining perimeters for exploration and extraction is equally important. And the question of the exploration of the ocean floor and its practical consequences becomes suddenly topical after the failure of a negotiation a couple of weeks ago in Jamaica. The negotiation actually started under the sign of optimism after a historic agreement was reached in the context of the United Nations just last March to protect the biological balances and biodiversity in the oceans. A very complicated negotiation. How would we have behaved, for example, when different agencies, such as the fisheries management organizations, had presented rules or methods of engagement that contradicted the limits imposed by the UN conference? Or what if mining activities had pursued different objectives? Not only that, there was the perpetual conflict between North and South: who will have the right to collect royalties on marine activities? The poorer country that overlooks those waters even if beyond territorial waters, or the richer and most advanced country that conducts activities in non-territorial waters beyond 12 nautical miles? “They have been two weeks of total immersion and difficulties of all kinds” – an Italian diplomat who participated in the works told me – “Then we managed to sign an agreement. It may seem far from our day-to-day problems and very technical, but it was a historic step. We were all very moved when the announcement was made”. The framework agreement was supposed to pave the way for agreements with new rules and perimeters of activity, for fishing for example or for the extraction of rare metals or algae or biological components which could prove essential, say, for research about cancer. But it is precisely the failure of a subsequent dialogue conducted in the context of the International Seabed Agency, an agency dedicated to the protection of sea and ocean floors, that brought a cold shower. Success would have meant the establishment of immediate rules. The failure will instead allow anyone, the Metals Company and its Hidden Gem ship, and dozens of other operators, to move as they see fit for at least the next two/four years. The problem is that extraction from the ocean floor, certainly very useful for our industrial needs, if not regulated could damage the ecosystem in one of the most delicate moments for our environmental balance. A study in Nature, reported by the New York Times, reveals that mining activity on the seabed could negatively affect tuna migration patterns with unpredictable consequences. This is why around thirty large companies have responded to the appeal of the researcher who published the study: BMW, Google, Samsung, Volvo and Volkswagen have signed a commitment not to accept supplies from marine exploration. And English banks such as Lloyds or Chartered Standard have committed not to finance seabed mining projects. The signatory companies and the countries that are most opposed, Germany and France in particular, fear the colossal risks implicit in the change in marine biological balances at the hands of man. Others note that a well-planned recycling operation of rare metals in old batteries could still solve the problem, pending an agreement. In short, still sailing by sight, but a first step forward in regulating a common good, after trying for 1500 years.