New perspective on the recent challenges of regional environmental management plans under the background of deep-sea mining: from Northwest Pacific to global

With the utilization of the mineral resources of the international seabed area entering a new phase of exploitation, the international community’s concern for the protection of the marine environment in the international seabed area has also reached an unprecedented level. Regional Environmental Management Plans (REMPs), formulated by the International Seabed Authority (ISA), are considered as an important component of marine environmental protection in the deep seabed. However, REMPs are faced with challenges in practice under the background of deep-sea mining. In this work, we review the historical evolution of REMP, sort out the challenges faced by REMP from NWP to global and provide our suggestions to solve these issues. Specifically, the difficulties in the Northwest Pacific (NWP) REMP are mainly located in the lack of environmental scientific data. Meanwhile, from a global perspective, besides difficulties in local region, such as NWP, REMPs are facing more challenges, such as the arguments about the legal force of REMPs, conflicts between REMPs and the BBNJ Agreement, as well as absence of regulations for balancing exploitation and conservation. Focus on these challenges, suggestions are proposed including using the ISA to coordinate the application between REMPs and BBNJ Agreement and using the principle of scientific evidence to improve the regulations of REMPs. This work not only introduces a new insight for improving the framework system for the protection of the marine environment in the international seabed area, but also provides a reference for the solution to new challenges in the field of marine environmental protection.

1 Introduction

Deep-sea mineral resources have emerged as significant substitutes or supplements for land-based metallic resources in the 21 century (Du et al., 2024).The island nation of Nauru, who sponsors the Canadian mining corporation The Metals Company (TMC) to conduct research into deep-sea mining, triggered the so-called “two-year rule” of the International Seabed Authority (ISA) in 2021 (Singh, 2021). Per the agreement relating to the implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the Implementing Agreement), this rule obligated the ISA to allow consideration of mining permits on July 9, 2023, with or without completed regulations in place. TMC hopes to begin mining in coming years and is closely watching the developments at the ISA; the latest media statement from TMC, dated July 24, 2023, expressed disappointment that regulations were not finalized by July 9 and conveyed hope they would be completed in November, 2023 (Murdock R., 2024). However, Among the primary concerns driving opposition to deep-sea mining is the potential for environmental harm created by disturbing the seafloor as nodules are extracted (Blanchard and Gollner, 2022). In light of these potential risks and their uncertain nature, organized opposition to beginning industrial deep-sea mining now exists (Murdock, R.,2024). If clean energy transitions and electrification are pursued for decarbonizing economies, the need for deep seabed’s minerals cannot be escaped.

In short, deep-sea mining, as an international issue concerning the development of all human beings, is subject to many controversies covering technical, environmental, financial, legal, and other fields (IISD, 2019). The United Nations (UN) now observance of 2021–2030 as the Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development, alongside the existing Sustainable Development Goal 14 (which aims to conserve and sustainably use ocean resources), presents an opportunity to accelerate efforts to develop strong, well-informed frameworks for deep-sea mining as a comprehensive strategy (Howell et al., 2020). In addition, according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (UN, 1982) and the Implementing Agreement, many countries have formulated laws and regulations on deep-sea mining. For example, New Zealand established the Continental Shelf Act 1964 for the exploration and exploitation of continental shelf (New Zealand, 1964), and formulated the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Act 1996 (New Zealand, 1996) to give effect in the law of the New Zealand to provisions of Part XI of the Convention. African countries have relatively limited deep-sea activities, and only a few countries submitted relevant texts of deep-sea legislation to ISA. They advocated that the benefits of deep-sea mining should be shared by all humanity, meanwhile these mining activities should also consider environmental protection (Wang and Zhong, 2022) due to the impact on the living environment of benthic communities of invertebrates (Cuvelier et al., 2018).

Under the circumstance, in March 2024, the first part of the 29th session of ISA made significant progress in the ongoing negotiations of the draft exploitation regulations (the Mining Code) for mineral resources in the international seabed area(the “Area”) (ISA, 2024). Against the backdrop of argument regarding deep-sea mining and environmental protection, an increasing number of States, social organizations and enterprises are publicly expressing their concerns about the opening of deep-sea mining (Greenpeace, 2024). After all, there are still significant gaps in the environmental, ecological and social impacts of deep-sea mining and its regulation, which is the most important issue to be solved.

The Implementing Agreement adopted in 1994, stipulates that the international seabed area beyond the limits of national jurisdiction and its mineral resources are the common heritage of mankind. The Implementing Agreement established the ISA to organize and control activities in the “Area”, manage the mineral resources of the “Area”, and formulate policies and measures for the protection and preservation of the marine environment. The ISA consists of the Assembly, the Council, the Finance Committee, the Legal and Technical Commission (LTC), and the Secretariat (UN, 1994).

The Regional Environmental Management Plans (REMPs) are environmental protection pdeep sealans formulated by the International Seabed Authority (ISA) (ISA, 2018) in accordance with Article 145 of the UNCLOS (UN, 1982), aiming to solving the prominent environmental protection issues in deep-sea mining. The establishment of the first REMP was formally proposed by the ISA in 2011 based on the Kaplan Project (2002–2007), which is a management tool for balancing the development of the mineral resources of the “Area” with the protection of the environment (ISA, 2011). In 2012, the ISA Council, on the recommendation of the LTC, approved a REMP for the CCZ in the eastern Pacific Ocean (ISA, 2012). The CCZ REMP used to consist of nine areas of particular environmental interest (APEIs) designed to protect biodiversity and ecosystem structure and functioning within the delineated area and to prohibit, in advance, the exploitation of mineral resources within the delineated area. At present, there are 13 APEIs in the CCZ (ISA, 2021).

In 2018, the ISA Council, in conjunction with the ISA Secretariat’s proposal for a “preliminary strategy for the development of a regional environmental management plan for the ‘Area’” (ISA, 2018b), agreed to the initial identification of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, the Triple Junction Ridge and Nodule Belt of the Indian Ocean, the seamounts in the NWP, and the South Atlantic Ocean as the priority areas for the development of REMPs. Focusing on progress on the development of the REMP for the NWP, in May 2018, the Authority, in cooperation with the China Ocean Mineral Resources Research and Development Association (COMRA), organized the first workshop on the development of the REMP for the cobalt-rich ferromanganese crust region of the NWP in Qingdao, China (Permanent Mission of PRC to International Seabed Authority, 2018). A second workshop was convened online in 2020 (ISA, 2020b). Recently, the latest workshop was held in February 2024 in Tokyo (ISA, 2024), which validated and refined the design of the potential area-based management tools (ABMTs) and other issues related to the REMP for the NWP.

As for the development of the standardized approach for the whole REMP, in 2022, the LTC presented the Council with a draft proposal for a standardized approach for REMPs (ISA, 2022). The draft proposal (ISBA/27/C/37) is currently under further review by the LTC based on the Council’s deliberations, and eight stakeholders have submitted written comments on the draft. In the first part of the 29th Session of the ISA in March 2024, The ISA Commission decided at the technical level to support the practical implementation of the standardized approach by developing a guidance document for REMPs (ISA, 2024). The guidance document will be aligned with the standardized procedure and will contain practical and technical details, including the recommended scientific data and information, methodologies and approaches that should underpin the development, establishment and review of REMPs. All the relative documents will be reviewed during the second part of the twenty-ninth Session in July 2024.

In 2012, the ISA Council issued and implemented the Decision Relating to an Environmental Management Plan for the Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ) (ISA, 2012). Since then, ISA has accelerated the construction process of REMPs in mineral resource-rich areas, such as the North Atlantic mid-ridge region and the Northwest Pacific (NWP) region (ISA Council, 2018a). However, the REMPs are hampered by multiple obstacles, thus few significant results have been achieved (Yan, 2021). For example. the REMP of CCZ encounters challenges, including insufficient legal binding and challenges in gathering and submitting environmental data (Zhang and Zhu, 2020). Moreover, due to insufficient data, the Indian Ocean region has not defined the scope for establishing REMPs currently (ISA, 2023). As for Northwest Pacific region, because of the complex ecological environment, the REMP for this region developed slowly. This study focuses on the development and implementation of REMPs. We summarize the difficulties of the construction of the REMP in the NWP region via considering impacts of deep-sea mining on environmental protection at the scientific and institutional levels. In addition, our discussions are extended to global on the ongoing challenges to the whole development of REMPs, in particular the one of where REMPs should go in the light of the impact of the Agreement under the UNCLOS on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction (the BBNJ Agreement) on the ISA regime system.

2 Difficulties faced by the REMPs for the NWP

2.1 Overview of NWP

The broad area of the REMP for the NWP region is form 1°N to 40°N and from 132°E to 179°E. In terms of geomorphological and topographical features, the NWP region contains three major seamount groups, i.e., the Marcus-Wake Seamount Group, the Magellanic Seamount Group, and the Marshall Seamount Group, in which the contract areas of Japan, China, Russia, and the Republic of Korea are situated (ISA, 2020b). And the deep-sea pelagic basins of the Nadezhda, Kartagraf, Pigafetta, East Mariana, and Nauru basins are also located in the NWP region. Due to the Mesozoic tectonics and magmatism, the geography and morphology of this region are complex, and the distribution of the seamount chains and intermountain basins that have formed in different periods is irregular. The densest distribution of seamounts makes the region with the richest cobalt crust resources in the world (ISA, 2020c). The main mineral resources, e.g., cobalt-rich crusts, polymetallic nodules, and polymetallic sulfides, have broad mining prospects and are currently explored in the area. The back-arc region of the western Pacific Ocean has more polymetallic sulfides with mining value, while more polymetallic nodules are located in the abyssal plain region of the NWP (ISA, 2020).

In terms of habitats and species composition, the deep sea of the NWP has a complex ecology, with a wide variety of ecosystems, habitats, and species found in the deep waters of the region. Among these, benthic habitats are represented by two unique habitats, i.e., seamounts and abyssal plains. According to scientists’ observations of plankton, pelagic fish, and benthic organisms, the surface of the ocean in the NWP region is rich in Prochlorococcus and Proteobacteria, while the benthic habitats are abundant with benthic invertebrates, sponges, corals, and other megafaunas (ISA, 2020c). Many benthic megafaunas are attached to or associated with cold-water corals and sponges, and some of them constitute vulnerable marine ecosystems, which are slow-growing, long-lived, and slow to recover. There is also a wide range of seabirds in the NWP. The area of the NWP, where ISA has awarded contracts for exploitation, overlaps with areas for sharks, marine mammals, and commercial fisheries (ISA, 2020c).

2.2 Impacts of deep-sea mining activities on the ecosystems of the NWP

Currently, some progress has been made in deep-sea mining activities in the NWP region (ISA Maps). For example, ISA has signed exploration contracts for the exploration of cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts with the Japan Oil, Gas, and Metals National Corporation, COMRA, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation, and the Government of the Republic of Korea (ISA, 2024). Before actual mining activities, it is necessary to have a comprehensive understanding of the potential impact of deep-sea mining activities on seabed ecosystem, which is what scientists have been analyzing and researching all along. According to Tables 1, 2 (ISA, 2020b), by analyzing the potential impacts on the ecosystems of the NWP from natural and anthropogenic activities in the deep-sea mining process, negative impacts play more important role than positive impacts in the process. Vehicle compaction of soils, alteration of sediment chemistry, mining plumes, return plumes, noise and light from mining vehicles and surface vessels and other activities all have more negative impacts on benthic ecosystems. In particular, the noise and light generated by mining vehicles in the mining area can change the living environment of benthic organisms, thus harming the communication, foraging and reproduction behaviors of many species (ISA, 2020b).

Table 1

Table 1. Potential effects from mineral resource exploitation activities on the pelagic and abyssal plains of NWP.

Table 2

Table 2. Potential effects from mineral resource exploitation activities on benthic seamount ecosystem of the NWP.

Habitats of seamounts and abyssal plains are unique in the deep sea of NWP. Seamounts have abundant cobalt rich ferromanganese crusts, which are important potential sources of metals and rare earth elements (Hein et al., 2013). However, many seamounts grow very slowly, especially those forming biogenic structures such as cold-water corals and sponges (Clark et al., 2010, 2012; Carreiro-Silva et al., 2013). Abyssal plains have plentiful polymetallic nodules. If the nodules are removed during exploitation, all creatures (including demersal scavengers) relying on this hard substrate will be particularly susceptible to mining activities (Vanreusel et al., 2016; Leitner et al., 2017). To evaluate the impact of deep-sea mining activities on the seabed ecosystems, each individual potential mining site should be considered unique and will feature local characteristics that should be assessed accordingly (Cuvelier et al., 2018).

2.3 Difficulties faced by the REMP for the NWP

The hot-discussed REMP area in previous workshops is from 10°N to 27°N and from 146°E to 164°E (ISA, 2020b). In 2018, the ISA Council preliminarily agreed that the NWP should also be prioritized to establish REMP, and in May of the same year in Qingdao, China, the ISA organized a workshop on the development of REMP for the cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts in the NWP (ISA, 2018b). The workshop aimed to understand national, regional, and international policies and laws, reach a common understanding of the design of REMP for the NWP region, form an initial framework for the development of REMP, and develop a two- to three-year cooperative plan to collect and share the data needed to design the REMP (ISA, 2018b). In November 2020, in collaboration with the Korean Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries and the Korea Institute of Ocean Science and Technology, the ISA hosted the second online workshop to develop REMP for the NWP. Based on the first workshop, this workshop comprehensively reviewed and analyzed relevant scientific data for the NWP (ISA, 2020a). During the workshop period, current exploration activities and resource distribution in the contract areas within the region are reviewed, and 14 potential areas in need of precaution (AINPs) were defined because these AINPs may be affected by future mineral resource exploitation and require enhanced management and preventive measures (ISA, 2020b). Moerover, this workshop also discussed a framework for addressing the cumulative impacts of future exploitation in order to achieve effective protection of the marine environment. So far, the two workshops have made some progress in the REMP for the NWP, however, there are more specific difficulties that need to be solved. In 2024, ISA accompanied with Japan Organization for Metals and Energy Security (JOGMEC) and Deep Ocean Resources Development etc., held a workshop on the development of the REMP for the NWP region (JOGMEC, 2024). Discussions and proposals from this workshop will contribute to the creation of rules for the development of mineral resources on the deep-sea floor of the NWP (ISA, 2024). By summarizing the content of the three workshops, we demonstrate some difficulties currently faced in construction of REMP in the NWP region in the following.

2.3.1 Difficulty in data acquisition on regional environmental assessment for the NWP

The regional environmental assessment (REA) report is one of the most important scientific bases for the development of the REMP for the NWP region. The report focuses on the scientific research that have been and are being conducted in the NWP region. The content of the REA report is organized according to the recommendations of the ISA in ISBA/25/LTC/6/Rev.1 (ISA Legal and Technical Commission, 2019) and centers on the need to carry out environmental baseline studies (ISA, 2020c). It collects and analyzes existing scientific data in the NWP region mainly from geology, oceanography, and biology. The REA report contains both environmental scientific data for the NWP region as a whole and site-specific scientific data, such as seamounts and abyssal plains. In addition, other environmental scientific data that may be lacking in the NWP region is also identified in the REA report (ISA, 2020c). However, there are still gaps in the content of the REA report. For example, the “depth band analysis” approach used at the workshop to analyze the selection of potential AINP locations is limited by the low resolution of the bathymetric data used. It would make mistakes that these data identify hilltops rather than individual seamounts, which would be an overstatement of the actual situation if interpreted as representative of individual seamounts. Just modeling with the data alone will lead to deviations from the reality of the ecosystems, constituting a challenge for the completion of the REA report (ISA, 2020c). Therefore, bathymetric data still need to be perfect through further scientific research on the NWP region.

2.3.2 Difficulties in data acquisition for the draft data report for the NWP

The data report for the NWP was prepared for the 2020 online workshop and is another important scientific basis for the development of the REMP for the NWP region. The data report covers several aspects, including environmental, biological, and biogeographic, human activities, and areas defined for management or conservation purposes. Most of the scientific data is unique to the NWP region and comes from open-access data sources such as contractors, relevant international organizations and scientific institutions such as Duke University (ISA, 2020a). However, expert Patrick Halpin, who participated in the 2020 workshop, pointed out that the existing data is not sufficient to establish REMP for the NWP region (ISA, 2020a). There is also a large amount of scientific data and papers on the NWP region that are not currently available in open resources. The difficulties in scientific data acquisition further hinder the advancement of the REMP for NWP.

2.3.3 Difficulties in predicting the impacts of deep-sea mining on benthic ecosystem in the NWP

Abundant seamounts and abyssal plains are lying in the deep sea of NWP region. At present, the NWP region contains five contract areas [Table 3 (ISA, 2020b)], which is surrounded by the Marcus-Wake Seamounts Chain, the Magellan Seamounts Chain, and the Marshall Seamounts Chain, sometimes referred to as the Triangle Area (TA) (ISA, 2020b). The ecosystems in the TA are also unique in the NWP region. On the one hand, the underlying geology of seamounts consists of a variety of morphologies, including rubble, nodules, and rocks, while complex topography of seamounts implies the complex ecosystems. For instance, some ecosystems are slow-recovering, less resilient, fragile, and more vulnerable to be damaged (ISA, 2020a). On the other hand, the biodiversity of seamounts is affected by many environmental factors, such as hydrodynamics, chemical condition changes, and the topography and geology of the seamounts (ISA, 2020a). However, due to the lack of current scientific data in the NWP region, the resilience of the ecosystems in the area is still confusing, leading to the extreme challenge to conservation of marine biodiversity in the area (ISA, 2020a).

Table 3

Table 3. ISA exploration contracts in the NWP.

Meanwhile, deep-sea areas have been already adversely affected by warming, acidification, pollution, and overfishing, and may be negatively impacted by future deep-sea mining activities, including changes in seawater temperature and material, light and noise pollution from human mining activities, and potentially toxic contaminants. These disturbances may alter the survival mode of deep-sea biological communities, impair physiological functions, and decrease reproductive rates (ISA, 2020a).In addition, there is still lack of scientific data on the multi-scale distribution, trophic relationships, ecosystem functioning, connectivity, and resilience of biological communities in the deep-sea environment. Therefore, the prediction of the damage to deep-sea ecosystems caused by deep-sea mining activities is facing great difficulties.

3 Challenges faced by REMPs in global

Under the background of coping with climate change, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and vigorously advocating new clean energy, such as secondary batteries and solar energy, have become hot spots and achieved great commercial success. Materials such as lithium, cobalt and graphite are essential components of electric car batteries, wind turbines, solar panels and other low-carbon technologies that can power the world’s clean energy systems. According to Table 4, with the dramatic increase of demand for mineral resources, the deep-sea mining activities have attracted great attention in global (Ashford et al., 2024). Due to the progress made in deep-sea scientific research,scientific community and governments gradually realize the negative impacts of deep-sea mining activities on the marine environment and biodiversity of habitats in deep sea. At the same time, the conservation of marine biodiversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction has received increasing international attention with the adoption of the BBNJ Agreement in 2023 (Table 5).

Table 4

Table 4. Deep-sea mining activities in other seas and oceans except NWP.

Table 5

Table 5. All abbreviations used in this article.

REMPs, as one of the most important tools for environmental protection in deep-sea mining, play more and more significant roles for ISA and other stakeholders. Eleven years have passed since the approval of the first REMP for the CCZ, although all relevant countries are actively promoting the establishment of REMPs in the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, the NWP and other regions, the ISA has not approved a second REMP yet. Obviously, in a reshaping period of global ocean governance rule, the development of the REMP, as an important institutional practice for deep seabed environmental governance, is faced with a few challenges.

3.1 Arguments about the legal force of REMPs

There are always arguments about the legal force of REMPs. The fact is that no REMP has not clearly emerged from the institutional framework for the exploitation of the mineral resources of the “Area” (including the three sets of Exploration Regulations and the draft Mining Code that is currently being formulated). Currently, the REMP is only recognized as an environmental protection policy issued by the ISA. This directly leads to questions being raised by parties to UNCLOS and the Implementation Agreement, contractors, states, and the ISA itself as to whether the REMP is legally binding, and what liability should be incurred in the event of non-compliance. For example, the Regulations on Prospecting and Exploration for Polymetallic Nodules in the “Area” (ISA, 2013) require contractors to submit an environmental plan when applying for a mine site. According to the plan, contractors need to assess and monitor the impacts of their activities on the marine environment of the “Area” during their activities. After that, a report is submitted to the Secretary-General of the ISA on environmental monitoring, as well as the environmental baseline data that may be used as scientific data to support the REMP. However, UNCLOS, the Implementation Agreement, and the Regulations on Prospecting and Exploration for Polymetallic Nodules in the “Area” do not explicitly require states and contractors to implement the REMP provisions of the CCZ. Therefore, as a matter of implementation, contractors within the CCZ do not currently have any obligations for the protection of the marine environment beyond the scope of the contract, and the REMP for the CCZ is only an environmental policy tool that is not legally binding on contractors. In other words, contractors are only obligated to protect the environment in the contractual area, while areas beyond the contracts in the CCZ are not protected by contractors.

3.2 Conflicts between REMPs and the BBNJ agreement

REMPs aim to implement the area-based management tools (ABMTs), and compile scientific information to accurately describes potential areas that are protected from future development activities. From the content of a series of workshops, it appears that the ISA intends to use REMP as an ABMT for the protection of the deep-sea environment in the future. One of the tasks of the 2024 REMP workshop for the NWP region is to validate and refine the design of potential ABMTs identified in the previous online workshop, and review and further improve the scientific rationale for the identification of such potential ABMTs based on agreed scientific criteria. The BBNJ Agreement is an important piece of current legislation in the field of the law of the sea, which aims to address the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction. “Areas beyond national jurisdiction” is defined by the BBNJ Agreement, which includes the International Seabed Area. However, if ISA explicitly defines the REMP as an ABMT in the future, there will be conflicts between the application of the REMP to deep-sea environmental protection in the “Area” and the ABMT set out in the BBNJ Agreement.

Firstly, in view of the ecological connectivity of the oceans, it is difficult to allocate marine organisms in areas beyond national jurisdiction to the high seas or the “Area” separately. Therefore, the REMP formulated by ISA is different from the ABMTs provided by the BBNJ Agreement, especially in aspects of their purpose, legal basis, scope and application background. Compare with the latter, the existing area-based management practice of ISA is also more abundant (including Impact Reference Zones, Preservation Reference Zones, APEIs, etc.). As a result, the environmental protection of the “Area” is faced with the problem of dealing with and choosing the relationship between multiple area management tools.

Secondly, the inter-institutional cooperation mechanisms are not clear. Although the international community has been encouraging the harmonization of policies promoting oceans, climate and biodiversity, there appears to be inertia and a tendency to maintain the status quo among parties in the governance of the ABNJ, as reflected in the BBNJ agreement and the ISA-led formulation of the REMP. If the REMP is defined as a ABMT, the current BBNJ Agreement does not provide detailed mechanisms on how to improve inter-institutional cooperation, nor does it contain specific provisions for the implementation of integration or monitoring, but rather it allows the state parties to promote coherence and complementarity in the establishment of ABMTs and ecosystem management in ABNJ.

Thirdly, there are problems in the application of Environment Impact Assessments (EIAs) established by the ISA and the BBNJ Agreement for specific EIA projects (Christiansen et al., 2022). Based on UNCLOS, Part XI and the 1994 Agreement, ISA has developed detailed and substantive provisions, regulations and recommendations related to the assessment of possible environmental impacts arising from exploration for marine minerals in the Area, which define the sort of activities that require EIAs, the form and content of such EIAs when required, as well as guidance on baseline studies, monitoring and reporting (ISA, 2019). EIA thus plays an important role in the establishment of REMP. The BBNJ Agreement also has detailed regulations on EIAs (UN, 2023). Compared with the regulations by BBNJ Agreement, the guidance of EIA formulated by ISA addresses impacts on marine biodiversity on the seabed and in the water column. One of the problems is that there is a contradiction between following the EIA by the BBNJ agreement or the ISA guidance at the time to conduct an EIA during the process of establishing REMP. The BBNJ Agreement stipulates that it is not necessary to conduct an EIA of a planned activity in areas beyond national jurisdiction if the potential impacts of the planned activity have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of other relevant legal instruments or frameworks or by relevant global, regional, subregional or sectoral bodies (UN, 2023). Under this regulation, if the EIA is completed in accordance with the guidance of ISA, another problem is that information exchange mechanism of EIA is not perfect for relevant contracting parties.

Overall, the autonomy of sectoral organizations hinders integrated management and effective cooperation in ocean governance. Deep-sea environmental protection requires comprehensive and integrated governance, but the current ABMTs were established by various international organizations in a relatively isolated legal background. The current legal force of REMP is still uncertain, and if it is given legal force in the future, the strength difference of the respective legal force between the REMP and BBNJ agreements, as well as the order of their applications, are all issues that need to be taken into account under the UNCLOS system in the “Area”.

3.3 Absence of regulations for balancing exploitation and conservation

In 2022, the Council of ISA made a draft decision relating to a standardized approach for the development, approval and review of REMPs in the “Area” (ISBA/27/C/L.5), in which the goal of REMPs has been listed. However, the draft decision were not adopted by the Assembly yet. And the construction process and top-level objectives of the REMP are not clarified in the latest relevant strategic plans, like the strategic plan for the period 2024–2028(ISBA/28/A/7). Moreover, UNCLOS obliges the ISA to take measures to ensure that the marine environment is protected from harmful effects that may arise from activities in the “Area”. The provisions of the existing REMP, one of the ISA’s unique environmental policies, are inadequate, especially in finding a balance between environmental protection and the exploitation of the mineral resources in the “Area”.

There is a dispute among the parties to the Implementing Agreement as to whether the Mining Code currently being negotiated by the ISA should regulate REMPs (ISA, 2019). In July 2019, representatives of the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, and a number of African countries argued that REMPs should be a prerequisite for mining activities, while another voice, represented by China, emphasized that REMPs should not be a stumbling block to commercial development (ISA, 2019). REMPs are currently not explicitly regulated in the latest draft of the revised Mining Code. It is only mentioned in Fundamental Policies and Principles in Mining Code as well as the Environmental Impact Statement Regulations. However, in terms of the REMP, the criteria, guidelines, its relationship with the Mining Code, the review mechanism, and the roster of independent reviewers are also controversial among countries. No legal document has been issued on the general norms, and the draft recommendation on the standardized methodology of the REMP (ISA, 2022), which was submitted by the Legal and Technical Commission (LTC) to the Council of the ISA in 2022, is still in the review stage (Zeng and Gao, 2020). These deficiencies make it difficult to prove that REMP neither infringes upon the legitimate rights of countries to explore and exploit the mineral resources in the “Area” in accordance with the UNCLOS principle of “common heritage of mankind”, nor overprotects the environment of the “Area”.

The formulation of environmental rules for the “Area” and the negotiation and formulation of draft Mining Code are mutually constraining. As seen from the latest draft of the Mining Code, the environmental rules still need to be improved. The environmental management of the ISA is weak, because it only provides a more general framework for the procedures related to environmental protection, and fails to formulate relevant and effective measures and normative standards in accordance with the provisions of Article 145 of UNCLOS. It can be seen that the ISA’s 2024–2028 strategy only reflects the principles for the establishment of the REMP, but the overall objectives and specific content regarding the REMP remain unclear. In a word, it is the insufficiency of REMP participation in practice and indeterminacy of the specific rights and obligations of REMP’s governing organs and stakeholders that result in a slow process of REMP development.

4 Suggestions for challenges faced by REMPs

4.1 Promote national engagement in REMPs by developing and improving the mining code

Focusing on the arguments about the legal force of REMPs, the first suggestion we propose is that the ISA should add encouragement clauses to the Mining Code to encourage states parties, sponsoring states, and contractors to actively participate in the construction of REMPs.

As mentioned in Section 3.1, neither the UNCLOS Implementing Agreement nor the three Exploration Regulations contain specific provisions for the REMP. It was not until 2012 that the REMP for the CCZ was officially issued and implemented, a decade after the Kaplan project in 2002. The fact that REMPs, as an environmental protection policy, are not legally binding is one of the main challenges faced in their implementation, which was also prominent in the discussions on the establishment of the REMP for the NWP. Therefore, when it comes to the exploitation of deep seabed mineral resources, the implementation of the REMP needs to be more efficient. The Secretariat of the ISA has suggested that, as an environmental policy, the Council could decide that no contracts should be awarded in the relevant area until the REMP is established.

At present, the Mining Code is about to be introduced, and the REMPs for priority regions such as the NWP will also conduct new workshop to form the text of relevant motions. If the Mining Code includes provisions encouraging states parties, sponsoring states, and contractors to actively participate in the construction of REMPs, it can not only increase the degree of national participation and the recognition of REMPs through the expansion of national practices (Ardito and Rovere, 2022), but also provide a relatively binding legal basis for the implementation of REMPs by the States Parties and contractors, thereby solving the problem of the development procedure and legal binding force of emerging programs such as the REMP for the NWP.

4.2 Coordinate the application between REMPs and BBNJ agreement through ISA

As for the conflicts between REMPs and the BBNJ Agreement, we suggest that the ISA should play a leading role in coordinating the application between REMPs and BBNJ Agreement.

The rules formulated by ISA and the BBNJ Agreement were originally two sets of rules regimes developed in parallel under the UNCLOS system. However, conflicts have arisen between the application of the two sets of rules in the “Area”, especially in the application of the ABMTs. Firstly, a fact should be recognized that there is no conflict of purpose between the REMP and the BBNJ Agreement, both of which are aimed at the protection of the deep-sea environment. On that basis, there should be a inter-institutional coordinating organ to facilitate communication and data-sharing between the REMP and BBNJ Agreements. Up to now, the BBNJ agreement has been finalized, while many of ISA’s rules are still in the process of being formulated. Given that ISA has accumulated a wealth of management experience in “Area” issues, it can be considered to be responsible for issues such as communication and data sharing with the BBNJ Agreement.

Secondly, the framework and content design of the REMP should be improved based on the BBNJ Agreement. ISA can set up a supervisory mechanism to regularly check the implementation and monitoring of the management and protection measures of the REMP, as well as cooperate and share information and data with the competent agencies of the BBNJ Agreement. At present, several APEIs have been delineated in the REMP for NWP, and the BBNJ Agreement implements ABMTs aimed at conserving biodiversity in the “Area”. Based on that basis, besides prohibiting mining in APEIs, attention should also be paid to collecting relevant scientific data on biodiversity in APEIs and analyzing the influence of mining activities out of the APEIs on biodiversity in APEIs. Meanwhile, ISA should play a leading role in coordinating the REMP for NWP with the BBNJ Agreement to achieve the objectives of protecting the environment, implementing and monitoring of the ABMTs and the EIA, and making timely adjustments in accordance with the BBNJ Agreement.

4.3 Improve the regulations of REMPs with the principle of scientific evidence

To solve the problem of lacking regulations for balancing exploitation and conservation, we recommend that it is necessary to improve the regulations of REMPs with the principle of scientific evidence.

The purpose of REMP is not to prohibit deep-sea mining, but rather to protect the deep-sea environment in the face of uncertainty impacts of deep-sea mining. At a deeper level, the protection of the deep-sea environment by REMP is, in a sense, aimed at better formulating exploitation regulations and promoting sustainable development for the common interests of mankind. The principle of scientific evidence, which is generally found in international treaties in the field of environment, ecology, and health, is an important basis for action and decision-making by relevant subjects of international law in risk areas. Scientific data needs to be translated into information, and finally knowledge, that is practical and communicated to fit into existing or planned processes and procedures. A disconnect between scientists and seabed-mining policymakers may result in interactions related to science being abstract, jargon-filled (e.g., ecosystem approach), and unspecific, which can sometimes lead to miscommunication and planning error (Amon, D. J. et al., 2022).

According to the experience of the REMP for the NWP, the establishment of any new REMP requires a large amount of scientific data support. Therefore, it is of crucial importance to construct a sound environmental data collection and verification mechanisms for REMPs. In the discussion of the REMP for the NWP, it can be found that the environmental baseline data collected by contractors play an important role. However, the fact that the quality and quantity of data submitted by contractors is uneven, necessitates the establishment of a comprehensive set of criteria for the collection and certification of data in order to ensure the availability of data. Besides, the obligation of contractors to submit environmental baseline data is still limited to the scope of the contract, because contractors are not obliged to collect environmental data outside the contract area. For environmental baseline data beyond contractual obligations, the ISA needs to establish an incentive mechanism aimed at motivating contractors, sponsoring states, state parties, and other scientific institutions to actively participate in the collection of environmental data (Ginzky et al., 2020). For example, the ISA currently has a centralized database (deep data) of public and private information data on marine mineral resources obtained from various institutions around the globe. Through the incentive mechanism, it is practicable to attract various entities to participate in the construction of the deep sea database under unified data standards, which is vital for the development of the establishments of REMPs from NWP to global.

5 Conclusion

In summary, we have systematically investigated the challenges faced by REMPs under the background of deep-sea mining. We firstly review the historical evolution of REMP. By analyzing the status of REMPs for NWP region, we find that the main difficulty for NWP REMP is the lack of deep-sea scientific data. Further, we discuss and point out three challenges faced by REMPs in global, which are arguments about the legal force of REMP, conflicts between REMPs and the BBNJ Agreement and absence of regulations for balancing exploitation and conservation. Focusing on the difficulties and challenges faced by REMPs from NWP to global, we propose three suggestions that promote national engagement to strengthen the legal force of REMPs by developing and improving the Mining Code, coordinate the application to solve the conflicts between REMPs and BBNJ Agreement through ISA and improve the regulations of REMPs with the principle of scientific evidence to balance conservation and exploitation. From a new perspective (Figure 1), we believe this work is of great value for the development of REMPs from NWP to global under the background of deep-sea mining.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Flow chart showing all sections and new insights.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author contributions

WZ: Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. TL: Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing. XQ: Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This work is supported by Qingdao postdoctoral funded project “Research on new trends of ‘regional’ mineral resources development system and China’s Countermeasures under the background of climate change” (QDBSH20240102094).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Amon D. J., Gollner S., Morato T., Smith C. R., Chen C., Christiansen S., et al. (2022). Assessment of scientific gaps related to the effective-environmental management of deep-seabed mining. Mar. Policy 138, 105006. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105006

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Anthony K. R., Fabricius K. E. (2000). Shifting roles of heterotrophy and autotrophy in coral energetics under varying turbidity. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 252, 221–253. doi: 10.1016/S0022–0981(00)00237–9

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ardito G., Rovere M. (2022). Racing the clock: Recent developments and open environmental regulatory issues at the International Seabed Authority on the eve of deep-sea mining. Mar. Policy 140, 105074. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105074

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ashford O., Baines J., Barbanell M., Wang Ke (2024). What We Know About Deep-sea Mining and What We Dont. Available online at: https://www.wri.org/insights/deep-sea-mining-explained (Accessed May 15, 2024).

Google Scholar

Blanchard C., Gollner S. (2022). Area-based management tools to protect unique hydrothermal vents from harmful effects from deep-sea mining: A review of ongoing developments. Front. Political Sci. 4. doi: 10.3389/fpos.2022.1033251

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Burke C. M., Montevecchi W. A., Wiese F. K. (2012). Inadequate environmental monitoring around offshore oil and gas platforms on the Grand Bank of Eastern Canada: Are risks to marine birds known? J. Environ. Manage. 104, 121–126. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.02.012

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Carreiro-Silva M., Andrews A. H., Braga-Henriques A., Matos V., Porteiro F. M., Santos R. S. (2013). Variability in growth rates of long-lived black coral Leiopathes sp. from the Azores (Northeast Atlantic). Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 473, 189–199. doi: 10.3354/meps10052

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Christiansen S., Durussel C., Guilhon M., Singh P., Unger S. (2022). Towards an ecosystem approach to management in areas beyond national jurisdiction: REMPs for deep seabed mining and the proposed BBNJ instrument. Front. Mar. Sci. 9. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2022.720146

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Clark M. R., Rowden A. A., Schlacher T., Williams A., Consalvey M., Stocks K. I., et al. (2010). The ecology of seamounts: structure, function, and human impacts. Annu. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 2, 253–278. doi: 10.1146/annurev-marine-120308–081109

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Clark M. R., Schlacher T. A., Rowden A. A., Stocks K. I., Consalvey M. (2012). Science priorities for seamounts: research links to conservation and management. PloS One 7, e29232. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0029232

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cox K., Brennan L. P., Gerwing T. G., Dudas S. E., Juanes F. (2018). Sound the alarm: A meta-analysis on the effect of aquatic noise on fish behavior and physiology. Global Change Biol. 24, 3105–3116. doi: 10.1111/gcb.14106

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cuvelier D., Gollner S., Jones D. O., Kaiser S., Arbizu P. M., Menzel L., et al. (2018). Potential mitigation and restoration actions in ecosystems impacted by seabed mining. Front. Mar. Sci. 5. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2018.00467

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

De Stigter H. (2020). Blue Nodules Deliverable report D5.3 Report on seabed substrate alteration (publishable summary). Available online at: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/604500/reporting (Accessed July 20, 2024).

Google Scholar

Drazen J. C., Smith C. R., et al. (2019). Report of the workshop Evaluating the nature of midwater mining plumes and their potential effects on midwater ecosystems. Available online at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/eb2d/f620ef070ba0a509b8aa77081219bea95647.pdf (Accessed July 20, 2024).

Google Scholar

Du K., Xi W., Huang S., Zhou J. (2024). Deep-sea mineral resource mining: A historical review, developmental progress, and insights. Mining, mining. Metallurgy Explor. 41, 173–192. doi: 10.1007/s42461–023-00909–9

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Erbe C., Dunlop R., Dolman S. (2018). “Effects of noise on marine mammals,” in Effects of Anthropogenic Noise on Animals. Eds. Slabbekoorn H., Dooling R. J., Popper A. N., Fay R. R. (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg), 277–308.

Google Scholar

Gillard B., Purkiani K., Chatzievangelou D., Vink A., Iversen M. H., Thomsen L. (2019). Physical and hydrodynamic properties of deep sea mining-generated, abyssal sediment plumes in the Clarion Clipperton Fracture Zone (eastern-central Pacific). Elem Sci. Anth 7, 5. doi: 10.1525/elementa.343

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ginzky H., Singh P. A., Markus T. (2020). Strengthening the International Seabed Authority's knowledge-base: Addressing uncertainties to enhance decision-making. Mar. Policy 114, 103823. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2020.103823

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gollner S., Kaiser S., Menzel L., Jones D. O., Brown A., Mestre N. C., et al. (2017). Resilience of benthic deep-sea fauna tomining activities. Mar. Environ. Res. 129, 76–101. doi: 10.1016/j.marenvres.2017.04.010

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Greenpeace. (2024). Under the Deep Sea Treasure-A Review of the Current Status of Deep Sea Mining and its Environmental Impact Mechanisms. Available online at: https://www.greenpeace.org.cn/report-list/deep-sea-mining-briefing/ (Accessed May 25, 2024).

Google Scholar

Hein J. R., Mizell K., Koschinsky A., Conrad T. A. (2013). Deep-ocean mineral deposits as a source of critical metals for high-and green-technology applications: comparison with land-based resources. Ore Geology Rev. 51, 1–14. doi: 10.1016/j.oregeorev.2012.12.001

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Howell K. L., Hilário A., Allcock A. L., Bailey D. M., Baker M., Clark M. R., et al. (2020). A blueprint for an inclusive, global deep-sea ocean decade field program. Front. Mar. Sci. 7. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2020.584861

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

IISD. (2019). Summary report, 15–26 July 2019–2nd Part of the 25th Annual Session of the International Seabed Authority (ISA). Available online at: https://enb.iisd.org/events/2nd-part-25th-annual-session-international-seabed-authority-isa/summary-report-15–26-july (Accessed June 8, 2024).

Google Scholar

ISA Maps. Available online at: https://www.isa.org.jm/exploration-contracts/maps/ (Accessed May 30, 2024).

Google Scholar

ISA. (2018). ISA/COMRA Workshop on the Development of REMP for Cobalt-Rich Ferromanganese Crusts. Available online at: https://www.isa.org.jm/events/isa-comra-workshop-on-the-development-of-remp-for-cobalt-rich-ferromanganese-crusts/ (Accessed May 25, 2024).

Google Scholar

ISA. (2020a). Draft data report: Produced as a background document for the workshop on the development of a regional environmental management plan for the area of the Northwest Pacific. Available online at: https://www.isa.org.jm/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Northwest-Pacific-REMP-Data-Report-v1.pdf (Accessed May 20, 2024).

Google Scholar

ISA. (2020b). Workshop on the Regional Environmental Management Plan for the Area of the Northwest Pacific. Available online at: https://www.isa.org.jm/events/workshop-on-the-regional-environmental-management-plan-for-the-area-of-the-northwest-pacific/ (Accessed May 30, 2024).

Google Scholar

ISA. (2020c). Regional environmental assessment for the Northwest Pacific Ocean-Background document prepared for the workshop on the development of a regional environmental management plan for the Area of the Northwest Pacific. Available online at: https://www.isa.org.jm/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/NW-Pacific-REA_19July_2022.pdf (Accessed June 8, 2024).

Google Scholar

ISA. (2023). Workshop on the development of a REMP for the Area of the Indian Ocean, with a focus on the mid-ocean ridges and central Indian Ocean basin. Available online at: https://www.isa.org.jm/events/workshop-on-the-development-of-a-remp-for-the-area-of-the-indian-ocean-with-a-focus-on-the-mid-ocean-ridges-and-central-indian-ocean-basin/ (Accessed August 6, 2024).

Google Scholar

ISA. (2024). ISA Council closes the first part of its 29th session with approval of MoU with FAO and further progress in negotiations on the draft exploitation regulations. Available online at: https://www.isa.org.jm/news/isa-council-closes-the-first-part-of-its-29th-session-with-approval-of-mou-with-fao-and-further-progress-in-negotiations-on-the-draft-exploitation-regulations/ (Accessed May 20, 2024).

Google Scholar

ISA Assembly. (2013). Decision of the Assembly of the International Seabed Authority regarding the amendments to the Regulations on Prospecting and Exploration for Polymetallic Nodules in the Area, 25 July 2013, ISBA/19/A/9. Available online at: https://www.isa.org.jm/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/isba-19a-9_0.pdf (Accessed June 6, 2024).

Google Scholar

ISA Council. (2012). Decision of the Council relating to an environmental management plan for the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, 26 July 2012, ISBA/18/C/22. Available online at: https://www.isa.org.jm/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/isba-18c-22_0.pdf (Accessed June 1, 2024).

Google Scholar

ISA Council. (2018a). Relationship between the draft regulations on exploitation of mineral resources in the Area and regional environmental management plans, 20 December 2018, ISBA/25/C/4, paras.1–4. Available online at: https://www.isa.org.jm/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/25c-4-e_0.pdf (Accessed May 30, 2024).

Google Scholar

ISA Council. (2018b). Preliminary strategy for the development of regional environmental management plans for the Area, 16 January 2018, ISBA/24/C/3. Available online at: https://www.isa.org.jm/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/isba24-c3-e.pdf (Accessed June 6, 2024).

Google Scholar

ISA Council. (2019). Draft regulations on exploitation of mineral resources in the Area, 22 March 2019, ISBA/25/C/WP.1. Available online at: https://www.isa.org.jm/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/isba_25_c_wp1-e_0.pdf (Accessed June 6, 2024).

Google Scholar

ISA Council. (2021). Decision of the Council of the International Seabed Authority relating to the review of the environmental management plan for the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, 10 December 2021, ISBA/26/C/58. Available online at: https://www.isa.org.jm/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/ISBA_26_C_58_E.pdf (Accessed June 6, 2024).

Google Scholar

ISA Council. (2022). Guidance to facilitate the development of regional environmental management plans-report and recommendations by the Legal and Technical Commission, 10 August 2022, ISBA/27/C/37. Available online at: https://www.isa.org.jm/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/2212509E.pdf (Accessed June 8, 2024).

Google Scholar

ISA Council. (2024). Report of the Chair of the Legal and Technical Commission on the work of the Commission at the first part of its twenty-ninth session, 15 March 2024, ISBA/29/C/7. Available online at: https://www.isa.org.jm/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/2404997E.pdf (Accessed June 8, 2024).

Google Scholar

ISA Legal and Technical Commission. (2011). Environmental management plan for the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, 13 July 2011, ISBA/17/LTC/7. Available online at: https://www.isa.org.jm/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/isba-17ltc-7_0.pdf (Accessed June 1, 2024).

Google Scholar

ISA Legal and Technical Commission. (2019). Recommendations for the guidance of contractors for the assessment of the possible environmental impacts arising from exploration for marine minerals in the Area, 18 April 2019, ISBA/25/LTC/6/Rev.6. Available online at: https://www.isa.org.jm/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/2315256E.pdf (Accessed June 6, 2024).

Google Scholar

JOGMEC. (2024). Workshop on the Development of a Regional Environmental Management Plan for the Area of the Northwest Pacific-contributing to the International Seabed Authority’s Rule-making Process. Available online at: https://www.jogmec.go.jp/english/news/release/news_08_00015.html. (Accessed August 6, 2024)

Google Scholar

Jones D. O., Kaiser S., Sweetman A. K., Smith C. R., Menot L., Vink A., et al. (2017). Biological responses to disturbance from simulated deep-sea polymetallic nodule mining. PloS One 12, e0171750. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0171750

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Leitner A. B., Neuheimer A. B., Donlon E., Smith C. R., Drazen J. C. (2017). Environmental and bathymetric influences on abyssal bait-attending communities of the Clarion Clipperton Zone. Deep Sea Res. Part I: Oceanographic Res. Papers 125, 65–80. doi: 10.1016/j.dsr.2017.04.017

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ludvigsen M., Berge J., Geoffroy M., Cohen J. H., de la Torre P. R., Nornes S. M., et al. (2018). Use of an autonomous surface vehicle reveals small-scale diel vertical migrations of zooplankton and susceptibility to light pollution under low solar irradiance. Sci. Adv. 4, eaap9887. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aap9887

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Marquenie J. M., Wagner J., Stephenson M. T., Lucas L. (2014). “Green lighting the way: Managing impacts from offshore platform lighting on migratory birds,” in SPE International Conference and Exhibition on Health, Safety, Environment, and Sustainability? (Long Beach, California, USA: SPE), D031S048R002. doi: 10.2118/168350-MS

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Montevecchi W. (2006). “Influences of artificial light on marine birds,” in Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lightin Rich. Ed. Longcore T. (Press, Washington, Island), 94e113.

Google Scholar

Murdock R. (2024). Deep Sea Mining and the Green Transition. Harvard International Review. Available online at: https://hir.harvard.edu/deep-sea-mining-and-the-green-transition/ (Accessed June 13, 2024).

Google Scholar

New Zealand (1964). Continental Shelf Act 1964. Available online at: https://www.isa.org.jm/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/NZ-CSAct.pdf (Accessed July 20, 2024).

Google Scholar

New Zealand (1996). United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Act 1996. Available online at: https://www.isa.org.jm/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/NZ.pdf (Accessed July 20, 2024).

Google Scholar

Permanent Mission of PRC to International Seabed Authority. (2018). International Workshop on the REMP for the Cobalt-Rich Ferromanganese Crusts in Triangle Area in the Northwest Pacific Ocean. Available online at: http://isa.China-mission.gov.cn/xwdt/201806/t20180602_8200634.htm (Accessed May 25, 2024).

Google Scholar

Poot H., Ens B. J., de Vries H., Donners M. A., Wernand M. R., Marquenie J. M. (2008). Green light for nocturnally migrating birds. Ecol. Soc. 13, 47-60. doi: 10.5751/ES-02720–130247

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Røstad A., Kaartvedt S., Klevjer T. A., Melle W. (2006). Fish are attracted to vessels. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 63, 1431–1437. doi: 10.1016/j.icesjms.2006.03.026

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Schlining K., Von Thun S., Kuhnz L., Schlining B., Lundsten L., Stout N. J., et al. (2013). Debris in the deep: Using a 22-year video annotation databaseto survey marine litter in Monterey Canyon, central California, USA. Deep Sea Res. Part I: Oceanographic Res. Papers 79, 96–105. doi: 10.1016/j.dsr.2013.05.006

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Singh P. A. (2021). The two-year deadline to complete the International Seabed Authority’s Mining Code: Key outstanding matters that still need to be resolved. Mar. Policy 134, 104804. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104804

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Solé M., Lenoir M., Durfort M., López-Bejar M., Lombarte A., van der Schaar M., et al. (2013). Does exposure to noise from human activities compromise sensory information from cephalopod statocysts? Deep Sea Res. Part II: Topical Stud. Oceanography 95, 160–181. doi: 10.1016/j.dsr2.2012.10.006

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Topçu N. E., Turgay E., Yardımcı R. E., Topaloğlu B., Yüksek A., Steinum T. M., et al. (2019). Impact of excessive sedimentation caused by anthropogenic activities on benthic suspension feeders in the Sea of Marmara. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. United Kingdom 99, 1075–1086. doi: 10.1017/S0025315418001066

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

UN. (1982). United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, concluded on 10th December 1982, entered into force 16th November 1994, 1833 U. N. T. S. 397.

Google Scholar

UN. (1994). Agreement Relating to the implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, concluded on 28th July 1994, entered into force on 16th November 1994, 1836 U. N. T. S. 3.

Google Scholar

UN. (2023). Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainabe Use of Marine Biological Diverstiy of Areas Beyound National Jurisdiction, concluded on 19 June 2023.

Google Scholar

Valérie ALLAIN. (2005). Diet of large pelagic predators of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. 1st Meeting of the Scientific Committee of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. Available online at: https://www.wcpfc.int/node/1870 (Accessed July 20, 2024).

Google Scholar

Vanreusel A., Hilario A., Ribeiro P. A., Menot L., Mrtinez Arbizu P. (2016). Threatened by mining, polymetallic nodules are required to preserve abyssal epifauna. Sci. Rep. 6, 26808. doi: 10.1038/srep26808

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wang H., Zhong Z. (2022). Institutional experiences and insights from deep-sea country legislation. J. Shanghai Univ. Int. Bussiness Ecnonmics 29, 107–124. doi: 10.16060/j.cnki.issn2095–8072.2022.02.008

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Weaver P. P. E., Billett D. S. M. (2019). “Environmental impacts of nodule, crust and sulphide mining–an overview,” in Deep-sea mining and Environment–issues, consequences and management. Ed. Sharma R. (Springer International Publishing AG, Switzerland), 27–62.

Google Scholar

Widder E. A., Robison B. H., Reisenbichler K. R., Haddock S. H. D. (2005). Using redlight for in situ observations of deep-sea fishes. Deep Sea Res. Part I: Oceanographi Res. Papers 52, 2077–2085. doi: 10.1016/j.dsr.2005.06.007

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Yan G. (2021). The progress and challenge of regional environmental management plan in the international seabed area and China's participation. Environ. Prot. 49, 71–76. doi: 10.14026/j.cnki.0253–9705.2021.23.015

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zeng W., Gao Y. (2020). Research on updating philosophy and improving regulations within negotiation on exploitation of mineral resources in international seabed authority. Yuejiang Xue Kan 12, 94–105+123. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674–7089.2020.01.010

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhang K., Zhu Z. (2020). Review of the environmental management plan for the international seabed area—Based on the practice in the clarion-clipperton zone. J. Boundary Ocean Stud. 5, 16–30.

Google Scholar