ISA rules leave seabed mining stuck without benefit sharing

The International Seabed Authority (ISA), a UN body that manages mineral-related activities in the deep sea, cannot lawfully approve deep seabed mining without first adopting benefit-sharing rules, a core treaty obligation that remains unresolved despite mounting pressure to launch commercial extraction, legal experts say.

Debate over deep seabed mining has largely focused on when the ISA, a UN-established body overseeing mineral activities beyond national jurisdiction, will finalize long-negotiated exploitation regulations, particularly since Nauru triggered the so-called two-year rule in 2021 to accelerate the process. 

Mining companies and some states argue that adopting those rules would clear the way for commercial activity. but legal scholars Aline Jaeckel and Erik van Doorn say the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) makes clear that exploitation rules alone are insufficient.

UNCLOS designates the seabed beyond national jurisdiction as the common heritage of humankind and requires the ISA to ensure that financial and economic benefits from mining are shared equitably. That obligation must be met through a distinct set of benefit-sharing regulations, which remain at an early stage of development.

Support for restraint has grown. As of December 2025, about 40 countries back a moratorium on deep seabed mining, citing environmental uncertainty and governance gaps. Scientific studies have added weight to those concerns, including trials showing steep declines in seabed animal abundance and diversity following disturbance. Several governments have slowed or halted plans, with Norway pausing its deep-sea mining ambitions amid domestic and international opposition.

Legal hurdle

Under UNCLOS, authority over benefit sharing rests with the ISA Assembly, not the Council. The Assembly must approve the regulations and decide how benefits are distributed, a process separate from and slower than adoption of exploitation rules. Unlike other regulations, benefit-sharing provisions cannot be applied provisionally.

Without clear rules on who benefits and how, states cannot judge whether seabed mining meets the treaty requirement of serving humankind as a whole. African nations have repeatedly warned that mining should proceed only if it demonstrably delivers shared benefits, arguing that past extractive models funnelled wealth to industrialized states while leaving others behind.

The issue has taken on new urgency as geopolitical interest in seabed minerals intensifies. The US, which is not a party to UNCLOS, has pushed to access critical minerals from the ocean floor, raising alarms among treaty members.

Companies are also repositioning. US defence giant Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) has revived Pacific seabed mining plans through its UK subsidiary, even as regulatory uncertainty persists.

California-based Impossible Metals has applied for exploration rights both under US law and through the ISA, targeting the Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ) in the Pacific, which holds nodules rich in copper, nickel, manganese and other metals vital for electric vehicles. 

Canada’s The Metals Company (NASDAQ: TMCWW) filed for a commercial permit in April and secured an $85.2 million investment from South Korea’s Korea Zinc in June.The deal positioned Korea Zinc as a non-Chinese alternative capable of refining TMC’s extracted materials into battery-grade metals.

Slow progress

Progress on benefit sharing has been slow. The ISA’s Finance Committee released its first draft framework only in 2024, decades after the concept emerged in negotiations during the early 1970s. Officials also acknowledge that early mining would generate limited revenue, as income would first cover the ISA’s operating costs and compensation for developing countries affected by seabed mineral production.

Current discussions centre on creating a Common Heritage Fund rather than direct payments to states. Supporters say such a fund could finance research and capacity building, while critics argue it shifts the original aim away from reducing global inequality and towards enabling mining. African states have also opposed using shared funds for environmental remediation, insisting that responsibility lies with contractors, not humankind at large.

In July 2025, the ISA Council asked its Secretariat to further develop the Common Heritage Fund concept, while several countries urged that all benefit-sharing options remain on the table. Jaeckel and van Doorn warn that approving mining before these questions are settled would breach UNCLOS and undermine future negotiations, including talks on benefit sharing for marine genetic resources under the new BBNJ (Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction) Agreement, a landmark UN treaty adopted in 2023.

For now, they say, international law leaves little room for manoeuvre: without agreed benefit-sharing rules, the ISA has no mandate to greenlight deep seabed mining, regardless of how advanced exploitation regulations become.