From mid-March to April 1, representatives of Greenpeace International assembled in Kingston, Jamaica to express their concerns about the possibility and potential ill-effects of deep-seabed mining. Along with the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition, which calls the looming industry “the most recklessly destructive thing we could do to our planet,” Greenpeace — one of 32 non-governmental organisations observing the 27th Session of the International Seabed Authority (ISA) — is calling for a moratorium on such activities. Additional meetings are carded for later this year, with the goal of putting in place a mining code to allow deep-seabed mining to start in June 2023. Assuming this code is passed and instituted by this date, all of the deep sea, comprising nearly half of the planet, will be open to mining. Environmental defenders find this a disconcerting reality to contemplate. Although such NGOs cannot participate in decision-making activities at the ISA Council, they can — and did — make presentations at the sessions, with Greenpeace noting it “remains extremely concerned” about the way in which things are progressing within the ISA. Headquartered in Jamaica's capital, the ISA was established in 1994 under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which has a mandate “to ensure the effective protection of the marine environment from harmful effects that may arise from deep-seabed related activities.” A special session for the International Seabed Authority's (ISA) 20th Anniversary on July 20, 2014. Photo by Emma Lewis, used with permission. Its 167 nation-strong membership, plus the European Union, convenes at the Jamaica Conference Centre once a year to discuss everything from environmental protection to deep-seabed mining. The challenge, however, is that while the technology exists to mine these economically valuable seabed minerals, the rules governing those efforts — not to mention the equitable sharing of any profits — are vague at best. On March 21, Greenpeace said: With the triggering of the two-year rule by Nauru last June, there appears to be a heightened pace within the ISA to rush into seabed mining in spite of its legal obligations, first and foremost, to ensure the protection of the marine environment, including the seabed, which is the common heritage of humankind. According to Greenpeace activist Arlo Hemphill, who spoke with Petchary's Blog while in Jamaica, the question of seabed mining, its ethics, laws of governance and potential benefits and threats, has been hastened thanks to Nauru, an eight square-mile Pacific island that, for financial reasons, is partnering with a Canadian firm, The Metals Company, which currently has the greatest capability to start mining. Last summer Nauru informed the ISA that it wanted to start deep-sea mining, triggering an obscure “two-year rule” contained in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Hemphill also noted that The Metals Company holds prospecting licenses for the Pacific islands of Tonga and Kiribati, calling it “very much a predatory relationship […] taking advantage of small islands and countries.” He added, “The ISA has never said ‘No’ [to a prospecting license], not even once.” Calling the notion of proceeding with seabed mining “out of step with the rest of the world,” Greenpeace urged the Council to pay heed to the hundreds of scientists who signed a statement warning of the loss of biodiversity, as well as others, like the IUCN World Conservation Congress and the European Parliament, which have called for a moratorium on deep-sea mining. Scientists have already confirmed that “ecosystems on the deep seabed cannot recover from disruption on human time scales.” As Greenpeace emphasised on March 22: Destruction of life on the deep seabed — of species we often don’t even know yet — means losing ecosystems and most probably entire forms of life we will never see again, and that needs to be part of the discussion here. The Deep Sea Conservation Coalition reminded the ISA of its mandate “to effectively protect the marine environment from harmful effects arising from mining activities.” Ironically, it added: [A]nd yet, environmental externalities are not included in this exercise, leaving the environment and damage to the environment to one side. The environment cannot be put to one side.