Course:CONS200/2021/ Deep sea mining in the Pacific: Current policy situation and key debates

From UBC Wiki

Introduction to Deep-sea Mining

Simplified diagram of deep-sea mining processes.
Deep-sea mining processes

What exactly is deep-sea mining? Deep-sea mining is a fairly new experimental concept that has yet to be used in a widespread fashion. Deep-sea mining is the means of obtaining valuable mineral deposits from deep within the ocean. Some of these minerals include: nickel, copper, cobalt, manganese, natural gas and many more, which are commonly found in the makeup of our electronics.[1] Typically, the mining processes takes place around 200m or more below the surface of the ocean.[2] Further, deep-sea mining is fairly new, as of today, only 26 permits have been established for the allowance of deep-sea mining, showing us how novice this concept really is. Many investors and companies fear investing in the industry of deep-sea mining due to the heavy costs and risks involved with such an operation, but new rises in prices of precious minerals have allowed companies to reconsider this venture, initiating an advancing push to mine the ocean floor.[1] However, deep-sea mining is varying in terms of its benefits and downsides. Since deep-sea mining has begun to arise, many different types of legislation and legal frameworks had to be formed and enforced in order to protect the waters that they may operate on, specifically the Pacific islands, which has been seen to be the most viable location to start due to its large potential. Moreover, barring these policies in mind, we are going to be further discussing some potential impacts that deep-sea mining will have on the Pacific islands along with viable solutions, whether that be socially, environmentally, or economically.

Early attempts at Deep-sea Mining Establishment

Papua New Guinea's Pacific Islands

In early 2020, Papua New Guinea's Pacific Islands (PNG) had a projection to start deep-sea mining operations in late 2020. Unfortunately, PNG was unsuccessful in getting their first ever deep-sea mine off the ground and running [3]. The mining company Nautilus was in-charge of kick starting this project; however, failed to acquire the correct assets and investors, eventually running operations into the ground. Further, on August 19th, Nautilus was "liquidated", which then left the PNG government wondering what it should do next [3]. Some of the views expressed about the idea of the PNG government agreeing to the deep-sea mining program and about the failure of Nautilus were negative. For instance, the PNG council stated that if the PNG agreed to deep-sea mining, that it would be a "joke to the world" [3]. Due to a faulty agreement between the PNG government and Nautilus, the PNG government lost approximately $120 million US dollars from poor policy establishments, and poor decisions in borrowing large sums of money to pay for a stake in the company [3]. This is an unfortunate case of some struggles that can be faced when trying to create a stable and productive deep-sea mining program. On the other hand, even though the deep-sea mining sector may be over in the PNG, the Pacific ocean and other Pacific islands still remain as a front-runner for deep-sea mining.

Policies and Laws for Deep-sea Mining in the Pacific Islands

Introduction to Legislation

There is a lot of uncertainty surrounding the ideas of deep-sea mining (DSM), with many expressing concerns over different environmental and social impacts regarding the ocean, which is still quite an undetermined field of study [4]. As of 2019, only a few Pacific Island nations have been introduced to laws regarding seabed minerals (SBM), representing how legislations are still changing, and developing [4]. The following case study will be focusing on the four following Pacific Islands: Cook Islands, Fiji, Kingdom of Tonga, and Papua New Guinea's (PNG). Overall, there have been many barricades in the process of establishing a marketable environment for DSM, which includes investments, technologies, social, and environmental considerations [4]. These 4 nations have taken up 2 different DSM related legislations, with the Cook islands and the Kingdom of Tonga incorporating the SBM (seabed mining) act that is directly related to DSM activities. Whereas for PNG and Fiji, instead of incorporating SBM acts, they have just made various adaptations and adjustments to their existing mining acts[4].

Cook Islands & Kingdom of Tonga

Birds eye view of the worlds Pacific islands
Pacific Islands

As recently as 2019, the Cook Islands had authorized the SBM act of 2019 to replace the outdated SBM act of 2009 [4]. This more recent act filled many of the gaps that were previously in the 2009 act and is much more simplified. Some of the updated acts included are: aspects of the 2015 act that was missed out in the 2009, and the incorporation of the new Marae Moana Act of 2017 that allows establishment for Marine Protected Areas (MPA) [4]. Unlike the other 4 Pacific Islands, the Cook islands have an administrative authority for DSM that is independent, where others are part of an existing ministry [4]. Also, in the laws enacted by the government of the Cook islands, all need to meet the requirements of an EIA. In the Kingdom of Tonga, they authorized the SBM 2014 act, which is the first law to make-up DSM both within the EEZs (Exclusive economic zones) and in the area [4]. Tonga has an EIA act 2003 that does not allow for major projects, such as DSM. What sets the legislation in Cook islands and Tonga apart from PNG and Fiji is that, for PNG and Fiji, mining acts do not specifically define a requirement to submit any information to EIA [4]. All of the SBM acts above have a precondition to meet requirements of EIA.

As in the terms of this legislation and the public, both Cook Islands and Kingdom of Tonga have their own way of involving the public and social groups. In the Cook Islands, their SBM act gives a report of disclosure, which requires the authorities of SBM to inform the public of what is being arranged. This report allows the people to see what is going on in deep-sea operations, but does not allow them to make decisions[4]. On the other hand, Tonga has more obligations to public participation [4]. Unlike the Islands, Tonga provides the public and various other groups with opportunities to give information that will be taken into consideration [4]. These two islands look more into the public as a whole, whereas PNG and Fiji look more exclusively at those that are directly being affected [4].

Papua New Guinea's (PNG) & Fiji

Both PNG and Fiji have chosen a slightly different legislation to follow compared to the Cook islands and the Kingdom of Tonga. Instead of activating a SBM, PNG has decided to make some adjustments to their current mining affairs. They have chosen to authorize the Mining act of 1992,  the Environmental Act 2014, the Environmental act of 2000, and lastly the Guideline for Conduct of Environmental Impact Assessment and Preparation of Environmental Impact statement 2004 [4]. Acts like the Environmental act of 2000, focus more on projects that are in need of environmental permits [4]. Although it is not specified that PNG has to conduct an EIA, the governmental authority must restrain from giving out permits or licenses to projects that could cause environmental damage, until an environmental permit is allowed [4]. On the contrary, in Fiji, there is still discussion regarding a DSM legal framework as there is a current 10 year ban on DSM within national waters stated by the government [4]. As of today, legislation is still being developed in the islands of Fiji, but some current environmental laws that will adapt aspects of DSM include: the Environment Management Regulations 2007 and the Environment Management Act 2005. Both of these legislations require an environmental impact assessment (EIA) for offshore mining, which is where DSM falls under [4]. Assessment by the EIA in Fiji is only necessary if the proposed activity (i.e. DSM) has potential resource management or environmental impacts, and is a large project [4].

Similar to the Cook Islands and the Kingdom of Tonga, the PNG and Fiji also have their own ways of addressing the public with the necessary information about their legislations. In Fiji, before starting a mining operation, individuals in charge are responsible for publicizing their implementations in the local newspapers [4]. Further, they also must allow different owners or participants of the area or land that is affected to make their own protest to those in charge for their consideration [4]. For the PNG, before granting any legislation or operations for a large-scale  mining lease, they must create a forum with all of the considerations from those that will be affected, whether that be landholders, or any other government personnel [4].

Legal Framework

Commercial production of deep-sea mining will become a reality as the final part of the legal framework is planned to be published soon by the ISA. Although seabed mining has been conducted over time, the real riches lie in the deep-sea. Although this is the case, there is actually a lack of legal framework to regulate and support deep-sea mining [5]. The ISA are focusing mainly on three things: profit distribution, procedural and operational matters, and also environmental issues. A principle of the ISA is to regulate deep-sea mining. This mainly emphasizes the safety and protection of marine environments from harmful mining activities involving exploration and exploitation. The problem with this is that any deep sea mining occurring within the EZZ of coastal areas is regulated by the national law of the states residing there [6].

Some exploration regulations have been developed as there are three types of materials that require State Parties to apply and be approved of plants before work. If approved, said party receives a 15-year right to explore a specific area [7]. The applicant of this must be able to demonstrate that they are financially and technically capable of fulfilling all obligations regarding the obligations of the area. Exploration programs also have to get approval as they have to include studies for oceanographic and environmental baselines so that there could be an assessment as to whether or not there will be potential or high environmental impacts [7].


Mining code

The Mining Code is a set of guidelines that is still currently under development of the International Seabed Authority (ISA). This code will be a baseline that will include exploration regulations regarding environmental data and exploitation regulations [8]. Although the Mining Code is still in draft form, this code will dictate the future of deep sea mining. A total of 22 contractors have been given exploration regulations and granted licenses by the ISA. Although the exploitation regulations were supposed to be finalized in 2020, the pandemic has greatly slowed down that process [8]. However, the “two year rule” could push the license to deep-sea mining faster.

The reason why the release of the Mining Code has been delayed is due to a lack of knowledge on the overall impact that deep-sea mining can bring. Since the knowledge of deep-sea mining is deficient, the regulation of the industry is still on hold [8]. Conservation groups have called for a 10-year prohibition on deep sea mining because of this [8]. The needed time is used to understand the risks that deep sea mining could possibly impose on the environment. The understanding and knowledge of deep-sea mining technology is a reason as to why the Mining Code has been delayed as the impacts concerning the continuation of this long-term practice are still unknown.

Many experts agreed that the implementation of the Mining Code is odd as it targets regulating seabed mining before it has even begun and the environmental risks are unknown especially since this practice involves extracting minerals from the Earth [8]. Although the future of the Mining Code is not certain, it could be used to properly monitor companies and keep the environment safe.

Nauru Pushing for New Policies

On the small Pacific island that is Nauru, they are planning to implement a new rule that would push seabed mining plans to be approved after two years of talk in 2023 [9]. The Nauru president, Lionel Aingimiea, has notified the International Seabed Authority (ISA) that they would be working with other corporations once the talk has been approved in 2023. One of the companies working with Nauru, The Metals CO, also has deals with Tonga and Kiribati for the Clarion Clipperton Zone (CCZ) rights which roughly covers 224,533 square kilometers [9].

Nauru believes that since the deep-sea mining regulations have been in talks for over seven years, the regulations are now nearly complete. On the other hand, environmental groups are arguing that too little is known about the impact of deep-sea mining and that the draft for the regulations was not nearly as complete as Nauru believed  it to be [9]. With 12000 inhabitants, Nauru has said that approximately 80% of the land is uninhabitable and that deep sea mining is more affordable and also less environmental impact than mining battery metals on land [9]. Although the environmental and biodiversity impacts are not known to favor land or in the sea, Nauru is still pushing for the two-year rule and to have mining plans to be approved after two years.

Impacts of Deep-sea Mining on the Pacific Islands

Physical Impacts on Marine Life

Coral reef that is discolored from bleaching
Bleached/damaged coral

The physical impacts of deep-sea mining in the Pacific Islands can cause climate change and environmental effects. There are many risks of using machinery for deep-sea mining. For example, the polymetallic nodules could potentially last for generations and possibly cause extinction of aquatic species [10]. Deep-sea mining also causes a decrease of microbial diversity and taxa's, such as polychaetes and crustaceans and some did not recover, while other species did in 44 months [11]. The disruption of the ocean and marine life can affect species dependency and diversity, which changes the natural sustainability and ecosystem efficiency. Polymetallic nodules are lumps of minerals that consist of nickel, cobalt, copper, manganese and other elements that were formed from over millions of years of absorbing the ocean's metals, which lie on the seabed [11]. Mining the nodules in the Pacific would discard substrates like corals and sponges which are essential to the species and as a result, this may cause a permanent loss of habitat [11]. In the Pacific, the age range of many sponges are 100 to over 9000 years old [11]. It is unfortunate how ocean life forms must be sacrificed and be driven out of their homes for the benefit of human gain. These habitats are also a means of food source for some species, so it is unknown if they are able to adapt to the environment after the nodules are removed [11]. If the species do not adapt to the environmental changes, they will have to move to a new location. If they plan to stay without adapting then the species will possibly be endangered and could go extinct. If removed, the nodules may never recover due to the millions of years it takes to form [11]. It also causes disturbances with the ocean floor, resulting in marine life retreating from their natural habitats [10]. Marine life could be affected by the noise pollution, causing intoxication in sea life. After a 30-year experiment done by Thiel and his colleague focusing on the possible effects of deep-sea mining, it was found that some areas that were mined for this experiment have not been convalesce [10]. Restoration of the ocean and sea life will be a slow progress. In 1978, the mining experiment done by the Ocean Minerals Company (OMCO) in the Clarion Clipperton Zone (CCZ) showed a reduction in the diversity and macro-fauna biomass of the nematode worms even 26 years later, as well as reduced carbon-cycle and the respiration rates [11]. Though much research was done, the regulations of the sea floor and organisms are getting worse, yet this operation will still be commenced in the future. The remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) will cause deformation on the seabed sediments, geochemistry change, produce oxygen in the low-oxygen layers in the subsurface, species composition affecting the loss of substrates, loss of materials such as nodules, and negative alterations to the sediment structure for many years to come [11].

Climate Change and Carbon cycling

Climate change and carbon cycling are significant and the imbalance can cause a chain reaction leading to the world being unstable, affecting both the global temperatures and the carbon levels within the atmosphere. The ocean’s help manage climate temperatures and carbon cycling [11]. In 2010, the Earth’s oceans had built up approximately 155 billion tonnes of carbon due to human sources and historically, the deep-sea has been seen as lacking deficiency with little effect in the oceans ecosystems until now [11]. The excess amount of carbon can endanger marine life as it makes the ocean waters more acidic. Further research has shown that all layers in the ocean are linked by the energy and the nutrients [11]. Photoautotrophs (plants) such as seaweed and phytoplankton photosynthesize to create energy while chemoautotrophs, species that consume inorganic chemicals like methane, a greenhouse gas, and sulfides to make energy [11]. Small fauna increasingly feed on more detritus and this can cause a drop in the quantity and quality of detritus getting to the seafloor [12]. The organic matter from carbon that falls from the ocean surface is then processed by microbes that are in the deep-sea environment while the inorganic matter is then recycled with some carbon left in the ocean for thousands of years [11]. This comes to show how the carbon cycle plays a vital role in the world and its oceans. A team of international scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Marine Microbiology (Germany), Utrecht University (Netherlands), and the  Daniëlle de Jonge from Heriot-Watt University (Scotland), went to the tropical East Pacific to investigate the disturbances caused by deep-sea mining [12]. Long-term effects of a 1989 simulation mining experiment has found that the ecosystem’s carbon was notably reduced and the microbial was affected a lot more than expected, reducing over more than one third [12]. After 26 years, the plough tracks remain and microbial abundance as well as density [12]. Though the effects of deep-sea mining are still unknown to a certain extent, it can potentially disturb the carbon cycling and worsen climate changes resulting in carbon in the deep-sea being released and causing carbon footprint, emitting greenhouse gas [11]. If this continues on this could cause a huge shift in the oceans.

Light and Noise Pollution

An image of a Bluefin Tuna with a white background
Bluefin tuna, a tuna species that is frequent in the Pacific

The open Pacific of nutrient poor surface waters are bright in sunlight hours and this light pollution is causing concern in oceanic ecosystems [11]. Excluding bioluminescence, deeper waters below 4,000 meters are pitch black so species living in these areas learnt to adapt to the darkness, so the lights from deep-sea mining could impact them [11]. This is because the species have developed greater light sensitivity due to their time spent in the dark. For example, studies have shown that deep-sea shrimp's retinas have been damaged permanently by the lights of crewed submersibles [11]. Moreover, there is still little to no knowledge of deep-sea species having possible effects due to light pollution and these impacts must be appraised [11]. Furthermore, the deep-sea mining affairs would require vessels floodlighting the surface water, possibly aggregating fishes, disrupting the migration of pelagic species and disturbing how the tuna species forage for food [11]. In the Pacific, lights are being used for attracting fish so harvesting is easier [11]. Nowadays people have become more selfish, making matters easier for themselves as it benefits them without care on how it might possibly affect those around them. Human activities can cause an increase in noise levels that are above the natural , which is termed noise pollution [11]. Noise pollution in waters are caused by ships, underwater seismic blasts, and military sonar that are impacting  sea life causing physical and behavioral changes [11]. The noises from boats influenced the behavior of the swimming and schooling of tuna, potentially leading to changes in spawning and feeding [11]. High Power sonar is involved in stranding whales and dolphins, and chronic noise pollution has led to a decrease in the coral reef fish's survival and possibly the northern elephant seals as well [11]. The government has begun restricting noise activities during whale migrations and the spawning of fish with the development of mandatory controls, like market-driven incentives to attain noise reduction and spatial-temporal restrictions [11]. Additionally, they developed safeguard measures that limit intense noises to briefly displace marine life before emitting harmful noises like a seismic survey [11]. Moreover, industry-specific technologies such as new propellers and better hull designs have allowed for more noise reduction. These technologies have been given new operational measures, like speed reductions in areas that are sensitive, or modifying existing shipping routes to avoid these areas [11]. Noise pollution from deep-sea mining operations can also affect the movement of pelagic larvae, which is caused by confounding natural acoustic cues [11]. Though some of these pollutants are not well assessed, existing human activities like watercrafts have already deeply affected the quality of sea life. As a result, adding deep-sea mining operations could potentially make things worse, causing permanent damage.

Pacific islands (effects on the community, connect to the ocean)

Food security

17% of the world’s current production of edible meat is obtained from the ocean, while the majority of that is from the Pacific ocean. By 2050, it is estimated that edible food from the sea will increase by 36-74% [13]. These provisions often contain several essential fatty acids and bioavailable micronutrients that may not be readily found in foods grown on land, making them significant to a healthy diet [14]. Food security in the Pacific Islands have traditionally been maintained by small-scale coastal fisheries through artisanal and subsistence fishing [13]. Seafood is especially crucial for the Pacific regions, as fish provide 50-90% of the consumed animal protein. Harvesting of sea cucumbers and exportation of small invertebrates for aquarium trade contribute indirectly to food security, as these opportunities provide a steady income in places where there are few options to earn a living [13]. In order for food security to sustain the continually growing human population, biodiversity in the ocean must remain stable. Scientific surveys have been administered to various potential mining regions and it was established that there were hundreds of new species living on the seafloor. These marine ecosystems are extremely vulnerable and hold rare, fragile species. It will be impossible for deep-sea mining to occur without affecting food security through the loss of biodiversity and destruction of ecosystems[15]. Another way that the aquatic food source could be disturbed is from the large amounts of sediments and toxic-waste grinded up by certain machines used to mine. Species that rely on bioluminescence to hunt, communicate and find mates may be affected due to the toxins, as it could cause water cloudiness. Additional impact to such toxicity is that it could shatter food chains, as larger predators would consume numerous tainted organisms. As a result, many aquatic creatures and humans end up ingesting the built up contamination. This could lead to health issues and eventually, death. Deep-sea mining would not only put the organisms and food security of the Pacific Islands at risk, but also the world's.

Solutions and Remedial actions

To maximize human resources of deep-sea mining while minimizing environmental impact, management of monitoring expected and actual changes must be executed well to improve actions meant to reduce impacts. The collection of baseline data of a large variety of variables is crucial, as it allows contractors to evaluate how their activities will affect the environments of the sea surface, mid- water, and seabed. Another reason for accumulating this information is to designate preservation (PRZ) and impact reference zones (IRZ) [16]. The purpose of these are to estimate the magnitude of destruction from mining, as well as the recovery rates. Preservation impact reference zones are most effective when placed around the area of the observed mine and should incorporate various habitats that have been impacted [16]. Therefore, it is essential for companies to contribute more time and effort into collecting data to research restoration options, even if it means delaying deep sea mining projects.

An additional solution to minimizing environmental impact is to identify impacts and strategies ahead of time. A contractor is required to submit multiple documents throughout the process, as they hold details of data and information of the mining activities. These documents include Environmental Impact Assessment, Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan, and Closure Plan. The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process aids companies in deciding whether a project should proceed, taking key risks and impacts into consideration. To further decrease the chances of altering marine ecosystems, an Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan (EMMP) must be decided on before and implemented throughout the timespan of the mining activity [16]. The purpose of EMMP is to manage and record enhancement measures and mitigation for significant impacts. Lastly, Closure Plan evaluates the state of affected lands, plans to restore these areas, and the cost to do so. The goal of this process is to minimize long-term economic and environmental consequences from occurring after mining activities . By recognizing negative burdens on the marine ecosystems, reducing these threats and offering solutions for future issues, various environmentally detrimental effects of deep sea mining may be avoided [16].

Although actions may be taken to diminish negative environmental effects, no option will allow deep-sea mining to proceed without consequences. Therefore, the most promising course of action that would prevent any habitat wreckage is to simply avoid it altogether. By recycling metals at a quicker rate and investing in alternative technologies, a steady income of mineral resources is very much possible [16]. However, future demands may disregard this option as a whole. Products with components made from these metals, such as renewable power generation technologies and electric vehicles, are tools that may contribute a great extent to the progression of human technology[16]. The result of halting deep-sea mining completely may lead to island states with control over their exclusive economic zones to exploit these materials [16]. This may lead to unsupervised and dangerous mining practices from companies who wish to also profit off deep-sea mining, not considering the environmental issues they may cause. Therefore, simply avoiding deep-sea mining will not cease future projects but rather allow the companies to operate unsafe methods that will be harmful for the marine environment.

Environmental debates

There are currently many debates going on about the topic of deep-sea mining. The world's supply of precious metals is beginning to decline, causing individuals to look for alternative ways to acquire these metals. There seems to be a split between which sides are more advocated for. For instance, if you are an individual looking to see an end to destruction of land from mining, then you would easily agree with the concept of deep-sea mining; however, others may disagree with deep-sea mining in fear of some consequences that may occur from this fairly new concept [17]. This is because the sea is still a very understudied area, so some do not want to take any risk that can have any negative impact [17].

In the ideas of deep-sea mining, there are various perspectives that one sees it in. People today either see this as a new opportunity for mineral collection that can potentially uplift us from the damages of climate change, or be even more devastating to our environment[18]. The benefits that we as humans can get from collecting various minerals from the deep seabed can vastly change how we take on climate change, as we will have more access to scarce materials that so many green devices need. However, this is a sensitive topic because the ocean still remains one of the most under-studied fields in the world, with us knowing more about the moon's surface than the ocean floor [18]. Moreover, these minerals that are collected are necessary for things like wind turbines, Solar panels, and other fossil fuel alternatives. With so many promising upsides, there are still many debates over whether deep-sea mining itself will cause further issues, with scientists cautioning us about the repercussions of working with an ecosystem that we know little about, potentially harming oceanic processes[18]. Since the majority of deep-sea mining will be taking place in unexplored areas, there also poses a risk of affecting new species that we have yet to discover [18]. Further, there are many unknowns that need to be dealt with, like how deep sea mining will affect fishing, carbon sequestration, and the surface of the seabed, causing scientists to recommend 10 years or more of research before commencing any action.


Deep-sea mining is a fairly new concept of extracting mineral deposits such as nickel, cobalt, manganese, and copper. This process strips away at the deep ocean floor using robotic cutting machines, providing the economy with at least a few hundred of millions of dollars, but also causing many devastating effects [1]. Many argue that it will greatly benefit human development, yet others are more skeptical of the negative effects due to how little information scientists have about the ocean [18]. These effects include extinction of various aquatic organisms, permanent loss of habitat, and intoxication in sea life. As a result, humans may lose a significant portion of food, especially those living in the Pacific islands due to seafood being 50-90% of their animal protein [19]. The Papua New Guinea’s Pacific Islands had attempted to start deep-sea mining in 2020, yet were unsuccessful in acquiring correct assets and investors. This lost the government approximately $120 million US dollars [3]. A small number of Pacific Islands have been introduced to laws regarding seabed minerals, such as Cook Islands and Kingdom of Tonga. These two nations embraced the updated seabed mining act (SBM) implemented in 2019, while the nations of Fiji and Papua New Guinea’s have made alterations to their many existing acts [4]. The solutions to lessen the environmental impacts of deep-sea mining are not certain, as the ocean is still vastly unexplored, but it is still possible for humans to attempt to evade preventable consequences while maximizing on the benefits with the assistance of restoration opportunities [16]. As a result, deep-sea mining is currently not an applicable source of minerals due to the unknown effects it may have on marine ecosystems and humans as a whole, yet it may be possible to cautiously practice in the future with the correct technologies.


Please use the Wikipedia reference style. Provide a citation for every sentence, statement, thought, or bit of data not your own, giving the author, year, AND page. For dictionary references for English-language terms, I strongly recommend you use the Oxford English Dictionary. You can reference foreign-language sources but please also provide translations into English in the reference list.

Note: Before writing your wiki article on the UBC Wiki, it may be helpful to review the tips in Wikipedia: Writing better articles.[20]

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 "DEEP-SEA MINING". Retrieved 2021-10-29. |first= missing |last= (help)
  2. "Deep-sea mining". Retrieved 2021-10-29. |first= missing |last= (help)
  3. 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Filer, Colin; Gabriel, Jennifer; Allen, Matthew G. (2020). "How PNG lost US$120 million and the future of deep-sea mining". Retrieved 2021-10-29.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  4. 4.00 4.01 4.02 4.03 4.04 4.05 4.06 4.07 4.08 4.09 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20 4.21 4.22 Kakee, Tomoko. "Marine Policy". Deep-sea mining legislation in Pacific Island countries: From the perspective of public participation in approval procedures. 117 – via ScienceDirect.
  5. "Deep sea mining must prove sustainability to join energy transition". Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP. June 2021. Retrieved Dec 1, 2021. |first= missing |last= (help)
  6. "Legal Framework". Central Dredging Association. September 6, 2017. Retrieved Dec 1, 2021. |first= missing |last= (help)
  7. 7.0 7.1 "The international legal framework for deep sea mining: a primer". Managing Impacts of Deep Sea Resource Exploitation. n.a. Retrieved Dec 1, 2021. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  8. 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 Shabahat, Elham (June 25, 2021). "A Mining Code for the Deep Sea". Hakai Magazine. Retrieved Dec 1, 2021.
  9. 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 Reid, Helen (June 29, 2021). "Pacific island of Nauru sets two-year deadline for U.N. deep-sea mining rules". Reuters. Retrieved 2021-11-05.
  10. 10.0 10.1 10.2 Mcdonald, Joshua (2021). "Pacific Island Nations Consider Deep-sea Mining, Despite Risks". Retrieved 2021-11-01.
  11. 11.00 11.01 11.02 11.03 11.04 11.05 11.06 11.07 11.08 11.09 11.10 11.11 11.12 11.13 11.14 11.15 11.16 11.17 11.18 11.19 11.20 11.21 11.22 11.23 11.24 11.25 11.26 11.27 Chin, Andrew; Hari, Katelyn (2020). "A Review of Scientific Literature" (PDF). Predicting the impacts of mining deep sea polymetallic nodules in the Pacific Ocean: 52.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  12. 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 Max Planck Institute for Marine Microbiology. (8 October 2020) "Deep-seabed mining lastingly disrupts the seafloor food web: Especially the microbial part of the carbon cycle is affected." ScienceDaily.
  13. 13.0 13.1 13.2 D. Bell, Johann; Cisneros-Montemayor, Andrés; Hanich, Quentin; E. Johnson, Johanna; Lehodey, Patrick; R. Moore, Bradley; S. Pratchett, Morgan; Reygondeau, Gabriel; et al. (February 2018). "Adaptations to maintain the contributions of small-scale fisheries to food security in the Pacific Islands". Marine Policy. 88: 303–314 – via Elsevier Science Direct. Explicit use of et al. in: |first9= (help); |first9= missing |last9= (help)
  14. Costello, Christopher; Cao, Ling; Gelcich, Stefan; Cisneros-Mata, Miguel; Free, Christopher; Froehlich, Halley; Golden, Christopher; Ishimura, Gakushi; et al. (December 3, 2020). "The future of food from the sea". nature. Retrieved November 6, 2021. Explicit use of et al. in: |first9= (help); |first9= missing |last9= (help)
  15. Laffoley, Dan; M. Baxter, John; J. Amon, Diva; E.J. Currie, Duncan; A. Downs, Craig; M. Hall-Spencer, Jason; Harden-Davies, Harriet; Page, Richard; et al. (23 July 2019). "Eight urgent, fundamental and simultaneous steps needed to restore ocean health, and the consequences for humanity and the planet of inaction or delay". Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 30 (1): 194–208 – via Wiley Online Library. Explicit use of et al. in: |first9= (help); |first9= missing |last9= (help)
  16. 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 16.5 16.6 16.7 Billett, D.S.M.; Jones, D.O.B.; Weaver, P.P.E. (May 8, 2019). "Improving Environmental Management Practices in Deep-Sea Mining". SpringerLink. Retrieved December 5, 2021.
  17. 17.0 17.1 E. Beaulieu, Stace; Graedel, T.E.; D. Hannington, Mark (July 2017). "Should we mine the deep seafloor?". Earth's Future. 5 (7): 655–658 – via ProQuest.
  18. 18.0 18.1 18.2 18.3 18.4 Cassauwers, Tom (August 12, 2021). "Deep-sea mining: is it an environmental curse or could it save us?". Horizon The EU Research & Innovation Magazine. Retrieved November 27, 2021.
  19. Bell, Johann; Cisneros-Montemayor, Andrés; Hanich, Quentin; Johnson, Johanna; Lehodey, Patrick; Moore, Bradley; Pratchett, Morgan; Reygondeau, Gabriel; et al. (June 27, 2017). "Adaptations to maintain the contributions of small-scale fisheries to food security in the Pacific Islands". ScienceDirect. Retrieved November 6, 2021. Explicit use of et al. in: |first9= (help); |first9= missing |last9= (help)
  20. (2018). Writing better articles. [online] Available at: [Accessed 18 Jan. 2018].

Seekiefer (Pinus halepensis) 9months-fromtop.jpg
This conservation resource was created by Course:CONS200. It is shared under a CC-BY 4.0 International License.