Seabed Mining Is Becoming An Environmental Flashpoint – NZ Will Have To Pick A Side Soon

Seabed mining could become one of the defining
environmental battles of 2025. Around the world, governments
are weighing up whether to allow mining of the ocean floor
for metal ores and minerals. New Zealand is among
them.

The stakes are high. Deep-sea mining is highly
controversial, with evidence showing mining activity can
cause lasting damage to fragile marine ecosystems. One area
off the east coast of the United States, mined as an
experiment 50 years ago, still
bears scars and shows little sign of
recovery.

With the world facing competing pressures
– climate action and conservation versus demand for
resources – New Zealand must now decide whether to
fast-track mining, regulate it tightly, or pause it
entirely.

Who controls international seabed
mining?

A major flashpoint is governance in
international waters. Under international law, seabed mining
beyond national jurisdiction is managed by the International
Seabed Authority (ISA), created
by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS).

But the US has never ratified UNCLOS. In
April this year, President Donald Trump issued an executive
order to bypass the ISA and allow companies to begin
mining in international waters.

The ISA has pushed
back, warning unilateral action breaches international
law. However, the declaration
from the recently concluded UN Ocean Conference in France
does not urge countries to adopt a precautionary approach,
nor does it ban deep seabed mining.

The declaration
does “reiterate the need to increase scientific knowledge
on deep sea ecosystems” and recognises the role of the ISA
in setting “robust rules, regulations and procedures for
exploitation of resources” in international
waters.

So, while the international community supports
multilateralism and international law, deep-sea mining in
the near future remains a real
possibility.

Fast-track approvals

In the
Pacific, some countries have already made up their minds
about which way they will go. Nauru recently updated its agreement
with Canadian-based The Metals Company to begin mining
in the nearby Clarion
Clipperton Zone. The deal favours the US’s go-it-alone
approach over the ISA model.

By contrast, in 2022, New
Zealand’s Labour government backed
the ISA’s moratorium and committed to a holistic ocean
management strategy. Whether that position still holds is
unclear, given the current government’s
policies.

The list of applications under the Fast-track
Approvals Act 2024 – described
by Regional Development Minister Shane Jones as
“arguably the most permissive regime” in Australasia –
includes two controversial seabed mining proposals in Bream
Bay and off the Taranaki coast:

Trans-Tasman
Resources’ proposal
to extract up to 50 million tonnes of Taranaki seabed
material annually to recover heavy mineral sands that
contain iron ore as well as rare metal elements titanium and
vanadium.

McCallum Brothers Ltd’s Bream Bay proposal
to dredge up to 150,000 cubic metres of sand yearly for
three years, and up to 250,000 cubic metres after
that.

Legal landscape changing

Māori and
environmental groups have opposed
the fast-track policy, and the Treaty of Waitangi has so
far been a powerful safeguard in seabed mining
cases.

Provisions referencing Treaty principles appear
in key laws, including the Crown Minerals Act and the
Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental
Effects) Act.

In 2021, the Supreme Court cited these
obligations when it rejected a 2016 marine discharge
application by Trans-Tasman Resources to mine the seabed in
the Taranaki Bight. The court ruled Treaty clauses must
be interpreted in a “broad and generous” way,
recognising tikanga
Māori and customary marine rights.

But that legal
landscape could soon change. The Regulatory
Standards Bill, now before parliament, would give
priority to property rights over environmental or Indigenous
protections in the formulation of new laws and
regulations.

The bill also allows for the review of
existing legislation. In theory, if the Regulatory Standards
Bill becomes law, it could result in the removal of Treaty
principles clauses from legislation.

This in turn
could deny courts the tools they’ve previously used to
uphold environmental and Treaty-based protections to block
seabed mining applications. That would make it easier to
approve fast-tracked projects such as the Bream Bay and
Taranaki projects.

Setting a
precedent

Meanwhile, Hawai’i has gone in a
different direction. In 2024, the US state passed a law
banning seabed mining in state waters – joining
California (2022), Washington (2021) and Oregon
(1991).

Under the Hawai’i Seabed Mining Prevention
Act, mining is banned except in rare cases such as beach
restoration. The law cites the public’s right
to a clean and healthy environment.

As global
conflict brews over seabed governance, New Zealand’s
eventual position could set a precedent.

Choosing to
prohibit seabed mining in New Zealand waters, as Hawai’i has
done, would send a strong message that environmental
stewardship and Indigenous rights matter more than
short-term resource extraction interests.

If New
Zealand does decide to go ahead with seabed mining, however,
it could trigger a cascade of mining efforts across New
Zealand and the Pacific. A crucial decision is fast
approaching.

Myra
Williamson, Senior Lecturer in Law, Auckland
University of Technology

This article is
republished from The
Conversation under a Creative Commons license.
Read the original
article.

© Scoop Media