SPEAK UP FOR OUR SHARED OCEAN

Dies ist eine Eingabe beim U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), die sich gegen die Tiefseebergbau-Ambitionen der Trump-Administration wendet.

Submission to NOAA on Deep Seabed Mining Exploration License Application # Re: Federal Register Notice 2026-10975; Docket No. NOAA-NOS-2026-0892

This submission by Pacific Network e.V., Germany, responds to NOAA’s notice of receipt of an application by American Deep Sea Minerals, Inc. for deep seabed mining exploration licenses under the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act. NOAA has invited public comments on the application by 3. August 2026 and has identified the application as relating to exploration activities beyond national jurisdiction.

Our recommendation to this submission is that NOAA should not proceed with any licensing in a manner that facilitates unilateral deep seabed mining outside the multilateral UNCLOS framework established for the High Seas. The United States should instead ensure that any domestic process is aligned with ongoing negotiations at the International Seabed Authority (ISA), and the UNCLOS principle of the common heritage of humankind, precaution, transparency, and the need to maintain confidence in international ocean governance, particular expressed through UNCLOS.

1. How does this application relate to ongoing ISA negotiations?

The application must be understood in the context of unresolved ISA negotiations on whether, and under what conditions, commercial deep seabed mining could ever proceed. ISA Member States have not adopted a complete exploitation framework. Key issues remain unresolved, including environmental standards and guidelines, cumulative impact assessment, benefit-sharing, liability, compliance, independent scientific baselines, and the protection of the marine environment.

Granting or advancing domestic exploration licenses in these circumstances risks undermining the multilateral process. It would signal that a state or company may seek advantage through national procedures while the international community is still negotiating the rules for the area. That is particularly concerning where the seabed and mineral resources beyond national jurisdiction are treated under international law as the common heritage of humankind, not as a first-come, first-serve commercial frontier. A rushed or unilateral pathway would also weaken the case for a precautionary pause or moratorium, despite growing support from governments, scientists, Indigenous Peoples, fishers, financial institutions, businesses, and civil society. The appropriate response to legal and scientific uncertainty is not to accelerate domestic licensing. It is to uphold the ISA process, insist on robust science, and prevent any activity that could pre-empt collective decision-making.

2. Could this decision affect confidence in international ocean governance?

Definitely yes. A decision to move forward with a unilateral domestic license for deep seabed mining exploration would have consequences beyond the individual application. It would affect confidence in the rules-based governance of the global commons. If actors can bypass or pre-empt the ISA while negotiations are incomplete, it would weaken trust that international law can protect shared resources from appropriation by the most powerful or best-resourced actors.

The stakes are not limited to seabed minerals. They concern whether multilateral institutions can hold when commercial pressure intensifies. Deep-sea ecosystems are among the least understood environments on Earth. They play important roles in biodiversity, carbon cycling, and ocean functioning, while disturbances may be effectively irreversible on human timescales. Proceeding in the absence of sufficient scientific knowledge would undermine the precautionary approach and public confidence in ocean governance.

The economic case also does not justify weakening governance safeguards. Deep-sea mining is speculative, has not occurred commercially, and is not necessary for the clean energy transition. The minerals targeted by deep seabed mining are limited, while recycling, material efficiency, circular economy strategies, public transport, and battery innovation provide less destructive pathways to address mineral demand. The likely distribution of benefits also raises serious justice concerns: private companies may capture profits while environmental, legal, and social risks fall on the public, coastal communities, Indigenous Peoples, and future generations.

For these reasons, NOAA should avoid any decision that could be interpreted as legitimizing unilateral deep seabed mining or rewarding attempts to move faster than the international process in the ISA. Confidence in ocean governance depends on restraint, precaution, and respect for collective multilateral rules.

3. How does this process support transparent multilateral decision-making?

A public comment period and hearing can contribute to transparency, but only if the process genuinely considers international legal, environmental, scientific, and governance concerns. Transparency is not achieved merely by receiving comments. It requires NOAA to disclose the basis for its decision-making, address substantive objections, and explain how any domestic action is consistent with the broader multilateral framework.

To support transparent multilateral decision-making, we recommend NOAA to: first, clarify how it will assess the application in light of ongoing ISA negotiations and the unresolved Mining Code; second, explain how it will avoid prejudicing the rights and interests of the international community as a whole; third, make public the legal, environmental, and scientific rationale for any decision; and fourth, ensure that comments from coastal states, Pacific communities, Indigenous Peoples, scientists, civil society, and other stakeholders are meaningfully considered.

The process should not be used to create momentum for a new extractive frontier before the international community has agreed whether such mining should proceed at all. Transparent decision-making would instead recognize the limits of current science, the legal sensitivity of the Area, and the need to prevent corporate capture of ocean governance. It would also acknowledge that a moratorium or precautionary pause is a legitimate and increasingly supported multilateral response to uncertainty, risk, and unresolved governance gaps.

Recommendation In our opinion, NOAA should not approve or advance the application in any way that facilitates unilateral deep seabed mining outside the ISA framework under UNCLOS. The responsible course is to refrain from licensing decisions that could undermine ongoing ISA negotiations, weaken confidence in international ocean governance under UNCLOS and other multilateral instruments, or pre-empt transparent multilateral decision-making. At minimum, NOAA should suspend substantive consideration until the international community has resolved the legal, scientific, environmental, and equity questions that remain central to the future of the deep seabed.

26th July 2026 Eckart Garbe, Chairman Pacific Network / Pazifik-Netzwerk e.V.