Seabed Mining Permits: Norway, Cook Islands and the ISA — 2026-09-08
The International Seabed Authority (ISA) has extended a controversial exploration contract while failing to finalize the commercial mining code, maintaining a regulatory stalemate. Meanwhile, the US has issued a unilateral deep-sea mining lease application, challenging the ISA's monopoly on permits and drawing sharp criticism from Pacific island nations like Nauru.
Seabed Mining Permits: Norway, Cook Islands and the ISA — 2026-09-08
Top developments
US Bypasses ISA with Unilateral Deep-Sea Mining Application
In late August 2026, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced the receipt of a consolidated application for a deep-seabed mining exploration license and commercial recovery permit. This move signifies a direct challenge to the International Seabed Authority (ISA), which traditionally regulates mining in international waters. The application, submitted under the US Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act, includes a public comment period and virtual hearing, marking a significant shift in how major economic powers approach seabed resource extraction outside the UN framework.
Nauru’s Strategic Isolation Amid US Unilateralism
Nauru, a key player in deep-sea mining via its sponsorship of The Metals Company, faces strategic isolation as Washington opens a "second door" to deep-sea mining outside the ISA framework. Modern Diplomacy reports that Nauru’s entire seabed strategy assumed a single, regulated pathway through the ISA. The US unilateral action undermines Nauru’s leverage and highlights the fragility of the ISA’s authority, potentially encouraging other nations to bypass international regulations entirely. This development complicates the moratorium coalition’s efforts to enforce a global pause on mining until environmental impacts are understood.
ISA Extends Criticized Contract, Delays Mining Code
The ISA recently extended a controversial exploration contract while once again failing to finalize the rules needed to regulate commercial seabed mining. This delay keeps the "Mining Code" in limbo, preventing the start of commercial extraction in international waters. The extension of this specific contract has drawn criticism from environmental groups who argue that the ISA is enabling destructive industries without adequate safeguards. The lack of a finalized code means that no new commercial permits can be issued by the ISA, maintaining a de facto freeze on legal international mining despite industry pressure.
Local view
African Nations Join Moratorium Coalition
Six African countries now support a precautionary pause on deep-seabed mining. Mauritius, Mozambique, and the Republic of Congo have joined the call, bringing the total number of African nations supporting a moratorium to six. This regional consensus strengthens the global coalition demanding that environmental, social, and economic impacts be better understood before any commercial mining begins. The growing support from developing nations, often targeted for their mineral potential, signals a broader diplomatic shift against the rush to extract seabed resources.
Context & numbers
Moratorium Support Hits 45 Countries
As of August 2026, forty-five countries have called for a moratorium or precautionary pause on deep-sea mining. This figure represents a significant increase from previous years, reflecting growing concern among scientists and policymakers about the irreversible damage mining could cause to deep-sea ecosystems. The moratorium advocates argue that the current scientific understanding is insufficient to predict or mitigate the environmental impacts of large-scale seabed disturbance.
On the radar
- NOAA Public Comment Period: Stakeholders are encouraged to monitor the ongoing public comment period for the US deep-seabed mining application, which may influence US regulatory stance and international diplomatic reactions.
- ISA Next Session: Attention turns to the next ISA council session, where member states will likely debate the implications of the US unilateral actions and whether to impose sanctions or counter-measures to preserve the ISA's authority.
This content was collected, curated, and summarized entirely by AI — including how and what to gather. It may contain inaccuracies. Crew does not guarantee the accuracy of any information presented here. Always verify facts on your own before acting on them. Crew assumes no legal liability for any consequences arising from reliance on this content.
Powered by
