8.2.1 Conservation of Marine Living Resources

The adverse natural and human events – pollution, climate change, and overfishing – pose risks to the sustainable use of marine living resources. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the fraction of fishery stocks within biologically sustainable levels decreased to 64.6 percent in 2019, which is 1.2 percent lower than in 2017. In contrast, the percentage of stocks fished at biologically unsustainable levels has been increasing since the late 1970s, from 10 percent in 1974 to 35.4 percent in 2019 (FAO 2022).

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)Footnote ² recognizes in its preamble the importance of the protection of marine living resources. Due to the lack of an agreed definition of what conservation means under UNCLOS, the author relies on Article 2 of the 1958 Geneva Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas.Footnote ³ The Convention stipulates that the expression “conservation of the living resources of the high seas” means the aggregate of the measures rendering possible the optimum sustainable yield from those resources so as to secure a maximum supply of food and other marine products. UNCLOS imposes the necessity to protect the marine living resources on the parties to the Convention. Traditionally, the international law of the sea follows a “zonal management” approach for protecting the marine living resources. The coastal States are specifically obliged, under Article 61(2), to ensure that the maintenance of the living resources in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is not endangered by overexploitation. Within this obligation, States are obliged to determine the allowable catch of the living resources in the EEZ and the capacity to harvest them. In addition, UNCLOS stipulates that the freedom of fishing on the high seas is subject to conditions (Articles 116–120). Accordingly, in determining the allowable catch and establishing other conservation measures for the living resources in the high seas, States shall, along with other requirements, take measures to maintain or restore populations of harvested species at levels that can produce the “maximum sustainable yield.” The international cooperation imposed on States by Article 118 is implemented through participation in regional fisheries organizations and on the basis of the relevant case law.Footnote ⁴ Noncompliance with the obligation to cooperate in the high seas regarding the conservation of living resources entails breaching Articles 117 and 118 (Tanaka Reference Tanaka2019, 281–290). Consequently, the main elements of the conservation of marine living resources for the purpose of the present study are the process of determining the allowable catch and the capacity to harvest natural resources.

However, it must be noted that, according to Professor Yoshifumi Tanaka, the above-referenced traditional zonal management approach to the protection of marine living resources is limited by the ecological reality of marine species. Therefore, it is worth paying attention to the concepts more recently introduced into the international protection of natural resources. One of those is “sustainable development,” introduced by the Stockholm Declaration of the UN Conference on the Human Environment in 1972Footnote ⁵ and confirmed in the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED 1987). Even if the concept would be regarded only as soft law because these documents are nonbinding, during judicial interpretation of UNCLOS it can be taken into consideration when resolving legal conflicts in the field.

8.2.2 The Protection of the Marine Environment

The second element of the protection of the community interests at sea analyzed in this chapter is the protection of the marine environment. There is no need to argue that marine pollution endangers both the ecosystem and human health. The importance of the subject was highlighted by the 2024 UN Ocean Decade Conference,Footnote ⁶ which identified marine pollution as one of the Ocean Decade’s ten challenges.Footnote ⁷ The main conference outcome – the Barcelona Statement – lists marine pollution monitoring and ocean observations as one of its three priorities.Footnote ⁸

The international legal framework regarding marine pollution includes numerous international treaties, as well as nonbinding soft law instruments. UNCLOS expressly recognizes in its preamble the importance of the protection and preservation of the marine environment. Article 1(1)(4) defines marine pollution as “the introduction by man, directly or indirectly, of substances or energy into the marine environment, including estuaries, which results or is likely to result in such deleterious effects as harm to living resources and marine life, hazards to human health, hindrance to marine activities, including fishing and other legitimate uses of the sea, impairment of quality for use of sea water and reduction of amenities.” The UNCLOS concept for the protection of the marine environment is based on six sources of marine pollution. Land-based marine pollution, together with pollution through or from the atmosphere, seemingly constitutes 80 percent of marine pollution (UNGA 2024, 29). These types of pollution cover industrial, agricultural, and municipal discharges, such as sewage. Vessel-sourced pollution includes any kind of pollution (such as oily residues and fumes) originating from the normal operation of ships, as well as pollution resulting from accidents. Marine pollution originating from seabed activities includes pollution as a result of mining, especially the toxic metals contained in the drilling mud. Continental-shelf drilling is another source of oil pollution. Dumping at sea is defined in Article 1(1)(5)(a) and, as Professor Tanaka notes, does not include disposal from land, while dumping from vessels is distinguished from vessel-based marine pollution (Tanaka Reference Tanaka2019, 324–329). UNCLOS not only contains detailed rules for preventing, reducing, and controlling the different types of marine pollution, but, as a general obligation in Article 192, it imposes a basic obligation of protecting and preserving the marine environment, where “marine environment” means the ocean as a whole, including the high seas. UNCLOS also prescribes for contracting parties the obligation to cooperate on a global basis and, as appropriate, on a regional basis – directly or through competent international organizations – in formulating and elaborating international rules, standards, and recommended practices and procedures, consistent with UNCLOS, for the protection and preservation of the marine environment. The International Maritime Organization plays an important role at the international level, especially in relation to pollution from vessels and pollution by dumping.

8.2.3 The Conservation of Marine Biological Diversity

The third element under analysis is the conservation of marine biological diversity. According to Article 2 of the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD),Footnote ⁹ “biological diversity” means the variability among living organisms from all sources, including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine, and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are a part. This includes diversity within species, between species, and of ecosystems. Unsustainable use of the Earth’s natural resources means that we jeopardize them in such a way that they can no longer regenerate. Naturally managed marine areas cannot resist pollution, climate change, and human disturbance and are threatened by fast-growing and nonnative microbes and diseases. Therefore, they offer less shelter for biodiversity. Pollution and the disturbance of larger areas entail hindering the renewal of the natural habitat, increasing the danger of loss of biodiversity. In dedicated reserve areas, which in the oceans are called marine protected areas (MPAs), the management and protection of natural resources, including genetic resources, is more successful. These reserves promote natural self-regulation and can predominate and help long-term sustainability.

UNCLOS has only two general provisions regarding the protection of marine biodiversity. Article 194(5) prescribes the preservation of rare and fragile ecosystems (including endangered species and other forms of marine life), while Article 196(1) places an obligation on States to prevent, reduce, and control pollution of the marine environment (Tanaka Reference Tanaka2019, 409–430). The CBD contains general obligations for the conservation of biodiversity and for the sustainable use of its components, as well as fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources. The provisions apply to the conservation not only of terrestrial biodiversity but also of marine biological diversity. When we examine the relationship between these two international agreements, on the basis of Article 22 of the CBD,Footnote ¹⁰ we see that UNCLOS prevails, unless there is a serious damage or threat to the biodiversity. The most critical weak point of the CBD is that it is not effective for transboundary damages and in areas beyond national jurisdictions. The establishment of MPAs offers the solution of protecting the whole ecosystem of a certain area by taking into consideration the relevance of ecological interactions between marine species – and not only areas under national jurisdiction, but in the high seas as well. At the dawn of the Agreement on Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (High Seas Treaty),Footnote ¹¹ the subject of MPAs and the protection of marine biological diversity is getting even more international attention. As evidence for that, the Second UN Ocean Conference, held in 2022, yielded as one of its fifty pledges an investment of at least US$1 billion to support the creation, expansion, and management of MPAs and Indigenous and locally governed marine and coastal areas by 2030 (Kosolapova and Wagner Reference Kosolapova and Wagner2025).

After this analysis of the relevant legal framework containing the international obligations that are under research, the chapter introduces BCT, the tool recommended for use in implementing those obligations.

8.2.4 What Is Blockchain and How Can International Law Benefit from It?

Blockchain is a disruptive information technology that enables stakeholders to track transactions recorded in a public (or private) and secure, cryptographically verified database. Let’s discuss the meaning of each element of the above definition. We call disruptive any solution that is new and innovative compared to an existing technological process or mechanism. Disruption can have many benefits for society, including improving public governance by reducing costs and the time burden of administrative processes. However, it is necessary to ensure that an increase in automation does not have a negative effect – for example, on employment – that might result in the introduction of new technology causing damage that undermines its benefits.

Cryptographic verification ensures the security and safety of records, ensuring that stakeholders can trust that the data introduced and stored in the system are authentic and that the events or transactions recorded are without the risk of fraud, error, or inaccuracy and are, therefore, true. Blockchain is a type of distributed ledger technology by which transactions are stored in a chain of blocks and each block contains the same updated (live) information. In this way, each participant (node) of the system, having a copy of the whole ledger of the blockchain, can trust that the information contained therein is up-to-date and authentic. The so-called consensus protocol of the technology essentially refers to a decentralized agreement on the validity of the transaction. This protocol allows only correct blocks to be added to the ledger. In case of a malicious attempt to add a wrong block, the honest participants can refuse it. In this way, the authenticity of the ledger can be easily maintained.

On the basis of accessibility, we can differentiate four basic types of blockchain: public, private, hybrid, and consortium. Public blockchain is open to the public without any restriction. Any participant can act as a node and be part of the decision-making process. In these permissionless blockchains, anyone can verify transactions, and valid transactions cannot be changed, unless someone gains 51 percent or more of the computing power. The public blockchain is independent of any organization, and only computers connected to the blockchain are needed to see or share data on it. This type of blockchain is used mainly for cryptocurrencies, but it is also a perfect technical solution for real estate records or validating documents. Private blockchains are only open for certain individuals within a group, who will receive permission for participating in the given blockchain as nodes. They are usually controlled by only one entity and are typically used within the corporate environment, where they are usually applied in supply chain management or asset ownership control. Hybrid blockchains are a mixture of public and private, meaning that part of the blockchain is public, while the remainder is private. In this way, there is a possibility to keep confidential some chosen information within a public blockchain and give access to those data only to select persons. The confidential data are also verifiable. This concept is well suited to medical or real estate records. Consortium blockchain is also partly private and partly public. It differs from the hybrid blockchain in that in a consortium, multiple organizational members can collaborate on a decentralized network. Essentially a consortium blockchain is a private blockchain with limited access to a particular group, eliminating the risks that come with a single entity controlling the network on a private blockchain. This type of blockchain is widely used in banking and research activities.

The first product of BCT is Bitcoin, the well-known cryptocurrency, which was created in 2008. Since then, the technology has proved to be reliable and has found its way into other applications outside of the world of finance. Besides securing financial transactions, BCT is applied in, among other fields, healthcare (such as digital medical records), education, secure transactions, and data exchange. Governments are using BCT to set up reliable voting systems and for securing identification, while industry is using it in supply chain management and transportation. We have already seen smart contracts used for selling and buying real estate.

One of the largest achievements of BCT, from which international law can benefit, is its decentralized nature. The technology allows control over transactions, processes, and databases in a noncentralized way, as detailed above. It provides a secure and reliable record of activities and the exchange or sharing of information in a decentralized way, which ensures and increases trust, transparency, and reliability in the given system. The idea of using BCT for the implementation and execution of international treaties is grounded in the fact that, in the international community, there is no hierarchy among stakeholders, meaning that they act based on the same strategic framework as do the nodes in the blockchain. Nowadays, when the emphasis on the importance of digitalized information is shifting toward the cooperative and fruitful coexistence of humans and machines, it is more than necessary to look into the methods from which legal professionals can benefit and show not only acceptance but also highly useful exploitation of the technological developments in terms of the implementation of international agreements.

According to Koshzhanova Baktygul, the enforcement of international law could be accomplished through the blockchain. Taking that idea further, blockchain could strengthen the assurance that international law should not be a burden, as States might see it, and may actually be a tool for order in the world. When referring to the role of blockchain in international law, Baktygul cites the speech of Prince Albert at the 1851 International Exhibition in London: “Nobody who has paid any attention to the peculiar features of our present era will doubt for a moment that we are living a period of the most wonderful transition which tends rapidly to accomplish that great end to which indeed all history points – the realization of the unity of humankind.” Baktygul argues that this is the exact change that is coming to life through blockchain and would bring authoritative power to international law. He states that, by being decentralized, blockchain perhaps allows itself to bypass domestic law, but international law could establish jurisdiction if States are able to reach agreement (Baktygul Reference Baktygul2023). There is no better time for stepping forward with the application of BCT to the implementation of international treaties. At the time of writing, the international community is preparing for the Our Ocean Conference 2025 to promote global actions for a sustainable ocean and to discuss “Ocean Digital,” a concept that brings together the ocean industry and digital technology to serve as an implementation tool to achieve a sustainable ocean.

8.4.1 Conservation of Marine Living Resources

Ocean policy handles the conservation of marine living resources through planned resource management to prevent overexploitation. These processes include determining the allowable catch and the capacity to harvest natural resources. For monitoring and measuring excess capacity at the international level, clear definitions and measures are required to develop international consensus and cooperation for global and regional plans of action to monitor and reduce excess capacity (Kirkley and Squires Reference Kirkley and Squires2018). The governments engaged in determining the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) are allocating Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQs) to individual fishers who effectively own this share of the fish stock. If a fish stock increases, governments can increase TACs and fishers can then catch more fish. In the case of Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs), a fisher can also sell or lease their quota; thus, the value of their “stock” increases with increasing fish stock (Douglas Reference Douglas2018). IFQs are based on the catching history of the individual fishers, meaning that providing data to the governments about the number of fishers’ catches is essential in determining IFQs and, therefore, TACs. According to the FAO, less than 40 percent of nations have adequate datasets on what their fishers are catching. This is especially concerning in developing countries, where, very probably, the fishers are not comfortable with giving access to their fishing history data. In these circumstances, the solutions that blockchain-based projects can provide are of great benefit to ocean governance.

One example is the Fishcoin project, which incentivizes fishers as well as other stakeholders in the fishery supply chain to share data. When they enter data about their catches into the database, they receive a certain amount of cryptocurrency called Fishcoin. Both the cryptocurrency and the activities of entering and sharing data into the system use BCT. Through the widespread adaptation of Fishcoin or similar projects, data-sharing can be not only encouraged but also used as a tool for combating illegal fishing by giving credibility only to those catches registered in the project databases.

Another example is the World Wildlife Foundation’s blockchain project From Bait to Plate, which aims to track tuna catches with the assistance of BCT. Fish caught are tagged with Radio Frequency Identification and allocated a QR code, allowing them to be traced to the final retail delivery. Thanks to the benefits of the BCT, tuna-fishing could be more controlled and its sustainability could be achieved (Velasco González-Camino Reference Velasco González-Camino2019). In this way, the legality of the catch can be ensured and proved in a trusted way to the consumer. Shermin Voshmgir, a blockchain expert and social scientist, called this project the best practice approach to the implementation of blockchain in supply chains in the context of developing countries (Voshmgir et al. Reference Voshmgir, Wildenberg, Rammel and Novakovic2019). However, it should be noted that when applying BCT in different projects, different types of technologies should be chosen and adapted, using different platforms, and the forms of data collection shall be adjusted to the level of traceability (Pita and Costa Reference Pita and Costa2023).

8.4.2 Protection of the Marine Environment

When we think about the protection of the marine environment, the most obvious use of BCT is tracking and tracing the pollution itself. This tool can be used for most types of marine pollution, whether originating from land, vessels, or seabed activities or from dumping at sea. Sensing pollution at its source – either with various sensing devices or, according to the recent trends, with autonomous robots (Islam et al. Reference Islam, Sadia, Masuduzzaman and Shin2020) – and then entering the sensing data into BCT-based databases allow the use of BCT for tracking and tracing the waste from its source to the disposal. The life cycle and journey of the waste, which has been entered into a digital record created in that way, can then be traced and controlled easily. The same method might be applied to the plastic debris removed from the ocean to ensure traceability and transparency through its journey to the disposal site. The benefits of blockchain – such as the formalization of the recycling profession, the creation of economic benefits, global cooperation, the introduction of digital currency systems, increased transaction security, and a transparent and efficient recycling chain – in marine debris management have already been studied and proven (Gong et al. Reference Gong, Wang, Frei, Wang and Zhao2022).

The blockchain-based project called ReSea uses the above method, with local collectors of plastic waste entering data into the system by using their smartphones. The Project Plastic Bank identifies the places in the world that are the largest sources of land-based plastic pollution and incentivizes local individuals to gather plastic materials and exchange them for money and access to social benefits. Diatom DAO is a community-driven decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) aiming to help reduce the plastic in oceans and, in this way, contribute to the protection of the marine environment. The blockchain-based project is incentivizing individuals and organizations by providing them with tokenized Plastic Removal Credits for proven plastic removal. These tokens can then be bought by governments or institutions to offset their carbon footprint. Finally, the funds collected in this way are used to fund projects that aim to remove plastic from the oceans (Diordievic Reference Diordievicn.d.). One of the most innovative aspects of the project is that the plastic removed is classified and the tokens provided as incentives are distributed according to that classification. In this way, fair distribution is guaranteed.

8.4.3 Conservation of Marine Biological Diversity

In the field of the conservation of marine biological diversity, BCT could be applied in the surveillance of MPAs. BCT applications are already used in monitoring systems, and scholars are suggesting applying the technology for environmental monitoring. The advantage of using BCT in maritime monitoring systems is that, because the technology is secure, it resolves the cybersecurity issue faced by traditional technologies. BCT also ensures the integrity, authenticity, and availability of relevant navigation data (Freire et al. Reference Freire, Melo, do Nascimento, Nascimento and de Sá2022). The COVID-19 pandemic has proven that MPA management needs to be supported by innovative technologies, tools, and ethical financing mechanisms that are not only effective but also resilient (Phua et al. Reference Phua, Andradi-Brown, Mangubhai, Ahmadia, Mahajan, Larsen, Friel, Reichelt, Hockings, Gill, Veverka, Anderson, Augustave, Ahmad, Bervoets, Brayne, Djohani, Kawaka, Kyne, Ndagala, Oates, Osuka, Prvan, Shah, Vallarola, Wenzel, Widodo and Wells2021). Dominic Waughray, the head of the World Economic Forum’s Centre for Global Public Goods, has argued that blockchain could help to enforce the new High Seas Treaty by tracking fishing on the high seas and identifying illegal behavior (Scruggs Reference Scruggs2018). These improvements are also necessary for achieving SDG 14. In March 2018, the Blockchain Commission and the UN Development Programme issued a white paper titled “The Future Is Decentralised: Block Chains, Distributed Ledgers, & the Future of Sustainable Development” (Wigley and Cary Reference Wigley and Cary2017). The paper recognized that BCT-based pilot projects have demonstrated the viability and benefits of employing the technology for the public good and that BCT can, therefore, be a valuable tool for governments, regulators, private companies, and civil society to establish trust, tackle corruption, and distribute resources. Consequently, it is an appropriate tool for accelerating the achievement of SDGs. As other scholars have argued, the history of biodiversity governance demonstrates the limited efficacy of conventional solutions and the lack of sufficiently powerful political coalitions to address the root causes of biodiversity loss. History also suggests that technological evolution is to a certain degree inevitable. In addition, technologies can catalyze structural social, political, and economic change, often in surprising ways (Rabitz et al. Reference Rabitz, Reynolds, Tsioumani, Visseren-Hamakers and Kok2022). Therefore, the use of new technologies, including BCT, should be introduced into environmental protection areas, like the conservation of marine biodiversity, through only after careful consideration and thorough technical and technological discussions and tests.

Two projects serve as examples of applying BCT to the implementation of obligations imposed on States by international treaties. Both examples are already working: the electronic bill of lading has been widely accepted among members of the international community, while the electronic CITES permission is still awaiting approval.

8.4.4 Electronic Data Interchange

Traditionally, bills of lading are paper documents for goods transported via shipping, based on which the possessor can demand delivery of the goods. Besides being a title, a bill of lading also serves as a receipt for the goods and the contract of carriage of goods by sea. Bills of lading constitute a template that contains data and information about the contracting parties, the shipment, and the goods. It must be signed by the shipper, in case it is required by the master, and later by the receiver. The preparation, signature, and transfer of the document, when it is paper-based, entail the risk of fraud, manipulation, human error, theft, loss, and, in many cases, delays in delivery. Article 8 of the Rotterdam Rules (UNGA 2009)Footnote ¹² allows transporting the documents under the Convention in an electronic record should the carrier and the shipper consent to doing so. A digitalized version of the bill of lading – the electronic bill of lading (eB/L) – executes an electronic data interchange, sending data from one computer to another. The eB/L uses BCT to store the information and data entered and contained therein. The data and information are the same as in the paper-based form, as are the functions and purposes. However, the method of transmission is automatic in the case of eB/L. Legally, both versions have the same effect, but eB/L has many advantages compared to the traditional paper form. Due to its electronic nature and its use of BCT, eB/L is more secure and efficient. It is easier to track, its cost are lower, it has lower environmental impact, and it ensures easier compliance with regulatory obligations. It must be emphasized that blockchain systems can improve the process of data exchange in a way traditional systems cannot. Article 14(3) of the Hamburg RulesFootnote ¹³ also allows the electronic signature of the bill of lading. Literally, there is no legal obstacle in the relevant international maritime law to the use of eB/Ls. Consequently, eB/Ls have already been used and accepted as a practical solution that is more secure, reliable, rapid, and, most importantly, decentralized, allowing the interchange of data contained in the bill of lading without the need for intervention by any other party. The States allowing and benefiting from eB/Ls (such as Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Italy, the Korean Republic, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, and Switzerland) are recognizing and regulating their use in the maritime industry in their national legislations. In doing so, they are accepting eB/Ls as valid and enforceable (Zhu et al. Reference Zhu, Cui and Zhang2022). Stakeholders of the supply chain (such as freight forwarders, shippers, ports and terminals, intermodal operators, ocean carriers, brokers, and government authorities) enjoy secure, transparent, and immediate data transfer through the eB/L. The information shared can easily be tracked and stored, with triggers for immediate action when and if necessary throughout the shipment’s journey. Thus, eB/L is a relevant example of when and how the international legal obligation can be implemented successfully with the assistance of BCT.

BIMCO (Baltic and International Maritime Council), one of the largest shipping associations in the world, has developed and published an eB/L (eB/L Standard) for the bulk shipping sector. Historically, the possibility of using eB/Ls has been present in the industry for more than two decades, but the obstacles (mainly the lack of interoperability) that prevented its use could not be overcome. Setting up a standard for the eB/L means that the users of such a standard can enjoy the smooth transmission of their eB/Ls through the available platforms.

According to Ali Abbas Khayoon Al-Naseri, electronic transport records can perform the first two functions of traditional paper bills of lading – that is, as receipts for goods and as containing or evidencing the contract of carriage of goods under the Rotterdam Rules. He also concludes in his PhD thesis that negotiable eB/Ls or electronic transport records can function as documents of title that are equivalent to negotiable paper bills of lading under the Rotterdam Rules and other model laws and contract forms (Al-Naseri Reference Al-Naseri2020, 247–248).

8.4.5 Electronic Permitting

According to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES),Footnote ¹⁴ the international trade (export, import, reexport, and introduction from the sea) of the endangered species listed in its Annexes I–III is subject to a permit procedure. The difference between the species included in the Annexes is the level and extension of their endangerment. The contracting parties to the Convention are obliged to designate management authorities to deal with the administration of the permits. The system is aimed at restricting the international trade of endangered plants and animals to duly justified reasons (for example, scientific purposes or exhibition) and, in other cases, ensuring that specimens have been obtained legally and that their survival is being guaranteed. The CITES permit procedures form a complex system for which the conditions and requirements are laid down in the Convention itself. The export and reexport permits, for example, can be obtained only where an import permit has already been issued, which guarantees that the condition for the issuance of the export permit has been met. Originally and traditionally, the acquisition and issuance of CITES permits have been performed on paper, and the possession and representation of those paper-based documents during border control or official inspections were necessary for the execution of the trade. The idea of an electronic CITES Permit System (eCITES) has been accepted by the Conference of the Parties in Resolution 12.3 (CITES COP 2022), on permits and certificates, and its implementation has been elaborated in several other resolutions and decisions. The underlying motivation is a smoother and more transparent implementation of the Convention. The BCT provides a secure solution for cooperation and rapid information exchange among all stakeholders and eases the work of the national governance in combating illegal trade. The framework of eCITES, as an online permit system, has already been detailed and is operational. The contracting parties have already begun its implementation, with some of them partially introducing the framework. The Secretariat of the Convention manages the digital toolkit for implementing the system.

The eCITES governance is a perfect example of how administrative procedures that aim to implement an international treaty can be managed by harnessing the power of emerging technologies. The governance is provided by a so-called Intersessional Working Group on Electronic Systems and Information Technology, and a Task Force has been established to share experiences and information related to the piloting and testing of eCITES. The standard implementation approach is stipulated in the eCITES Implementation Framework, which provides guidance for country managers to implement the system locally. Moreover, the toolkit is available for ensuring harmonious formats, protocols, and standards within the system. In addition, the Secretariat provides advisory services and support for the implementation of eCITES, subject to the availability of funding.

Because of its partial implementation, eCITES still awaits the approval of the international community. However, its practical solution can be used as an analogy for the permitting system under the international law of the sea. It is important to mention here that the acceptance of the technology can be strengthened if BCT is supported in more than one field of international law, with its use and application becoming more widespread. This would entail the significance and acceptance of BCT becoming stronger in the implementation of international treaties. One step forward in raising trust in the system was achieved on April 2, 2024, when the CITES Secretariat received the prestigious Trade Facilitation Innovation Award from the Asia Pacific Trade Facilitation Forum in recognition of the Convention’s electronic permitting systems. The Secretariat highlighted the comprehensive set of standards, tools, and guidance for eCITES implementation and its benefits to the parties. According to the Secretariat, along with other benefits, eCITES has contributed to the SDGs – specifically SDG 13 (Climate Action), SDG 14 (Life Below Water), SDG15 (Life on Land), and SDG17 (Partnerships for the Goals) – by increasing access to reliable wildlife data; improving sustainability, legality, and traceability of wildlife trade; and enhancing economic opportunities for Indigenous peoples and local communities involved in trade.

9.2.1 The Proposal by Arvid Pardo on the Common Heritage of Mankind and the Ad Hoc Seabed Committee

In 1967, Arvid Pardo, the Maltese Ambassador to the United Nations, made an impassioned plea to the twenty-second General Assembly to address the risk of inequity emerging from the advanced technological capabilities of developed States to explore and exploit the seabed and prevent its national appropriation (UNGA 1967b, paras. 46–55, 1967c). While many assumptions embedded within his speech lacked proportion in the perceptions surrounding the mining of seabed minerals, his plea succeeded in achieving two critical objectives: the nonmilitarization of the seabed (UNGA 1967b, paras. 46–55; Schmidt Reference Schmidt1989, 22–25), and the elucidation of the common heritage of mankind (UNGA 1967c, paras. 8–10; Li Reference Li1994) approach, capturing the imagination of the developing world as a principled means of accessing this mineral wealth. To this end, it was proposed that an international body be created that would balance the security and economic needs of States and ensure that the activities in the Area would conform to the proposed treaty (UNGA 1967c, paras. 8–10; Akaha Reference Akaha1985, 60).

Pardo’s plea succeeded in drawing the focus of the delegates on the risks and opportunities the seabed offered, and led to the creation of the Ad Hoc Seabed Committee in 1967 (UNGA 1967a). The deliberations of the Ad Hoc Seabed Committee culminated in four resolutions (UNGA 1968). These resolutions created the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of the Sea-Bed and the Ocean Floor beyond the Limits of National Jurisdiction (Seabed Committee) to study, inter alia, the ways and means to promote the exploitation and use of resources through international cooperation on the foreseeable development of technology through international machinery while also studying the harmful effects of such exploitation activities on the seabed, water column, and adjacent coasts (UNGA 1968, A, para. 2(b)).

9.2.2 The Seabed Committee, Moratorium Resolution, and 1970 Declaration of Principles

At the Ad Hoc Seabed Committee, the divergences in approach to the modalities of participation in the future seabed-mining industry had become clearer. On the one hand, the developing countries articulated their proposal with international cooperation and share in the benefits accruing from the progress of modern science and technology as the centerpiece of their demands (UNGA 1969a). The developed countries forwarded a dispassionate proposition whereby “no nation, regardless … of their technological capability should be denied the opportunity to participate in the exploitation of the seabed” (UNGA 1969a, Annex, 3). Overall, the proposals for the Declaration of Principles articulated the need for making the technology to access the resources of the seabed available to developing States (UNGA 1969a, Annex, 1, 7, 12). Against this backdrop, the Seabed Committee was created with the mandate to elaborate the legal principles; the ways and means of promoting the exploitation of resources, including technological aspects; and the economic implications of such activities (UNGA 1968, B).

Some of the key achievements of the Seabed Committee include the 1969 Moratorium Resolution (UNGA 1969b) and the 1970 Declaration of Principles (UNGA 1970a). The Moratorium Resolution was passed on the initiative of the developing States, which feared a “grab” of the seabed resources before much agreement could be achieved, and simply declared that “States and persons, physical or juridical, are bound to refrain from all activities of exploitation of the resources of the area” (UNGA 1969b). Several developed States objected to the Moratorium Resolution and voted against it, as they feared that it would stifle the technological development necessary for the extraction of resources from the international area (Li Reference Li1994, 25).

The Declaration of Principles emerging from the compromises in the Seabed Committee reflected a delicate balance between the developing and developed States (Li Reference Li1994, 27). It became the cornerstone for the development of a new international seabed regime (UNGA 1970d, 12). The Declaration also recognized that the seabed resources required the articulation of rules different from the customary rules applicable to the living resources of the high seas (UNGA 1970a, para. 4, preamble para. 3). On seabed-mining technology, divergences remained, with the developing States stressing that States without advanced technology should be involved in, and benefit from, seabed mining (UNGA 1970c), and the developed States favoring nondiscriminatory access to the seabed. Given these divergences, the Seabed Committee could only articulate cooperation on the technical and technological aspects, limited to participation in international cooperation programs for scientific research; the publication and dissemination of research; and strengthening research programs through participation as tenets for the transfer of seabed-mining technology (UNGA 1970a, para. 10(a)–(c)).

It was already realized that the monetary benefits drawn from the mineral resources of the seabed were overstated, and most developing States had a limited interest in gaining access to Western technology and to having their experts trained under an international regime (Anand Reference Anand1975, 249–250). This Declaration of Principles later proved to be critical, as it found greater resonance after the negotiation culminated at the Third Law of the Sea Conference, and it became clear that provisions related to access to technology could not be implemented in spirit without the cooperation of the developed States. These principles later served as guidance for the conclusion of an international agreement that would regulate activities and implement select obligations with respect to the deep-seabed areas.

9.2.3 Transfer of Technology in UNCLOS Annex III and the 1994 Implementation Agreement

The Third Law of the Sea Conference bifurcated the discussion on marine technology across general provisions concerning other marine technology, which was deliberated within Sub-Committee III of the Seabed Committee, becoming Part XIV of UNCLOS. Specific provisions concerning seabed-mining technology fall under the broader theme of the legal regime for the seabed and the ocean floor beyond national jurisdiction and were incorporated into part of Annex III under the basic conditions of prospecting, exploration, and exploitation. These provisions had become a symbol of the North–South controversy and had warranted separate treatment within the negotiations, primarily due to the inextricable link to the questions related to access to the Area (Boczek Reference Boczek1982, 34).

Part XIV of UNCLOS reflects the aspirations of the States to facilitate access to and acquisition of marine technology, including seabed-mining technology for developing States. These provisions broadly appear in three parts: (1) Article 144, outlining the general obligations of the ISA; (2) Articles 273 and 274, outlining the role of the ISA; and (3) Article 5 of Annex III, consisting of detailed obligations for the transfer of technology (TOT) to the Enterprise (discussed below) and developing States. However, the overreaching postulates on TOT proved untenable, leading to some provisions, particularly Article 5 of Annex III, being subsequently abridged through the 1994 Agreement relating to the Implementation of Part XI of UNCLOS (1994 Agreement).Footnote ³

The Seabed Committee had three subcommittees, with Sub-Committee I entrusted with the responsibility for preparing the draft provisions concerning the legal regime of deep-seabed mining. Sub-Committee I discussed TOT with the awareness that such provisions would reflect the progressive development of the law of the sea to be facilitated through international machinery (UNGA 1970b). It was also understood that the scope of such TOT was limited to the contours of “activities in the Area” – that is, the exploration and exploitation of seabed minerals in the Area. The underlying consciousness of TOT was inspired by the call for a New International Economic Order (NIEO; UNGA 1974). The NIEO recognized the entrenched sense of inequity among developing States and called for the development of an international order with embedded principles advancing the balanced development of the international community. A key component of such imbalance was articulated in the form of inequitable access to technological progress, with the NIEO promoting TOT to address this issue (UNGA 1974, para. 4(p)). The emergence of the NIEO and the principles embedded within it led to the development of certain progressive policy objectives within UNCLOS that mirrored those principles and called for increased equity in the development of the seabed-mining regime (UNCLOS, Article 150).

Overall, the developing States were driven by a threefold objective on TOT: (1) guaranteed access to seabed-mining technology; (2) just and reasonable terms and conditions; and (3) improved domestic capabilities, including the training of personnel (Li Reference Li1994, 146–149). These principles were later integrated into what became Article 144 of UNCLOS. The key point of difference that existed between the developing and the industrialized States on TOT was perhaps ideological, particularly as technology owned by contractors (private corporations or companies), in view of the developed States, was private property and government interference was not warranted (Boczek Reference Boczek1982, 11).

These divergences manifested more sharply through the negotiations, resulting in the developing States, led by the Group of 77, making ambitious proposals concerning TOT. These proposals centered around strong international machinery (by now, there was agreement that the machinery would be the ISA) acting as a repository from which TOT would be facilitated (Platzöder Reference Platzöder1990, vol. XI, 230). The developing States also called for the creation of a dedicated fund to effectuate TOT (UNCLOS III 1975, 198–199) and for the establishment of international centers to provide information on technological markets and to help developing countries reduce the total cost of transferring technology (UNGA 1973, 82). These attempts received limited success in that they succeeded in allocating to the ISA the responsibility for facilitating such transfers, and by the mid-1970s, the negotiations had led to the inclusion of Articles 273 and 274 in the Convention.

As negotiations progressed, the 1976 session became a major turning point in the deliberations of the First Committee (Platzöder Reference Platzöder1990, vol. VI, 83). As the concerns of the developed States found more accommodation, the TOT obligations of the contractors were weakened, and with the ISA at the center, the seabed-mining regime was redesigned toward a parallel system (UNCLOS III 1976). This led to the conceptualization of the Enterprise, a commercial arm of the ISA that would conduct mining alongside national enterprises or contractors, with industrialized States transferring technology to the Enterprise. It was expected that the Enterprise would obtain technology through the establishment of joint ventures or other forms of contractual agreements with contractors (Li Reference Li1994, 170).

With the parallel system in place, the issue of TOT to the Enterprise took center-stage in the First Committee at the Third Law of the Sea Conference. This concession on the part of the developing States led to the framing of the TOT provisions in mandatory terms, with multiple proposals emerging. Most notably, the “Brazil Clause” espoused the TOT from seabed-mining contractors to the Enterprise and to those developing States that secured licenses to mine in the reserved areas with a condition of nontransfer to other developed States (Juda Reference Juda1979, 236). Another formulation mandated that contractors share the general description of the technology and equipment with the ISA, including subsequent changes and innovations (Juda Reference Juda1979, 237). Overall both sides succeeded in including provisions favoring their interests, but both were also left dissatisfied with the text. The developed States expressed objections to the inclusion of TOT as a precondition for obtaining a mining contract by the contractors, while the developing States maintained that mandatory TOT was not sufficiently reflected in texts (Boczek Reference Boczek1982, 37–38).

When the Reagan administration took office in the United States in 1981, the new government immediately embarked on a major policy review of the draft Convention. As far as the TOT provisions were concerned, three features were considered unacceptable: (1) the compulsory sale of proprietary information and technology that American companies largely control; (2) guaranteed access for the Enterprise to the privately owned seabed-mining technology and also to the technology used by operators but owned by third parties; and (3) the guarantee that any developing country could have the same access to technology as the Enterprise (Reagan Reference Reagan1982a, Reference Reagan1982b; Schmidt Reference Schmidt1989, 22–25). This change of policy led to several amendments to the TOT obligations being proposed by the developed States; however, the Group of 77 was not willing to reopen the negotiations at that stage. Therefore, Article 5 of Annex III was completed without further change.

After the Third Law of the Sea Conference, the final text of the proposed UNCLOS received a lukewarm reception from developed States as aspects of seabed-mining provisions remained overreaching (UNGA 1994, paras. 1–28). Since the adoption of UNCLOS, there have been significant political and economic changes that have had a marked effect on the regime for deep-seabed mining. There was a discernible shift toward a more market-oriented economy. Thus began a series of informal consultations under the aegis of the UN Secretary General on outstanding issues relating to the deep-seabed-mining provisions of UNCLOS. These informal consultations took place in 1990–94, culminating in the 1994 Agreement. The provisions concerning TOT were thereafter abridged. Section 5 of the Annex to the 1994 Agreement straightforwardly indicates that Article 5 of Annex III of UNCLOS will not apply. It provides that TOT will be governed by Article 144 of UNCLOS. The reach of the principles in Section 5 of the Annex of the 1994 Agreement can be interpreted as an attempt to facilitate access for the Enterprise and developing countries to the required technology on fair and reasonable commercial terms and conditions. However, these principles were implemented not through strict obligations on contractors but through cooperation and by following the principles of the market economy.

There was a growing consciousness in the 1990s of the anthropogenic effect on the environment, which led to a discernible shift in the discourse concerning the duty of the ISA and State parties to promote the advancement and transfer of technology with a view to protecting the marine environment and to apply the best available technology or environmentally sound technologies (UN 1992, 34.1, 34.3), although the transfer of such technology for deep-seabed mining did not attract sufficient attention during the Third Law of the Sea Conference.Footnote ⁴ It was understood that there would be rising concern regarding the environmental impact of seabed mining and with assurance that technology does minimal harm to the environment, through both greater scientific knowledge and the transfer of modern technology (Li Reference Li1994, 44). This line of argumentation further added to the call for the duty of States and the ISA to help the Enterprise and developing States to access and acquire relevant technology. In this connection, it is worth mentioning the emerging legal principles based on the need for pursuing sustainable development through the operationalization of due-diligence obligations and the precautionary approach.

9.3.1 The Precautionary Approach in Seabed Mining

The UNCLOS does not refer to the application of the precautionary approach to seabed mining, but the need for marine environmental protection and management is embedded within the Convention, particularly in Part XII and Article 145 of Part XI. Further, the Seabed Disputes Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), in the Area Advisory OpinionFootnote ⁷ perusing the Nodules and Sulphides Regulations, opined that the sponsoring States “shall apply a precautionary approach, as reflected in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration” in order “to ensure effective protection for the marine environment from harmful effects which may arise from activities in the Area” (para. 125). In view of the Chamber, “the provisions of the aforementioned Regulations transform this non-binding statement of the precautionary approach in the Rio Declaration into a binding obligation” (para. 127). It is critical to note that while there is a theoretical debate surrounding the legal status of precaution as an “approach” or as a “principle,” it has largely appeared as an approach within the literature concerning seabed mining. In addition to the advisory opinion rendered by the Chamber, the Draft Regulations on Exploitation of Mineral Resources in the Area (Draft Mining Code; ISA 2019) refer to the application of the precautionary approach both as a “fundamental policy and principle” (Regulation 2) and as a “general obligation” applying to the activities in the Area (Regulation 44).

In the environmental law literature, the term “approach” appears to be less in normative content, leaving scope for the discretion of the States in deciding the scope of precautionary actions (Cançado Trindade Reference Trindade, Augusto and Viñuales2015). The precautionary approach espouses a normative value as an ethical aspiration (Ali Reference Ali2022, 157), and operationalizing it in the context of maintaining balance in a complex environment of competing goals requires a policy-oriented approach.Footnote ⁸ Precaution operates as a matrix for conscious and informed decision-making and does not advocate for indefinite inertia in a world with competing challenges. While it is important to exercise caution, indeterminate precaution must not lead to a paralysis in decision-making (Ali Reference Ali2022, 157). Currently, the discourse on seabed mining is paralyzed by “what-ifs” and “fear of the unknown.” Accordingly, the precautionary approach requires a balance between the use of best available techniques with a view to refining practices through a process of learning while enhancing the ability to detect actual risks of serious environmental harm (Ali Reference Ali2022). In essence, the precautionary approach calls for a trade-off between the methods through which risk for serious environmental harm can be managed through the use of technology by keeping a balance between anticipating harm and trusting resilience, thereby promoting a certain degree of flexibility (Peel Reference Peel2004, 491). This distinction in the debate over precaution discloses different attitudes to risk rather than fundamentally different appreciations of the importance of taking scientific uncertainty into account in decision-making (Peel Reference Peel2004, 500).

In this regard, the relationship of the precautionary approach with the principle of prevention is critical to note. The distinction between prevention and precaution is based on the seriousness of the risk; that is, prevention is a general concept that dictates the general actions of States in terms of environmental protection, and precaution amounts to a reinforcement of the obligation in light of a potentially serious danger that cannot yet be predicted.Footnote ⁹ This approach frames the relationship between prevention and precaution as one of a continuum wherein, as the risk evolves from uncertainty to certainty, the sliding scale of action moves from precaution to prevention. Therefore, it appears that there is scope to identify a risk–reward ratio in seabed-mining activity, and technologies must evolve with the anticipation of harm existing systems will cause. Such an evolutionary understanding is also implicit in the development of the jurisprudence of the precautionary approach and its operationalization.

9.4.1 Impact of Seabed Mining on the Seafloor

The main objective of the SNC is to collect polymetallic nodules while adhering to certain environmental, economic, and operational parameters as set out by Part XI and the Mining Code. As a critical subsystem, the SNC consists of a nodule collection system, along with a propulsion system to maneuver on the seabed. The SNC must balance its impact on the benthic environment with its production rate to operate responsibly (De Bruyne et al. Reference De Bruyne, Stoffers, Flamen, De Beuf, Taymans, Smith, Van Nijen and Sharma2022). Currently, the SNC has the highest number of information and knowledge gaps, such as the environmental impacts and effects, its response to soil characteristics, trafficability, and nodule collection methodology (De Bruyne et al. Reference De Bruyne, Stoffers, Flamen, De Beuf, Taymans, Smith, Van Nijen and Sharma2022).

Another subcomponent of the SNC that is critical in its impact is the nodule collection system, which has two major functions: (1) a pickup function, picking up the nodules at the entrance of the collector by means of an active jet system; and (2) a transport function, transporting the nodules for further handling. Within these two functional categories, parameters can further be categorized as either process control parameters, geometrical parameters, or environmental parameters. It is the trade-offs between these parameters that define the efficiency and effectiveness of the collection system. Currently, mechanical and hydraulic systems are being tested along these parameters. The hydraulic collection method is classified into three types: suction, wall-attached jet, and double-row jet. It impacts the sediment layer less than the mechanical method, which often damages the seabed and causes more sediment suspension (Zhang et al. Reference Zhang, Chen, Luan, Sha and Liu2025, 6). Within the mechanical model, multiple prototypes have been tested, including a rotary chain-toothed collecting head (Welling Reference Welling1981) and a combined comb-like shovel to lift nodules (Handschuh et al. Reference Handschuh, Grebe, Panthel, Schulte, Wenzlawski, Schwarz, Atmanand, Jeyamani, Shajahan, Deepak and Ravindran2001).

The SNC, which has a direct interface with the seafloor, will cause two main types of impact: (1) impact on the seafloor; and (2) benthic plume on the seafloor.

9.4.2 Impact in the Water Column

Once collected, the nodules move up the discharge duct and fall into a single trough, called the hopper. Much of the initial pickup water flow is also used to transport the nodules up the duct, flushes through the hopper, and is discharged through the diffusor exhaust. As such, this sediment-laden water is immediately released on the seabed before it enters the subsequent transport and processing systems – that is, the riser airlift system (De Bruyne et al. Reference De Bruyne, Stoffers, Flamen, De Beuf, Taymans, Smith, Van Nijen and Sharma2022). During this process, the mineral material will not interact with the water column and will not contribute to any change in the physical or chemical equilibrium in the water column except for accidental leaks. However, the pumps and motors will cause noise and vibrations in the ambient water (De Bruyne et al. Reference De Bruyne, Stoffers, Flamen, De Beuf, Taymans, Smith, Van Nijen and Sharma2022, 35).

The riser airlift system can be divided into two types: pneumatic lifting and hydraulic lifting. The pneumatic lifting method works by injecting high-pressure gas into the bottom of the deep-sea-mining pipeline from a surface vessel. This creates an upward flow that transports minerals vertically. The hydraulic lifting method uses a high-lift mixed transport pump in the pipeline center for vertical transportation (She et al. Reference Shen, Chen, Yanlian and Li2022). In this case, the choice of the system will be key to minimize the environmental impacts. The most prevalent method is the use of hydraulic-driven pumps – that is, the airlift system.

The airlift system creates low fluid pressure at varying depths of the riser, causing low fluid pressure on the seabed through which the mineral material is transported. Given that the air injections take place in the upper portions, the capacity requirement of the pumps is limited, thereby reducing environmental impacts (Berge et al. Reference Berge, Markussen, Vigerust, Berntsen and på Polhøgda1991). Multiple approaches for lift systems exist; for instance, Japanese researchers conducted research on an eight-stage lifting pump (Yamada and Yamazaki Reference Yamada and Yamazaki1998); China adopted a space guide vane centrifugal pump (Kang et al. Reference Kang, Liu, Zou, Zhao and Hu2019); and Germany and India have proposed and adopted a plugging-type positive displacement pump lifting system (Kang et al. Reference Kang, Wang, Qiong and Liu2024). Overall, commercial mining systems typically use multiple multistage centrifugal pumps connected in series.

Further, different technologies are being tested with a novel approach. In the Eureka III trials by BGR, the collected nodules are stored in the autonomous SNC based on the suspended noncontact nodule collector, which would be transported back up to the production support vessel once its storage is full, thereby minimizing any environmental impact of the collection process on the water column (DHI 2024).

However, the key impact on the water column takes place at the time of dewatering the mineral material – that is, when the seawater is separated from the nodules collected in the production support vessel. The discharge of the wastewater from this process implies adding a significant volume of water with different physical and chemical characteristics, such as seabed water, sediments, fragments of nodules, and benthic biota from the seabed to the water column (Berge et al. Reference Berge, Markussen, Vigerust, Berntsen and på Polhøgda1991). Also, the temperature of the seabed water is significantly lower than surface-layer water and can have an impact on the surrounding ecosystem where the water is released. However, testing has suggested that the impacts of such variant temperatures are limited, given the ratio of the volume of wastewater released to the seawater, thereby having only local and short-duration impacts (Berge et al. Reference Berge, Markussen, Vigerust, Berntsen and på Polhøgda1991, 37; Muñoz-Royo et al. Reference Muñoz-Royo, Peacock, Alford, Smith, Le Boyer, Kulkarni, Lermusiaux, Haley, Mirabito, Wang, Adams, Ouillon, Breugem, Decrop, Lanckriet, Supekar, Rzeznik, Gartman and Ju2021).

Sediments in the midwater plume would likely be released in the disphotic or aphotic zone to reduce the impact on photosynthesis and vertical migrations (Le et al. Reference Le, Levin and Carson2017). To assess the environmental impact of a midwater plume, two phases must be understood: the dynamic plume phase, occurring near the release before ocean currents take over, setting initial depth and dilution; and the ambient plume phase, involving advection, settling, and turbulent diffusion. The dynamic plume model is well established (Wang and Adams Reference Wang and Eric Adams2016), considering its effect on turbulent entrainment (Devenish et al. Reference Devenish, Rooney, Webster and Thomson2010). This model was recently used to predict midwater plume properties for nodule mining (Rzezni et al. Reference Rzeznik, Flierl and Peacock2019). A key uncertainty for midwater plumes is the role of flocculation, where particles aggregate into larger flocs. The studies conducted have assumed that flocculation was insignificant for a dynamic plume, treating sediment as a passive tracer (Rzezni et al. Reference Rzeznik, Flierl and Peacock2019). This study used plume-monitoring results to model a twenty-year seabed-mining operation, concluding that midwater plume properties near the discharge can be reliably predicted and sediment aggregation effects are minimal (Muñoz-Royo et al. Reference Muñoz-Royo, Peacock, Alford, Smith, Le Boyer, Kulkarni, Lermusiaux, Haley, Mirabito, Wang, Adams, Ouillon, Breugem, Decrop, Lanckriet, Supekar, Rzeznik, Gartman and Ju2021).

However, more sophisticated data and metrics will be required to assess the impacts of such midwater plumes on marine organisms that move with the ocean in the midwater column (van der Grient and Drazen Reference van der Grient and Drazen2021) and the effects on such mobile and stationary marine organisms due to extended exposure to the sediments near a mining operation (Amon et al. Reference Amon, Ziegler, Dahlgren, Glover, Goineau, Gooday, Wiklund and Smith2016). And, while progress is being made on the understanding of the midwater and benthic ecosystems in the Clarion and Clipperton Fracture Zone, there still exist significant knowledge gaps to inform the setting of environmentally acceptable threshold levels (Muñoz-Royo et al. Reference Muñoz-Royo, Peacock, Alford, Smith, Le Boyer, Kulkarni, Lermusiaux, Haley, Mirabito, Wang, Adams, Ouillon, Breugem, Decrop, Lanckriet, Supekar, Rzeznik, Gartman and Ju2021). The questions that are currently being reflected from an environmental point of view concern the depth at which such wastewater must be released to minimize the impacts concerning such particulate matter, as it runs the risk of reducing visibility for marine organisms and interfering with nutrient assimilation and, potentially, other physical functions, such as respiration, development, growth, and reproduction. Therefore, it has broadly been concluded that releasing the wastewater at a depth beyond the most productive zone of the water column would significantly reduce environmental impacts (Berge et al. Reference Berge, Markussen, Vigerust, Berntsen and på Polhøgda1991, 39).

9.4.3 Impact on the Surface Water

The impact of the seabed-mining activity on the surface water would be akin to other uses of the sea, such as shipping. The most significant emissions would be related to the exhaust released by the mining vessel in the atmosphere and the noise and vibrations on the surface water. In this regard, this is a critical area of intersection between the work of the ISA and that of the International Maritime Organization (IMO). The IMO in this regard has a range of regulatory and area-based management tools developed for international shipping that could be useful to enhance the safety of seabed mining. Further, the IMO has extensive regulatory experience that could be useful to the ISA as it continues to develop new regimes, regulations, and guidelines for seabed mining. These include guidelines for the assessment and disposal of wastes, as well as civil liability and compensation schemes for pollution damage to the marine environment developed under various maritime law conventions (ISA and IMO 2019).

On an overall assessment, the most significant environmental impacts from seabed mining will be those caused by the SNC on the seafloor. Different technologies are being tested to minimize that impact. Pioneer Beijing Hi-Tech Development Corporation and BGR are currently testing noncontact suspended nodule collectors. The collection system being tested by BGR involves the use of robotic arms, which, as per the performance parameters, should avoid harm to the living organisms on the seafloor and extensive seafloor damage through traction dynamics (BGR 2018; BPC 2024). However, other contractors are testing SNC technologies that have a greater impact on the seafloor. Insofar as the impacts on the water column are concerned, studies have suggested that the sediment plumes, especially at the seafloor, do not significantly harm the environment and have short-term effects (Metals Company 2023). Further, sediment plumes in the upper reaches of the water column, particularly emerging from wastewater discharges, are also considered to be less significant because wastewater quickly dilutes in the ambient surface water. Thus, any deviation from the normal values for temperature and metal concentrations should be local and short-term transient (De Bruyne et al. Reference De Bruyne, Stoffers, Flamen, De Beuf, Taymans, Smith, Van Nijen and Sharma2022). Several tests have shown that particulate matter in the wastewater settles much faster than expected, so that the resultant sediment plume is smaller and less disturbing (De Bruyne et al. Reference De Bruyne, Stoffers, Flamen, De Beuf, Taymans, Smith, Van Nijen and Sharma2022, 57).