FOR scores of indigenous Pacific communities, the ocean remains a mysterious, vital heartbeat that sustains life on the planet.
It’s a relationship that has been forged over centuries of reverence and respect for the ocean and the many mysteries hidden in its depths.
Being resource-rich, the ocean has also been at the centre of several lucrative industries which generate quite a profit. However, the depletion of resources, as well as venturing into unknown territory through initiatives such as deep-sea mining (DSM), has locals worried.
DSM in the Pacific
Simply put, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) defines DSM as the process of retrieving mineral deposits from the deep seabed – the ocean below 200 metres.
Globally, 22 contractors carry 31 exploration licences in relation to DSM, sanctioned by the International Seabed Authority (ISA). These contractors are from United Kingdom, China, Russia, Korea, France, India, Nauru, Tonga, Kiribati, Cook Islands, Poland and Japan.
According to the ISA, 19 contracts are for the exploration for polymetallic nodules in the Clarion-Clipperton Fracture Zone (17), Central Indian Ocean Basin (one), and Western Pacific Ocean (one).
ISA says seven contracts were given for exploration for polymetallic sulphides in the South West Indian Ridge, Central Indian Ridge and the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and five contracts given for exploration for cobalt-rich crusts in the Western Pacific Ocean.
The ISA, which is an autonomous international organisation, must also ensure the marine environment is protected from harmful effects that may arise from deep-seabed-related activities. Fiji is a member state.
In 2022, Fiji entered a 10-year moratorium on DSM under then prime minister Voreqe Bainimarama, who said at the time that sea-bed mining was a focus in several Pacific countries and could offer short-term economic gain.
However, this could result in long-term impacts on ocean systems.
“Hence, a stronger approach is required to understand such activities and impacts (including residual impacts) in the Pacific,” Mr Bainimarama had said.
His successor Sitiveni Rabuka agreed to honour the moratorium agreement in place. And since then, the topic has been put on the backburner. At least, until this week.
Behind closed doors, Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) members gathered in Suva to hold high-level discussions on DSM.
The forum itself is divided on this issue; Cook Islands, Kiribati, Tonga and Nauru support the concept of DSM and have lent their support of the industry at the International Seabed Authority (ISA).
Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, New Caledonia, Samoa, Tuvalu, Federated States of Micronesia, French Polynesia and Palau have expressed a stance against DSM, urging caution.
Though it is unclear at this stage what transpired out of the discussions, members of civil society organisations (CSOs) say they were excluded from the event this week.
However, this did not stop local, regional and international CSOs from convening their own side meetings and discussions in Suva this week, which Fiji Council of Social Services (FCOSS) executive director Vani Catanasiga said was necessary because making a decision on DSM was not solely at the discretion of politicians; the community needed to be consulted.
Indigenous Perspectives
Despite covering almost 70 per cent of the planet, only 5 per cent of the ocean has been explored, states the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
However, many indigenous leaders feel learning about the ocean through modern science should not come at the cost of degradation.
Solomon Islands social entrepreneur and advocate Millicent Barty stressed this point while speaking at a panel discussion in Suva this week, focussing on the theme Pacific Ocean Guardianship: Kastom Knowledge and Practices, organised by the Pacific Network on Globlisation (PANG).
“We are sea people, our entire belief systems are governed and built from the sea,” she said.
“To me, mining the seabed is more than (an) economic or environmental issue, it is a deep rupture in our sacred relationship with the ocean.
“Most of us, we all know that the ocean is not just water, it’s a living thing. It’s our living ancestor. The wealth of knowledge buried deep in the trenches is also the source of life and the sea is part of our extended kinship.
“Just as we do not recklessly dig up the bones of our ancestors, we do not mine the seabed.”
Similar sentiments were echoed by Simione Sevudredre, a scholar and indigenous Fijian cultural expert who maintained that Fiji ties with the ocean could not be understated.
He said before Christianity arrived, there was no concept of heaven and hell within indigenous society and it was believed that when ancestors died, their soul would look for a place to leap into the sea.
“This belief suggested that the soul returned to the ocean after death,” he said.
“Hence, the concept of the underworld or bulu, the ocean floor, was where the sleeping ancestors lay.
“Mining has never been and never will be a part of our vocabulary because the process involves entering the tabu zone, bulu, where our ancestors sleep.
“Who we are as Indigenous people is intrinsically linked to the ocean, our histories, identities, and way of life. But if deep-sea mining is allowed to happen, all of these will be brutalised, violated, and trampled upon. We will not stand for that.”
He also said the notions of identity and the history of indigenous Fijian ancestors, as well the lineages of chiefs and protocols that dictated behaviour, defined responsibilities and tribal customs were all derived from the ocean.
DSM and Climate Change
Speaking from his experience as a marine ecotoxicologist, Pacific Islands Climate Action Network (PICAN) regional director Rufino Varea says the Pacific is at the forefront of the triple planetary crisis: climate change, pollution and biodiversity loss.
“Deep sea mining will further exacerbate the crisis and create a shift in the nexus that will completely dilapidate the blue economy,” he said.
Mr Varea says there was no certainty that DSM would not bring long-term negative implications on the deep ocean and the environment.
He said the World Economic Forum announced last year that seven of the nine planetary boundaries, identified as safe operating zones across the globe, had been crossed.
“Now, by crossing these boundaries, it increases the risk of abrupt and irreversible environmental changes at continental and global levels.
“In 2009, we had crossed three of the nine planetary boundaries. In 2015, we had realised that we have now crossed four of these nine planetary boundaries.
“By 2022, when research had uncovered more of these, the findings of its implications, it had pushed other planetary boundaries even further away from the same zone, and it had pushed one planetary boundary completely out of the same so then, we had crossed five of the nine.
“The year after we crossed six. Just last year, we have crossed the seven(th). So, think about how scary that is.”
He said the climate crisis was unfolding much faster than what was realised or anticipated.
Mr Varea also said the ocean was the largest carbon sink, and a report last year found that no trees and land globally had absorbed any CO2 (carbon dioxide) in 2023, even when compared to large forest areas such as the Amazon.
“Now, when the ocean takes in more CO2 two, its chemistry is affected and it begins to warm, obviously. Now for a long time, the DSM industry has been pushing the narrative that if they operate in the deeper parts of the ocean, all of that activity is kept isolated because of the pycnocline zone.
“For those of you who don’t know what this pycnocline zone is, it’s a layer within the ocean that is created, such as a barrier, when there is this rapid change in ocean temperature.
“So you have the deep ocean, which is very cold, and then the upper layers, which is kind of warm, and then somewhere in between, when there’s this rapid change in the temperature, the density difference creates this barrier.
“The purpose of the pycnocline zone is not to operate as a barrier to keep everything below the deep ocean within that area and to separate it from the upper layer. When oceans warm, what happens to the changes in this density?
“The pycnocline zone would shift, right? It would shift upward. Because the pycnocline zone is very important in ocean regulation, like the ocean currents, nutrient cycle, all of these processes will be affected when the ocean gets more and more warm.
“And this is happening very rapidly.”
Mr Varea also said nothing ever happened in isolation and everything was interconnected.
“We know this from the planetary boundary framework. We know this from the way our oceans are regulated, and how you know nature as a whole, regulates. It is all interconnected.
“So I would say, knowing this, is that for the Pacific, we will certainly see irreversible effects of DSM before you live through a time to enjoy and reap the economic benefits from mining activity.”
A Case Study: New Zealand
The ocean seabed contains many elements and resources that can be turned into money, thus, there is an interest surrounding exploring this for economic purposes.
Ocean advocate Phil McCabe highlighted this at a panel discussion at USP in Suva recently, where he spoke about New Zealand’s brush with DSM.
“In 2005, New Zealand activated that under the government of Helen Clark, she opened New Zealand’s EEZ to seabed mining exploration,” he said.
“Immediately, one of the first exploration licenses were directly off my coast, and the companies were required to consult with the indigenous community that had customary authority over the area, and immediately there was opposition.
“People that have existed there for long period of time, immediately, were not into this, and they brought it to the community. Community stood up, and the rest is history.
“So, between 2005 and 2012, there were multiple exploration permits granted in New Zealand, the entire west coast of the North Island.”
He said in 2012, the John Key government implemented exclusive economic zone (EEZ) legislation, which enabled exploitation applications to come through the system.
Mr McCabe said in 2013, they received the first application, 2015 the second and another in 2016.
He said the first application was outright declined as it was in shallow waters, about 20 kilometers offshore.
“The Environmental Protection Authority and our laws, while they were put in place to enable an industry that the government was really eager to establish, they were reasonable, as far as participatory.
“We were able to submit in writing and also engage in the hearing processes. So there was up to 40 days of hearings, open hearings, and we could bring expert and challenge the company evidence.
“Second one declined outright as well. The third one, the government and the Key government tinkered with the legislation a little bit at the request of the industry and had another go and they were initially granted consent but then it was overturned at the High Court, Court of Appeal, all the way to the Supreme Court.
“And the Supreme Court sent it back in 2021 back to the EPA for reconsideration and that happened this time last year and at the end, the company pulled out of the process.”
He said now, the law had completely changed, and there was now a back door through a fast track process that put economic development considerations ahead of environmental considerations.
“A few characteristics of this process, the opposition has been broad spectrum across society. It’s been large and it’s been consistent and sustained over 20 years.
“The fishing industry engaged in opposition to these proposals since 2013 and they’ve spent millions of dollars defending their interests because they recognise the risk to fisheries of this proposed extractive activity.”
Wading through Political Aspirations
Greenpeace Australia’s Lagi Toribau, who is also an independent consultant, says there must be a narrative shift whereby economic opportunities must not come at the cost of the environment.
He said the exclusion of CSOs from the discussion table regarding DSM was regrettable; however, indigenous voices and CSOs had just a right to have a hand in making those decisions.
Mr Toribau did not rule out the possibilities of geopolitics at play.
“There is no hiding around the dependency on minerals on the production of military equipment,” he said.
“This has been from the get-go when they were negotiating UNCLOS, when the implementing agreement, which then put in place before the International Seabed Authority, kicked in. So, this interest has always been known.
“It just hasn’t shown itself here, but we will see it shortly. With what is happening with the Trump administration, with China’s increasing influence in the Pacific, with the disparity around some of our political institutions and infrastructure in the region, we will start to see those that are really behind the scenes in running our political infrastructures.
“This does go back to these chambers of where decisions have been made.”
He said this was why consultation was important.
“We need them to tell us, who are you listening to? What interests are we responding to? If this doesn’t serve us, we have a right to say no way, and what we have been shepherded to is that technical discussion on deep sea mining.
“So don’t be too distracted. It’s important to engage in the technical part of deep-sea mining, but the vacuum, the dark area, the evil, the evil part is where a lot of this policy and political unknown is and it’s scary, because it determines your future, our future out there.
A Complete Ban
CSOs feel the moratorium on DSM is not enough. And Fiji Council of Social Services (FCOSS) executive director Vani Catanasiga puts it succinctly.
People need to mobilise and voice their concerns and call for a complete ban on DSM.
“The ocean is not a resource for exploitation,” she said.
“Our position is that the future government must move beyond a temporary moratorium and it must ban DCM outright to protect our environment, people and future generations.”
She said despite years of global campaigns of moratorium led by governments, there was no enforceable moratorium in Fiji. Ms Catanasiga said even after entering partnerships regionally and Fiji’s global advocacy of the ocean, those things were not enforceable locally.
She also said local legislation such as the Mining Act 1965 could easily be amended to allow for DSM. Ms Catanasiga maintained that it was crucial to legislate the permanent ban before corporate interests stepped in.
“So often, we have policy discussions in Suva, in hotels that community leaders don’t have access to, and the language we use in these policy forums completely alienate resource owners from important decisions.
“A call, perhaps, to the private sector and international partners. We need to support investments in sustainable ocean-based industries instead of destructive extractive industries.
“You also need to hold international bodies accountable for ethical and environmental responsibilities, ensuring that Fiji is not pressured into DSM for economic gains at the expense of our people and our environment.
“It’s a threat to our oceans, our communities and our future. It’s not a sustainable solution. A moratorium is not enough. Fiji must lead the Pacific by enacting a total ban on DSM.”
