How is deep-sea mining defined, what are its impacts, and why has Sciaena fought against it?

Deep-sea mining is, as the name suggests, mineral extraction from the seabed, beyond 200 metres. What we consider the deep-sea ecosystem. It’s difficult to enumerate exactly the impacts. On one hand, because we have an enormous lack of knowledge about what biodiversity is and how the deep sea functions, but from what we know, there are very serious impacts from the standpoint of disturbing the subsoil of the seabed, which plays a crucial role in carbon storage. This raises questions from the perspective of the resuspension of heavy metals that are highly contaminating for marine biodiversity in the deep sea. From the perspective of pollution, not only noise but also light, it will certainly have impacts. And one of the great dangers is the massive destruction of the seabed, similar to some other activities, such as bottom trawling.

The fight against deep-sea mining has a strong international aspect.

It’s what gave a sense of urgency to the fight in Portugal. Sciaena began working in this area in 2017, when there started to be some interest in the Azores. In the International Seabed Authority (ISA), there’s a provision in the International Law of the Sea Convention that says that within a period of two years, in the absence of regulations, a member state can apply for an exploration licence. And what happened in 2021 was that the Pacific island nation of Nauru – highly motivated by the private interests of one particular company, which is The Metals Company – triggered this provision of the convention, which created a sense of urgency at the international level to finalise the so-called Mining Code, which is the set of regulations that provides the legal framework for mining in international waters. In Portugal, as early as 2017, there was interest in the Azores from a company called Nautilus, which for unrelated reasons went bankrupt. But we learned that in 2022 there was also interest from another company, Duna Magnata, in carrying out this activity in the Azores. At the international level, there are currently three suspended licences, from Poland, Russia, and France, which are about 200 metres from the limit of Portugal’s extended continental shelf. These impacts won’t remain confined, and we run the risk that, if carried out on the high seas, there will also be consequences for our exclusive economic zone.

At the European level, has this fight made significant progress?

Yes and no. From the European Parliament’s point of view, there have been many efforts to produce a recommendation, which isn’t legally prohibitive, but there has indeed been a great movement. Especially because Norway in particular began to position itself more pro-mining and was even planning to open its Exclusive Economic Zone to this activity. So there was a need for the European Union to position itself against this, even for reasons of sharing other resources that would be affected by this activity, particularly fisheries. France positioned itself very strongly in terms of prohibition against this activity, but what we know is that this is still in the realm of intention and had not yet been realised until Portugal recently formalised this moratorium.

In Portugal, we’ve had two very significant struggles. One on the Algarve coast against oil exploration, and in the Azores against mineral extraction. Are these movements driving a more national fight against deep-sea mining?

Yes. I think the work against mining comes very much as a continuation of PALP (Platform for an Oil-Free Algarve), in the Algarve. It was a fight against the extraction of hydrocarbons in Aljezur. The Portuguese state was taken to court, and we managed to win that fight. I think much of our impetus to also work on deep-sea mining came from that moment and that recognition that with networking and mobilising civil society, it was possible to have a victory of this kind. For us, knowing that the Azores are, from the perspective of seabed morphology, the main location of interest, it never crossed our minds that this discussion could begin in Portugal without starting there. And when the petition for a moratorium on deep-sea mining in national waters was launched at the Ocean Conference, a petition was launched in parallel for the Regional Government of the Azores, for a regional moratorium on this activity. We meanwhile went to the Azores and held a debate in the Regional Assembly, presented the petition, and were surprised by broad support for this initiative. Especially because we had strong support from the fishing community and also from the tourism community, which in the Azores depends largely on the wellbeing of the ocean, and it was a bit this combination of positions that made us advance on this matter.

In both struggles, the local population played an important role. What actors were involved in these disputes, those in favour and those against?

It’s difficult to identify exactly who was against the moratorium. Because in the wake of the Ocean Conference, there was a mobilisation of civil society, and the topic became toxic. We knew that from an industrial point of view, some companies were interested in doing this in the Azores. And we had some questions from the Government’s point of view. Whether it would be something they would accept, because a moratorium implies prohibiting an activity for a period of time which, under the pretext of the ecological crisis, has been popularised as a false solution, so we knew we would face some resistance. In favour, there was mobilisation from NGOs and local movements, and then we began to try to find allies, because effectively those who will suffer from this are those who directly depend on the wellbeing of these resources.

Especially when these deep-sea mining projects happen very close to the coast.

Yes, much of the Azores is deep sea. They are very close to where these minerals are. The main targets of this mining are three types of minerals, which are iron and manganese crusts, polymetallic sulphides, and the famous polymetallic nodules. It’s not difficult to understand how the Azores, with the number of hydrothermal vents and seamounts, is a hotspot for these minerals, and often biodiversity is dependent on these resources.

What role did the scientific community play in the process of this fight?

The scientific community, particularly the Azorean scientific community, played a more than central role. Especially because – this may be something people don’t know – we have some of the best deep-sea scientists, who are internationally recognised. And we were very lucky because, in parallel with our work, a lot of science was being developed directly on this topic, on the real impacts this will have on deep ecosystems. And that came to give robustness to our argument that we should not start an activity because we’re not talking about an activity that already exists, but one that would start commercially. And the scientific arguments brought robustness to our argument that we don’t know enough.

There’s a tension here with climate change. The idea that deep-sea mining could be part of the transition. How is that debate happening at the international level, and what result has it had so far?

What we have seen as the most frequent argument in favour of this activity has been the issue of energy transition, but for us, it’s a non-argument. Firstly, because the very disturbance of marine subsoils can worsen climate change. We’re talking about the planet’s largest carbon sink. On the other hand, the argument that doing this in the deep sea would mean not doing it on land is a fallacious argument. In no scenario are we talking about stopping one to do the other; we’re talking about duplicating the problems, about mining more. We’re also talking about perpetuating this infinite consumption of finite materials, so we’re replacing one problem that at the moment is fossil fuels with another that carries enormous impacts that we know about and, as we’ve said, that we don’t know about, which is even more worrying. In reality, there isn’t even an indication that the technology is already there for this to be carried out. And we don’t even know if it will be profitable. Using this argument that mining will be the technocratic solution that will save us from climate change so that we can continue with business as usual makes no sense to us.

So it is a greenwashing argument?

It is. And there’s a very strong element of greenwashing in this industry. To the point where that company I mentioned earlier, The Metals Company, was initially called Deep Green. So, there’s an idea here that minerals from the seabed are green minerals, environmentally friendly minerals.

Wasn’t a local development argument used? How did the community react to that in the Azores? That is, the Azores have very unequal areas; wasn’t there some temptation for that argument from the companies?

In 2017, there was some rhetoric around that, that this would be a possible source of income, that it would be a huge opportunity for Portugal. But by the way the narrative was constructed, it became very clear that these benefits were not going to stay in Portugal. It’s very clear that the profits will be exported. I think the argument that they could lose what is their livelihood today, which is fishing and tourism, is much stronger than any potential gain they might have had.

How is Portugal positioned in relation to the rest of Europe? There are countries, like Norway, that are trying to open up even more to deep-sea mining...

At the European level, we are the first country that has this moratorium in law. There are declared intentions, for example, from France and Germany, which have already positioned themselves and carry this message to the international level, but it was never formalised legally in any of these countries. There were some attempts to do it at the regional level in Spain, but it remained a recommendation. That is, at the legal level, we are the first European country that has a formalised moratorium.

What lessons do you draw from this victory? Why was Portugal the first to advance?

It was this combination of public pressure with science and the commitments that were made by governments that made it impossible not to move forward with this moratorium.

But there are cases of land mining, like Covas do Barroso, which continue despite local resistance.

We’re talking about a country that uses its marine biodiversity and its fishing as an international badge of honour. The Azores, and Portugal in general, have positioned themselves very much from the perspective of marine conservation, the promotion of networks of marine protected areas, and we even have the largest network of marine protected areas in Europe, which is now the network of marine protected areas of the Azores. And we already had the Selvagens in Madeira. For us, it made no sense to move forward with something that was diametrically opposed to this path that Portugal has been taking in the case of ocean conservation. And this factor of lack of knowledge and precaution, above all, was what motivated this moratorium and is perhaps what is not applicable on land, because we have another vision of what this activity is.

What are the other urgent issues in marine conservation in Portugal?

We have three major flags in marine conservation at the moment. Firstly, the ratification of the High Seas Treaty is a top priority, especially because we have commitments until 2030 to fulfil, of 30% marine protected areas and 10% strictly protected. There is now a conversation that is beginning to start after mining, which is the issue of marine geoengineering, which is this question of carbon capture and storage in the sea, and it concerns us greatly. And it’s necessary to tackle overfishing and ensure the end of trawling in marine protected areas, which for us is an activity that is not consistent with marine conservation at the moment.

How has Sciaena been dealing with these problems?

Geoengineering is a topic that we’re still beginning to study. We’ve been following a bit more from a distance what the arguments for and against this activity will be. We see this activity very much from the perspective of: if we don’t know, we’re not going to play gods and touch something we don’t know. Regarding trawling and overfishing, we’ve talked a lot about a transition in fishing, a phasing out of these more restrictive activities and, together with this, better monitoring and enforcement of fishing. Whether, on one hand, through the inclusion of cameras on vessels to know exactly what is being caught, or in the case of marine protected areas, ensuring that there is a management plan for these areas.

Catarina Abril’s love of sharks earned her the South African Shark Conservancy’s Women in Shark Science scholarship in 2019, allowing her to do her internship in Hermanus, South Africa, where she developed her love of communication and awareness. She is currently leading the work on deep-sea mining and closely following other issues related to the seabed, particularly fisheries. She is also working on fisheries in the North East Atlantic and is a member of Sciaena’s Fisheries and Climate teams. She was Interviewed by Daniel Moura Borges, activist of the Bloco de Esquerda (Left Bloc).