The upcoming meeting of the International Seabed Authority (ISA) marks a critical moment—one that will determine whether deep-sea mining can proceed. The stakes could not be higher.
The International Seabed Authority (ISA) will convene its 31st Session, Part II, from 29 June to 31 July 2026 in Kingston, Jamaica. At the heart of the discussions is a highly consequential issue: the completion of the Mining Code governing mineral exploitation.
This set of international regulations will determine whether—and under what conditions—the commercial extraction of minerals through Deep-Sea Mining (DSM) can legally begin worldwide.
The regulations cover three major categories of mineral resources: polymetallic nodules (rich in nickel, cobalt, and manganese), polymetallic sulphides (containing copper, gold, and silver), and cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts. These minerals are often portrayed as the lifeblood of today’s global energy transition technologies.
Indonesia is directly involved in these negotiations due to its strategic position as a member of the ISA Council (2023–2026), the organization’s principal executive body responsible for political decision-making on the management of mineral resources in the international seabed area beyond national jurisdiction.
The Illusion of “Clean Downstream, Dirty Upstream” and Ecological Threats
Commercial deep-sea mining is only one step away from approval. The question is: where does Indonesia stand?
As the world’s largest archipelagic nation, Indonesia cannot simply follow geopolitical currents or be tempted by the illusion of royalty-sharing schemes.
A policy brief by the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) highlights that DSM poses risks of irreversible damage to marine biodiversity, including disruption of deep-sea sediment layers that serve as critical global carbon sinks. If these ecosystems are disturbed, the ocean could release vast amounts of stored carbon, accelerating the climate crisis.
Beyond environmental impacts, DSM threatens the rights of coastal communities to livelihoods, health, and food. This is where our perspective must shift: traditional fishers and coastal communities are not merely objects of development or passive beneficiaries; they are legitimate rights holders entitled to a healthy marine ecosystem.
When DSM activities release toxic heavy metals that bioaccumulate in fisheries products, the human rights and food sovereignty of hundreds of millions of coastal rights holders are placed at risk.
Political Economy: A False Promise Disguised as Green Finance
From a political economy perspective, the narrative supporting DSM is typically shielded by two arguments: the scarcity of critical minerals for the energy transition and the promise of economic gains for states.
However, this thesis is strongly challenged by Justin Alger and colleagues in their paper The False Promise of Deep-Sea Mining.
They argue that the world is not currently facing a shortage of land-based mineral supplies. Rather, the narrative of scarcity is a form of manufactured fear, designed to serve the interests of a small group of global investors and sustain capital accumulation.
This is where one of the greatest greenwashing traps of our time emerges. Green finance and energy transition investments often operate under a double standard: they seek to appear clean, ethical, and low-carbon downstream—in cities adopting electric vehicles—while turning a blind eye to corruption, extractivism, and environmental destruction upstream.
Investing billions of dollars in deep-sea mining is a false solution. Those resources should instead be directed toward addressing the longstanding injustices and governance failures of terrestrial mining, rather than opening a new frontier of destruction on the ocean floor.
Demanding Accountability and Consistency from Indonesia
The political landscape within the ISA is currently divided into three camps: the pro-exploitation bloc advocating immediate mining activities (including countries such as China and India), the moratorium or precautionary pause bloc (including France, Ireland, and Germany), and a middle group that prefers to wait until regulations are finalized.
As an archipelagic nation, Indonesia has both a moral and political responsibility to align itself with the moratorium bloc—or even go further by rejecting deep-sea mining altogether.
Such a position would be consistent with calls from the ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR), which has stated that Southeast Asia’s seas are too fragile to be sacrificed for DSM.
It would also test Indonesia’s commitment to the ASEAN Declaration on the Right to a Sustainable Environment, adopted during the ASEAN Summit in October 2025.
As a member of the ISA Council, Indonesia’s delegation carries a public mandate and responsibility to its people. What we are witnessing is an attempt by global capital interests to influence international institutions in order to legitimize the extraction of seabed minerals under the banner of the energy transition.
On this World Environment Day, it is both timely and necessary to call on Indonesia to take a firm stand in Kingston, Jamaica:
Reject deep-sea mining.
Because a just energy transition cannot be built upon upstream ecological destruction and the sacrifice of future generations’ rights.
The full article is available on Indonesiana.id.