The Legal Battle Between a Deep-Sea Mining Company and Greenpeace Activists
The recent confrontation between a deep-sea mining company and Greenpeace activists has led to a legal battle, with the company seeking to remove the protesters from their research vessel, Coco. The vessel is currently operating in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone to evaluate a polymetallic nodule lease area, and its mission has been disrupted by Greenpeace activists using various tactics.
Greenpeace has reported that NORI, a subsidiary of The Metals Company (TMC), has filed a lawsuit in the Netherlands to force the activist group to halt their protests. The lawsuit includes a request for a substantial fine of around $10 million if the activists continue to interfere with the ship’s operations. Despite the legal action taken by NORI, Greenpeace has expressed no intention of backing down and has vowed to continue the protest until Coco leaves the mineral exploration area.
In response to the ongoing protest, Greenpeace spokesperson, Louisa Casson, stated that the activists’ actions have shaken the deep-sea mining industry and highlighted the importance of peaceful activism. She emphasized the significance of bearing witness to an industry that has historically operated in the shadows and expressed the group’s determination to prevent deep-sea mining from commencing.
The Metals Company (TMC) intends to apply for international permission to begin seabed mining as early as July 2024, with Greenpeace asserting that Coco’s expedition data will be utilized as part of the permitting request. Meanwhile, the International Seabed Authority (ISA), responsible for permitting seabed mining in international waters, has expressed its support for the lawsuit initiated by NORI to halt Greenpeace’s activities. ISA staff members are reportedly on board the Coco, as detailed in NORI’s court filings.
ISA Secretary-General, Michael Lodge, has called for an immediate cessation of the Greenpeace protest, expressing concerns about the safety of individuals in the exploration area and potential risks to the marine environment. Despite this, Greenpeace has garnered support from 24 nations and 800 experts who advocate for a moratorium on deep-sea mining until further research is conducted to assess its impact on marine life.
The Clarion-Clipperton Zone, where the mining operations are taking place, remains poorly understood, with scientific surveys often uncovering new species in the area. Critics of deep-sea mining have raised alarm about the potential environmental hazards associated with the activity, such as sediment plumes, toxin release from mining waste, and habitat destruction.
In a recent study, scientists found that suspended sediment in the mid-ocean water column could be detrimental to marine life, particularly delicate jellyfish species. Biologist Jeffrey Drazen warned that this could have far-reaching implications for the marine food web and the overall health of the ecosystem.
In conclusion, the ongoing dispute between the deep-sea mining company and Greenpeace activists underscores the complexities and controversies surrounding seabed mining. As stakeholders continue to grapple with environmental and legal considerations, it is clear that the issue is far from being resolved and warrants further scrutiny moving forward.
