THE Pacific is entering a new era of resource competition, and our region — whether we like it or not — is at the center of it. As global demand grows for minerals like nickel, cobalt, and manganese, deep‑sea mining has moved from a distant concept to an active policy debate. Yet one critical fact remains misunderstood: there is no single global system governing how companies can mine the seabed. Instead, two very different rulebooks are shaping the future of this industry. One is written in Washington, D.C., through NOAA. The other is written in Kingston, Jamaica, through the International Seabed Authority or ISA. For the CNMI, understanding this split is essential to understanding the choices now unfolding around us.
The first divide is jurisdiction. NOAA’s authority is strictly American. It can issue permits only to U.S. citizens or companies incorporated in the United States. This is because the U.S. Senate has never ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the treaty that created the ISA. A NOAA permit gives a company legal protection under U.S. law, but other nations are not required to recognize it. The ISA, by contrast, represents 168 countries and the European Union. It governs mining in international waters — what UNCLOS calls “the Area” — and is legally obligated to manage those resources for the “benefit of mankind as a whole.”
This split has created two very different pathways to commercial mining. NOAA recently adopted a “Consolidated Application,” allowing companies to submit exploration data and commercial mining plans at the same time. This dramatically shortens the timeline from discovery to extraction. The ISA, however, maintains a slower, two‑step system: a long exploration contract, followed by a separate application for commercial exploitation. And because the ISA has not yet finalized its global “Mining Code,” no company anywhere in the world has been allowed to begin commercial operations. The result is a regulatory race between a fast‑moving national system and a slow‑moving international one.
Environmental oversight is another area where the two systems diverge sharply. NOAA must follow U.S. environmental law, including the National Environmental Policy Act. That means full Environmental Impact Statements, public hearings, and the possibility of court challenges. The ISA uses Regional Environmental Management Plans, which set aside protected zones in places like the Clarion‑Clipperton Zone. But the ISA has faced criticism for serving as both regulator and beneficiary, since it will collect royalties from mining operations. Many scientists and civil society groups argue that this dual role creates a conflict of interest and weakens environmental safeguards.
The financial structures also reflect different philosophies. Under NOAA, companies pay administrative fees and standard U.S. taxes. There is no mechanism for sharing revenue with other nations. Under the ISA, benefit‑sharing is built into the system. A portion of royalties must be distributed to developing countries so that the wealth of the seabed does not flow only to technologically advanced nations. This principle — equitable access to global resources — is one of the core reasons UNCLOS was created.
For the CNMI, these differences are not abstract. They shape the geopolitical environment we live in. Because the U.S. is not part of UNCLOS, American companies cannot hold ISA contracts directly. NOAA’s fast‑track process has become a kind of “Plan B” — a way for the United States to secure access to critical minerals without waiting for the international community to finalize global rules. This raises important questions for island communities:
– How will environmental risks be monitored?
– How will communities be informed or consulted?
– How will benefits and responsibilities be shared?
– How do we protect our ocean while two different rulebooks operate at once?
As the CNMI considers its role in this emerging industry, it is crucial to recognize that the world is not operating under one unified framework. Two competing rulebooks are shaping the future of deep‑sea mining. The decisions made in Washington, D.C. and Kingston will determine not only how quickly mining begins, but also how its risks and rewards are shared across the Pacific.
Here is the link for deep dive perspective: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1vEb2Ao0N-tY7FXjPidajTTH_ZQg0YvtJ
Thank you.
NOEL M. SORIA
Saipan, CNMI
