IN-DEPTH: As You Sow places spotlight on deep-sea mining
An interview with Danielle Fugere, president and chief counsel of As You Sow and Elizabeth Levy, As You Sow biodiversity coordinator.
This season, As You Sow advanced a first-of-its-kind demand asking two car manufacturing giants to disclose policies on the use of deep-sea mined minerals across their supply chain. What drove you to advance the resolution at this time?
EL: The ISA [International Seabed Authority] is convening again to agree on a mining code. We're closer than we ever have been before to this becoming an operable commercial scale industry. The Metals Company, the main company leading the charge on deep-sea mining, is going to be moving forward with applying for permits to pursue commercial scale deep-sea mining.
Knowing that this is an emerging industry, we wanted to engage with those who would likely be the largest potential consumers of these metals and try to understand what their needs are. Do they need these metals to move forward with their electric vehicle goals? We, of course, are taking the position that it's not necessary.
This myth that we need to go into the deep sea to be able to fuel the energy transition is simply not true between what we already can mine on land and where the technology is going with LFP lithium iron phosphate batteries and sodium ion batteries.
What are the consequences of deep-sea mining?
EL: The deep sea is alien to us. We know more about the surface of Mars than we do about the bottom of the ocean and every time exploration goes on down there, we're finding more and more species new to science. We're also finding that the very crust and polymetallic nodules that the deep-sea miners want to extract is a habitat for many of these creatures, so we would essentially be clear cutting the ocean by taking these away. In addition to that, the deep-sea mining process, the dredging process, stirs up sediment that has been building up for thousands of years. That's all being stirred into the water and disrupting the natural ecosystem services. This would disrupt mating and migration patterns and feeding. Such activities are also likely to ripple beyond the mining site and could be far reaching such as the possible impact on fisheries.
DF: It’s also worth noting that many of our medicines have come from studying deep sea organisms. But the other concern is not just the habitat, it’s also what are the risks to the companies, to Tesla or General Motors or other peers. Companies are competitive in terms of their reputation. Any company that associates itself with this deep-sea mining could be irreparably harmed and so getting in front of this and looking to the harms associated with it is key.
You mentioned peers. Some 49 companies have signed a business statement calling for a moratorium on deep-sea mining, including BMW and Polestar.
DF: There is a reason why their peers have signed on to this. They obviously assume it is in their best interest to wait and see, to learn more about this technology and its impacts.
Is there a need for this versus potential harm, the potential risk of loss of habitat or of the potential for medicines versus the need for these materials? And the answer appears to be "not really" at this time.
Investors at General Motors were the first to have the opportunity to cast their votes on the demand with 12% backing it. Were you satisfied with that outcome?
DF: That was sufficient to bring this proposal again, it's a new issue. The company also made an important statement that it does not use or plan to use deep-sea mined materials.
I think that also may have contributed to shareholders deciding that maybe it's not necessary because the company has now stated that it doesn't currently use it, and it doesn't intend to. We were pleased with that statement, but we still want the company to make that more public on its website because part of the concern is giving companies like The Metals Company a belief that there may be large purchasers out there.
Then at Tesla, the demand only secured 7.7% support. In its proxy statement, the company had argued that management is the best placed to make informed and specific decisions, while continuing to align with industry best practices and committing to responsible sourcing.
EL: What they referred to in their opposition statement to us is the OECD Due Diligence Guidance framework. That framework does not apply to deep-sea mining, it focuses on terrestrial mining.
DF: There's concern about the statement by Tesla. It’s in some ways misleading. The proposal is raising awareness of an important long-term issue and the idea that the company knows better is not a good one. The system of shareholder proposals goes back for decades and has been an important way that shareholders can raise concerns.
The idea that the company knows best and shareholders should just get out of their business is of concern. That type of attitude is not the kind of response we would like to see from companies.
Is it a demand you plan to revisit in future?
DF: If necessary, certainly. We will wait to see what happens and what, if anything, each of these companies do and what happens with regard to the regulatory arena. It's something we will continue to watch closely.
Finally, what message do you have for others in the sector looking to the deep sea as an emerging industry to address the energy transition?
EL: I think we need to be doubling down on circularity. We need to be pursuing technology that is more recyclable, that causes less harm to the environment, less harm to people. Thankfully, this technology is emerging. The entire industry is moving toward more circular models and there is a path forward to not have cascading biodiversity loss across the ocean. This is a time where corporations are expected to look at their impact on nature more than any time before and now they have the guidance to do so. This is truly the time to step up to the plate and use what we have available at our fingertips and make science-informed decisions on how to move forward.
