The Long Distance Advisory Council (LDAC) and three other fishing advisory bodies—North Western Waters Advisory Council, Pelagic Species Advisory Council, and South Western Waters Advisory Council—have reiterated support for a moratorium on deep-sea mining. The Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) and the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition (DSCC) welcomed the LDAC position. The groups’ stance is linked to a European Commission report attributed to Draghi that recommended exploring the potential for deep-sea mining.
In a statement to EU decision-makers, the LDAC rejected the recommendation, citing insufficient understanding of long-term environmental and socio-economic impacts, including effects on marine ecosystems and fisheries. The council said it has significant concerns about risks tied to deep-sea mining and urged policymakers to avoid premature steps toward mining the deep ocean. The timing of the LDAC’s position coincides with plans in Norway to move forward on licensing.
Norway is described as the only European country currently opening its extended continental shelf in the high seas to potential deep-sea mining. The country is planning to award exploitation licenses as early as the first half of 2025. The move is reported to face opposition from Norway’s environmental agency, the fishing industry, scientists, NGOs, and both the European Commission and Parliament.
A separate development involves a Canadian company announcing plans to apply for a deep-sea mining license in international waters of the North Pacific Ocean. Environmental and fisheries groups have raised additional concern in response to that announcement. Together, these actions are cited as part of a broader policy debate over whether deep-sea mining should proceed.
Reported environmental risks from deep-sea mining
Studies referenced in the discussion say deep-sea mining could cause severe environmental damage. The potential impacts include life-smothering sediment plumes, noise pollution, and release of toxic contaminants into the marine environment. These effects could disrupt marine food webs and jeopardize commercial fish species.
The material also links fisheries to food security and economic stability for coastal communities. It notes that disruption to marine biodiversity raises public concern because fisheries depend on ecosystem health. The risk assessment focus is therefore placed on both ecological effects and downstream consequences for commercial fish.
Steve Trent, CEO and founder of EJF, said EJF welcomed the LDAC stance. Trent remarked that “Our ocean is worth more protected than plundered,” adding that halting deep-sea mining is necessary to avoid irreversible damage to ecosystems supported by coastal communities. Matt Gianni, co-founder and political analyst at DSCC, also commented on the issue.
Gianni said fishing industry organizations worldwide are increasingly recognizing threats from deep-sea mining to fisheries and marine environments. He stated that fishers should make their voices heard as entities seek to fast-track the industry. Gianni added that the International Seabed Authority should not give deep-sea mining approval.
Opposition coalition extends beyond EU advisory bodies
The LDAC’s opposition is presented as aligned with a wider coalition of stakeholders calling for a moratorium. Fisheries organizations named in Norway include the Norwegian Fishing Vessel Owners Association (Fiskebat) and the Norwegian Fishermen Association, both of which have voiced opposition to plans to open areas for mining. Groups in Africa, Asia, and the Pacific are also described as supporting a moratorium.
The call is framed around waiting until there is a more thorough understanding of long-term ecological and socio-economic consequences. In September, a coalition of 16 NGOs warned European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen against support for deep-sea mining in connection with the Draghi report. Her office responded by reiterating EU commitment to protecting the ocean.
According to the account provided, von der Leyen’s office reaffirmed that stance against opening the deep seas to mining after receiving those warnings. This positions EU-level policy debate alongside national decisions such as Norway’s licensing timeline. It also places NGO advocacy within a broader regulatory context involving EU institutions.
Norway’s licensing timeline faces legal and community objections
In Norway, opposition is described as highly contentious as government plans aim to issue licenses for deep-sea mining by 2025. Norway’s own environmental agencies have criticized the government’s Strategic Impact Assessment, saying it does not meet national and international legal requirements. Experts have raised concerns about potential radioactive waste risks.
The same discussion also cites unassessed dangers posed by mining activities beyond radioactive waste concerns alone. Indigenous communities in Norway are reported to be opposing the move as well, adding further tension around licensing decisions. These objections are presented alongside opposition from multiple sectors outside Norway.
The overall dispute is tied back to how quickly exploitation licenses could be awarded in Norway during 2025. It also intersects with international attention due to planned applications elsewhere, including in the North Pacific Ocean by a Canadian company seeking a license in international waters. As these developments progress, calls for a moratorium remain part of ongoing policy discussions among fishing groups and NGOs.