Introduction
Since its establishment in 1994, multiple introductions and texts have been written to analyze the International Seabed Authority (ISA) and its work, negotiations, and mandate (for recent examples, see Blanchard et al., 2023; Bosco et al., 2023; Pickens et al., 2024; Singh, 2022). ISA was born out of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). It is the authority that regulates activities in the international seabed. The key legal principle in the UNCLOS Article 136 regarding the international seabed – the Area (which includes the seabed, Ocean floor and subsoil thereof) – is that it is the common heritage of [hu]mankind. Initially, this legal principle was meant to steer any future seabed exploitation for the benefit of all humanity (Massimi, 2024; Meyer, 2022; Ranganathan, 2019). Today, however, multiple international Ocean negotiations demonstrate how contested the interpretation of this key principle is. Massimi (2024) argues that one of such interpretations is rooted in epistemic injustice. In part, this interpretation flows from the main activity in the international seabed – industrial deep-sea mining (DSM) exploration. In this essay, we wish to introduce the debate around and within the ISA to a diverse audience. We therefore clarify that the phrases "deep-sea mining" and "deep-seabed mining" are used interchangeably in academic and policy texts. We will use the abbreviated DSM throughout the remainder of the essay.
Out of a multitude of activities possible on the international seabed, it is not accidental that exploration for mining is concentrated most on today. Ranganathan (2019, pp. 576) tells how the history of UNCLOS paved the way for today’s industrial interests – “the law’s constitutive effects” in normalizing “an extractive imaginary of the ocean floor.” In sum, ISA embodies a clash of private interests with public interests and a contradictory mandate to protect and exploit (Holst, 2023). We therefore propose a policy-relevant framework to be used when stakes are high, and values are contested.
Today, under ISA’s authority, the majority of deep-sea mining exploration activities are concentrated in the Clarion Clipperton Zone (CCZ). Ecosystem-based management is an integral component of the Environmental Management Plan in the CCZ (Guilhon et al., 2021; ISA, 2011). Yet, no similar approach or framework exists around policy discussions at the ISA. Current rhetoric from the Secretariat – ISA’s administrative body – indicates a science-based approach (e.g., ISA, 2024). In turn, we describe and discuss post-normal science (PNS), which, we argue, expands the science-based approach and gives a deeper meaning to the key principle of the common heritage of [hu]mankind. Our focus is on the Secretariat, which has a key role in policy shaping at the ISA (described in greater detail in the following section).
One aspect that we highlight as crucial for an open debate is the responsibility of informing decisions about the Area – the policy-shaping space. In a recent World Oceans Day 2023 statement titled “Celebrating women scientists advancing deep-sea research,” Mr. Michael W. Lodge (2023), the soon-former Secretary-General1 at ISA, wrote:
…ISA has the exclusive responsibility to promote and encourage marine scientific research in the Area and to coordinate the dissemination of the results. (…)
The science undertaken and the data and information collected directly inform global decision-making processes and policy agendas for transformative actions.
The quote highlights the key role of marine natural and life sciences. Yet, marine science encompasses a broad range of research topics and interests – from blue humanities with analyses of human-Ocean interactions, to Ocean optics and marine policy research. The concerted combination of all this knowledge shows how far we have come to know the Ocean. In turn, we have realized growing limitations to this knowledge – a broader reflection which must be grappled with in the context of the industrial expansion in the Ocean (sometimes called the blue growth or the blue acceleration (Jouffray et al., 2021)). The knowledge challenges discussed by natural and social scientists include physical and philosophical aspects of human expansion into the deep sea (Amon et al., 2022; Germond-Duret, 2022; Smith et al., 2020). Acknowledging the limits of human understanding and appreciation of the Ocean calls for broad expertise and participation from natural sciences, social sciences, civil society and beyond (Escobar et al., 2021; Tilot et al., 2021b). There is a broad agreement that science alone is not enough – a vibrant academic discussion since the 90s (which we refer to and acknowledge later in this introduction, and the chapter titled “The post-normal science lens”).
The above quote from Mr. Lodge is also an example of ISA’s mandate in action, where the UNCLOS text needs to be shaped into a workable deep-seabed governance framework. The specific word “science”, and its associations and meanings as they appear in the UNCLOS text, are important. For example, “research” appears 162 times, “marine scientific research” appears 101 times and “science” is mentioned a total of 15 times, including 14 mentions of “marine science.” Yet, UNCLOS does not define what it means by research, science or marine science, nor does it outline the quality features of these terms. The only allusions to quality are the mentions of “appropriate scientific criteria” (Article 201), “appropriate scientific methods” (Article 240) or “recognized scientific methods” (Article 165 and Article 204), and “best available scientific evidence” (Article 234). This inadvertently benefits those who represent the Western notion of science and scientific methods, which often excludes other types of knowledge, as Massimi (2024) describes:
As a result, marine scientific research understood as per UNCLOS Art 242–244 and again under the BBNJ Treaty Art. 40–42 on capacity-building and transfer of marine technology risks becoming an ‘epistemic trademark’ to designate de facto varieties of non-oral and nonlocal knowledge that are typically the repository of Global North lab facilities and databanks—i.e. the kind of knowledge that requires technological infrastructures, human resources and institutional facilities to be carried out on a large commercial scale, and which typically tends to be seen as being ’disseminated’ to other ’developing countries’ under the deficit model.
Broad knowledge is a key to quality decisions. Science alone is not enough when informing policies where stakes are high and values are in dispute (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 2020). In the same way that ecosystem-based management is used as a framework to provide structure to deep-seabed governance and management, we suggest post-normal science as a framework for informing policy-shaping with a focus on knowledge ecosystems. Post-normal science centralizes transdisciplinarity through an extended peer community of diverse knowledge holders – a knowledge ecosystem.
A knowledge ecosystem combines different knowledges or different ways of knowing (Haraway, 2013). Since the Enlightenment, the widely accepted way of knowing something in Western academic circles has been to employ the scientific method. To be ready to accept knowledges is to be cognizant of knowledge communities for which the scientific method is not the only method of discovery. PNS should therefore not be used as a replacement for the scientific method, but rather as a method of informing policy discussions with a range of knowledges, including traditional local knowledge. In this commentary, we focus on the Secretariat as one of the main bodies steering the policy discussions at ISA. We stress that PNS is relevant to other governmental and intergovernmental bodies as well. The question of knowledge has been explored in the context of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) (Borie et al., 2021), as well as the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) (Kim & Dankel, 2025). Yet, knowledge use at ISA has historically attracted less attention and will be the focus of our commentary. We suggest that PNS can help metaphorically recalibrate the policy practice to implement decision-making processes and policy agendas for transformative – just – actions. However, this paper is not an empirical study and the reader should be advised that observations of the ISA Secretariat’s work are purposive and not systematic. We show that for the main argument, these observations are informative and sufficient.
We start the essay with an overview of the role of ISA’s Secretariat in policy-shaping through various activities such as commissioning of studies. We then shortly present PNS. Finally, we choose one example of how PNS could be used at the Secretariat. The example is focused on one ecosystem valuation report that was commissioned by ISA’s Secretariat. We emphasize that this is a context specific example and suggests only one way of approaching the question of knowledge in policy space through the PNS lens.
The Secretariat as a key body in policy-shaping at ISA
The Secretariat is a complex and central administrative body which shapes policy discussions at the ISA through various responsibilities and activities. In a direct policy-shaping context, it oversees production of various reports informing the work of ISA bodies with policy decision-making power (Bosco et al., 2023). For example, the Secretariat informs key policy discussions such as benefit sharing (Wilde et al., 2023). (Note that, current discussions regarding benefit sharing include criticism about the potential “insignificant” monetary benefits and alternative solutions that would lead to indirectly paying for mining impacts, rather than any meaningful benefits to humankind (Wilde et al., 2023).) These responsibilities of the Secretariat are also presented on ISA’s web page (ISA, 2023c):
Producing reports and other documents containing information, analyses, historical background, research findings, policy suggestions, etc. that facilitate the deliberations and decision-making by the other principal organs and their subsidiary bodies.
We note that Bosco and colleagues (2023) highlight the conflictual meaning of facilitation:
While in any one case the line between facilitating another organ’s work and taking on its responsibilities is hard to pinpoint, the Secretariat’s disproportionate output is striking: on average, from the first to 26th sessions the Secretariat authored about 56% of the ISA’s reports and about half of its official documents overall.
Independent reports regarding the Secretariat’s work indicate the wide technical and non-technical impact it has on the ISA’s structure, including the Legal and Technical Commission (LTC) and the Finance Committee (FC) (Billett et al., 2023; Bosco et al., 2023). For example, Bosco and colleagues (2023) summarize: ‘One notable trend in the ISA’s evolution is the Secretariat’s assumption of work seemingly designated to the deliberative bodies (the Assembly, Council, LTC, and FC).’ More importantly, they warn that ‘…overreliance on the Secretariat detracts from member states’ ability to drive policy’ (Bosco et al., 2023). Among such activities, the Secretariat seems to control information flows within ISA (Bosco et al., 2023):
In an indirect policy-shaping context, the Secretariat promotes some policy-relevant questions. For example, Mr. Lodge (2020) presented mining the Pacific seabed as a necessity for the energy transition. Yet, social science contributions to energy research do not seem to fall under the Secretariat’s definition of marine science. The Secretariat does not appear to commission any social science reports on the topic of energy transition, which results in studies by science and technology studies researchers, human geographers, sociologists, and others (Korsnes et al., 2023; Riofrancos et al., 2023) being regarded as an irrelevant or unneeded group of expertise. The Secretary-General still connected ISA’s work to the broader international political and research context such as energy research while omitting works from a wide range of expertise and knowledge. The Secretariat has thus inadvertently isolated its work from a valuable section of academia. We reiterate that it is the Secretariat that often decides what the relevant expertise for ISA is (Bosco et al., 2023):
Conflicts of interest also complicate the ISA’s use of consultants to create reports and advise on policy. The Secretariat employs consultants on a contractual basis for many tasks to cope with its high workload and relatively thin staffing. However, consultants are selected and contracts signed without formal input from any of the other organs, leaving members and the public unable to assess the impartiality and credentials of consultants.
In a different layer of policy shaping, the Secretariat controls the physical participation of observers at ISA’s meetings (ISA, 2023b) and oversees engagement with the public and the science community (Ardron et al., 2023; ISA, 2018; ISA, 2023a). The Secretariat defines the rules of participation that directly affect the observers (ISA, 2023b) and, in part, shapes who is represented and who has a voice. Indigenous peoples are still underrepresented at the table (Earth Negotiations Bulletin, 2023; Morgera & Lily, 2022). When they are represented, there is a set of obstacles to acknowledge. For example, writing about Solomon Pili Kaho‘ohalahala’s speech at the ISA’s meeting in 2023, Ranganathan (2024) highlights the fact that many inhabitants of Oceania enter ISA’s meetings under the assumed limits and logic of the Ocean as an industrial site, as opposed to being a home for the diverse local communities. That is, the Pacific Islanders are required to explain the obvious meaning of their home to those who see and perceive the Pacific Ocean as a potential mining site (Ranganathan, 2024). Being home, however, does not seem to match the value of being a potential mining site as seen by some of the policymakers and experts associated with the ISA. Home does not seem to convey expertise and power – not the technological expertise and financial capabilities that are held by those engaged in exploration in the CCZ.
Unsurprisingly, this echoes the colonial logic of viewing the Global South2 as a space for extraction. This misalignment goes as high as the discussions on benefit sharing in the Secretariat. For example, Mr. Lodge and colleagues (2017) discuss the lack of clarity on if and how ISA could implement benefit sharing with Indigenous peoples, without acknowledging the larger context of existing benefits – the Pacific Ocean is a home for its inhabitants before it is a mining site for the selected few. Further, considering local contributions and participation under deeply rooted constraints, Ranganathan (2024, pp. 91) points out:
This does not mean that there is nothing for them to articulate, but it places them under a dual burden: first, of making their histories and epistemologies comprehensible, thus a burden of translation; second, of formulating demands that can be comprehended within pre-defined parameters, thus a burden of accommodation. In addition, of course, is the burden of finding paths to present their demands to the ISA, absent formal participatory mechanisms. What then happens, when they seek to exceed these terms, such as in calling for a ban on seabed mining?
In social and natural science scholarly work, traditional knowledge in Oceania is recognized on its own merits and not as something with lesser value than scientific knowledge (e.g., Bode & Yarina, 2020; Escobar et al., 2021; Mulalap et al., 2020; Tilot et al., 2021a). Yet, the international seabed policy context seems to be still dominated by a narrow understanding of what “relevant” knowledge and, in turn, science is (Massimi, 2024). So, even if diverse participation at ISA is increasing, the current methods of managing the complex discussions regarding the international seabed policies seemingly fall short of implementing the ideals of UNCLOS’ key principle of the common heritage of [hu]mankind. Therefore, in the next sections, we will describe PNS as a policy practice and mindset. We suggest that PNS approaches mirror the stated aspirations of UNCLOS: seeking to project and bolster the common heritage of [hu]mankind as a core idea for a better future.
The post-normal science lens
Since the 1990s, PNS scholars have called for greater transdisciplinarity and extended peer communities of scientists, policymakers, and society to work together (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993; Funtowicz & Ravetz, 2020; Kovacic et al., 2019). When translating scientific findings to policy, the complexity, uncertainty, ambiguity, and values implicit in the original research can be overlooked (e.g., Saltelli et al., 2020). The quality of policy discussions and decisions could be improved through the acknowledgement of potential biases and the exploration of alternative choices all with the help of diverse knowledge holders and sources. It is important to note that PNS is not an alternative to science or a different kind of science, but rather different conditions of the science for policy context (Saltelli et al., 2020). It is a framework by which science informs policy under complex conditions. Reaching quality outcomes in such situations requires rich knowledge from diverse sources. In sum, PNS could be seen as a knowledge ecosystem-based management.
PNS is applicable in situations ‘where facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent’ (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 2020). Current debates about the international seabed at ISA exemplify a situation where scientific uncertainty and stakes are high (Amon et al., 2022), with a growing body of valuable works discussing environmental and regulatory uncertainties (Ginzkyet al., 2020; Haeckelet al., 2020; Pickenset al., 2024; Roestet al., 2023; Wildeet al.,2023). If deep-sea mining in the Area is permitted, even at a limited scale to explore the viability of the industry, the historical DISCOL project and a multitude of other studies that followed have revealed there is a risk of irrevocable damage to complex systems (e.g., Jones et al., 2017; Simon-Lledó et al., 2019; Vonnahme et al., 2020). Conflicting values are debated by various civil society groups, politicians, and scientific community groups (Kim, 2017). Finally, a sense of urgency concerning these decisions is apparent, as the Republic of Nauru (the sponsoring state of the Metals Company) has ‘opted to invoke section 1(15) and requested that the [ISA] Council complete the elaboration and adoption of the [deep-sea mining] exploitation regulations by 9 July 2023’ (Singh, 2022). While it did not lead to ISA issuing mining licenses without finalizing the regulations, this shows industry-constructed urgency. All three of the conditions detailed by Funtowicz and Ravetz (2020) are therefore present in the policy context at ISA. This indicates natural and social sciences alone are not enough for policymakers to make robust, quality decisions and that politicization of science (as shown by recent international Ocean governance debates (De Santo et al., 2019)) is unavoidable.
PNS invites policymakers to work within complexity, uncertainty, and a multiplicity of values through the extended peer community (see practice oriented special issue by Dankel et al., (2017), including the contribution by Pereira and Saltelli (2017)). In PNS, the extended peer community consists ‘not merely of persons with some form or other of institutional accreditation (‘stakeholders’), but rather of all those with a desire to participate in the resolution of the issue’ (Ravetz, 1999). PNS is not merely a different name for stakeholder consultation – it is a policy mindset and practice (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 2020) where policy discussion input from parties like people from Oceania is as valuable as the input of marine engineers. In deep-sea mining, bias is often displayed in the choice of which experts are considered relevant or authoritative, and subsequently listened to – engineers and marine natural scientists are selected to be the voices of the deep sea more frequently than any other marine science experts (Childs, 2022). Quality natural science studies are needed to guide policy in the deep seabed. Yet, natural science cannot guide some of the regulatory topics that are negotiated at ISA. For example, discussing options for benefit sharing (Ranganathan, 2019) or the meanings of the common heritage of [hu]mankind (Hunter et al., 2018; Massimi, 2024) require acknowledging complex realities where even relying solely on social sciences is insufficient.
In part, various forms of public participation could exemplify one of the ways of extending the peer community (with their own benefits and pitfalls (e.g., Ballesteros & Dickey-Collas, 2023)). The UNCLOS PART XI. SECTION 2., and the agreement to consider the Area as the common heritage of [hu]mankind, define the public is a core beneficiary. ISA’s Secretariat has tried to involve this beneficiary through various initiatives, including the initiation of a deep-sea literacy action plan (ISA, 2020). Yet, research shows that greater, more open communication with the public (Morgera & Lily, 2022) and improved access to information (Blanchard et al., 2023) are still needed. In the context of UNCLOS, these should not be seen as marginal issues and challenges. Until now, we discussed examples within a limited scope and used PNS to broaden the limits of the discussions about the deep seabed. We think, however, it is helpful to take one example and explore it deeper. We do so in the following section.
How PNS could be used at the Secretariat
In this section, we will explore how using the peer community – the diverse knowledge inside and outside of academia – can potentially help “recalibrate” policy-informing instruments at ISA’s Secretariat. We use the Secretariat’s commissioned “Report on the value of ecosystem services and natural capital of the Area” (Brander & Guisado Goñi, 2023) as an example. We begin by acknowledging the guidance document associated with the report and the fact that it outlines various limitations of the report and its approaches, including the limitations of economic valuation studies (e.g., the controversy of commodification of nature) and the limitations of participatory scope that can be facilitated in any one study (Brander, 2023). We also note that the report was reviewed by two people – one specializing in economics and one in extractive industries who, seemingly, were selected by the Secretariat (Brander & Guisado Goñi, 2023, pp. 35). It is our opinion that the report and its review process are exemplary of how the Secretariat shapes content for policy inputs. As such, it is a useful example for applying the PNS lens to. Before we start, we anticipate one argument against routinely using the PNS lens when preparing reports is that doing so will require additional time and financing. Yet, we argue that as using PNS requires only engagement with the extended peer community and its knowledge, the likelihood of bias is reduced.
The following key findings in the report are our point of interest (Brander & Guisado Goñi, 2023, pp. 32):
Seabed habitats in the Area are recognised to provide a broad range of ecosystem services. Through consultations with 10 experts (8 organisations) conducted for this study, “key” ecosystem services that are of potentially high economic value were identified. These are genetic resources for use in medicines, biotechnology, and other industries; and the existence and bequest values that people hold for the preservation of unique biodiversity. Such results reflect the views of the limited number of experts consulted, and do not represent the full spectrum of potential views and perspectives from all ISA stakeholders.
The limited number of existing studies on the value of deep-sea ecosystem services are for study sites located in national EEZs and provide estimates for only four ecosystem services: food provisioning, genetic resources, carbon sequestration, and existence and bequest values. There are currently no studies that estimate values specifically for ecosystem services in the Area.
We turn to the extended peer community and start with the most vivid issue that these findings exemplify: epistemic severing or the exclusion of knowledge. That is, the findings show that one specific knowledge community has “won” as their knowledge emerges as an indicator of ‘“key” ecosystem services that are of potentially “high economic value.” What does it mean to find ecosystem services that are “key” and of “high economic value”? We focus on the process of finding. The authors of the report, cited above, highlight the diversity of experts, their organizations and the literature on the topic of ecosystem valuation. However, we argue that what emerges is more hegemonic and less diverse. In this case, it seems that these values represent a very specific marine science community – marine biologists. We are not saying that marine biologists are at any fault here, but rather pointing out how specific ways of knowing and valuing the Ocean evolved to dominate the Ocean space. We use Massimi’s (2022, pp. 11) concept of epistemic severing, which is “the almost surgical excision of the contribution of particular communities (either within the same scientific perspective or across culturally diverse perspectives) from narratives about scientific knowledge production.” By using this concept, we make an important claim: the report findings are not a result of study limitations, but rather of specific, often historical and structural, events that lead to a dominance of certain forms of knowledge over others. In this case, as Ranganathan (2019) described, the dominant way of knowing and therefore valuing the Ocean is in the context of extraction. How can this be challenged? If extraction of minerals, genetic material, or other materials of economic interest is the main way of valuing the Ocean, specifically the Pacific Ocean, what can we learn when we challenge extraction as the dominant value?
We suggest looking at the challenge as an attempt to recalibrate policy-informing instruments through PNS. How would one “recalibrate” such instruments (e.g., reports)? How can policy-informing science and expertise be more attentive to, and more able to challenge hegemonic practices? The report study area is in the Pacific Ocean. Recall that the Pacific Ocean is, first and foremost, home – “a space of interconnection, dialogue, and dynamic relationships between humans, islands, sea, and biota” (Bode & Yarina, 2020, pp. 78). Angelo Villagomez and Steven Mana’oakamai Johnson (2024) emphasize the Oceanic identity:
The resurgence of traditional voyaging facilitates a rediscovery of our identities through connection with these thriving ecosystems. All aspects of our unique ways of life are derived from the ocean and the land, including art, song, chants, dance, carvings, religion, myths, stories, architecture, and even economies, world views, and governing systems.
We emphasize that in these ways of knowing and valuing, the Ocean is not split into disconnected compartments, but is a connected and fluid space. That is, the Ocean is not just a deep seabed with an unrelated water column, as defined and divided by the law. Valuing the Ocean is about appreciating it as a whole and critically appraising divisions imposed on its components and limits through economic valuation. We therefore juxtapose extraction and home as two distinct ways of knowing and valuing the Pacific Ocean and the Area. This is one way of challenging the extractivist hegemonic way of knowing. The value of the Ocean among Pacific Islanders could be seen as the metaphorical recalibration. We turn back to Ranganathan (2024, pp. 91) and her revealing description of the “burden of translation” that people from Oceania face when trying to engage with ISA – the burden “of making their histories and epistemologies comprehensible.” Most importantly, what we have shown so far is a burden of epistemic repair in parallel to epistemic severing.
Since the 90s, voices from the Pacific have been building a rich knowledge base of the local Ocean identity – the cornerstone of the value of the Ocean in the region. For lack of a better measure, we look at the 2577 citations (citation total at the time of writing this essay) of Epeli Hau’ofa’s “Our sea of islands.”3 We calculate that the first 20 results (of 2577 citations) on Google Scholar were cited a total of 2,506,487 times. This is a quantitative take on how far the work of Epeli Hau’ofa has travelled. That is, we suggest that many voices have worked over the years to translate the value of the Ocean for the people in Oceania. And, perhaps, it also shows that the burden of translation in some discussion spaces is already dealt with. What is left is the burden of epistemic repair. For that, “Our sea of islands” is an example that shows the value of the Ocean (Hau’ofa, 1994):
Oceania is vast, Oceania is expanding, Oceania is hospitable and generous, Oceania is humanity rising from the depths of brine and regions of fire deeper still, Oceania is us. We are the sea, we are the ocean, we must wake up to this ancient truth and together use it to overturn all hegemonic views that aim ultimately to confine us again, physically and psychologically, in the tiny spaces that we have resisted accepting as our sole appointed places, and from which we have recently liberated ourselves. We must not allow anyone to belittle us again, and take away our freedom.
Even if one does not appreciate valuation studies, and economic valuation in particular, one can still see how Ocean identity is part of the “cultural” services. More specifically, it could fall under “oral traditions and cosmologies” (DOSI, 2023). And yet, the report did not capture such services. The final output is summarized in Table 2 of the report (Brander & Guisado Goñi, 2023, pp. 11), which is based on literature and expert consultation (Brander & Guisado Goñi, 2023, pp. 11). In Table 1, we focus on a snippet of this table from the report, which describes the cultural ecosystem services (Brander & Guisado Goñi, 2023, pp. 13–14). The categories do not mention oral traditions, cosmologies, or traditional knowledge of the sea and have no description for something that would capture the Ocean identity of the people of Oceania – the Sea of Islands.
| Abyssal plains (nodules) | Seamounts (crusts) | Hydrothermal vents (sulphides) |
|---|
Existence and
bequest value
(biodiversity) | Abyssal plains provide habitat for a
diverse range of species, including
many that are not found anywhere
else on Earth. The number, diversity
and characteristics of species in the
abyssal plain is largely unknown.
People may place a value on the
continued existence of this unique
biodiversity and its conservation for
future generations. | Seamounts are biodiversity
hotspots that provide habitat
for many species of fish,
invertebrates, and corals.
People may place a value on
the continued existence of
this unique biodiversity and
its conservation for future
generations. | Hydrothermal vents are home to
unique and specialized species
that are adapted to the extreme
conditions found in these
environments. People may place a
value on the continued existence
of this unique biodiversity and its
conservation for future generations. |
| Aesthetic | The aesthetic nature of abyssal
plains, although only indirectly
accessible to the public through
media, is of high value for those
who appreciate the mysterious and
awe-inspiring wonders of the deep
ocean. | Seamounts host diverse
and vibrant ecosystems and
topographical magnificence,
provide significant aesthetic
value for those who are
intrigued by the beauty and
complexity of the marine
environment. | Hydrothermal vents possess distinct
aesthetic qualities due to their
unique and specialized biological
communities that have adapted to
thrive in the extreme and dynamic
conditions of the vent environments |
Tourism and
recreation | Abyssal plains are not accessible for
tourism and recreation due to their
depth and remote location. | The tourism and recreation
service of seamount
ecosystems in the Area is
limited due to their remote
and extreme location. | The tourism and recreation service
of hydrothermal vents ecosystems
is limited due to their remote and
extreme location, as well as their
fragility. |
Historical
archive | Abyssal plains have the potential
to serve as important archives of
Earth's history, as sediment cores
can provide information about
past climates and environmental
conditions. | Seamounts have the
potential to serve as
important archives of
Earth's history, as they are
often associated with past
tectonic activity and can
provide information about
the geological history of the
seafloor. | Hydrothermal vents ecosystems
provide a valuable historical
archive of the Earth's geologic and
biological evolution. The minerals
and chemical compounds deposited
around hydrothermal vents preserve
evidence of past geologic events and
the evolution of life on Earth. Scientific
study of these archives can provide
valuable insights into the history and
functioning of our planet. |
This is a major shortcoming considering the vast knowledge base that Pacific Islanders have generated over millennia of intimate connection with the Ocean. As Mulalap et al. (2020) have documented, this includes knowledge about the connectivity of species and marine processes far beyond areas of national jurisdiction, environmental management practices, and a way of knowing the Ocean tied to traditional instrument-free navigation practices within and between coastal communities. A brief list of such traditional knowledge includes knowledge about the behavior of highly migratory species, well-adapted rules for when and how to access and exploit marine resources, and detailed knowledge about Ocean currents and swell patterns. We urge that one should not omit such knowledge based on preconceived ideas about relevance.
It seems that all the history can be forgotten in a valuation report because the legal (UNCLOS definition of the “international seabed”) and institutional arrangements (the Secretariat defines the themes and objectives of the commissioned reports) allow it. The colonial history is seemingly forgotten and the self-determination among Oceanians is forgotten because the Secretariat at ISA relies on specific roles and limits of science to inform policy discussions. The Pacific Ocean becomes a tabula rasa that can be filled with meanings through scientific expertise from outside. Indigenous Islanders are required to enter DSM discussions as if they are marginal knowledge holders or a cultural novelty at the ISA meetings. Yet, in reality, they are central knowledge holders; they embody the Pacific Ocean. While the experts of valuation are experts of literature and expert consultations, the Indigenous Pacific Islanders are experts of their lived reality in Oceania, in the Sea of Islands.
Turning back to the extended peer community, many voices teach us how to increase the quality of policy discussions in the Pacific Ocean (e.g., Fache et al., 2022; Hau‘ofa, 1998; Villagomez & Johnson, 2024). Similarly, discussions exist about how to challenge and disrupt epistemic injustices. Exploring extractivist epistemologies, Alcoff (2022, pp. 16) suggests:
…four corrective epistemic norms that can counteract extractivist epistemologies: (i) acknowledging the incompleteness of all knowledge, (ii) developing an approach that recognizes plural epistemologies and seeks productive relationships of inter-epistemology; (iii) practicing relational epistemic humility, and (iv) regularizing the assessment of epistemic relationships in projects of knowing.
Alternatively, thinking about marine science, Massimi (2024) suggests the following remediation:
Only by recognising the important role and value of local knowledges in scientific knowledge production (marine scientific research in this case), and taking as center-stage the standpoint of multiethnic working-classes (the subaltern), can epistemic severing and epistemic trademarking be averted.
We want to highlight epistemic severing from the above quote. To reiterate, for Massimi (2022, pp. 11) such severing is the intentional or unintentional deletion of various knowledges. In the Pacific Ocean, epistemic severing has a long history of knowledge and people exclusion, tokenization and exploitation (Hau‘ofa, 1994; Hau‘ofa, 1998; Ranganathan, 2019; Villagomez & Johnson, 2024). Hau’ofa (1998, pp. 346–347) once warned that “if we [Pacific Islanders] do not exist for others, then we could in fact be dispensable.” He pointed out that capitalist exploitation in the form of phosphate mining and the Cold War arms race in the form of nuclear testing had already shown that local communities were dispensable in the eyes of the various colonial administrations that dominated the region in the twentieth century. Here, we suggest that the critical negative impacts of the epistemic severing of traditional knowledge of local communities in the ISA Secretariat's report represent a new way of making Pacific Islanders dispensable. It is important to note that the concept of severing, as we see and use it, does not assign blame, it rather invites participants (especially the knowledge makers) to seek repair.
Next, we would like to go back to the question: What does it mean to find ecosystem services that are “key” and of “high economic value”? The above discussion was focused on finding. Here, we would like the reader to turn their attention to the word “key.” What does it mean to present values as competing and to position some as key while leaving others as potentially low-key or missing, as shown above? Does this mean we can make lists of values with competing weights? Assigning a monetary value is heavily criticized in the literature, and the report authors acknowledge such criticism (Brander & Guisado Goñi, 2023). It is interesting to note that while the authors do not assign a monetary value as such (due to study limitations), they do seem to follow the monetary logic that some ecosystem services have more value than others. Who chooses to assign weight? Can a report improve its quality by acknowledging the alternative choices and refusing to weigh the values? Would policymakers be better informed by acknowledging alternative choices or the biases of experts chosen to assign the weight of values? We leave these questions open for future discussions.
To recap, in this section, we looked at the ecosystem services valuation report commissioned by the ISA’s Secretariat. The Secretariat defines the objectives of the report and selects the consultants and the reviewers for the report. We argue that the final output is one of many examples of knowing and valuing the Area in the Pacific Ocean in extractivist terms above all else. We challenge this extractivist way of knowing and seeing by highlighting some of the works and voices who value it first and foremost as home – a stark contrast to extraction. We showed the value of PNS and turned to the extended peer community inside and outside of academia to show how to “recalibrate” the policy instruments that ISA’s Secretariat uses to inform policy discussions at the ISA.
Final reflections
Decisions about the international seabed cannot always be improved with greater scientific expertise. Therefore, informing the ISA about the Area should not be put on the shoulders of scientists alone. PNS shows that more amicable and productive dialogue with civil society should be seen as equally important in the context of policy-shaping. This also gives meaning to the aspirations inscribed in the UNCLOS text. We used PNS and turned to the extended peer community to question the ways of valuing the Area in the Pacific Ocean. We used Massimi’s (2022) concept of epistemic severing and suggested epistemic repair as lenses to challenge the extractivist image of the Ocean. We aimed to show how one would metaphorically recalibrate policy instruments – expertise and expert outputs that inform policy discussions at the ISA.
To conclude, using PNS as a knowledge ecosystem-based management can allow for a consolidated approach to transdisciplinary policy- and decision-shaping. Just like frameworks for Ocean management and governance such as ecosystem-based management, frameworks for knowledge ecosystems allow for the structure of otherwise messy relations. In the policy context, where crucial decisions are shaped by the ISA’s Secretariat, aiming to engage with diverse knowledge communities should increase the quality of the outputs. PNS could improve the public perception of the Secretariat’s work, nurture trust between interested parties, and allow public discourse of the deep seabed to become less contentious. As the newly elected administration of the Secretariat gets to work, we hope it will consider implementing this framework – to reconsider polarization as an opportunity for greater participation, improved dialogue, and shared accountability.
Data availability statement
No data are associated with this article.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all the people who gave thoughtful comments on the first draft of this paper at the Senter for vitenskapsteori (Centre for the Study of the Sciences and the Humanities) seminar, University of Bergen.
Faculty Opinions recommendedReferences
- Alcoff LM:
Extractivist epistemologies.
Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society.
2022; 5(1): 2127231. Publisher Full Text
- Amon DJ, Gollner S, Morato T, et al.:
Assessment of scientific gaps related to the effective environmental management of deep-seabed mining.
Mar Policy.
2022; 138: 105006. Publisher Full Text
- Ardron J, Lily H, Jaeckel A:
Public participation in the governance of deep-seabed mining in the area. In: Research Handbook on International Marine Environmental Law. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2023; 361–384. Publisher Full Text
- Ballesteros M, Dickey-Collas M:
Managing participation across boundaries: a typology for stakeholder engagement in the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea.
Mar Policy.
2023; 147: 105389. Publisher Full Text
- Billett D, Chakraborty A, Jaeckel A, et al.:
Enhancing scientific expertise at the ISA. The Code Project, 2023. Reference Source
- Blanchard C, Harrould-Kolieb E, Jones E, et al.:
The current status of deep-sea mining governance at the International Seabed Authority.
Mar Policy.
2023; 147: 105396.
Publisher Full Text
- Bode C, Yarina L:
Thick representations for oceanic space. The urbanisation of the sea : from concepts and analysis to design. Rotterdam, nai010 publishers, 2020. Reference Source
- Borie M, Mahony M, Obermeister N, et al.:
Knowing like a global expert organization: comparative insights from the IPCC and IPBES.
Global Environmental Change.
2021; 68: 102261. Publisher Full Text
- Bosco D, Jaeckel A, Singh P:
Ready to regulate? The international seabed authority on the brink of commercial mining. 2023.
- Brander LM:
Guidance on the economic valuation of ecosystem services and natural capital of the area. International Seabed Authority, 2023. Reference Source
- Brander LM, Guisado Goñi V:
The value of ecosystem services and natural capital of the area. International Seabed Authority, 2023. Reference Source
- Childs J:
Geographies of deep sea mining: a critical review.
Extr Ind Soc.
2022; 9: 101044. Publisher Full Text
- Dankel DJ, Vaage NS, van der Sluijs JP:
Post-normal science in practice.
Futures.
2017; 91: 1–4. Publisher Full Text
- De Santo EM, Ásgeirsdóttir Á, Barros-Platiau A, et al.:
Protecting biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction: an earth system governance perspective.
Earth System Governance.
2019; 2: 100029.
Publisher Full Text
- DOSI: “Polymetallic nodule-rich abyssal plains” - information sheet. deep-ocean stewardship initiative. 2023. Reference Source
- Earth Negotiations Bulletin: Highlights and images for 20 March 2023. The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), 2023. Reference Source
- Escobar E, Guilloux B, Howell K, et al.:
The necessity of traditional knowledge for management of deep-seabed mining. 2021. Reference Source
- Fache E, Kon Kam King J, Riera L, et al.:
A sea of connections: reflections on connectivity from/in Oceania.
Ambio.
2022; 51(12): 2333–2341. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
- Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR:
Science for the post-normal age.
Futures.
1993; 25(7): 739–755. Publisher Full Text
- Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR:
Science for the post-normal age.
Commonplace.
2020. Reference Source
- Germond-Duret C:
Framing the blue economy: placelessness, development and sustainability.
Dev Change.
2022; 53(2): 308–334.
Publisher Full Text
- Ginzky H, Singh PA, Markus T:
Strengthening the International Seabed Authority's knowledge-base: addressing uncertainties to enhance decision-making.
Marine Policy.
2020; 114: 103823. Publisher Full Text
- Guilhon M, Montserrat F, Turra A:
Recognition of ecosystem-based management principles in key documents of the seabed mining regime: implications and further recommendations.
ICES J Mar Sci.
2021; 78(3): 884–899.
Publisher Full Text
- Haeckel M, Vink A, Janssen F, et al.:
Environmental impacts of deep seabed mining. In: New knowledge and changing circumstances in the law of the Sea. Brill Nijhoff, 2020; 327–340.
- Haraway D:
Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective 1. In: Women, science, and technology. Routledge, 2013; 455–472.
- Hau'ofa E:
Our sea of Islands.
The Contemporary Pacific.
1994; 6(1): 148–161. Reference Source
- Hau‘ofa E:
The Ocean in Us.
The Contemporary Pacific.
1998; 10(2): 391–410. Reference Source
- Holst RJR:
Exploiting the deep seabed for the benefit of humankind: a universal ideology for sustainable resource development or a false necessity?
Leiden Journal of International Law.
2023; 37(2): 400–423.
Publisher Full Text
- Hunter J, Singh P, Aguon J:
Broadening common heritage: addressing gaps in the deep sea mining regulatory regime.
Harvard Environmental Law Review.
2018; 16. Reference Source
- ISA: Environmental management plan for the clarion-clipperton zone. 2011. Reference Source
- ISA:
International Seabed Authority strategic plan 2019-2023. The International Seabed Authority, 2018; last accessed November 2023. Reference Source
- ISA:
Call for proposals for the development of an action plan to increase public deep-sea literacy in the international seabed area. The International Seabed Authority, 2020; last accessed November 2023. Reference Source
- ISA:
DeepData brochure. The International Seabed Authority, 2023a; last accessed November 2023. Reference Source
- ISA:
Management of conferences and events of the International Seabed Authority held in the Jamaica conference centre. 2023b; last accessed June 2024. Reference Source
- ISA:
The secretariat. The International Seabed Authority, 2023c; last accessed September 2023. Reference Source
- ISA:
Secretary-general annual report. 2024; last accessed July 2024. Reference Source
- Jones DOB, Kaiser S, Sweetman AK, et al.:
Biological responses to disturbance from simulated deep-sea polymetallic nodule mining.
PLoS One.
2017; 12(2): e0171750. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
- Jouffray JB, Blasiak R, Nyström M, et al.:
Blue acceleration: an ocean of risks and opportunities.
Ocean Risk and Resilience Action Alliance (ORRAA) Report.
2021; 42: 1–42. Reference Source
- Kim RE:
Should deep seabed mining be allowed?
Mar Policy.
2017; 82: 134–137. Publisher Full Text
- Korsnes M, Loewen B, Dale RF, et al.:
Paradoxes of Norway’s energy transition: controversies and justice.
Clim Policy.
2023; 23(9): 1132–1150. Publisher Full Text
- Kovacic Z, Strand R, Völker T:
The circular economy in Europe: critical perspectives on policies and imaginaries. Routledge, 2019; 127–140, 156–171, 175. Publisher Full Text
- Kim MH, Dankel DJ:
Are we ready to be wrong? Extended peer community for quality science-advice in uncertainty.
Futures.
2025; 166: 103520. Publisher Full Text
- Lodge MW:
How to mine the Oceans sustainably.
Scientific American, 2020; last accessed November 15, 2023. Reference Source
- Lodge MW:
World Oceans day 2023, “celebrating women scientists advancing deep-sea research”. The International Seabed Authority, 2023; last accessed November 15, 2023. Reference Source
- Lodge MW, Segerson K, Squires D:
Sharing and preserving the resources in the deep sea: challenges for the International Seabed Authority.
Int J Mar Coast Law.
2017; 32(3): 427–457. Publisher Full Text
- Massimi M:
Perspectival realism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2022. Publisher Full Text
- Massimi M:
The fraught legacy of the common Heritage of Humankind principle for equitable Ocean policy.
Environ Sci Policy.
2024; 153: 103681. Publisher Full Text
- Meyer T:
Elisabeth Mann borgese and the law of the sea. Brill, 2022. Reference Source
- Morgera E, Lily H:
Public participation at the International Seabed Authority: an international human rights law analysis.
Rev Eur Comp Int Environ Law.
2022; 31(3): 374–388. Publisher Full Text
- Mulalap CY, Frere T, Huffer E, et al.:
Traditional knowledge and the BBNJ instrument.
Mar Policy.
2020; 122: 104103. Publisher Full Text
- Pereira ÂG, Saltelli A:
Post-normal institutional identities: quality assurance, reflexivity and ethos of care.
Futures.
2017; 91: 53–61. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
- Pickens C, Lily H, Harrould-Kolieb E, et al.:
From what-if to what-now: status of the deep-sea mining regulations and underlying drivers for outstanding issues.
Mar Policy.
2024; 169: 105967. Publisher Full Text
- Ranganathan S:
Ocean floor grab: international law and the making of an extractive imaginary.
Eur J Int Law.
2019; 30(2): 573–600. Publisher Full Text
- Ranganathan S:
The participatory scope of the common heritage principle.
AJIL Unbound.
2024; 118: 88–92. Publisher Full Text
- Ravetz IR:
What is post-normal science.
Futures-the Journal of Forecasting Planning and Policy.
1999; 31(7): 647–654. Reference Source
- Riofrancos T, Kendall A, Dayemo KK, et al.:
Achieving zero emissions with more mobility and less mining, climate and community project. 2023; last accessed November 15, 2023. Reference Source
- Roest WR, Clark MR, Brekke H:
The scientific challenges of deep-sea mining. In: Routledge handbook of seabed mining and the law of the sea. Routledge, 2023; 11–32. Reference Source
- Saltelli A, Benini L, Funtowicz S, et al.:
The technique is never neutral. How methodological choices condition the generation of narratives for sustainability.
Environ Sci Policy.
2020; 106: 87–98. Publisher Full Text
- Simon-Lledó E, Bett BJ, Huvenne VAI, et al.:
Biological effects 26 years after simulated deep-sea mining.
Sci Rep.
2019; 9(1): 8040. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
- Smith CR, Tunnicliffe V, Colaço A, et al.:
Deep-sea misconceptions cause underestimation of seabed-mining impacts.
Trends Ecol Evol.
2020; 35(10): 853–857. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- Singh PA:
The invocation of the ‘two-year rule’ at the International Seabed Authority: legal consequences and implications.
Int J Mar Coast Law.
2022; 37(3): 375–412. Publisher Full Text
- Sud N, Sánchez-Ancochea D:
Southern discomfort: interrogating the category of the global south.
Dev Change.
2022; 53(6): 1123–1150. Publisher Full Text
- Tilot VC, Guilloux B, Willaert K, et al.:
The concept of Oceanian sovereignty in the context of deep sea mining in the Pacific region.
Front Mar Sci.
2021a; 8: 756072. Publisher Full Text
- Tilot V, Willaert K, Guilloux B, et al.:
Traditional dimensions of seabed resource management in the context of deep sea mining in the Pacific: learning from the socio-ecological interconnectivity between Island communities and the Ocean Realm.
Front Mar Sci.
2021b; 8: 1–27. Publisher Full Text
- Villagomez A, Johnson SM:
Disavowing the doctrine of discovery: indigenous healing, decolonization, and implications for environmental justice in the Pacific Remote Islands Area.
Environ Justice.
2024. Publisher Full Text
- Vonnahme TR, Molari M, Janssen F, et al.:
Effects of a deep-sea mining experiment on seafloor microbial communities and functions after 26 years.
Sci Adv.
2020; 6(18): eaaz5922. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
- Wilde D, Lily H, Craik N, et al.:
Equitable sharing of deep-sea mining benefits: more questions than answers.
Mar Policy.
2023; 151: 105572. Publisher Full Text
