Seabed Minerals conference in Bergen
Post by Karl Attard
I recently attended the 2026 Seabed Minerals Conference in Bergen (24-26 March), where regulators, scientists, lawyers, and industry representatives gathered to discuss the future of deep-sea mineral exploration and possible exploitation. I presented work on benthic oxygen fluxes in polymetallic nodules as part of our DFF-funded project ‘Arctic seafloor carbon cycling under increased anthropogenic pressures’.
What struck me most was not simply the familiar debate over whether seabed mining should proceed, but how clearly the field is moving into a new phase: one defined by institution-building, technical capacity, and strategic positioning.
Unsurprisingly, a central theme was governance. The International Seabed Authority is trying to position itself as the central body for responsible stewardship, with strong emphasis on regional environmental management plans, environmental thresholds, monitoring technologies, and the eventual completion of the Mining Code. At the same time, national regimes are clearly gaining momentum. Norway is accelerating mapping in its EEZ, the Cook Islands continue to build a precautionary but enabling governance framework, and the United States appears to be relying on its own legal authority under DSHMRA for nodule activities beyond national jurisdiction. Rather than a single coherent global regime, the picture is one of overlapping systems seeking either complementarity or strategic room to maneuver.
Second, environmental management is no longer being discussed only in abstract terms. Several speakers pointed to more concrete tools now entering the conversation: regional environmental plans, Areas of Particular Environmental Interest, threshold values for toxicity, turbidity, particle settling, underwater noise, and light pollution, and zone-of-impact approaches. The tone was still somewhat contested, but the discussion appears to be shifting from “what should the environmental controls be?” to “what metrics, thresholds, and monitoring systems will actually govern activity?” That is an important transition, because it suggests that parts of the field are preparing for regulation in operational terms, not only debating principle.
Third, industry and government speakers alike repeatedly framed seabed minerals through strategic-materials demand. Battery metals, electrification, defense-critical minerals, and supply-chain resilience were presented as the major drivers. This framing was especially visible in talks on Li-ion supply chains, EU/US/NATO critical minerals lists, and repeated comparisons between seabed resources and land-based mining in terms of ore grade, footprint, and long-term economic value. The conference overall leaned toward the argument that recycling alone will not meet future demand, and that seabed resources are being positioned as a strategic supplement rather than a niche curiosity.
Whether commercial mining proceeds or not, the infrastructures of knowledge, law, and technological oversight are already being assembled. That makes seabed minerals important not only as a resource question, but as a revealing test of how ocean governance, strategic materials policy, and environmental responsibility are being negotiated in real time.
