Last Updated on June 12, 2026
As governments and corporations race to secure minerals needed for the global energy transition, Indigenous peoples across the Pacific are emerging as some of the most influential voices shaping the future of seabed mining.
The debate centers on vast deposits of nickel, cobalt, manganese and other minerals found on the world’s seabeds. Mining companies and governments argue these resources are needed to manufacture electric vehicle batteries, renewable energy infrastructure and other technologies intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Opponents, however, warn that deep-sea mining could cause irreversible damage to ecosystems that remain among the least understood on Earth.
From Kanak leaders in New Caledonia to Māori communities in Aotearoa, Indigenous nations are also increasingly framing the issue as one of sovereignty and self-determination, arguing that the oceans are not merely repositories of minerals but living cultural landscapes that sustain communities, identities and ways of life.
One of the strongest Indigenous-backed victories against seabed mining came in New Caledonia in 2025.
The French Pacific territory adopted legislation imposing a 50-year ban on commercial seabed mining throughout its exclusive economic zone, one of the world’s largest marine jurisdictions.
The measure received support from Kanak political leaders and independence advocates, who argued that the territory’s rich marine biodiversity and extensive coral reef systems should be protected from industrial exploitation. The law prohibits commercial prospecting, exploration and extraction while permitting only non-invasive scientific research.
Supporters described the legislation as a landmark assertion of environmental responsibility and local control over natural resources at a time when mining companies are increasingly seeking access to critical minerals beneath the ocean floor.
Indigenous resistance has also played a decisive role in shaping New Zealand’s approach to seabed mining.
For more than a decade, Māori iwi and hapū have opposed proposals by Trans-Tasman Resources to extract iron sands from the South Taranaki Bight, arguing that the project threatened marine ecosystems and culturally significant species.
In February 2026, a government fast-track panel rejected the company’s application, marking a major setback for the seabed mining industry and a significant victory for Māori communities that had fought the proposal through multiple court challenges and regulatory hearings.
The decision reinforced long-standing Māori concerns rooted in kaitiakitanga, a principle of guardianship that emphasizes responsibilities to protect the natural world for future generations.
The ruling was followed by renewed efforts to permanently prohibit seabed mining in New Zealand waters, with Māori political leaders arguing that both Indigenous stewardship principles and scientific uncertainty support a precautionary approach.
While some Pacific nations have moved toward restrictions, the Cook Islands has become a focal point in the growing competition for critical minerals.
In February 2026, the Cook Islands signed a non-binding agreement with the United States concerning cooperation on critical minerals and supply chains. The arrangement prompted concern among regional advocacy organizations and environmental groups, which warned that the agreement could increase pressure to develop the country’s seabed mineral resources.
Critics argued that the agreement appeared to shift discussions from whether mining should occur to how it might be implemented.
Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown rejected those concerns, stating that the agreement does not commit the country to mining and that any future development would remain subject to domestic laws, environmental reviews and regulatory oversight.
The controversy reflects broader geopolitical competition among major powers seeking access to minerals essential for battery technologies and renewable energy systems. The Cook Islands has previously entered into mineral-related agreements with China, placing the nation at the center of growing international interest in Pacific seabed resources.
The Cook Islands debate is unfolding amid a wider regional movement calling for stronger protections for the ocean.
French Polynesian President Moetai Brotherson has urged Pacific governments to support a regional moratorium on deep-sea mining, arguing that island nations should not risk marine ecosystems that support fisheries, tourism and Indigenous livelihoods.
French Polynesia joins countries including Palau and Vanuatu in advocating a precautionary approach until scientists have a clearer understanding of the environmental consequences of deep-sea extraction.
Throughout the Pacific, Indigenous organizations and civil society groups have increasingly connected seabed mining to a longer history of extractive industries operating on Indigenous lands and waters. Activists argue that promises of economic development have frequently been accompanied by environmental degradation and the marginalization of Indigenous decision-making.
The growing Indigenous movement is also influencing discussions at the International Seabed Authority (ISA), the United Nations-affiliated body responsible for regulating mining activities in international waters.
As the ISA continues negotiations over a mining code that could govern future commercial extraction, Pacific nations have become increasingly influential participants in the debate.
In June 2026, ISA officials emphasized that Pasifika nations possess significant power to shape the future of seabed mining regulations through their participation in negotiations.
The authority remains divided over how — or whether — commercial mining should proceed. Supporters argue that deep-sea minerals are necessary for the global transition away from fossil fuels, while opponents contend that environmental risks remain poorly understood and potentially irreversible.
For many Indigenous representatives, the debate extends beyond technical regulations. They argue that international governance frameworks must recognize Indigenous knowledge systems, stewardship responsibilities and cultural relationships with the ocean.
At the same time, pressure to open the deep sea to mining continues to grow.
Among the most prominent advocates is Canadian-based The Metals Company, which has pushed for commercial extraction of polymetallic nodules from the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, a vast area of the Pacific Ocean believed to contain significant deposits of nickel, cobalt and manganese.
The company argues that these minerals could help meet rising demand generated by electric vehicles, battery storage systems and renewable energy infrastructure.
Environmental organizations, scientists and Indigenous leaders counter that commercial mining is advancing faster than scientific understanding of the ecosystems involved. More than 30 countries have now called for a pause, moratorium or ban on deep-sea mining until stronger safeguards and additional research are in place.
The debate intensified further after the United States signaled support for accelerating deep-sea mining permits outside the ISA framework, raising concerns among some Pacific governments and legal experts about the future of international ocean governance.
For Indigenous peoples throughout Oceania, the fight over seabed mining increasingly resembles earlier battles over mining, dams, logging and fossil fuel development on traditional territories.
Many Indigenous leaders argue that the ocean cannot be separated from culture, identity and responsibility. They view proposals to industrialize the deep sea as an extension of the same extractive model that has historically targeted Indigenous lands for resource development while limiting Indigenous authority over decision-making.
As governments seek new sources of critical minerals for the clean energy transition, Indigenous communities are insisting that the future of the ocean floor cannot be determined solely by market demand or geopolitical competition.
The industry must also address questions of sovereignty, stewardship and justice.
Across the world right now, Indigenous peoples are facing a renewed assault on their lands, rights, and ways of life.
From extractive industries pushing deeper into ancestral territories, to governments rolling back hard-won protections,
the threat is global—and it is growing.
What makes this moment especially dangerous is how little attention it receives.
Stories like this are disappearing in real time. Mainstream media
barely covers it and the coverage is fragmented. The public is left without the context
needed to understand what is truly at stake.
That is exactly why IC Magazine exists..
For more than 20 years, IC has reported on Indigenous struggles worldwide — consistently, independently, and without compromise.
We don’t follow news cycles; we trace patterns. We don’t sensationalize; we provide context.
And when the world looks away, we stay focused.
But this work is increasingly difficult to sustain.
We refuse to lock our reporting behind a paywall. We don’t sell access through subscriptions.
And we don’t answer to advertisers. IC Magazine survives solely because readers like you choose to
support independent Indigenous journalism.
Please donate today if you can. Every contribution helps us to continue this crucial work.
Thank you,
John Ahni Schertow
Founder and Editor in Chief
