King's College London

Deep-sea mining, often billed as a pathway to shared global prosperity, is facing doubts after new analysis suggests the financial gains - especially for countries in the global south - could be far smaller than promised.

A report, commissioned by Greenpeace International and co-authored by King’s College London economist Dr Ben Tippet, warns that the financial system under consideration at the International Seabed Authority leaves low and middle income countries with “marginal and unpredictable” returns.

The report examines how revenues from potential deep-sea mining operations would be distributed if commercial extraction were approved. Under current proposals, less than 6% of revenues from deep sea mining are transferred to the International Seabed Authority.

After the Authority deducts its administrative expenses and funds a series of internal mechanisms, only a small fraction of the income would be redistributed to member states.

Modelling conducted for the report shows that the expected payments to middle and low income nations are so small that they would have no meaningful impact on national budgets.

Dr Tippet said: “An average countries within the African Group at the ISA would receive a few hundred thousand dollars a year in the early phase of mining, rising to only a few million over the long term.”

These amounts represent roughly 0.001 per cent of GDP for most countries, he added.

The situation for Pacific Island States is even less. “Many Pacific nations sit closest to the deep-sea mining zones and would face the greatest ecological risks, yet several would be expected to receive only tens of thousands of dollars annually if mining proceeds,” Dr Tippet said.

The report highlights that some states stand to receive less money in a year than the salary of a single corporate chief executive.

Dr Tippet says this comparison captures the scale of the imbalance, and that a system intended to promote global equity instead offers communities in the Pacific little more than “token compensation”.

The findings come at a critical moment, as negotiations at the International Seabed Authority continue over whether to approve a mining code that would allow commercial extraction of minerals from the deep ocean for the first time.

Supporters claim that deep-sea mining could supply minerals needed for renewable technologies, while critics argue that the environmental risks remain poorly understood and that the economic benefits are overstated.

The authors warn that, in its current form, the financial model fails to meet the promise set out in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which designated deep-sea minerals as the common heritage of humankind. That designation was intended to ensure fair distribution of economic benefits, particularly to countries without the capacity to undertake mining themselves.

“Instead, the proposed system is one in which private firms secure the overwhelming majority of the value, governments carry the environmental risk, and the benefits to poorer nations are negligible,” said Dr Tippet.

He argues that the imbalance raises serious questions about the legitimacy of progressing with commercial extraction, especially in regions where marine ecosystems underpin local economies, cultures and food security.

Download the report:

Equity, Benefit-Sharing and Financial Architecture in the International Seabed Area