In June 2025, the Third United Nations Ocean Conference (UNOC3) convened in Nice, France, under the joint aegis of France and Costa Rica. This pivotal event grappled with the escalating threats to ocean health—ranging from biodiversity loss and marine pollution to the nascent crisis of deep‑sea mining. As the world teeters toward climate chaos, UNOC3 spotlighted the dichotomy between exploitative false solutions and meaningful better solutions such as moratoria on seabed mining and the expansion of marine protected areas (MPAs). This article synthesizes current literature, conference proceedings, and original analysis, proposing pathways toward great solutions that integrate ocean conservation with equitable development.
Oceans are integral regulators of planetary homeostasis: they sequester approximately one‑third of anthropogenic CO₂ and generate over half the globe’s oxygen. Despite this, only about 3% of the ocean is genuinely protected, falling far short of the 30×30 global target.
Meanwhile, industrial pressures — bottom trawling, pollution, and proposed deep‑sea mining — accelerate degradation.
UNOC3’s mission was clear: convert rhetoric into action. As Guterres stated, “shift from plunder to protection.”
Although the binding Nice Agreement remains modest in length, it underscores a renewed political will—critical in light of previous false solutions like superficial declarations lacking actionable backing.
Deep‑sea mining targets polymetallic nodules, crusts, and sulfides in deeper than 200 m ecosystems. These habitats support diverse, often endemic, communities. Experimental data show that even small‑scale mining leaves visible seabed scars that persist for decades. A Nature study on 44‑year‑old test sites in the Clarion‑Clipperton Zone (CCZ) revealed only partial ecological recovery after four decades.
Seamounts and abyssal plains are important carbon sinks; their disturbance can disrupt carbon burial, releasing CO₂ or even methane — intensifying climate chaos. The deep ocean’s biological pump stores CO₂ across centuries, and mining could compromise this critical service.
Seabed mining in international waters invokes complex legal frameworks governed by the International Seabed Authority (ISA) under UNCLOS. Yet unilateral actions — such as the U.S. executive order bypassing ISA regulation — have unsettled global governance. Small island nations and indigenous coastal communities have invoked the concept of common heritage of humankind, advocating moratoria to protect livelihoods and cultural ties to the sea.
These actions form part of better solutions by replacing the false solution of unchecked exploitation with deliberate
restraint pending genuine scientific understanding.
The ISA is slated to finalize a mining code in July 2025, laying out regulations. The EU-funded Neptune Mission Ocean, announced at UNOC3, will strengthen scientific capacity to map deep‑sea ecosystems—informing future management.
The Nature (2025) study underscores that even low-impact mining has enduring consequences. Recovery within 44 years was limited to smaller fauna; larger sessile organisms remain diminished. Other research confirms that sediment plumes and noise pollution disrupt water-column trophic webs, extending far beyond mined areas.
Disturbing abyssal sediments can significantly reduce oceanic carbon sequestration rates and mobilize ancient carbon stores. Abrupt methane release could exacerbate greenhouse gas concentrations.
Economic narratives promote seabed mining as a green-tech enabler, but EASAC and other expert bodies caution that terrestrial recycling and substitution — great solutions — may offer more sustainable alternatives. Governance frameworks remain incomplete: the draft ISA mining code is contested, and the U.S. initiative signals potential fragmentation.
Ratification of the BBNJ Treaty is essential. Once in force—projected in early 2026—the treaty enables legally binding MPAs and marine spatial planning in international waters.
The precautionary principle is academically robust in high‑uncertainty contexts. Temporary bans enabling science-informed policy avoid irreversible harm. Moratoria serve as a bridge toward consensus-based resource governance — an evidence-backed better solution.
Rather than defaulting to seabed mining, policymakers must explore:
This systemic perspective may produce great solutions that advance energy transitions without compromising ocean health.
Initiatives like Neptune Mission Ocean can underpin adaptive regulatory frameworks: integrated research spanning biology, sediment transport, carbon flux, and socioeconomic dimensions. Collaborative partnerships across jurisdictions and technical domains are foundational for meaningful governance.
UNOC3 marked a critical juncture: it challenged the false solution of deep‑sea mining by embracing scientific caution and
sustainable alternatives. While commitments—ratifying treaties, expanding MPAs, imposing moratoria — are promising, their efficacy depends on follow‑through.
Key imperatives remain:
These converge into better and great solutions that safeguard ocean ecosystems without sacrificing social and economic welfare.