Deep-Sea Mining and Resource Extraction – The Pacific at a Crossroads: Q&A with Viliame Kasanawaqa

In this Knowledge Hub feature, Viliame Kasanawaqa, a Doctoral Researcher at the Macmillan Brown Centre of Pacific Studies at the University of Canterbury, examines how Pacific Peoples understand and relate to the deep ocean, and what is at stake as deep-sea mining advances.

Drawing on Pacific worldviews and Indigenous knowledge systems, Viliame situates deep-sea mining as a profound human security issue, exposing how extractivist narratives and structural power imbalances in global ocean governance threaten ecological integrity, cultural identity, and community autonomy across Pacific Island nations. His analysis foregrounds Pacific-led approaches that centre custodianship, relationality, and intergenerational responsibility in decisions about the deep sea.

How do Pacific Peoples understand and relate to the deep ocean, and why is it so significant culturally, spiritually and environmentally? 

For Pacific Island Countries (PICs), the ocean is not just a resource—it’s a life source, a sacred space, and a geopolitical frontier. Indigenous people and local communities see the seabed not as an empty frontier but as kin, ancestor, and life-source, embedded in cultural memory and spiritual significance. Deep-sea mining threatens this relationship. 

True environmental security in the Pacific must go beyond technocratic solutions. It should be grounded in Pacific epistemologies—worldviews that emphasise relationality, custodianship, and collective well-being. Security here in the Pacific is socially constructed, shaped by history and culture, not just by military or economic metrics. 

What are some of the main ways deep-sea mining could affect Pacific communities, ecosystems and regional interconnectedness? 

One of the biggest concerns is sediment plumes and toxic discharge. When mining machines scrape the seabed, they stir up massive clouds of sediment that can travel hundreds of kilometres, carrying heavy metals and toxins.

Why does this matter? Because climate change is already shifting tuna migration patterns toward the Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ)—the very area earmarked for DSM in the high seas. Research indicates that species like bigeye, skipjack, and yellowfin tuna are converging in these zones as ocean temperatures rise.

This creates a collision of risks:

• Food security: Sediment and toxins could disrupt tuna spawning grounds and migratory routes, threatening a critical protein source for Pacific communities.
• Economic stability: Tuna fisheries underpin regional economies. Any disruption could ripple through trade and livelihoods.
• Cultural and spiritual ties: Tuna is more than food—it’s part of Pacific identity and ceremony. Harm to these species erodes cultural continuity.

For Pacific Island Countries, this isn’t just an environmental issue—it’s a security challenge that touches sovereignty, regional solidarity, and ecological integrity.

How do Pacific knowledge systems and traditional ocean knowledge shape how the deep sea should be cared for and governed? 

Pacific Indigenous Peoples and local communities hold deep relational knowledge of the ocean—knowledge grounded in custodianship, ceremony, and intergenerational responsibility. However, this wisdom is often sidelined by technocratic and investor-driven narratives.

Global frameworks now recognize the importance of these perspectives. The Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) commits to respecting Indigenous rights and knowledge systems, with targets like Target 3 (area-based conservation) and Target 22 (participation and leadership of Indigenous Peoples and local communities) aligning with Pacific calls for inclusive governance. Similarly, the BBNJ Agreement (High Seas Treaty), which enters into force in 2026, requires environmental impact assessments and explicitly calls for the inclusion of traditional knowledge in managing biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction.

A recent example from Fiji illustrates how these principles are being applied locally. The government has moved to repeal the Surfing Decree—a law that previously stripped customary owners of control over iconic surf reefs like Cloudbreak. The new Commercial Use of Marine Areas Bill restores proprietary rights to iTaukei (Indigenous Fijians), ensuring fair compensation and participation in marine resource governance. This shift signals a broader move toward Pacific-led, culturally grounded governance that values customary ownership and negotiated use.

Together, these global instruments and local reforms reinforce the need for governance rooted in relational ethics, collective custodianship, and cultural integrity. Inclusion of Indigenous Peoples and local communities must go beyond tokenism—it requires structural leadership and respect for deep-world heritage in ocean governance.

What does “security” mean from a Pacific perspective when it comes to the ocean and industries like deep-sea mining? 

Pacific security is interconnected and multifaceted, shaped by communal values, historical experiences, and external pressures. It is not about military might or territorial dominance—it is about safeguarding relationships: between people, the environment, the ocean, and future generations. In this worldview, security means peace, dignity, and custodianship, not rivalry or conquest.

Environmental security is often portrayed as a safeguard, yet in the context of DSM, it becomes a double-edged sword. While DSM is framed globally as a solution for the green energy transition, this narrative largely originates outside the Pacific. Pacific Islander critics warn that mining could devastate fragile deep-sea ecosystems and sever cultural and spiritual ties to the ocean. More troubling, securitizing DSM under the banner of environmental protection risks entrenching external control, sidelining Indigenous governance systems and undermining Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC).

Pacific leaders have responded with the Ocean of Peace Declaration, calling for a region free from great-power rivalry, where development reflects Pacific values of unity, dignity, and custodianship. This declaration is a normative shield against securitization that instrumentalizes the ocean for strategic gain.

However, recent moves by the United States to accelerate seabed mining outside UNCLOS frameworks raise sovereignty and governance concerns. If powerful states bypass global norms, Pacific nations risk losing agency over ocean governance. This will see the Pacific as a sacrificial zone, something that was seen during the nuclear testing days. Without strong, Pacific-led rules, resource wealth could shift from opportunity to vulnerability—turning the ocean into a contested frontier rather than a shared commons.

For the Pacific, security is not about who controls the seabed—it’s about who cares for it. It is about relational sovereignty, intergenerational justice, and resisting narratives that militarise the ocean. The challenge is clear: keep security rooted in custodianship, not conquest.

What values or principles should guide future decisions about the deep sea in the Pacific? 

Future decisions about the deep ocean must be Pacific-led and grounded in values that go beyond resource extraction. These include:

• Ecological Integrity: Protecting fragile deep-sea ecosystems and ensuring biodiversity conservation.
• Cultural and Spiritual Values: Recognizing the ocean as kin, ancestor, and life-source—not just a commodity.
• Economic Justice and Decent Work: Any ocean-based industry must align with the ILO Decent Work Agenda, ensuring fair employment, social protection, and community benefit-sharing. Pacific economies depend on fisheries, tourism, and marine livelihoods—DSM must not undermine these foundations.
• Regional Solidarity: Decisions should strengthen Pacific unity and uphold sovereignty, resisting external pressures and unilateral actions.
• Intergenerational Responsibility: Governance must safeguard ocean health for future generations, honoring ancestral obligations.
• Inclusive Governance: Frameworks should amplify Indigenous Peoples and local communities—not as token participants, but as leaders shaping policy and practice.

The Pacific must define its own oceanic future—grounded in Indigenous knowledge, ecological stewardship, and collective responsibility. To achieve a just and sustainable ocean future, we need governance that centers relational ethics, custodianship, and social equity alongside environmental protection.