[This is an excerpt from an article in The Round Table: The Commonwealth Journal of International Affairs and Policy Studies.] 

Conclusion

This paper reveals a rich and robust set of shared seabed stewardship principles that have been articulated by Pacific stakeholders over the last two decades. These principles offer a foundation upon which to build regional cooperation and guide collective action on seabed governance across the region. Their negotiation opens space for Pacific leaders and communities to gather and discuss seabed management from a foundation of mutual understanding. Therefore, in both process and outcome, the establishment of shared stewardship principles could progress movement towards a regional approach.

Negotiation of a Pacific Seabed Stewardship Statement offers one avenue for establishing these shared seabed governance principles and enshrining them at a regional level (Louey, Citation2025). Such Statement could define mutually agreed commitments on seabed management and use, with an aim of guiding the region’s approach to deep-sea governance. Like other regional statements including the Boe Declaration (PIFS, Citation2018) and PIF Leaders Ocean Statement (PIFS, Citation2021), this Statement need not be legally binding upon its initial agreement. Consideration may be given over the medium- to long-term to incorporate these principles into a binding regional treaty, such as the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty (PIFS, Citation1985). However, in the interests of initiating regional discussion and ensuring all stakeholders remain at the table, it would be beneficial for this Statement to remain non-binding at first. The Office of the Pacific Ocean Commissioner may be well positioned to lead these negotiations through the PIF architecture, with support from other relevant regional agencies. While not the final object of the Pacific’s journey towards a regional seabed approach, a Pacific Seabed Stewardship Statement could provide a key first step upon which other initiatives could then build.

Sovereignty under the sea The threat of national occupation
Scramble for the Pacific: Small island states play the new Great Game

From the perspective of holistic, integrated seabed governance, it may be beneficial to broaden the scope of such Pacific Seabed Stewardship Statement beyond DSM to the seabed in general. This would enable the region to pursue a more comprehensive approach to seabed governance that accounts for the interconnectedness of deep-sea ecosystems and activities. The deep-sea minerals sector is not the only industry growing at pace through the region. Submarine cable deployment, marine genetic resource exploration, and seabed mapping are also increasing. Many of these sectors present possible transboundary impacts and would be better managed through an integrated approach to Pacific seabed governance. There is also good political reason to expand focus to a regional seabed approach. By decentring DSM in discussions, Pacific stakeholders are offered other areas around which to negotiate and build cooperation. DSM will certainly remain a key part of discussions, but not all of it. A holistic approach may therefore be more effective in keeping diverse stakeholders around the negotiating table and supporting better outcomes across all deep-sea sectors. A Pacific Seabed Stewardship Statement could consolidate and guide the region’s diplomacy within key global seabed forums, including the ISA and BBNJ Conference of the Parties (CoP), while offering a mutually agreed position from which Pacific diplomats can engage in other international groupings such as the Commonwealth and Alliance of Small Island States.

For academia, this paper encourages further research into principles of seabed management and use, both within Oceania and abroad. Continued conversation and refinement of the Pacific seabed principles identified in this article may usefully contribute to policy discussions around a Pacific Seabed Stewardship Statement and enrich discussions around collective seabed governance in the region. Looking further afield, there is potential for similar studies to be undertaken regarding other global collectives and regional groupings. This could build on existing analysis of country perspectives on DSM (Dewulf, Citation2024; Evans Pim & Holmström, Citation2024), while expanding focus beyond seabed minerals extraction to seabed governance more broadly. Additional studies may shed light on the distinctiveness and/or ubiquity of seabed governance principles across the world, facilitating cross-regional coalition building and solidarities. There is also possibility for related studies to build towards collective deep-sea governance in other areas of the world as seabed activity continues to accelerate.

By identifying common principles of seabed management and use, academic research can help build our understanding of where collaboration around deep-sea governance may be possible. Such collective approach could not be more important as seabed activity continues to accelerate, demanding transboundary respect and cooperation. Indeed, the responsible management of deep-sea activities and impacts rests on effective cooperation, with mutually agreed principles offering a key place to start.

Guided by the adage, ‘united we stand, divided we fall’, progress towards a regional seabed approach is critical for all stakeholders of the Pacific. Collective solidarity may be the Pacific’s greatest strength in securing positive outcomes for communities, ecosystems and economies of the region. This is where shared principles of seabed stewardship offer a foundation and Pacific-led pathway forward.

Philippa Louey, Senior Research Associate, Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.