Paper short abstract:

This paper will discuss the International Seabed Authority mining code, a framework to regulate deep-sea mining, and consider how re-framing underwater more-than-human kin within the code may lead to more sustainable futures and stronger kinships with our oceans.

Paper long abstract:

Currently, the International Seabed Authority (ISA) council meets three times a year to negotiate on draft exploitation regulations, or the so-called mining code; a document that outlines a framework for mining polymetallic nodules on the deep seabed in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ). As the many state representatives meet for two weeks in March, July and November, many points are addressed: how will mining take place? How can contractors' work be monitored? what environmental thresholds should be respected? etc. State and NGO representatives also meet via Zoom to discuss a few different topics; one of these is currently a discussion on "In/Tangible" Underwater Cultural Heritage (UCH) and its place within the mining code. During these discussions, different voices are heard, more than in the ISA council meeting room itself, which is structured in such a way that some activists may not always be heard. On Zoom, however, the discussions develop further and many Pacific Indigenous Leaders have started to question the terminology of "In/Tangible" UCH.

Following these discussions, this paper wishes to investigate the implications of what "In/Tangible" UCH means in the context of the mining code. It will focus on the UNESCO definition, its limitations, and put it in dialogue with Pacific Indigenous Leaders' comments on the impossibility of disentangling "tangible" and "intangible". This paper suggests that by considering marine life as more-than-human kin, following the Pacific Leaders' suggestions, we may be able to reframe our connections to the seabed and challenge objectifying policy language to envision more sustainable futures.