Mr. President, Madam Secretary-General, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen Delegates,
First of all, I would like to express my pleasure to be back here in Kingston, at the headquarters of the International Seabed Authority, after my first mission in 2022 to present the French position on the exploration and exploitation of the Area. Today, I take this opportunity to reaffirm to our new Secretary-General, dear Leticia, our full confidence and friendship to help us steer our great ship safely through these somewhat turbulent times. It is not easy. But we are strong, because we are united. We are a fine crew. With at the helm, a woman of character and vision.
Before joining you this morning, yesterday I wished to make a symbolic pilgrimage to Montego Bay, this dear Jamaican land to which law, governance, and the protection of the Ocean owe so much. I went, with gratitude and emotion, to the site of Rose Hall, by this magnificent Atlantic Ocean, where on December 10, 1982, 119 countries—including Jamaica, of course, and my own country, France—signed the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and finally decided—after so many centuries of predation and unlawful appropriation—on a fair distribution of the Ocean. It was here that exclusive economic zones were born, attributed to coastal States, but also the International Seabed Authority. By going to Montego Bay, I also wished to pay tribute with you to our illustrious predecessors: Maltese Ambassador Arvid Pardo, whose visionary 1970 declaration before the UN General Assembly laid down the principle of the common heritage of mankind, on which the ISA’s legal framework is based; Singaporean Ambassador Tommy Koh, President of the Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea, who would help bring the Montego Bay Convention to life; and Fijian diplomat Ambassador Satya Nandan, who negotiated the 1994 Agreement opening the Convention to ratification and who served three terms as the first Secretary-General of the Authority. These diplomats, jurists, legislators, researchers, courageous and visionary men and women of politics, who for years, amid great adversity, made possible the signing of this historic treaty, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, known as the “Montego Bay Convention.” The international community thus gave a Constitution to the Oceans. Some countries, notably the United States, opposed it. But it made no difference, and the Convention was widely signed, proving that even if one is the world’s largest maritime domain, one cannot decide for all others. However, twelve years and the 1994 Agreement were necessary before the Convention received enough ratifications to enter into force.
1994! Thus, it took nearly five centuries for Jamaica’s history and geography to open a new, and happy, chapter of the Ocean. Listen carefully! Exactly 500 years earlier, just a few kilometers from Montego Bay—what an astonishing coincidence!—on May 5, 1494, Christopher Columbus landed during his second voyage at Saint Ann’s Bay, now Discovery Bay, and claimed Jamaica for Spain. The news of his conquests, especially of Hispaniola, today Haiti, alerted his sponsors in Spain. One month after arriving in Jamaica, on June 7, 1494, at Tordesillas in Castile, under the aegis of Pope Alexander VI, an eponymous treaty would define a world dividing line along a meridian west of the Cape Verde Islands: territories west of this meridian were attributed to the Crown of Castile, Spain, including Columbus’s discoveries, while those east belonged to Portugal. It is thus that Brazil, your beautiful birth country, Madam Secretary-General, dear Leticia, came to speak Portuguese.
The two great powers of the time thus validated by somewhat unilateral law—the least one can say—the use of force and the colonial division of the world through the great discoveries of the time. Two countries appropriated the world; that is what should make us reflect on a future that would be binary! In short, the richest, most powerful, most determined, and best-armed at sea decided the ownership of the sea. Africa, Asia, the Pacific, the Indian Ocean, the Americas—in short, the vast majority of the world—had to obey. This history, we do not want to relive; we must never relive it. Yet it is within reach—not of cannons, but of contracts, deals between great powers and questionable mining companies. Recent events show that anything is possible!
While the 3rd United Nations Ocean Conference recently concluded in mid-June in Nice, co-organized by France and Costa Rica, President Emmanuel Macron wished that our country’s voice be heard here today in our Assembly. The moment is truly singular. A mixture of optimism and concern. All the more reason to gather around the very large camp of reason, wisdom, and the common good. I believe we embody that here in Kingston.
Indeed, a month ago, during a conference regarded as the most ambitious and committed ever for ocean protection, 64 heads of state and government, 174 countries, and 10,000 delegates from around the world—including many here today—chose to move forward, to show boldness and collective intelligence. Only one country voted against the ambitious political declaration of UNOC3 in New York: the United States, who were in fact absent from Nice after banning the SDGs from their political lexicon. What a loss, what sadness! But as multilateralism courageously withstands the onslaught of predators, speculators, and short-termists, Nice was a shining success. A success of universal reason. For the Ocean, Humanity’s common good. For that of Montego Bay, of course, not Tordesillas.
On many issues, unanimously or with large majorities and strong coalitions, we have taken great decisions to restore and “safeguard” our ocean. A historic agreement to decarbonize maritime transport so that by 2050 this vital activity for global trade will be carbon neutral. Treaties ratified or strengthened to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, the proliferation of sargassum and invasive species, and to save endangered species. A strong mobilization so that this August in Geneva, the international community commits to fighting the disastrous plastic pollution of our seas. The commitment of many companies and financial organizations to advance SDG 14. The creation of important new marine protected areas to reach the goal of protecting 30% of our seas by 2030. The formation of a large coalition of cities, regions, and coastal states, including the city of Kingston, represented by its mayor, whom I thank for his commitment, to adapt and respond to rising sea levels. The production of new scientific, digital, technological, oceanographic, and satellite tools to better understand the ocean, its vulnerabilities and strengths, its pressures, solutions, resources, mysteries, and wonders.
Because the Ocean is our common good. This common good does not belong, let me remind you, to the richest countries, the largest maritime domains, coastal states alone, or the best equipped scientifically, industrially, commercially, or militarily. This common good does not belong to companies who would empty it of its fish, life, resources, or solutions for the sole interest of their shareholders. The ocean is about reflecting together, women and men of all walks of life, on how to live harmoniously with this indispensable ally of life and the planet, to live profitably but, obviously, sustainably.
This common good that is the Ocean, of which we have responsibility, you know, is made of three great spaces:
- Territorial seas and exclusive economic zones.
- The High Seas.
- The Deep Seabed.
Regarding exclusive economic zones, it all began at Montego Bay, for our beloved Ocean and its governance. By defining for each coastal State the areas to be placed under its sovereignty and jurisdiction, the Convention also granted specific rights to landlocked States, archipelagic States, and developing States. But it also chose to protect the deep seabed by deciding on the creation of our Authority. We have all collectively worked well for thirty years, and I believe we can congratulate ourselves for having succeeded in exploring and protecting this common heritage of humanity. Bravo to the International Seabed Authority!
We will be able to do the same in a few weeks regarding the High Seas, the third space of this magnificent oceanic common good. This will be the implementing agreement to the Convention on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction, better known as BBNJ, and that some already call the “Nice Treaty,” so decisive was UNOC3 in mobilizing, two years after its signing, dozens of States to ratify it. I am delighted that Jamaica, our host State, through the hands of its Minister of Foreign Affairs, has deposited its instrument of ratification in Nice. You have set an example, Jamaican friends! For those who have not yet ratified or deposited their instruments of ratification, I say: do it now, be present, be in this historic photo. On September 23 in New York, at the United Nations General Assembly, our heads of State and Government will meet to celebrate the 60th ratification that will allow this treaty to enter into force. Be actors in this great moment! While it took twelve years for the Montego Bay Convention to enter into force, the international community has managed in two years to give binding force to the decisive strengthening of governance and protection of the High Seas! A sign that humankind still has a good dose of reason. After Nice, in 2025, 50% of the Earth’s surface will finally have a new legal governance framework conducive to protection. Fifty percent of the Earth’s surface is no small matter, you will agree!
So, I ask you, friends and peoples of the Ocean: do we want History, which admittedly sometimes moves backward, to record that it is in Kingston that the destruction of the deep seabed will be hastily decided under the aegis of our Authority, while the same United Nations member States chose in Nice to protect the High Seas? Do we want to accept this astonishing contradiction? To save the water column while resting it on a seriously damaged ocean floor? Do we seriously want, under pressure from mercantile agents, to start tomorrow the extraction of minerals that will irreversibly damage this precious and protective ecosystem? Think, Baby, Think! Don’t break your toys! Do not entrust your future to a mining company whose nickname, by those who have suffered financially and environmentally from it, is “The Misfortune Company.”
The answer is now known. For three years, over 900 scientists worldwide from all disciplines have worked to assess the impact of such activity. I am not talking about reports commissioned by companies, or initiated with them intentionally by our organization. No, I speak of the most objective and inclusive work possible, taking into account the best available scientific knowledge. The Global Deep-Sea Mining Consultation, a report led by the IPOS (International Panel on Ocean Sustainability) and the highly respected researcher Bruno David, was presented at SOS Ocean in Paris this March: it shows that the abyssal depths, already impacted by plastics and organic pollutants, are not an isolated system, that the entire planet—the carbon cycle, ocean currents, oxygen and nutrients, unique and unrecorded living species, even possible black oxygen production—would be impacted by this new mining activity. This leap into the unknown, without a parachute, would lead to the destruction of marine habitats, their ecological functions and biodiversity, as well as nodules that take a million years to grow from 1 to 10 millimeters. This extraction would affect the entire water column, impacting the food chain, migration routes of marine species, and also the interests of our fishermen and indigenous populations, who carry invaluable values. It is to these indigenous populations, to these peoples of the Ocean, our friends from the Caribbean, the Pacific, the Indian Ocean, and the African coastal and island States, who have such a unique relationship with the Ocean and the seabed, that I wish we finally give voice within our Assembly.
Would we want to be right against the opinion of the most disinterested researchers, as well as many responsible and committed large companies opposing this risky exploitation? Would we want to be right against the interests of the High Seas Treaty or the Convention on Biological Diversity, against those of our exclusive economic zones? Would we want to be right in the absence of any economic logic, transparency, financial equity, or social legitimacy? To violently snatch hastily some polymetallic nodules, sulfide deposits, and cobalt crusts, at the risk of resounding economic failures, are we ready to lie to our children? To claim, for example, that deep seabed mining would contribute to the green transition? To deny that the socio-economic consequences for our own coastal populations would be disastrous? That this exploitation would also be totally unfair, favoring about fifteen countries only and likely to generate significant geopolitical tensions with all others? The conclusions of this eminent scientific report, published early this year 2025 and accessible to all, are clear, I quote: “Current green transition strategies favor the Global North by maintaining a certain mode of consumption while exploiting the resources of the Global South. The Global Deep-Sea Mining Consultation recommends a moratorium or precautionary pause on deep-sea mining for at least 10 to 15 years, or until sufficient knowledge is available to make informed decisions.” This wise recommendation, I confess to you, dear friends, definitively convinced us, convinced President Emmanuel Macron to adopt this position.
So here in Montego Bay, in our Assembly, I address the majority of countries here—you are over 150, no longer an overwhelming majority but almost all of us!—you who do not hold exploration permits and particularly you the most vulnerable countries. Deep seabed mining is, for you, a deceptive game at this time. Those who promise you benefits, equitable resource sharing, fortune, are shamelessly lying to you. What interest would you have to hasten the exploitation process for the sole profit of a few countries and their companies as long as a fair benefit-sharing mechanism is not agreed? Have you really received ironclad assurances that they would share the currently unexploitable resources of these deep seabeds? All this is still far from clear and defined.
It is one of these sixteen countries, France, which holds an exploration license, speaking to you. As you know, in 2022 the President of the Republic chose to ban seabed mining in our exclusive economic zone, with full support from the local parliaments of Polynesia and New Caledonia, the latter having voted a 50-year moratorium. President Macron also wished to convince the ISA States that this ban applies to the Area. France is a large economy. Would we be so unreasonable or masochistic if we had not thought first about renouncing seabed mining in our own exclusive economic zone? This zone, the world’s second largest after that of the United States, is actually the most significant for a country regarding its seabeds: 93% of our EEZ, or 9.5 million km², lies at depths greater than 1,000 meters. Do you think if the French economy could be satisfied without the certainty of risking serious harm to the planet both economically and environmentally, we would not, with the two important exploration licenses we have held for thirty years at the ISA, have chosen to exploit these areas as quickly as possible?
Aware in 2023 that our ban on exploitation was difficult for some countries to join, but mindful of our principle of collective responsibility, we therefore supported the creation of a coalition, now 37 countries strong, calling for a moratorium or at least a precautionary pause on this exploitation. Whatever the terms, we will find words that suit all. This is the coalition to which we call on all countries, especially the vast majority who do not hold exploration permits, to join. When you return to your capitals, dear delegates, propose to your authorities to adopt this position of wisdom and reason. Three arguments:
- It is proven that science still needs time to ensure we do not commit the irreparable.
- At this stage of discussion, we do not want to write a blank check to a few major financial, technological, and scientific powers without assurance of real and equitable sharing of possible resources.
- Three countries—United Kingdom, Germany, and France—holders of permits, have themselves joined this coalition. Why should our country, which holds none, be on the wrong side of history?
The principle of this coalition is very simple. We forbid nothing. We ban nothing. But there is no urgency. We give ourselves time. To learn, to explore seabeds whose total surface we barely know 5%! These critical materials found on the ocean floor are not lacking today. No serious company is technologically and economically ready to embark on this exploitation process. A major country like China, which holds five exploration permits and respects with great vigilance the United Nations legal framework, intends to regulate seabed activities to the highest possible technical and environmental standards. We must take time. Time to draft a mining code much more rigorous and robust than what some want to rush. Let us ensure such a code exists in ten or fifteen years, having taken all necessary scientific assurances. Let us use this precautionary pause, or moratorium as civil society calls it, to provide all countries without exploration permits—about 150 member states here represented—the proof that the 16 permit-holding countries will grant them benefits, and especially which benefits. Let us then meet again in 2035, in 2040, as the majority will wish. Until then, we have work to do.
Meanwhile, I make a proposal, which I make to our new Secretary-General. Let us change the image of our Authority, which is not as good as it should be. Let us move beyond the often caricatural and sterile debate between NGOs, States, and contracting companies. Let us organize in the summer of 2026, in Kingston, in one year, alongside our General Assembly, a great moment as serious as it is festive dedicated to the deep seabed. Let us call it “Magic Abyssal 2026”! Let us encourage reflection and learning by organizing the first great scientific forum with the world’s best specialists on the subject of the seabed. Let us inspire by inviting artists, filmmakers, photographers, musicians, dancers, men and women of culture and science to celebrate the exploration of the abyss. I am certain many will want to make this meeting possible on the most important issue we face today in our relationship with the Ocean. Let us make Kingston the capital of the deep Ocean, the capital of the Wonders of the Ocean!
Finally, to be direct. The United States seriously challenged the mission of the International Seabed Authority by signing a decree on April 24 opening the possibility of mining minerals in the deep ocean outside the international legal framework established by the ISA. The French Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs, Jean-Noël Barrot, reacted clearly to this American announcement, I quote: “By calling for the issuance of exploitation permits outside jurisdictional waters and outside the ISA framework, the United States violate the principle of non-appropriation of the High Seas and weaken the institutional framework of the law of the sea, to everyone’s detriment. No one can arrogate the right to destroy the oceans by exploiting them, especially those over which they have no territorial rights.”
Although the United States is not a Party to our Authority, their current position must not harm our organization and its unity. Let us keep a cool head, as the Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said! La cabeza fría! Keep a cool head! If we are firm on our principles, do not act hastily under threat, recall law and collective responsibility, give ourselves ten or fifteen years for a protective mining code, advance knowledge of these deep seabeds, and celebrate their importance, we will win hands down. Referring to the optimistic and probably unrealistic figures provided by the U.S. administration, do we want, against our will, to see the U.S. GDP increase by $300 billion over the next 10 years? And all this only to try to get ahead of China in this field, which itself has announced nothing like this and respects the rules? The Ocean is not here to affirm the leadership of one country at the expense of all others and the multilateral process. The Treaty of Tordesillas is over. The Montego Bay Convention speaks the truth today. Our common heritage. Resource sharing for all, not appropriation by a few!
And to be honest, there is nothing to fear. The United States is a serious country. A country that knows how to count. When they realize the total technological and financial unreliability of the company that put them on the wrong path of a very bad deal, they will quickly join our camp. That of a precautionary pause while drafting a robust mining code. The door of the International Seabed Authority is wide open to them!
Paying tribute to our predecessors this morning, let us look each other in the eye in this noble Assembly, proud of our unity. Do we wish to go back on the virtuous commitments of Montego Bay, to renounce today in Kingston the Sustainable Development Goals? Prefer targets of massive destruction? Return to a Treaty of Tordesillas that gives all the ocean and its benefits to two countries? Do we wish to leave our seats empty at the great meetings awaiting us in the coming months to face the dramatic effects of climate change, the deadly disappearance of biodiversity? Do we wish, out of mere greed, provocation, or hatred of scientific truth, to leave future generations disarmed, fragile, condemned to adapt to the unacceptable? Do we want to dig our own grave by attacking, with destructive machines and dubious funding, our ancient and protective seabeds? No, we do not want that!
Simply put, to quote the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, do we want to look into the abyss, and be condemned, in the end, to have the abyss look into us?
No, we do not want that. We want a sustainable planet, we want knowledge, peace, prosperity, justice, and equity among all our countries, all our peoples.
Long live the Deep Ocean, long live the International Seabed Authority!
Thank you.
