Investing

Rolling back environmental protections

According to the provincial government, the legislation is partially a response to concerns raised in a 2021 national security report in which Canada’s natural resources are identified as a strategic vulnerability.

However, the proposed legislation has sparked sharp criticism from environmental advocates who warn that Bill 5 undermines Ontario’s Endangered Species Act. It would be replaced with a much narrower Species Conservation Act that redefines what constitutes a species’ habitat.

Under current law, a habitat includes all areas a species needs to live, migrate and reproduce. The new definition reduces this to “a dwelling place, such as a den, nest or other similar place,” plus the immediate surrounding area.

Critics argue that this change all but guarantees habitat loss for vulnerable species.

“The definition of habitat is so narrow that what it means is less habitat than the species has now,” Laura Bowman, a lawyer with the environmental law charity Ecojustice, told CBC. “And less habitat than the species has now, for a species already in decline, virtually ensures extirpation or extinction,” she added

The bill would also eliminate the requirement for recovery strategies once a species is declared at risk — a key mechanism under the current law that sets out steps to restore populations to sustainable levels.

The legislation is part of Ontario’s push to accelerate development in the Ring of Fire, a mineral-rich region in the province’s far north. The Ford government has long touted the area’s potential to supply key inputs like nickel, lithium and chromite for electric vehicles and clean technologies. According to the government, Bill 5 will “cut red tape and streamline approvals” to jumpstart projects that are currently mired in lengthy environmental and consultation processes — often involving Indigenous communities whose territories overlap with planned developments.

Despite the growing need for secure critical minerals supply chains, the decision to pair national security rhetoric with the rollback of environmental protections is likely to ignite political and legal challenges in the months ahead.

Norway reverses course on deep-sea mining

In January 2024, Norway became the first country to approve commercial-scale deep-sea mining within its own exclusive economic zone, greenlighting exploration across 280,000 square kilometers — an area larger than the UK.

The move, passed through parliament despite strong domestic and international opposition, is part of the country’s bid to secure metals like cobalt, scandium and lithium for green technologies.

“We will have a relatively long period of exploration and mapping activity to close the knowledge gap on the environmental impact,” Walter Sognnes, co-founder of Loke Marine Minerals, a Norwegian company focused on deep-sea exploration, told the BBC in an interview at the time the news was announced

However, environmentalists argued that the plan undermined Norway’s own standards.

“The Norwegian government always highlighted that they want to implement the highest environmental standards,” said Martin Webeler of the Environmental Justice Foundation.

“That is hypocritical whilst you are throwing away all the scientific advice.”

The Norway Institute of Marine Research also criticized the government’s decision, saying the existing environmental impact assessment was based on limited data and not representative of the vast areas opened for mining. It called for an additional five to 10 years of research before proceeding.

Against that backdrop, Norway reversed course, suspending its deep-sea mining plans at the end of 2024 following mounting political and environmental pressure.

The first licensing round, originally set for 2025, was blocked after the Socialist Left Party threatened to withhold support for the government’s budget unless the initiative was halted.

India eyes Clarion-Clipperton zone, Pacific Islands at crossroads

For its part, India has announced plans to ramp up its presence in the Pacific’s Clarion-Clipperton zone, one of the world’s most mineral-rich deep-sea regions. Although the ISA has already granted India two exploration contracts, the country has opted to hold off on operations as regulations remain in flux.

M. Ravichandran, secretary of the country’s Ministry of Earth Sciences, said the country is seeking to apply to the UN-backed ISA next year to focus on exploring the zone.

Meanwhile, the resource-rich Pacific Islands are emerging as battlegrounds in this high-stakes race.

Kiribati, a small island nation with jurisdiction over 75,000 square kilometers of prospective seabed, is reportedly in talks with China after a previous deal with Canada’s The Metals Company (NASDAQ:TMC) collapsed late last year.

In a statement dated March 17, the Kiribati government called discussions with Chinese ambassador Zhou Limin “an exciting opportunity” to explore its deep-sea resources.

But critics say such moves by smaller nations are often driven by economic desperation and can lead to exploitative outcomes. This tension is familiar in Papua New Guinea, where the failure of the Nautilus Minerals project left environmental damage and financial losses in its wake.

Some Pacific nations are now calling for a global moratorium on seabed mining, citing concerns about the unknown risks to ecosystems and the climate.

Patchwork governance, fragmented oversight

The race toward seabed mining is exposing a critical flaw in global governance: fragmentation. The ISA, which was supposed to provide a unified framework, is losing relevance as more countries chart independent courses.

“The harm caused by deep-sea mining isn’t restricted to the ocean floor: it will impact the entire water column, top to bottom,” Jeff Watters, vice president for external affairs at the Ocean Conservancy, told the Guardian.

A study by the Natural History Museum and the UK’s National Oceanography Center analyzing a 1970s test site concludes that some sediment dwellers were able to recover, but larger animals dependent on polymetallic nodules did not return — likely because the nodules, which take millions of years to form, were destroyed.

Despite these warnings, the Metals Company continues to push forward. It has said it plans to mine by the year’s end, pending US government approval, as CEO Gerard Barron remains unfazed by the backlash.

“Here there’s zero flora,” Barron told the BBC in a January 2024 interview. “If we measure the amount of fauna… in the form of biomass, there is around 10g per square metre. That compares with more than 30kg of biomass where the world is pushing more nickel extraction, which is our equatorial rainforests.”

Beyond environmental concerns, the deep-sea mining surge is reshaping geopolitical dynamics. China, which dominates global production and processing of rare earths, has long used its position as leverage in trade disputes. In response to US tariffs, Beijing recently introduced new export controls on rare earths — further intensifying the mineral arms race.

Trump’s executive order makes clear that seabed mining is now viewed as a national security imperative.

“It’s not just drill, baby, drill. It’s mine, baby, mine,” said Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum at a recent conference. “We will literally be at the mercy of others that are controlling our supply chains,” he warned.

But this approach risks setting a dangerous precedent. If powerful nations begin issuing their own licenses outside multilateral systems, others are likely to follow suit. The result could be a patchwork of conflicting claims and reduced protections, particularly for vulnerable maritime nations.

With the ISA still developing a mining code and more countries rejecting its pace, the world faces a dilemma: how to balance the urgent demand for critical minerals with the equally pressing need to preserve fragile marine ecosystems.

A deal born of conflict and eventual compromise

The minerals deal has a fraught history, with Trump originally pitching it as a way for the US to be “repaid” for military assistance provided to Ukraine since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022.

Trump claims the US has sent over US$350 billion in aid, a figure far higher than the official tally of US$183 billion listed on the US government’s own Ukraine Oversight webpage.

That early version of the agreement collapsed after a tense Oval Office meeting on February 28, during which Trump blamed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for failing to prevent Russia’s invasion.

Negotiations were revived following a more conciliatory conversation between the two leaders during Pope Francis’ funeral in Rome. Since then, Trump has softened his public rhetoric toward Kyiv while sharpening criticism of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has dismissed Trump’s ceasefire overtures.

Speaking at a White House cabinet meeting on the day the deal was signed, Trump defended the agreement as a necessary course correction after years of what he described as “throwing money out the window.”

“We had no security, we had no nothing — just pouring money there, unsecured money,” Trump said. “So I said, ‘Well, we want something for our efforts beyond what you would think to be acceptable.’”

The final version of the deal, confirmed by Ukrainian Economy Minister Yulia Svyrydenko, establishes a joint development fund with equal 50/50 profit sharing. “It is important that the agreement will become a signal to other global players that it is reliable to cooperate with Ukraine in the long term — for decades,” she said in a post on X, also emphasizing that Kyiv will retain sovereign control over resource management.

Still, the negotiations came down to the wire. Bessent admitted that Ukrainian officials had proposed last-minute changes, delaying the signing until the afternoon.

The precise terms of the final accord remain under wraps, and the treasury department has declined to release a full copy, despite reporting from the Washington Post and the Kyiv Independent on key provisions.

Opportunities and risks moving forward

While Trump has portrayed the agreement as a personal victory and proof of his commitment to “peace through strength,” some analysts caution that the US-Ukraine minerals partnership could be vulnerable to future instability.

Ed Verona, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center, has warned that “few serious US investors will put their shareholders’ money at risk based on such a clearly unbalanced ‘deal.’”

Verona cited Russia’s own resource history as a cautionary tale. “Production sharing agreements signed during the difficult transitional period of the 1990s were subsequently repudiated by Putin’s regime, with Western partners forced to surrender control and majority ownership in major projects,” he said.

Moreover, with no security guarantees attached to the deal, Ukraine’s ability to develop its resource sector could still be jeopardized by continued fighting, especially as some of the most mineral-rich regions remain under Russian control.

As the G7 Summit in Kananaskis, Alberta, approaches, where Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and Zelenskyy are expected to meet again, western unity on Ukraine’s reconstruction will be under scrutiny.