Kimberley Peters’s research while affiliated with Alfred Wegener Institute Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research and other places

This chapter deploys assemblage theory and thinking to bring together a unique set of insights on the seabed ranging from the ecological, to legal, practice to theoretical. It does so with a particular aim in mind: to integrate debates pertinent to understanding the frontier space of the sea floor. Whilst there are increasing calls for interdisciplinary integration in the marine sciences, combining the natural and social sciences research on the space of the seabed and its potential for mining tends to be siloed with work addressing component parts of such possible processes: ecosystem and ecosystem service aspects, legal dimensions, and geopolitical aspects, to name but a few. Whilst these contributions touch upon intersecting issues (society and environment; law and economics, and so on) they remained centered on particular disciplinary and scientific offerings to understanding the seabed and prospect of seabed mining. This chapter offers a thoroughly ‘joined up’ approach, which presents a prism through which to better understand the issues at stake in venturing to the new vertical frontiers of ocean extraction.

In spite of a proliferation of academic and policy-oriented interest in deep sea mining (DSM), this paper argues that two underlying questions remain underexplored. The first relates to what exactly the seabed is; the second to who the stakeholders are. It is argued that a greater interrogation of how the seabed is defined and understood, and a deeper consideration of how stakeholders are identified and the politics of their inclusion, is crucial to the enactment of policy and planning techniques. Through the analysis of current regulations to govern DSM in both national and international jurisdictions, this paper critically examines these seemingly banal but vital questions in different contexts. It is contended that most regulations are ‘fuzzy’ when it comes to addressing these questions, with the result that different understandings of the seabed and the implications of mining are ignored and that who stakeholders are and how they are defined causes many relevant voices to be unheard. It is argued, therefore, that it is imperative to address these often-overlooked questions directly in order to inform future seabed policy and governance.

In many of the Pacific Islands, local communities have long-held cultural and spiritual attachments to the sea, in particular to species and specific marine areas, processes, habitats, islands, and natural seabed formations. Traditional knowledge, customary marine management approaches and integrated relationships between biodiversity, ecosystems and local communities promote conservation and ensure that marine benefits are reaped in a holistic, sustainable and equitable manner. However, the interaction between local traditional knowledge, contemporary scientific approaches to marine resource management and specific regulatory frameworks has often been challenging. To some extent, the value of community practices and customary law, which have provided an incentive for regional cooperation and coordination around ocean governance, is acknowledged in several legal systems in the Pacific and a number of regional and international instruments, but this important connection can be further enhanced. In this article we present a science-based overview of the marine habitats that would be affected by deep seabed mining (DSM) along with an analysis of some traditional dimensions and cultural/societal aspects of marine resource management. We then assess whether the applicable legal frameworks at different levels attach sufficient importance to these traditional dimensions and to the human and societal aspects of seabed (mineral) resource management in the region. On the basis of this analysis, we identify best practices and formulate recommendations with regard to the current regulatory frameworks and seabed resource management approaches. Indeed, the policies and practices developed in the Pacific could well serve as a suitable model elsewhere to reconcile commercial, ecological, cultural and social values within the context of deep sea mineral exploitation in addition to sustaining the Human Well-being and Sustainable Livelihoods (HWSL) of the Pacific communities and the health of the Global Ocean.

In this brief response to Stuart Elden’s thought-provoking essay ‘Terrain, Politics, History’, I question whether place, one of the most ubiquitous concepts worked with by geographers, might have a place itself in studies of territory and provide another way of attending to the neglect of the materiality of territory. In raising this point, I further ask if attention should also be shifted more broadly to the terrains of social and cultural geographies. Here an extensive body of work has investigated more-than-human materialist approaches to making sense of the world and examined the agencies and role of landscape. Both lenses, I argue, could offer a great deal to theorisations of territory and its materiality, which are perhaps overlooked, within territory’s position as a concept of the subdiscipline of political geography. In sum, I posit that geography has already dealt quite significantly with the materiality of the Earth in other strands of the discipline, and this work may offer much in dialogue with efforts to materialise our thinking of territory.

This paper offers a conceptual contribution to understanding ocean governance and the management of spaces for the protection of marine biodiversity, organization of extractive industries, the arrangement of global shipping and other ‘blue-economy’ uses. Rather than focus on one type of management technique (such as a Marine Protected Area (MPA) or example of Marine Spatial Planning), or a site- or species-specific case study of governance, this paper offers a theoretical tracking of the uncharted territories of governance that foreground ocean management approaches. The literature on ocean governance and management techniques predominantly derive from scientific disciplines (which provide the basis for planning) and policy-related social science fields, leaving a lacuna in more critical discussions of ways of knowing and understanding the world that drive it. The paper argues the need to critically understand the ontologies (the regimes of what we believe exists) and geophilosophies (the geographically informed modes of thinking) of territory that underscore ocean management to make sense of its past successes and failures, its present functioning and its future directions. This paper argues that without critical consideration of the kinds of thinking—the ontologies and geophilosophies—that drive ocean management, it will lack the transformative potential many hope it will achieve for sustainable development. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Integrative research perspectives on marine conservation’.

In our response, we address two themes that appear in several of the commentaries. First, we elaborate on our decision to maintain a focus on the ocean, rather than turning to a term that speaks more clearly to geographic categories (e.g. the sea), elemental foundations (e.g. water), earth-system processes (e.g. the hydrosphere). Secondly, we address the critique that, in our effort to highlight the ocean’s geophysical liveliness, we may overlook the ocean’s liveliness as a space continually made through human and more-than-human encounters, cultural understandings and histories.

This article builds upon previous assertions that the ocean provides a fertile environment for reconceptualising understandings of space, time, movement and experiences of being in a transformative and mobile world. Following previous articles that urged scholars to adopt a ‘wet ontology’, this article presents a progression of, and a caveat to, these earlier arguments. As we have argued previously, liquid ‘materiality, motion, and temporality…allows for new ways of thinking that are not possible when only thinking with the land’. This article maintains that critical perspectives can be gained by taking the ocean’s liquidity to heart. However, it also questions the premise of this vision. For the ocean is not simply liquid. It is solid (ice) and air (mist). It generates winds, which transport smells, and these may emote the oceanic miles inland. Although earlier attention to the ocean’s liquid volume was a necessary antidote to surficial static ontologies typically associated with land, this is insufficient in light of how the ocean exceeds material liquidity. This article thus explores what might emerge if, instead, one were to approach the ocean as offering a more-than-wet ontology, wherein its fluid nature is continually produced and dissipated.

Geography has turned to towards the seas and oceans with much attention being paid to ‘water worlds’ through socio-cultural, political and environmental lenses. Geo-economic analysis, in particular, has considered the role of containerisation, the port, and logistics global flows central to the contemporary shipping industry. However, where routeing enters discussion these debates remain ‘surficial’ with a focus on the rationale of lines of connection which are mapped onto the sea (rather than into the sea, as a liquid, three-dimensional, motionful space). This paper challenges considerations of ship routeing that only skim the surface. This paper adds depth to the discussion. It is argued that ship routeing is not a purely surficial exercise of charting a voyage across seas and oceans. Routes have a geo-politics predicted at times on the water’s depth, the topography of the ocean floor and seabed and marine resources. Drawing on a variety of examples, notably the traffic routeing scheme – or ‘maritime motorway’ – governing the flows of shipping in the Dover Strait, UK, this paper brings a ‘wet ontology’ and three-dimensional analysis to ship routeing. It is contended that such a recognition and discussion of deep routeing is necessary to shed light upon the often invisible processes sea that underscore the global logistics flows vital to society and the economy.