Protected Marine Areas Not Part of Offshore Blocks

Protected Marine Areas Excluded from Offshore Mining Blocks: A Pyrrhic Victory?

On December 11, 2025, the Ministry of Earth Sciences (MoES) informed Parliament that all 13 offshore mining blocks slated for auction were identified “only after excluding Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and key biodiversity zones.” Yet, mere exclusion of demarcated MPAs tells only half the story. The unrest in Kerala, where fishing communities and policymakers fear widespread ecological and economic fallout from the proposed auctions, lays bare a deeper tension: can offshore mining ever coexist harmoniously with marine conservation and livelihoods?

The answer lies in the gaps between the government’s policy assurances and ground realities. For instance, Rule 5(2) of the Offshore Areas Operating Right Rules, 2024 mandates consultations with stakeholder ministries before finalizing offshore zones. Yet, Kerala’s state government and coastal communities argue they were inadequately involved in the process. This disconnect reflects a persistent pattern—where legislative safeguards exist on paper but falter in implementation.

Decoding the Offshore Framework

Offshore mining in India operates under a web of laws, most prominently, the Offshore Areas Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 2002 and accompanying rules. The Act entrusts the Centre with regulatory authority while giving coastal states membership in oversight bodies like the Offshore Areas Mineral Trust. The 2024 Auction Rules require bidders to comply with environmental approvals, undergirding India’s commitment to the Blue Economy. The latter emphasizes sustainable use of ocean resources while expanding industrial output and energy security.

Projects like the Deep Ocean Mission, with an ambitious ₹4,077-crore budget spanning five years, are emblematic of this agenda. Within this, the Samudrayaan Project promises MATSYA 6000, India’s first manned submersible, to explore polymetallic nodules at depths exceeding 6,000 metres. Yet, what the government touts as technological prowess also heightens risks of habitat disruption; after all, deep-sea sediment disposal—an integral part of offshore mining—can harm benthic ecosystems, which play a vital role in the marine carbon cycle.

Punching Holes in the “MPA Exclusion” Argument

The government's emphasis on excluding MPAs from offshore mining zones sounds reassuring until one probes deeper. MPAs cover roughly 3.1% of India’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), far below the 30% target set by the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. By limiting protections to officially designated areas, policymakers ignore vast swathes of ecologically sensitive zones that lack the bureaucratic imprimatur of “protection.” Biodiversity doesn’t recognize UNESCO labels or state gazettes; mining-induced sediment plumes several kilometres away can devastate coral reefs and spawning grounds outside MPAs.

The irony here is that even short-term industrial gains could backfire. Consider Kerala’s marine fishery sector, which contributes over ₹6,200 crore annually to the state economy. By jeopardizing fish stocks through mining operations, offshore block auctions may destabilize not only ecosystems but also economic lifelines for thousands of coastal households.

Lessons from Norway

Norway offers a compelling case study. With an economy reliant on offshore oil and gas, the nation has pioneered stringent environmental regulations, including the mandatory use of “zero-discharge technology” for mining waste. Despite the country’s robust legal framework, environmental lobbyists have stymied deep-sea mining trials, forcing reassessments of their ecological risks. India could draw lessons from Norway’s community consultations and emphasis on independent environmental impact assessments (EIAs) for offshore operations. The current Indian model—where EIAs are commissioned by project proponents—hardly inspires confidence in their objectivity.

The Structural Tensions

At its core, offshore mining underscores a familiar tug-of-war: Centre vs State. Resource extraction in India’s coastal waters falls under Union jurisdiction, yet its socio-economic impacts play out on state economies. Kerala’s vociferous opposition to the auctions illustrates the inevitable friction when centrally-cleared projects bypass meaningful local consultation. The idea of giving states token memberships in overarching institutions like the Offshore Areas Mineral Trust hardly compensates for marginalization in decision-making.

Equally vexing is the conflict between industrial ambitions and fiscal constraints. While the government touts the Deep Ocean Mission as a scientific leap, its long-term viability demands recurring investments in advanced technologies and environmental safeguards. The ₹4,077-crore budget, though significant, pales in comparison to seabed mining investments pursued by nations like China, which reportedly spent over $6 billion in 2024 alone on similar ventures. This funding disparity could restrict India to preliminary explorations while global rivals surge ahead in extraction and refinement capabilities.

What Should a Balanced Future Look Like?

For offshore mining to shed its label as a threat to sustainability, it must incorporate robust, independently verified ecological safeguards at every stage—site identification, environmental impact assessment, operational clearance, and post-mining recovery. Success should be measured not merely in terms of rare-earth extraction or industrial output but on metrics like biodiversity health, fishery yields, and compliance with international marine conservation treaties.

It is also imperative to decentralize decision-making. Empowering coastal states with greater regulatory oversight could bridge the current Centre-state trust deficit. Further, revisiting outdated impact assessment protocols to address cumulative environmental risks, rather than just project-specific impacts, will align India’s offshore ambitions with its commitments under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Is Exclusion Enough to Mitigate Risks?

The exclusion of MPAs from offshore blocks is undoubtedly a positive step—but it is insufficient in isolation. The Ministry of Earth Sciences may have allayed immediate fears by drawing geographic boundaries around sensitive zones, but marine ecosystems are interconnected beyond those borders. Without a more inclusive governance model and accountability mechanisms, the specter of ecological degradation will loom over any industrial gains.

Practice Questions for UPSC

Prelims Practice Questions

Frequently Asked Questions