Dear Prime Minister Støre,

We write to you as the undersigned civil society organisations to raise the importance of preserving the deep ocean from the threat of deep sea mining, in light of Norway’s alarming proposal to open up large areas of the Norwegian extended continental shelf in the high Arctic to deep sea mining.

The deep sea supports the multiple ecosystem processes necessary for Earth’s natural systems to function, including the absorption and storage of vast quantities of the carbon emitted into the air by human activities. Scientists believe that as many as 10 million species may inhabit the deep sea, the majority of which are yet to be discovered. The high Arctic is an environment of international significance, and is home to important marine species.

Contrary to the argumentation of deep sea mining companies, mining the seabed is not needed ...

Prime Minister Støre, your co-chair of the Ocean Panel, Palau, and a growing number of governments including from European countries like France, Germany and Spain have taken a precautionary position, advocating a precautionary pause, a moratorium or a ban on deep sea mining. Scientists, Indigenous groups, fisheries and seafood organisations, civil society organisations, and major businesses including Storebrand, BMW, and Google are all calling for a stop to deep sea mining. The European Investment Bank has excluded deep sea mining from its investments as it is deemed ‘unacceptable in climate and environmental terms’, and the European Parliament has called for a moratorium multiple times.

It is not too late to live up to the responsibilities as co-chair of the Ocean Panel and to establish Norway as a leading country in the increasing opposition to deep sea mining. We urge you to step back from the brink of introducing this destructive industry and to support a global moratorium on deep sea mining. Unless the Norwegian government stops the opening process, we believe Norway should resign from the Ocean Panel.

Yours sincerely

Under a high-emissions scenario, we find that 35% of mammals and 29% of birds are projected to have over half of their 2070 climatic niche in countries in which they are not currently found.

We map these transboundary range shifts globally, identifying borders across which international coordination might most benefit conservation and where physical border barriers, such as walls and fences, may be an overlooked obstacle to climate adaptation.

The construction of such barriers can disturb or destroy habitats, fragment populations, prevent dispersal and migration, and directly or indirectly increase mortality via entanglement, poaching, and predation.

For example, border security fencing in Central Asia is likely to be impeding ungulate migrations (11, 41), while recently erected razor-wire security fencing along the Slovenia–Croatia border has increased mortality in herons and ungulates.

Barriers along stretches of the United States–Mexico border were found to de- crease the abundance of puma (Puma concolor) and coati (Nasua narica) (43), and the planned extension of this barrier is likely to prevent the re-establishment of dwindling or recently extirpated populations of endangered species in the United States, such as the Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) and Sonoran pronghorn (Antilocapra americana sonoriensis).

..

Finally, maintaining and enhancing habitat connectivity across borders between area-based conservation measures will be critical to enable range shifts under climate change, and this effort should be targeted to the regions in which it will have the most impact. We have shown that this is likely to be where borders cut across broad climatic gradients in species- rich areas, such as around the tropical Andes and Amazon, the Himalayas, and east–west borders such as the United States– Mexico border. Where border security barriers are a threat to this ecological connectivity, particularly along the United States–Mexico border and parts of Asia, we must implement appropriate measures.