Incorporating transparency into the governance of deep-seabed mining in the Area beyond national jurisdiction

In the governance of natural resources, transparency has been linked to improved accountability, as well as enforceability, compliance, sustainability, and ultimately more equitable outcomes. Here, good practices in transparency relevant to the emerging governance of deep-seabed mining in the Area beyond national jurisdiction are identified and compared with current practices of the International Seabed Authority (ISA). The analysis found six areas of good transparency practice that could improve the accountability of deep-seabed mining: i) access to information; ii) reporting; iii) quality assurance; iv) compliance information / accreditation; v) public participation; and vi) ability to review / appeal decisions. The ISA has in some instances adopted progressive practices regarding its rules, regulations, and procedures (e.g. including the precautionary approach). However, the results here show that overall the ISA will need to consider improvements in each of the six categories above, in order to reflect contemporary best transparency practices, as well as meeting historical expectations embodied in the principle of the ‘common heritage of mankind’. This would involve a revision of its rules and procedures. The ongoing review and drafting of the ISA’s deep-seabed mining exploitation regulations offers a once-in-a-generation opportunity to improve upon the current situation. Findings from this analysis are summarised in 18 recommendations, including publication of annual reports submitted by contractors, publication of annual financial statements, development of a transparency policy, compliance reporting, and dedicated access to Committee meetings

Environmental considerations for impact and preservation reference zones for deep-sea polymetallic nodule mining

Development of guidance for environmental management of the deep-sea mining industry is important as contractors plan to move from exploration to exploitation activities. Two priorities for environmental management are monitoring and mitigating the impacts and effects of activities. International regulation of deep-sea mining activities stipulates the creation of two types of zones for local monitoring within a claim, impact reference zones (IRZ) and preservation reference zones (PRZ). The approach used for allocating and assessing these zones will affect what impacts can be measured, and hence taken into account and managed. This paper recommends key considerations for establishing these reference zones for polymetallic nodule mining. We recommend that zones should be suitably large (Recommendation 1) and have sufficient separation (R2) to allow for repeat monitoring of representative impacted and control sites. Zones should be objectively defined following best-practice and statistically robust approaches (R3). This will include the designation of multiple PRZ and IRZ (R4) for each claim. PRZs should be representative of the mined area, and thus should contain high -quality resource (R5) but PRZs in other habitats could also be valuable (R6). Sediment plumes will influence design of PRZ and may need additional IRZ to monitor their effects (R7), which may extend beyond the boundaries of a claim (R8). The impacts of other expected changes should be taken into account (R9). Sharing PRZ design, placement, and monitoring could be considered amongst adjacent claims (R10). Monitoring should be independently verified to enhance public trust and stakeholder support (R11)

Detecting the effects of deep-seabed nodule mining: simulations using Megafaunal Data From the Clarion-Clipperton Zone

The International Seabed Authority (ISA) is in the process of preparing exploitation regulations for deep-seabed mining (DSM). DSM has the potential to disturb the seabed over wide areas, yet there is little information on the ecological consequences, both at the site of mining and surrounding areas where disturbance such as sediment smothering could occur. Of critical regulatory concern is whether the impacts cause “serious harm” to the environment. Using metazoan megafaunal data from the Clarion-Clipperton Zone (northern equatorial Pacific), we simulate a range of disturbances from very low to severe, to determine the effect on community-level metrics. Two kinds of stressors were simulated: one that impacts organisms based on their affinity to nodules, and another that applies spatially stochastic stress to all organisms. These simulations are then assessed using power analysis to determine the amount of sampling required to distinguish the disturbances. This analysis is limited to modelling lethal impacts on megafauna. It provides a first indication of the effect sizes and ecological nature of mining impacts that might be expected across a broader range of taxa. To detect our simulated “tipping point,” power analyses suggest impact monitoring samples should each have at least 500–750 individual megafauna; and at least five such samples, as well as control samples should be assessed. In the region studied, this translates to approximately 1500–2300 m2 seabed per impact monitoring sample, i.e., 7500–11,500 m2 in total for a given location and/or habitat. Detecting less severe disturbances requires more sampling. The numerical density of individuals and Pielou’s evenness of communities appear most sensitive to simulated disturbances and may provide suitable “early warning” metrics for monitoring. To determine the sampling details for detecting the desired threshold(s) for harm, statistical effect sizes will need to be determined and validated. The determination of what constitutes serious harm is a legal question that will need to consider socially acceptable levels of long-term harm to deep-sea life. Monitoring details, data, and results including power analyses should be made fully available, to facilitate independent review and informed policy discussions

Developing Important Marine Mammal Area Criteria: Learning From Ecologically or Biologically Significant Areas and Key Biodiversity Areas

1. This paper explores how criteria to identify important marine mammal areas (IMMAs) could be developed, and nested in existing global criteria. This process would consider 134 species of marine mammals. 2. Particular attention is given to two suites of global criteria to identify areas important for the persistence of marine biodiversity: Ecologically or Biologically Significant Areas (EBSAs) developed through the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) in revision through the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). They are seen as mutually complementary in the development of IMMAs. 3. The specificities necessary for identifying important areas at scales below the global level may vary according to the region, the biophysical requirements of distinct populations, and available data. Refining and testing the applicability of these global criteria on marine mammals at both regional and national scales will be necessary. 4. Combining area-based measures with non-spatial management actions will likely be the optimal approach for ensuring marine mammal persistence given their highly migratory nature and widespread life-history stages. 5. Capacity to enact IMMAs is strengthened by the existence of professional marine mammal associations and networks, and the recently formed IUCN Marine Mammal Protected Areas Task Force (MMPATF). The MMPATF is planning further development of IMMA criteria through joint work with the International Committee on Marine Mammal Protected Areas (ICMMPA)

Deep-Sea Mining With No Net Loss of Biodiversity—An Impossible Aim

Deep-sea mining is likely to result in biodiversity loss, and the significance of this to ecosystem function is not known. “Out of kind” biodiversity offsets substituting one ecosystem type (e.g., coral reefs) for another (e.g., abyssal nodule fields) have been proposed to compensate for such loss. Here we consider a goal of no net loss (NNL) of biodiversity and explore the challenges of applying this aim to deep seabed mining, based on the associated mitigation hierarchy (avoid, minimize, remediate). We conclude that the industry cannot at present deliver an outcome of NNL. This results from the vulnerable nature of deep-sea environments to mining impacts, currently limited technological capacity to minimize harm, significant gaps in ecological knowledge, and uncertainties of recovery potential of deep-sea ecosystems. Avoidance and minimization of impacts are therefore the only presently viable means of reducing biodiversity losses from seabed mining. Because of these constraints, when and if deep-sea mining proceeds, it must be approached in a precautionary and step-wise manner to integrate new and developing knowledge. Each step should be subject to explicit environmental management goals, monitoring protocols, and binding standards to avoid serious environmental harm and minimize loss of biodiversity. “Out of kind” measures, an option for compensation currently proposed, cannot replicate biodiversity and ecosystem services lost through mining of the deep seabed and thus cannot be considered true offsets. The ecosystem functions provided by deep-sea biodiversity contribute to a wide range of provisioning services (e.g., the exploitation of fish, energy, pharmaceuticals, and cosmetics), play an essential role in regulatory services (e.g., carbon sequestration) and are important culturally. The level of “acceptable” biodiversity loss in the deep sea requires public, transparent, and well-informed consideration, as well as wide agreement. If accepted, further agreement on how to assess residual losses remaining after the robust implementation of the mitigation hierarchy is also imperative. To ameliorate some of the inter-generational inequity caused by mining-associated biodiversity losses, and only after all NNL measures have been used to the fullest extent, potential compensatory actions would need to be focused on measures to improve the knowledge and protection of the deep sea and to demonstrate benefits that will endure for future generations

A systematic approach towards the identification and protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems

Author Posting. © The Author(s), 2013. This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here by permission of Elsevier for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Marine Policy 49 (2014):146-154, doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2013.11.017.The United Nations General Assembly in 2006 and 2009 adopted resolutions that call for the identification and protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs) from significant adverse impacts of bottom fishing. While general criteria have been produced, there are no guidelines or protocols that elaborate on the process from initial identification through to the protection of VMEs. Here, based upon an expert review of existing practices, a 10-step framework is proposed: 1) Comparatively assess potential VME indicator taxa and habitats in a region; 2) determine VME thresholds; 3) consider areas already known for their ecological importance; 4) compile information on the distributions of likely VME taxa and habitats, as well as related environmental data; 5) develop predictive distribution models for VME indicator taxa and habitats; 6) compile known or likely fishing impacts; 7) produce a predicted VME naturalness distribution (areas of low cumulative impacts); 8) identify areas of higher value to user groups; 9) conduct management strategy evaluations to produce trade-off scenarios; 10) review and re-iterate, until spatial management scenarios are developed that fulfil international obligations and regional conservation and management objectives. To date, regional progress has been piecemeal and incremental. The proposed 10-step framework combines these various experiences into a systematic approach.The New Zealand Ministry of Science and Innovation (now known as the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment) provided funding for the worksho

Transparency in the operations of the International Seabed Authority: An initial assessment

In the governance of natural resources, transparency is widely viewed as desirable, in order to avoid ill effects including corruption and inequities in the benefits derived from the resources. This paper considers the International Seabed Authority (ISA), which is charged with managing deep seabed mining in the Area beyond national jurisdictions as part of the common heritage of humankind. The methodology of this assessment follows that of Clark et al. 2015 [24] in their assessment of Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) using a battery of 34 scored questions, of which 30 were found applicable to this study. Two additional questions specific to the ISA are also considered. This assessment finds that while the ISA exhibits some good transparency practices, it generally scores much lower than the high seas fisheries management bodies. Across the three evaluation categories, concerning availability of information, participation in decision-making, and access to outcomes, the ISA’s overall score was found to be 44%, as compared to 77% for the RFMOs. The current practices of RFMOs may therefore serve as examples of how specific operations of the ISA could be improved. It is suggested that the ISA needs to develop concrete policies concerning transparency, including: to presume that information is non-confidential unless otherwise determined; to make mining contracts publicly available; to allow observer access to pre-determined portions of the Legal and Technical Commission, and Finance Committee meetings; and, to publish annual reports of the Contractors' activities, including compliance in seabed exploration and exploitation operations and their associated environmental impacts

Conserving the common heritage of humankind – options for the deep-seabed mining regime

The seabed in areas beyond national jurisdiction is the common heritage of mankind (CHM), as declared in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The CHM principle requires not only the sharing of benefits (the subject of a parallel article by the authors) but also the conservation and preservation of natural and biological resources for both present and future generations. The International Seabed Authority, tasked with operationalising the CHM principle in the context of deep-seabed mining, has not yet defined which measures it will take to give effect to environmental aspects of the CHM principle. This article seeks to contribute to the discussion about the operationalization of the CHM principle by specifically examining the environmental dimension of the CHM principle. To this end, the article interprets the CHM principle in the context of sustainable development and discusses a number of potential options the Authority could consider to support the application of the CHM principle. These include: funding scientific research to increase knowledge about the deep ocean for humankind; ensuring public participation in the decision-making process; debating the need for and alternatives to deep-seabed mining; determining conservation targets and levels of harm deemed acceptable; limiting environmental impacts; preserving mineable sites for future generations; compensating humankind for environmental harm; and ensuring enforcement.8 page(s

Cumulative impact mapping: advances, relevance and limitations to marine management and conservation, using Canada’s Pacific waters as a case study

Analysis of cumulative human impacts in the marine environment is still in its infancy but developing rapidly. In this study, existing approaches were expanded upon, aiming for a realistic consideration of cumulative impacts at a regional scale. Thirty-eight human activities were considered, with each broken down according to stressor types and a range of spatial influences. To add to the policy relevance, existing stressors within and outside of conservation areas were compared. Results indicate the entire continental shelf of Canada's Pacific marine waters is affected by multiple human activities at some level. Commercial fishing, land-based activities and marine transportation accounted for 57.0%, 19.1%, and 17.7% of total cumulative impacts, respectively. Surprisingly, most areas with conservation designations contained higher impact scores than the mean values of their corresponding ecoregions. Despite recent advances in mapping cumulative impacts, many limitations remain. Nonetheless, preliminary analyses such as these can provide information relevant to precautionary management and conservation efforts