Environmental Impact Assessment process for deep-sea mining in ‘the Area’

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is key to the robust environmental management of industrial projects; it is used to anticipate, assess and reduce environmental and social risks of a project. It is instrumental in project planning and execution, and often required for financing and regulatory approval to be granted. The International Seabed Authority currently requires an EIA for deep-sea mining (DSM) in areas beyond national jurisdiction (the Area), but the existing regulations present only a portion of a robust EIA process. This article presents an ideal EIA process for DSM, drawing upon the application of EIA from allied industries. It contains screening, scoping and assessment phases, along with the development of an environmental management plan. It also includes external review by experts, stakeholder consultation, and regulatory review. Lessons learned from application of EIA elsewhere are discussed in relation to DSM, including the integration of EIA into UK domestic law, and the reception of EIAs prepared for seabed ore extraction in the Exclusive Economic Zones of New Zealand and Papua New Guinea. Finally, four main challenges of implementing the EIA process to DSM in the Area are presented: 1) EIA process for DSM needs to incorporate mechanisms to address uncertainty; 2) detailed requirements for the EIA process phases should be made clear; 3) mechanisms are needed to ensure that the EIA influences decision making; and, 4) the EIA process requires substantial input and involvement from the regulator

Existing environmental management approaches relevant to deep-sea mining

Deep-sea mining (DSM) may become a significant stressor on the marine environment. The DSM industry should demonstrate transparently its commitment to preventing serious harm to the environment by complying with legal requirements, using environmental good practice, and minimizing environmental impacts. Here existing environmental management approaches relevant to DSM that can be used to improve performance are identified and detailed. DSM is still predominantly in the planning stage and will face some unique challenges but there is considerable environmental management experience in existing related industries. International good practice has been suggested for DSM by bodies such as the Pacific Community and the International Marine Minerals Society. The inherent uncertainty in DSM presents challenges, but it can be addressed by collection of environmental information, area-based/spatial management, the precautionary approach and adaptive management. Tools exist for regional and strategic management, which have already begun to be introduced by the International Seabed Authority, for example in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone. Project specific environmental management, through environmental impact assessment, baseline assessment, monitoring, mitigation and environmental management planning, will be critical to identify and reduce potential impacts. In addition, extractive companies’ internal management may be optimised to improve performance by emphasising sustainability at a high level in the company, improving transparency and reporting and introducing environmental management systems. The DSM industry and its regulators have the potential to select and optimize recognised and documented effective practices and adapt them, greatly improving the environmental performance of this new industry

A strategy for the conservation of biodiversity on mid-ocean ridges from deep-sea mining

Mineral exploitation has spread from land to shallow coastal waters and is now planned for the offshore, deep seabed. Large seafloor areas are being approved for exploration for seafloor mineral deposits, creating an urgent need for regional environmental management plans. Networks of areas where mining and mining impacts are prohibited are key elements of these plans. We adapt marine reserve design principles to the distinctive biophysical environment of mid-ocean ridges, offer a framework for design and evaluation of these networks to support conservation of benthic ecosystems on mid-ocean ridges, and introduce projected climate-induced changes in the deep sea to the evaluation of reserve design. We enumerate a suite of metrics to measure network performance against conservation targets and network design criteria promulgated by the Convention on Biological Diversity. We apply these metrics to network scenarios on the northern and equatorial Mid-Atlantic Ridge, where contractors are exploring for seafloor massive sulfide (SMS) deposits. A latitudinally distributed network of areas performs well at (i) capturing ecologically important areas and 30 to 50% of the spreading ridge areas, (ii) replicating representative areas, (iii) maintaining along-ridge population connectivity, and (iv) protecting areas potentially less affected by climate-related changes. Critically, the network design is adaptive, allowing for refinement based on new knowledge and the location of mining sites, provided that design principles and conservation targets are maintained. This framework can be applied along the global mid-ocean ridge system as a precautionary measure to protect biodiversity and ecosystem function from impacts of SMS mining

Report of the Workshop Evaluating the Nature of Midwater Mining Plumes and Their Potential Effects on Midwater Ecosystems

The International Seabed Authority (ISA) is developing regulations to control the future exploitation of deep-sea mineral resources including sulphide deposits near hydrothermal vents, polymetallic nodules on the abyssal seafloor, and cobalt crusts on seamounts. Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea the ISA is required to adopt are taking measures to ensure the effective protection of the marine environment from harmful effects arising from mining-related activities. Contractors are required to generate environmental baselines and assess the potential environmental consequences of deep seafloor mining. Understandably, nearly all environmental research has focused on the seafloor where the most direct mining effects will occur. However, sediment plumes and other impacts (e.g., noise) from seafloor mining are likely to be extensive in the water column. Sediment plumes created on the seafloor will affect the benthic boundary layer which extends 10s to 100s of meters above the seafloor. Separation or dewatering of ore from sediment and seawater aboard ships will require discharge of a dewatering plume at some depth in the water column. It is important to consider the potential impacts of mining on the ocean’s midwaters (depths from ~200 m to the seafloor) because they provide vital ecosystem services and harbor substantial biodiversity. The better known epipelagic or sunlit surface ocean provisions the rest of the water column through primary production and export flux (This was not the focus at this workshop as the subject was considered too large and surface discharges are unlikely). It is also home to a diverse community of organisms including commercially important fishes such as tunas, billfish, and cephalopods that contribute to the economies of many countries. The mesopelagic or twilight zone (200-1000 m) is dimly lit and home to very diverse and abundant communities of organisms. Mesopelagic plankton and small nekton form the forage base for many deep-diving marine mammals and commercially harvested epipelagic species. Furthermore, detritus from the epipelagic zone falls through the mesopelagic where it is either recycled, providing the vital process of nutrient regeneration, or sinks to greater depths sequestering carbon from short-term atmospheric cycles. The waters below the mesopelagic down to the seafloor (both the bathypelagic and abyssopelagic) are very poorly characterized but are likely large reservoirs of novel biodiversity and link the surface and benthic ecosystems. Great strides have been made in understanding the biodiversity and ecosystem function of the ocean’s midwaters, but large regions, including those containing many exploration license areas and the greater depths where mining plumes will occur, remain very poorly studied. It is clear that pelagic communities are distinct from those on the seafloor and in the benthic boundary layer. They are often sampled with different instrumentation. The fauna have relatively large biogeographic ranges and they are more apt to mix freely across stakeholder boundaries, reference areas and other spatial management zones. Pelagic organisms live in a three-dimensional habitat and their food webs and populations are vertically connected by daily or lifetime migrations and the sinking flux of detritus from the epipelagic. The fauna do not normally encounter hard surfaces, making them fragile, and difficult to capture and maintain for sensitivity or toxicity studies. Despite some existing general knowledge, ecological baselines for midwater communities and ecosystems that likely will be impacted by mining have not been documented. There is an urgent need to conduct more research and evaluate the midwater biota (microbes to fishes) in regions where mining is likely to occur. Deep-sea mining activities may affect midwater organisms in a number of ways, but it is still unclear at what scale perturbations may occur. The sediment plumes both from collectors on the seafloor and from midwater discharge will have a host of negative consequences. They may cause respiratory distress from clogged gills or respiratory surfaces. Suspension feeders, such as copepods, polychaetes, salps, and appendicularians, that filter small particles from the water and form an important basal group of the food web, may suffer from dilution of their food by inorganic sediments and/or clogging of their fragile mucous filter nets. Small particles may settle on gelatinous plankton causing buoyancy issues. Metals, including toxic elements that will enter the food web, will be released from pore waters and crushed ore materials. Sediment plumes will also absorb light and change backscatter properties, reducing visual communication and bioluminescent signaling that are very important for prey capture and reproduction in midwater animals. Noise from mining activities may alter the behaviors of marine mammals and other animals. Small particles have high surface area to volume ratios, high pelagic persistence and dispersal and as a result greater potential to result in pelagic impacts. All of these potential effects will result in mortality, migration (both horizontal and vertical), decreased fitness, and shifts in community composition. Depending on the scale and duration of these effects, there could be reduction in provisioning to commercial fish species, delivery of toxic metals to pelagic food webs and hence human seafood supply, and alterations to carbon transport and nutrient regeneration services. After four days of presentations and discussions, the workshop participants came to several conclusions and synthesized recommendations. 1. Assuming no discharge in the epipelagic zone, it is essential to minimize mining effects in the mesopelagic zone because of links to our human seafood supply as well as other ecosystem services provided by the mesopelagic fauna. This minimization could be accomplished by delivering dewatering discharge well below the mesopelagic/bathypelagic transition (below ~1000 m depth). 2. Research should be promoted by the ISA and other bodies to study the bathypelagic and abyssopelagic zones (from ~1000 m depths to just above the seafloor). It is likely that both collector plumes and dewatering plumes will be created in the bathypelagic, yet this zone is extremely understudied and contains major unknowns for evaluating mining impacts. 3. Management objectives, regulations and management actions need to prevent the creation of a persistent regional scale “haze” (enhanced suspended particle concentrations) in pelagic midwaters. Such a haze would very likely cause chronic harm to deep midwater ecosystem biodiversity, structure and function. 4. Effort is needed to craft suitable standards, thresholds, and indicators of harmful environmental effects that are appropriate to pelagic ecosystems. In particular, suspension feeders are very important ecologically and are likely to be very sensitive to sediment plumes. They are a high priority for study. 5. Particularly noisy mining activities such as ore grinding at seamounts and hydrothermal vents is of concern to deep diving marine mammals and other species. One way to minimize sound impacts would be to minimize activities in the sound-fixing-and-ranging (SOFAR) channel (typically at depths of ~1000 m) which transmits sounds over very long distances. 6. A Lagrangian (drifting) perspective is needed in monitoring and management because the pelagic ecosystem is not a fixed habitat and mining effects are likely to cross spatial management boundaries. For example, potential broad-scale impacts to pelagic ecosystems should be considered in the deliberations over preservation reference zones, the choice of stations for environmental baseline and monitoring studies and other area-based management and conservation measures. 7. Much more modeling and empirical study of realistic mining sediment plumes is needed. Plume models will help evaluate the spatial and temporal extent of pelagic (as well as benthic) ecosystem effects and help to assess risks from different technologies and mining scenarios. Plume modeling should include realistic mining scenarios (including duration) and assess the spatial-temporal scales over which particle concentrations exceed baseline levels and interfere with light transmission to elucidate potential stresses on communities and ecosystem services. Models should include both near and far field-phases, incorporating realistic near field parameters of plume generation, flocculation, particle sinking, and other processes. It is important to note that some inputs to these models such as physical oceanographic parameters are lacking and should be acquired in the near-term. Plume models need to be complemented by studies to understand effects on biological components by certain particle sizes and concentrations

The forgotten ocean: Why COP26 must call for vastly greater ambition and urgency to address ocean change

Of all the interconnected threats facing the planet, the top two are the climate and the biodiversity crises. Neither problem will be solved if we ignore the ocean. To turn the tide in favour of humanity and a habitable planet, we need to recognize and better value the fundamental role that the ocean plays in the earth system, and prioritize the urgent action needed to heal and protect the ocean at the ‘Earthscape’ level – the planetary scale at which processes to support life operate. The countries gathering at COP26 have unparalleled political capacity and leadership to make this happen. COP26 could be the turning point, but there must be commitment to united action for the ocean, as well as planning to meet those commitments, based on science-led solutions that address the interconnectivity of the ocean, climate, and biodiversity. Key ways in which the ocean both contributes to and acts as the major buffer for climate change are summarized, focusing on temperature, but not forgetting the role of storing carbon. It is noted with ‘high confidence’ that the ocean has stored 91% of the excess heat from global warming, with land, melting ice, and the atmosphere only taking up approximately 5, 3, and 1%, respectively. We also highlight the impact of the recent large release of heat from the ocean to the atmosphere during the 2015–2016 El Niño. We then present six science-based policy actions that form a recovery stimulus package for people, climate, nature, and the planet. Our proposals highlight what is needed to view, value, and treat the planet, including the ocean, for the benefit and future of all life

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

Applying genetic technologies to combat infectious diseases in aquaculture

Disease and parasitism cause major welfare, environmental and economic concerns for global aquaculture. In this review, we examine the status and potential of technologies that exploit genetic variation in host resistance to tackle this problem. We argue that there is an urgent need to improve understanding of the genetic mechanisms involved, leading to the development of tools that can be applied to boost host resistance and reduce the disease burden. We draw on two pressing global disease problems as case studies—sea lice infestations in salmonids and white spot syndrome in shrimp. We review how the latest genetic technologies can be capitalised upon to determine the mechanisms underlying inter- and intra-species variation in pathogen/ parasite resistance, and how the derived knowledge could be applied to boost disease resistance using selective breeding, gene editing and/or with targeted feed treatments and vaccines. Gene editing brings novel opportunities, but also implementation and dissemination challenges, and necessitates new protocols to integrate the technology into aquaculture breeding programmes. There is also an ongoing need to minimise risks of disease agents evolving to overcome genetic improvements to host resistance, and insights from epidemiological and evolutionary models of pathogen infestation in wild and cultured host populations are explored. Ethical issues around the different approaches for achieving genetic resistance are discussed. Application of genetic technologies and approaches has potential to improve fundamental knowledge of mechanisms affecting genetic resistance and provide effective pathways for implementation that could lead to more resistant aquaculture stocks, transforming global aquaculture.publishedVersio

The political biogeography of migratory marine predators

During their migrations, marine predators experience varying levels of protection and face many threats as they travel through multiple countries' jurisdictions and across ocean basins. Some populations are declining rapidly. Contributing to such declines is a failure of some international agreements to ensure effective cooperation by the stakeholders responsible for managing species throughout their ranges, including in the high seas, a global commons. Here we use biologging data from marine predators to provide quantitative measures with great potential to inform local, national and international management efforts in the Pacific Ocean. We synthesized a large tracking data set to show how the movements and migratory phenology of 1,648 individuals representing 14 species-from leatherback turtles to white sharks-relate to the geopolitical boundaries of the Pacific Ocean throughout species' annual cycles. Cumulatively, these species visited 86% of Pacific Ocean countries and some spent three-quarters of their annual cycles in the high seas. With our results, we offer answers to questions posed when designing international strategies for managing migratory species

Assessment of scientific gaps related to the effective environmental management of deep-seabed mining

A comprehensive understanding of the deep-sea environment and mining’s likely impacts is necessary to assess whether and under what conditions deep-seabed mining operations comply with the International Seabed Authority’s obligations to prevent ‘serious harm’ and ensure the ‘effective protection of the marine environment from harmful effects’ in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. A synthesis of the peer-reviewed literature and consultations with deep-seabed mining stakeholders revealed that, despite an increase in deep-sea research, there are few categories of publicly available scientific knowledge comprehensive enough to enable evidence-based decision-making regarding environmental management, including whether to proceed with mining in regions where exploration contracts have been granted by the International Seabed Authority. Further information on deep-sea environmental baselines and mining impacts is critical for this emerging industry. Closing the scientific gaps related to deep-seabed mining is a monumental task that is essential to fulfilling the overarching obligation to prevent serious harm and ensure effective protection, and will require clear direction, substantial resources, and robust coordination and collaboration. Based on the information gathered, we propose a potential high-level road map of activities that could stimulate a much-needed discussion on the steps that should be taken to close key scientific gaps before any exploitation is considered. These steps include the definition of environmental goals and objectives, the establishment of an international research agenda to generate new deep-sea environmental, biological, and ecological information, and the synthesis of data that already exist