![]() For example, this could be a particular concern for tuna fisheries that overlap with DSM areas 16 and account for up to 84% of GDP for tuna-dependent Pacific small island states. Some fisheries could face new stressors of noise, heavy metal contamination, and large sediment plumes associated with DSM 1, 14, 15. Cumulative impacts may be a critical concern for global fisheries where 57.3% of stocks are already fished at their maximum limit, and 35.4% are overfished, depleted or recovering 13. Seabed mining could affect people through impact pathways that are direct, diffuse and/or acting in combination with other human-induced pressures such as climate change. Before we assess DSM against these three dimensions below, we briefly discuss the potential impacts of DSM on people. 1, social legitimacy comprises three pillars: (a) a broad range of stakeholders, including ocean-dependent communities, need to have a say in the decision-making processes over DSM, (b) decision-making must be procedurally fair, inclusive, and transparent, and (c) the outcome must be equitable and generate social and economic benefits, as well as ensure the preservation of the marine environment. ![]() Yet the social aspects remain understudied.Īs detailed in the literature 11, 12 and summarised in Fig. This unique and legally binding mandate requires the ISA to consider not only profit and environmental impacts but also social and potential negative economic effects of DSM, particularly for developing states. While the ISA has legal competence to permit DSM under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), there are concerns about whether the ISA’s current decision-making procedures do justice to its mandate to act on behalf of humankind as a whole (UNCLOS, Article 136(2)). ![]() Social legitimacy of DSM relates not only to what decision is ultimately taken but also to how decisions are taken and by whom. Poignant examples include Nautilus Minerals’ failed DSM project in Papua New Guinea, which encountered financial challenges as well as public rejection 8, 9, and early attempts to regulate and allow mineral mining in the Antarctic, which ultimately resulted in a mining moratorium 10 (1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, Article 7). This in turn may jeopardise investments by DSM companies and may ultimately lead to a rejection of DSM altogether. Given this opposition, there is a risk that seabed minerals will encounter consumer boycotts if the industry does not accord with societal norms and beliefs 7. Not only have major brands rejected deep-sea minerals 5, but there are also growing calls for a moratorium on DSM, including from the Alliance of Countries for a Deep-Sea Mining Moratorium 6, which was launched at the 2022 UN Ocean Conference. This comes after Nauru triggered the so-called “two-year rule” in 2021, which calls on the ISA to finalise regulations within two years 3.ĭespite this rush, the social legitimacy of DSM is compromised 4. ![]() ![]() The International Seabed Authority (ISA), the institution responsible for regulating mining on the international seabed, is now under pressure to finalise regulations by mid-2023. What remains to be substantially debated are the social impacts of DSM.Īfter years of exploration, some companies are now pushing to begin commercial mining of the deep seabed. Scientists have warned repeatedly about potentially serious and irreversible environmental impacts from deep seabed mining (DSM), including but not limited to: removal and destruction of sensitive and poorly known seafloor habitats and species metal-contaminated and fine-particle sediment plumes that can impact benthic and pelagic fauna changes to water properties and increases in noise and light 1, 2. The technology to mine the ocean floor for valuable minerals such as copper, nickel, and cobalt is currently being developed. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |