Marine Policy 34 (2010) 1374–1380

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Policy

0308-59

doi:10.1

n Corr

E-m

(G. Paxt1 Te2 Te3 Te

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

Charting the territory: Exploring stakeholder reactions to the prospect ofseafloor exploration and mining in Australia

Claire Mason n, Gillian Paxton 1, Joanna Parr 2, Naomi Boughen 3

CSIRO Earth Science and Resource Engineering, PO Box 883, Kenmore QLD 4069, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 15 June 2010

Accepted 27 June 2010

Keywords:

Seafloor mining

Seafloor exploration

Social licence

Marine mining

7X/$ - see front matter Crown Copyright & 2

016/j.marpol.2010.06.012

esponding author. Tel.: +61 7 3327 4164; fax

ail addresses: Claire.Mason@csiro.au (C. Ma

on), Joanna.Parr@csiro.au (J. Parr), Naomi.Bou

l.: +61 7 3327 4074, fax: +61 7 3327 4455.

l.: +61 2 9490 8566; fax: +61 2 9490 8960.

l.: +61 7 3327 4079, fax: +61 7 3327 4455.

a b s t r a c t

Geological surveys of Australia’s marine territory have revealed significant potential for development of

a marine resource industry. As onshore mineral deposits become harder to find, less accessible to their

market and more challenging to extract, seafloor exploration and mining becomes an economically

viable option. However, evidence from industry and environmental literature suggests that social

acceptance will be important in determining the future of this industry in Australia. This paper reports

on findings from research investigating the social viability of seafloor mining in Australia. A

combination of interviews and focus groups were used to explore industry and community reactions

to the possible development of seafloor mining in Australia. Although stakeholders’ reactions were

variable, the majority of the participants were reluctant to see development of seafloor mining in

Australia, primarily because of concerns about the industry’s potential environmental impact. All

stakeholders sought further information about the benefits and costs associated with the industry

suggesting that they did not yet have a fixed attitude towards the industry. Stakeholders favoured a

precautionary approach towards the industry, supported by rigorous scientific analysis of the potential

environmental impacts, transparent and socially responsive management processes and meaningful

engagement with stakeholders.

Crown Copyright & 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The sea and oceans have unique social value across manydomains, for example, in the mythology of many cultures, as asource of food, as a medium for transport and trade, as a site forwarfare and as a tourist destination [1,2]. In recent decades,attention has turned to the seafloor as a potential source ofmineral resources. Technology developed to drill the seafloor forpetroleum and gas has opened up opportunities to mine formarine-based mineral deposits, and these deposits are becomingmore economically attractive as land-based mineral depositsbecome less accessible [3,4]. Seafloor mining industries are nowestablished in a number of countries, such as the United Kingdom,India and Japan. Australia does not have an established seafloormining industry, but there is significant potential for developmentin this area [5,6]. The Australian Offshore Minerals Location Map[7] identifies good prospects in Australia for the seaward

010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All

: +61 7 3327 4455.

son), Gillian.Paxton@csiro.au

ghen@csiro.au (N. Boughen).

extension of terrestrial deposits, placer deposits of heavy miner-als, and marine deposits of building sands (aggregates).

Although seafloor mining is becoming economically attractiveand technologically feasible, there may be additional issues toovercome if the industry is to become a reality. Almost certainly,the social acceptability of offshore exploration and miningactivities will be one such hurdle. In the onshore mining sector,a specific term, ‘social licence’, is used by the mining industry torefer to community sanctioning and tacit acceptance of miningoperations. Although a ‘social licence’ has no formal legalstanding, the failure to achieve and maintain acceptance fromkey stakeholders can have very negative implications for a miningoperation, even resulting in the operation being closed down[8–10]. Thus, social expectations have had significant influence onthe political and regulatory processes underpinning the grantingof formal licences for mining and exploration operations, and theacceptance of the extractive mineral industries more generally[11–13].

Experiences associated with the marine oil and gas industryconfirm that social acceptability will be important for offshoremining activity. Accounts of offshore oilfield development in theNorth Sea area identify community concerns influencing theconditions under which the development of oilfields couldproceed [14]. The ongoing influence of public perceptions isdemonstrated in the case of the Brent Spar decision regarding

rights reserved.

Table 1Research participants.

Stakeholder group Number of

participants

Federal legislative authorities with responsibility for

mineral resources and the environment

4

State legislative authorities with responsibility for mineral

resources and the environment

6

Seafloor exploration and mining companies 4

Onshore mining companies 1

Investors 1

Federal government members 2

Local councils 1

Non-government organizations 3

Other marine industries (petroleum mining, ports, subsea

contracting, recreational fishing, aquaculture)

6

Social researchers in the marine domain 2

Community 19

C. Mason et al. / Marine Policy 34 (2010) 1374–1380 1375

deep sea disposal of the Brent Spar oil storage buoy in the NorthSea [15,16]. Although deep sea disposal was identified as the ‘bestpracticable environmental option’, a strong negative reactionfrom the public lead to this decision being withdrawn. Thepublic’s reaction was attributed to a high emotional attachment tooceans as one of the planet’s ‘‘last great natural wilderness’’ [15].

Eighty-five per cent of Australia’s population live within 50 kmof the coastline [17] and Australia’s iconic beaches and oceans aresignificant in the national culture. The oceans are also importantfor Australia’s recreation and tourism industries [18,19]. Underthese conditions, ‘social licence’ for a potential seafloor explora-tion and mining industry is likely to be contentious. Instances ofsuccessful stakeholder and community action against develop-ment in the marine environment are numerous [e.g., 20],including marine mining proposals. For example, in 1967, concernfrom a range of Australian stakeholders prevented the mining oflime from Ellison Reef (an outlier of the Great Barrier Reef) forfertiliser for the sugar cane industry, despite submissions by theUniversity of Queensland and the Great Barrier Reef Committeethat Ellison Reef was dead. Environmental groups saw this as a‘test case’ for future mining in the Great Barrier Reef, and the casewas ultimately refused, with considerable community support, onthe basis of public interest and preservation of the Great BarrierReef [20].

More recently, community concerns played an important rolein the halting of applications made in 2000 and 2003 by SydneyMarine Sands to explore the seafloor in Commonwealth waters offNew South Wales for marine aggregates. Two applications werelodged with the Commonwealth government in accordance withthe Commonwealth Offshore Minerals Act 1994. Despite therelevant Commonwealth minister recommending that the firstlicence application be granted, acknowledging the potential foroffshore sand mining to take pressure off diminishing onshoreresources, both applications were ultimately refused. This refusalwas due to opposition from the New South Wales government,which refused to administer the applications based on ‘‘commu-nity concerns that were raised about the potential for theproposed activity to impact on the flora and fauna that flourishon the ocean floor and concerns about the impact on fragile beachenvironments’’ [21].

The examples outlined above illustrate the potential forstakeholder reactions and concerns for the environment toinfluence or even prevent marine industry activity, even whensuch activity is sanctioned by legislation (as in the Sydney MarineSands example) or accepted by the environmental managers ofthe day (as in the Ellison Reef and Brent Spar examples). It isevident that understanding and addressing stakeholder concernswill be critical for the successful management of a viable futureseafloor exploration and mining industry in Australia. However,the seafloor exploration and mining industry in Australia iscurrently in a fledgling state, and stakeholders have littleinformation from which to evaluate the costs and benefitsinvolved in seafloor exploration and mining in Australia [13,22].Under these conditions, stakeholder reactions are likely to bebased primarily on personal opinion [22]. Research is neededwhich explores stakeholder reactions to development of seafloorexploration and mining in Australia, towards understanding theconditions under which seafloor exploration and mining would begranted ‘social licence’.

To tackle this issue, CSIRO’s Wealth from Oceans Flagship hasembarked on a program of integrated, multi-disciplinary researchinvolving geologists, environmental scientists and social scientiststo explore the viability of the Australian seafloor exploration andmining industry. The social research component of the projectrepresents a science-based stakeholder dialogue process, inthat it uses a communication process to capture stakeholders’

knowledge and insights and inform scientific process. In thisinstance, our goal was to explore stakeholders’ reactions to theseafloor mining proposition and establish what information theyneed to answer their questions and concerns regarding it. Thisresearch is informed by earlier engagement with government,industry and non-government organizational representatives,taking the form of three workshops. These workshops revealedthat environmental impacts were prevalent in stakeholders’concerns about the industry. Workshop participants also reportedthat there was a lack of baseline environmental data from whichstakeholders could rigorously evaluate the relative costs andbenefits of seafloor mining activities [5,23]. Through this work thevalue of a ‘test’ site to assess the potential environmental impactsof seafloor exploration and mining was also identified.

The current study had two aims. First, we sought to assess thesocial acceptabliity of seafloor exploration and mining in Australiaby exploring key stakeholders’ reactions to development ofseafloor exploration and mining in Australia. Second, we aimedto inform research investigating the environmental impacts ofseafloor exploration and mining by drawing out stakeholders’information needs and environmental concerns. The real andperceived impacts associated with seafloor exploration andmining may vary according to the deposit location and miningtechniques. Thus, while we were interested in understanding theoverall acceptability of seafloor exploration and mining inAustralia, we needed to provide a more specific proposition forstakeholders to respond to when identifying their informationneeds and environmental concerns. Research suggests thataggregates are likely to be the first target for industry develop-ment due to pressure from the construction industry inmetropolitan regions, and a growing need for coastal defenceand beach nourishment schemes [3,21,24]. Based on thisinformation, we asked stakeholders to focus on exploration andmining of bulk sands and gravels (aggregate) on the innercontinental shelf (occurring at water depths of approximately40–70 m) when thinking about their information needs andenvironmental concerns.

2. Engaging seafloor exploration and mining stakeholders

A stakeholder map, developed through local and internationaldesktop reviews of the seafloor exploration and mining industry[5,21,25] was used to identify groups and organizations poten-tially interested in, or affected by, seafloor exploration and mining(see Table 1). Representation was sought from all groups in thestakeholder map; however, more than one representative was

C. Mason et al. / Marine Policy 34 (2010) 1374–13801376

sought from stakeholder groups that were closely interested in, oraffected by, seafloor exploration and mining to better understandthe range of views within those groups. Existing knowledge ofstakeholders’ likely positions with regard to seafloor explorationand mining was also used to ensure that the sample providedroughly equal representation from groups that were likely tosupport, oppose or hold a more neutral position towards seafloorexploration and mining. Using these criteria, 50 organizationswere invited to participate in the research, of which 31 agreed tobe involved (representing a response rate of 62%).

To obtain input from the stakeholder group labelled ‘‘Com-munity’’ two market research firms were asked to recruit focusgroup participants that were representative of the voting popula-tion in their area (Brisbane and Newcastle) in terms of gender,educational background, ethnicity and age. Newcastle was chosenas the location for one focus group because it represented acommunity with fairly high involvement in mining that would beable to articulate community issues associated with mining.Brisbane was chosen as the second location for the focus groupsbecause it is one of two cities in Australia where near shoreaggregate mining is already occurring.

The combined sample of interview participants and focusgroup participants provided input from 50 individuals, represent-ing all but two of the stakeholder groups from the map. Althoughinput was sought from representatives of Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander groups and the media, it was not possible to obtaintheir input within the timeframe for the research. A more detailedbreakdown of the research participants is provided in Table 1.

A qualitative methodology was chosen for this study, for tworeasons. First, the topic was one for which there was littleprevious research to draw upon. Under these circumstances,qualitative research is recommended as it enables the researcherto explore and identify the relevant issues rather than specifythem up front. Second, the interviews and focus groups allowedthe researchers to engage in a meaningful dialogue withstakeholders. They were therefore well suited to the goal ofestablishing a participatory research process.

Interview participants were initially contacted via email, andthen followed up with a phone call. The interviews, which werecarried out over the phone, were recorded with the participants’permission. The focus groups were carried out after the inter-views.

A semi-structured format was used for the interviews andfocus groups. This format assisted in maintaining the researchers’neutrality while still allowing participants to construct theirexperiences and give their own emphasis to what was, or was not,important for them [26]. The key questions covered in theinterviews and focus groups were:

(a)

When you hear the term ‘seafloor exploration and mining’what thoughts come to mind?

(b)

What information would you need if you had to decidewhether you would support near shore exploration andmining in Australia? and

(c)

Thinking specifically about environmental impact, whatconcerns do you have about near shore exploration andmining?

The focus groups differed from the interviews in that theybegan with an expert presentation on seafloor exploration andmining. The purpose of the presentation was to allow participantsto learn and engage with the topic so that they couldsubsequently participate in an informed discussion [27]. Toensure that the presentation provided a neutral overview of theminerals, mining methods and activities potentially involved in

seafloor exploration and mining in Australia, the presentation wasreviewed by both an industry and non-government organizationrepresentative from the project’s Steering Committee. Partici-pants were encouraged to ask questions of the expert both duringand after the presentation. After their questions had beenanswered, the facilitator (one of the authors) asked the group todiscuss each of the key questions in turn.

More detailed questions, exploring stakeholders’ expectationsregarding the timeframe, location and outcomes of an environ-mental impact test case were also explored in the interviews andfocus groups. However, as these questions were not directlyrelated to the research objectives, these data were not included inthis study. Most interviews took around 30 min to complete andthe focus groups lasted for two and a half hours.

The transcribed interviews and focus groups were analysedusing a constant comparison analysis method [28], one of themost common methods of qualitative data analysis. There are foursteps to this process, which begins with the researcher readingthrough the entire set of transcripts. The text is then broken intosmaller, meaningful chunks. The chunks are then labelled by theresearcher. Finally, chunks of text that are coded similarly aregrouped together to form categories and themes.

Direct quotes have been used to illustrate these categories andthemes. To preserve participant confidentiality, quotes frominterviewees are identified by the letter ‘‘I’’ and a randomlygenerated number. Quotes from focus group participants areidentified by the location in which the focus group was carried out(e.g., ‘‘Brisbane’’).

3. Initial reactions to the prospect of seafloor exploration andmining

Participants’ initial reactions to the term ‘‘seafloor explorationand mining’’ could be described as either ‘‘concerned,’’ ‘‘knowl-edgeable’’ or ‘‘positive’’. The ‘‘concerned’’ participants, whorepresented the largest group, felt negative about the notion oftaking mining activity into the offshore environment because ofthe potential for harm to the marine environment and to marinelife in particular. Amongst community representatives in parti-cular, these environmental concerns had an especially emotivetone, with some participants even describing themselves asfeeling emotional or scared about the proposition. Underlyingthis fear was an assumption that the marine environment is adelicate system, to which a seafloor exploration and miningindustry could cause significant damage. Participants explainedtheir concerns in terms of the interconnectedness and complexityof the marine environment, and the potential for human actionsto have unforeseen and devastating effects on the environment.Some expressed fear that seafloor exploration and mining wouldresult in a ‘catastrophe’, an ‘environmental disaster’ or result inthe environment being ‘utterly destroyed’. One participantexplained his concern as follows:

‘‘But as history has shown y everything is interrelated. The things

that you do in some way over there doesn’t look like it is affecting

here, but years down the track, it has made a big domino effect all

the way through the ecology, it’s made a massive impact.’’[Brisbane]

Participants’ fearful reactions towards seafloor exploration andmining were often justified by referring to experiences associatedwith onshore mining:

‘‘Environmental disaster y the mining operations up in Queens-

land have destroyed the ecosystems in that area. You know, we’ve

got kids with breathing difficulties because of white dust in the

C. Mason et al. / Marine Policy 34 (2010) 1374–1380 1377

Hunter Valleyy.Look at the Ok Tedi mine, what it’s done to the

indigenous populations up there, it is a catastrophe.’’ [Newcastle]

The ‘‘knowledgeable’’ group of participants had a more neutraland descriptive response to the term ‘‘seafloor exploration andmining’’. These participants, who tended to be more closelyconnected to the industry, offered examples of seafloor explora-tion and mining activity occurring in Australia and overseas. Theyalso differentiated seafloor exploration and mining from relatedactivities such as petroleum and gas exploration and drilling orports and harbour dredging.

The ‘‘positive’’ participants represented the smallest group inthe sample. They felt positive about the potential offered by theindustry, describing it as an opportunity to do mining in a cleaner,safer and more innovative way. For example:

‘‘yI see it as an immense opportunity to look at other ways of not

only exploring, but certainly delivering product to markets that

require these sorts of commodities. I think it is something that

certainly hasn’t been looked at very much in Australia, and given

what is going on overseas I think it is a long time overdue.’’ [I17]

‘‘I think it is greatyBecause they are pioneering in the sand

mining there, shells or whatever it is, to me it seems a lot cleaner

and the technology is a lot better, to extract the things that they

want toy’’ [Newcastle]

4. Information needed to evaluate the seafloor mining andexploration proposition

The second question: ‘‘What information would you need ifyou had to decide whether you would support near shoreexploration and mining in Australia?’’ was used to explore whatinformation participants might need in order to evaluate the nearshore exploration and mining proposition. This question wasrevisited at the end of the interviews and focus groups to checkthat all the issues of importance to them had been covered.

Even though participants’ information needs were wide-ranging, there was a high level of consistency across the differentstakeholder groups in the questions that they raised. Broadlyspeaking, they fell into the following categories: (1) the natureand location of industry activity, (2) understanding the environ-mental impacts, (3) identifying the costs and benefits and(4) management of industry development. There were also manycomments about the importance of ensuring that stakeholdershad access to independent and transparent information about theindustry and its impact. Each of these themes is described in moredetail below.

4.1. The nature and location of industry activity

Stakeholders who were not closely involved with the seafloorexploration and mining industry needed information that wouldgive them a better sense of what development of this industrymight look like. More specifically, they sought information aboutlikely locations for mining activity, the types of minerals thatwould be mined and the technologies and processes that wouldbe used.

The location of seafloor exploration and mining activity wasimportant to participants for several reasons. First, participantsindicated that they would be more concerned about explorationand mining activity if it was occurring where there were criticalmarine habitats or other natural resources that were highlyvalued by the community. Second, they were concerned thatexploration and mining activity might interfere with recreationaluse of the environment or other marine industries such as

shipping, fishing and oil and gas mining operations. For thoseinvolved with regulation of the industry, understanding thelocation of the activity was also important in terms of establishingwhat regulatory requirements would apply.

4.2. The environmental impacts

All participants sought information about the potentialenvironmental impact of near shore exploration and miningactivity. Central to participants’ concerns was the potentialimpact on marine life. Participants felt that there was a highlikelihood of impact to marine life when carrying out activity inthe near shore environment:

‘‘ythere is a growing body of scientific information that infauna

of unconsolidated sediments on the seafloor are full of life and

they actually have a significant impact on the life above it, and

often the water column [is] influenced by the health of the seabed

environment.’’ [I19]

They wanted to know what species and habitats would beaffected, and to what extent. Several participants noted that theresearch should take into account the complex inter-relationshipsamong the different elements of the marine environment to besure of capturing the full impact of any activity. They also wantedto understand the size of the area around the exploration andmining site that would be impacted by mining activity.

As well as being concerned about effects on marine life,participants believed there was potential for mining activity toaffect coastal features. They were especially concerned thatremoval of aggregate from the seabed might lead to beacherosion or accretion.

When discussing possible impacts in the marine environment,some participants from the community and non-governmentorganizations questioned whether marine scientists were in aposition to evaluate these impacts accurately. Contributing to thisconcern was the perception that the marine environment wasmore fluid and variable than the onshore environment, and wastherefore more difficult to understand and control. Someparticipants suggested that even the experts do not currentlyhave a good understanding of the inter-relationships among thedifferent elements of the marine environment and the contribu-tion that this environment makes within the larger ecosystem. Forexample, one community representative asked:

‘‘y is there a parallel between the resources in the Amazon Basin

and the resources of our coastline? yI mean the Amazon

Rainforest is the lungs of the world basically. We know that, yet

they still mine it and they cut down the trees. Is there something

about the coastline which draws some equivalent to that?yis it

one of those areas that you would leave alone because it has a

positive impact on the way the earth survives?’’ [Brisbane]

Other environmental concerns that were mentioned includedonshore impacts associated with the industry (e.g., onshoreprocessing facilities, transport activity) and impacts associatedwith accidents and extreme weather events. Given that theindustry was new and unproven, participants thought there was aneed to examine the potential for catastrophes and their impact.One of the representatives from the marine industries asked:

‘‘Is it safe? What is the track record of this exploration around the

world? What happens if there is a catastrophic environmental

leakage or a big damaging act?’’ [I23]

Finally, participants across all stakeholder groups wanted toknow how the area would recover once mining activities ended

C. Mason et al. / Marine Policy 34 (2010) 1374–13801378

and what remediation and rehabilitation would achieve. Aparticipant from one of the legislative authorities commented:

‘‘Terrestrial mining, it is possible, at some cost, to remediate after

you’ve actually stopped mining, or stopped extraction. I’m not so

certain that it [would] be even possible to do that on the

seabedyI think that’d be my greatest concern, the prospect of

damage that just can’t be undone really, just because of the nature

of where the work is being undertaken.’’ [I8]

4.3. The costs and benefits

Although the need to understand environmental impacts waspredominant, participants also sought a full picture of the impactsassociated with the industry, including social and economicimpacts. Fundamentally, they wanted to know whether therewere sufficient benefits to justify the development of this industryin Australia. It was generally assumed that the industry offeredeconomic benefits, either in the form of cheaper resources (andtherefore consumer goods) or revenue for Australia. Communityparticipants were particularly concerned about the way in whichthe revenue from the industry would be distributed. Someexpressed the view that economic benefits from seafloorexploration and mining should be distributed across the broadercommunity rather than to a small group, and should remain inAustralia rather than going overseas.

Participants from all stakeholder groups were also concernedabout social impacts. They asked whether the industry wouldaffect employment and business in local communities, whetherrecreational use of the ocean would be affected, and what wouldbe the aesthetic impact of the industry. Participants wanted toknow whether the facilities associated with mining activity wouldbe visible from the land and whether the activity would changethe look of the water. They also recommended examining theacceptability of near shore exploration and mining activity withthe traditional landowners in the area. Participants were alsoconcerned about the impact that seafloor exploration and miningwould have on other marine industries. One interviewee,representing a legislative authority, summarised these concernsas follows:

‘‘Theyimportant thing is [that] near shore is where most of the

human activity in the ocean occurs. So one of the key things any

mining will have to take into account is what impact it has not

just on the environment but on other users of the environment.’’[I11]

In discussing these costs and benefits, some participantssuggested that it would be useful to do a cost-benefit analysiscontrasting mining offshore with mining onshore. However,participants from community and non-government organizationsexpressed disappointment that seafloor exploration and miningwas the only alternative being considered to onshore explorationand mining. It was even suggested that seafloor exploration andmining might just be a strategy to have mining ‘out of sight, out ofmind.’

4.4. Managing industry development

The fourth information need that emerged from the studyrelated to the approach taken to manage industry development.Many participants hoped that a precautionary approach would betaken with the industry. They also believed that the public shouldhave input into broad strategic decisions and local issuesregarding the industry. However, they feared that financial

interests would outweigh other interests when decisions weremade. The following comment is representative:

‘‘I think there’s a real question around the public’s ability to feel

confident that its voice would be heard in a decision making

processy I don’t underestimate peoples’ intelligence, more their

confidence to respond in a way where their voice would have

equal weighting in the government’s ear, over that of industry on

the mattery’’ [I1]

Given these concerns, participants wanted to know how theindustry would be regulated and in particular, how stakeholderand community consultation would be carried out.

4.5. Independent and transparent information

A final theme that emerged from the research related to thequality of the information provided about the industry. Manyparticipants commented that all stakeholders should have accessto independent and transparent information, both about theindustry more broadly, and also relating to specific proposals.Access to information was seen as facilitating decision-makingand therefore necessary for the development of the industry. Oneparticipant, representing a company with an interest in seafloorexploration and mining, said:

‘‘yfrom an industry perspectivey the inability to be able to

access good basic research to build off, particularly for industry

development, is probably a critical thing that’s actually resulting

in some poor environmental management deals on the ground.’’[I21]

Participants’ preference was that information about theindustry should be provided by multiple groups with technicalexpertise but no commercial stake in the industry.

‘‘yyou’d probably need quite a few bodies. Independent bodies

keeping an eye so it’s really more than one person that it’s relying

ony that it’s going through quite a few people, everybody has to

agree and then its thumbs up.’’ [Brisbane]

Several participants expressed the view that if the provider ofthe information had a commercial interest in the industry, theycould not be trusted to provide independent and objectiveinformation about the industry.

5. Discussion

5.1. Understanding stakeholder reactions

Although there were a variety of reactions to the developmentof seafloor exploration and mining, the overall feeling towardsseafloor exploration and mining was more negative than positive.Positive reactions were generally (although not exclusively)expressed by industry representatives, who saw the industry asoffering economic benefits and the potential to do mining in a‘‘cleaner’’ way. More negative reactions tended to be expressed byrepresentatives of community and non-government organiza-tions, but were also evident amongst other marine users.

Several factors appeared to underlie the more negativereactions to seafloor exploration and mining. One factor was theway in which the marine environment was perceived. Studyparticipants used words such as ‘‘sensitive’’, ‘‘complex’’, ‘‘pristine’’and ‘‘unknown’’ to describe the marine environment anddifferentiate it from the terrestrial environment. This tendencyto view the oceans as a realm fundamentally different from, morefragile than, and disconnected from the ‘‘human’’ environment

C. Mason et al. / Marine Policy 34 (2010) 1374–1380 1379

has been identified by researchers exploring cognitions about theocean [2,29].

A second factor which appeared to underlie stakeholders’concerns was the tendency to use onshore mining activity as aframe of reference for thinking about the likely effects of offshoremining activity. Stakeholders cited ‘‘environmental catastrophes’’,and other negative environmental and social impacts in theonshore mining domain, to explain their reluctance to embracethe expansion of mining into the marine environment. Accordingto Bridge [9], mining is sometimes seen as an exemplar of thenegative effects which occur when ‘‘man’’ interferes in the‘‘natural’’ environment. These two schemas, of the ocean asprecious, pristine and complex, and of mining activity asdamaging and unnatural, seem to underpin the fear and concernswhich some participants expressed in reaction to the idea offurther developing seafloor exploration and mining in Australia.

A third factor contributing to negative reactions towardsindustry development (especially amongst representatives ofcommunity and non-government organizations) was lack of trust.Distrust was evident in participants’ reference to past instanceswhen companies failed to provide complete information aboutthe impact of their operations. The credibility of other informationsources was also questioned, particularly information provided bygroups with a financial stake in industry development. Lack oftrust was also evident when participants questioned the adequacyof current scientific knowledge relating to marine ecosystems.Furthermore, participants believed that decision-makers wouldalways favour economic interests over social and environmentalconsiderations, indicating a lack of confidence in the integrity ofthe regulatory system protecting stakeholders’ interests andvalues.

5.2. Towards an informed debate

A primary impetus for this study was the need to understandthe social acceptability of seafloor exploration and mining inAustralia. The study revealed that stakeholders had reservationsregarding the development of seafloor exploration and mining inAustralia, and confirmed that environmental concerns werepredominant in stakeholders’ thinking about the industry. How-ever, most of the research participants were sufficiently open tothe seafloor exploration and mining proposition to suggest thatfurther information was needed to enable them to weigh up thecosts and benefits of the industry.

CSIRO’s Wealth from Oceans flagship initiated this program ofsocial and biophysical research with the aim of providing aknowledge base that would enable stakeholders to engage in aninformed debate about the acceptability of seafloor explorationand mining in Australia’s future. The study sample of 50participants can only provide a limited representation ofstakeholders’ diverse perspectives and attitudes. In particular,the failure to obtain input from indigenous groups is a significantlimitation. Indigenous groups may have a fundamentally differentrelationship with the ocean and thus a unique perspective onseafloor exploration and mining. If this industry is to developfurther, it will be vital to ensure that operations have priorinformed consent from local indigenous communities. MiningMinerals and Sustainable Development Australia has establisheda database which provides examples and advice to supportengagement and negotiation between indigeneous stakeholdersand mining companies [30]. Although there may be unique issuesto negotiate in the offshore realm, the learning captured in thisdatabase provides guidance for mining companies that areengaging with indigenous groups.

This limitation aside, the study findings provide much-neededdirection for environmental research relating to seafloor explora-tion and mining. In the first instance, this research identifies keyareas of concern to stakeholders such as impacts on marine lifeand habitats, beach erosion and accretion, effects of accidents andextreme weather events and the potential for remediation andrehabilitation. However, our findings should also inform the wayin which these findings are communicated back to stakeholders.In the first instance, there would be value in clarifying the state ofscientific knowledge relating to the marine environment, focusingin particular on how scientists go about predicting the level,nature and scope of impacts associated with marine mining andthe confidence with which they can make these predictions.Second, our research suggests that stakeholders want to under-stand how these impacts will play out within the larger marineecosystem, so it will be important to provide information aboutlarge-scale and long-term impacts as well as more immediateimpacts. Finally, there may be value in integrating this marineresearch with an assessment of other impacts (onshore environ-mental impacts, social impacts and economic impacts) to givestakeholders a more complete picture of the costs and benefitsassociated with industry development.

A knowledge base that is responsive to the needs ofstakeholders empowers them to have more meaningful inputinto debate regarding the future of seafloor exploration andmining in Australia. However, the findings from this study suggestthat lack of trust might inhibit this debate. In the onshore miningdomain, trust has been identified as a key determinant ofacceptance of a mining operation [31]. Building trust amongstakeholder groups has been identified as a critical task for themining industry to ensure its sustainability [30]. Trust is adynamic variable, which evolves over time in relationships [32].The study findings suggest that trust might be enhanced byaddressing and communicating about: (a) the level of scientificknowledge about the marine environment, (b) the processes forensuring that comprehensive and impartial information aboutenvironmental, social and economic impacts of the industry willbe obtained and (c) the integrity of the regulatory systemgoverning the industry. Mining operations can introduce impactsthat are not fully understood until the activity is begun [33]. Thus,stakeholders need to know that there are mechanisms throughwhich their interests will continue to be represented as new ideasemerge or more is learned. Creating transparency around theprocesses through which information will be disseminated, howdecisions will be made, and how stakeholders’ values andinterests will be represented in these processes, will be importantfor fostering trust in the seafloor exploration and mining domain.

This study also provides some insight into the values under-pinning stakeholders’ reactions to seafloor exploration andmining. Participants’ comments regarding the complexity of themarine ecology, the significance of the oceans in Australianculture and the right of future generations of Australians to enjoythe natural environment all point to the fact that development ofan offshore mining industry will bring economic values intoconflict with environmental and social values. However, partici-pants’ questions about potential locations for exploration andmining activity suggest that some locations are considered lesssignificant than others, and therefore might be more acceptable assites for exploration and mining activity. The fact that participantssought information about social and economic impacts in additionto environmental impacts suggests that environmental values donot completely outweigh all other values in this area. Further-more, comments about the need to weigh up costs and benefitssuggest that stakeholders’ decisions about the acceptability ofseafloor exploration and mining involve trade-offs among multi-ple objectives. Further research, exploring how stakeholders value

C. Mason et al. / Marine Policy 34 (2010) 1374–13801380

different attributes of the marine environment may providedirection regarding how best to manage the social, economic andenvironmental values associated with the marine environment.

By exploring reactions to the potential development of a newmining frontier, this study offers insight into issues underpinningachievement of a social licence to operate. The concernsexpressed show that stakeholders have a fundamental desire topreserve existing life and lifestyles—from the levels of animal lifeand habitats to local communities to national well-being. Never-theless, to the extent that mining activity is seen as meetingimportant needs and desires of the human population, stake-holders are willing to accept some losses (ideally minimal) toexisting lives and lifestyles. However, in order to endorse thistrade-off, stakeholders need to feel confident that there aresystems (regulatory frameworks, watchdogs, independent re-search, stakeholder consultation) to ensure that these interestsare protected. Thus, social licence can be understood as involvingtwo decisions. One decision is about whether the benefitsassociated with a mining operation represent an acceptabletrade-off, given the costs of that mining operation. The otherdecision is about the trustworthiness of the system of informationprovision and regulation surrounding that industry. Withoutconfidence in that system, stakeholders cannot be sure that theyhave accurate information about the costs and benefits involved,nor that their interests will be protected as the industry goesforward.

References

[1] Steinberg PE. The social construction of the ocean.. Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press; 2001.

[2] Warren J, Procter L. Stakeholder views about the marine environment and itsprotection. Wellington, NZ: Department of Conservation; 2005. Report No.:256.

[3] Parr J, Mason C, Boughen N, Fulton B, Griffiths C, Johns S, et al. Marine mining:integrated social and environmental research in the design of a NSW testcase. In: Proceedings of the 18th NSW coastal conference, Ballina NSW; 2009.

[4] Rona PA. The changing vision of marine minerals. Ore Geology Reviews2008;33(3–4):618–66.

[5] Boughen N, Ashworth P, Littleboy A. Exploring the social dimensions of anexpansion to the seafloor exploration and mining industry in Australia: a reporton stakeholder workshops. Sydney: CSIRO; 2007. Report No.: P2007/610.

[6] McKay WJ, Miezitis Y, Exon NF, Sait R Australia’s offshore minerals: anoverview, CSIRO Exploration and Mining; 2005. Report No.: P2005/135.

[7] Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation—GeoscienceAustralia. Australian offshore mineral locations. Canberra, ACT: GeoscienceAustralia; 2006.

[8] Institute of Social and Ethical Accountability and Business for SocialResponsibility. Business and Economic Development: Mining sector report:Institute of Social and Ethical Accountability (AccountAbility) and Businessfor Social Responsiblity (BSR); 2004.

[9] Bridge G. Contested terrain: mining and the environment. Annual Review ofEnvironment and Resources 2004;29:205–59.

[10] Boutilier R, Thomson I. How to measure the socio-political risk in a project.In: . Valenzuela JL, editor. XXVIII Convencion Minera Internacional. Veracruz,Mexico; 2009.

[11] Extractive Industries Review. Striking a better balance: the world bank groupand extractive industries. Washington, DC: Extractive Industries Review;2003.

[12] Anckorn JF. And still we did not get a permity. World Gold Conference.Cairns, Australia; 2007.

[13] Littleboy A, Boughen N. Exploring the social dimensions of an expansion tothe seafloor exploration and mining industry in Australia: synthesis report.Sydney: CSIRO; 2007. Report No.: P2007/917.

[14] Gramling R, Freudenburg WR. Attitudes toward offshore oil development: asummary of current evidence. Ocean and Coastal Management 2006;49:442–61.

[15] McIntyre AD. Editorial: the Brent-Spar Incident—a milestone event. MarinePollution Bulletin 1995;30(9):578.

[16] Side J. The future of North Sea oil industry abandonment in the light of theBrent Spar decision. Marine Policy 1997;21(1):45–52.

[17] Oceans Policy Science Advisory Group. A marine nation: national frameworkfor marine research and innovation: Australian Government; 2009.

[18] Brown VA, Spink M. Caring for the commons: socio-cultural considerations inoceans policy development and implementation. Sydney: EnvironmentAustralia; 1997.

[19] Booth D. Australian beach cultures the history of sun, sand and surf.Portland: Frank Cass; 2001.

[20] Bonyhady T. Places worth keeping: conservationists, politics and the law. St.Leonards NSW: Allen and Unwin; 1993.

[21] Johns SM. Exploring the social dimensions of an expansion to the seafloorexploration and mining industry in Australia: Australian context review.Sydney: CSIRO; 2008. Report No.: P2007/661.

[22] Parr J, Boughen N, Johns S, Littleboy A, Yeats C, Ashworth P. Social viability ofan expanded seafloor exploration and mining industry in Australia. PACRIMCongress; Gold Coast.

[23] Boughen N, Parr J, Littleboy A, Johns S, Ashworth P, Yeats C. Future mining ofthe Australian seafloor—do we have the social licence? International futuremining conference and exhibition Sydney, Australia: The University of NewSouth Wales; 2008. November 2008.

[24] McConachy TF, Yeats CJ, McLennan TP. Results of due diligence study deepblue minerals. Sydney: CSIRO; 2005. Report No.: P2005/177.

[25] Tsamenyi M, Kaye S, Mfodwo K. Seafloor exploration and mining: a desktopstudy of international and selected country experiences. Sydney: ANCORS,University of Wollongong; 2007.

[26] Seidman I, editor. Interviewing as qualitative research: a guide for researchersin education and the social sciences. 2nd ed.. New York: Teachers CollegePress; 1998.

[27] Gregory J, Hartz-Karp J, Watson R. Using deliberative techniques to engagethe community in policy development. Australia and New Zealand HealthPolicy 2008;5(16):1–9.

[28] Leech NL, Onwuegbuzie AJ. An arrange of qualitative data analysis tools: acall for qualitative data analysis triangulation. School Psychology Quarterly2007;22:557–84.

[29] Aubrun A, Grady J. Keeping the ocean alive: cognitive elicitations withresidents of oceanside communities. FrameWorks Institute; 2003.

[30] Sheehy B, Dickie P. Facing the future: the report of the MMSD AustraliaProject. Melbourne: Australian Minerals and Energy Environment Founda-tion; 2002.

[31] Muradian R, Martinez-Alier J, Correa H. International capital versus localpopulation: the environmental conflict of the Tambogrande mining project,Peru. Society and Natural Resources 2003;16(9):775–92.

[32] Mayer RC, Davis JH, Schoorman FD. An integrative model of organizationaltrust. Academy of Management Review 1995;20:709–34.

[33] Parker R, Rader J, Seru S, Sabater C. Business and Economic DevelopmentMining Sector Report. London, UK: AccountAbility & Business for SocialResponsibility; 2004.