Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Seabed mining: International Seabed Authority environmentalmanagement plan for the Clarion–Clipperton Zone.A partnership approach
Michael Lodge a,n, David Johnson b, Gwenaëlle Le Gurun a, Markus Wengler a, Phil Weaver b,Vikki Gunn b
a International Seabed Authority, 14-20 Port Royal Street, Kingston, Jamaicab Seascape Consultants Ltd., Belbins Valley, Belbins, Romsey, SO51 0PE, UK
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:Received 14 January 2014Received in revised form8 April 2014Accepted 8 April 2014
Keywords:Seabed miningLegal frameworkDeep-ocean researchMarine spatial planningGeographic information managementBlue growth
a b s t r a c t
In 2012 the International Seabed Authority approved an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for theClarion–Clipperton Fracture Zone CCZ in the Eastern Central Pacific. The EMP is a proactive spatialmanagement strategy that anticipates mining of polymetallic nodules and that includes the designationof Areas of Particular Environmental Interest (APEIs). The implementation of the EMP and the soundapplication of marine spatial planning require sufficient high-quality data to inform decision-makers anddraw credible boundaries of protected areas. This paper outlines the development of the EMP in thecontext of the Authority's responsibilities with respect to the protection of the marine environment. Thepaper further highlights needs for research and data collection and introduces a related EU researchproject aiming to inform the development of mining guidelines. The authors suggest that the sustainabledevelopment of deep sea resources in the CCZ could be considered as a model for blue growth.
& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The Clarion–Clipperton Zone (CCZ) is an area of the seabed ofabout six million km2, with water depths of between 4000 and6000 m, located in the Eastern Central Pacific Ocean and boundedto the North and South by the Clarion and Clipperton FractureZones. It is considered to be a prime location for commerciallyviable deposits of polymetallic nodules and has been the subject ofscientific investigation, mineral prospecting and exploration sincethe 1960s. Although a test mining operation was conducted in thearea in the early 1970s, no commercial mining has yet taken place.
The International Seabed Authority (ISA) is the organizationestablished by the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS) [1] and the 1994 Agreement Relating to the Implemen-tation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law ofthe Sea [2],1 to manage mining in the seabed beyond the limits of
national jurisdiction, referred to in the Convention as ‘the Area'.Exploration and exploitation of minerals in the Area are collec-tively referred to in the Convention as ‘activities in the Area'. As ofNovember 2013, ISA had granted exploration contracts in the CCZto twelve separate entities.2 The first of these contracts, whichhave a duration of 15 years, will expire around 2016 unless theyare renewed (renewal is permitted on a limited and exceptional
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol
Marine Policy
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.04.0060308-597X/& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
n Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 876 967 2200.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Lodge),
[email protected] (D. Johnson),[email protected] (G. Le Gurun), [email protected] (M. Wengler),[email protected] (P. Weaver),[email protected] (V. Gunn).
1 The Part XI Agreement was provisionally applied from 16 November 1994(the date of entry into force of UNCLOS) and entered into force itself on 28 July
(footnote continued)1996. As provided in the General Assembly resolution by which the Agreement wasadopted and in the Agreement itself (art. 2), the provisions of the Agreement andPart XI of UNCLOS are to be interpreted and applied together as a singleinstrument: in the event of any inconsistency between the Agreement and PartXI, the provisions of the Agreement prevail.
2 The contractors are Deep Ocean Resources Development Co. Ltd. (DORD)(Japan), Institut français de recherche pour l’exploitation de la mer (IFREMER)(France), Yuzhmorgeologiya (Russian Federation), Interoceanmetal Joint Organiza-tion (IOM) (a consortium sponsored by Bulgaria, Cuba, Czech Republic, Poland,Russian Federation and Slovakia), the Government of the Republic of Korea, ChinaOcean Minerals Research and Development Association (COMRA) (China), Bunde-sanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe (BGR) (Germany), Nauru OceanResources Inc. (Nauru), Tonga Offshore Mining Ltd (Tonga), UK Seabed ResourcesLtd (United Kingdom) and G-TEC Sea Mineral Resources NV (Belgium). The twelfthcontract, to Marawa Research and Exploration Ltd. (Kiribati) was approved in 2012but had not yet been signed at the time of writing. Several further applications forexploration for nodules in the CCZ are pending consideration.
Marine Policy 49 (2014) 66–72
basis) or converted into exploitation (commercial-scale mining)contracts. A number of areas which have been subject to pre-liminary survey work are also identified as ‘reserved areas’, whichmeans that they are available for development as mine sites bydeveloping States under certain conditions outlined in the Con-vention and the 1994 Implementation Agreement.3
Under their contractual arrangements with ISA, explorationcontractors are obliged to undertake environmental baselinestudies and report progress annually. Recommendations for theguidance of contractors for the assessment of possible environ-mental impacts arising from exploration have been issued by theISA’s Legal and Technical Commission. These provide a frameworkfor information to be gathered over a 15-year exploration phase. Itis for the ISA to judge the comprehensiveness and quality ofinformation gathered during that time, prior to granting anyexploitation permits.
In July 2012 the Council of ISA approved an EnvironmentalManagement Plan (EMP) for the CCZ [3]. The EMP is a proactivespatial management plan that anticipates mining exploitationwhile at the same time recognizing the designation of Areas ofParticular Environmental Interest. The EMP is scientifically drivenusing accepted design principles to create a mosaic of protectedareas alongside areas assigned for exploration, with appropriatemanagement objectives.
This paper explains the legal powers of ISA in relation toprotection of the marine environment including the guidingprinciples adopted and the process taken to adopt the CCZ EMP.Data collection obligations and future research potential arehighlighted. Initial intentions of a major new EU research projectaiming to inform the development of exploitation guidelines areexplained. The authors suggest that the sustainable developmentof deep sea resources in the CCZ could be considered as a modelfor blue growth.4 For this to happen it would be incumbent onother regulators/competent authorities to involve industry inenvironmental data collection as part of their duty to implementthe Ecosystem Approach.
2. Powers and functions of the ISA with respect to theprotection of the marine environment
Within its broad mandate to organize, carry out, and controlactivities in the Area on behalf of mankind as a whole, ISA isequipped with a far-reaching mandate to ensure the protection ofthe marine environment from the harmful effects of such activ-ities. The legal framework through which this mandate may befulfilled is contained in UNCLOS, the 1994 Agreement, and therules, regulations and procedures adopted by the ISA.
Under Article 145 of UNCLOS, ISA is required to take necessarymeasures ‘to ensure effective protection for the marine environ-ment from harmful effects which may arise’ from activities in theArea. To this end, ISA is required to adopt appropriate rules,regulations and procedures for, inter alia:
(a) the prevention, reduction and control of pollution and otherhazards to the marine environment, including the coastline,and of interference with the ecological balance of the marineenvironment, particular attention being paid to the need for
protection from harmful effects of such activities as drilling,dredging, excavation, disposal of waste, construction andoperation or maintenance of installations, pipelines and otherdevices related to such activities;
(b) the protection and conservation of the natural resources of theArea and the prevention of damage to the flora and fauna ofthe marine environment.
Pursuant to Article 162, para. 2(o)(ii), of UNCLOS, the Council ofISA has the competence to adopt the ‘rules, regulations andprocedures’ relating to activities of prospecting, exploration andexploitation in the Area. Such activities may be carried out only byqualified entities on the basis of a formal written plan of workapproved by the Council. A fundamental feature of the regime isthat such a plan of work shall be in the form of a contract betweenthe ISA and the relevant entity. That the rules, regulations andprocedures adopted by the Council should include environmentalregulations is explicit from the language of Annex III of UNCLOS(entitled ‘Basic conditions of prospecting, exploration and exploi-tation’), which requires ISA, inter alia, to adopt rules, regulationsand procedures on ‘mining standards and practices … includingthose relating to … protection of the marine environment’. The1994 Agreement further emphasizes that ‘the adoption of rules,regulations and procedures incorporating applicable standards forthe protection and preservation of the marine environment’ is oneof the matters to be given priority consideration by ISA betweenthe entry into force of UNCLOS and the approval of the first plan ofwork for exploitation.
Although law-making power is vested in the Council, theCouncil does not act alone in formulating environmental regula-tions for the Area. The other organ of ISA with particular respon-sibility for the protection of the marine environmental is the Legaland Technical Commission, which is established as an organ of theCouncil under Article 163.
The functions of the Commission are specified in Article 165.The Commission is required to formulate and submit to theCouncil environmental rules, regulations, and procedures andkeep them under review. It is required to make recommendationsto the Council both on the implementation of such regulations andon ‘the protection of the marine environment, taking into accountthe views of recognized experts in that field.’ Furthermore, theCommission also has to prepare environmental impact assess-ments of activities in the Area, make recommendations to theCouncil concerning a monitoring programme to observe, measure,evaluate, and analyze the risks and effects of pollution caused bysuch activities, ensure that existing regulations are adequate andcomplied with, and coordinate the implementation of the mon-itoring programme.
3. Regulations on prospecting and exploration
ISA has adopted three sets of Regulations dealing with pro-specting and exploration for mineral resources in the Area. Thefirst set of Regulations was adopted in 2000 and dealt withprospecting and exploration for polymetallic nodules [4]. Regula-tions on prospecting and exploration for polymetallic sulphideswere adopted in 2010 [5] and for cobalt-rich crusts in 2012 [6]. In2013, the Regulations on prospecting and exploration for poly-metallic nodules were revised and updated to be consistent withthe 2010 and 2012 regulations [7]. The three sets of regulations arebroadly similar in format, scope and content, with differencesprimarily to reflect the different spatial and geological character-istics of the mineral resources they deal with. Ultimately, it isintended that the Regulations would form part of a Mining Code,regulating all aspects of activities in the Area from prospecting
3 These conditions are that the applicant entity must be a developing StateParty to UNCLOS or a natural or juridical person sponsored by and effectivelycontrolled by a developing State Party or any group of such States. UNCLOS, AnnexIII, art. 9 and ISA Regulations on Prospecting and Exploration for PolymetallicNodules, regulation 17.
4 Blue growth is generally considered to be a long-term strategy to generatesustainable development by fostering more jobs and growth in the marine andmaritime sectors.
M. Lodge et al. / Marine Policy 49 (2014) 66–72 67
through to exploitation. At present there are no regulationsrelating to the exploitation of any mineral resources under theadministration of the ISA.
The Regulations impose a duty on contractors to ‘take neces-sary measures to prevent, reduce and control pollution and otherhazards to the marine environment arising from its activities inthe Area as far as reasonably possible, applying a precautionaryapproach and best environmental practices.’ Contractors arerequired to gather environmental baseline data as explorationactivities progress and to establish environmental baselinesagainst which to assess the likely effects of their activities on themarine environment. Contractors are also required to establishand carry out a programme to monitor and report on such effectson the marine environment and to cooperate with the Authorityand the sponsoring State or States in the establishment andimplementation of such monitoring programmes. In practice thismeans that contractors are required to submit an annual report onthe implementation and results of their environmental monitoringprogrammes, including relevant data and information. Thesereports are then forwarded to the Legal and Technical Commissionfor its consideration pursuant to Article 165. The Commissionreviews and considers these reports each year and makes suchcomments and recommendations as may be necessary to theSecretary-General, who then draws any relevant issues to theattention of contractors.
4. Recommendations by the Legal and TechnicalCommission—Best environmental practices
One of the most important functions of the Commission is toissue recommendations for the guidance of contractors in theimplementation of their responsibilities under the regulations andthe terms of their contracts. The first set of recommendations wasissued in 2001 [8], one year after the adoption of the first set ofRegulations, and dealt with the assessment of possible environ-mental impacts arising from exploration for polymetallic nodules.The recommendations described the procedures to be followed inthe acquisition of baseline data, and the monitoring to be per-formed during and after any activities in the exploration area withpotential to cause serious harm to the environment. They werelargely based on the recommendations of an international work-shop convened by ISA in 1998, which had recognized the need forclear and common methods of environmental characterizationbased on scientific principles and taking into account oceano-graphic constraints [9].
The 2001 recommendations were revised in 2010 in the light ofincreased scientific understanding. Following the adoption in 2010of the Sulphides Regulations and in 2012 of the Cobalt-rich CrustsRegulations, the Commission decided that there was a need tocreate a comprehensive set of environmental guidelines that dealtwith all three types of marine minerals. This was achieved in 2013[10]. The revised and updated recommendations take into accountnew knowledge, including the outcomes of workshops convenedby ISA, and set out the detailed observations and measurementsthat need to be made while performing specific activities andrecommended data collection, reporting and archiving protocols.The recommendations are accompanied by a glossary of key termsand an explanatory commentary.
The recommendations may be regarded as best environmentalpractice. At the same time the Authority is conscious of the need todevelop further guidelines for environmental management, parti-cularly to anticipate the need for trial mining operations atcommercial scale. To that end a draft template for an Environ-mental Impact Statement was developed in collaboration with the
Government of Fiji and the SOPAC Division of the Secretariat of thePacific Community during a workshop in 2011 [11].
5. Environmental management plan
In 2011, the Commission proposed to the Council the firstregional scale environmental management plan for the deepseabed. The genesis of the plan was a 2007 proposal by a groupof scientists to establish a representative network of protectedareas in order to protect biodiversity structure and ecosystemfunctioning of the CCZ from the potential impact of humanactivities [12].
This proposal drew upon inter alia the results of the KaplanProject (2002–2007), a collaborative project undertaken by theAuthority in cooperation with some contractors with the aim ofassessing levels of biodiversity, species range and gene flow in theabyssal nodule provinces using molecular and morphologicalmethods [13]. These results revealed ‘high, unanticipated and stillpoorly sampled levels of species diversity for the three sediment-dwelling faunal components at the individual study sites that wereselected’ with characteristic faunal assemblages (i.e. significantdifferences in community structure over scales of 1000 to3000 km) [14]. This suggested the need for appropriate measuresto safeguard biodiversity.
The proposal by the 2007 meeting was to establish a networkof nine protected areas across the CCZ based on ‘generallyaccepted and widely applied principles for the design of marineprotected area networks’. These included the principle that 30 to50% of the total management area should be protected, that thenetwork of protected areas should capture the full range ofhabitats and communities in the CCZ and that each protected areashould be large enough to maintain minimum viable populationsizes for species potentially restricted to a sub-region. To achievethese objectives, the 2007 meeting divided the CCZ into nine bio-geographic sub-regions, with a protected area of 400 km�400 kmlocated in each sub-region, placing roughly 25% of the CCZmanagement area under protection.5 It was recommended thatthe zones should be placed so as to protect as many seamountswithin a sub-region as possible and avoid or minimize overlapwith mining exploration areas [15].
The 2007 proposal was reviewed by the Legal and TechnicalCommission in 2008. The Commission decided to request theSecretary-General to convene an international workshop, toinclude representatives of contractors with the ISA as well asinternationally-recognized scientists and experts from other com-petent international organizations, to further study the proposal inthe context of an environmental management plan for the CCZ as awhole. To avoid potential confusion with various provisions of theConvention, ISA Regulations and other ongoing initiatives toestablish marine protected areas on the high seas, the LTC alsodecided at that time to use, provisionally, a different terminologyfor the protected areas, naming them ‘Areas of Particular Environ-mental Interest’ or ‘APEIs’.
Such a workshop took place in November 2010. The workshopgenerally supported the proposal to establish a network of nineprotected areas in the CCZ as proposed by the 2007 meeting, butrecommended that the size of each protected area be adjusted to acore area of 200 km�200 km, surrounded by a buffer zone
5 The total area of the CCZ nodule province is approximately 6000,000 km2.The nine APEIs cover 1440,000 km2, or approximately 25% of the management area.As of 2007, approximately 10% of the management area was covered by explorationcontracts. Since then, five new claims have been granted, with three more claimspending consideration. This would bring the area covered by exploration contractsto around 20% by 2014.
M. Lodge et al. / Marine Policy 49 (2014) 66–7268
extending 100 km in each direction (so that the overall size wouldbe 400 km�400 km). Some participants in the workshop, how-ever, expressed doubt as to the scientific basis for the protectedareas proposal and suggested that even more work should be doneby the Commission and the scientific community to review theproposal and determine its suitability before proceeding further.Considerable confusion also emerged as to the legal basis uponwhich the Authority could implement the proposal, with someparticipants arguing that there was no basis under the Conventionand the relevant ISA Regulations for the Commission or the ISACouncil to take action. Nevertheless, the outcome of the workshopwas a draft Environmental Management Plan for the CCZ, whichincluded the possibility of the establishment of a network ofprotected areas (APEIs) as an element of the Plan, but invitingthe Commission to consider the detail of the proposal furtherbefore making a recommendation to the ISA Council.
The draft EMP was considered by the Commission at its meet-ing in July 2011 and, after making a number of modifications,including to the location of the proposed protected areas, theCommission duly made a recommendation to the Council to adoptthe EMP and give appropriate recognition to the proposed net-work of APEIs. Although the Council did adopt a decision in 2011cautiously welcoming the plan, recognizing that the Commission’srecommendations were designed to give effect to the precaution-ary approach, as called for in the ISA’s Mining Code, it fell short ofapproving the plan as a whole.
The environmental management plan was finally approved bythe Council in July 2012 in a decision which not only recalled theprovisions of Articles 145, 162 and 165 of UNCLOS, but also placedthe environmental responsibilities of ISA in the context of ongoingdiscussions at the United Nations General Assembly in relation tothe conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversitybeyond areas of national jurisdiction. In particular, the decisionrecalled General Assembly resolution 63/111, of 12 February 2009,in which the General Assembly reaffirmed:
‘the need for States, individually or through competent inter-national organizations, to urgently consider ways to integrate andimprove, based on the best available scientific information and theprecautionary approach and in accordance with the Conventionand related agreements and instruments, the management of risksto the marine biodiversity of seamounts, cold water corals, hydro-thermal vents and certain other underwater features’.
The introduction to the plan makes clear the broad context inwhich the Legal and Technical Commission viewed the plan. At theoutset, under the heading ‘legal framework’, the plan recalls theprovisions of Articles 143, 145, 192, 194, 204 and 206 of UNCLOS,before asserting that ‘[i]n the … Area, those responsibilities [toprotect and preserve the marine environment] are shared betweenall States parties to the Convention as the Area and its resourcesare the common heritage of mankind’. The plan then recalls therelevant provisions of the 1994 Agreement and the Regulations, aswell as noting the context of various resolutions of the UnitedNations General Assembly relating to oceans and the law of the seain which the Assembly had noted the importance of the respon-sibilities entrusted to the ISA in relation to marine scientificresearch and the protection of the marine environment. It notesthat at ‘every stage of their activities … prospectors and contrac-tors have substantial responsibilities to assess and monitor theeffects of their activities on the marine environment.’ This sectionof the plan concludes by stating that the plan as a whole isconsistent with the above ‘obligations, responsibilities, rules,regulations and procedures.’
The guiding principles on which the plan is based are stated as:(a) the common heritage of mankind, (b) the precautionaryapproach, (c) protection and preservation of the marine environ-ment, (d) prior environmental impact assessment, (e) conservation
and sustainable use of biodiversity, and (e) transparency. It notesthat, whilst the CCZ is the focus of intense exploration activity,best-practice management of damaging human activities in themarine environment generally involves the use of spatial manage-ment tools, including the protection of areas thought to berepresentative of the full range of habitats, biodiversity andecosystem structure and functions within the management area.
Perhaps the most significant feature of the plan has become thenetwork of nine APEIs. As explained earlier, these nine areas, eachof which is approximately 160,000 km2 in size, are located so as toinclude a wide range of the different habitat types present in theCCZ. In its decision of 26 July 2012 approving the environmentalmanagement plan, the Council noted that the designation of theAPEIs gave effect to the precautionary approach as called for by theRegulations and decided that, for a period of at least five years, noapplication for exploration rights should be granted in such areas.Noting the need for flexibility in its application and furtherdevelopment in the light of improved scientific knowledge, theCouncil also encouraged further dialogue with stakeholders andrequested the Legal and Technical Commission to report onimplementation of the plan. The plan also includes provision fora detailed series of actions by ISA and by contractors to ensure thatthe proposed areas are kept under review, including by encoura-ging the conduct of marine scientific research and the supply ofavailable data to the Authority.
6. Data acquisition and standardization
Among other environmental parameters, the scientific knowl-edge requirements to validate and further develop the EMP relateto data and information on biodiversity and bio-geographicalbaselines, ecosystem connectivity and species re-colonizationpotentials. The issues of possible endemism and extinction oflocalized species have been identified as primary matters ofconcern to be addressed prior to the granting of exploitationrights. In order to enable informed decision-making on the EMP,including size, location and configuration of the network of APEIs,detailed geographic knowledge of local and regional environmen-tal conditions including biodiversity distributions is required.
Potentially the most significant source for such geographicinformation for the CCZ are the survey and sampling data collectedby the exploration contractors under their obligation to undertakeenvironmental baseline studies and to transmit results and data tothe Authority. If sufficient and appropriate data and informationhave been made available for individual contract areas, theAuthority would then be in a position to assemble all availabledata relevant to the geographic description of environmentalbaselines for the entire geographic region. It is, however, to benoted that there are no obligations for ISA contractors to collectand submit such environmental baseline data for the nine APEIsbordering the exploration areas under contract. Moreover, thequality and quantity of data made available to the Authority todate varies significantly between contractors. On several occa-sions, the Legal and Technical Commission has expressed itsconcern over the lack of raw data associated with environmentbaseline studies and noted that the insufficient quantity andquality of such data also represents an impediment to the validityof a regional environmental management plan [16]. Moreover, itwas noted that a lack of standardization of data formats andenvironmental parameters, including inter-calibrated taxonomicstandards for the identification of benthic fauna, further limit theuse of environmental data submitted to the Authority to date.
The revised and updated environmental recommendations forthe guidance of contractors issued by the Legal and TechnicalCommission in 2013 include specific baseline data requirements,
M. Lodge et al. / Marine Policy 49 (2014) 66–72 69
taking into account the outcomes of workshops convened by ISAand recent technological developments. To set up the environ-mental baseline, contractors are required to utilize best availabletechnology, including Geographic Information Systems, and robuststatistical design in preparing the geographic sampling strategy.The recommendations further specify physical, chemical, biologi-cal and other parameters to be collected for ecosystems likely to beimpacted by exploration and possible test-mining activities. Withrespect to geological information, the Commission recommendedthe production of Geographic Information System maps with high-resolution bathymetry showing major geological and geomorpho-logical features to reflect both the spatial mineral resource and thehabitat variability at appropriate scales.
In the report of its chairman to the Council in 2013, the Legaland Technical Commission further pointed out the need toimprove data management strategies aiming at the developmentof databases available for use by relevant stakeholders [17].
The Commission stressed that management, assembly, dis-play and availability of data, information and knowledge is funda-mental to the Authority’s functions and its ability to cooperatewith other agencies. Such improved data management strategiesmust be designed from a multi-disciplinary perspective, takinginto account the geographic knowledge requirements with respectto the environmental acceptability of deep seabed mining.
In light of deficits of data submitted to the Authority andfollowing informal consultations between the Secretary-Generaland exploration contractors for polymetallic nodules in January2012 on the biological component of environmental baseline datain exploration areas, it was decided, inter alia, to convene taxo-nomic exchange workshops on the megafauna, macrofauna, andmeiofauna in contract areas. The aims of the series of workshopsare to inter-calibrate the available taxonomic data, to developcapacity among exploration contractors and to create geographicdatabases of species distributions based on the standardized data.
The first of three workshops related to polymetallic nodulesexploration areas in the CCZ was held between 9–15 June 2013 inWilhelmshaven (Germany) at the German Center for MarineBiodiversity Research and focused on the megafauna. This work-shop specially aimed at:
� Creating a standardised nomenclature for megafauna and aphotographic atlas currently under development for use by themarine scientific community and contractors;
� Collecting representative images for each identified species,including the locations where different species have beenobserved;
� Providing guidelines and procedures for use by contractors,prospectors and the scientific community in applying thestandardised nomenclature;
� Developing a programme of work to address any gaps inknowledge or understanding.
During the workshop, images of fauna were examined andclassified by the experts and recorded in spread sheets, includingtaxonomic interpretations, literature references, geographic coor-dinates and other annotations, where available. A major challengefor the taxonomists was the lack of adequate specimens for furtherlaboratory examination, including DNA analyses. In many cases,only morphologically similar species (so-called morphotypes)could be identified based solely on visual interpretation of photo-graphs. The first edition of the taxonomic atlas will largely consistof such morphotypes of fauna, representing higher levels in thetaxonomic tree such as families or genera, rather than species. Inlight of the increasing interest in deep-sea mining in the Area, theneed for timely availability of detailed biodiversity knowledge atthe species level was pointed out during the workshop, in order to
establish baselines and ultimately inform decision makers onecological and biogeographic considerations also relevant thefurther development of the EMP.
The workshop group strongly endorsed the recent environ-mental recommendations by the Legal and Technical Commissionfor the guidance of contractors, which also emphasize the need forcollecting specimens in addition to photographic and videotransects. The availability of specimens was found even morecritical with respect to macro and meiofauna as images will notenable taxonomists to identify species in most cases withoutfurther laboratory analyses. Also, new discoveries of species aremuch more frequent for macro and meiofauna than in the case ofmegafauna.
In addition to classical taxonomy, molecular techniques such asDNA barcoding represent a potentially powerful tool for delimitingdescribed species and discovering new ones associated with thepolymetallic nodules deposits in the CCZ. The potential strengthand pitfalls of integrating DNA sequence data with classicaltaxonomy with respect to the biogeography of the CCZ are yet tobe examined (Fig. 1).
7. The MIDAS project: Managing Impacts of Deep Seaexploitation
In 2002 the Authority hosted a Workshop to review scientificinformation needs to predict environmental impacts of deepseabed polymetallic nodule mining and prospects for collabora-tion with contractors’ activities [18]. One of the outcomes ofthis workshop was the Kaplan Project and the workshop maybe considered to have set a precedent for international collabo-ration between the Authority, scientific institutions and miningcontractors.
In 2013 the European Union funded a project under theFramework 7 Programme to investigate the environmental impactof deep-sea mineral and energy extraction: specifically, polyme-tallic sulphides, manganese nodules, cobalt-rich ferromanganesecrusts, methane hydrates and the potential mining of rare earthelements. The project is called MIDAS (Managing Impacts of Deep-seA reSource exploitation) and it was launched on 1 November2013. The MIDAS partnership represents a unique combination ofscientists, industry, social scientists, legal experts, NGOs and SMEs.MIDAS will carry out research into the nature and scales of thepotential impacts of mining, including the physical destruction ofthe seabed by mining, the creation of mine tailings and thepotential for catastrophic slope failures from methane hydrateexploitation; the potential effects of particle-laden plumes in thewater column, and the possible toxic chemicals that might bereleased by the mining process. Key outstanding biologicalunknowns, such as connectivity between populations, impacts ofthe loss of biological diversity on ecosystem functioning, and howquickly the ecosystems will recover will all be addressed.
The plan is to use this information to develop recommenda-tions for best practice in the mining industry. A key component isthe involvement of industry within the project and throughstakeholder engagements to find feasible solutions. The projectwill also work closely with European and international regulatoryorganizations to take these recommendations forward into legis-lation. A major element of MIDAS will be to develop methods andtechnologies for preparing baseline assessments of biodiversity,and monitoring activities remotely in the deep sea during andafter exploitation, including ecosystem recovery.
As part of this investigation MIDAS researchers plan a researchcruise in 2015 to visit a number of CCZ APEI sites. In particular,researchers aim to compare the fauna of seamounts in the CCZwith nodule fauna to establish whether seamounts are refugia for
M. Lodge et al. / Marine Policy 49 (2014) 66–7270
key species. High-resolution habitat mapping in a nodule provinceis required as well as photographic evidence from seamountflanks. MIDAS is also looking at ecotoxicology effects, based onlikely scenarios and exposure of deep-sea ecosystems to wasteplumes, together with routes of exposure and likely bioavailabilityof toxins.
This research is fundamental to further review of the CCZ EMP,in that the inner core of the APEIs (200 km2) was established tosafeguard reproducing populations, and the precautionary100 km2 buffer served as a ‘best guess’ on the limit of plumeeffects from operational mining. MIDAS will refine monitoringtechniques, working with industry to determine what is bothdesirable and achievable in close proximity to mining operations.To monitor plume dispersal and settling, it is considered thatlessons can be learned from the dredging industry to informcompliance monitoring standards.
8. Geographic approaches and spatial planning tools
The sound application of integrated planning concepts such asmulti-objective marine spatial planning requires sufficient highquality data to support informed decision making and balanceresource development with conservation. The applicability of such
modern planning approaches, increasingly applied in coastal areas,is currently being evaluated by the Authority with regard toenvironmental management in the CCZ and is also being activelyconsidered for other large scale area-based management initia-tives [19]. The successful application of such spatial approacheswill largely depend on the amount, quality and geographic cover-age of geospatial data made available by polymetallic nodulesexploration contractors. Whether species are delimited usingmolecular or classical techniques, any available biodiversity datamust be integrated spatially. Non-spatial data are of limited valueto the validation and further development of the EMP.
Currently, it is uncertain whether sufficient biodiversityknowledge on taxonomically standardized bio-geographicalbaselines will be made available within reasonable timeframes.Any standardized and geographically referenced biological sam-pling data and other environmental information collected bycontractors and submitted to the Authority in annual activityreports or outside of the regular reporting process will beintegrated in the Authority’s geographic information system.The system further contains any available information on localresource potentials, including public and confidential samplingdata for nodule abundance and metal grades, as well as themodeling results, for example as obtained from the GeologicalModel project conducted by ISA [20].
Fig. 1. Exploration claims and areas of Particular Environmental Interest in the Clarion–Clipperton Fracture Zone.
M. Lodge et al. / Marine Policy 49 (2014) 66–72 71
For this reason, initial discussions on the EMP also envisageddrawing on sources of additional data and information relevant tothe CCZ from the Census of Marine Life (CoML) as follows:
� CenSeam (CoML project on Seamounts 2005–2010): includingfaunal records from seamounts (Seamounts Online database);global bathymetry (seamount dataset); coral distribution mod-eling; and seamount classification on the basis of an hierarch-ical analysis to group seamounts with similarcharacteristics; and
� Census of the Diversity of Abyssal Marine Life (CeDAMar) acollection of literature and records of benthic species at depthsbelow 2000 m (in association with metaportals such as OBISand GBIF).
It is hoped that once sufficient data have been made available,geography with its holistic approach and modern quantitativetools may help to tackle applied issues of the regulatory frame-work. This relates to the assessment of geographic and economicresource potentials as well as to multi-objective marine spatialplanning bringing together the various stakeholder interests as ameans of delivering an ecosystem-based approach to futuremanagement.
9. Conclusion
The deep ocean is a remote area of the planet about which wehave relatively little data. Collectively, the scientific community isbecoming more organized in terms of gathering global datasets (e.g. Census of Marine Life, UN Regular Process, CBD Ecologically orBiologically Significant Marine Areas (EBSAs [21]) but the soundapplication of marine spatial planning requires sufficient highquality data to inform decision-makers and draw credible bound-aries. Furthermore, the environmental impacts of deep-sea miningmust be properly understood and accounted for in strategicenvironmental assessment and site-based environmental impactassessment in order to inform marine spatial planning and sub-sequent adaptive management.
The CCZ is broadly comparable in area size to Europe, with eachAPEI at 160,000 km2 being about the size of England. Inevitably, atthis scale and depth, large data gaps remain concerning speciesassociated with mineral deposits. In the case of deep-sea mining itis accepted that there is a need for industry to make a significantinput to the understanding of what biodiversity exists and whatmight be at risk. The regional scale approach for the CCZ sets out aseries of guidelines and rationales for the CCZ EMP. This regionalapproach can itself be regarded as the outcome of a strategicenvironmental assessment, which has the advantage of removingthe burden from individual contractors to carry out their ownidentification of preservation areas, whilst enabling them tocontribute to wider coordinated conservation management mea-sures. There is scope for replicating the same approach in otherzones subject to intense mineral exploration activity, as suggestedin the latest United Nations General Assembly omnibus resolutionon oceans and the law of the sea, which ‘invites the Authority toconsider developing and approving environmental managementplans in other international seabed area zones, in particular wherethere are currently exploration contracts’ [22].
The precedent set by the Authority provides an example forother regulators to impose reasonable conditions on contractors toaid global scientific understanding. To some extent this has beenillustrated by the oil and gas industry through contributions toindustry partnerships for scientific research on specific topics(e.g. underwater sound). However, by enshrining data collection
requirements and setting aside significant precautionary areas foran entire region, the Authority is showing how resources ininternational waters can be best managed. The CCZ thereforeserves as a tangible example of good practice for considerationby the Ad Hoc Open-ended Informal Working Group of theGeneral Assembly to study issues relating to the conservationand sustainable use of marine biological diversity beyond areas ofnational jurisdiction.
Acknowledgements
Seascape wishes to acknowledge that MIDAS is funded by theEuropean Union’s Framework 7 Programme under the theme“Sustainable management of Europe’s deep sea and sub-sea floorresources” Grant agreement no. 603418.
References
[1] United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Montego Bay; 10 December1982. In force 16 November 1994, 1833 UNTS 397.
[2] Agreement relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the United NationsConvention on the Law of the Sea; 10 December 1982, A/RES/48/263, annex.
[3] ISBA/18/C/22.[4] Regulations on prospecting and exploration for polymetallic nodules in the
Area, 13 July 2000. ISBA/6/A/18, annex, 13 July 2000.[5] Regulations on prospecting and exploration for polymetallic sulphides in the
Area, ISBA/16/A/12/Rev.1, 7 May 2010, available at ⟨http://www.isa.org.jm/files/documents/EN/Regs/PolymetallicSulphides.pdf⟩.
[6] Regulations on prospecting and exploration for cobalt-rich ferromanganesecrusts in the Area, ISBA/18/A/11, 27 July 2012, available at ⟨http://www.isa.org.jm/files/documents/EN/18Sess/Assembly/ISBA-18A-11.pdf⟩.
[7] Regulations on prospecting and exploration for polymetallic nodules in theArea, ISBA/19/C/17; 22 July 2013, available at ⟨http://www.isa.org.jm/files/documents/EN/19Sess/Council/ISBA-19C-17.pdf⟩.
[8] Recommendations for the guidance of the contractors for the assessment ofpossible environmental impacts arising from exploration for polymetallicnodules in the Area, ISBA/7/LTC/1/Rev.1**.
[9] Jamaica: ISA: Hainan Island. Kingston; 1999; 289.[10] Recommendations for the guidance of the contractors for the assessment of
possible environmental impacts arising from exploration for marine mineralsin the Area, ISBA/19/LTC/8.
[11] International Seabed Authority (ISA), Environmental management needs forexploration and exploitation of Deep Sea minerals. ISA technical study no. 10.Kingston, Jamaica: ISA; 2011, 47 p. also available at ⟨http://www.isa.org.jm/files/documents/EN/Pubs/TS10/index.html#/10/⟩.
[12] Papers for the Pew Workshop on the design of Marine protected areas forseamounts and the Abyssal Nodule Province in Pacific High Seas, held inHonolulu; 23–26 October 2007, East West Center, University of Hawaii areavailable at the website ⟨http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanography/faculty/csmith/MPA_webpage/MPAindex.html⟩.
[13] International Seabed Authority (ISA), Biodiversity, species ranges and geneflow in the Abyssal Pacific Nodule province: predicting and managing theimpacts of Deep Seabed Mining. Technical study no. 3. Kingston, Jamaica: ISA;2008, 38p. also available at ⟨http://www.isa.org.jm/files/documents/EN/Pubs/TechStudy3.pdf⟩.
[14] ISBA/15/LTC/4, p.3.[15] A full description of the scientific process and the design principles and
criteria appears in Wedding et al. From principles to practice: a spatialapproach to systematic conservation planning in the Deep Sea. Proc. R. Soc.London, Ser. B 2013;280:20131684.
[16] ISBA/19/C/9/Rev.1, p. 2.[17] ISBA/19/C/14.[18] International Seabed Authority (ISA), Prospects for international collaboration
in marine environmental research to enhance understanding of the deep seaenvironment. In: Proceedings of the International Seabed Authority’s workshopheld in Kingston, Jamaica; 2002. Kingston, Jamaica: ISA, 2006, 257 p. alsoavailable at ⟨http://www.isa.org.jm/files/documents/EN/Pubs/2002-Collab.pdf⟩.
[19] (See for example) Weaver P, Johnson D. Think big for Marine conservation.Nature 2012;483:399.
[20] ISA briefing paper 01/12: a geological model of polymetallic nodule depositsin the Clarion–Clipperton Fracture Zone. Available at: ⟨http://www.isa.org.jm/files/documents/EN/Pubs/BP1.pdf⟩.
[21] COP 9 Decision IX/20 Marine and coastal biodiversity, Annex I Scientificcriteria for identifying ecologically or biologically significant marine areas inneed of protection in open-ocean waters and deep-sea habitats.
[22] A/RES/68/70, para. 51.
M. Lodge et al. / Marine Policy 49 (2014) 66–7272
