Key Environmental Impacts of Deep-Sea Mining

Deep-sea mining is rapidly approaching. We still lack scientific evidence to

understand and manage the mining impacts on deep pelagic ecosystems, which
constitute most of the biosphere. Deep-sea mining (DSM) may become a
significant stressor on the marine environment.
The mining process may release toxic compounds on the ocean floor. During the
extraction of nodules, streams of water are discharged at the seabed can increase
surrounding seawater temperatures and reduce oxygen levels.
The most direct impacts at mining sites would be the destruction of natural
landforms and the wildlife they host, compaction of the sea floor, and creation of
sediment plumes that disrupt aquatic life. Nearby impacts include noise,
electromagnetic effects, disruption of the larval supply, contamination and fluid
flow changes.
Scientists also fear deep-water mining will alter the geochemical underpinnings of
ocean life, cause the loss of important genetic resources, and disrupt the
connectivity between deep oceans and surrounding oceans, potentially hindering
the flow of nutrients.
 Impacts on Organic Carbon Sequestration
The burial of organic carbon in the deep ocean is an important component of the global carbon cycle, thus regulating atmospheric
CO2 and global climate through the sequestration of carbon and allowing the buildup of oxygen in the atmosphere.
Marine sediments are a major sink of organic matter over geological timescales and an important part of the global carbon and
oxygen cycles. Sinking particles settling on the ocean floor are buried, effectively protecting and preserving their organic matter
contents, and impeding it from microbial “remineralization” to carbon dioxide.

Deep-sea mining of ferromanganese nodules will cause the resuspension of sediments, potentially altering the ecosystem service of
carbon sequestration that occurs in this habitat by changing the balance between carbon preservation and microbial
remineralization. The mining of nodule-bearing sediments and resulting resuspension of particles and organic matter may have
some impact on the ecosystem service of carbon sequestration for two reasons.
- First, these sediments contain low quantities of organic matter. This is typical for deep-sea sediment, since the particles delivering
organic carbon to the ocean floor must sink over long distances to reach the ocean floor, during which the majority of organic
matter is remineralized by microbes in the water column. Only a relatively small mass of carbon might be resuspended, compared
to the much higher carbon loads in nearshore sediment environments
 Impacts on Organic Carbon Sequestration
- Second, the organic matter contained in these deep-sea sediments is likely to be highly processed and thus not particularly
bioavailable to microbial remineralization, so most of the organic carbon would be redeposited on the seafloor and sequestered.
Furthermore, as stimulation of organic carbon remineralization in the overlying water column is likely to be low, there would be
inconsequential changes in dissolved oxygen concentration in bottom seawater (< 0.5%).

Although net carbon sequestration in nodule-hosting abyssal sediment may not be impacted by mining activity, there could be
disturbance to the local, short-term carbon cycling that supports the ecosystem. A recent study documented the microbial
ecosystem service of primary production provided by benthic microorganisms living on nodules in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone,
found that the rate of primary production may rival degradation of detritus-derived carbon. Thus, removing nodules from the
seafloor could impact the primary production supporting the base of the food web in this area. For example, the blanketing of
nearby nodules with sediment particles after mining activity (documented to extend up to 100 m from the site of activity), could
restrict the ability of the remaining nodule-attached microbial communities to provide this service.
 Impacts on other Microbial Ecosystem Services from Mining Ferromanganese Nodules
European Oceans Mining Impact project on the Disturbance and Recolonization (DISCOL) carried out an experiment in 1989 in
the Peru Basin in which the deep seafloor was plowed in an area of ~ 11 sq. km to mimic nodule mining.
The area was recently revisited to study the long-term impact of nodule mining. A clear geochemical differences, including metal
distributions, in the upper 20 cm of disturbed and undisturbed sediments could be observed even 26 years after plowing.

Based on the observations, it has been noted that nodule mining will likely have long-lasting impacts on the geochemistry of the
underlying sediment. Specifically, solid-phase manganese concentrations were lower in disturbed areas compared to reference
areas. This finding suggests that the capacity for metal sequestration via scavenging onto nodules will be substantially restricted
during the recovery period. Nodule regrowth may also be limited by both the geochemical and microbiological changes following
mining related disturbances.

Thermodynamic and kinetic constraints limit the oxidation of reduced manganese to oxidized manganese by oxygen. Microbes
catalyze this reaction via direct and indirect pathways; thus, the formation of most manganese oxide minerals in the environment is
microbially mediated.
 Environmental Impact Assessment of Seep-Sea Mining
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is an important process for evaluating the effects of development, and to assist decisions
to effectively manage potential Deep-Sea Mining (DSM).

Environmental impact assessments (EIAs) is a general obligation under customary international law and under the UN Convention
on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, Articles 165(2) d, f, h and 206). EIAs are required to be carried out for mineral exploration
activities exceeding the dimensions of research, for pilot mining and for exploitation applications (1994 Implementing Agreement,
ISA mining codes).
EIAs form an integral process in environmental management and are an accepted part of any industrial project development. EIA
is the evaluation of the effects likely to arise from a major project that could significantly affect the environment. It is a systematic
process for considering environmental impacts prior to a decision being taken on whether or not a proposal for a development
should proceed.
There are three areas of general concern for EIAs- 1) Theoretical grounding- Is there a clear sense of purpose of the EIA process,
and what it should comprise?, 2) Quality - what is good practice, how is quality judged, how much guidance exists?, and 3)
Effectiveness- how well is the process achieving its goals?
 Key Challenges of EIA in DSM
Inadequate Baseline Data: Baseline data collection, and short-term monitoring studies, are important aspects of EIA. It is expected that
some environmental information be available from an area before any exploration occurred. A robust desk-top studies will form the basis
of initial screening and scoping of the project. Data to describe and characterize the receiving environment due to DSM must be generated.
Every location, resource type, and habitat can have different characteristics. Hence baseline studies to support EIAs have to be tailored to
ensure they are fit for purpose. Hence baseline surveys and targeted scientific studies will be needed to provide information on the pre-
mining state of the environment, as well as some monitoring of conditions over time to understand temporal variability of key
environmental factors.
However, in collecting data during exploration and testing of Mining Machines to support the baseline definition, and subsequent
monitoring, there should be a level of consistency so that core deep-sea ecological information demands are met, can be combined to form
a regional picture. The key aspects of such data collection must include.
• what parameters should be measured and the spatial and temporal interval at which they should be measured / monitored?
• the necessary accuracy and precision of measurements (what is measured to acceptable standards?).
• what key ecological indicators need to be assessed in transitioning from baseline data to measuring/monitoring future changes under
the environmental management plan?
• what level of change might be acceptable in terms of mitigation against generic ecological limits and thresholds (not management
targets)?
 Key Challenges of EIA of DSM
Insufficient detail of the mining operation: This information is critical for input to models of impacts, and the development of the environmental
management plan. Like the environmental baseline, detail of the mining operation is critical to robust risk assessment in an EIA for DSM. Detail
on the mining plan and specific mining technology is difficult to provide whilst equipment and technologies are still under development. A
prominent concern is the lack of detail in the mining plan, specifically uncertainties in the technical and practical aspects of the mining operation,
since aspects had yet to be developed.

Insufficient synthesis and ecosystem approach: Most existing national legislation, and the developing ISA regulations, specify the ecosystem
approach should be a guiding principle for environmental management. This requires the EIA to address issues of ecosystem definition (spatial and
temporal aspects), composition, structure and function. The EIAs done to date have suffered from limited characterization of ecosystem structure
and function, with insufficient synthesis of community structure flowing on as a result of inadequate baseline description.

Insufficient assessment and consideration of uncertainty in assessments: Scientific uncertainties that should be defined and quantified must
include:
• Knowledge uncertainty arises where there is incomplete understanding of processes, interactions or system behaviors.
• Structural uncertainty arises from inadequate models, ambiguous system boundaries, or oversimplification or omission of processes from models.
• Value uncertainty arises from missing or inaccurate data, inappropriate spatial or temporal resolution, or poorly known model parameters.
• Uncertain interpretations, arise when values or terms are interpreted differently by different user groups.
 Key Challenges of EIA of DSM
Inadequate assessment of indirect impacts: EIAs for DSM
generally adequately address the direct impacts of mining (e.g.
benthic habitat and community loss), but lack in their treatment of
indirect/secondary impacts, such as ecotoxicity, and impacts of
plumes to both the benthic and pelagic environment (both
particulate and dissolved components).
For example. A heavy reliance on modelling of the impact
assessments of plumes expresses concerns about the use of large
domain models for spatially small areas, and the lack of validation
of such models. Furthermore, biological interpretation of such
models was absent. Substantial research into refining models of
plume dispersal, a major indirect impact of DSM is required to be
conducted with near-field experiments
Noise is another indirect impact that is not assessed sufficiently,
resulting in unsatisfactory mitigation plans.
 Key Challenges of EIA of DSM
Insufficient Risk Assessment: An Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) facilitates this prioritization and should be an integral
part of the EIA process. ERA provides for the application of a systematic problem formulation- a risk-based decision-making
framework to ensure an objective consideration of the acceptability of certain risks. This should be framed during the scoping
stage. There are many approaches and methods to ERA, but for Deep-Sea Mining, a two-stage process may be considered.

1) At the beginning of the exploration phase (Screening and scoping), given the often-limited amount of information available, a
qualitative (Level 1) assessment should be carried out. This type of assessment commonly uses an expert panel to consider the
likelihood of an impact occurring, and the consequences if it does. The results of this risk assessment should guide data
collection during exploration activities.
2) A more quantitative assessment will be required before progressing to a mining license or consent application stage. A semi-
quantitative level 2 assessment at the stage of preparing the EIA applies a more rigorous evaluation with data collected through
the exploration phase on those aspects identified as high risk. This upgraded ERA is an important check to ensure the EIA is
focused on the activities and aspects of impact that pose most risk to the environment.
 Key Challenges of EIA of DSM
Insufficient treatment of combined/cumulative impacts: Insufficient description and analysis of actual or potential cumulative
impacts is recognized as a fundamental short-coming of DSM EIAs. There are many stressors caused by anthropogenic activities
that can affect the marine environment in a number of ways. Interactions between stressors can be variable, and hard to predict ,
but cumulative effects should be explored as much as possible given available data, and should be thought about early on during
the exploration phase so that the appropriate information can be collected.
Standardization of the EIA process: EIAs can come in all shapes and sizes, as different project proponents and Institutions
develop their own way of doing things. However, a degree of higher-level structural standardization can make the task of the
Project Proponents and the reviewing regulatory body much easier, because the former know what scientific content they need to
provide, and the latter what to expect.
Given the variability in environmental characteristics between deep-sea mineral resource types and locations, there is a careful
balance required between EIA guidelines being highly prescriptive (which may not fit certain situations) and being too general
(where adequate standards aren’t clear). EIAs are not “one size fits all”, and every situation is going to be different in the studies,
data and information required to compile a robust assessment. Nevertheless, consistency in format and high-level consistency will
help evaluate individual EIAs and facilitate integration of multiple EIAs across a region.
 Core Principles of EIA for DSM
The ultimate goal of EIA effectiveness being decision-making, in the early stages of the development of assessments for deep-sea
mining, we believe that quality is the pressing issue-answering the questions posed by Retief as to what is good practice, how do
we judge quality, and what guidance can we provide?
We need to take a full ecosystem-based approaches to risk and impact assessment, but with a new industry such as the DSM, there
also needs to be recognition that not everything is possible or practical to begin with. There would be short-medium term-data
limitations. Nevertheless, the core principles on which any EIA study of DSM should be based on the followings.
- Purposive: must be informative for god decision-making.
- Rigorous: must apply best practicable science.
- Practical: result in useful information and outputs.
- Relevant: provide useable information.
- Focused: concentrate on significant issues.
- Adaptive: adjustable to the specific situation but not compromise the process.
- Interdisciplinary: involve multiple techniques and experts across a range of fields.
- Credible: a professional process, subject to independent checks/ verification Integrated: interrelationships of social, economic
and biophysical aspects Systematic: consider all relevant information and options.