ArticlePDF Available

Biodiversity loss from deep-sea mining

Springer Nature
Nature Geoscience
Authors:
  • Commonwealth Secretariat, London, UK
NATURE GEOSCIENCE | ADVANCE ONLINE PUBLICATION | www.nature.com/naturegeoscience 1
correspondence
To the Editor — e emerging deep-sea
mining industry is seen by some to be
an engine for economic development in
the maritime sector1. e International
Seabed Authority — the body that
regulates mining activities on the seabed
beyond national jurisdiction — must also
protect the marine environment from
harmful eects that arise from mining2.
e International Seabed Authority is
currently draing a regulatory framework
for deep-sea mining that includes
measures for environmental protection.
Responsible mining increasingly strives
to work with no net loss of biodiversity3.
Financial and regulatory frameworks
commonly require extractive industries
to use a four-tier mitigation hierarchy
to prevent biodiversity loss: in order of
priority, biodiversity loss is to be avoided,
minimized, remediated and — as a last
resort — oset4,5. We argue here that
mining with no net loss of biodiversity
using this mitigation hierarchy in the deep
sea is an unattainable goal.
e rst tier of the mitigation hierarchy
is avoidance. Potentially useful mitigation
strategies in the deep sea include patchwork
extraction, whereby some minerals with
associated fauna are le undisturbed, or
other means to limit the direct mining
footprint. Even so, loss of biodiversity will
be unavoidable because mining directly
destroys habitat and indirectly degrades
large volumes of the water column and
areas of the seabed due to the generation
of sediment plumes that are enriched in
bioavailable metals.
Although biodiversity loss within
mines is inevitable, innovative engineering
design could reduce or minimize some
risks to near- and far-eld biodiversity.
For example, shrouds tted to cutting
equipment might reduce the dispersion
of sediment plumes and the footprint
of plume impacts such as the burial of
organisms. Similarly, vehicle design might
limit compaction of seabed sediments.
Of course, the ecacy of such eorts in
mitigating biodiversity loss would need to
be tested.
Remediation addresses the residual
loss of biodiversity at and around a mine
site aer avoidance and minimization
interventions. In the deep sea, native
species are oen slow to recruit and
recolonize disturbed habitats. Slow
recovery on the scale of decades to
centuries, enormous spatial scales of mines
for certain mineral resources (a single
30-year operation license to mine metal-
rich nodules will involve an area about
the size of Austria6) and the high cost of
working in the deep sea may mean that
remediation is unrealistic7. Further, the
science of deep-sea benthic remediation is
a nascent eld8. It is far from established
that remediation of industrial mine sites
in the deep sea is feasible for any mineral
resource, and we know of no remediation
actions that can be applied to the
water column.
e last resort in the mitigation
hierarchy is in-kind or like-for-like
osets within a biogeographical region.
When osets cannot be located where the
aected biodiversity is found, and where
the aected biodiversity is important for
geographically restricted functions such
as connectivity (as is the case for the deep
sea), in-kind osets are not an appropriate
mitigation strategy9. Out-of-kind osets10,
such as restoring coral reefs in exchange
for loss of deep-sea biodiversity, have been
proposed, but this practice assumes that
loss of largely unknown deep-sea species
and ecosystems is acceptable. We question
this assumption on scientic grounds. e
relationship between any gain in biological
diversity in an out-of-kind setting and
loss of biological diversity in the deep
sea is so ambiguous as to be scientically
meaningless. Further, compensating
biodiversity loss in international waters
with biodiversity gains in national waters
could constitute a transfer of wealth that
runs counter to the Law of the Sea, where
benets from deep seabed mining must
accrue to the international community at
large, as part of the common heritage of
humankind. Given the paucity of other
industrial activities in the deep sea (except
perhaps sheries), it is dicult to imagine
a scenario where averted risk osets10 could
apply; that is, where a mining operation
could avert biodiversity losses from
other activities.
e four-tier mitigation hierarchy used
so oen to minimize biodiversity loss in
terrestrial mining and oshore oil and
gas operations thus fails when applied
to the deep ocean. Residual biodiversity
loss cannot be mitigated through
remediation or osets and the goal of no
net loss of biodiversity is not achievable for
deep-seabed mining. Focus therefore must
be on avoiding and minimizing harm. Most
mining-induced loss of biodiversity in the
deep sea is likely to last forever on human
timescales, given the very slow natural
rates of recovery in aected ecosystems. It
is incumbent on the International Seabed
Authority to communicate to the public the
potentially serious implications of this loss
of biodiversity and ask for a response.
References
1. Blue Growth: Opportunities for Marine and Maritime
Sustainable Growth (European Comission, 2012);
http://dx.doi.org/10.2771/43949
2. Levin, L.A. etal. Mar. Poli cy 74, 245–259 (2016).
3. Rainey, H.J. etal. Oryx 49, 232–238 (2015).
4. Ekstrom, J., Bennun, L. & Mitchell, R. A Cross-sector Guide for
Implementing the Mitigation Hierarchy (Cross Sector Biodiversity
Initiative, 2015).
5. Performance Standard 6: Biodiversity Conservation and
Sustainable Management of Living Natural Res ources
(International Finance Corporation, 2012).
6. Smith, C.R., Levin, L.A., Koslow, A., Tyler, P.A. &
Glover, A.G. in Aquatic Ecosystems: Trends and Global Prospects
(ed. Polunin, N.) 334–349 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2008).
7. Van Dover, C.L. etal. Mar. P olic y 44, 98–106 (2014).
8. Strömberg, S.M., Lundälv, T. & Goreau, T.J. J.Exp. Mar. Bio. Ecol.
395, 153–161 (2010).
9. Pilgrim, J.D. etal. Conserv. Lett. 6, 376–384 (2013).
10. Guidance Notes to the Standard on Biodiversity Osets (Business
and Biodiversity Osets Program, 2012).
Biodiversity loss from deep-sea mining
The Tu’i Malila vent field in the Lau Basin,
southwest Pacific. Lau Basin foundation species
(Alviniconcha spp. snails, Ifremeria nautilei snails,
and Bathymodiolus septemdierum mussels) live
in diuse flow on the surfaces of metal-rich
sulfide deposits.
KAREN JACOBSEN, IN SITU SCIENCE ILLUSTRATION
2 NATURE GEOSCIENCE | ADVANCE ONLINE PUBLICATION | www.nature.com/naturegeoscience
correspondence
C. L. Van Dover1*, J. A. Ardron2, E. Escobar3,
M. Gianni4, K. M. Gjerde5, A. Jaeckel6,
D. O. B. Jones2, L. A. Levin7, H. J. Niner8,
L. Pendleton1,9, C. R. Smith10, T. Thiele11,
P. J. Turner1, L. Watling12 and P. P. E. Weaver13
1Division of Marine Science and Conservation,
Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke
University, Beaufort, North Carolina 28516, USA.
2National Oceanography Centre, University of
Southampton, Waterfront Campus, European
Way, Southampton SO14 3ZH, UK. 3UNAM
ICML-CU, Biodiversidad y Macroecologia, 04510
Mexico City, Mexico. 4Deep-Sea Conservation
Coalition, Postbus 59681, 1040 LD Amsterdam,
Netherlands. 5IUCN Marine and Polar Programme,
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA.
6Macquarie Law School and Macquarie Marine
Research Centre, Macquarie University, New
South Wales 2109, Australia. 7Center for Marine
Biodiversity and Conservation, Scripps Institution
of Oceanography, UC San Diego, La Jolla,
California 92093-0218 USA. 8University College
London, Torrens Building, 220 Victoria Square,
Adelaide 5000, Australia. 9Université de Bretagne
Occidentale, UMR6308 AMURE, IUEM, 29280
Plouzané, France. 10Department of Oceanography,
1000 Pope Road, University of Hawaii at Mānoa,
Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 USA. 11Institute of
Global Aairs, London School of Economics,
London WC2A 2AZ, UK. 12Department of Biology,
Edmondson Hall, University of Hawaii at Mānoa,
Honolulu, Hawaii 96822, USA. 13Seascape
Consultants, Romsey SO51 0QA, UK.
*e-mail: clv3@duke.edu
Acknowledgements
Research leading to these ndings was supported by the
National Science Foundation (C.L.V.D.), Pew Charitable
Trusts (C.L.V.D.), International Climate Initiative (GOBI;
C.L.V.D.), Université Occidental de Bretagne and Institut
Universitaire Européen de la Mer (C.L.V.D., L.P.), 7th
EU Framework (MIDAS #603418; J.A.A., D.O.B.J., M.G.,
K.M.G., P.P.E.W.), EU Horizon 2020 (MERCES #689518,
D.O.B.J.) and the J.M. Kaplan Fund (L.A.L.).
Competing interests
C.L.V.D. and L.A.L. received research support from
Nautilus Minerals; C.R.S. received research support from
UK Seabed Resources DevelopmentLimited.
Published online: 26 June 2017
... Específicamente, la industria minera debe llevar a cabo investigaciones para mejorar nuestra comprensión de la dispersión y dilución de las plumas de residuos, los metales que contienen, su toxicidad y, en el caso de la pluma bentónica, el impacto de la sedimentación en hábitats y especies de aguas profundas poco estudiados a medida que las plumas se asientan. La pérdida de biodiversidad es inevitable en las zonas minadas, ya que la minería de los fondos marinos destruye directamente el hábitat y afecta indirectamente a grandes partes de la columna de agua y las regiones del fondo marino al crear sedimentos o penachos enriquecidos con metales (Van Dover et al., 2017). Por otra parte, una ventaja de la explotación de los recursos minerales marinos es que no tiene impacto directo en las comunidades establecidas, que sólo existen en tierra. ...
... La extracción de SMS, por su parte, requiere el uso de excavadoras (equipadas con orugas en el lecho marino) de varias toneladas de peso para remover muchos metros de sedimentos y sustrato (Van Dover et al., 2017). Los procesos asociados siguen teniendo repercusiones medioambientales desconocidas. ...
Article
Full-text available
This study examines the potential of Chile's science diplomacy to forge stronger relations with the member countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), analysing opportunities to position the country as a bridge between Southeast Asia and Latin America. Based on an interdisciplinary, qualitative methodology, incorporating documentary analysis and semi-structured interviews, the study evaluates two of Chile's emblematic natural laboratories: the skies (astronomy) and the ocean (marine sciences). Looking at its historical trajectory, we argue that astronomy constitutes a successful model of international scientific collaboration that should inform broader diplomatic strategies. The analysis of Chile’s marine resources reveals significant opportunities given that this area offers unique advantages for international scientific cooperation, particularly in addressing crucial challenges such as energy transition, climate change mitigation and marine biodiversity conservation. The study concludes that science diplomacy represents a viable instrument for deepening Chile-ASEAN relations, although challenges related to budgetary constraints, geographical distance and the development of the institutional framework remain.
... In abyssal plains, the removal of nodules, which provide habitats for a rich biodiversity (Rabone et al., 2023), is an impact that will persist for millions of years (Gollner et al., 2017). Given the slow recolonization rates of species in deep-sea environments Heffernan, 2019), recovery times for benthic fauna and sediments can span decades (Amon et al., 2022), challenging traditional mitigation strategies (Van Dover et al., 2017;Miller et al., 2018). In particular, ecological restoration in deep-sea environments faces very high uncertainty and is unlikely to contribute meaningfully to achieving a goal of no net loss of biodiversity (Van Dover et al., 2014Niner et al., 2018;Levin et al., 2020;Amon et al., 2022). ...
Article
Full-text available
The identification of drivers and barriers influencing the initiation of commercial deep-sea mining (DSM) is key to developing research approaches to support the development of adequate DSM management frameworks. This study aims to provide a systems-level understanding of DSM drivers and barriers integrating both academic literature and diverse stakeholder perspectives (industry, NGOs, policy-makers, and academic researchers). To this end, we carry out a political, economic, social, technological, environmental, and legal (PESTEL) analysis combining the results of a literature survey, a participatory workshop, and semi-structured interviews. The results provide a broad overview of scientific knowledge and uncertainties relating to DSM drivers and barriers identified in the literature, alongside a synthesis of emerging perspectives and concerns expressed by stake-holders during the participatory workshop and interviews. The discussion highlights both areas of consensus and divergence across stakeholder groups and the literature, as well as a critical reflection on the relevance and limitations of the PESTEL approach, highlighting research needs to further support holistic decision making around DSM.
... For instance, research by Spearman et al. (2020) [5] demonstrated that disturbances in benthic ecosystems have been linked to declining fish stocks, affecting both commercial and subsistence fisheries. Similarly, Van Dover et al. (2017) [8] highlighted the potential for permanent displacement of fisherfolk due to the loss of fishing grounds resulting from seabed mining operations. Indian studies have also highlighted the environmental and socio-economic consequences of marine mineral mining. ...
... By extracting ore from the seabedthere will be damaging consequences to any habitat or biosphere in that, and possibly in adjacent locations (Niner et al., 2018;Van Dover et al., 2017). Onshore mining is certainly wreaking havoc on local environmentsas for example in Indonesia where Nickel mining is causing great damage to biodiversity hot-spots (Hyman et al., 2022). ...
Preprint
Full-text available
Essay. Revised version of paper submitted in partial fulfilment of PhD Course in the Philosophy of Science
Article
Full-text available
With the increasing demand for mineral resources and the continuous depletion of terrestrial mineral deposits, deep-sea mining has garnered significant attention from governments, industries, and research institutions. However, the current deep-sea mining technologies remain incompletely developed, and their environmental impacts cannot be overlooked. This review presents a brief introduction to the three primary mineral resources found in the deep sea and the relative deep-sea mining system, along with their potential environmental risks. As the deep-sea benthic ecosystem is particularly vulnerable, the impacts on environment of each phase of deep-sea mining should be monitored and controlled. The movement and operation of seafloor mining vehicles generate both direct and indirect environmental impacts, including seabed destruction and plume generation. These effects pose significant threats to benthic organisms and alter the deep-sea environment. Finally, we present future perspectives and insights for subsequent research and the industrialization of deep-sea mining.
Article
As we shift from traditional fuel-powered cars to battery-powered electric vehicles (EVs), there is an urgent need for a sustainable supply of raw materials for making batteries. The ocean floor is a vast and largely unexplored region home to various mineral resources. Seafloor nodules are small potato-shaped rocks with high concentrations of minerals such as manganese, cobalt, and nickel, essential in producing EV batteries. This article explores how microwave and RF technologies can assist in collecting and processing these nodules to address the critical raw materials (CRMs) supply crisis. It discusses the advantages of microwave/RF-assisted collection and transportation methods over traditional practices, including reduced environmental impact and improved efficiency. The conclusion emphasizes the importance of developing innovative and sustainable solutions for raw materials sourcing, with microwave/RF-assisted collection and microwave/RF-assisted transportation of seafloor nodules as a promising option to meet this challenge.
Article
Full-text available
Deep-sea polymetallic nodule mining is in the exploration phase at present with some groups proposing a move towards extraction within years¹. Management of this industry requires evidence of the long-term effects on deep-sea ecosystems², but the ability of seafloor ecosystems to recover from impacts over decadal scales is poorly understood³. Here we show that, four decades after a test mining experiment that removed nodules, the biological impacts in many groups of organisms are persistent, although populations of several organisms, including sediment macrofauna, mobile deposit feeders and even large-sized sessile fauna, have begun to re-establish despite persistent physical changes at the seafloor. We also reveal that areas affected by plumes from this small-scale test have limited detectable residual sedimentation impacts with some biological assemblages similar in abundance compared to control areas after 44 years. Although some aspects of the modern collector design may cause reduced physical impact compared to this test mining experiment, our results show that mining impacts in the abyssal ocean will be persistent over at least decadal timeframes and communities will remain altered in directly disturbed areas, despite some recolonization. The long-term effects seen in our study provide critical data for effective management of mining activities, if they occur, including minimizing direct impacts and setting aside an effective network of protected areas4,5.
Article
Full-text available
How the interplay of biotic and abiotic factors shapes current genetic diversity at the community level remains an open question, particularly in the deep sea. Comparative phylogeography of multiple species can reveal the influence of past climatic events, geographic barriers, and species life history traits on spatial patterns of genetic structure across lineages. To shed light on the factors that shape community-level genetic variation and to improve our understanding of deep-sea biogeographic patterns, we conducted a comparative population genomics study on seven hydrothermal vent species co-distributed in the Back-Arc Basins (BABs) of the Southwest Pacific region. Using ddRAD-seq, we compared the range-wide distribution of genomic diversity across species and discovered a shared phylogeographic break. Demogenetic inference revealed shared histories of lineage divergence and a secondary contact. Low levels of asymmetric gene flow probably occurred in most species between the Woodlark and North Fiji basins, but the exact location of contact zones varied from species to species. For two species, we found individuals from the two lineages co-occurring in sympatry in Woodlark Basin. Although species exhibit congruent patterns of spatial structure (Eastern vs Western sites), they also show variation in the degree of divergence among lineages across the suture zone. Our results also show heterogeneous gene flow across the genome, indicating possible partial reproductive isolation between lineages and early speciation. Our comparative study highlights the pivotal role of historical and contemporary factors, underscoring the need for a comprehensive approach—especially in addressing knowledge gaps on the life history traits of deep-sea species.
Chapter
Full-text available
This chapter explores the concept of positionality as one of the main themes of the OIN Ocean Literacy Toolkit. It draws on positionality theory and anti-oppressive, decolonial research methodologies that incorporate positionality as a reflexivity tool in social research. Drawing on Donna Haraway’s seminal essay on “Situated Knowledges”, the chapter elaborates on questions that researchers might ask themselves to understand the ways in which their positionality influences how they come to know the Ocean and how they may edge towards epistemic justice. Thus, linking positionality to epistemology, the chapter charts how multiple ways of knowing the Ocean is surfacing in both academic scholarship and policy. Finally, the authors connect and translate the main dimensions to the two pathways “connecting with each other” and “connecting with the ocean” and introduce the positionality activities included in the OIN Toolkit.
Article
Full-text available
Increased recognition of the business case for managing corporate impacts on the environment has helped drive increasingly detailed and quantified corporate environmental goals. Foremost among these are goals of no net loss (NNL) and net positive impact (NPI). We assess the scale and growth of such corporate goals. Since the first public, company-wide NNL/NPI goal in 2001, 32 companies have set similar goals, of which 18 specifically include biodiversity. Mining companies have set the most NNL/NPI goals, and the majority of those that include biodiversity, despite the generally lower total global impact of the mining industry on biodiversity compared to the agriculture or forestry industries. This could be linked to the mining industry's greater participation in best practice bodies, high-profile impacts, and higher profit margins per area of impact. The detail and quality of present goals vary widely. We examined specific NNL/NPI goals and assessed the extent to which their key components were likely to increase the effectiveness of these goals in benefiting biodiversity and managing business risk. Nonetheless, outcomes are more important than goals, and we urge conservationists to work with companies to both support and monitor their efforts to achieve increasingly ambitious environmental goals.
Article
Full-text available
Biodiversity offsetting is increasingly being used to reconcile the objectives of conservation and development. It is generally acknowledged that there are limits to the kinds of impacts on biodiversity that can or should be offset, yet there is a paucity of policy guidance as to what defines these limits and the relative difficulty of achieving a successful offset as such limits are approached. In order to improve the consistency and defensibility of development decisions involving offsets, and to improve offset design, we outline a general process for evaluating the relative offsetability of different impacts on biodiversity. This process culminates in a framework that establishes the burden of proof necessary to confirm the appropriateness and achievability of offsets, given varying levels of: conservation concern for affected biodiversity; residual impact magnitude; opportunity for suitable offsets; and feasibility of offset implementation in practice. Rankings for biodiversity conservation concern are drawn from existing conservation planning tools and approaches, including the IUCN Red List, Key Biodiversity Areas, and international bank environmental safeguard policies. We hope that the proposed process will stimulate much‐needed scientific and policy debate to improve the integrity and accountability of both regulated and voluntary biodiversity offsetting.
Article
Full-text available
An era of expanding deep-ocean industrialization is before us, with policy makers establishing governance frameworks for sustainable management of deep-sea resources while scientists learn more about the ecological structure and functioning of the largest biome on the planet. Missing from discussion of the stewardship of the deep ocean is ecological restoration. If existing activities in the deep sea continue or are expanded and new deep-ocean industries are developed, there is need to consider what is required to minimize or repair resulting damages to the deep-sea environment. In addition, thought should be given as to how any past damage can be rectified. This paper develops the discourse on deep-sea restoration and offers guidance on planning and implementing ecological restoration projects for deep-sea ecosystems that are already, or are at threat of becoming, degraded, damaged or destroyed. Two deep-sea restoration case studies or scenarios are described (deep-sea stony corals on the Darwin Mounds off the west coast of Scotland, deep-sea hydrothermal vents in Manus Basin, Papua New Guinea) and are contrasted with on-going saltmarsh restoration in San Francisco Bay. For these case studies, a set of socio-economic, ecological, and technological decision parameters that might favor (or not) their restoration are examined. Costs for hypothetical restoration scenarios in the deep sea are estimated and first indications suggest they may be two to three orders of magnitude greater per hectare than costs for restoration efforts in shallow-water marine systems.
Article
Full-text available
INTRODUCTION The deep-sea floor lies between the shelf break (c.200 m depth) and the bottom of the Challenger Deep (c.11 000 m depth). It covers more than 300 × 106 km2 and constitutes c.63% of the Earth's solid surface. The distinct habitats of the deep-sea floor are varied, and include sediment-covered slopes, abyssal plains and ocean trenches, the pillow basalts of mid-ocean ridges, rocky seamounts protruding above the sea floor and submarine canyons dissecting continental slopes. The sedimented plains of the slope and abyss are the largest in area, covering >90% of the deep-sea floor and often extending unbroken for over a thousand kilometres. Deep-sea trenches, where continental plates overrun oceanic crust, constitute 1–2% of the deep-ocean bottom. The rocky substrates of mid-ocean ridges (ribbons c.10 km wide, in total approximately 60 000 km long), seamounts (perhaps 50 000–100 000 in number: Epp & Smoot 1989; Smith 1991; Rogers 1994) and submarine canyons are relatively rare habitats in the enormous expanses of the deep sea, together estimated to occupy <4% of the sea floor. Many deep-sea floor habitats share ecological characteristics that make them especially sensitive to environmental change and human impacts. Perhaps the most important characteristic is low biological productivity. Away from the occasional hydrothermal vent and cold seep, the energy for the deep-sea biota is ultimately derived from an attenuated ‘rain’ of organic matter from surface waters hundreds to thousands of metres above (typically 1–10 g Corg per m2 per year).
Article
Extensive areas of the cold-water scleractinian Lophelia pertusa have been damaged due to the impact of bottom-trawling and natural recovery is slow or absent. Here we evaluate a method for coral reef rehabilitation intended to enhance coral transplant survival and growth, i.e. mineral accretion by electrolysis in seawater. Electrolysis in seawater produces a semi-natural substrate in the form of aragonite (CaCO3). The method has been used in coral reef rehabilitation programmes in tropical coral habitats but has so far not been tested in temperate deep-water habitats. A controlled laboratory experiment was performed to test the effect of the substrate per se and different levels of applied current densities (0.00–2.19 A m−2), including galvanic elements (Fe|Zn), on coral fragments attached to the cathodes. The studied responses were; growth rate, budding frequency, mortality, and general health status (degree of polyp activity). We found that the budding frequency differed significantly between treatments, with higher frequencies in low current density treatments. Significant differences were also found in the frequency distribution of calices displaying a growth of ≥ 2 mm yr−1, with higher frequencies in the lowest applied current density (LI), controls, and galvanic elements. Growth rates were slightly higher in LI, although non-significant. Zero mortality was observed in the control group as well as in LI. The degree of polyp activity was not affected by the treatments. These results are in part congruent with earlier studies and the method is found suitable for L. pertusa. The positive effects were mainly restricted to the lowest applied current density treatment (0.06 A m−2). The optimal current density level is hereby found to be considerably lower than levels used in previous studies and provide new guidelines for what levels to use in rehabilitation programmes with this method.
A Cross-sector Guide for Implementing the Mitigation Hierarchy
  • J Ekstrom
  • L Bennun
  • R Mitchell
Ekstrom, J., Bennun, L. & Mitchell, R. A Cross-sector Guide for Implementing the Mitigation Hierarchy (Cross Sector Biodiversity Initiative, 2015).
Blue Growth: Opportunities for Marine and Maritime Sustainable Growth
  • L A Levin
Levin, L. A. et al. Mar. Policy 74, 245-259 (2016).
  • H J Rainey
Rainey, H. J. et al. Oryx 49, 232-238 (2015).