standardization of environmental data and information - International ...

Koslow mentioned a recent paper about environmental impact
assessments in the marine versus terrestrial realms. The paper had
pointed out that in the terrestrial realm, when there was talk about clearing
a forest, it seemed clear how the landscape would be changed and what
the negative versus positive arguments were. In a marine situation such as
the water column, those elements were not always clear. What mattered
was not so much whether a change might be negative or positive but the
fact that there would be a change and an impact. Scientists,
conservationists and policy makers had to decide what level of change they
found acceptable. If, for example, a large discharge of deepwater enhanced
nutrient and increased productivity, it might be thought of as either positive
or negative, but the point was that there would be an impact, even one that
could be seen from space.
As to the potential diameter of the impacted area and the
magnitude of the impact, eventually a number of claim areas might be
mined and several ships might be discharging. Hjalmar Thiel had estimated
that something like 34,000 m³ of deep water might be discharged each day
in a single mining operation 30 . Trace elements and pore water would come
up with the sediment, and he was not sure what the whole mix would be.
Recent iron-enrichment experiments with a single dumping of iron into a
small patch of water had shown dramatic changes in productivity and
species composition. Therefore, several vessels working for 10 or 20 years
could produce a substantial impact.
The participant who asked this question remarked that
environmentalists and quite a few biologists raised scare scenarios about
tremendous devastation, even though the volume of material lifted up from
the deep ocean in a mining activity would be negligible compared to the
volume of the ocean and would affect only a limited area. When trying to
design a code for future ocean mining, the question arose as to whether
this type of activity should or should not be allowed.
Koslow responded that the current question involved trying to
assess what the impact would be, not setting policy. It would be easy to
estimate how much new productivity and carbon might result from the
discharge of a specified amount of surface discharge. With a chronic effect
occurring 300 days a year over 10 or 20 years, the global community would
want to assess the impact. That should not be done just by saying that it
would be trivial or significant. An evaluation would be needed and, because
the circumstances of discharge were unclear, some monitoring of the water
column was required.
INTERNATIONAL SEABED AUTHORITY 415