Potential Mitigation and Restoration Actions in Ecosystems Impacted by Seabed Mining

Daphne Cuvelier, Sabine Gollner, Daniel O. B. Jones, Stefanie Kaiser, Pedro Martínez Arbizu, Lena Menzel, Nélia C. Mestre, Telmo Morato, Christopher Pham, Florence Pradillon, Autun Purser, Uwe Raschka, Jozée Sarrazin, Erik Simon-Lledó, Ian M. Stewart, Heiko Stuckas, Andrew K. Sweetman, Ana Colaço

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

Mining impacts will affect local populations to different degrees. Impacts range from removal of habitats and possible energy sources to pollution and smaller-scale alterations in local habitats that, depending on the degree of disturbance, can lead to extinction of local communities. While there is a shortage or even lack of studies investigating impacts that resemble those caused by actual mining activity, the information available on the potential long-lasting impacts of seabed mining emphasise the need for effective environmental management plans. These plans should include efforts to mitigate deep-sea mining impact such as avoidance, minimisation and potentially restoration actions, to maintain or encourage reinstatement of a resilient ecosystem. A wide range of mitigation and restoration actions for deep-sea ecosystems at risk were addressed. From an ecological point of view, the designation of set-aside areas (refuges) is of utmost importance as it appears to be the most comprehensive and precautionary approach, both for well-known and lesser studied areas. Other actions range from the deployment of artificial substrates to enhance faunal colonisation and survival to habitat recreation, artificial eutrophication, but also spatial and temporal management of mining operations, as well as optimising mining machine construction to minimise plume size on the sea floor, toxicity of the return plume and sediment compression. No single action will suffice to allow an ecosystem to recover, instead combined mitigation/restoration actions need to be considered, which will depend on the specific characteristics of the different mining habitats and the resources hosted (polymetallic sulphides, polymetallic nodules and cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts). However, there is a lack of practical experience regarding mitigation and restoration actions following mining impacts, which severely hamper their predictability and estimation of their possible effect and success. We propose an extensive list of actions that could be considered as recommendations for best environmental practice. The list is not restricted and, depending on the characteristics of the site, additional actions can be considered. For all actions presented here, further research is necessary to fully encompass their potential and contribution to possible mitigation or restoration of the ecosystem.

Original languageEnglish
Article number467
JournalFrontiers in Marine Science
Volume5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 10 Dec 2018

Fingerprint

pollution control
Ecosystems
Restoration
mitigation
ecosystems
ecosystem
habitat
habitats
Deep sea mining
plume
Manganese nodules
artificial substrate
set-aside
Eutrophication
Environmental management
restoration
ecological restoration
environmental management
cobalt
refuge

Keywords

  • (re-)colonisation
  • Assisted recovery
  • Deep sea
  • Impacts
  • Mining
  • Mitigation
  • Restoration

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oceanography
  • Global and Planetary Change
  • Aquatic Science
  • Water Science and Technology
  • Environmental Science (miscellaneous)
  • Ocean Engineering

Cite this

Cuvelier, D., Gollner, S., Jones, D. O. B., Kaiser, S., Arbizu, P. M., Menzel, L., ... Colaço, A. (2018). Potential Mitigation and Restoration Actions in Ecosystems Impacted by Seabed Mining. Frontiers in Marine Science, 5, [467]. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00467
Cuvelier, Daphne ; Gollner, Sabine ; Jones, Daniel O. B. ; Kaiser, Stefanie ; Arbizu, Pedro Martínez ; Menzel, Lena ; Mestre, Nélia C. ; Morato, Telmo ; Pham, Christopher ; Pradillon, Florence ; Purser, Autun ; Raschka, Uwe ; Sarrazin, Jozée ; Simon-Lledó, Erik ; Stewart, Ian M. ; Stuckas, Heiko ; Sweetman, Andrew K. ; Colaço, Ana. / Potential Mitigation and Restoration Actions in Ecosystems Impacted by Seabed Mining. In: Frontiers in Marine Science. 2018 ; Vol. 5.
@article{840aaa9f3b6244caae2ce7f7802d9d47,
title = "Potential Mitigation and Restoration Actions in Ecosystems Impacted by Seabed Mining",
abstract = "Mining impacts will affect local populations to different degrees. Impacts range from removal of habitats and possible energy sources to pollution and smaller-scale alterations in local habitats that, depending on the degree of disturbance, can lead to extinction of local communities. While there is a shortage or even lack of studies investigating impacts that resemble those caused by actual mining activity, the information available on the potential long-lasting impacts of seabed mining emphasise the need for effective environmental management plans. These plans should include efforts to mitigate deep-sea mining impact such as avoidance, minimisation and potentially restoration actions, to maintain or encourage reinstatement of a resilient ecosystem. A wide range of mitigation and restoration actions for deep-sea ecosystems at risk were addressed. From an ecological point of view, the designation of set-aside areas (refuges) is of utmost importance as it appears to be the most comprehensive and precautionary approach, both for well-known and lesser studied areas. Other actions range from the deployment of artificial substrates to enhance faunal colonisation and survival to habitat recreation, artificial eutrophication, but also spatial and temporal management of mining operations, as well as optimising mining machine construction to minimise plume size on the sea floor, toxicity of the return plume and sediment compression. No single action will suffice to allow an ecosystem to recover, instead combined mitigation/restoration actions need to be considered, which will depend on the specific characteristics of the different mining habitats and the resources hosted (polymetallic sulphides, polymetallic nodules and cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts). However, there is a lack of practical experience regarding mitigation and restoration actions following mining impacts, which severely hamper their predictability and estimation of their possible effect and success. We propose an extensive list of actions that could be considered as recommendations for best environmental practice. The list is not restricted and, depending on the characteristics of the site, additional actions can be considered. For all actions presented here, further research is necessary to fully encompass their potential and contribution to possible mitigation or restoration of the ecosystem.",
keywords = "(re-)colonisation, Assisted recovery, Deep sea, Impacts, Mining, Mitigation, Restoration",
author = "Daphne Cuvelier and Sabine Gollner and Jones, {Daniel O. B.} and Stefanie Kaiser and Arbizu, {Pedro Mart{\'i}nez} and Lena Menzel and Mestre, {N{\'e}lia C.} and Telmo Morato and Christopher Pham and Florence Pradillon and Autun Purser and Uwe Raschka and Joz{\'e}e Sarrazin and Erik Simon-Lled{\'o} and Stewart, {Ian M.} and Heiko Stuckas and Sweetman, {Andrew K.} and Ana Cola{\cc}o",
year = "2018",
month = "12",
day = "10",
doi = "10.3389/fmars.2018.00467",
language = "English",
volume = "5",
journal = "Frontiers in Marine Science",
issn = "2296-7745",
publisher = "Frontiers Media S. A.",

}

Cuvelier, D, Gollner, S, Jones, DOB, Kaiser, S, Arbizu, PM, Menzel, L, Mestre, NC, Morato, T, Pham, C, Pradillon, F, Purser, A, Raschka, U, Sarrazin, J, Simon-Lledó, E, Stewart, IM, Stuckas, H, Sweetman, AK & Colaço, A 2018, 'Potential Mitigation and Restoration Actions in Ecosystems Impacted by Seabed Mining', Frontiers in Marine Science, vol. 5, 467. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00467

Potential Mitigation and Restoration Actions in Ecosystems Impacted by Seabed Mining. / Cuvelier, Daphne; Gollner, Sabine; Jones, Daniel O. B.; Kaiser, Stefanie; Arbizu, Pedro Martínez; Menzel, Lena; Mestre, Nélia C.; Morato, Telmo; Pham, Christopher; Pradillon, Florence; Purser, Autun; Raschka, Uwe; Sarrazin, Jozée; Simon-Lledó, Erik; Stewart, Ian M.; Stuckas, Heiko; Sweetman, Andrew K.; Colaço, Ana.

In: Frontiers in Marine Science, Vol. 5, 467, 10.12.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Potential Mitigation and Restoration Actions in Ecosystems Impacted by Seabed Mining

AU - Cuvelier, Daphne

AU - Gollner, Sabine

AU - Jones, Daniel O. B.

AU - Kaiser, Stefanie

AU - Arbizu, Pedro Martínez

AU - Menzel, Lena

AU - Mestre, Nélia C.

AU - Morato, Telmo

AU - Pham, Christopher

AU - Pradillon, Florence

AU - Purser, Autun

AU - Raschka, Uwe

AU - Sarrazin, Jozée

AU - Simon-Lledó, Erik

AU - Stewart, Ian M.

AU - Stuckas, Heiko

AU - Sweetman, Andrew K.

AU - Colaço, Ana

PY - 2018/12/10

Y1 - 2018/12/10

N2 - Mining impacts will affect local populations to different degrees. Impacts range from removal of habitats and possible energy sources to pollution and smaller-scale alterations in local habitats that, depending on the degree of disturbance, can lead to extinction of local communities. While there is a shortage or even lack of studies investigating impacts that resemble those caused by actual mining activity, the information available on the potential long-lasting impacts of seabed mining emphasise the need for effective environmental management plans. These plans should include efforts to mitigate deep-sea mining impact such as avoidance, minimisation and potentially restoration actions, to maintain or encourage reinstatement of a resilient ecosystem. A wide range of mitigation and restoration actions for deep-sea ecosystems at risk were addressed. From an ecological point of view, the designation of set-aside areas (refuges) is of utmost importance as it appears to be the most comprehensive and precautionary approach, both for well-known and lesser studied areas. Other actions range from the deployment of artificial substrates to enhance faunal colonisation and survival to habitat recreation, artificial eutrophication, but also spatial and temporal management of mining operations, as well as optimising mining machine construction to minimise plume size on the sea floor, toxicity of the return plume and sediment compression. No single action will suffice to allow an ecosystem to recover, instead combined mitigation/restoration actions need to be considered, which will depend on the specific characteristics of the different mining habitats and the resources hosted (polymetallic sulphides, polymetallic nodules and cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts). However, there is a lack of practical experience regarding mitigation and restoration actions following mining impacts, which severely hamper their predictability and estimation of their possible effect and success. We propose an extensive list of actions that could be considered as recommendations for best environmental practice. The list is not restricted and, depending on the characteristics of the site, additional actions can be considered. For all actions presented here, further research is necessary to fully encompass their potential and contribution to possible mitigation or restoration of the ecosystem.

AB - Mining impacts will affect local populations to different degrees. Impacts range from removal of habitats and possible energy sources to pollution and smaller-scale alterations in local habitats that, depending on the degree of disturbance, can lead to extinction of local communities. While there is a shortage or even lack of studies investigating impacts that resemble those caused by actual mining activity, the information available on the potential long-lasting impacts of seabed mining emphasise the need for effective environmental management plans. These plans should include efforts to mitigate deep-sea mining impact such as avoidance, minimisation and potentially restoration actions, to maintain or encourage reinstatement of a resilient ecosystem. A wide range of mitigation and restoration actions for deep-sea ecosystems at risk were addressed. From an ecological point of view, the designation of set-aside areas (refuges) is of utmost importance as it appears to be the most comprehensive and precautionary approach, both for well-known and lesser studied areas. Other actions range from the deployment of artificial substrates to enhance faunal colonisation and survival to habitat recreation, artificial eutrophication, but also spatial and temporal management of mining operations, as well as optimising mining machine construction to minimise plume size on the sea floor, toxicity of the return plume and sediment compression. No single action will suffice to allow an ecosystem to recover, instead combined mitigation/restoration actions need to be considered, which will depend on the specific characteristics of the different mining habitats and the resources hosted (polymetallic sulphides, polymetallic nodules and cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts). However, there is a lack of practical experience regarding mitigation and restoration actions following mining impacts, which severely hamper their predictability and estimation of their possible effect and success. We propose an extensive list of actions that could be considered as recommendations for best environmental practice. The list is not restricted and, depending on the characteristics of the site, additional actions can be considered. For all actions presented here, further research is necessary to fully encompass their potential and contribution to possible mitigation or restoration of the ecosystem.

KW - (re-)colonisation

KW - Assisted recovery

KW - Deep sea

KW - Impacts

KW - Mining

KW - Mitigation

KW - Restoration

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85058954654&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3389/fmars.2018.00467

DO - 10.3389/fmars.2018.00467

M3 - Review article

VL - 5

JO - Frontiers in Marine Science

JF - Frontiers in Marine Science

SN - 2296-7745

M1 - 467

ER -