Comparing environmental impacts of deep-seabed and land-based mining: A defensible framework.

The crises of climate change and biodiversity loss are interlinked and must be addressed jointly. A proposed solution for reducing reliance on fossil fuels, and thus mitigating climate change, is the transition from conventional combustion-engine to electric vehicles. This transition currently requires additional mineral resources, such as nickel and cobalt used in car batteries, presently obtained from land-based mines. Most options to meet this demand are associated with some biodiversity loss. One proposal is to mine the deep seabed, a vast, relatively pristine and mostly unexplored region of our planet. Few comparisons of environmental impacts of solely expanding land-based mining versus extending mining to the deep seabed for the additional resources exist and for biodiversity only qualitative. Here, we present a framework that facilitates a holistic comparison of relative ecosystem impacts by mining, using empirical data from relevant environmental metrics. This framework (Environmental Impact Wheel) includes a suite of physicochemical and biological components, rather than a few selected metrics, surrogates, or proxies. It is modified from the "recovery wheel" presented in the International Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration to address impacts rather than recovery. The wheel includes six attributes (physical condition, community composition, structural diversity, ecosystem function, external exchanges and absence of threats). Each has 3-5 sub attributes, in turn measured with several indicators. The framework includes five steps: (1) identifying geographic scope; (2) identifying relevant spatiotemporal scales; (3) selecting relevant indicators for each sub-attribute; (4) aggregating changes in indicators to scores; and (5) generating Environmental Impact Wheels for targeted comparisons. To move forward comparisons of land-based with deep seabed mining, thresholds of the indicators that reflect the range in severity of environmental impacts are needed. Indicators should be based on clearly articulated environmental goals, with objectives and targets that are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time bound.

Offsetting the impacts of mining to achieve no net loss of native vegetation.

Offsets are a novel conservation tool, yet using them to achieve no net loss of biodiversity is challenging. This is especially true when using conservation offsets (i.e., protected areas) because achieving no net loss requires avoiding equivalent loss. Our objective was to determine if offsetting the impacts of mining achieves no net loss of native vegetation in Brazil's largest iron mining region. We used a land-use change model to simulate deforestation by mining to 2020; developed a model to allocate conservation offsets to the landscape under 3 scenarios (baseline, no new offsets; current practice, like-for-like [by vegetation type] conservation offsetting near the impact site; and threat scenario, like-for-like conservation offsetting of highly threatened vegetation); and simulated nonmining deforestation to 2020 for each scenario to quantify avoided deforestation achieved with offsets. Mines cleared 3570 ha of native vegetation by 2020. Under a 1:4 offset ratio, mining companies would be required to conserve >14,200 ha of native vegetation, doubling the current extent of protected areas in the region. Allocating offsets under current practice avoided deforestation equivalent to 3% of that caused by mining, whereas allocating under the threat scenario avoided 9%. Current practice failed to achieve no net loss because offsets did not conserve threatened vegetation. Explicit allocation of offsets to threatened vegetation also failed because the most threatened vegetation was widely dispersed across the landscape, making conservation logistically difficult. To achieve no net loss with conservation offsets requires information on regional deforestation trajectories and the distribution of threatened vegetation. However, in some regions achieving no net loss through conservation may be impossible. In these cases, other offsetting activities, such as revegetation, will be required.