Deep-sea mining starves life in the ocean’s twilight zone – ScienceDaily

Report on the Environmental Impacts of Deep-Sea Mining and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

A study by the University of Hawai’i at Mānoa provides direct evidence that deep-sea mining activities in the Pacific Ocean’s Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ) pose a significant threat to marine ecosystems. The discharge of sediment waste, a byproduct of polymetallic nodule extraction, is shown to disrupt the midwater food web, with profound implications for several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), most notably SDG 14 (Life Below Water), SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production).

Direct Threats to SDG 14: Life Below Water

Ecosystem Disruption in the Midwater Zone

The research highlights the vulnerability of the midwater “twilight zone” (200-1,500 meters deep), a critical habitat that supports a vast biomass of marine organisms. The study’s findings directly challenge the objective of SDG 14 to conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas, and marine resources.

• Impact on Foundational Species: Sediment plumes from mining are projected to negatively affect 53% of zooplankton and 60% of micronekton. These organisms form the base of the oceanic food web.
• Cascading Effects: Harm to these foundational populations threatens the stability of the entire food chain, potentially impacting larger predators such as fish, seabirds, and marine mammals.
• Biodiversity Loss: The CCZ is one of the most biologically rich regions of the deep sea. Unregulated mining discharge risks irreversible damage to this unique biodiversity, undermining SDG Target 14.2, which aims to protect and restore marine and coastal ecosystems.

Implications for SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production)

Compromising Marine Food Webs

The study reveals that mining waste significantly degrades the nutritional quality of the marine environment, creating a “junk food” effect that threatens food security and highlights unsustainable production methods.

1. Nutritional Dilution: Mining sediment particles contain far fewer essential amino acids than the natural detrital particles that zooplankton consume.
2. Food Web Contamination: The replacement of nutritious food with low-quality sediment particles has the potential to disrupt the entire food web, from the smallest organisms to top predators.
3. Threat to Fisheries: The disruption could extend to commercial fisheries. Tuna populations, a vital global food source linked to SDG 2, migrate through the CCZ and could be impacted by a weakened food web.

The Paradox of Sustainable Production

While the minerals targeted by deep-sea mining are essential for renewable energy technologies, the extraction process itself conflicts with the principles of SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production).

• Unsustainable Extraction: The process of collecting nodules and discharging sediment waste back into the ocean represents an unsustainable management of natural resources that fails to account for severe environmental externalities.
• Regulatory Gaps: A significant regulatory gap exists, with no international rules governing the depth or method of mining waste discharge. This lack of governance is contrary to the principles of responsible resource management.
• Ecosystem Services at Risk: The twilight zone plays a key role in global carbon cycling through the vertical migration of organisms. Disrupting this ecosystem could impair the ocean’s ability to regulate climate, further complicating efforts under SDG 13 (Climate Action).

Conclusion and Call for Governance Aligned with SDG 17

The Need for Precautionary Regulation

The findings serve as a critical warning that commercial-scale deep-sea mining, if it proceeds without strict, science-based safeguards, could cause widespread and long-lasting damage to ocean ecosystems. This underscores the urgent need for global cooperation and robust governance, in line with SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

• Informed Policy-Making: The research provides essential data to inform policy discussions at the International Seabed Authority and other regulatory bodies.
• Precautionary Principle: A precautionary approach is necessary to prevent harm to deep-sea and midwater ecosystems that are not yet fully understood.
• International Rules: The authors stress the importance of developing comprehensive international rules to protect the full water column, from the surface to the seafloor, ensuring that the pursuit of minerals for new technologies does not undermine the fundamental health of the planet’s oceans and the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 14: Life Below Water
   • This is the most central SDG, as the article’s entire focus is on the potential harm to marine ecosystems from deep-sea mining waste. It discusses the disruption of the ocean’s food web, the impact on marine life from zooplankton to larger predators, and the overall health of the deep-sea environment in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ).
2. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
   • The article connects the drive for deep-sea mining to the “surge in global demand for minerals used in low-carbon technologies” such as electric vehicles. This highlights the environmental consequences of production patterns, raising questions about the sustainability of sourcing raw materials and the need for responsible management of natural resources.
3. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • A secondary connection is made through the description of the twilight zone’s role in the planet’s carbon balance. The article states that organisms in this zone help transport “carbon to the deep ocean,” and disrupting this process could have wider implications for the ocean’s ability to regulate the climate.
4. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals
   • The article explicitly calls for international cooperation and regulation. It mentions the “International Seabed Authority” and the need to develop “international rules to protect marine ecosystems,” underscoring the necessity of global partnerships to address this transboundary environmental issue.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Under SDG 14 (Life Below Water):
   • Target 14.1: By 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds. The article directly addresses this by describing the sediment discharged from mining operations as a pollutant that creates “murky plumes” and harms marine life.
   • Target 14.2: By 2020, sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts. The research highlights the potential for “significant adverse impacts” on the deep-sea ecosystem of the CCZ and calls for safeguards before commercial mining begins to ensure sustainable management.
   • Target 14.a: Increase scientific knowledge, develop research capacity and transfer marine technology… to improve ocean health. The study itself is a direct contribution to this target, providing new scientific evidence on the impacts of mining to inform policy and protect ocean health.
2. Under SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production):
   • Target 12.2: By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources. The article questions the sustainability of extracting polymetallic nodules from the deep sea without understanding and mitigating the environmental costs, pointing to a need for sustainable resource management.
3. Under SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals):
   • Target 17.14: Enhance policy coherence for sustainable development. The article points out a policy conflict where the pursuit of minerals for “low-carbon technologies” (addressing climate goals) could harm marine ecosystems (undermining ocean goals). The call for informed regulation at the International Seabed Authority is a call for greater policy coherence.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Indicators for SDG 14 (Life Below Water):
   • For Target 14.1 (Marine Pollution): The article provides specific, measurable data points that can serve as indicators of pollution impact. These include the “percentage of zooplankton affected (53%)” and the “percentage of micronekton affected (60%).” Another key indicator is the nutritional quality of water, which the study measured by analyzing the “amino acids” in mining particles compared to natural particles.
   • For Target 14.2 (Ecosystem Protection): An implied indicator is the health and integrity of the marine food web, which the study suggests is disrupted. A pressure indicator mentioned is the area licensed for exploration, which is currently “around 1.5 million square kilometers of the CCZ.”
   • For Target 14.a (Scientific Knowledge): The publication of the study itself, “Deep-sea mining discharge can disrupt midwater food webs,” is an indicator of increasing scientific knowledge. The use of this research by bodies like the “International Seabed Authority” would be an indicator of science influencing policy.
2. Indicators for SDG 12 & 17 (Responsible Production & Partnerships):
   • An indicator for progress on both SDG 12.2 and 17.14 is the existence and enforcement of regulations. The article states there are “no international rules currently govern[ing] where or how mining waste can be discharged,” highlighting a clear regulatory gap. The establishment of such rules would be a direct indicator of progress.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: sciencedaily.com