4.6 Article

Environmental Impact Assessments for deep-sea mining: Can we improve their future effectiveness?

期刊

MARINE POLICY
卷 114, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2018.11.026

关键词

Seabed mining; Environmental impact assessment; Environmental management; Deep sea; Impacts

资金

  1. European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) [603418]
  2. New Zealand program on Enabling Management of Offshore Mining (EMOM) project (MBIE) [C01X1228]
  3. New Zealand program Resilience of deep-sea benthos to the effects of sedimentation (ROBES) (MBIE) [C01X1614]
  4. Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
  5. New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment (MBIE) [C01X1228, C01X1614] Funding Source: New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment (MBIE)
  6. NERC [noc010010, noc010009] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Environmental Impact Assessment (ETA) is an important process for evaluating the effects of development, and to assist decisions to effectively manage potential deep-sea mining (DSM). However, although EIA is a widely used and accepted approach, there has been considerable debate over its effectiveness. In this paper, we summarise some of the key problems raised by previous EIA reviews, as well as examining several EIAs carried out in recent years for DSM, and highlight issues identified by management agencies. Scientific shortcomings are discussed, and recommendations provided on ways to improve performance. These include inadequate baseline data, insufficient detail of the mining operation, insufficient synthesis of data and the ecosystem approach, poor assessment and consideration of uncertainty, inadequate assessment of indirect impacts, inadequate treatment of cumulative impacts, insufficient risk assessment, and consideration of linkages between EIA and other management plans. The focus of the paper is on scientific limitations, but we also consider some aspects of their application to elements of process and policy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据