Sunday, August 12, 2018


Geoscience Community Information Services and Resources Detailed Survey


Dear Colleagues,

The American Geosciences Institute (AGI) has asked us to disseminate a more detailed, 15-minute survey about where the community finds reliable sources of geoscientific information and how these assets are accessed.
This study will help improve the communities’ access to reliable information services.

Please share your experiences by participating in AGI’s 20-question survey, which can be found at http://bit.ly/GeoInfoServicesDetailed.

The survey deadline is Friday, August 24th, 2018. If you have any questions about the study, please contact AGI’s Workforce Development Specialist Heather Houlton at hrh@americangeosciences.org.

We appreciate your willingness to participate.

Sincerely,
Giuseppe Di Capua


IAPG is recognized as an International Associate Organization of the American Geosciences Institute - AGI from 2014.

IAPG - International Association for Promoting Geoethics:
http://www.geoethics.org

Monday, August 6, 2018


The Geoethical Promise in the ceremony of the geological master degree in geology at the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia (Italy)


As announced by Silvia Peppoloni (IAPG Secretary General) at the 72nd IUGS EC meeting in Potsdam (Germany) on 22-26 January 2018, the "Geoethical Promise" (http://www.geoethics.org/geopromise) has been included as official declaration during the ceremony for the geological master degree in the Italian Universities, thanks to the cooperation of the IAPG-Italy and the Italian Geological Society.

On 19 July 2018, the "Geoethical Promise" (the parchment is below) was read at the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia (UNIMORE) during the cerimony of the master degree in geology (video below, in Italian).

This was a memorable event! We hope the "Geoethical Promise" will be adopted in many Universities all over the world!

We remind you that the "Geoethical Promise" (avalilable in 35 languages: http://fliphtml5.com/gqru/ttwl) is included in the "Cape Town Statement on Geoethics" (http://www.geoethics.org/ctsg), supported by 19 geoscience organizations.

Silvia Peppoloni said that "... Who in these years has worked hard with me to achieve this result can understand the emotion that I have felt looking at these images, and also the joy and the awareness of having left a mark in the history of geosciences. ​I can only thank all those who have helped me, and in particular Prof. Sandra Piacente and Prof. Elisabetta Erba, not by chance two women: their sensitivity and support have made possible the officialization of this symbolic act, full of meaning for those like me who believe in the ethical and social value of our profession as geologists, in the cultural and educational power of our beloved geo-disciplines ...".




The parchment of the Italian version of the Geoethical Promise


IAPG - International Association for Promoting Geoethics:
http://www.geoethics.org

Tuesday, July 31, 2018

Geoethics at the
AGU Fall Meeting 2018
Deadline is arrived:
Just few hours to submit your abstracts!


IAPG-USA and AGI - American Geosciences Institute co-organize the Session ID# 51793:

Geoethics: Taking a Stand for Ethical Geoscience Research, Education, Communication, and Practice

Convenership:
Cindy Palinkas (primary convener; IAPG-USA co-chair), Vincent S. Cronin (IAPG-USA co-chair), Silvia Peppoloni (IAPG Secretary General), Chris Keane (AGI)

Description:
There is a clear need to develop ethical frameworks within which geoscientists can conduct their research, professional, education, and outreach activities. Geoethics deals with the ethical, social and cultural implications of geoscience research and practice, and so provides these frameworks in a variety of settings. For example, as scholars and experts in earth sciences, geoscientists are required to conduct research responsibly and to inform society of potential geological hazards and possible sustainable resources. As educators, they should train students in ethical practices. In all activities, they should exemplify ethical behaviors and attitudes as they interact with colleagues and students in the work environment (including offices, classrooms, labs, and the field) and seek to increase diversity and inclusion. The goal of this session is to discuss these frameworks, considering both theoretical and practical aspects. We invite contributions focusing on the ethical aspects of geoscience research, practice and education, including case studies.

Deadline is expiring. Just few hours to submit your abstracts!

Website:
https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm18/prelim.cgi/Session/51793


Other IAPG events:
http://www.geoethics.org/events

IAPG - International Association for Promoting Geoethics:
http://www.geoethics.org

Thursday, July 26, 2018


The issue #3 - 2018 
of the IAPG Newsletter is out!


The issue #3 - 2018 of the Newsletter of the IAPG - International Association for Promoting Geoethics has been released on 26 July 2018.

Summary:

- Spreading Geoethics through the languages of the world: translations of the Cape Town Statement on Geoethics
- The Geoethical Promise: a memorable event
- Call for abstracts: geoethics at the AGU Fall Meeting 2018 (deadline is approaching!)
- 1st Workshop of The European Project GOAL (Geoethics Outcomes and Awareness Learning
- MINERLIMA 2018: new dates and venue
- Session on History of Geology and Geoethics in Italy
- Session on “Seismology and Society” in Malta
- The logo of the IAPG-IAH Congress in Portugal is ready
- IAPG at the “II Simposio Internacional Paleontologia del Perù”
- Geoscience and Society Summit: new dates and venue
- An IAPG report from the FORAM 18 pilot event
- Publications
- New national section: IAPG-Lebanon
- International Geoethics Day 2018
- New agreement for cooperation
- Articles from the IAPG Blog
- IAPG photo gallery
- Donations

Download the IAPG Newsletter #3 - 2018 at: 
http://www.geoethics.org/newsletter


Kindly, share this post and/or forward the IAPG Newsletter #3 - 2018 to your colleaguesThank you!


IAPG - International Association for Promoting Geoethics: 
http://www.geoethics.org

Tuesday, July 24, 2018

1st Workshop of the European Project GOAL

Rome (Italy), 30 July - 3 August 2018


The workshop, that is focused on "Theoretical aspects of geoethics and geoethics in georisks", will take place in Rome (Italy), from 30 July - 3 August 2018 at the Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (Italian Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology) and is organized by the Italian Team leaded by Giuseppe Di Capua and Silvia Peppoloni.


Kick-off meeting in Porto (May 2018)
GOAL is the first project entirely focused on geoethics and is leaded by Clara Vasconcelos (co-coordinator of IAPG-Portugal).

IAPG - International Association for Promoting Geoethics is partner of the project GOAL (Geoethics Outcomes and Awareness Learning).

In the picture, participants in the project kick-off meeting held in Porto (Portugal) last May.


IAPG - International Association for Promoting Geoethics:

Thursday, July 19, 2018


The Marine Environment: Hazards, Resources and the Application of Geoethics Principles


Just published in the IAPG special issue on geoethics in Annals of Geophysics:

Violante R.A., Bozzano G., Rovere E.I. (2017). THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT: HAZARDS, RESOURCES AND THE APPLICATION OF GEOETHICS PRINCIPLES, doi: 10.4401/ AG-7564.In: Peppoloni S., Di Capua G., Bobrowsky P.T., Cronin V.S. (Eds.), Geoethics at the heart of all geoscience, Annals of Geophysics, 2017, Vol. 60, Fast Track 7.

Abstract:
Oceans cover three quarters of the Earth surface and represent a fundamental component of the global climate system. Life on Earth is closely tied to the climate system and thus to the oceans. Marine regions are subjected to numerous submarine natural hazards such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and landslides, in many cases producing tsunamis that threaten coastal areas and many onshore and offshore man-made facilities. On the other hand, as society and technological needs progressively increase, the impact of human activities on coastal and deep waters become more severe, with consequences that include global warming and sea-level rise, coastal erosion, pollution, ocean acidification, damage to marine resources and ecosystem degradation.
Nevertheless, humankind seems not to be adequately conscious about the different kind of hazards threatening the marine environment. The challenge for marine geoscientists is to be conscious of the geoethical compromise in order to alert society, industries and policy makers about the needs to minimize the risks of natural and human impacts in the ocean system.

Free download of all 26 papers published in the IAPG special issue:
http://www.geoethics.org/geoethics-ag2017


IAPG - International Association for Promoting Geoethics:
http://www.geoethics.org

Monday, July 16, 2018


The EU-Latin America Mineral Development Network Platform (MDNP)




by Jan Boon
Jan Boon

Co-coordinator IAPG-Canada
FaciliTech International, Canada 





The EU-Latin American Mineral Development Network Platform (MDNP) aims to establish a network platform for the cooperation between authorities, industry, business (including SMEs), academia, geological surveys and other relevant entities from the EU and select Latin American countries. The EU provides funding for the platform.
To become a member of the MDNP you need to be legally based  in an EU Member State or in one of the following Latin American countries Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Uruguay, and to be active in the fields relevant for the non-energy extractive industry sector. Unfortunately, this means that only IAPG members residing in the EU or in the specified Latin American countries can register and access the network. I am somewhat puzzled by this, as the "mining ecosystem" (that consists of all actors involved and by their networks of relationships) is truly global.
For example, companies with head offices located in many non-European countries carry out mining in Peru, which means that many important relationships will not be visible in MNDP, although they may affect issues important to MDNP members. Be this as it may, IAPG has registered as a member and Giuseppe di Capua (IAPG treasurur) has access to the platform. You can find details at www.mineralplatform.eu.
The platform is organized around he main headings investment; cooperation; technology, equipment and services; research, development and innovation; responsible mining and sustainable development goals; and events. In addition, it has a tools section that provides networking tools, company profiles, a partner finder, country fiches, funding instruments, tax incentives and more. There also is an on-line library.
Drop-down menus provide details for each heading. Details for selected main headings illustrate the structure of the platform: Investment covers mining legal frameworks, mineral potential, exploration and mining opportunities, and funding instruments and tax incentives. Research, development and innovation deals with project initiatives and networks; funding instruments; exploration, extraction; mineral processing and metallurgy; and mining waste management and rehabilitation.
MNDP will be a very useful tool for all actors linked to the mining sector in the EU and Latin American member countries. If you have a legal link to an entity that resides in one of these countries, you will have access to what looks to become a formidable platform.


IAPG - International Association for Promoting Geoethics

Friday, July 13, 2018


Programme of the session S38
History of geosciences and Geoethics: the right way for social responsibility

Conveners: Marco Pantaloni (ISPRA-Roma), Silvia Peppoloni (INGV, Roma), Fabiana Console (ISPRA, Roma), Giuseppe Di Capua (INGV, Roma)

This session is supported by IAPG and INHIGEO

89th Congress of the Geological Society of Italy, jointly with the Italian Society of Mineralogy and Petrography

Catania, 12-14 September 2018


Orals

13 Septmber 2018 [18.00-20.00]

Aula A13

38-1    18.00 - 18.15
Romano M.*: Inventor, Engineer and Earth Scientist in a single brushstroke: Leonardo da Vinci and the earliest conception of sustainable land management on a constantly changing Planet

38-2    18.15 - 18.30
Macini P.*: Well construction and underground fluids in pre-industrial ages: Scientific observations, ethical speculation and medical contributions of Bernardino Ramazzini on the health and safety of Putearii (water well diggers)

38-3    18.30 - 18.45
Hamilton M.*: The research of the western Tauern window between 1894 and 1898 in the documents of the mineralogist and petrographer Friedrich Becke. A project of the “Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften“

38-4    18.45 - 19.00
Foresta Martin F.*: Marcello Carapezza (1925-1987), Scientist and Humanist

38-5    19.00 - 19.15
Branca S.* & Abate T.: The hypotheses of Jean Hoüel (1735-1813) on the formation of Etna. The evolutionary model of the volcano in the representation of the CXIX planche

38-6    19.15 - 19.30
Vaccari E.*: The role of the institutions for the birth of the professional geologist between the 18th and the 20th century

38-7    19.30 - 19.45
Barale L., Fioraso G. & Mosca P.*: The role of geological studies in large infrastructural projects in the 19th century - some examples from NW Italy

38-8    19.45 - 20.00
Boscaino G.* & Boscaino M.: The geology between past and present: cultural heritage and the current social value of geosciences. The tragedy of the Rigopiano Hotel

Posters

13 September 2018

38-9    Panel 109
Alimenti S. & Lupi R.*: Policy, economy and geosciences in the debate about Fucino and Trasimeno lakes (1780-1870 ca.)

38-10    Panel 110
Cubellis E.*, Luongo G. & Obrizzo F.: Sciences of Laws and Sciences of Processes for  Earth Science

38-11    Panel 111
De Caterini G.* & Radogna P.V.: Critique of Practical Geology

38-12    Panel 112
Di Cencio A.*, Mori G., Casati S. & Nardi M.: Paleontherapy - the new method in field of medical geology for the therapy of young disturbances

38-13    Panel 113
Pantaloni M.*, Console F. & Motti A.: The “rebirth” of the Torbidone River (Norcia Plain, Umbria): a historic and geoethic approach

38-14    Panel 114
Pinarelli L., Piccardi L. & Montanari D.*: The social value of geological knowledge in the supernatural narratives of the ancient world: some case studies

38-15    Panel 115
Sudiro P.*: The Expanding Earth: a disproved scientific hypothesis surviving its falsification


Programme in the website of the congress:
http://www.sgicatania2018.it/BECong/sessione_programma.php?sessione2=50


IAPG - International Association for Promoting Geoethics:
http://www.geoethics.org

Wednesday, July 11, 2018


Responsible Mining at the Seabed,

wickedness and the Wrangle Island



by Martin Bohle
Martin Bohle

IAPG Board of Experts 




Introduction

Seabed mining is an emerging industrial activity (Economist, 2018, [1]). It is at the margin of commercial exploitation (World Bank (2016, [2]). A nascent regulatory framework (e.g. mining code) provides for governance under the auspice of the International Seabed Authority (https://www.isa.org.jm/) and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

This essay explores the generic features of seabed mining. Therefore, the following discussion will address features that are neither depending on the specific technological choice nor on the conditions at a given mining site. Mining for metals (or phosphorites) at the seabed shall illustrate issues because of its challenging societal, technical and environmental features (Halfa and Fujita 2002, Collins at al. 2013, Sharma 2015, Lallier and Maes 2016, Kudras et al. 2017, Durden et al. 2018). Nearshore mining for gravel, sand or diamonds as well as drilling in the deep sea for hydrocarbons offers comparisons. The question, what advice ('how to operate') offer best practices for terrestrial mining sites, drives the thread of thoughts. The emergent conclusion is that best terrestrial practices (how to explore, operate and close a mining site) should guide seabed mining.

In qualifying terms, seabed mining entails operating remotely controlled technology in a sensitive environment that is difficult to monitor and relatively inaccessible (Hoagland et al. 2010, Sharma 2011, Van Dover 2011, Tasof 2017, Brown 2017, Kyoda 2017, Crosby 2017, Küblböck et al. 2017, Hoyt et al. 2017, Scanlon 2018). When analysing this qualification regarding system features then seabed mining likely is a socio-ecological system (SES) that will show 'wicked behaviours' of its natural, technological and governance sub-systems.

Wicked socio-ecological systems

The notion 'wicked', compared to the notion 'tame', initially stems from work by Rittel and Weber (1973) about dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Since then it evolved as shorthand to qualify counter-intuitive behaviour of socio-ecological problems; "… wicked problems require innovative, comprehensive solutions that can be modified in the light of experience and on-the-ground feedback. All of the above can pose challenges to traditional approaches to policy making and programme implementation …" (Briggs 2012). An alternative notion is 'complex-adaptive socio-ecological problems' (van der Merwe et al. 2018).

Socio-ecological systems are a composite of natural and societal processes. SES' is composed of three components, namely i) human systems and practices, ii) natural systems and processes, and iii) their dynamic intersections (Smith and Zeder 2013, Bohle 2016, Head and Xiang 2016). Often, SES' change simultaneously at a local, regional and planetary scale, coupled by cascading cause- effects relations, and binding weakly connected actors in a joint struggle for control (Galaz et al. 2011, Allenby and Sarrewitz. 2011).

Regarding the components of an SES, the first component ('human systems and practices') refers to the 'built technosphere'; for example the global supply-chain of resource extraction systems (Haff 2014). The technosphere includes both, engineered artefacts (e.g. machines, chemical processes) and socio-economic human-dominated institutions (e.g. corporations, regulators, NGOs). Artefacts and institutions relate intrinsically, including the legal, political and philosophical constructs that guide or question the use of a given artefact (Bohle 2017). Applying a dichotomous description, the second component ('natural systems and processes') refers to abiotic or biotic systems of physical objects, which appear as distinct from the 'human systems and practices'. Overcoming such a dichotomous description, the third component ('their dynamic intersection') refers to the interaction of the 'artefacts of technosphere' and the 'natural physical objects' in space and time (Bohle 2016).

This intersection exhibits its dynamics as well in the physical sphere as in social, legal, political and philosophical spheres. To illustrate, the regulation of the distinct physical features of a given artefact (e.g. mining equipment) as a well as the governance of its use, both are parts of the dynamic intersection of 'human systems and practices' and 'natural systems and processes'.

Regarding a likely 'wicked system behaviour'; when system dynamics are non-linear, and processes have multiple feedbacks, then systems often show a counter-intuitive, ‘wicked’ behaviours (Kowarsch et al. 2016). A 'wicked system behaviour' may occur in the component 'natural systems and processes' because of non-linear dynamics and multiple feedbacks. Subsequently, this behaviour may render the governance of the intersecting 'human systems and practices' a 'wicked game'. Beyond a wicked behaviour of SES' which stems from the intrinsic features of the component 'natural systems and processes', also the dynamics of the component 'human systems and practices' may cause wickedness. The features driving wickedness of this component (beyond non-linear dynamics and multiple feedbacks of processes within it) are i) partial knowledge that is heterogeneously distributed among actors at various levels, ii) different values that actors use to determine their preferences and choices (also for the preferred type of knowledge), and iii) conflicting interests of different actors. Finally, the particular features of the intersection of 'human systems and practices' and 'natural systems and processes' contributed to a 'wicked system behaviour' of SES'; the greenhouse gases' driven climate-change problematic possibly offers the most illustrative example (Pollitt 2016).

Summarizing the above, a wicked behaviour of natural, societal and governmental systems is an intrinsic feature of a given SES and not a dysfunction. The questions arise, what is the degree of wickedness and what are available means of interventions.

Ample experience with wicked systems confirms that handling-orientations will fail, which are engineering-like, blueprint based or administrative (Hulme 2009, Tickell 2011, Hämäläien 2015, Monastersky 2015, Seitzinger et al. 2015, Schimel et al. 2015, Termeer et al. 2016, Alford and Head 2017). Instead, handling-orientations are needed that aim on i) monitoring mechanisms to capture developments, ii) intervention forms to steer path-dependent developments, iii) multi-stakeholder arrangements for participatory governance and a shared culture of sense-making.

Relevant experiences are available for several wicked SES', such as urban or regional development (e.g., Termeer et al. 2015, Termeer et al. 2016). However, an aggregation of experiences into ab established corpus of transferable societal practices is missing, yet. Therefore, strategies for handling the wicked behaviour of natural, societal and governmental systems are learned painfully at new in any given case, as illustrated for the marine environment by the case of small-scale fisheries in the industrially exploited coastal sea (Jentoft and Chuenpadgee 2009). Drawing on such experiences, it is appropriate to analyse from the outset whether a given SES likely may exhibit a 'wicked system behaviour'. Subsequently, one would seek for in an appropriate orientation on how to act.

Hence, an initial analysis checks whether the primary drivers of 'wicked system behaviours' are present in a given SES, namely: i) the system dynamics are non-linear and have multiple feedbacks, ii) actors have different values and interests, and iii) actors have partial and heterogeneously distributed knowledge. A precautious action may avoid altering dynamical features and feedbacks, and instead, the action may focus on the governance spheres. Subsequently, initial handling orientations may address how to mitigate the impact of different values, interests and partial knowledge. Experiences with wicked systems show that a participatory approach to governance and capacity building (addressing stakeholder communities) offer effective means (Kowarsch et al. 2016).

Mining at the seabed

To analyse seabed mining, five generic features of societal, technical and environmental nature shall describe its operations.

i) Mining at the seabed is not an industrial activity, yet. Currently, investigations are ongoing on 'how to do it in a viable manner'. These investigations involve research into operational conditions, technological developments, test-deployments and claiming of mining sites.

ii) The legal, regulatory and commercial means to operate a mining site at the seabed are being developed and tested. These activities may involve international authorities, national (governmental) regulators, private consortia and civil society.

iii) The environmental conditions at the seabed, in the water column and at the sea surface pose technological challenges for the operations, safety and monitoring of a marine mining site that are technologically more challenging than at a terrestrial site.

iv) The envisaged locations of seabed mining sites are more remote from the coasts as other industrial activities in marine environments but fishing and shipping. The mining sites will be difficult to access, as well by the mining operators themselves, as by regulators, surveillance bodies or third parties. Parts of the sites will be effectively inaccessible for human intervention.

v) To monitor and control any impact of a given mining operation will be difficult for any interested or concerned party, including the operators of the mining site. Particular difficult will be surveillance of impacts on third party commercial activities, on distant environments, or on neighbouring realms of different legal or regulatory jurisdiction.

These features also apply to other industrial operations at sea, such as shipping, fishing or exploitation of hydrocarbons, although with variations to their specifications. Likewise, similar features apply to terrestrial operations. Hence, using variations of these five features renders possible to compare different SES'.

Compared to seabed mining, shipping, fishing and exploitation of hydrocarbons are mature industrial operations, although neither controlling the inherent risks of their operations nor offering robust examples of their sustainable management. The remoteness of the open sea and the philosophical paradigm of the freedom of the seas provides actors with a leeway (Campbell et al. 2016), also for risktaking and practices that elsewhere are dubious. Nevertheless, the experiences have led to regulate more or less effectively operations for shipping, fishing exploitation of hydrocarbons in most parts of the world oceans and seas and monitoring of adherence to regulations. Also, the related knowledge is shared and commonly available. Compared to this situation (putting a part dredging gravel and sand in coastal zones under national legislation) seabed mining is at a conceptual state. Some experiences from exploiting marine hydrocarbons in deep water does provide some insights on 'how to operate'.

Regarding mature industries and codification of their frameworks, one may notice in particular for fisheries that industrial fishing and artisanal, small-scale fisheries intersect and together shape a wicked SES driven by conflicting values, interests and multi-level stakeholder relations (Jentoft and Chuenpadgee 2009). Therefore, a specific global regulatory framework had been agreed, the FAO SSF-Guidelines (Jentoft at al. 2017). The framework builds on a human-rights approach and participatory governance forms. The experience of marine fisheries is particularly interesting because it provides an example of the impacts of the industrial activity on third party commercial activities, on distant environments, and on neighbouring realms of different legal or regulatory jurisdiction. Ample experiences show how difficult it is to govern these relationships because the governing system in itself shows wicked behaviour.

Compared to many terrestrial environments, the marine environments are technologically more challenging; conditions like wind and waves or corrosion come to mind. Also, the access to remote operation sites may be difficult, including that the access is impossible under certain conditions. Although the conditions at the seabed (pressure, temperature) are harsh, the primary technological challenge for marine mining is to combine operations at the seabed, in the water column and at the sea surface. On the first view, the technological and operational challenges look like that of operations to exploit hydrocarbons in the sea bottom. Nevertheless, it is a difference that the remotely controlled equipment for mining at the seabed is mobile; for example, either to gather ore from hydrothermal vents or nodules and crust from the sea bottom (Shukla and Karik 2016a, 2016b).

Possibly, the most relevant 'natural' differences between a terrestrial and marine mining site stem from the different physical and chemical features of water and air. The much higher density of water causes the high static pressure at depth, the enormous pressure variation in the water column, and the suspension of particles and liquids (Becker et al. 2001, Aleynik et al. 2017, Hauton et al. 2017). Beyond causing heavy corrosion of the equipment, the chemical properties of water facilitate solution and suspension of liquids of different nature. Therefore, the transport of tailing- dirt, stirred unconsolidated sediments and accidental pollution over long distances is more likely in the marine than terrestrial environments. Experiences with accidents of deep-water wells for the exploitation of hydrocarbons illustrate risks and impacts of accidents. Compared to drilling in the sea bottom, the mining operation at the seabed mobilises unconsolidated sediments at a larger scale. The resulting sediment plums of tailing dirt are a well-acknowledged problem without much possible remedy (Aleynik et al. 2017). The related problem for terrestrial mining sites, namely surface flows and storage of tailing liquids, is a challenge for mining operators.

Possibly, the single most significant difference between a terrestrial and marine mining site derives from the communication and monitoring technologies, which are available for operations at land and at the sea surface, in the water column or at the seabed (Teague et al. 2018). Modern satellite- based communication, sensing and tracking technologies ease monitoring of operations at any place on Earth; even at the sea surface of the open ocean although the size of the area still is a problem. To monitor operations in the water column and at the seabed requires acoustic technologies or moored or floating instruments. They provide much less detailed information and slower communication. Hence operations in the water column and at the seabed are more 'in the dark' as at the sea surface. This circumstance has significant consequences for the conduct of the operations, their surveillance as well as the monitoring of impacts on the environment, on the interests of third parties and commons. In turn, the same circumstance increases the requirements for a capability to operate autonomously at the seabed (and in the water column) compared to terrestrial operations or operations at the sea surface.

Drawing on the above, unsurprisingly, the dynamics of the intersecting natural and human systems (and practices) for seabed mining are complex. The description given above cannot detail the non- linearity and feedbacks of the systems, although non-linearity and feedbacks are likely characteristics of the SES 'seabed mining' and, would render likely a systemic 'wicked behaviour'. However, little could be done to alter it neither regarding the marine environment and nor the industrial operations. Such concerns arise even without considering explicitly the living environment in the deep sea. The concerns regarding the living environment of the deep sea and seabed mining are serious, e.g. a less researched natural environment, unknown biota, or slow recovery of natural conditions. Thee concern for the living environment of the deep sea should shape the design of sustainable operations (Durden et al. 2017, Van Dover et al. 2017).

Contrasting with the complexity of the SES 'seabed mining', the knowledge is limited that is relevant for its governance, and its codification is nascent. Knowledge combined with values and interests lays the foundation for what actors understand (and agree) to be appropriate practices. Unsurprisingly, the understanding ‘what are appropriate practices' seems heterogeneously distributed across the various stakeholders. The limitations to a shared understanding concern: the deployed technologies and the related rules of operation, the environment-specific risks, the surveillance skills, as well as the intervention capabilities. Such limitations are unsurprising for an emergent industrial/societal activity. Nevertheless, the limitations are severe, in particular as in the remoteness of the open sea the degree to which risks may be accepted is a cultural feature of the respective individual or legal entity.

Limited understanding because of limited knowledge, different interests and values is a key-driver of systemic wicked behaviours of the component 'human systems and practices' in any SES. Hence, the likelihood is high that mining at the seabed is a wicked SES, as well for the natural, as technological as governmental sub-systems. When one considers the causes of a systemic 'wicked behaviour' of the SES 'seabed mining' then, given the available means to address it, the viable option is to improve the governability of the SES. In turn, to improve governability means i) to adjust the interplay of the different values, interests and knowledge on which the decision taking of the various actors draw; ii) all actors within the SES participate appropriately at the decision taking, and iii) to build system governance for the SES.

Discussion and Conclusions

To establish sound technical, operational and regulatory specifications for seabed mining, that is to set up its system governance, is challenging. To illustrate the challenge, best practices for operating a terrestrial mining site may offer guidance such as 'a practice that is not acceptable for a terrestrial mining site is neither acceptable for a marine mining site'. To imagine a lively scenario, one may consider an open-pit mine in the high Arctic, for example at the Wrangel Island, as follows:


i) to operate at the surface in a harsh environment that is difficult to monitor;
ii) to operate a remote place that temporarily gets inaccessible;
iii) to use new technology with the high capability of autonomous operations;
iv) to undertake human intervention only through remote control; and
v) to apply a recently developed regulatory framework;

Without going into any details regarding 'mining the Wrangel Island', best (‘green’) mining practices would consider the lifetime of the mine, from exploration through an operation to closure and as well treats the societal contexts of mining (Nurmi 2017). Building on such practices, 'responsible mining' (http://www.geoethics.org/wp-responsible-mining) proposes an ethics-based approach that goes further. It applies the sustainable development principles to the exploration for, exploitation of, and use of mineral resources. It considers the entire value chain, from studies, exploration, and extraction to processing, refining, waste management, mine closure and rehabilitation. Furthermore, best terrestrial practices ('green mining' or 'responsible mining') advocate a participatory approach to regulation, governance and operational decision taking. Such practices often are labelled as 'social licence to operate' (e.g. Boutlier 2014, Moffat and Zang 2014, Parsons et al. 2014, Hall et al. 2015 Buhmann 2016, Falk 2016, Cullen-Knox et al. 2017, Dare et al. 2017, Baines and Edwards 2018). Thus, best terrestrial mining practices take governance issues and governability into primary focus. As discussed, such a focus is important because of the inherent wickedness of the governance system. Likewise, governability is about levering technical choices through interventions into the system 'human systems and practices'. Hence, a skilful governance system will facilitate making sound technical and operational choices.

As described, the wickedness of an SES is intrinsic because of the conflicting interests, different values, partial knowledge, non-linear dynamics and multiple feedbacks of processes. As learned by the mining industry and elsewhere, participatory approaches are an essential means to maintain governability despite wicked dynamics. As experience shows, advanced governance capabilities are required to handle appropriately systemic wicked dynamics (Hämäläinen 2015, Head and Xiang 2016, Lundström et al. 2016, Termeer et al. 2016, Lundström and Mäenpää 2017). Such capabilities include adaptive, deliberative and participatory practices, reflexivity and variety of frames, resilience to uncertainties, responsiveness and capability to observe, revitalisation to unblock unproductive patterns, rescaling as well as cross-scale interactions. Participatory approaches facilitate that governance capabilities develop.

The governance system in place for regulating and surveillance of mining sites at the seabed, e.g., the International Seabed Authority and national regulators for the Exclusive Economic Zone, likely will be unable to handle wicked dynamics. Their design did not have this purpose in mind. Consequently, the practices of 'social licence to operate' should help to govern seabed mining appropriately. However, such practices are not straight forward as Filer and Gabriel (2017) discuss given the SOLWARA mining site off Papua New Guinea that is licensed to Nautilus Minerals Ltd.

In the absence of better approaches, robust participatory system governance of seabed mining would address differences in value systems, insights into different interests, and sharing of available knowledge among stakeholders as well it could offer the capacity building for third parties, the involvement of civil society and operational security for commercial and regulatory parties. Likely, to be effective such governance implies, because of the openness and freedom of the sea, to consider the entire life-cycle of the global supply-chain for mineral resources. Finally, a process of a 'social licence to operate' involving a wide range of stakeholders would allow to pick up the paradigm that resources at the sea bottom are part of the common heritage of humankind (van Doorn 2016, Jaeckle et al. 2017). Hence, installing an ethics-based approach of 'responsible seabed mining' could be part of the comprehensive system of governance for the SES' 'blue growth' and 'sustainable development'.


Notes

[1]

[2]
World Bank 2016, “Precautionary Management of Deep Sea Mining Potential in Pacific Island Countries”,


References

Aleynik, D., Inall, M. E., Dale, A., & Vink, A. (2017). Impact of remotely generated eddies on plume dispersion at abyssal mining sites in the Pacific. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 16959. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-16912-2.

Alford, J., & Head, B. W. (2017). Wicked and less wicked problems: a typology and a contingency framework. Policy and Society, 36(3), 397–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2017.1361634.

Allenby, B. R., & Sarewitz, D. (2011). The techno-human condition. The MIT Press.

Baines, J., & Edwards, P. (2018). The role of relationships in achieving and maintaining a social licence in the New Zealand aquaculture sector. Aquaculture, 485, 140–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2017.11.047.

Becker, H. J., Grupe, B., Oebius, H. U., & Liu, F. (2001). The behaviour of deep-sea sediments under the impact of nodule mining processes. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 48(17–18), 3609–3627. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-0645(01)00059-5.

Bohle, M. (2016). Handling of Human-Geosphere Intersections. Geosciences, 6(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences6010003.

Bohle, M. (2017). Ideal-Type Narratives for Engineering a Human Niche. Geosciences, 7(1), 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences7010018.

Boutilier, R. G. (2014). Frequently asked questions about the social licence to operate. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 32(4), 263–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2014.941141.

Briggs, L., & Commission, A. P. S. (2007). Tackling wicked problems: A public policy perspective.
Commonwealth of Australia. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849776530.

Brown, C. L. (2017). Deep sea mining and robotics: Assessing legal, societal and ethical implications. In 2017 IEEE Workshop on Advanced Robotics and its Social Impacts (ARSO) (pp. 1–2). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ARSO.2017.8025201.

Buhmann, K. (2016). Public Regulators and CSR: The “Social Licence to Operate” in Recent United Nations Instruments on Business and Human Rights and the Juridification of CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 136(4), 699–714. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2869-9.

Campbell, L. M., Gray, N. J., Fairbanks, L., Silver, J. J., Gruby, R. L., Dubik, B. A., & Basurto, X. (2016). Global Oceans Governance: New and Emerging Issues. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 41(1), 517–543. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102014-021121.

Collins, P. C., Croot, P., Carlsson, J., Colaço, A., Grehan, A., Hyeong, K., … Rowden, A. (2013). A primer for the Environmental Impact Assessment of mining at seafloor massive sulfide deposits. Marine Policy, 42, 198–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.01.020.

Crosby, E. (2017, September). A watertight design. CIMMAGAZINE.

Cullen-Knox, C., Haward, M., Jabour, J., Ogier, E., & Tracey, S. R. (2017). The social licence to operate and its role in marine governance: Insights from Australia. Marine Policy, 79(March), 70–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.02.013.

Dare, M. (Lain), Schirmer, J., & Vanclay, F. (2014). Community engagement and social licence to operate. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 32(3), 188–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2014.927108.

Durden, J. M. (2017). A procedural framework for robust environmental management of deep- sea mining projects using a conceptual model. Marine Policy, 84(August), 193–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.07.002.

Durden, J. M., Lallier, L. E., Murphy, K., Jaeckel, A., Gjerde, K., & Jones, D. O. B. (2018). Environmental Impact Assessment process for deep-sea mining in “the Area.” Marine Policy, 87(October 2017), 194–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.10.013.

Falck, W. E. (2016). Social licencing in mining—between ethical dilemmas and economic risk management. Mineral Economics, 29(2–3), 97–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13563-016-0089-
0.

Filer, C., & Gabriel, J. (2017). How could Nautilus Minerals get a social licence to operate the world’s first deep sea mine? Marine Policy, (October), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.12.001.

Haff, P. (2014). Humans and technology in the Anthropocene: Six rules. The Anthropocene Review, 1(2), 126–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019614530575.

Halfar, J., & Fujita, R. M. (2002). Precautionary management of deep-sea mining. Marine Policy, 26(2), 103–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-597X(01)00041-0.

Hall, N., Lacey, J., Carr-Cornish, S., & Dowd, A.-M. (2015). Social licence to operate: understanding how a concept has been translated into practice in energy industries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 86, 301–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.020.

Hämäläinen, T. J. (2015). Governance Solutions for Wicked Problems: Metropolitan Innovation Ecosystems as Frontrunners to Sustainable Well-Being. Technology Innovation Management Review, 5(10), 31–41. Retrieved from https://timreview.ca/sites/default/files/article_PDF/Hämäläinen_TIMReview_October2015.pdf.

Hauton, C., Brown, A., Thatje, S., Mestre, N. C., Bebianno, M. J., Martins, I., … Weaver, P. (2017). Identifying Toxic Impacts of Metals Potentially Released during Deep-Sea Mining—A Synthesis of the Challenges to Quantifying Risk. Frontiers in Marine Science, 4(November), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2017.00368.

Head, B. W., & Xiang, W.-N. (2016). Why is an APT approach to wicked problems important? Landscape and Urban Planning, 154, 4–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.03.018.

Hoagland, P., Beaulieu, S., Tivey, M. A., Eggert, R. G., German, C., Glowka, L., & Lin, J. (2010). Deep-sea mining of seafloor massive sulfides. Marine Policy, 34(3), 728–732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2009.12.001.

Hoyt, S.P., H, P. L., Thebaud, O., & Van Dover, C. L. (2017). Addressing the Financial Consequences of Unknown Environmental Impacts in Deep-Sea Mining. Annales Des Mines - Responsabilité et Environnement, 1(85), 43–48. Retrieved from https://www.cairn.info/revue- responsabilite-et-environnement-2017-1-page-43.htm.

Hulme, M. (2009). Why we disagree about climate change: Understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambrige University Press.

Jaeckel, A., Gjerde, K. M., & Ardron, J. A. (2017). Conserving the common heritage of humankind - Options for the deep-seabed mining regime. Marine Policy, 78(January), 150–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.01.019.

Jentoft, S., & Chuenpagdee, R. (2009). Fisheries and coastal governance as a wicked problem. Marine Policy, 33(4), 553–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2008.12.002.

Jentoft, S., Chuenpagdee, R., Barragán-Paladines, M. J., & Franz, N. (2017). The Small-Scale Fisheries Guidelines. (S. Jentoft, R. Chuenpagdee, M. J. Barragán-Paladines, & N. Franz, Eds.) (Vol. 14). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319- 55074-9.

Kowarsch, M., Garard, J., Riousset, P., Lenzi, D., Dorsch, M. J., Knopf, B., … Edenhofer, O. (2016). Scientific assessments to facilitate deliberative policy learning. Palgrave Communications, 2, 16092. https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2016.92.

Küblböck, K., & Grohs, H. (2017). EU regulation on “conflict minerals” - a step towards higher accountability in the extractive sector? Retrieved from www.oefse.at/publikationen/policy- notes/.

Kudrass, H., Wood, R., & Falconer, R. (2017). Submarine Phosphorites: The Deposits of the Chatham Rise, New Zealand, off Namibia and Baja California, Mexico—Origin, Exploration, Mining, and Environmental Issues. In Deep-Sea Mining (pp. 165–187). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52557-0_5.

Kyoda (2017). Japan successfully undertakes large-scale deep-sea mineral extraction. Retrieved from https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/09/26/national/japan-successfully-undertakes- large-scale-deep-sea-mineral-extraction/#.WgvnOUribWU.

Lallier, L. E., & Maes, F. (2016). Environmental impact assessment procedure for deep seabed mining in the area: Independent expert review and public participation. Marine Policy, 70, 212–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.03.007.

Lundström, N., & Mäenpää, A. (2017). Wicked game of smart specialization: a player’s handbook. European Planning Studies, 25(8), 1357–1374. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2017.1307328.

Lundström, N., Raisio, H., Vartiainen, P., & Lindell, J. (2016). Wicked games changing the storyline of urban planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 154, 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.01.010.

Moffat, K., & Zhang, A. (2014). The paths to social licence to operate: An integrative model explaining community acceptance of mining. Resources Policy, 39(1), 61–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2013.11.003.

Monastersky, R. (2015). Anthropocene: The human age. Nature, 519(7542), 144–147. https://doi.org/10.1038/519144a.

Nurmi, P. A. (2017). Green Mining - A Holistic Concept for Sustainable and Acceptable Mineral Production. Annals of Geophysics, 60(7). https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-7420.

Parsons, M., Nalau, J., & Fisher, K. (2017). Alternative Perspectives on Sustainability: Indigenous Knowledge and Methodologies. Challenges in Sustainability, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.12924/cis2017.05010007.

Pollitt, C. (2016). Debate: Climate change—the ultimate wicked issue. Public Money & Management, 36(2), 78–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2016.1118925.

Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730.

Scanlon, Z. (2018). The art of “not undermining”: Possibilities within existing architecture to improve environmental protections in areas beyond national jurisdiction. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 75(1), 405–416. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsx209.

Schimel, D., Hibbard, K., Costa, D., Cox, P., & Van Der Leeuw, S. (2015). Analysis, Integration and Modeling of the Earth System (AIMES): Advancing the post-disciplinary understanding of coupled human–environment dynamics in the Anthropocene. Anthropocene, 12(2015), 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2016.02.001.

Seitzinger, S., Gaffney, O., Brasseur, G., Broadgate, W., Ciais, P., Claussen, M., … Uematsu, M. (2015). International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme and Earth system science: Three decades of co-evolution. Anthropocene, 12(2015), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2016.01.001.

Sharma, R. (2011). Deep-Sea Mining: Economic, Technical, Technological, and Environmental Considerations for Sustainable Development. Marine Technology Society Journal, 45(5), 28– 41. https://doi.org/10.4031/MTSJ.45.5.2.

Sharma, R. (2015). Environmental Issues of Deep-Sea Mining. Procedia Earth and Planetary Science, 11, 204–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeps.2015.06.026.

Shukla, A., & Karki, H. (2016). Application of robotics in onshore oil and gas industry—A review Part I. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 490–507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2015.09.012.

Shukla, A., & Karki, H. (2016). Application of robotics in offshore oil and gas industry— A review Part II. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 508–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2015.09.013.

Smith, B. D., & Zeder, M. A. (2013). The onset of the Anthropocene. Anthropocene, 4, 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2013.05.001.

Tasoff, H. (2017). The Wild West of deep-Sea Mining. Kakai Magazine. Retrieved from www.hakaimagazine.com.

Teague, J., Allen, M. J., & Scott, T. B. (2018). The potential of low-cost ROV for use in deep-sea mineral, ore prospecting and monitoring. Ocean Engineering, 147, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2017.10.046.

Termeer, C.J.A.M., Dewulf, A., Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S. I., Vink, M., & van Vliet, M. (2016). Coping with the wicked problem of climate adaptation across scales: The Five R Governance Capabilities. Landscape and Urban Planning, 154, 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.01.007.

Termeer, C.J.A.M., Dewulf, A., Breeman, G., & Stiller, S. J. (2015). Governance Capabilities for Dealing Wisely With Wicked Problems. Administration & Society, 47(6), 680–710. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399712469195.

Tickell, C. (2011). Societal responses to the Anthropocene. Philosophical Transactions. Series A, Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, 369(1938), 926–932. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2010.0302.

Van der Merwe, S. E., Biggs, R., & Preiser, R. (2018). A framework for conceptualizing and assessing the resilience of essential services. Ecology and Society (Accepted January 2018, in Press), 23(2). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09623-230212.

van Doorn, E. (2016). Environmental aspects of the Mining code: Preserving humankind’s common heritage while opening Pardo’s box? Marine Policy, 70, 192–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.02.022.

Van Dover, C. L., Ardron, J. A., Escobar, E., Gianni, M., Gjerde, K. M., Jaeckel, A., … Weaver, P. P.
E. (2017). Biodiversity loss from deep-sea mining. Nature Geoscience, 10(7), 464–465. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2983.

Van Dover, C. L. (2011). Tighten regulations on deep-sea mining. Nature, 470(7332), 31–33. https://doi.org/10.1038/470031a.


IAPG - International Association for Promoting Geoethics