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]

ECONOMIST 2018, Race to the Bottom, https://www.economist.com/news/technology-quarterly/21738059-mining-ocean-floor-about-go-mainstream-race-bottom

[2]

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

http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/125321460949939983/Pacific-Possible-Deep-Sea- Mining.pdf

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

http://www.geoethics.org

Online Course
Professionalism and Geoethics:
Creating a Workplace Environment
Where Everyone Can Succeed

David Mogk
(IAPG Board of Experts)

The American Geosciences Institute (AGI) and the American Institute of Professional Geologists (AIPG) are pleased to announce our newest course as part of the Geoscience Online Learning Initiative (GOLI). Professionalism and Geoethics: Creating a Workplace Environment Where Everyone Can Succeed is an on-demand course in which learners can register and access all content, materials, and assessments free of charge. The instructor for this course is Dr. David Mogk, Professor of Geology at Montana State University.

David Mogk is member of the IAPG Board of Experts for Geo-education and Teaching Geoethics: http://www.geoethics.org/experts  

Professionalism refers to the attitudes and behaviors that impact interpersonal relations in the workplace, the foundations of which are based on the concepts of power, trust, respect, responsibility, justice, and fairness. The nature of the Geosciences (e.g., working with an incomplete record, temporal and spatial scales beyond human perception, uncertainty in natural systems), and the geoscience work environment (e.g., in the field, laboratory, with extensive travel) presents many situations where ethical dilemmas may arise. Recent high-visibility transgressions have brought special attention to sexual harassment and bullying in the workplace. Everyone has a right to a safe, inclusive, supportive, and productive work environment and a high bar must be set for both students and faculty to ascribe to the highest professional standards of the discipline. This course will introduce topics that contribute to workplace "climate" (e.g., microaggressions, implicit bias, empowering bystanders), and will provide suggestions for personal and institutional actions that can be taken to ensure that everyone can succeed in your workplace environment.

This course is ideal for all geoscientists interested in promoting a happy and healthy work environment. It is a great resource particularly for geoscientists in leadership, management, or advising roles to introduce these basic concepts of diversity, equity, and inclusion in the workplace. Register for the course and peruse the content to learn more!

For more information about this course, including registration details, please visit:
https://goli.americangeosciences.org/courses/course-v1:AIPG+AIPG009+2018/about

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

An IAPG report from the
FORAM 18 pilot event

David Ovadia
(IAPG-UK coordinator)

David Ovadia (coordinator of IAPG-United Kingdom) recently represented IAPG at the FORAM 18 pilot event (Nancy, France, 27 June 2018). FORAM, whose full title is "Towards a World Forum on Raw Materials" is a Horizon 2020 project funded by the European Commission. The main objective of FORAM is to develop a platform of international experts and stakeholders who will together help to improve international cooperation on raw materials and investments worldwide. By closely working with the relevant stakeholders in industry, European and international organisations, governments, academia and civil society, the project is contributing to consolidate the efforts of a more joint and coherent approach towards raw materials policies. FORAM seeks to engage the international stakeholders coming from different sectors of the value chain of the raw materials into a dialogue, so that experiences will be shared and understanding of all aspects of raw materials will be increased. FORAM is led by World Resources Forum Association and coordinated by 11 other international organizations. More information is available on the project’s website (http://www.foramproject.net/)
To achieve this goal, the FORAM project has reviewed and mapped the activities of existing national and international initiatives, programmes and policy documents (to see the results of the mapping, please visit: http://www.foramproject.net/index.php/geo-map-and-results/). In parallel, the project has set up a Stakeholder Network composed of more than 170 experts from relevant organizations, coming from G20 and other countries active in the non-energy abiotic raw materials sector.
The FORAM project has set itself ambitious goals that are still in their early stages of being delivered. Some of these goals will require a greater absorption of the underlying principles of geoethics and in turn will contribute to them. Examples include recommending policies that minimise mining's negative environmental and social legacies, and a greater sharing between public and industry bodies of data and geo-information, both for reasons of cost savings and to ensure maintenance of quality. There was an interesting discussion on the use of blockchain technology as applied to geo-data, although this concept was somewhat light on detail.
Most, if not all, of the 100 or so invited attendees accepted that the extractive sectors are essential to modern society but more must be done to 'clean up' the process, in every sense of the term – in other words there should be a raising of ethical standards. The debate on how this could be achieved remains on-going, as it was pointed out that even if the European Union adopts stricter policies in these areas, these would only apply to EU anchored activities, leaving much of the sector outside such controls. It is open to organisations such as the United Nations (UN) to endorse and even require higher standards in the sector, but such a position is far from imminent, if at all, and could be seen as shifting the mining industry towards becoming a global utility, in which much of the risk would inevitably be moved from private investors to the taxpayer, and hence it is likely to be politically controversial.
Overall, the FORAM project is seen as an important flag bearer for geoethics, although its ability to deliver any actual changes, within the constraints of being a time-limited EU research project, is not clear. The dialogue between IAPG and FORAM has begun, and will be carried forwards with input from the members of both organisations.

FORAM 18 pilot event website: http://www.foramproject.net/index.php/pilot-event/

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

An article just published in Episodes (open-access)

"The ethical duty to divulge geosciences and the improvement of communication skills to fulfil it"

(by Massimo Arattano, Silvia Peppoloni, Albertina Gatti)

Abstract:
In recent years the commitment to disseminate the geological knowledge, making it available for citizens and decisionmakers, has been recognized as a precise ethical duty of the geologist. However the fulfilment of the duty to disseminate the geoscience knowledge requires good communication skills that should be adequately trained, since often the university studies don’t include such training. A specific research has been carried out to explore the possibility to develop a short training course capable of improving the expressive and communication abilities of professionals. A set of exercises has been also expressly developed to improve the metacognitive skills of the participants (metacognition is the knowledge and regulation of one’s cognitive activities in learning processes). The course has been delivered to professionals belonging to the Professional Association of Engineers (FOIT) in Turin, Italy, and has been able to significantly improve their expressive and communication abilities, increasing their interest and willingness to divulge their knowledge, recovering their confidence to succeed in this task and helping them to become more effective communicators. The contents of the course are now available, upon request, for anyone interested in teaching it elsewhere and/or improving its contents. Providing both professional and research geologists with means to renew their interest and ability to communicate can be a useful contribution to raise their (geo)ethical conscience and to help them to more easily carry out their ethical commitment.

Citation:
Arattano M., Peppoloni S., Gatti A. (2018). The ethical duty to divulge geosciences and the improvement of communication skills to fulfil it. Episodes, Vol. 41, No. 2,
http://dx.doi.org/10.18814/epiiugs/2018/018007

Free Download:
http://dx.doi.org/10.18814/epiiugs/2018/018007


Other publications on geoethics in the IAPG website: 
http://www.geoethics.org/publications

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

IAPG Session ED037

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

CALL FOR ABSTRACTS
(deadline: 1 August 2018, 23:59 EDT)

Fall Meeting of the AGU - American Geophysical Union

10-14 December 2018, Washington D.C. (USA)

Session #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).

Session 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.

This session is co-organized with AGI - American Geosciences Institute.

Abstract submission:
https://fallmeeting.agu.org/2018/abstract-submissions/


Website: https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm18/preliminaryview.cgi/Session51793


Other events on geoethics in the IAPG website: 
http://www.geoethics.org/events

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

New dates for the
Geoscience & Society Summit  

Location and dates of the Geoscience & Society Summit changed. This event will take place in Stockholm (Sweden), from 18 to 21 March 2019.

IAPG - International Association for Promoting Geoethics co-sponsors the Summit, that aims to create a highly interactive forum for effective cooperation between scientists and users of scientific information to tackle global and local challenges around sustainability of natural resources and systems, global health, and resilience.

Participants will represent diverse global communities and sectors, including:

• Research institutions
• Students, scientists, and administrators from academia
• Non-profit and philanthropic organizations
• Government agencies and policymakers
• For-profit corporations and industries
• Religious institutions and indigenous communities

Anticipated cross-cutting topics include:

• Energy and Minerals Sustainability
• Climate Change and Ocean- and Habitat-Health
• Water and Agricultural Production Sustainability
• Environmental Hazards, Human Health, and Social Justice

Objectives:

• Define: Assess the major societal challenges and the role geoscience can play to inform solutions
• Discuss: Facilitate a dialogue between the science and user community to advance the foundational capability to tackle societal challenges by leveraging geoscience
• Action: Develop models or processes to improve interdisciplinary engagement and science diplomacy

Information on the call for abstracts as well as submission guidelines will be provided in August 2018.

Registration will open in fall 2018.

Ten internationally recognized geoscience organizations sponsor the conference: American Geophysical Union, Geological Society of America, Geology in the Public Interest, Department of Geology and Environmental Science at Wheaton College,  American Geosciences Institute, Stockholm University - Bolin Centre for Climate Research, Geological Society of London, Geoscientists Without Borders, Geology for Global Development, International Association for Promoting Geoethics.

Website: https://connect.agu.org/gss/home

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

Spreading geoethics
through the languages of the world

Translations of the Cape Town Statement on Geoethics

The Cape Town Statement on Geoethics is now available in 35 languages: 
Afrikaans, Albanian, Arabic, Armenian, Belarusian, Bengali, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, French, Georgian, German, Greek, Hindi, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Mandarin Chinese, Nepali, Norwegian, Persian, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Sepedi, Serbian, Slovenian, Spanish, Swahili, Tamil, Turkish, Ukrainian, Urdu.

The IAPG pubblication that collects all the translations is for free download from the IAPG website:
http://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/5195a5_f80fe698039e4f6d9bc8c5e4a5f05898.pdf

Flip book: http://fliphtml5.com/gqru/ttwl

and can be cited as follows:

Peppoloni Silvia (ed.) (2018). Spreading geoethics through the languages of the world. Translations of the Cape Town Statement on Geoethics. International Association for Promoting Geoethics (IAPG), http://www.geoethics.org/ctsg

Translations have been possible thanks to a great job done by IAPG officers, members, and followers:
Sonja Van Eck (South Africa), Marku Sokol (Albania), Mamoon Allan (Jordan), Khachatur Meliksetian (Republic of Armenia), Mary Misakyan (Republic of Armenia), Yuriy Kostyuchenko (Ukraine), Jahangir Alam (Bangladesh), Wang Meng (China), Liangliang Wang (China), Magdalena Brus (Finland), Felix Riede (Denmark), Sandra Junier (Netherlands), David Crookal (France), Isabelle Richaud (France), Morgane Le Boucher (France), Team of ExpoGeorgia (Georgia), Florian Ortner (Austria), Gerassimos Papadopoulos (Greece), Partha Sarathi Datta (India), Jasveer Singh (India), Karoli Tatarvari (Hungary), Silvia Peppoloni (Italy), Kazuki Koketsu (Japan), Kyung Sik Woo (South Korea), Shree Prasad Vista (Nepal), Bjørn Kalsnes (Norway), Sedigheh Seifilaleh (Iran), Manuel Abrunhosa (Portugal), Cristina Toma (Romania), Mahlogonolo Brillent Kobola (Suth Africa), Danka Blagojevic (Serbia), Marko Komac (Slovenia), Eli Ivonne Rovere (Argentina), Michael Msabi (Tanzania), Hema Achyuthan (India), Aybige Akinci (Turkey), Muhammad Yaseen (Pakistan).

Currently, 19 geoscience organizations endorse or support the Cape Town Statement on Geoethics: http://www.geoethics.org/ctsg

IAPG - International Association for Promoting Geoethics:

http://www.geoethics.org

The new IAPG leaflet is out:
please, share it!

This is the 3rd version of the IAPG leaflet (after ones of the 2014 and 2016), that can be downloaded (as pdf file) at:
http://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/5195a5_9a4ccfbe70254d62be82b5788dc7a7e0.pdf

Many thanks to Daniela Riposati (Grafica&Immagini Lab of the INGV, Italy) for the graphic design. 

IAPG - International Association for Promoting Geoethics:

http://www.geoethics.org

The IAPG section of Lebanon

Welcome to the IAPG section of Lebanon! 

IAPG-Lebanon is chaired by Soumaya Ayadi-Maasri.

Soumaya Ayadi-Maasri

She is a lecturer at the Saint Joseph University (Beirut), where she teaches and coordinates Geology and Environment at the faculties of sciences and engineering.  

She is also the President of ACE - Association for Community and Environment (www.ace4ce.org) a non-profit organization, based in the southern City of Tyre in Lebanon that works on resilience projects with communities, and development and protection of cultural and natural heritage.

She holds a PhD in Structural Geology and applied Geophysics from the University of Sciences of Tunis, Tunisia and Claude Bernard University in Lyon, France; and completed graduate studies in petroleum prospecting in association with the Hydrocarbon Tunisian Corporation (P.A. Resources).

Soumaya worked for thirteen years as expert geologist in the private environmental consulting sector (in Tunisia and Lebanon). She is an expert in natural resources management, specifically protection of aquifers; with substantial experience in master-planning solid waste management. 

She is member and moderator with the African Association of Women in Geosciences - AAWG and representative of the African Geopark Network - AGN. Among other current work, she is focusing on geoheritage protection and conservation, working on the settlement of Jezzine-Shouf aspiring geopark in Lebanon; and managing a project under the program of "building of eco-citizen capacities for sustainable development".

List of the IAPG national sections:
http://www.geoethics.org/sections.html

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

Geoethics Medal 2018

The deadline for submitting nominations is approaching!

Purpose

The Geoethics Medal rewards scientists who have distinguished themselves in applying/favouring/assuring ethical approaches in the geoscience research and practice.​

Nominations

For the IAPG Geoethics Medal 2018 nominations should be submitted by 30 June 2018, by providing the following material about the candidate:

1) A CV (about 1 page) and a list of up to 10 selected publications that show the focus on ethical/social/cultural implications in the geoscience work.

2) A concise statement of achievements for merits in the geoethical field.

3) A brief encomium of the candidate and his/her work (1 page).

​Proposals have to be submitted through an email to: iapgeoethics@aol.com, with the subject "Nomination for the IAPG Geoethics Medal 2018".

Nominations will be evaluated by an international committee.

IAPG officers (Members of the Executive Council, Coordinators of National Sections, Corresponding Citizen Scientists, Members of Task Groups, Members of the Board of the Young Scientists Club) cannot be nominated for the Geoethics Medal.

Website of the Geoethics Medal: 
http://www.geoethics.org/geoethics-medal


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

FORAM 18 pilot event
on raw materials governance

Nancy (France), 27 June 2018

The H2020 EU project Towards a World Forum on Raw Materials (FORAM - http://www.foramproject.net/) is developing and setting up an EU-based platform of international experts and stakeholders that will advance the idea of a World Forum on Raw Materials and enhance the international cooperation on raw material policies and investments.

This platform will work together on making the current complex maze of existing raw material related initiatives more effective. As such, the FORAM project will be the largest collaborative effort for raw materials strategy cooperation on a global level so far.

The objective of FORAM is to improve international resource transparency and governance for a better stability, predictability and resource-efficiency, which lead to better conditions for competitiveness on a sustainable basis.

To achieve this goal, the project has first reviewed the activities of existing national and international initiatives, programmes and policy documents and set up a Stakeholder Network composed of experts from relevant organizations, coming from G20 and other countries active in the non-energy raw materials sector materials. These stakeholders are being engaged in a structured dialogue in order to share experiences, explore partnerships and together search for ways and means for better cooperation.

David Ovadia
(IAPG-UK coordinator)

The FORAM 18 pilot event on raw materials governance, scheduled on 27th June 2018 in Nancy (France), marks an important deliverable and milestone of the EU-funded project. It is a crucial step in this stakeholder process. Its main purpose is to deepen the insights from the dialogue by means of face-to-face discussions, build connections between people and create or strengthen ownership for improving global cooperation. The event will be an excellent opportunity for networking, for information exchange and for reaching out to the media and the public about the sense of urgency for the issues at stake.

The IAPG - International Association for Promoting Geoethics has been invited to join the FORAM 18 pilot event.

David Ovadia (IAPG-UK coordinator) will be representing the IAPG in this event. David is a British geologist with extensive experience in research, academia, geological surveys and the mining industry. He served as the Director of the British Geological Survey’s International Division until 2011.

FORAM 18 pilot event website: http://www.foramproject.net/index.php/pilot-event/

Participation at the FORAM 18 pilot event is by invitation only.

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

Just published:

GEOETHICS IN HOLLYWOOD:
HOW CAN WE PUT MORE REALITY INTO FAULT HAZARD ZONING?

by Eldon M. Gath and Tania González

Citation: Gath E.M. and González T. (2017). Geoethics in Hollywood: How Can We Put More Reality into Fault Hazard Zoning?, doi: 10.4401/ag-7541. In: Peppoloni S., Di Capua G., Bobrowsky P.T., Cronin V. (eds). Geoethics at the heart of all geosciences. Annals of Geophysics, Vol. 60, Fast Track 7.

Abstract: The 15-km-long Hollywood fault extends through some of the most densely developed and expensive areas in southern California. Given that billions of dollars of real estate could be impacted by an earthquake occurring on the fault, and that tens of thousands of people live near it, the seismic hazard posed by the Hollywood fault is concerning. But how much so? The City of West Hollywood has required geological fault investigations and building avoidance of at least 15 meters from the fault’s active trace since the mid-1990s, resulting in numerous site investigations. Geologic studies in support of the Los Angeles Metro subway and subsequent research found as-yet-unconfirmed equivocal evidence of an early Holocene-age (~8 ka) displacement event, and estimated strain rates of 0.3-0.9 mm/yr. In 2014, and following a “not-in-my-backyard” press campaign against the Hollywood Millennium project, the California Geological Survey zoned the eastern Hollywood fault as Holocene-active under their fault zoning program, requiring geological investigations and building setbacks from Holocene-age faults. In the years since the fault was zoned by the City of West Hollywood and the California Geological Survey, millions of dollars have been invested in geological studies of the fault for building projects. All of these dollars have been reluctantly spent by the private sector, and all of this work has been eagerly done by consulting firms. The results? With only four exceptions, two in West Hollywood, and two in the City of Los Angeles, and all having opportunities for alternative interpretations, no Holocene-age fault displacements have been found. Instead, other studies have found definitive evidence that the fault has not ruptured in 10s to 100s of thousands of years. So what is the ethical alternative? Should we ignore the hazard posed by the fault? Are we geo-professionals too enamored of the financial gains such regulatory zoning provides that we are unwilling to suggest changes? Could we move past the “one size fits all” zoning that requires that single-family homes are held to the same standard as 40-story buildings? In the following sections we present several case studies along the Hollywood fault and provide our suggestions for a more progressive program of fault hazard management.

Free download: http://www.geoethics.org/geoethics-ag2017

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