The presence of minerals on the deep seabed was first discovered by the HMS Challenger expedition in 1873. Polymetallic nodules and other seabed resources (polymetallic sulphides and crusts) offer abundant supplies of valuable minerals, including manganese, cobalt, copper, gold, silver and several so-called rare earth elements.

Despite our knowledge of this (literal) goldmine at the bottom of the oceans, it was not possible to exploit these riches for almost 100 years due to their inaccessibility. Yet, the profits to be gained from mineral mining on the ocean floor have meant that millions of dollars have been invested in developing the technology to conduct deep seabed mining on a commercial scale. In the last few years, mining companies have announced technological breakthroughs and it is widely anticipated that deep seabed mining will become a reality within the next decade.

This development has a number of potential benefits. Firstly, it addresses concerns about the growing scarcity of many valuable minerals required for manufacturing items that are in increasing demand in modern society, particularly communications and computing equipment, as well as renewable energy technologies (components of wind turbines, solar panels and energy-saving light bulbs). There are also potential broader benefits of deep seabed mining. The legal regime for the regulation of deep seabed mining beyond national jurisdiction, contained in the 1982 United Nations Convention for the Law of the Sea, declares that the mineral resources of the deep seabed are the “common heritage of mankind”. Thus, the profits to be obtained from seabed mining are to be equitably distributed amongst the international community, taking into particular consideration the interests and needs of developing countries.

Yet, not everyone is thrilled at the prospect of deep seabed mining. Critics point out that we know very little about the marine environment on the ocean floor and therefore we should proceed with caution before authorizing commercial activities. It has been suggested that deep seabed mining poses unacceptable risks, including direct damage to vulnerable deep seabed ecosystems, as well as noise, light and other forms of pollution from mining activities. As a result, groups such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth have called for a moratorium on deep seabed mining. They argue that a precautionary approach[1] is required and this activity should not be permitted to commence until independently verified research has been conducted in order to demonstrate that ecosystems will not suffer long-term negative impacts.

Even the International Seabed Authority, which is responsible for overseeing the deep seabed mining regime beyond national jurisdiction, has admitted that seabed mining will cause “inevitable environmental damage.” Yet, a precautionary approach to deep seabed mining does not necessarily entail a full-scale moratorium until there is evidence that no harm will be caused. The international regime for deep seabed mining beyond national jurisdiction already requires mining companies to conduct environmental impact assessment and continuous monitoring of mining operations. Moreover, the International Seabed Authority is empowered to oversee the activities of commercial mining companies and to step in if serious damage is caused to the marine environment. The International Seabed Authority has also provisionally established nine protected areas in the central Pacific where no mining will be allowed to take place and it can require mining companies to establish additional “preservation references zones” within their mining areas. Supporters of the commercial seabed mining argue that these measures are sufficient to prevent the type of long-term negative impacts that worry environmental campaigners. Furthermore, such an approach is arguably in accordance with the concept of sustainable development, which requires a balance between economic development and environmental protection, ensuring that resources can be exploited for the benefit of both present and future generations.[2]

Discussion Questions

• Is sustainable development a useful concept for managing seabed resources?
• In what circumstances should environmental protection take priority over economic development?
• What is meant by the precautionary approach in the context of seabed mining? Who should bear the burden of demonstrating that the environmental risks of an activity are acceptable or not?
• Who should be responsible for monitoring the effects of seabed mining on the environment?
• How much of the seabed should be designated as a protected area and who should decide?

Indicative Readings:

• International Seabed Authority, Environmental Management Needs for Exploration and Exploitation of Deep Sea Minerals, ISA Technical Study No. 10 (2012) 29-33, available at:

http://www.isa.org.jm/files/documents/EN/Pubs/TS10/TS10-Final.pdf

• Greenpeace International, Deep Seabed Mining: An Urgent Wake-up Call to Protect our Oceans (July 2013) 3-16, available at:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/publications/oceans/2013/Deep-Seabed-Mining.pdf

Dr James Harrison is Lecturer in International Law in the School of Law at the University of Edinburgh and he has research interests in International Law of the Sea and International Environmental Law. He has written widely on these subjects, including Making the Law of the Sea: A Case Study in the Development of International Law (Cambridge University Pr

[1] Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development on the precautionary approach says that “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”

[2] The Brundtland Commission defined sustainable development as “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”; The World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future (Oxford University Press, 1987) 43.

As far as winters go, Edinburgh’s this year has so far been rather mild.  The mercury has fallen below zero in the city only a handful of times, and even then just at night.  The gas company should be getting less of my hard-earned dosh than may have otherwise been the case (price-rises excepted, of course).  Global warming? Bring it on and hand me the sun-cream! Turn this pasty Northerner into an olive-skinned Mediterranean type.

However, if I were with our friends across the pond, perhaps I might see things a bit differently – at least at the moment.  As I sit here writing at the end of January 2014, yet another cold snap and snowstorm are hitting the East Coast of the US.  And this is after even Hell froze over (well, Hell, Michigan anyway) in the midst of the Artic Vortex that gripped North America over Christmas and New Years.  Global warming? What global warming?  Thank heavens for cheap shale gas to keep the frostbite away by turning the heating up without busting the bank.  Drill, baby, drill!  Or has this year merely been a typical winter that seems cold relative to recent, mild ones? Our memories are sometimes rather short…..

Those in many parts of Africa and Asia may have yet a different perspective on this global warming business.  Failing monsoons, droughts, floods, rising sea levels.  While this may be “weather”, the longer-term climate patterns are changing, becoming less reliable and more extreme.  People living (or trying to live…) in these regions are likely to feel the effects of changing weather patterns much more profoundly that I am, sitting here on a hill in Edinburgh (which may become beachfront if Antarctic ice-sheets melt – the irony, living on a tropical island in a world destroyed).  These countries and regions are less able to adapt to and/or combat these changes – the simply don’t have the same level of resources as, for example, the EU does.  To paraphrase: It’s the climate, stupid!

Whilst I’m certainly no historian, I ask you: where we might be today if we had not discovered the uses of wood, charcoal and coal to create heat, and through heat create work, and through work initiate the Industrial Revolution?   And we still use a heap of coal today for generating energy (in addition to other fossil fuels).  I might also argue that the Industrial Revolution continues – it’s merely moved South and East.  If it weren’t for the abundance such energy-rich compounds, what would our life be like today? Would it be better or worse?  I don’t have an answer to such a philosophical question.  Hmm, where can I get my hands on Dr. Who’s Tardis to pose that to Aristotle?

What does seem to be evident, however, is that change won’t happen overnight – likely not this decade or even the next.  According to an article in Scientific American the major global energy transitions (from wood to coal to oil) have each taken between 50 to 60 years. Developed economies are “locked-in” to certain technologies and infrastructure that are tried and tested. These economies are also (still) the largest portion of the global economy.  In a mad-dash catch-up exercise to narrow the wealth gap between the Developed and Emerging worlds, Western dominance over the global economy is beginning to ebb away.  In terms of GDP, China is now the world’s second-largest economy, Brazil is 7^th and India is 10^th; but their growth has largely been fuelled by fossil fuels, coal in particular.  Unless an unexpected technological advancement occurs that changes the economics of non-fossil fuel energy generation (not to mention storage), worms may have feasted upon my remains (or at least be eyeing up this old bag-of-bones in anticipation) before renewable energy reaches a meaningful share.  So, what do we do about it?

The “Responsible Investing” movement – such as the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investing, to which the University of Edinburgh is only the second higher education institute to be a signatory – has gathered pace over recent years.  But who wouldn’t invest responsibly? Or put another way, how should we define responsible? And then how do we implement that definition?

For some, such as Bill McKibben and http://350.org/, “responsible” is about divesting from fossil fuels, on environmental as well as financial grounds.  McKibben’s article in Rolling Stone of a couple of years ago, and that of “Unburnable Carbon” from the Carbon Tracker Initiative, remain thought-provoking reading.

But is divestment today, or even within the next five years, “responsible” if the transition to world where renewable energy finally provides the majority of energy generation is indeed 50-60 years away?  Is the opportunity cost of not having a voice that company management may listen to or not participating in the earnings fossil fuel companies will generate for the foreseeable future an acceptable risk for our pension funds (state, personal and/or corporate), universities’ endowment funds or charity and foundation funds?  The unintended as well as intended consequences of actions must be weighed up before action is taken – if such consequences are desirable, go for it!

Finally, I pose a question wrapped in hope.  With the immense annual revenues they generate from you and I consuming their product (in one form or another), could fossil-fuel companies actually become an engine of change?  Is a culture shift from “Big Oil” that knows only about drilling to “Big Energy” that knows how to develop viable, non-finite alternatives possible?

A pipedream perhaps – but without dreams, and the fortitude to try to turn dreams into reality, we will live in a much poorer place.

Stephen Porter is a tree-hugger come investor.  He worked in the institutional investment management industry for nearly 20 at some of the leading global firms, engaging with the senior leaders of asset owners such as sovereign wealth funds, public pension funds and charitable foundations to create custom solutions to meet their specific requirements.  To atone for such “sins”, in 2012 Stephen embarked upon a rather different path – enrolling in Edinburgh’s MSc in Carbon Management.  Stephen has also begun part-time PhD studies at the University of Edinburgh’s School of GeoScience, exploring the links between climate change mitigation and losses across the food supply chain.  Helping to fund his further student excesses, Stephen joined with two Edinburgh PGT peers to found a (currently) small sustainability consultancy. Oh, and he’s also a husband and a father to three boys under eight – so please excuse the grey hair!

References

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/polar-vortex-chill-fails-to-make-history/

http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v310/n1/full/scientificamerican0114-52.html

http://www.carbontracker.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2011/07/Unburnable-Carbon-Full-rev2.pdf)

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719

http://www.docs.sasg.ed.ac.uk/GaSP/Governance/SociallyResponsibleInvestment.pdf

The University of Edinburgh has a long and proud history of taking action to address environmental challenges and social concerns, and our latest opportunity is responsible investing.

This is not something new- students and student groups such as People and Planet have been campaigning for many years on these issues, and the University has had a socially responsible investment policy in place since 2003. None the less, it is timely to consider what more we can do.

The University’s strategic plan contains a clear commitment to ‘make a significant, sustainable and socially responsible commitment to Scotland, the UK and the world’. In response, we already have a social responsibility and sustainability strategy and a climate action plan. We want to manage our own impacts, teach our students about the big global challenges of the twenty-first century, and apply our knowledge and research to making a real contribution to solving these issues. Those strategies are now being complemented by the development of a socially responsible investment approach.

I joined this University six months ago both because it convinced me that it wanted to be amongst the world’s best when thinking about social responsibility and sustainability, and because I saw a great opportunity for us to improve and to make changes for the better.

One of my first tasks has therefore been to help the university figure out exactly what being a responsible investor means, having been the first University in Europe to have signed the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment in early 2013.