ANTHROPOGENIC IMPACTS ON THE DEEP SEA
433
dous – up to 40 kg per person per year in industrialized
countries (Oslo Commission, 1989). Although efforts
are made to reduce the production of wastes that
need permanent storage in repositories, the amounts
will increase through industrialization of developing
countries. In principle, avoidance of waste production
must have priority over the overcoming of storage
problems. However, waste disposal remains necessary,
and negotiations regularly include consideration of
ocean and deep-sea options. Few ethical arguments
exist to support protection of 60% of the earth surface,
the deeper ocean regions, when mankind already uses
the terrestrial and shallow marine 40% of the planet.
Careful comparative evaluations are prerequisites for
finding the best practical solution to waste treatment.
In the future it may be that, for certain wastes,
deep-ocean disposal becomes the optimal option after
balanced consideration of all environmental, technical,
commercial and social arguments.
Marine scientists, specifically deep-sea ecologists,
must be aware of the fact, that one day, probably not
far into the future, they may be asked to contribute
to environmental impact assessments. They should ask
themselves, whether hard data on deep-sea ecology are
sufficient for the evaluations that will be needed. The
time scales over which environmental assessments will
be required may be short in relation to the time required
to mobilize research activities and obtain adequate
results.
The discrepancy between the current level of scientific effort and the likely future demand for advice
should lead to precautionary research activities. Deepsea ecologists should think ahead, to develop research
programs which will provide the data necessary to
evaluate the impacts of existing and potential deep-sea
uses. This is relatively new thinking in ecological deepsea research, and it is not an easy task to raise funds for
such precautionary research – probably in the absence
of definite time scales for the commencement of industrial or societal activities. Long-term commitments by
funding agencies are rare, particularly if the perspective
of some people in controlling positions is limited to
the interval between elections. But the funding agencies
must be made aware of the importance of deep-sea
environments, and of their responsibilities in relation
to them.
Precautionary and environmental science in the deep
sea must not be neglected through falling between governmental and industrial funding agencies. Government
agencies will tend to shift the responsibility to industry,
but industrial funding would probably arrive too late
for adequate action. Research and its funding, as well
as industrial development, are conducted in the interest
of human society, and a united path must be found to
serve society.
An additional aspect, to be considered in this chapter,
is the extent of the research deemed necessary to
understand and evaluate potential impacts (Thiel et al.,
1998). The various uses of the deep sea constitute
large-scale intrusions, conducted for economic reasons.
Technical developments and transport of material
(wastes and ore) must be realized on a large scale
to be commercially feasible. Therefore, the impacts
to be expected are large, and scientific approaches
need to be on an unusually large scale compared to
usual oceanographic research (comp. pp. 443, 452).
The efforts required for such large-scale research would
be best provided by international cooperation.
Finally it must be stated explicitly that precautionary
deep-sea research does not have the aim of promoting
the disposal of wastes into the deep ocean. Deep-sea
ecologists have their reservations about using the deep
sea as a repository, but they realize the importance of
gaining knowledge suitable for environmental impact
assessments, for discussions on these matters must
include materials already disposed of, and substances
potentially to be dumped. Special emphasis must be
laid on those actions which need large-scale experimentation for assessment of their environmental impact.
Subsequent sections consider the material and its
disposal, the actual or potential effects, and the research
required to understand and evaluate the impacts.
Munitions
In 1994 the Secretariat of the London Convention
received two notifications on the dumping of redundant
ammunition. South Africa authorized the dumping of
77 863 kg and a further 14 000 tonnes of munitions
such as bombs, shells, cartridges, mines, mortar
bombs, grenades and smoke devices at two sites, one
150 nautical miles south-west of Cape Town at a depth
of 3500 m, and the other 40 nautical miles south-east of
Durban at an unidentified depth (London Convention,
1994). Also in 1994, Portugal scuttled a vessel loaded
with nearly 2000 tonnes of various redundant munitions
including grenades, chemical grenades, ammunition,
fuses, pyrotechnics, depth charges, rockets, bombs,
missiles and mines. During the Gulf War, this ship had
been used as an ammunition transporter. Now it rests on
or in the seafloor at a depth of more than 4000 m and
433
dous – up to 40 kg per person per year in industrialized
countries (Oslo Commission, 1989). Although efforts
are made to reduce the production of wastes that
need permanent storage in repositories, the amounts
will increase through industrialization of developing
countries. In principle, avoidance of waste production
must have priority over the overcoming of storage
problems. However, waste disposal remains necessary,
and negotiations regularly include consideration of
ocean and deep-sea options. Few ethical arguments
exist to support protection of 60% of the earth surface,
the deeper ocean regions, when mankind already uses
the terrestrial and shallow marine 40% of the planet.
Careful comparative evaluations are prerequisites for
finding the best practical solution to waste treatment.
In the future it may be that, for certain wastes,
deep-ocean disposal becomes the optimal option after
balanced consideration of all environmental, technical,
commercial and social arguments.
Marine scientists, specifically deep-sea ecologists,
must be aware of the fact, that one day, probably not
far into the future, they may be asked to contribute
to environmental impact assessments. They should ask
themselves, whether hard data on deep-sea ecology are
sufficient for the evaluations that will be needed. The
time scales over which environmental assessments will
be required may be short in relation to the time required
to mobilize research activities and obtain adequate
results.
The discrepancy between the current level of scientific effort and the likely future demand for advice
should lead to precautionary research activities. Deepsea ecologists should think ahead, to develop research
programs which will provide the data necessary to
evaluate the impacts of existing and potential deep-sea
uses. This is relatively new thinking in ecological deepsea research, and it is not an easy task to raise funds for
such precautionary research – probably in the absence
of definite time scales for the commencement of industrial or societal activities. Long-term commitments by
funding agencies are rare, particularly if the perspective
of some people in controlling positions is limited to
the interval between elections. But the funding agencies
must be made aware of the importance of deep-sea
environments, and of their responsibilities in relation
to them.
Precautionary and environmental science in the deep
sea must not be neglected through falling between governmental and industrial funding agencies. Government
agencies will tend to shift the responsibility to industry,
but industrial funding would probably arrive too late
for adequate action. Research and its funding, as well
as industrial development, are conducted in the interest
of human society, and a united path must be found to
serve society.
An additional aspect, to be considered in this chapter,
is the extent of the research deemed necessary to
understand and evaluate potential impacts (Thiel et al.,
1998). The various uses of the deep sea constitute
large-scale intrusions, conducted for economic reasons.
Technical developments and transport of material
(wastes and ore) must be realized on a large scale
to be commercially feasible. Therefore, the impacts
to be expected are large, and scientific approaches
need to be on an unusually large scale compared to
usual oceanographic research (comp. pp. 443, 452).
The efforts required for such large-scale research would
be best provided by international cooperation.
Finally it must be stated explicitly that precautionary
deep-sea research does not have the aim of promoting
the disposal of wastes into the deep ocean. Deep-sea
ecologists have their reservations about using the deep
sea as a repository, but they realize the importance of
gaining knowledge suitable for environmental impact
assessments, for discussions on these matters must
include materials already disposed of, and substances
potentially to be dumped. Special emphasis must be
laid on those actions which need large-scale experimentation for assessment of their environmental impact.
Subsequent sections consider the material and its
disposal, the actual or potential effects, and the research
required to understand and evaluate the impacts.
Munitions
In 1994 the Secretariat of the London Convention
received two notifications on the dumping of redundant
ammunition. South Africa authorized the dumping of
77 863 kg and a further 14 000 tonnes of munitions
such as bombs, shells, cartridges, mines, mortar
bombs, grenades and smoke devices at two sites, one
150 nautical miles south-west of Cape Town at a depth
of 3500 m, and the other 40 nautical miles south-east of
Durban at an unidentified depth (London Convention,
1994). Also in 1994, Portugal scuttled a vessel loaded
with nearly 2000 tonnes of various redundant munitions
including grenades, chemical grenades, ammunition,
fuses, pyrotechnics, depth charges, rockets, bombs,
missiles and mines. During the Gulf War, this ship had
been used as an ammunition transporter. Now it rests on
or in the seafloor at a depth of more than 4000 m and