460
Hjalmar THIEL
environment have led to consideration of the conservation of species, communities and habitats. Already in
1978 the concept of a stable reference area (SRA) had
first been suggested at a meeting of the International
Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources (IUCNNR) at Ashkhabad (USSR), later
discussed by the National Research Council of the
United States National Academy of Sciences (National
Research Council, 1984). This concept involves the
establishment of two types of protected areas, the
preservational reference area (PRA) and the impact
reference area (IRA). Both these areas should be characteristic for a wide region proposed for mining, and
they should be ecologically similar. The PRA should
remain unmined and far removed from any mining
impacts, so that unimpacted community development
can be studied after mining activities are in progress
in other areas. In contrast, the IRA should have been
established after mining to observe the reconstitution
of a new community. Since mining did not commence,
and discussions on the mining code and environmental
regulations in the International Seabed Authority (ISA)
were restricted to the mining exploration phase in the
deep sea, the SRA concept has remained dormant for
many years.
The need for nature conservation of deep-water
species and communities again came under review
with the development of deep-sea fisheries by trawling. The traditional long-line fisheries off Madeira
and the Azores are sustainable uses of deep-water
resources, but trawling for deep-living species has
led to overfishing after a few years (see pp. 456–
457), and conservation measures are essential to ensure
sustainability for exploited fish stocks and ecosystems.
Conservation is not only of importance for the target
fish species but also for the benthos of fished areas.
Epifauna, structuring habitats and communities (see
p. 457) deserve the same protection.
To a large extent deep-water fisheries are executed
in waters under national jurisdiction – that is, within
the EEZ of states. According to UNCLOS such states
not only have the right of exploitation, but they also
have an obligation of nature conservation in these
extended national sea areas. Most countries have not
declared their EEZs, and national jurisdiction may not
provide for conservational regulations. But at least
three positive examples exist: Australia has established
a deep-water marine reserve. It covers an area of
370 km
2 on the continental slope south of Tasmania,
enclosing 14 seamounts in the vicinity of a fishing
ground for orange roughy (Koslow et al., 2000). In
1999 Norway set aside two Sula Reef areas, in its
EEZ northwest of Trondheim, at a depth of 300 m,
where large reefs of the deep-water coral Lophelia
pertusa exist. Rare and highly diverse communities are
structured by its presence (Fossa et al., 2000). Portugal
protects two hydrothermal-vent sites since 2002 (World
Wide Fund for Nature, 2001).
Thus, deep-water conservational areas can be successfully established under national jurisdiction, but
difficulties in the lobbying of fishery authorities must
be overcome. Positive response to well-founded scientific arguments can be expected. However, for the high
seas beyond EEZs, no regulations exist for the isolation
of marine protected areas (MPAs). UNCLOS provides
a number of general statements for the protection of
species and communities, but this is not sufficient
legal background for the establishment of MPAs. This
general jurisdictional problem for the high seas may be
somewhat different in European waters, and may reach
beyond areas of national influence. The Convention for
the Protection of the Marine Environment of the NorthEast Atlantic (the OSPAR Convention, which combined
the OSlo and PARis conventions) covers an area far
beyond national jurisdiction, west to the Mid-Atlantic
Ridge (46ºW) – that is, including the high seas of
the North-East Atlantic. According to Czybulka and
Kersandt (2000, p. 16), most authors agree on
the applicability of [the European] Community law beyond
the territorial sea.
Consequently, an OSPAR working group discussing
the establishment of MPAs is also considering protected
areas for the high seas.
Deep-sea environmental science has always had a
strong foreseeing and forecasting character. Environmental studies have been conducted already during
the exploration phases for the mining of manganese
nodules in the Pacific Ocean (e.g., Ozturgut et al.,
1980; Foell et al., 1997; Thiel and Forschungsverbund
Tiefsee-Umweltschutz, 1995) and for metalliferous
sediments in the Red Sea (Thiel et al., 1986; Karbe,
1987). These studies were not postponed until the
commencement of mining. Thiel et al. (1998) presented
an overview on risks of exploiting the deep sea, and
recommended further predictive studies to avoid overexploitation of this space. In this context of foresight,
high-seas MPAs should be established independently of
any actual threat to species and communities (Thiel and
Koslow, 1999). It is not possible to predict all uses of
Hjalmar THIEL
environment have led to consideration of the conservation of species, communities and habitats. Already in
1978 the concept of a stable reference area (SRA) had
first been suggested at a meeting of the International
Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources (IUCNNR) at Ashkhabad (USSR), later
discussed by the National Research Council of the
United States National Academy of Sciences (National
Research Council, 1984). This concept involves the
establishment of two types of protected areas, the
preservational reference area (PRA) and the impact
reference area (IRA). Both these areas should be characteristic for a wide region proposed for mining, and
they should be ecologically similar. The PRA should
remain unmined and far removed from any mining
impacts, so that unimpacted community development
can be studied after mining activities are in progress
in other areas. In contrast, the IRA should have been
established after mining to observe the reconstitution
of a new community. Since mining did not commence,
and discussions on the mining code and environmental
regulations in the International Seabed Authority (ISA)
were restricted to the mining exploration phase in the
deep sea, the SRA concept has remained dormant for
many years.
The need for nature conservation of deep-water
species and communities again came under review
with the development of deep-sea fisheries by trawling. The traditional long-line fisheries off Madeira
and the Azores are sustainable uses of deep-water
resources, but trawling for deep-living species has
led to overfishing after a few years (see pp. 456–
457), and conservation measures are essential to ensure
sustainability for exploited fish stocks and ecosystems.
Conservation is not only of importance for the target
fish species but also for the benthos of fished areas.
Epifauna, structuring habitats and communities (see
p. 457) deserve the same protection.
To a large extent deep-water fisheries are executed
in waters under national jurisdiction – that is, within
the EEZ of states. According to UNCLOS such states
not only have the right of exploitation, but they also
have an obligation of nature conservation in these
extended national sea areas. Most countries have not
declared their EEZs, and national jurisdiction may not
provide for conservational regulations. But at least
three positive examples exist: Australia has established
a deep-water marine reserve. It covers an area of
370 km
2 on the continental slope south of Tasmania,
enclosing 14 seamounts in the vicinity of a fishing
ground for orange roughy (Koslow et al., 2000). In
1999 Norway set aside two Sula Reef areas, in its
EEZ northwest of Trondheim, at a depth of 300 m,
where large reefs of the deep-water coral Lophelia
pertusa exist. Rare and highly diverse communities are
structured by its presence (Fossa et al., 2000). Portugal
protects two hydrothermal-vent sites since 2002 (World
Wide Fund for Nature, 2001).
Thus, deep-water conservational areas can be successfully established under national jurisdiction, but
difficulties in the lobbying of fishery authorities must
be overcome. Positive response to well-founded scientific arguments can be expected. However, for the high
seas beyond EEZs, no regulations exist for the isolation
of marine protected areas (MPAs). UNCLOS provides
a number of general statements for the protection of
species and communities, but this is not sufficient
legal background for the establishment of MPAs. This
general jurisdictional problem for the high seas may be
somewhat different in European waters, and may reach
beyond areas of national influence. The Convention for
the Protection of the Marine Environment of the NorthEast Atlantic (the OSPAR Convention, which combined
the OSlo and PARis conventions) covers an area far
beyond national jurisdiction, west to the Mid-Atlantic
Ridge (46ºW) – that is, including the high seas of
the North-East Atlantic. According to Czybulka and
Kersandt (2000, p. 16), most authors agree on
the applicability of [the European] Community law beyond
the territorial sea.
Consequently, an OSPAR working group discussing
the establishment of MPAs is also considering protected
areas for the high seas.
Deep-sea environmental science has always had a
strong foreseeing and forecasting character. Environmental studies have been conducted already during
the exploration phases for the mining of manganese
nodules in the Pacific Ocean (e.g., Ozturgut et al.,
1980; Foell et al., 1997; Thiel and Forschungsverbund
Tiefsee-Umweltschutz, 1995) and for metalliferous
sediments in the Red Sea (Thiel et al., 1986; Karbe,
1987). These studies were not postponed until the
commencement of mining. Thiel et al. (1998) presented
an overview on risks of exploiting the deep sea, and
recommended further predictive studies to avoid overexploitation of this space. In this context of foresight,
high-seas MPAs should be established independently of
any actual threat to species and communities (Thiel and
Koslow, 1999). It is not possible to predict all uses of