Deep-sea biodiversity plays a crucial role in enhancing ecological resilience, both within the deep sea itself and in the broader context of Earth’s ecosystems. For example, biodiversity within the deep sea contributes to efficient nutrient recycling, helping to maintain nutrient availability in the wider oceanic food web. This, in turn, affects the productivity and resilience of surface ecosystems, including those on which humans rely for fisheries.
Another example lies in deep-sea ecosystems, particularly those with cold-water corals and seamounts, which can sequester carbon over extended time scales. The presence of diverse deep-sea species enhances the ecosystem’s capacity to capture and store carbon, thereby aiding in the mitigation of climate change impacts.
Danovaro et al. (2008) suggests that deep-sea ecosystems are highly vulnerable and susceptible to biodiversity losses, and reductions in biodiversity may be linked to exponential declines in ecosystem functions. Loreau (2008) advances the idea that the relationship between species diversity and ecosystem functioning in the deep sea may not reach a saturation point, a phenomenon referred to as a non-saturating relationship. Such non-saturating relationships might be more prevalent than previously assumed. Essentially, this means that even slight decreases in deep-sea biodiversity could considerably affect the Earth’s biogeochemical processes. Therefore, the conservation of deep-sea biodiversity is a priority for a sustainable functioning of the world’s oceans.
Human activities can have profound effects on deep-sea biodiversity. Practices such as bottom trawling, cable laying, and oil and gas extraction can lead to habitat destruction and disruption of fragile ecosystems. These activities can result in the loss of unique and poorly understood species. Additionally, pollution, including wastewater discharge, chemical runoff, and plastic waste can contaminate deep-sea environments, harming organisms and their habitats. Moreover, changes in ocean temperatures and acidity caused by climate change can have a profound impact on deep-sea ecosystems and their biodiversity. Therefore, it is crucial to comprehend and address these human-induced threats in order to safeguard the remarkable biodiversity of the deep sea.
Economic Valuation
Economic valuation of natural capital is crucial because it provides a framework for quantifying and understanding the economic benefits that ecosystems and biodiversity provide to society. This valuation helps policymakers and businesses make informed decisions, promote sustainable practices, and allocate resources effectively to protect and preserve our natural environment for current and future generations.
The economic value of deep-sea ecosystems and biodiversity is estimated through socio-economic valuation studies. However, the scarcity of data on deep-sea biodiversity and ecosystem services, coupled with the extreme remoteness of this environment, makes conducting these studies challenging. One approach that has been used to estimate the value of deep-sea biodiversity and ecosystem services is the stated preference valuation method. This method entails asking individuals how much they would be willing to pay to protect or conserve a specific feature or characteristic. Nevertheless, even this approach faces difficulties due to the limited public knowledge about the deep-sea environment.
Jobstvogt et al. (2014) examined the willingness of citizens in Scotland to pay for the protection of deep-sea biodiversity within the UK’s North and Northwest Exclusive Economic Zone, which extends 12–200 nautical miles off the coast, using the number of protected species as an indicator of biodiversity. The study focused on changes in species numbers ranging from 0% to 60%, with a maximum of 1600 species compared to the hypothetical baseline of 1000 species. In addition to the number of species, the study also explored the potential for discovering new medicinal products from deep-sea organisms, which could benefit from the protection of deep-sea ecosystems. Survey participants were informed about potential restrictions on the fishery sector and the oil and gas industry to protect deep-sea biodiversity. Although these two sectors have a considerable impact on deep-sea biodiversity in the study area, they also provide job opportunities within the region. From a multi-stakeholder perspective, this information about the restrictions emerged as significant, as survey data indicated that 12% of the respondents work in either of these sectors.
Each survey participant received six choice cards and was asked to select from three different options per card, which included a business-as-usual choice. Each option represented a combination of attributes, such as the number of species, the potential for new medicinal products, and additional costs. The survey data was analyzed using two distinct models: the mixed logit model (ML) and the conditional logit model (CL). The paper’s findings indicated that, on average, respondents were willing to pay £70 for the ‘best’ option, which represents the highest species protection combined with a high potential for new medicinal products, in the CL model, and £77 in the ML model.
Limitations of Mitigation Banking
Mitigation banking is a widely employed strategy for conserving biodiversity and mitigating the adverse impacts of development projects. This approach involves establishing protected areas or conservation projects to offset the environmental harm caused by specific human activities. We have previously provided an in-depth exploration of this approach on our website (link to the article). It’s worth noting that mitigation banking is primarily tailored for terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems, and its applicability in conserving deep-sea biodiversity may be limited, mainly due to several unique challenges associated with deep-sea environments:
Lack of Terrestrial Analogues: The concept of mitigation banking relies on the idea of compensating for environmental damage in one location by conserving or restoring a similar ecosystem elsewhere. However, there are often no direct terrestrial analogues for deep-sea ecosystems. Deep-sea environments, with their extreme pressures, darkness, and unique species, are vastly different from terrestrial ecosystems. This makes it challenging to find suitable sites for mitigation.
Limited Understanding: Deep-sea ecosystems are poorly understood compared to their terrestrial counterparts. Mitigation banking requires a deep understanding of the ecological functions and dynamics of the affected ecosystem and the ability to accurately replicate or restore these functions elsewhere. Due to the lack of knowledge about deep-sea ecosystems, it is difficult to create effective mitigation measures.
Limited Regulatory Framework: Many countries and international organizations have established regulatory frameworks for terrestrial and freshwater mitigation banking, but similar regulations for deep-sea ecosystems are lacking or underdeveloped. This regulatory gap makes it challenging to enforce and oversee mitigation efforts in deep-sea environments.
Resource and Technological Constraints: Implementing mitigation banking in deep-sea environments requires significant financial resources, advanced technology, and expertise. These constraints can make it impractical or prohibitively expensive to carry out effective mitigation measures.
In summary, while mitigation banking has proven to be a valuable tool for conserving and restoring terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems, its application to deep-sea biodiversity conservation faces significant challenges due to the unique nature of deep-sea environments, limited understanding, regulatory gaps, and resource constraints. To address the conservation requirements of these highly specialized and fragile ecosystems, it may be necessary to explore alternative conservation strategies and measures.
References:
Danovaro, R., Gambi, C., Dell’Anno, A., Corinaldesi, C., Fraschetti, S., Vanreusel, A., Vincx, M., & Gooday, A. J. (2008). Exponential Decline of Deep-Sea Ecosystem Functioning Linked to Benthic Biodiversity Loss. Current Biology, 18(1), 1–8.
Jobstvogt, N., Hanley, N., Hynes, S., Kenter, J., & Witte, U. (2014). Twenty thousand sterling under the sea: Estimating the value of protecting deep-sea biodiversity. Ecological Economics, 97, 10–19.
Loreau, M. (2008). Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning: The Mystery of the Deep Sea. Current Biology, 18(3), R126–R128.
Like (0)