Thanks for the reply - it is good to discuss these aspects. And thanks for your effort driving this group.
I agree that drafting a recommendation has to be extremely tailored towards mining SMS. And my approach would be even a very technical one: What datasets are required evaluate impact and monitor it over time, where and how to acquire and store these data, how to obtain it (financing), and how to evaluate it (independence from industry, obviously).
In my view, and assuming a worse-case scenario where mining takes place, monitoring requires a time-zero characterization of targets (pre-mining), and repeated characterization over period of exploitation, and long-term follow up after the site is abandoned.
There is the aspect of types of data; now we can have extensive seafloor image mapping, the only real way to properly evaluate both geological and biological/ecological impact. We do have now tools to acquire the data (AUVs and ROVs), and to process the data for interpretation and data storage (mosaicing of video and still images). And these data can then be analyzed independently, if standards are set (storage in a given data repository, and access to independent experts).
About the transfer of knowledge to industry, I am aware that this comes from a given scientist, and it is going to be a recurrent situation. But I am also aware that the expertise is already available, and that industry can tap on it easily on a one to one basis as far as individuals are inclined to do so. Expanding this to InterRidge would not be appropriate, unless the community as a whole (and not an individual scientist) decides to do so.
Javier Escartin
