Digitalisation of Ecosystem-Based Management and the Logistics Potential of the Arctic Region

Elena Viktorovna Korchagina (), Sergey Evgenievich Barykin, Larisa Grigorievna Desfonteines (), Samrat Ray (), Irina Mikhaylovna Shapovalova () and Valentina Repnikova ()
Additional contact information
Elena Viktorovna Korchagina: Graduate School of Service and Trade, Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, St. Petersburg, Russia
Sergey Evgenievich Barykin: Graduate School of Service and Trade, Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, St. Petersburg, Russia
Larisa Grigorievna Desfonteines: Graduate School of Service and Trade, Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, St. Petersburg, Russia
Samrat Ray: Department of Economics, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad University of Technology, West Bengal, India
Irina Mikhaylovna Shapovalova: Department of Logistics and Supply Chain Management, St. Petersburg State University of Economics, St. Petersburg, Russia
Valentina Repnikova: Department of Entrepreneurship and Logistics, Plekhanov Russian University of Economics, Moscow, Russia

Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), 2022, vol. 24, issue 03, 1-20

Abstract: The Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) have improved in theory and exercise over the years. Nevertheless, there are several flaws which prevent EIA from becoming a useful instrument for promoting Ecosystem-based Management (EBM). For instance, Deep Sea Mining (DSM) operations are expected to create considerable environmental degradation undermining the poorly recognised mechanisms that remain mostly unknown. Evaluating the environmental consequences of DSM operations at all phases of the mining process from exploration to future exploitation has been among the top priorities of the International Seabed Authority (ISA). Hence, this study attempts to define the legal structure of the ISA to assess the environmental consequences of multiple stages of mining. Based on the observation, the existing methods do not reflect a comprehensive EIA process adhering to EBM. Therefore, it can be concluded that deficient impact analyses and inadequate Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) may be accommodated in the absence of a consistent and well-regulated procedure, allowing for double standards or unequal treatment of contractors and potential applicants.

Keywords: Logistic; Arctic; environmental impact assessment; ecosystem-based management (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S146433322250034X
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wsi:jeapmx:v:24:y:2022:i:03:n:s146433322250034x

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from

DOI: 10.1142/S146433322250034X

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM) is currently edited by Thomas Fischer

More articles in Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM) from World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Tai Tone Lim ().