cbd-ts-66-en

CHAPTER 3
Part II: The Regulatory Framework for Climate-related Geoengineering Relevant to the Convention on Biological Diversity
SPECIFIC TREATY REGIMES AND INSTITUTIONS
3.1 THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has nearly universal membership and a wide scope of application.
The US is not a Party, although as a signatory, it is under an obligation not to defeat its object and purpose (Article
18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, VCLT).
The CBD has referred to and incorporated the work of the London Convention/London Protocol (LC/LP) in its
own decisions, thus widening their application beyond the smaller number of Parties to the LC/LP. With respect
to ocean fertilization, in decision X/29, the Conference of the Parties to the CBD, at its tenth meeting (COP 10),
in October 2010, reaffirmed the precautionary approach and provided guidance to Parties with a view to ensuring
that no ocean fertilization takes place unless in accordance with its decision IX/16 of 2008. It also invited Parties
to act in accordance with the LC/LP Assessment Framework.72
The tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties also went beyond ocean fertilization and adopted a decision
addressing geoengineering in general.73 This appears to be the only all-encompassing governance measure at
this level to date. Paragraph 8 of decision X/33 invites “Parties and other Governments, according to national
circumstances and priorities, … to consider the guidance below”, which includes the following:
(w) Ensure, in line and consistent with decision IX/16 C, on ocean fertilization and biodiversity and
climate change, in the absence of science based, global, transparent and effective control and regulatory
mechanisms for geo-engineering, and in accordance with the precautionary approach and Article 14 of
the Convention, that no climate-related geo-engineering activities that may affect biodiversity take place,
until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities and appropriate consideration
of the associated risks for the environment and biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural
impacts, with the exception of small scale scientific research studies that would be conducted in a
controlled setting in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, and only if they are justified by the
need to gather specific scientific data and are subject to a thorough prior assessment of the potential
impacts on the environment.
The 2010 CBD decision on geoengineering is not legally binding. However, the decision is important for a global
governance framework because of the consensus of the 193 Parties it represents and the political signal it sends.
It also addresses geoengineering in general, based on its own definition.74
The text of the CBD decision refers specifically to “the precautionary approach and Article 14 of the Convention”
when inviting Parties to establish limits on geoengineering.
Paragraph 8 (w) of decision X/33 is intended to be an interim measure subject to further consideration and
action, including under the CBD itself and in other fora. It is a transitional measure based on the need to establish
whether there are science based, global, transparent and effective control and regulatory mechanisms in place for
geoengineering, and whether geoengineering has been scientifically justified.
In order to facilitate further consideration of geoengineering as additional scientific evidence and understanding
becomes available, paragraph 8 (w) of decision X/33 allows for exceptions for small-scale, controlled scientific
activities, for those activities for which there is an adequate scientific basis and for which appropriate consideration
72 CBD decision X/29, para. 13(e) and paras. 57–62.
73 UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/33, available at www.cbd.int/cop10/doc/.
74 ETC Group (2010b).
123