cbd-ts-66-en

Part II: The Regulatory Framework for Climate-related Geoengineering Relevant to the Convention on Biological Diversity
structure and a scientific underpinning with formally established links to the work of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC). There have been suggestions outside the climate negotiations to revise the UNFCCC
or adopt a new protocol to it on geoengineering governance.86
However, the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol have not addressed geoengineering concepts or governance.87
Nevertheless, in view of the slow progress on the climate negotiations for a post-2012 regime, the Executive
Secretary of the UNFCCC has recently warned that carbon dioxide removal techniques might have to be developed.88
The objective of the climate regime, according to Article 2 of UNFCCC, is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations
in the atmosphere. Article 2 also states that a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with
the climate system “should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to
climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed
in a sustainable manner”. However, the “ultimate” aim of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations does not
necessarily mean that the UNFCCC or the Kyoto Protocol prohibit other measures intended to prevent global
warming. Neither the UNFCCC nor the Kyoto Protocol prohibit geoengineering as such. The UNFCCC “principles”
(Article 3) and obligations such as Article 3(1) are quite general.
The objective of both instruments, as stated in Article 2 of UNFCCC, is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in
the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Carbon
dioxide removal techniques would reduce greenhouse gas concentrations and would as such not be contrary to
this objective. Solar radiation management techniques would not change greenhouse gas concentrations. However,
both sets of technologies may have effects that, in themselves, could be considered as “(dangerous) anthropogenic
interference in the climate system”.
Article 3(3) of UNFCCC incorporates the precautionary principle into the UNFCCC. However, the wording is
ambiguous regarding geoengineering (see above under precautionary principle or approach).
The obligations on all Parties in Article 4(1) of UNFCCC aim at mitigation and adaptation measures in a general
way. They do not explicitly or by implication prohibit or permit measures such as geoengineering.
The obligations in Article 4(2)(a) of UNFCCC require developed countries to take measures on mitigation by
limiting their anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and protecting and enhancing their greenhouse gas
sinks and reservoirs. These obligations do not by implication prohibit geoengineering measures.
The Kyoto Protocol’s provisions do not address or prohibit geoengineering. Geoengineering techniques such as
enhanced weathering in the form of spreading base minerals, afforestation, reforestation, soil carbon enhancement,
land-based albedo enhancement, biomass and charcoal production and storage have land-use change impacts.
The Kyoto Protocol addresses land-use change only to the extent that the removal or emission of greenhouse
gases are concerned. Specifically, the Kyoto Protocol regulates the way in which Parties account for the removal
of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and emissions reduced or generated by land-use changes. Only for this
purpose do decisions under the Kyoto Protocol define certain forms of land use.
However, the potential relevance of geoengineering for the flexible mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol, for instance
as carbon offsets, has attracted attention.89 So far, only carbon capture and storage in geological formations has
been considered for inclusion in the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).90 The inclusion of
86 Barrett (2010), pp. 10–11; Scott (2010a), p. 11.
87 Cf. the report by the UNFCCC technical subsidiary body SBSTA on future financing options for technology transfer, FCCC/
SB/2009/2, p. 79. The IMO mentioned ocean fertilization as an example of its efforts to address climate change in its report to the
UNFCCC; cf. IMO (2008).
88 Harvey (2011).
89 Virgoe 2009; Bertram 2009.
90 Decision 7/CMP.6, paras. 1–3; decision 2/CMP.5, para. 29 identifying specific issues. See also decision 10/CMP.7, Modalities and
procedures for carbon dioxide capture and storage in geological formations as clean development mechanism project activities.
127