cbd-ts-66-en

CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS
Part II: The Regulatory Framework for Climate-related Geoengineering Relevant to the Convention on Biological Diversity
As an overarching concept including several distinct concepts and technologies, geoengineering is currently
not as such prohibited by international law. Specific geoengineering activites and potential impacts of specific
geoengineering concepts might violate particular rules, however. Additional information on geoengineering
impacts would assist in the evaluation of such applicability and support the identification of gaps.
It has been argued that at present, no international treaties or institutions exist with a sufficient mandate to regulate
the full spectrum of possible geoengineering activities.185 However, there are existing rules that would apply to
some geoengineering activities, and institutions with at least a partial mandate to address it. A summary of the
applicability of the various treaties examined in this report to several geoengineering techniques is provided in
annex III below.
Most treaties, but not all, potentially provide for mechanisms, procedures or institutions that could determine
whether the treaty in question applies to a specific geoengineering activity and could address such activities. In
particular, most relevant treaties have in place a Conference of the Parties (COP) or other institution that can
determine to what extent geoengineering can be addressed by the treaty in question and its bodies.
Space law does not have the features of more modern environmental treaty regimes. It remains to be seen whether
the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) would be suitable for elaborating
specific guidance.
Some rules analysed in this study could apply to particular geoengineering concepts and could restrict them
depending on specific impacts. Whether such impacts would actually occur is difficult to assess or predict at this
stage. Some rules do not require actual impacts but let potential or likely impacts suffice.
Some general rules, such as for the prevention of transboundary environmental harm, may be intended to cover
subsequent developments. In contrast, other rules may not be applicable, or may not provide a clear permission
or prohibition of geoengineering.
This study follows a cautious approach in applying or drawing conclusions from existing legal rules.186 In accordance
with established methods of legal interpretation,187 it considers that rules that were adopted without considering
geoengineering, and whose normative content is general or vague, are open to interpretation, and do not on the
face of it speak in favour of or against geoengineering as such.
One gap in international environmental governance is the lack of mechanism or treaty to deal with the assessment
of technologies before they are commercialized. This gap was pointed out, for example, by the International
Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology.188 It has also been referred to repeatedly by civil
society organizations concerned about the social and environmental impacts of new technologies in the context
of UNFCCC.189
Before the tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, ocean
fertilization (and carbon capture and storage) were the only geoengineering concepts addressed as such at an
international regulatory level, namely by the CBD and the London Convention/London Protocol (LC/LP).
185 Lattanzio and Barbour (2010), p. 3; Barrett (2008), p. 9.
186 As suggested by Bodansky as early as 1996; see Bodansky (1996), p. 316.
187 Cf. Article 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
188 McIntyre et al. (2009), p. 467; see ETC Group (2009a) and ETC Group (2011).
189 TWN Info Service on Climate Change (Sept11/02), 6 September 2011, Third World Network, http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/
climate/info.service/2011/climate20110902.htm.
143