cbd-ts-66-en

Recommendations

Info

Part II: The Regulatory Framework for Climate-related Geoengineering Relevant to the Convention on Biological Diversity Ocean fertilization is addressed by the LC/LP and CBD. The Assessment Framework established by the LC/LP provides an elaborate and comprehensive governance effort for scientific research projects. In legal terms, the mandate of several major treaties or institutions is sufficiently broad to address some or all geoengineering concepts. This could lead to potentially overlapping or inconsistent rules or guidance.190 It is worth noting that IMO information on recent LC/LP activities states that the LC/LP Parties “have declared themselves the competent international bodies to regulate legitimate scientific research into ocean fertilization and to prohibit commercial activities in this field” [emphasis added].191 From a global perspective, the potential scale and scope of activities covered varies from one mechanism to the next, depending, for instance, on their respective levels of participation and the relevance of the instrument.192 A distinction has been made in some processes between research and deployment. However, the distinction could be difficult to make from a regulatory point of view. Virtually all treaties examined impose procedural obligations on geoengineering activities falling within their scope of application. These treaties have general provisions on exchange of information, cooperation and consultation. As a minimum it is suggested by multiple frameworks that States have a duty to inform other States prior to conducting geoengineering activities, including field experiments. Few rules provide for public participation beyond the representation of the public by delegates, except for the usual rules on observer participation in treaty regimes and institutions. The treaties examined provide few specific rules on responsibility and liability. The International Law Commission’s articles on State responsibility are for the most part customary law that generally applies to breaches of international obligations. In the context of geoengineering and the rationale behind it, the question could be raised whether relevant treaties are open to the possibility of determining negative impacts as “net” effects, i.e., negative impacts of the activity weighed against future negative impacts of climate change avoided by that activity.193 The text of most treaties does not appear to provide for such a consideration of the overall “net” effects on the broader environment in comparison to harm avoided, and there are no corresponding decisions on who would evaluate such impacts and over what scale. Rather most treaties refer to specific effects resulting from the introduction of substances or energy into the air. A positive list of concepts or technologies that are considered to be geoengineering might be a useful regulatory approach. The list could be drawn up as a supplement to a general definition. It would need to allow for timely updating in order to provide the flexibility required for scientific and political developments. Key questions for designing a future governance framework include the following: 144 • Is it preferable to have a centralized or decentralized governance structure for all or individual geoengineering concepts? • How can regime conflicts be avoided ? • What is the most appropriate legal form? • How should the forum be structured: mandate, flexibility? • What aspects should be regulated? • What is the most appropriate political and scientific level? 190 Cf. on marine issues Scott (2010a), p. 10; in general, see Scott (2010b). 191 IMO (2010), p. 1. 192 For instance, the US is a Party to the London Convention, but not to the London Protocol, and is not a Party to the CBD. However, the US did vote in favour of the UNGA resolutions which welcomed and took note of the LC/LP and CBD activities. 193 On the weighing or netting of risks, see also section 2.4 above on the precautionary principle.
Part II: The Regulatory Framework for Climate-related Geoengineering Relevant to the Convention on Biological Diversity • How can research and deployment be distinguished? (rationale and criteria) • What are the most appropriate instruments and tools? • How can participation and transparency be ensured? • Do the rules and institutions allow for and incorporate scientific input in decision-making? • Are scientific functions and political decision-making functions separated? • How can meaningful research results be achieved? Depending on the particular geoengineering concept, potential research activities might have to be coordinated at the international level in order to ensure that data can be correctly attributed to particular experiments and to ensure validity of results. • How can potential regime conflicts (overlapping mandates) be avoided? • How to ensure that the precautionary principle is respected and that populations and ecosystems are not placed at undue risk without their prior knowledge or consent? • How can proper intergovernmental oversight of relevant private initiatives be implemented? 145
Page 1 and 2:
Secretariat of the Convention on Bi
Page 3 and 4:
Published by the Secretariat of the
Page 5 and 6:
PART I IMPACTS OF CLIMATE-RELATED G
Page 7 and 8:
Part I: Impacts of Climate-related
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
CHAPTER 1 MANDATE, CONTEXT AND SCOP
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
CHAPTER 2 Part I: Impacts of Climat
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Figure 3.4: Projected impacts of gl
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Table 5.1: Classification of CDR te
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Figure 5.1. Changes in primary prod
Page 61 and 62:
5.4 GEOCHEMICAL SEQUESTRATION OF CA
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Land and water requirements Part I:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
CHAPTER 7 SYNTHESIS Part I: Impacts
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
ANNEX II Part I: Impacts of Climate
Page 85 and 86:
ANNEX III REPORT AUTHORS, EDITORS A
Page 87 and 88:
Betz G. (2011). The case for climat
Page 89 and 90:
Glibert P M. (2008). Ocean urea fer
Page 91 and 92:
Kasperson R.E., Renn O., Slovic P.,
Page 93 and 94: Moreno-Cruz J.B., Ricke K.L. & Keit
Page 95 and 96: Artaxo P.,Melillo J. & Morgan M.G..
Page 97 and 98: Turley C.M, Roberts J.M. & Guinotte
Page 99 and 100: PART II THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FO
Page 101 and 102: Part II: The Regulatory Framework f
Page 113 and 114: CHAPTER 2 Part II: The Regulatory F
Page 143: CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS Part II: The
Page 147 and 148: ANNEX II Part II: The Regulatory Fr
Page 149 and 150: ANNEX IV Part II: The Regulatory Fr
show all

cbd-ts-66-en

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?