cbd-ts-66-en

Part I: Impacts of Climate-related Geoengineering on Biological Diversity
The guidelines developed under Article 14 provide useful elements that can inform analysis of the impacts of
geoengineering on biodiversity, both at the level of specific activities and at the level of broader assessments. The
assessment frameworks of other bodies may also be relevant; e.g., as developed by the London Convention/London
Protocol, and the more general requirement of Article 206 of the UN Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
requiring States to assess the potential effects of activities taking place at sea. Given the broad scope of the present
study, the CBD guidelines for strategic environmental assessment would seem particularly useful. Those guidelines
recommend consideration of the following:
i) How the proposed techniques are expected to impact on the various components and levels of
biodiversity and across ecosystem types, and the implications for ecosystem services, and for the people
who depend on such services;
ii) How the proposed techniques are expected to affect the key direct and indirect drivers of biodiversity
change.
Where such information is available, Chapters 3, 4 and 5 provide an assessment of how specific geoengineering
techniques might affect the various components of biodiversity for a range of ecosystems, and the implications of
those impacts for ecosystem services. However, in many cases, detailed information is lacking, particularly with
regard to potential impacts on biodiversity at the genetic level.
At a global scale, the largest driver of terrestrial biodiversity loss has been, and continues to be, land use change.
In the ocean, over-exploitation has also been a major cause of biodiversity loss and food-web perturbations. Such
changes, on land and in the ocean, can have climatic implications, through effects on greenhouse gases fluxes, and
climate change itself is rapidly increasing in importance as a driver of biodiversity loss. However, the importance
of different drivers of loss varies among ecosystems and from region to region.9, 10 An overview of the potential
impacts of geoengineering and of alternative actions on the drivers of biodiversity loss is provided in Chapter 7.
The CBD guidelines on impacts assessment also highlight, as key principles, stakeholder involvement, transparency
and good quality information.
Since good quality information on many aspects of geoengineering is still very limited (and may not be readily
available to all stakeholders),11 this study should be regarded as a first step in assessing its potential impacts on
biodiversity. Key knowledge gaps include: i) the overall effectiveness of many of the geoengineering techniques,
based on realistic estimates of their scalability; ii) how the proposed techniques affect weather and climate regionally
and globally; iii) how biodiversity, ecosystems and their services might respond to geo-engineered changes in
climate; iv) the unintended effects of geoengineering on biodiversity; and v) the social and economic implications
of deliberate climate manipulations, in the context of changes to biodiversity and ecosystem services.
With a view to encouraging involvement of stakeholders, a number of consultations have been held12 and drafts of
this report were made available for two rounds of peer review. It is nevertheless recognized that the opportunities for
full and effective participation of stakeholders have been limited. To some extent, this is an inevitable consequence
of the relative novelty of the issues under discussion. Some indigenous and local communities and stakeholder
9 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005a).
10 Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010).
11 The number of scientific publications relating to geoeengineering is currently increasing at a rapid rate, with associated increases in
information accessibility. Nevertheless, it is recognised that much of the relevant literature may not be readily available to everyone
with interests.
12 Consultations have involved: 1) Mini-workshop on biodiversity and climate-related geoengineering, 10 June 2011, Bonn, Germany;
2) Liaison Group Meeting on Climate-Related Geoengineering as it relates to the Convention on Biological Diversity, 29 June–1
July, 2011, London, UK; 3) Informal Dialogue with Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities on Biodiversity Aspects of
Geo-engineering the Climate; side event during the Seventh Meeting of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group on Article 8(j)
and Related Provisions, 2 November 2011, Montreal, Canada; and 4) Consultation on Climate-related Geo-engineering relevant to
the Convention on Biological Diversity; side event during the fifteenth meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and
Technological Advice (SBSTTA 15), 9 November 2011, Montreal, Canada.
19