cbd-ts-66-en

Part I: Impacts of Climate-related Geoengineering on Biological Diversity
groups do not consider themselves sufficiently prepared to contribute to such an effort in a full and effective manner.
It is hoped that this report, together with related efforts,13 will help to expand information and understanding on
geoengineering issues.
1.4 SCOPE OF TECHNIQUES EXAMINED IN THIS STUDY
There is a range of views as to what should be considered as climate-related geoengineering relevant to the CBD.
Approaches may involve both hardware- or technology-based engineering as well as ‘natural’ processes14 that
might have a climatically-significant impact at the global scale, depending on the spatial and temporal scale of
interventions. Several approaches that may be considered as geoengineering can also be considered as climate
change mitigation and/or adaptation; for example, some ecosystem restoration activities.
This study defines geoengineering in a relatively inclusive way, without prejudice to any definition of the term that
may subsequently be agreed under the Convention or elsewhere, and recognizing that there is not yet scientific
consensus on the scope of the term. Nevertheless, the definition used in this study is considered consistent with
COP 10 decision X/33, paragraph 8(w). In particular, it excludes carbon capture from fossil fuels (i.e, preventing the
release of CO2 into the atmosphere), whilst recognizing that the carbon storage components of that process are also
shared by other climate remediation techniques that are considered as geoengineering and are therefore included.
For some proposed techniques, there is insufficient information to make an evidence-based assessment of potential
impacts. The scope of the study is therefore limited, and should not be taken as a comprehensive analysis of all
matters related to geoengineering.
1.5 STRUCTURE OF THE STUDY
Chapter 2 considers definitions of geoengineering for the purposes of this study, based on a compilation and
summary of existing definitions (given in Annex I). Chapter 2 also provides an overview of the range of techniques
here considered as geoengineering.
Chapter 3 provides a summary of projected climate change and the related phenomenon of ocean acidification
under commonly-used emission scenarios, together with the expected impacts of those changes on biodiversity.
Such information provides the necessary context for the assessment of the impacts of geoengineering, as discussed
in Section 1.2 above.
The potential intended and unintended impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services (where known) of different
geoengineering techniques are reviewed in Chapters 4 and 5, focussing on the potential impacts of sunlight
reflection methods (SRM) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) techniques respectively. Such impacts, that may be
positive or negative, are considered for deployment scales intended to reduce solar radiation sufficiently to have a
substantive effect on global warming, or to achieve the long-term removal of a climatically significant amount of
CO2 from the atmosphere. For smaller-scale deployments, including local trials that might be made for research
purposes, the magnitude of effects will necessarily be less, and impacts might either be undetectable or insignificant
for biodiversity.
13 Online discussion on indigenous peoples and local communities and geoengineering, Climate Frontlines—Global forum for
indigenous peoples, small islands and vulnerable communities; www.climatefrontlines.org.
14 The distinction between technological and natural is not clear-cut in the geoengineering context, Thus most proposed
geoengineeering techniques involve enhancement or simulation of naturally-occurring processes that already play a major role in
climate dynamics, and that are naturally variable on decadal to geological timescales. Furthermore, many natural processes relevant to
geoengineering are already subject to significant human manipulation and perturbation, involving technology (= applied science) to
some degree.
20