cbd-ts-66-en

Recommendations

Info

FOREWORD Human-driven climate change is becoming an increasingly important cause of biodiversity loss and degradation of ecosystem services. With the relatively limited action to date to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increasing attention has been recently given to additional options that might lessen the severity of future impacts, through geoengineering. There is a rapidly growing scientific literature on this topic, with recent overview reports published by, for example, the Royal Society, the US Government Accountability Office., and an Expert Meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. However, those documents did not specifically consider geoengineering from a biodiversity perspective. The Conference of the Parties (COP) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) first turned its attention to geoengineering at its ninth meeting in 2008, in the context of ocean fertilization. The COP then requested Parties to ensure that ocean fertilization activities do not take place until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities. In response to this request, the Secretariat prepared a synthesis and analysis of the impacts of ocean fertilization on marine biodiversity, which was published as CBD Technical Series 45. At its tenth meeting in 2010, geoengineering was considered by the COP more generally. Decision X/33, which includes a section on climate-related geoengineering, called for studies on the possible impacts of geoengineering techniques on biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural considerations, and on gaps in the regulatory mechanisms for climate-related geoengineering relevant to the CBD. These studies—published here—were conducted by a highly authorative group of experts, thanks to financial support from the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Government of Norway and the European Commission. The studies were subject to two rounds of peer review, and then discussed at the sixteenth meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA-16), where they were well-received. At SBSTTA-16, the Parties to the CBD recognized that there remain significant gaps in the understanding of the impacts of geoengineering on biodiversity and that there is currently no comprehensive science-based, global, transparent and effective framework for geoengineering, while also noting the relevance of other treaties and organizations for filling such gaps. I hope that the studies will help inform discussions of those involved in these issues, as well as the very many stakeholders involved in protecting biodiversity. Braulio Ferreira de Souza Dias Executive Secretary Convention on Biological Diversity
PART I IMPACTS OF CLIMATE-RELATED GEOENGINEERING ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY Coordinating lead author: Phillip Williamson Lead authors: Phillip Williamson, Robert Watson, Georgina Mace, Paulo Artaxo, Ralph Bodle, Victor Galaz, Andrew Parker, David Santillo, and Chris Vivian. Review editors: David Cooper, Jaime Webbe, Annie Cung and Emma Woods Part I should be cited as: Williamson, P., Watson, R.T., Mace, G., Artaxo, P., Bodle, R., Galaz, V., Parker, A., Santillo, D., Vivian, C., Cooper, D., Webbe, J., Cung, A. and E. Woods (2012). Impacts of Climate-Related Geoengineering on Biological Diversity. Part I of: Geoengineering in Relation to the Convention on Biological Diversity: Technical and Regulatory Matters. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Montreal, Technical Series No. 66, 152 pages.
Page 1 and 2: Secretariat of the Convention on Bi
Page 3: Published by the Secretariat of the
Page 7 and 8: Part I: Impacts of Climate-related
Page 15 and 16: CHAPTER 1 MANDATE, CONTEXT AND SCOP
Page 23 and 24: CHAPTER 2 Part I: Impacts of Climat
Page 31 and 32: CHAPTER 3 Part I: Impacts of Climat
Page 37 and 38: Figure 3.4: Projected impacts of gl
Page 55 and 56:
Table 5.1: Classification of CDR te
Page 57 and 58:
Part I: Impacts of Climate-related
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:
CHAPTER 6 Part I: Impacts of Climat
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 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
CHAPTER 2 Part II: The Regulatory F
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS Part II: The
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
ANNEX II Part II: The Regulatory Fr
Page 149 and 150:
ANNEX IV Part II: The Regulatory Fr
Page 151 and 152:
show all

cbd-ts-66-en

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?