Royal Society - David Keith

Box 4.3 Ocean fertilisation research under the 1972 London Convention
The assessment framework to be developed by the Scientific Groups under the LC & LP will provide the parameters
for assessing whether a proposed ocean fertilisation activity is ‘legitimate scientific research’ consistent with the
aims of the Convention. Until this guidance is available, Contracting Parties are to use ‘the utmost caution and the
best available guidance’ in evaluating scientific research proposals to ensure protection of the marine environment
consistent with the Convention and Protocol. 15 The ‘best available guidance’ includes previous agreements of the
parties, certain annexes of the Convention and Protocols, previous work by the Scientific Groups (including the
Working Group on Ocean Fertilisation), and existing generic waste assessment guidance. Considerations might
include:
• What will be added and where? Characteristics and composition of (a) the matter and (b) the water column where
the matter will be placed, including detailed description and characterisation of their chemical, physical and
biological properties, toxicity, persistence, and accumulative and biotransformative effects.
• Assessment of how the material will be added, in particular: (a) Form (eg solid, particle size, liquid solution
(concentration)); (b) mode of application; (c) area and depth of addition; and (d) rate of application (amount per
metre squared per time).
• Assessment of potential effects on the marine environment including their nature, temporal and spatial scales and
duration of the expected impacts based on ‘reasonably conservative assumptions’.
• Monitoring that is appropriate to the scale of experiment, the data from which should be made publicly available as
soon as possible, and with the impact hypotheses forming the basis of the monitoring.
• Contribution to scientific knowledge and the likelihood of the activity achieving its stated purpose (though where
the purpose is to mitigate climate change, this goes beyond the LC and may involve cooperation with other fora,
eg the UNFCCC).
geoengineering beyond national jurisdiction is best
resolved through new or existing mechanisms.
4.6 Public and civil society engagement15
Geoengineering research that may impact the environment,
or any moves towards potential deployment, should not
proceed in the absence of a wider dialogue between
scientists, policymakers, the public and civil society
groups. The consequences of geoengineering—known and
unknown, intended and unintended—would be felt by people
and communities across the world. As with other emerging
technologies, public participation in the development of
research, governance and policy frameworks will be critical
(Wilsdon & Willis 2004; RCEP 2008).
After decades of environmental policy efforts directed
towards removing pollutants from air and water, the public
is likely to be concerned about the unintended impacts of
deliberate large-scale releases of sulphates into the
atmosphere or nutrients into the oceans. Given the
precedent of public disquiet over the environmental release
of genetically modified crops, it is possible that similar
actions could be taken against geoengineering projects.
Just as field trials of genetically modified crops were
disrupted by some NGOs, it is foreseeable that similar
actions might be aimed at geoengineering experiments
involving the deliberate release of sulphate or iron (for
example) into the air and oceans.
15 Resolution LC-LP.1 (2008), paras.4-7.
One response to this concern would be simply to gather
intelligence on public perceptions of geoengineering
options, in the hope of averting a backlash. But diverse
publics and civil society groups could play a much more
positive and substantive role in the development of the
field, by contributing to analysis of the social, ethical and
equity basis of geoengineering proposals. They also have a
legitimate right to access and influence the policy process
on a topic of considerable public interest.
However, the full potential of any public engagement will
not be realised if it is motivated primarily by a desire by
advocates to secure public consent to geoengineering.
Rather, as the Royal Commission in Environmental
Pollution has argued, we need ‘to recognise the
importance of continual ‘social intelligence’ gathering
and the provision of ongoing opportunities for public and
expert reflection and debate ... if, as a society, we are to
proceed to develop new technologies in the face of many
unknowns’ (RCEP 2008).
Experience with other similar issues indicates that public
perceptions of geoengineering are likely to be dominated
by the risk of something going wrong, and it appears that
other important factors involved are whether the methods
proposed involve:
• contained engineered systems, or the manipulation of
the natural environment and ecosystems;
• intervention only in physical and chemical processes,
or in biological processes and systems;
42 I September 2009 I Geoengineering the Climate The Royal Society