Jim, You criticize Victor, but in actuality it appears your point in essence was that you were unaware of the vetting process that the German EPA (which is the local enforcement of the terms of the LC) used when evaluating whether Victor's project met the standard for legitimate scientific research under the resolution and current best available guidance (suggestions for which are in footnote 4 as you indicate).
Do I have this correct? Could you please indicate where Victor mis- stepped in the regulatory process? D On Jan 9, 1:37 pm, "jim thomas" <[email protected]> wrote: > Dan > > I think this discussion should move to the geoengineering rather than > CI group since it addresses policy rather than science and accordingly > I have cc'd to that group instead. > > on the substance: > > It is clear that > > (1) the CBD exception stands, so activities are limited to "small > scale scientific research studies within coastal waters"; and > (2) the evaluation under LC/LP must be undertaken as required under > RESOLUTION LC-LP.1 (2008) ON THE REGULATION OF OCEAN FERTILIZATION > (ADOPTED ON 31 OCTOBER 2008) > > So for the first point this is not coastal waters so it fails the test > of the CBD exception straight away. It has also not yet been > determined whether or not 300 square km is small scale. If Germany and > India is using "the utmost caution" you would think they would > consider thsi a bit large. This breach of the CBD moratorium is > significant especially for Germany who currently hold the presidency > of the CBD and when it was teh German Minister who personaly brokered > the language of the CBD moratorium. > > Secondly As far as the evaluation under the LC/LP is concerned, the > decision states that legitimate scientific research should be defined > as 'as those proposals that have been assessed and found acceptable > under the assessment framework;' (which doesn't yet exist) and that > 'ocean fertilization activities other than legitimate scientific > research should not be allowed. ' Ergo, the activity 'should not be > allowed'. > > So yes there is Para 6, which you cite as a stop gap measure saying > how the evaluation should be conducted pending the assessment > framework: ie that until 'specific guidance' is available, parties > should use the 'best available guidance' (defined in footnote 4) to > evaluate... so that is 2 requirements: (1) to evaluate and (2) to use > the stated guidance (which is not limited to the stated decisions etc) > > Obviously, it requires the evaluation to be conducted according to > that stated guidance (has it been? -I see no evidence). Nor does it > state that 6 overrides 7 and 8: i.e. activities which have not been > evaluated according to para 6 should not be allowed. > > So even within the terms of the london convention agreement, Germany > and India would need to show (1) that an evaluation was conducted and > (2) that it used the best available guidance, including, but not > limited to, the instruments cited, AND that parties are using the > 'utmost caution' AND (2) contracting parties did all this to "ensure > protection of the marine environment consistent with the Convention > and Protocol;" > > Finally, as noted above, the decision actually cites the text of the > CBD decision , which states only "the exception of small scale > scientific research studies within coastal waters". > > For others here is the relevant text of the LC/LP in full: > > The LC/LP agreed (in relevant extracts) (relevant sections in bold italics) > > NOTING decision IX/16 on 30 May 2008 of the 9th Meeting of the Conference of > the > > Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity which "requests > Parties and urges other > > Governments, in accordance with the precautionary approach, to ensure > that ocean fertilization > > activities do not take place until there is an adequate scientific > basis on which to justify such > > activities, including assessing associated risks, and a global, > transparent and effective control and > > regulatory mechanism is in place for these activities; with the > exception of small scale scientific > > research studies within coastal waters"; > > 4. AGREE that scientific research proposals should be assessed on a > case-by-case basis using an assessment framework to be developed by > the Scientific Groups under the London Convention and Protocol; > > 5. AGREE that the aforementioned assessment framework should include, > inter alia, tools for determining whether the proposed activity is > contrary to the aims of the Convention and Protocol; > > 6. AGREE that until specific guidance is available, Contracting > Parties should be urged to use utmost caution and the best available > guidance[4] to evaluate the scientific research proposals to ensure > protection of the marine environment consistent with the Convention > and Protocol; > > 7. AGREE that for the purposes of this resolution, legitimate > scientific research should be defined as those proposals that have > been assessed and found acceptable under the assessment framework; > > 8. AGREE that, given the present state of knowledge, ocean > fertilization activities other than legitimate scientific research > should not be allowed. > > [4] Such guidance includes, but is not limited to: previous agreements > of the Consultative Meetings/Meetings of Contracting Parties; Annex > III to the London Convention and Annex 2 to the London Protocol; the > considerations for evaluating ocean fertilization proposals developed > by the Scientific Groups (LC/SG 31/16, annex 2, appendix 3); and the > Revised Generic Waste Assessment Guidance (LC 30/ > > On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Dan Whaley <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I think it is very unfortunate that Jim has misquoted the UN IMO > > London Convention ruling here. Having sat through the LC process > > personally for a week last October, they most defintely were specific > > in their decision *not* to preclude projects before the assessment > > framework is agreed upon-- we probably spent several hours on this > > point alone. Greenpeace's David Santillo participated in the drafting > > of this language. > > > Here is the specific section: > > > "6. AGREE that until specific guidance is available, Contracting > > Parties should be urged to > > use utmost caution and the best available guidance to evaluate the > > scientific research > > proposals to ensure protection of the marine environment consistent > > with the Convention > > and Protocol;" > > > In addition, Victor was very careful to meet with the German EPA and > > to get their green light prior to sailing. To say this is in "clear > > defiance" of the UN is completely incorrect. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
