Apologies for the repost... On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Dan Whaley <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
