Masahiro, Just a couple of comments on paragraph 3 on page 7 of your paper:
1. The London Convention and Protocol (LC/LP) were engaged from 2007 in discussions on ocean fertilization. The report that I wrote in the Geoengineering Quarterly provides a full description of the LC/LP activities in this area and can be found at: http://www.oxfordgeoengineering.org/pdfs/geoengineering_quarterly_first_edition.pdf. 2. The LC/LP meeting held in October 201- did more than just agree the assessment framework for Ocean Fertilization. There was also an extensive discussion about legal options for regulation and an agreement for an intersessional working group to study a limited number of these options in 2011. The report of the meeting can be found through the IMODOCS website that does now have public access to a large part of it. Go to http://docs.imo.org/. You will have to register to gain access. After that click on the Meetings tab, then select LC Documents near to the bottom left of the screen and if you scroll to the bottom of the page you will find document LC 32/15 that is the Meeting Report. Section 4 in the meeting report plus Annex 7 cover the ocean fertilisation issue. Best wishes Chris Vivian Chairman Scientific Groups of the London Convention and Protocol On Nov 30, 3:01 am, Masa Sugiyama <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear all, > > We just finished our new discussion paper on CBD COP10 geoengineeering > decision. You can download it from here. > <http://criepi.denken.or.jp/en/serc/research_re/10013.html> > (Excuse me for a duplicate posting, but as far as I remember, the > membership > differs between geoengineering and climate intervention google > groups. > Correct me if I'm wrong.) > > Comparing the decision with LC/LP decisions and other resolutions at > CBD shows that the language was quite weak (i.e., no-binding > guidance) from the outset, and got weaker when adopted. The final > language discourages deployment, while allowing for scientific > research that satisfy conditions (to be clarified yet). It turned > out to be a reasonable outcome, we believe, but the negotiation > process was not well informed and was precarious. Inputs from > scientific bodies like IPCC are vitally needed. > > Any comments are welcome. > > Best, > Masa Sugiyama > > Interpretation of CBD COP10 decision on geoengineering > Masahiro Sugiyama and Taishi Sugiyama > SERC Discussion Paper 10013 > Date : 2010 > > ABSTRACT > The delegates at the tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties > (COP10) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) discussed > geoengineering, the "deliberate large-scale manipulation of the > planetary environment to counteract anthropogenic climate change," in > addition to main topics such as biodiversity conservation targets and > access and benefit-sharing of genetic resources. > The draft decision contained a language to preclude geoengineering > including its research, although it was a non-binding guidance. The > agreed decision added numerous qualifiers and is complicated. It > requests countries that "no climate-related geo-engineering activities > that may affect biodiversity take place," in the absence of proper > scientific knowledge and governance, while allowing for "small scale > scientific research studies --- in a controlled setting." The decision > also gives a tentative definition of geoengineering. > Climate geoengineering is intended to counteract global warming by > either reflecting sunlight or removing carbon dioxide from the > atmosphere. Although it is not an alternative to emissions reductions, > scientists are paying increasing attention to this set of techniques > because the slow progress of emissions reduction might lead to a > possibility of "dangerous" climate change. > At the COP10 in Nagoya, the delegates were not well informed about > geoengineering, and negotiations were conducted in haste without > proper scientific consideration. > The following two points are particularly important with regard to > the science of geoengineering: (1) There are two categories of > geoengineering: solar radiation management (SRM) and carbon dioxide > removal (CDR). The science and ecological impact vastly differ between > the technologies, and it is difficult to impose a uniform regulation > on geoengineering; (2) Owing to large uncertainties in the science of > climate change, even a very stringent emissions reduction does not > eliminate the risk of "dangerous" climate change. Emissions reductions > would be too slow to counter it because of the inertia of the climate > system. A blanket ban, as originally conceived, would not have been a > wise option if one admitted a scenario of "dangerous" climate change. > Viewed in this light, the agreed decision is a reasonable outcome, > though the negotiation process was precarious. > Geoengineering is likely to emerge as a crucial topic for > environmental negotiations in the future. The Intergovernmental Panel > on Climate Change is convening an expert meeting in June 2011. More > efforts like this are necessary to better inform policymakers and > citizens. > > -- > Masahiro Sugiyama > Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry > Socio-Economic Research Center > 2-11-1 Iwadokita, Komae-shi, Tokyo 201-8511 Japan > [email protected] > +81-3-3480-2111 -- 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.
