[E-rundbrief] Info 960 - Geoengineering UN-Moratorium

[Matthias Reichl]

E-Rundbrief - Info 960 - ETC-Group (CDN): Geoengineering 
Moratorium at UN Ministerial in Japan. Risky Climate 
Techno-fixes Blocked

Bad Ischl, 29.10.2010

Begegnungszentrum für aktive Gewaltlosigkeit

www.begegnungszentrum.at

================================================

Geoengineering Moratorium at UN Ministerial in Japan

Risky Climate Techno-fixes Blocked

News Release

29 October 2010

www.etcgroup.org

NAGOYA, Japan – In a landmark consensus decision, the 
193-member UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) will 
close its tenth biennial meeting with a de facto moratorium 
on geoengineering projects and experiments.   “Any private 
or public experimentation or adventurism intended to 
manipulate the planetary thermostat will be in violation of 
this carefully crafted UN consensus,” stated Silvia Ribeiro, 
Latin American Director of ETC Group.

The agreement, reached during the ministerial portion of the 
two-week meeting which included 110 environment ministers, 
asks governments to ensure that no geoengineering activities 
take place until risks to the environment and biodiversity 
and associated social, cultural and economic impacts have 
been appropriately considered. The CBD secretariat was also 
instructed to report back on various geoengineering 
proposals and potential intergovernmental regulatory measures.

The unusually strong consensus decision builds on the 2008 
moratorium on ocean fertilization 
(http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=11659).  That 
agreement, negotiated at COP 9 in Bonn, put the brakes on a 
litany of failed “experiments” – both public and private – 
to sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide in the oceans’ 
depths by spreading nutrients on the sea surface.  Since 
then, attention has turned to a range of futuristic 
proposals to block a percentage of solar radiation via 
large-scale interventions in the atmosphere, stratosphere 
and outer space that would alter global temperatures and 
precipitation patterns.

“This decision clearly places the governance of 
geoengineering in the United Nations where it belongs,” said 
ETC Group Executive Director Pat Mooney.  “This decision is 
a victory for common sense, and for precaution.  It will not 
inhibit legitimate scientific research.  Decisions on 
geoengineering cannot be made by small groups of scientists 
from a small group of countries that establish self-serving 
‘voluntary guidelines’ on climate hacking.  What little 
credibility such efforts may have had in some policy circles 
in the global North has been shattered by this decision. 
The UK Royal Society and its partners should cancel their 
Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative *) and 
respect that the world’s governments have collectively 
decided that future deliberations on geoengineering should 
take place in the UN, where all countries have a seat at the 
table and where civil society can watch and influence what 
they are doing.”

Delegates in Nagoya have now clearly understood the 
potential threat that deployment – or even field testing – 
of geoengineering technologies poses to the protection of 
biodiversity. The decision was hammered out in long and 
difficult late night sessions of a “friends of the chair” 
group, attended by ETC Group, and adopted by the Working 
Group 1 Plenary on 27 October 2010.  The Chair of the 
climate and biodiversity negotiations called the final text 
“a highly delicate compromise.” All that remains to do now 
is gavel it through in the final plenary at 6 PM Friday 
(Nagoya time).

“The decision is not perfect,” said Neth Dano of ETC Group 
Philippines. “Some delegations are understandably concerned 
that the interim definition of geoengineering is too narrow 
because it does not include Carbon Capture and Storage 
technologies.  Before the next CBD meeting, there will be 
ample opportunity to consider these questions in more 
detail. But climate techno-fixes are now firmly on the UN 
agenda and will lead to important debates as the 20th 
anniversary of the Earth Summit approaches.  A change of 
course is essential, and geoengineering is clearly not the 
way forward.”

In Nagoya, Japan
Pat Mooney: mooney at etcgroup.org (Mobile +1-613-240-0045)
Silvia Ribeiro: silvia at etcgroup.org (Mobile (local): + 81 90 
5036 4659)
Neth Dano: neth at etcgroup.org (Mobile: + 63-917-532-9369)


In Montreal, Canada:
Diana Bronson: diana at etcgroup.org (Mobile: +1-514-629-9236)
Jim Thomas: jim at etcgroup.org (Mobile: +1-514-516-5759)


*) 
http://royalsociety.org/Royal-Society-launches-major-study-on-the-governance-of-geoengineering/

Note to Editors:

The full texts of the relevant decisions on geoengineering 
are copied below (http://www.cbd.int/cop10/insession/?tab=0):

Under Climate Change and Biodiversity (UNEP/CBD/COP/10/L.36)

8.  Invites Parties and other Governments, according to 
national circumstance and priorities, as well as relevant 
organizations and processes, to consider the  guidance below 
on ways to conserve, sustainably use and restore 
biodiversity and ecosystem services while contributing to 
climate‑change mitigation and adaptation:
....
(w) Ensure, in line and consistent with decision IX/16 C, on 
ocean fertilization and biodiversity and climate change, in 
the absence of science based, global, transparent and 
effective control and regulatory mechanisms for 
geo-engineering, and in accordance with the precautionary 
approach and Article 14 of the Convention, that no 
climate-related geo-engineering activities[1] that may 
affect biodiversity take place, until  there is an adequate 
scientific basis on which to justify such activities and 
appropriate consideration of the associated risks for the 
environment and biodiversity and associated social, economic 
and cultural impacts, with the exception of small scale 
scientific research studies that would be conducted in a 
controlled setting  in accordance with Article 3 of the 
Convention, and only if they are justified by the need to 
gather specific scientific data and are subject to a 
thorough prior assessment of the potential impacts on the 
environment;

[1] Without prejudice to future deliberations on the 
definition of geo-engineering activities, understanding that 
any technologies that deliberately reduce solar insolation 
or increase carbon sequestration from the atmosphere on a 
large scale that may affect biodiversity (excluding carbon 
capture and storage from fossil fuels when it captures 
carbon dioxide before it is released into the atmosphere) 
should be considered as forms of geo-engineering which are 
relevant to the Convention on Biological Diversity until a 
more precise definition can be developed. Noting that solar 
insolation is defined as a measure of solar radiation energy 
received on a given surface area in a given hour and that 
carbon sequestration is defined as the process of increasing 
the carbon content of a reservoir/pool other than the 
atmosphere.

AND

9. Requests the Executive Secretary to:
….
(o) Compile and synthesize available scientific information, 
and views and experiences of indigenous and local 
communities and other stakeholders, on the possible impacts 
of geo‑engineering techniques on biodiversity and associated 
social, economic and cultural considerations, and options on 
definitions and understandings of climate-related 
geo-engineering relevant to the Convention on Biological 
Diversity and make it available for consideration at a 
meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and 
Technological Advice prior to the eleventh meeting of the 
Conference of the Parties;
(p)    Taking into account the possible need for science 
based global, transparent and effective control and 
regulatory mechanisms, subject to the availability of 
financial resources, undertake a study on gaps in such 
existing mechanisms for climate-related geo-engineering 
relevant to the Convention on Biological Diversity, bearing 
in mind that such mechanisms may not be best placed under 
the Convention on Biological Diversity, for consideration by 
the Subsidiary Body on Scientific Technical and 
Technological Advice prior to a future meeting of the 
Conference of the Parties and to communicate the results to 
relevant organizations;

Under New and Emerging Issues UNEP/CBD/COP/10/L.2 :

4.    Invites Parties, other Governments and relevant 
organizations to submit information on synthetic biology and 
geo-engineering, for the consideration by the Subsidiary 
Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice, in 
accordance with the procedures of decision IX/29, while 
applying the precautionary approach to the field release of 
synthetic life, cell or genome into the environment;

Under Marine and Coastal Biodiversity UNEP/CBD/COP/10/L.42

13 Reaffirming that the programme of work still corresponds 
to the global priorities, has been further strengthened 
through decisions VIII/21, VIII/22, VIII/24, and IX/20, but 
is not fully implemented, and therefore encourages  Parties 
to continue to implement these programme elements, and 
endorses the following guidance, where applicable and in 
accordance with national capacity and circumstances, for 
enhanced implementation:

(e)    Ensuring that no ocean fertilization takes place 
unless in accordance with decision IX/16 C and taking note 
of the report (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/14/INF/7) and development 
noted para 57 – 62;

Impacts of ocean fertilization on marine and coastal 
biodiversity

57.    Welcomes the report on compilation and synthesis of 
available scientific information on potential impacts of 
direct human-induced ocean fertilization on marine 
biodiversity (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/14/INF/7), which was prepared 
in collaboration with United Nations Environment 
Programme-World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) 
and the International Maritime Organization in pursuance of 
paragraph 3 of decision IX/20;
58.    Recalling the important decision IX/16 C on ocean 
fertilization, reaffirming the precautionary approach, 
recognizes that given the scientific uncertainty that 
exists, significant concern surrounds the potential intended 
and unintended impacts of large-scale ocean fertilization on 
marine ecosystem structure and function, including the 
sensitivity of species and habitats and the physiological 
changes induced by micro-nutrient and macro-nutrient 
additions to surface waters as well as the possibility of 
persistent alteration of an ecosystem, and requests Parties 
to implement decision IX/16 C;
59.    Notes that the governing bodies under the London 
Convention and Protocol adopted in 2008 resolution LC-LP.1 
(2008) on the regulation of ocean fertilization, in which 
Contracting Parties declared, inter alia, that given the 
present state of knowledge, ocean fertilization activities 
other than legitimate scientific research should not be allowed;
60.    Recognizes the work under way within the context of 
the London Convention and London Protocol to contribute to 
the development of a regulatory mechanism referred to in 
decision IX/16 C, and invites Parties and other Governments 
to act in accordance with the Resolution LC-LP.2(2010) of 
the London Convention and Protocol ;
61.     Notes that in order to provide reliable predictions 
on the potential adverse impacts on marine biodiversity of 
activities involving ocean fertilization, further work to 
enhance our knowledge and modelling of ocean biogeochemical 
processes is required, in accordance with decision IX/16 (c) 
and taking into account decision IX/20 and LC-LP.2 (2010);
62.    Notes also that there is a pressing need for research 
to advance our understanding of marine ecosystem dynamics 
and the role of the ocean in the global carbon cycle;

Geopiracy: The Case Against Geoengineering is a new 
publication by ETC Group that provides an overview of the 
issues involved: http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/5217

-----

For more information about our work, please visit our 
website at http://www.etcgroup.org/

Interested in supporting our work? Donate Here! 
http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/5195

ETC Group is a registered Charity in Canada. ETC 
Headquarters are at:
431 Gilmour Street, Second Floor
Ottawa, ON K2P-0R5
Canada


-- 

Matthias Reichl, Pressesprecher/ press speaker,
Begegnungszentrum fuer aktive Gewaltlosigkeit
Center for Encounter and active Non-Violence
Wolfgangerstr. 26, A-4820 Bad Ischl, Austria,
fon: +43 6132 24590, Informationen/ informations,
Impressum in: http://www.begegnungszentrum.at
Spenden-Konto Nr. 0600-970305 (Blz. 20314) Sparkasse Bad Ischl,
Geschäftsstelle Pfandl
IBAN: AT922031400600970305 BIC: SKBIAT21XXX