3 small points: 1. The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission ad hoc panel nearly recommended allowing legitimate scientific experimentation to proceed while disallowing any activity that led to the sale of carbon credits (or other instrument of economic value). However, we were not able to achieve consensus on this point so we presented this merely as an option to be considered (one that I personally favor).
2. I am aware of no scientific study that shows that ocean fertilization is a threat to biodiversity. While ecological disruption is certainly a possibility, there is little evidence to show that, with proper monitoring and controls, ocean fertilization need be a threat to biodiversity. 3. I think it is important that we do not throw out the baby with the bath water and recognize that it is important that scientists be allowed to conduct legitimate manipulation experiments in the ocean. That is how we will learn about marine biogeochemical cycles which remain very much a *terra incognita* (or is that *aqua incognita*). On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 6:28 AM, jim thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dan, > Your briefing instructions below (to whom exactly?) are misleading and > partial in several places. I encourage you to ammend it more truthfully. > > Firstly, you claim that the CBD decision on ocean fertilization was > "Adopted last spring with little or no advance policy work or input from the > scientific community". This is patently untrue. As you know the CBD has a > body that provides scientific and technical advice - SBSTTA (the subsidiary > body on scientific, technical and technological advice). This body discussed > ocean fertilization at both SBSTTA 12 in Paris in Summer 2007 and at SBSTTA > 13 in Rome February 2008 and it was this scientific and technical body that > drafted language proposing a moratorium. In both SBSTTA's the delegates > included national experts on marine biodiversity and climate policy, some > intimately familiar with the ocean fertilization topic and involved with > teh LC/LP process. This was also the case at COP9 in Bonn. They also heard > from scientists and had available the statements and decisions from the > LC/LP. The key difference between the two fora is that decisions at CBD are > made by a wider constituency on a wider mandate to protect biodiversity and > ensure its equitable use unlike the London Convention which is more > narrowly framed as 'anti- pollution' forum. The CBD was able to also > consider other perspectives beyond just scientific and technical views. For > example they heard from indigenous and fisherfolk representatives on this > matter as well as civil society and legal experts. Many of these wider > groups are not admitted to the LC/LP negotiations > > Secondly you state that "The Convention on Biological Diversity also > acknowledges the authority of the LC/LP on this issue". This isn't true. > The text of the decision from the CBD merely "Notes" the work of the London > Convention, "welcomes" the decision regarding ocean fertilization and > enacts further decisions "Bearing in mind" the ongoing scientific and legal > analysis occurring under the auspices of the London Convention. All of that > language is respectful of the discussions of the LC/LP but none of that > language priviliges the LC/LP nor indicate that the LC/LP carries any more > authority than the CBD. There were attempts at COP9 to introduce language > that would subordinate the CBD to LC/LP on this matter and that was > correctly resisted by states as inappropriate. The CBD is a more authorative > body with a far wider membership than the LC/LP (only 5 states are not > members of CBD) and with a wider remit. > > Finally I note that that the decision of the CBD on this matter is only > partially quoted below. Conveniently you, your hired lobbyist or the > oceanographic commission's ad hoc group (i'm not sure which) have omitted > the section of the decision regarding commercialisation and sale of carbon > credits. This was the part of the decision that differentiated what is > reasonable and meaningful independent risk research from activities carried > out the interests of private commercial ventures with a profit-making > motive. The CBD delegates clearly felt that such commercial entities may > have reason to skimp on the science or skew so-called research to get a > better financial return for their well heeled investors. In the interests of > precaution they advocated a clear separation of science and the market on > this matter - echoing the sentiment widely expressed in the scientific > community. Here is the text in its entirety including the prohibition on > commercially motivated ocean fertilization activities: > > "Bearing in mind the ongoing scientific and legal analysis occurring under > the auspices of > the London Convention (1972) and the 1996 London Protocol, 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. Such studies should only be authorized if justified by the > need to gather specific scientific data, and should also be subject to a > thorough prior assessment of the potential impacts of the research > studies on the marine environment, and be strictly controlled, and not be > used for generating and selling carbon offsets or any other commercial > purposes; " > > Best > > Jim Thomas > ETC Group > > > On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 8:22 PM, Dan Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> Ocean Fertilization policy on stage at the United Nations General >> Assembly >> >> Issue: Negative language on ocean fertilization potentially being >> adopted by the UN General Assembly >> >> Background: The recent meeting of the UN General Assembly 63rd >> Session (Sept 23-29 New York) discussed the issue of ocean >> fertilization in the context of the annual UNGA resolution on oceans >> affairs. EU delegations have pushed for language that would endorse >> the resolution from the Convention on Biological Diversity pertaining >> to ocean fertilization, and for deletion of language in last year's >> resolution that "encourage[d] States to support the further study and >> enhance understanding of ocean iron fertilization." See UN General >> Assembly resolution 62/215, available here: >> http://www.imo.org/includes/blastData.asp/doc_id=10158/INF-4-Add-1.pdf >> >> Adopted last spring with little or no advance policy work or input >> from the scientific community, the CBD's decision on ocean >> fertilization recommended that States place unreasonable restrictions >> on the research of ocean fertilization. It may be found here: >> http://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-09/cop-09-dec-16-en.pdf >> >> Immediately after the CBD resolution was published, an ad hoc >> consultative body established by the Intergovernmental Oceanographic >> Commission issued a response criticizing these restrictions and asking >> for clarification by CBD. This may be found here: >> >> http://www.ioc-unesco.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewDocumentRecord&docID=2002 >> , >> and is also reproduced below. >> >> Adoption of language endorsing the CBD's restriction on ocean >> fertilization research would lend credence to that decision even as it >> has become clear since the decision that (a) the decision was poorly >> considered as matter of science; and (b) new publications strongly >> support additional research, rather than unreasonable restrictions on >> OIF research [Boyd et al., 2007; Buesseler et al., 2008; Lampitt et >> al., 2008; Smetacek et al, 2008]. >> >> As resolution 62/215 also notes, the London Convention and London >> Protocol are the proper UN bodies charged with developing an effective >> regulatory and policy framework around ocean fertilization. The >> Convention on Biological Diversity also acknowledges the authority of >> the LC/LP on this issue, yet still makes statements that would >> unreasonable restrict research. Resolution 62/215 should remain the >> final statement on ocean fertilization policy. >> >> As this language has been referred back to national delegations, there >> is still time for modification before final adoption. >> >> ******* >> >> Statement by IOC's ad hoc Consultative Group on the CBD Resolution >> (IOC/INF – 1247): >> III. ADDENDUM (June 14, 2008): Response to the statement of the >> Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity on >> Ocean Fertilization Activities (30 May 2008) >> The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) ad hoc >> Consultative Group on Ocean Fertilization is concerned that the >> statement on ocean fertilization activities issued by the Conference >> of the Parties to the Convention on Biodiversity in Bonn on 30 May >> 2008 places unnecessary and undue restriction on legitimate scientific >> activities. >> >> The statement reads, in part, "[The Conference of the Parties of the >> Convention on Biodiversity (COP of the CBD)] … 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 research studies within >> coastal waters." >> >> The IOC ad hoc Consultative Group on Ocean Fertilization notes that: >> >> (1) The COP of the CBD recognizes "the ongoing scientific and legal >> analysis [of ocean fertilization] occurring under the auspices of the >> London Convention (1972) and the 1996 London Protocol." >> >> (2) The CBD proposes that "ocean fertilization activities do not take >> place until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify >> such activities, …with the exception of small scale scientific >> research studies within coastal waters." The restriction of >> experiments to coastal waters appears to be a new, arbitrary, and >> counterproductive limitation. The most useful ocean fertilization >> experiments to date have been performed in open ocean environments, as >> this is where marine productivity is most commonly limited by >> micronutrients. There is no scientific basis for limiting such >> experiments to coastal environments. >> >> (3) There are good scientific reasons to do larger experiments, >> including diminishing dilution near the center of the experimental >> area and obtaining better data relating to vertical transport >> processes. "Small scale" is a relative term. A circle 200 km in >> diameter would cover less than one ten-thousandth of the ocean. >> >> (4) We are concerned about the phrase in the CBD statement "global >> transparent and effective control and regulatory mechanism … for these >> activities". We assume that "these activities" refers to ocean >> fertilization activities for the purpose of introducing additional >> carbon dioxide into the ocean, as distinct from purposes such as >> legitimate scientific investigation. It would be helpful if this >> phrase were clarified to make this important distinction evident >> >> (5) Preservation of biodiversity in marine systems may require good >> scientific information from manipulative experiments in the open >> ocean. A careful science-based "assessment of associated risks" >> depends on knowledge that could be gained by further experimentation. >> >> (6) It is essential for sound and unbiased scientific advice to be >> available to intergovernmental deliberations on the issue of ocean >> fertilization both to protect the marine environment and to ensure >> that marine scientific research is not unnecessarily hindered. The IOC >> should continue to provide scientific advice to the London Convention >> Scientific Group, as well as other international or intergovernmental >> deliberations, as requested. >> >> >> Boyd, P. W., et al. (2007), Mesoscale Iron Enrichment Experiments >> 1993-2005: Synthesis and Future Directions, Science, 315(5812), >> 612-617. >> Buesseler, K. O., et al. (2008), ENVIRONMENT: Ocean Iron >> Fertilization--Moving Forward in a Sea of Uncertainty, Science, >> 319(5860), 162. >> Lampitt, R. S., et al. (2008), Ocean Fertilisation: a potential means >> of geo-engineering?, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society >> A, 366(1882), 3919-3945. >> >> > > > > -- =============================== Ken Caldeira Department of Global Ecology Carnegie Institution 260 Panama Street Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab/ *** Please don't read this line of text unless you really need to *** --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
