Jim, You are clearly against the idea of OIF, duly noted. Can we move along now?
This is a simple FYI. It is happening right now. I think people should know. We tried to keep it factual and to the point. I understand that you disagree on the level of scientific background work done by the SBSTTA. Yes, I did not cut and paste the entire IOC document here, but having reread what I posted I see nothing to amend. And, frankly none of what is happening at the UN has to do with commercialization. There is a real move to restrict even simple research-- a point of view that you seem to resonate with. Dan On Oct 2, 10:28 pm, "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=viewDocumentRe... > > , > > 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 > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
