Is there a link to current language at the General Assembly? The link below is an LC/LP reference to last year's UNGA language.
Thanks! Marian On Oct 3, 9:47 am, Dan Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
