Dear Anna-Maria, I generally agree with your perspective here. Time will tell whether you are too optimistic.
To clarify: I wrote that Para 5 of the 2013 CDB COP decision does not include, and thus does not endorse (or whatever one’s preferred word is) research into delivery systems and similar hardware. This does not imply that such research is somehow banned or particularly constrained in any way by the CBD COP decisions, provided that the activities are not expected to (significantly adversely?) affect biodiversity. I suspect that most engineering (narrowly defined) research would have little impact on biodiversity, although that might not be so in each and every case. My intention in bringing that up was to highlight that Para 5 is not an endorsement of all geoengineering research, but instead of only some geoengineering research. Cheers, -Jesse Jesse Reynolds Postdoctoral researcher, and Research funding coordinator, sustainability and climate Department of European and International Public Law, Tilburg Law School Tilburg University E-mail j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl<mailto:j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl> Web http://jessereynolds.org/ Tel +31 (0) 13 466 2030 My latest publication: “Five solar geoengineering tropes that have outstayed their welcome<http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000416/full>” in Earth’s Future From: Anna-Maria Hubert [mailto:annamaria.hub...@ucalgary.ca] Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2016 16:59 To: j...@etcgroup.org; macma...@cds.caltech.edu; J.L. Reynolds <j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl> Cc: 'geoengineering' <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: [geo] "UN Convention still says “No” to manipulating the climate" Hello Doug and Jesse and others, A few additional thoughts on your last points, Doug and Jesse. I think the point of the recent CBD COP decision, which essentially adopts last year's SBSTTA recommendation, is not that narrowly focused engineering experiments which do not inform impacts on biodiversity are not permitted under the new decision. (Quoting Jessie, which in my opinion presses the point too far: "That does not include, as Doug noted, research into delivery systems and similar hardware.") Strictly implemented, this approach would lead to an absurd result because such engineering research is necessary to determine the feasibility of some techniques. Furthermore, the lack of express definitions and the fungibility of terminology means that such experiments could be simply be re-characterised narrowly as engineering experiments or advanced by proponents for meeting some other purpose. On the other hand, the outcome of the SPICE experiment suggests that even pure engineering experiments raise societal concerns. I think it is better to think about the spirit of these CBD decisions, inter alia, and the implications for research going forward. For me, the challenging question that emerges from the conversation on this thread is how can paragraph 5 (and the rest of the recent CBD decision) be fully implemented in good faith to inform societal decision-making on the risks and benefits of geoengineering and particular techniques. I think that it is worthwhile for scientists and experimental proponents to engage in this enquiry, even from a self-interested perspective, because there is the real threat of a backlash given that geoengineering research can be controversial. This requires creative thinking on the part of everyone involved in geoengineering research to develop robust but pragmatic approaches to conducting research in this area through all phases of an individual project and at a higher programatic level (which engages institutions and funding bodies). Experimental design will be important for supporting an adaptive management approach. E.g., in some cases, post-project monitoring to assess the impact of the intervention on the ecosystem will be important to understanding the impacts on biodiversity. It would also be important to close this loop by reporting and publishing experimental results in a timely way (so that everyone has access) and feeding this information back into future decision-making on other experimental proposals. Perhaps it makes sense to develop interdisciplinary advisory bodies for certain experiments to provide advice on the non-technical aspects of research design, ethics boards or public engagement processes in good faith. Such approaches require diligence and time and perhaps additional funds (e.g., monitoring in some cases where it makes sense could be costly). Transdisciplinary research at a programmatic level makes sense because we are trying to understand the full spectrum of risks and benefits of geoengineering, specifically particular techniques, including social, political, ethical and legal implications, global equity issues (including information sharing and tech transfer) etc. As Paul Crutzen pointed out in his 2002 Geology of Mankind article in Nature, we are standing on terra incognita here. The act of moving ahead to understand the implications (good and bad) of large-scale interventions in nature is itself a grand experiment and an exercise in trust-building and societal cooperation. On this basis, my own personal view is that thoughtful and reflexive approach to moving ahead with research is necessary bearing in mind the bigger picture objectives and their role and expertise/contribution to knowledge production. Scientific research and technological innovation will need to develop alongside governance/regulatory arrangements alongside the larger societal conversation about whether and how geoengineering should be pressed. This entails a messy somewhat slow, at times, loose process and guidance that will develop over time. It requires earnest cooperation and coordination between all types of researchers in the field, decision-makers at all levels and broad public engagement. Perhaps this is overly optimistic but it seems to me that we are at the stage of setting the trajectory of how this research field will develop and this demands an earnest conversation about first principles. Best, Anna-Maria Anna-Maria Hubert Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Calgary Associate Fellow, Institute for Science, Innovation and Society (InSIS), University of Oxford MFH 4317, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB Canada T2N 1N4 T: 403.220.8762<tel:403.220.8762> | M: 587.586.3045<tel:587.586.3045> annamaria.hub...@ucalgary.ca<https://mail.ucalgary.ca/owa/14.3.266.1/scripts/premium/redir.aspx?SURL=JkKyJFCGUmOHPwnojHKF8mM2XVqQBlfBA_O8D5z0lPrEMxg9MX_TCG0AYQBpAGwAdABvADoAYQBuAG4AYQBtAGEAcgBpAGEALgBoAHUAYgBlAHIAdABAAHUAYwBhAGwAZwBhAHIAeQAuAGMAYQA.&URL=mailto%3aannamaria.hubert%40ucalgary.ca> www.law.ucalgary.ca<http://www.law.ucalgary.ca/> | www.insis.ox.ac.uk/people/associate-fellows/anna-maria-hubert<http://www.insis.ox.ac.uk/people/associate-fellows/anna-maria-hubert> ________________________________ From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> <geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> on behalf of J.L. Reynolds <j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl<mailto:j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl>> Sent: December 17, 2016 5:03:45 AM To: Anna-Maria Hubert; j...@etcgroup.org<mailto:j...@etcgroup.org>; macma...@cds.caltech.edu<mailto:macma...@cds.caltech.edu> Cc: 'geoengineering' Subject: RE: [geo] "UN Convention still says “No” to manipulating the climate" Dear Anna-Maria and others, Regarding the CBD COP decision of this month, the words “significant”, “endorsement”, and “research” call for some clarification. The first two words were my own choosing, and as Anna-Maria said, are not legal terms of art. What is “significant” about the decision is fully subjective; I personally found this additional call for research to be significant, in part because it goes further than the 2012 COP decision that “Invite[d] Parties to address the gaps identified in paragraph 7 and to report on measures undertaken”. Whether it is an “endorsement” is also open to some interpretation. The decision indeed does not create obligations for states, in part because it is a COP decision, not a treaty; nor does it call for financial support. However, it does say that “more transdisciplinary research … is needed,” which strikes me as an endorsement. This is further supported by the recent report (Update on Climate Geoengineering in Relation to the Convention on Biological Diversity<https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-84-en.pdf> [PDF]) from the CBD which informed this decision, which states e.g. “Further research, with appropriate safeguards, could help to reduce some of these knowledge gaps and uncertainties” and “The need for further research on CDR techniques has been strongly argued in recent reports, and, more cautiously, for SRM techniques.” “Research” is stated but not defined. I did not mean to imply that the statement includes all geoengineering research activities, or that it treats all research activities equally. The passage speaks of “the impacts of climate-related geoengineering on biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, socio-economic, cultural and ethical issues and regulatory options.” That includes what Anna-Maria and I do when we read, write and publish articles, give talks, etc. on the current and potential regulation of geoengineering. That includes the modeling of possible effects of various SRM and CDR methods on greenhouse gas concentrations, climate, and ecosystems under various scenarios of reducing incoming solar radiation or sequestering carbon. (For example, see the list of references in the recent article “Key impacts of climate engineering on biodiversity and ecosystems<http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1943815X.2016.1159578>, with priorities for future research”. That statement includes most of those studies.) That would include many outdoor experiments. That does not include, as Doug noted, research into delivery systems and similar hardware. There is therefore quite some geoengineering research occurring, and not just in the five countries (Estonia, UK, France, Canada, Bolivia) that have submitted their information pursuant to decision X/33. For example, there is quite some research in Germany and the US (although the latter is not a party to the CBD). Whether this research is of a “limited” scale, as Anna-Maria said, is a personal judgment. The decision this month reaffirmed decision X/33 from 2010, which is copied below. That decision applies only to “climate-related geo-engineering activities that may affect biodiversity,” which would include only outdoor activities above a certain temporal scale, spatial scale, and magnitude of intervention in natural systems. The 2010 decision is to be understood in accordance with CBD Article 14, which speaks of minimizing “proposed projects that are likely to have significant adverse effects on biological diversity.” One could thus interpret 2010 CBD COP decision X/33 as being further limited to climate-related geo-engineering activities that may significantly adversely affect biodiversity, although I am agnostic on this point. Finally, regarding how I characterized the 2010 decision X/33 as “a statement of caution regarding geoengineering,” my intention was to use just five words to jog people’s memory. Such simplification naturally skips some details. Reading the text, one can see that the parties invite countries to consider ensure that geoengineering of a certain scale not take place unless certain conditions are met (e.g. adequate scientific basis, appropriate consideration of the associated risks and impacts). Although others might use different phrases, I disagree with Jim’s characterization of my use of “a statement of caution regarding geoengineering” as “misleading.” In fact, one term that I reject regarding the 2010 decision is “moratorium,” (i.e. a temporary ban) for several reasons. First, as noted, the language merely asks countries to consider the guidance. Second, the COP’s decisions are not legally binding. Third, a report from the CBD<https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-66-en.pdf> [PDF] (and other CBD documents) called the decision a “non-binding normative framework.” For more on the absence of a moratorium, see my recent co-authored “Five solar geoengineering tropes that have outstayed their welcome<http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000416/full>” in Earth’s Future. A pleasant weekend to all, Jesse The Conference of the Parties… Invites Parties and other Governments... to consider the guidance below… Ensure… 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 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; Jesse Reynolds Postdoctoral researcher, and Research funding coordinator, sustainability and climate Department of European and International Public Law, Tilburg Law School Tilburg University E-mail j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl<mailto:j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl> Web http://jessereynolds.org/ Tel +31 (0) 13 466 2030 My latest publication: “Five solar geoengineering tropes that have outstayed their welcome<http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000416/full>” in Earth’s Future ________________________________ From: Anna-Maria Hubert [annamaria.hub...@ucalgary.ca] Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2016 8:15 To: j...@etcgroup.org<mailto:j...@etcgroup.org>; J.L. Reynolds; macma...@cds.caltech.edu<mailto:macma...@cds.caltech.edu> Cc: 'geoengineering' Subject: Re: [geo] "UN Convention still says “No” to manipulating the climate" Hi Doug and others, I think the original difference of opinion was over Jesse's statement in a previous e-mail that "the most significant aspect of this is an endorsement of geoengineering research. The full text is below, with the research endorsement bolded." The point was simply that it is difficult to see how this recent CBD decision provides an endorsement based on the plain meaning of the word "endorsement" which refers to "the act of declaring one's approval or support." Endorsement isn't a legal term of art, but there are many examples of provisions in international treaties that call for the promotion of scientific research (e.g., see Art 12(b) of the CBD) to advance the objectives of the agreement, generally, or for specific purposes. Such obligations can be read as positive obligations to act to support and actively encourage (including through financial support) scientific research. The language of this decision is much more attenuated, qualified and precautionary. Such language can also be read against the backdrop that any kind of restrictions on research in international law are relatively rare. Second, looking to past state practice in this area, it is difficult to argue that there is any evidence that countries endorse/support/approve of geoengineering research, in particular, field experiments. Paragraph 5 of the recent CBD COP decision "[n]otes that very few Parties responded to the invitation to provide information on measures they have undertaken in accordance with decision X/33, paragraph 8(w), and further invites other Parties, where relevant, to provide such information." Only five States Parties to the CBD have responded to the call for information to date (https://www.cbd.int/climate/geoengineering/). This could be because States Parties are failing to report back, but also more likely because there is limited geoengineering research taking place. Returning back to the original difference of opinion, the recent COP decision also doesn't seem terribly "significant" in the sense that it reaffirms past decisions, and, though I didn't attend the recent COP, my understanding is that it was adopted without much, if any, discussion. You make a good point though that the phrase "better understanding of impacts on biodiversity" is very broad, and that, in practice, probably many of the currently proposed field experiments may contribute to this objective. I defer to your expertise as a scientist on this point. However, in principle and maybe in practice, one can think of examples of experimental designs that fall short of this objective. Moreover, the paragraph may also be directed more broadly at a programmatic/research agenda level (not individual experiments) arguing for a well rounded scientific research agenda in the area that does not solely focus on scientific and technical aspects, but also takes into account socio-political, legal and cultural and other considerations. Given that geoeangienring is so controversial, this appears to be a sound policy. CBD decisions are legally non-binding. The language of CBD Decision X/33(8)(w) and subsequent decisions is notoriously ambiguous and vague. One could argue endlessly about what particular terms like "small-scale" and "controlled-setting" mean. Though it is a very narrow interpretation to say that CBD decision X/33, para 8(w) constitutes a de facto prohibition on outdoor experimentation. Turning to Ron's biochar point about biochar and definitional issues. None of the CBD decisions provide a clear definition of the term "climate-related geoengineering" though decision XI/20, para 5 states: 5.Aware of existing definitions and understandings, including those in annex I to document UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/16/INF/28<http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-16/information/sbstta-16-inf-28-en.pdf>, and ongoing work in other forums, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, notes, without prejudice to future deliberations on the definition of geoengineering activities, that climate-related geoengineering may include: (a)Any technologies that deliberately reduce solar insolation or increase carbon sequestration from the atmosphere on a large scale and that may affect biodiversity (excluding carbon capture and storage from fossil fuels when it captures carbon dioxide before it is released into the atmosphere) (decision X/33<http://www.cbd.int/decisions/?m=cop-10&n=33> of the Conference of the Parties); (b) Deliberate intervention in the planetary environment of a nature and scale intended to counteract anthropogenic climate change and/or its impacts (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/16/10<http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-16/official/sbstta-16-10-en.pdf>); 35<https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/default.shtml?id=13181#cop-11-dec-fn36> (c)Deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment (32nd session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change); (d)Technological efforts to stabilize the climate system by direct intervention in the energy balance of the Earth for reducing global warming (Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change); 36<https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/default.shtml?id=13181#cop-11-dec-fn36> The lack of a definition of the very subject matter being addressed may be vexing in the sense that it provides no real guidance or certainty to scientists and others who wish to crack on with experiments or that to a certain extent activities which fall within some understandings of the meaning of the term geoengineering are taking place but not within the parameters set by the CBD. On the other hand, this is a very new research field, and the definition of geoengineering remain contentious and are likely to evolve over time. It may make sense to leave the term undefined for the moment to avoid getting locked into a term that is not fit for purpose down the road. Again, CBD decisions are legally non-binding. The advantage of this approach is flexibility/adaptability. Best wishes, Anna-Maria Anna-Maria Hubert Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Calgary Associate Fellow, Institute for Science, Innovation and Society (InSIS), University of Oxford MFH 4317, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB Canada T2N 1N4 T: 403.220.8762<tel:403.220.8762> | M: 587.586.3045<tel:587.586.3045> annamaria.hub...@ucalgary.ca<https://mail.ucalgary.ca/owa/14.3.266.1/scripts/premium/redir.aspx?SURL=JkKyJFCGUmOHPwnojHKF8mM2XVqQBlfBA_O8D5z0lPrEMxg9MX_TCG0AYQBpAGwAdABvADoAYQBuAG4AYQBtAGEAcgBpAGEALgBoAHUAYgBlAHIAdABAAHUAYwBhAGwAZwBhAHIAeQAuAGMAYQA.&URL=mailto%3aannamaria.hubert%40ucalgary.ca> www.law.ucalgary.ca<http://www.law.ucalgary.ca/> | www.insis.ox.ac.uk/people/associate-fellows/anna-maria-hubert<http://www.insis.ox.ac.uk/people/associate-fellows/anna-maria-hubert> ________________________________ From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> <geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> on behalf of Douglas MacMartin <macma...@cds.caltech.edu<mailto:macma...@cds.caltech.edu>> Sent: December 16, 2016 4:41:48 PM To: j...@etcgroup.org<mailto:j...@etcgroup.org>; j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl<mailto:j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl> Cc: 'geoengineering' Subject: RE: [geo] "UN Convention still says “No” to manipulating the climate" Agree that it isn’t a blanket endorsement, but I’m not sure what disagreement there is; the only geoengineering research that doesn’t help understand biodiversity impacts would be research into the hardware needed for deployment. Everything else that I can think of would ultimately be needed to assess biodiversity impacts. Insofar as “controlled setting” is rather ambiguous, and it explicitly does carve out an exception for “small scale”, seems rather clear to me that there would be some outside experimentation that is permitted, it just isn’t clear from language alone what scale that is. Given that the only SRM experiments I know of that are actually been seriously contemplated are indeed quite small scale and thus at least potentially (probably?) permitted, it seems a bit disingenuous to argue that it is a “moratorium on outside experimentation” and only use parentheses to clarify that you don’t actually mean that it is a moratorium on all outside experimentation but only on some of them. d From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of jim Thomas Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 8:44 AM To: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl<mailto:j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl> Cc: geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> Subject: [geo] "UN Convention still says “No” to manipulating the climate" Hi Jesse As Anna-Maria and Maggie affirm, it would be perverse to read that paragraph as some sort of endorsement of geoengineering ‘research’ in which the term ‘research’ is being treated as a synonym for experimentation. It is also a bit misleading to present the COP decision of 2010 as just ‘a statement of caution’ as you do below. In fact it was a global de facto moratorium on outside experimentation (beyond a “controlled setting”) - so it went beyond mere caution to common agreement on limits. X/33 (w) asked parties to “Ensure, in line and consistent with decision IX/16<http://www.cbd.int/decisions/?m=cop-09&n=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 activities76<https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=12299#cop-10-dec-33-fn76>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;” The discussion from Cancun is re-affirmation of that existing de-facto moratorium and that is important to bear in mind , especially in view of current discussions under UNFCCC on how to keep warming under 1.5 degrees. Reviewing the IPCC AR5 report was the trigger for this further discussion under CBD of climate geoengineering and The clear message from governments is that even after reviewing AR5 they maintain a continued NO to geoengineering experimentation. Please find below ETC Group’s comment on the matter. Best Jim Jim Thomas Programme Director, ETC Group (Montreal) j News Release 15 December 2016 UN Convention still says “No” to manipulating the climate UN Convention on Biological Diversity reaffirms its moratorium on climate-related geoengineering CANCUN, MEXICO – The UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which gathered at its 13th Conference of the Parties (COP 13) in Mexico from December 4-17, decided to reaffirm its landmark moratorium<https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-13/in-session/cop-13-l-04-en.pdf> on climate-related geoengineering that it first agreed to in 2010. Geoengineering refers to a set of proposed techniques that would intervene in and alter earth systems on a large scale – recently, these proposals have been gaining traction as a “technofix” solution to climate change. Examples include solar radiation management techniques such as blasting sulphate particles into the atmosphere as well as other earth systems interventions grouped under a second broad umbrella of ‘carbon dioxide removal.’ The reaffirmation of the CBD moratorium is even more relevant in the light of the Paris Agreement on climate change, in which governments agreed to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees. Geoengineers quickly interpreted the Paris Agreement as allowing or encouraging geoengineering to meet that ambitious goal. “The decision to reaffirm the global moratorium on geoengineering is an important message for those who are now promoting it as shortcut to achieve the Paris Agreement goals. Geoengineering schemes will impact the global commons and will have transboundary impacts that could be worse than climate change,” said Silvia Ribeiro, Latin America Director of ETC Group. “The CBD made a landmark decision on 2010 to halt the deployment of geoengineering because of its potential widespread negative impacts on people and biodiversity, and that decision holds firm.” “Climate change and biodiversity erosion are both acute interrelated global problems that demand urgent attention and action,” said Neth Daño, Asia Director of ETC Group. “However, climate geoengineering proposals are a set of unproven techno-fixes that do not address the root causes of either climate change or biodiversity loss, and could deviate attention and resources from real, affordable, safe, and globally much more fair alternatives.” The CBD decision noted also that the potential impacts of geoengineering on biodiversity and ecosystem functions, as well as on socio-economic and cultural/ethical issues have not been studied. This is one of the main conclusions in the updated report<https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-84-en.pdf> on the impacts on geoengineering on biodiversity that was organized by the CBD. “Taking the precautionary approach is the least the UN can do,” said Silvia Ribeiro. In a 2016 article in Nature, Phil Williamson, the coordinator of that report, highlighted that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which released the largest climate change report to date in 2014, “[…] leaves out one crucial consideration: the environmental impacts of large-scale CO2 removal. This omission is striking because the set of IPCC emissions scenarios that are likely to limit the increase in global surface temperature to 2C by 2100 […] mostly relies on large-scale CO2 removal.” Specifically, the IPCC did not look at the environmental or biodiversity impacts of their favoured technique: BECCS (bioenergy with carbon capture and storage) or of other so called “negative emissions” technologies. Furthermore, recent scientific studies also show that these proposals are not technically or economically viable, but would imply large impacts on biodiversity and traditional livelihoods. “The reaffirmation of the CBD moratorium on geoengineering, taken by consensus of 196 governments, is a wake-up call for the governments considering these dangerous proposals” said Jim Thomas, Programme Director at ETC Group. "It was a mature decision not only to protect biodiversity, but also to prevent the few and powerful actors that want geoengineering from taking control of the global thermostat.” The decision also emphasised that indigenous peoples and local communities’ knowledge must be taken into account. “There are plenty of proven viable, sustainable, culturally and economically viable solutions to stop both the erosion of biodiversity and climate change, such as peasant agriculture, that need attention and support instead of high-tech, high-risk false solutions such as geoengineering” said Silvia Ribeiro. Geoengineering has been a topic of discussion in the CBD for almost a decade and in 2008, the CBD issued a moratorium on ocean fertilization. Therefore, the geoengineering decision in COP 13 was preceded by longer debates in the CBD’s subsidiary scientific body (SBSTTA) and previous COPs creating high level of agreement, and as such was not a hotly debated topic in Cancun. ### Note to editors: The full decision of the CBD can be found here: https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-13/in-session/cop-13-l-04-en.pdf An eight-page briefing on geoengineering and the CBD can be found here: http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/files/final_geoengineering_brief_cop_13_web.pdf Expert Contacts: Silvia Ribeiro: +52 1 55 2653 3330, sil...@etcgroup.org<mailto:sil...@etcgroup.org> Neth Dano: +63 917 532 9369, n...@etcgroup.org<mailto:n...@etcgroup.org> Jim Thomas: +1 (514) 516-5759, j...@etcgroup.org<mailto:j...@etcgroup.org> Communications Contact: Trudi Zundel: +1 (226) 979-0993, tr...@etcgroup.org<mailto:tr...@etcgroup.org> Williamson, Phil. "Emissions reduction: Scrutinize CO2 removal methods." Nature. 530, no. 7589 (2016): 153. http://www.nature.com/news/emissions-reduction-scrutinize-co2-removal-methods-1.19318 Kevin Anderson and Glen Peters, “The trouble with negative emissions.” Science, October 2016. Almuth Ernsting and Oliver Munnion, “Last Ditch Climate Option or Wishful Thinking? Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage.” Biofuelwatch report, November 2015. http://www.wri.org/publication/avoiding-bioenergy-competition-food-crops-and-land Tim Searchinger and Ralph Heimlich, “Avoiding Bioenergy Competition for Food Crops and Land.” January 2015. Creating a Sustainable Food Future, Installment Nine. http://www.nature.com/news/emissions-reduction-scrutinize-co2-removal-methods-1.19318 On Dec 15, 2016, at 3:47 AM, J.L. Reynolds <j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl<mailto:j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl>> wrote: You may recall that in 2010 the Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity agreed to a statement of caution regarding geoengineering. This week, the Parties – which meet every two years – reaffirmed that decision, and agreed to some additional text. To me, the most significant aspect of this is an endorsement of geoengineering research. The full text is below, with the research endorsement bolded, and at https://www.cbd.int/…/…/cop-13/in-session/cop-13-l-04-en.pdf<https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbd.int%2Fdoc%2Fmeetings%2Fcop%2Fcop-13%2Fin-session%2Fcop-13-l-04-en.pdf&h=3AQEOt7LHAQF4OIMrF1FKuPPopFdvDM2FL94lrEe2U0jyFQ&enc=AZP0NdKr4ksU2UizEU2XWRRSrif8n9JenIOxsr0K-iU_TGHL_hwbMSV4d4KFYJBk-KLUqjKghaKtuXHBtL8cyzaqJL6EjWFhaY00I75iDx4uDeCYZPFOolORfZLfAHVEZ4Na6YeeY1abn89GYX98bopO4HojDqlh0VDcrwDFg7QaZILkzm_OBa9JLPwN05_JI5w&s=1> -Jesse The Conference of the Parties 1. Reaffirms paragraph 8, in particular its subparagraph (w), of decision X/33, and decision XI/20; 2. Recalls paragraph 11 of decision XI/20, in which the Conference of the Parties noted that the application of the precautionary approach as well as customary international law, including the general obligations of States with regard to activities within their jurisdiction or control and with regard to possible consequences of those activities, and requirements with regard to environmental impact assessment, may be relevant for geoengineering activities but would still form an incomplete basis for global regulation; 3. Recalling paragraph 4 of decision XI/20, in which the Conference of the Parties emphasized that climate change should primarily be addressed by reducing anthropogenic emissions by sources and by increasing removals by sinks of greenhouse gases under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, noting also the relevance of the Convention on Biological Diversity and other instruments, and also recalling paragraphs 8 (j)-(t) of decision X/33, and paragraph 5 of decision XII/20, reaffirms its encouragement to Parties to promote the use of ecosystem-based approaches to climate change adaptation and mitigation; 4. Notes that very few Parties responded to the invitation to provide information on measures they have undertaken in accordance with decision X/33, paragraph 8(w), and further invites other Parties, where relevant, to provide such information; 5. Also notes that more transdisciplinary research and sharing of knowledge among appropriate institutions is needed in order to better understand the impacts of climate-related geoengineering on biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, socio-economic, cultural and ethical issues and regulatory options; 6. Recognizes the importance of taking into account sciences for life and the knowledge, experience and perspectives of indigenous peoples and local communities when addressing climate-related geoengineering and protecting biodiversity Jesse Reynolds Postdoctoral researcher, and Research funding coordinator, sustainability and climate Department of European and International Public Law, Tilburg Law School Tilburg University E-mail j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl<mailto:j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl> Web http://jessereynolds.org/ Tel +31 (0) 13 466 2030 My latest publication: “Five solar geoengineering tropes that have outstayed their welcome<http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000416/full>” in Earth’s Future -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
