Paper on CBD COP10 decision

[Masa Sugiyama]

Dear all,

We just finished our new discussion paper on CBD COP10 geoengineeering
decision. You can download it from here.
<http://criepi.denken.or.jp/en/serc/research_re/10013.html>
(Excuse me for a duplicate posting, but as far as I remember, the
membership
differs between geoengineering and climate intervention google
groups.
Correct me if I'm wrong.)

Comparing the decision with LC/LP decisions and other resolutions at
CBD shows that the language was quite weak (i.e., no-binding
guidance) from the outset, and got weaker when adopted. The final
language discourages deployment, while allowing for scientific
research that satisfy conditions (to be clarified yet). It turned
out to be a reasonable outcome, we believe, but the negotiation
process was not well informed and was precarious. Inputs from
scientific bodies like IPCC are vitally needed.

Any comments are welcome.

Best,
Masa Sugiyama


Interpretation of CBD COP10 decision on geoengineering
Masahiro Sugiyama and Taishi Sugiyama
SERC Discussion Paper 10013
Date : 2010

ABSTRACT
The delegates at the tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties
(COP10) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) discussed
geoengineering, the "deliberate large-scale manipulation of the
planetary environment to counteract anthropogenic climate change," in
addition to main topics such as biodiversity conservation targets and
access and benefit-sharing of genetic resources.
The draft decision contained a language to preclude geoengineering
including its research, although it was a non-binding guidance. The
agreed decision added numerous qualifiers and is complicated. It
requests countries that "no climate-related geo-engineering activities
that may affect biodiversity take place," in the absence of proper
scientific knowledge and governance, while allowing for "small scale
scientific research studies --- in a controlled setting." The decision
also gives a tentative definition of geoengineering.
Climate geoengineering is intended to counteract global warming by
either reflecting sunlight or removing carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere. Although it is not an alternative to emissions reductions,
scientists are paying increasing attention to this set of techniques
because the slow progress of emissions reduction might lead to a
possibility of "dangerous" climate change.
At the COP10 in Nagoya, the delegates were not well informed about
geoengineering, and negotiations were conducted in haste without
proper scientific consideration.
The following two points are particularly important with regard to
the science of geoengineering: (1) There are two categories of
geoengineering: solar radiation management (SRM) and carbon dioxide
removal (CDR). The science and ecological impact vastly differ between
the technologies, and it is difficult to impose a uniform regulation
on geoengineering; (2) Owing to large uncertainties in the science of
climate change, even a very stringent emissions reduction does not
eliminate the risk of "dangerous" climate change. Emissions reductions
would be too slow to counter it because of the inertia of the climate
system. A blanket ban, as originally conceived, would not have been a
wise option if one admitted a scenario of "dangerous" climate change.
Viewed in this light, the agreed decision is a reasonable outcome,
though the negotiation process was precarious.
Geoengineering is likely to emerge as a crucial topic for
environmental negotiations in the future. The Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change is convening an expert meeting in June 2011. More
efforts like this are necessary to better inform policymakers and
citizens.


--
Masahiro Sugiyama
Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry
Socio-Economic Research Center
2-11-1 Iwadokita, Komae-shi, Tokyo 201-8511 Japan
s-m...@criepi.denken.or.jp
+81-3-3480-2111

[M V Bhaskar]

Dear Dr Sugiyama

Thank you.

A few comments on the report.

On Pg 5 Table 1 -
Proposed methods - Fertilize the oceans with iron to enhance
photosynthesis, which drawsdown atmospheric CO2 (ocean fertilization).

Why restrict the issue to only iron?

A better wording would have been -

Oceans naturally sequester large amounts of CO2, methods to enhance
and supplement this natural sequestration.

Page 10

1. States are asked to ensure that no geoengineering activities that
may affect biodiversity take place.

It would have been good to add the work 'adversely' before affect.

Geoengineering that may benefit biodiversity is also possible.

Human intervention does not always have a negative impact on nature,
it may sometimes be beneficial.
I know that this is against the experience of the past 250 years and
is now difficult to believe.

Geoengineering is being interpreted as people vs nature.
This need not be so, it can well be people and nature living in
harmony.

best regards

Bhaskar

[Josh Horton]

Good discussion of the Decision. You note that "The most precarious
part of the negotiation was that parties were not well informed of the
science of geoengineering" (p. 13). Agreed, the ignorance on display
was remarkable, although not all that surprising given the continuing
influence of climate deniers. The Royal Society was on hand, but
misleading and ridiculous claims by opponents of geoengineering
received the most attention. However, I think ETC Group and others
have experienced some blowback since the meeting.

Josh Horton

> > +81-3-3480-2111- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Chris]

Masahiro,

Just a couple of comments on paragraph 3 on page 7 of your paper:

1. The London Convention and Protocol (LC/LP) were engaged from 2007
in discussions on ocean fertilization. The report that I wrote in the
Geoengineering Quarterly provides a full description of the LC/LP
activities in this area and can be found at:
http://www.oxfordgeoengineering.org/pdfs/geoengineering_quarterly_first_edition.pdf.

2. The LC/LP meeting held in October 201- did more than just agree the
assessment framework for Ocean Fertilization. There was also an
extensive discussion about legal options for regulation and an
agreement for an intersessional working group to study a limited
number of these options in 2011. The report of the meeting can be
found through the IMODOCS website that does now have public access to
a large part of it. Go to http://docs.imo.org/. You will have to
register to gain access. After that click on the Meetings tab, then
select LC Documents near to the bottom left of the screen and if you
scroll to the bottom of the page you will find document LC 32/15 that
is the Meeting Report. Section 4 in the meeting report plus Annex 7
cover the ocean fertilisation issue.

Best wishes

Chris Vivian
Chairman Scientific Groups of the London Convention and Protocol

[Masa Sugiyama]

Hello Vivian,

Thank you very much for your comments. I will surely correct our
paper
to include the two points you mentioned in the next round of the
revision.

Best,
Masa Sugiyama

On Dec 13, 8:47 pm, Chris <Chris.Viv...@cefas.co.uk> wrote:
> Masahiro,
>
> Just a couple of comments on paragraph 3 on page 7 of your paper:
>
> 1.  The London Convention and Protocol (LC/LP) were engaged from 2007
> in discussions on ocean fertilization. The report that I wrote in the
> Geoengineering Quarterly provides a full description of the LC/LP

> activities in this area and can be found at:http://www.oxfordgeoengineering.org/pdfs/geoengineering_quarterly_fir....

>
> 2. The LC/LP meeting held in October 201- did more than just agree the
> assessment framework for Ocean Fertilization. There was also an
> extensive discussion about legal options for regulation and an
> agreement for an intersessional working group to study a limited
> number of these options in 2011. The report of the meeting can be
> found through the IMODOCS website that does now have public access to

> a large part of it. Go tohttp://docs.imo.org/. You will have to