The Meaning of the Moratorium

CBD COP10 has adopted a moratorium on geoengineering, and many have portrayed this development as the imposition of a UN ban on all geoengineering activities. But this is not quite right. Following are core elements of the moratorium (from "Climate Change and Biodiversity (UNEP/CBD/COP/10/L.36)"):

8(w) Ensure, in line and consistent with decision IX/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 activities[1] 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;

9.9(p) Taking into account the possible need for science based global,

transparent and effective control and regulatory mechanisms, subject to the availability

of financial resources, undertake a study on gaps in such existing mechanisms for

climate-related geo-engineering relevant to the Convention on Biological Diversity,

bearing in mind that such mechanisms may not be best placed under the Convention on

Biological Diversity, for consideration by the Subsidiary Body on Scientific Technical

and Technological Advice prior to a future meeting of the Conference of the Parties and

to communicate the results to relevant organizations;

A moratorium is by definition temporary. The CBD Decision specifies that the moratorium is instituted "in the absence of science based, global, transparent and effective control and regulatory mechanisms." Given the "possible need for science based global, transparent and effective control and regulatory mechanisms," the provision then directs the convention Secretariat to "undertake a study on gaps in such existing mechanisms for climate-related geo-engineering relevant to the Convention on Biological Diversity, bearing in mind that such mechanisms may not be best placed under the Convention on Biological Diversity."

In other words, the CBD has asked governments to call a temporary halt to geoengineering activities while it explores alternative governance arrangements, arrangements the CBD acknowledges may fall outside its field of competence. This is not the same thing as a ban. Rather, this resolution has established a road map for developing international governance mechanisms to regulate (not outlaw) climate engineering techniques. Viewed in this light, the moratorium may turn out to be a hollow victory for opponents of geoengineering that, over the long run, does more to facilitate climate intervention than inhibit it.

Momentum Building for Ban at CBD

The moratorium on geoengineering activities proposed at CBD COP10 is gaining traction in informal talks at the conference. Revised text of the ban has been leaked, and there are indications that a consensus is forming in support of a prohibition.

What would a ban mean in practice? The CBD itself entails few concrete obligations other than implementing national action plans to protect biodiversity. Any moratorium would take the form of a "Decision," and the legal force of such rules is unsettled. But a formal ban on geoengineering would signal a normative shift against climate intervention. Norms matter because they frame debates, shape opinions, and inform international legal discourse. In the LOHAFEX case, opponents disrupted ocean fertilization experiments by appealing to the normative sensibilities of the German government. A more general CBD prohibition may jeopardize other types of geoengineering research.

Update on CBD COP10

Discussions have begun on a proposed moratorium on geoengineering at CBD COP10, and coalitions are starting to crystallize.

• Those in favor of a ban include: Tuvalu, the Philippines, Costa Rica, the "African Group" (representing the continent), Switzerland, the "ALBA Group" (Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas, led by Venezuela and including Bolivia), and Grenada. These countries are supported by Greenpeace, Ecosystems Climate Alliance, and ETC Group.


• Those more favorably disposed toward geoengineering include Japan and Russia, supported by the Royal Society.


• Those in the middle, expressing some combination of openness and caution, include Brazil, the EU, and Norway.

Other countries have yet to take public positions. It is notable that none of the major powers has expressed support for the moratorium. Discussions continue ...

LC/LP Agrees on Ocean Fertilization Assessment Framework

Last week, the London Convention/London Protocol (LC/LP) formally adopted an "Assessment Framework for Scientific Research Involving Ocean Fertilization." Development of this framework was set in motion by a 2008 resolution accepting the value of "legitimate scientific research" on ocean fertilization, but stipulating that "scientific research proposals should be assessed on a case-by-case basis using an assessment framework to be developed by the Scientific Groups under the London Convention and Protocol." The Assessment Framework is a stepwise evaluation tool summarized by the following LC/LP figure:

One of the more interesting issues associated with the Assessment Framework is how it will affect ongoing deliberations on geoengineering more broadly within the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), where a prohibition is currently under consideration (see "Moratorium on Geoengineering Proposed at CBD.") In 2008, parties to the CBD agreed "to ensure that ocean fertilization activities do not take place until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities" (an exception was made for research in coastal waters). The LC/LP Assessment Framework appears to fill this void. However, the CBD also requires an effective governance mechanism for ocean fertilization to proceed, and has been silent up to now on other climate intervention techniques.

More Pachauri

In a post last month ("Lomborg Shifts ... and So Does Pachauri?"), I speculated that IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri may be edging closer to the possibility of geoengineering. This was based on Pachauri's endorsement of Bjorn Lomborg's latest book, which calls for cloud brightening and other forms of intervention. Pachauri offered more evidence of an evolving position at a meeting of the IPCC in South Korea last week. In an interview with Reuters, he stated that "Geo-engineering is an area that will get clearer focus" in the next IPCC report, due in 2014. Of course the exact nature of this focus remains unclear.

Moratorium on Geoengineering Proposed at CBD

Tomorrow, the tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP10) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) opens in Nagoya, Japan, and geoengineering is on the agenda. A coalition of governments and interest groups, most notably ETC Group, are pushing for adoption of the following draft decision:

[(w) Ensure, in line and consistent with decision IX/16 C, on ocean fertilization and biodiversity and climate change, and in accordance with the precautionary approach, that no climate-related geo- engineering activities 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;]

Adopting this decision would effectively place a moratorium on geoengineering within the context of the CBD. Such a ban would be important in terms of symbolism, precedent, and global norms, but its practical effects would be unclear, as the convention is largely aspirational and lacks significant international obligations or commitments. The text was bracketed by Canadian diplomats, signaling a lack of consensus on its proposal to COP10. Despite this objection, a prohibition on geoengineering will be considered by delegates during the two-week conference. It will be very instructional to watch which positions national governments take on this issue, and to attempt to deduce their motives.