No to climate geoengineering!
Open call to CBD Parties and CBD Secretariat
CBD COP15 needs to reinforce precaution against geoengineering to protect biodiversity and communities
CBD Conference of the Parties (COP)
*************
The CBD took a groundbreaking decision by addressing geoengineering and its potential impacts on biodiversity and people early on. In a laudable example of foresight and precaution, the CBD has taken highly relevant global consensus decisions on geoengineering at several COP and SBSTTA meetings since 2008.[1] To underpin these decisions, it has produced broadly peer reviewed technical scientific reports on ocean fertilization,(TS 45) and on the potential impacts of geoengineering on biodiversity and related regulatory matters (TS 66).
By consensus of all Parties and based on the precautionary approach, COP10 (decision X/33 (w), called for a moratorium on the deployment of geoengineering activities until a set of conditions were met, including that a transparent multilateral global governance mechanism is in place, that no transboundary harm would occur and that there is an adequate scientific basis to justify these proposals, taking into account the risk geoengineering activities pose to biodiversity and related social and cultural impacts.[2] The decision made an exception for small scale scientific research studies in controlled settings for the purposes of gathering scientific data and only after a thorough prior assessment of the potential impacts on the environment.
None of the conditions expressed in the CBD decisions are in place. The precautionary calls from CBD are as important as ever and even more relevant in light of a growing number of risky geoengineering proposals and attempted / ongoing field experiments that threaten the environment, biodiversity and the rights, territories and livelihoods of Indigenous peoples and local communities.
Furthermore, prior to the recent UNFCCC COP27, members of the Supervisory Body of the Article 6.4 mechanism, who are tasked with developing the rules to govern a new carbon market regime under the Paris Agreement, put forward recommendations on removals that included large scale land and marine based geoengineering technologies as sources of carbon credits or offsets. These recommendations were not adopted but sent back to the Body for further discussions. If adopted, they would create a commercial base for a race to develop these risky proposals.[3]
The London Convention/London Protocol against ocean dumping established a precautionary governance framework for marine geoengineering in 2013, and placed ocean fertilization into an annex of marine technologies that should not be deployed. The LC now decided to look into several additional marine geoengineering technologies due to potential “adverse impacts on the marine environment” (enhancing ocean alkalinity, the use of biomass for carbon sequestration such as macroalgae cultivation and artificial upwelling, and solar geoengineering techniques such as marine cloud brightening and deploying microbubbles/reflective particles/materials),It also reaffirmed that past LC/LP resolutions on ocean fertilization and on marine geoengineering more broadly apply to all LC Contracting Parties.[4] In its geoengineering decisions, CBD COPs clearly stated that the work of the London Convention/London Protocol should be acknowledged.[5]
This year a group of over 370 scientists from 54 countries issued a call demanding a “Solar Geoengineering Non-Use Agreement” stating “Solar geoengineering deployment at planetary scale cannot be fairly and effectively governed in the current system of international institutions. It also poses unacceptable risk if ever implemented as part of future climate policy. A strong political message from governments, the United Nations and civil society is urgently needed”
Why CBD needs to reinforce precaution and monitoring
Below are some examples of recent geoengineering activities.
Some CBD parties like Australia and the UK have conducted open-air solar and marine geoengineering experiments. They have not reported these experiments to the London Convention /London Protocol, or any other UN body that has made precautionary calls against marine geoengineering deployment. Some experiments were conducted in the ocean near Australia, and others were announced for the Arabian Sea, Hawaii, and India, among other locations.[6]
A solar geoengineering field experiment (to test technical equipment) was announced in 2021 by Harvard University in Kiruna, Sweden, but suspended following Indigenous and civil society protests led by the Saami Council.[7]
The US-based Artic Ice Project (former Ice911) conducted solar geoengineering experiments over Indigenous territories in Alaska, and plan to expand their work in Alaska to include experiments in the Himalaya and Norway. This project has also been met with rejection by Indigenous peoples.[8]
Large scale monoculture of algae cultivation with potentially huge negative impacts on biodiversity and the livelihoods of small seaweed cultivators are projected in several countries includingCanada, Philippines, Indonesia, India,[9] and other countries in Europe, Africa[10] and Latin America[11]
In the climate regime, the Supervisory Body for the Article 6.4 mechanism (a new carbon market under the Paris Agreement) is potentially building the market for a proliferation of geoengineering techniques including, large scale bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), direct air capture (DAC), ocean fertilization, enhanced rock weathering, and ocean alkalinization by considering them as potentially acceptable sources for carbon credits.[12]
Some of these and other geoengineering proposals are being promoted under the umbrella name of “Nature Based Solutions”.
What the CBD should do
All CBD parties should affirm precaution and prevent geoengineering from harming biodiversity, the environment, the climate and Indigenous peoples and local communities by recalling decisions 9/16 on ocean fertilization and X/33 on geoengineering in the discussions on marine biodiversity and on climate change.
COP15 must ensure that large scale technological interventions such as geoengineering are explicitly excluded from any measures proposed under the Global Biodiversity Framework.
The CBD Secretariat should proactively reach out to all other UN bodies discussing geoengineering to inform them about relevant CBD decisions and to highlight the need for a precautionary approach.
In line with COP decision XI/20, paragraph 9, the COP must mandate the CBD Secretariat to require all CBD parties to report, on a regular basis, on any initiative on geoengineering taken in and from their countries and report measures undertaken in accordance with paragraph 8(w) of decision X/33.
The CBD secretariat should compile reported measures from the parties and bring them to the attention of the Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI)
Signatories
CLICK HERE TO SIGN ON TO THE OPEN LETTER
[1] See detailed information of all decisions and publications at CBD website
on climate-related geoengineering and biodiversity: https://tinyurl.com/4j8ux3y5
[2] Decision X/33 text includes (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** 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.
[3] Geoengineering Monitor, 2022, UNFCCC Article 6.4: No to legitimizing
geoengineering and land-based offsets https://tinyurl.com/293b2cff
[4] International Maritime Organization, 2022, Marine geoengineering techniques -
potential impacts https://tinyurl.com/sakkrmyu
[5] Convention on Biological Diversity, 2017, Climate-related Geoengineering and
Biodiversity https://tinyurl.com/4j8ux3y5
[6] Geoengineering Monitor, 2022, Quarterly Review I(part 3):marine geoengineering
– ongoing and planned open-ocean trials and recent developments in research
[7] Geoengineering Monitor, 2022, Support Alaska Native Delegation to Stop Arctic
Ice Project! https://tinyurl.com/3kahy4h9
[8] Geoengineering Monitor, 2021, Widespread opposition to solar geoengineering
halts test flight https://tinyurl.com/yzzk25s8
[9]The Fish Site, India sets 9.7 million tonne seaweed target https://tinyurl.com/y4rzyudm
[10] Journal of Applied Phycology, 2022, Seaweed farming in Africa: current status
and future potential, https://tinyurl.com/33rdve44
[11] See Geoengineering Map: http://map.geoengineeringmonitor.org/ and
[12]ETC group, 2022, False Solutions Alert: Geoengineering in climate negotiations.
*****************
NTCP: New Technologies for Corporate Privilege and the Territorial Integrity of Mother Earth
Geoengineering and Indigenous Peoples Human Rights: A systemic pattern of violations of the right Free, Prior, and Informed Consent
From an Indigenous Peoples perspective, the industrial geoengineering projects we see today are a historical extension of the massacre on the great plains of the buffalo in the 1800’s and the invasion of Mexico by GMO corn products under NAFTA in 1994. These precursors of the geoengineering projects we see today, were also promoted by the same consortia of government, financial, and industrial interests that resulted in the ecological devastation, genocide, and territorial dispossession of our Original Nations.
With today’s geoengineering flagship projects such as SCoPEx
in Tucson, we see the sails on the horizon of yet another flotilla of invasions
just like the Niña, the Pinta, the Santa Maria – and the Mayflower. This time
it is the sky itself that is being commodified and marketed. We stand in
solidarity and commitment to the Cochabamba Protocols, in defense of the
Territorial Integrity of Mother Earth and say NO to Geoengineering!
Hands Off Mother Earth!
No comments:
Post a Comment