In a shot across the bows of geoengineering companies, the London Convention
(the International Maritime Organization body that oversees dumping of
wastes at sea) today unanimously endorsed a scientific statement of concern
on ocean fertilisation and declared its intention to develop international
regulations to oversee the controversial activities. It further advised
states that such large-scale schemes are “currently not justified.”
“We applaud the London Convention
for addressing a major gap in global
governance,” said David Santillo, of Greenpeace International’s Science
Unit
who attended the London Convention meeting this week. “The Parties meeting
here this week confirmed that large-scale ocean fertilization schemes are
not scientifically justified and they urged governments to exercise utmost
caution when considering such proposals,” said Santillo.
Geoengineering refers to intentional large-scale manipulation of land, ocean
or atmosphere in an attempt to ‘fix’ climate change. The governments meeting
at the London Convention were confronted with a rash of private ‘carbon
trading’ schemes that claim to sequester greenhouse gases by dumping large
quantities of iron, urea or other additives into the sea. These techniques,
known collectively as “ocean fertilisation,” claim to draw climate
change
gases out of the atmosphere by prompting growth of plankton. The
geoengineers seek to win ‘carbon credits’ as a financial reward for these
activities – despite the fact that international scientific bodies have
warned of potentially devastating ecological consequences for marine
ecoystems.
The historic decision of the international body meeting in London this week
came just as one controversial ocean fertilisation company, Planktos, Inc.
http://www.planktos.com/Newsroom, announced it had set sail from Florida,
USA to dump iron in the ocean at an undisclosed location, possibly west of
the Galapagos islands. A second private geoengineering outfit, Ocean
Nourishment Corporation (ONC)
http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=659 of
Australia, caused uproar this week in the Philippines with the discovery of
a proposal to dump industrial urea in the ecologically sensitive Sulu Sea
region. ONC is reportedly in discussions with the government of Morocco on
another proposed dump. Meanwhile, a third private geoengineering firm,
Climos, Inc.
http://www.climos.com/ of USA, attended the London
Convention meeting where it proposed a voluntary “code of conduct”
for ocean
fertilisation – a proposal met with little enthusiasm.
“Geoengineering profiteers should have no right to alter the ocean commons
for their private gain. Until now they’ve been exploiting the lack of
international governance,” said Jim Thomas of ETC Group. “The London
Convention is sending a clear message to geoengineering cowboys that
ocean-dumping schemes are scientifically unjustified and must be regulated.
We welcome the London Convention’s decisions on ocean-based geoengineering.
We urge governments meeting at the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change in Bali next month, as well as the UN Convention on
Biological Diversity, to follow the London Convention’s lead and begin an
international process to put all geoengineering technologies under
intergovernmental oversight,” said Thomas.
The London Convention decisions were greeted with enthusiasm in the
Philippines, where civil society organizations, small-scale fishers and
environmentalists are protesting a proposal by Ocean Nourishment Corporation
“to dump urea in the Sulu Sea. The groups will hold a press conference on
Monday 15 November in Manila to outline concerns and actions in the region.
“There’s clearly an urgent need for international oversight,” said
Neth Dano
of Third World Network. “We were alarmed to discover that a geoengineering
company had already approached the Philippines government. Although no
permit has been issued yet, at least one experimental dumping of urea has
already occurred in the Sulu Sea – without a permit, without environmental
assessment, and without public consent,” said Dano.
“The London Convention has taken a
first, important step to prevent these
abuses,” said Hope Shand of ETC Group. “However, we maintain our call
for a
moratorium on large scale and commercial geoengineering projects until there
is public debate, intergovernmental oversight and thorough assessment of
social, economic and environmental impacts,” said Shand.
“Geoengineering
techno-fixes are not an acceptable response to climate change.”
Note to Editors:
* International Maritime Organization news room:
http://www.imo.org/Safety/mainframe.asp?topic_id=84
* 5 November news release on Ocean Nourishment Corporation’s proposal to
Philippines government available here:
http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=659
* Background on Geoengineering:
http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=608
* Background on Planktos, Inc.:
http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=617
For further information, contact:
Jim Thomas, ETC Group (Canada) –
jim@etcgroup.org +1 514 667-4932
(office)
or +1 514 516-5759 (cell)
Hope Shand, ETC Group (USA) –
hope@etcgroup.org +1 919 960-5767
(office)
David Santillo, Greenpeace International (UK – attended London Convention)
D.Santillo@exeter.ac.uk
+44 (0)781 387 4489 (cell)
Neth Dano, Third World Network (Philippines) –
nethdano@pacific.net.ph +63
917 532-9369 (cell)
Ditdit Pelegrina, SEARICE (Philippines) –
ditdit_pelegrina@searice.org.ph
+63 2 433 7182 (office) or +63 917 793 8618 (cell)
Text from London Convention meeting (5-9 November 2007)
(1) Agreed text: “The Meetings agreed on:
1. endorsing the ‘Statement of Concern’on large-scale ocean iron
fertilisation as agreed by the Scientific Groups;”
2. the scope of the work of the London Convention/London Protocol includes
ocean fertilization, as well as iron fertilization;”
3. the consideration of ocean fertilisation falls under the competences of
the LC/LP, in particular in relation to the obligation of the Convention and
Protocol to protect the marine environment;”
4. LC/LP will further study the issue from the scientific and legal
perspectives with a view to its regulation;”
5. recognising that it is within the purview of each state to consider
proposals on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the LC/LP, the LC29/LP2
urges States to use the utmost caution when considering proposals for
large-scale ocean fertilisation operations. The LC/LP take the view that,
given the present state of knowledge regarding ocean fertilisation, such
large-scale operations are currently not justified;”