IMO: LONDON CONVENTION REPORT ON MARINE

UNCLAS STATE 005725 SENSITIVE C O R R E C T E D COPY (SENSITIVE CAPTION ADDED) SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: EWWT IMO PHSA SENV UK KRAD KGHG SUBJECT: IMO: LONDON CONVENTION REPORT ON MARINE ENVIRONMENT ISSUES SUMMARY ¶1. (U) The annual meetings of Contracting Parties to the London Convention (LC) and the London Protocol (LP) on ocean dumping were held concurrently 26-30 October at the International Maritime Organization in London (LC31/LP4). The U.S. delegation consisted of representatives from seven USG agencies. An amendment to Article 6 of the LP was adopted that will allow the export of carbon dioxide streams for sub-seabed sequestration under certain circumstances. Progress was made on the draft Assessment Framework for Scientific Research Involving Ocean Fertilization, and Parties agreed that work should continue at the next meeting of the Scientific Groups (April 19-23, 2010). Mechanisms for potential binding regulation of ocean fertilization were briefly reviewed and debated. The Parties did not reach consensus on the best approach to addressing ocean fertilization activities under the LC and LP, resulting in a recommendation that an intersessional ocean fertilization working group be formed, with an intersessional meeting to be held 1-5 March 2010. The Meetings approved expenditure of over $300K from voluntary contributions for proposed national and regional ocean dumping management capacity building workshops, including a $75K grant from the United States. The Meetings also made progress on compliance issues and on cooperation with IMO,s Marine Environment Protection Committee on ship hull paint removal, in-water hull cleaning, and handling of spoiled cargoes. Parties were pleased to note that the London Protocol is currently on the Obama Administration,s Treaty Priority List for Senate action. AMENDMENT TO ALLOW EXPORT OF CARBON DIOXIDE FOR SUB-SEABED SEQUESTRATION ¶2. (SBU) LC31/LP4 discussed at length Norway,s proposed amendment to Article 6 (which bans the export of wastes and other matter to other countries for dumping or incineration at sea) to create a limited exception allowing the export of carbon dioxide streams for the purposes of sub-seabed sequestration. As a non-Party to the Protocol, the ability of the United States to influence the outcome was somewhat limited. Nevertheless, we successfully steered the amendment away from a focus on &prior informed consent8 (which would be duplicative of the permitting scheme already applicable) and towards greater clarity in the allocation of permitting responsibilities between the exporting and importing states. Ultimately, the Protocol Parties adopted text amending Article 6 that as a preliminary matter seems acceptable to the United States, although regrettably it was done without consensus. Although the reasons for opposition were unclear, the main concern that was expressed (most vocally by China and South Africa, with support from other developing states) involved the amendment,s failure to prohibit carbon dioxide exports from one global region to another. The Cook Islands gave a passionate intervention declaring that, as a non-Party to the LC and LP, adopting an amendment by vote rather than consensus would greatly reduce its faith that a small country,s voice would be heeded if it acceded. The United States also expressed its support for consensus. But after continued deadlock in the corridors, Norway insisted on a roll call vote, resulting in 15 in favor of the resolution (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom); 1 (China) against the resolution; and 6 abstaining (Kenya, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, and Vanuatu). Despite its vote against the amendment, China did acknowledge after the vote that it had made every effort at reaching consensus. ¶3. (U) The adopted amendment to Article 6 of the LP will allow the export of carbon dioxide streams for sub-seabed sequestration if certain criteria are met. Criteria include a requirement that the exporting and receiving (importing) countries enter into an agreement or arrangement that &confirms and allocates8 permitting responsibilities consistent with their obligations under the Protocol and other applicable international law. In the case of export to non-Parties to the Protocol, the agreement or arrangement also needs to contain &provisions at a minimum equivalent to those contained in the Protocol . . . to ensure that the agreement or arrangement does not derogate from the obligations of Contracting Parties under this Protocol to protect and preserve the marine environment.8 OCEAN FERTILIZATION ¶4. (U) Ocean fertilization is the addition of iron or other nutrients to ocean surface water to enhance photosynthetic fixation of carbon dioxide by phytoplankton. Although fewer than half of the ocean fertilization, experiments to date have resulted in any measurable increase in carbon export to the deep ocean (where it may remain out of contact with atmosphere for decades to centuries),the experiments have sparked commercial interest in developing ocean fertilization as a technology to sequester carbon dioxide and to enhance fish populations. ¶5. (U) In dealing with this topic, the United States has consistently tried to balance the concerns about the potential adverse side effects of ocean fertilization as a climate change mitigation measure with support for scientific research into the global climate system, including research into the marine carbon cycle and its role in the global carbon cycle. The London Convention and Protocol have emerged as the primary international fora for addressing the potential impact of ocean fertilization on the marine environment. At last year,s meeting, Convention and Protocol parties approved a non-binding resolution on ocean fertilization aimed at allowing &legitimate scientific research8 while discouraging other ocean fertilization activities (LC-LP.1 (2008)). The resolution also stated that scientific research proposals should be assessed on a case-by-case basis using an assessment framework being developed by the LC/LP Scientific Groups, and that this resolution should be reviewed at appropriate intervals in light of new and relevant scientific information and knowledge. In 2009, progress was made on the Assessment Framework at the February Meeting of the Intersessional Technical Working Group on Ocean Fertilization in London (LC/SG-CO2 3/5) and the May Meeting of the Scientific Groups in Rome (LC/LP SG32). The Parties agreed that work on the Framework will continue at the next meeting of the Scientific Groups in London in April 2010 (LC/LP SG33). ¶6. (U) This year again ocean fertilization was one of the most controversial and time-consuming topics on the London Convention/Protocol annual meeting agenda. An ocean fertilization working group, co-chaired by Netherlands and the Chair of the Scientific Groups, primarily considered and addressed several policy questions raised during the development of the Assessment Framework. The ocean fertilization working group also was tasked with discussing various legally binding and non-binding options for addressing ocean fertilization developed by the Intersessional Legal and Related Issues Working Group on Ocean Fertilization in February 2009 (LP CO2 2/5),taking into account the interventions made during plenary. The eight options range from the status quo (last year,s non-binding resolution),to an interpretative resolution, to various amendments to the Protocol and Annex I. ¶7. (SBU) It was quickly apparent during the working group discussions that there was no consensus on options for regulating ocean fertilization at this meeting. Saudi Arabia joined the United States in advocating no change from the current resolution. This status quo allows time for the Assessment Framework to be developed and conforms with our position that ocean fertilization should be analyzed in the first instance as &placement of matter for a purpose other than the mere disposal thereof8 under Article 1.4.2.2. We also favor addressing this issue by resolution rather than amendment because a resolution is operative instantly and universally for all Parties to both the LC and LP, and is a product of consensus. Several delegations felt there was inadequate time to address the intersessional legal working group,s options and a paper from Australia and New Zealand exploring the possibility of a future amendment to the Protocol to allow ( (LC 31/4/1). Australia and New Zealand promoted their idea of a possible future amendment and sought to limit discussion only to legally binding approaches. Canada tried to present an interpretative resolution (one seen as potentially binding by some States) as a middle ground approach. ¶8. (U) Instead of discussing the merits of the options at length, the ocean fertilization working group developed, and the meetings adopted, terms of reference for an intersessional working group to further consider the options. A meeting of the intersessional Working Group was proposed for 1-5 March2010, in London. The United States expressed budgetary concerns about an intersessional working group, to no avail. Our primary substantive concern in the discussions going forward is that non-legally binding options remain open to discussion, notwithstanding others, claims that consideration must be limited to only binding approaches. ¶9. (SBU) An additional item that was raised during the Meeting under ocean fertilization was in respect to the term &marine geo-engineering.8 The paper from Australia and New Zealand asked the Meetings to consider whether the Convention and Protocol should address all &marine geo-engineering8 as opposed to just ocean fertilization. Several delegations, including that of the United States, indicated a strong desire to continue to focus efforts on ocean fertilization at this time, as much work has already been done on this and as there is no clear understanding of what &marine geo-engineering8 encompasses. The U.S. view prevailed, resulting in deferral of discussions on marine geo-engineering. The Science Groups, however, agreed to consider the topic for SG Science Day in 2011 ¶10. (SBU) The International Emissions Trading Association (IETA),represented by Dan Whaley from Climos (one of the U.S. firms hoping to pursue ocean fertilization as a commercial climate mitigation technique),attended the meeting as a "non-governmental organization observer" on an interim basis. Rather than reach a final decision on IETA,s status, Parties again agreed to invite IETA on an interim basis for one additional year. SCIENTIFIC GROUP REPORT ¶11. (U) The London Convention has a Scientific Group that meets each spring and works intersessionally on the technical issues of ocean dumping. The London Protocol has a similar Scientific Group. The two Scientific Groups meet concurrently under an arrangement in which the shared offices of Chair and Vice-Chairs consist of members representing Parties to both the Protocol and the Convention. The Chair of the London Convention and London Protocol Scientific Groups provided an overview of their 32nd session held in May 2009 in Rome, Italy. The meetings endorsed the recommendations of the 32nd Scientific Groups session and noted the ongoing work on guidelines for bulky items and fish wastes. The next meeting will be 19-23 April 2010 in London. TECHNICAL COOPERATION AND ASSISTANCE ¶12. (U) In his opening address to the Meetings, the IMO Secretary General highlighted &the need to accelerate ratification of the London Protocol and, for that purpose, to carry out successful outreach activities.8 The Meetings again gave high priority to technical cooperation and assistance activities this year, especially regarding the &Barriers to Compliance8 (B2C) Project, which forms the basis for LC/LP outreach program to Contracting Parties and non-Contracting States. The LC/LP,s B2C Project Steering Group discussed the B2C Implementation Plan and associated reports. The U.S. delegation is a member of the B2C Steering Group. The B2C Steering Group recommended that the Contracting Parties approve proposed national or regional capacity building workshops for a cost of about $300,000 from voluntary contributions during the 2010-2011 biennium. A capacity building workshop is tentatively planned for the Wider Caribbean Region in May 2009 using a portion of the $75,000 contributed to the B2C Project by the U.S. in 2009. The Steering Group will assist the LC/LP Secretariat in improving reporting documents and continuing to develop the valuable outreach program. In addition, the B2C Steering Group agreed that coordination with the LC/LP Compliance Group would be beneficial for outreach on significant technical and compliance issues. MATTERS RELATED TO MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES ¶13. (U) The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) representative gave a progress report on IAEA,s efforts to update the two inventory documents for radioactive waste disposals and accidents at sea (IAEA TECDOCs 1105 and 1242 respectively). IAEA has received reports from all parties with relevant information and is proceeding to combine both inventories into a single report. This report will include, for perspective, radioactivity introduced into the ocean from other sources such as past nuclear weapons testing, the Chernobyl accident, and naturally occurring radioactivity. The IAEA representative reviewed in detail International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) efforts to develop a new international framework for protection of flora and fauna in the environment from ionizing radiation. Due to the complexity of the ICRP approach, IAEA considers that it could be impractical. The IAEA representative outlined a proposal for developing a more generic, practical, and widely applicable method for assessing and judging the radiological impact to flora and fauna. If supported by the LC/LP and approved by the IAEA Board of Governors, this method might be completed in time for consideration at the next LC/LP Consultative meeting. The governing bodies noted the information provided by IAEA and expressed support for the IAEA proposal to develop a more practical method for assessing the radiological impact to flora and fauna. COMPLIANCE ¶14. (U) The 2nd Meeting of the Compliance Group was held from 26-28 October, 2009. Ms. Pan Kun of China was elected to serve as a substitute member for this meeting only to ensure the group had the required quorum. The U.S. participated as an observer along with Kenya, Korea, Netherlands, and Nigeria. The group recommended against producing model national legislation for prospective parties and instead encouraged parties to post examples of legislation from various systems for prospective parties to draw upon. The group also recommended posting previously developed guidance on national implementation of the Protocol on the LC webpage. They intend to explore the possibility of developing commentaries or explanatory reports concerning the Protocol during the intersessional period. This is an effort that warrants substantial monitoring to ensure the results do not exceed the underlying authority of the group. Finally, the group dedicated a large block of time to examining potential reasons for decreases in reporting under both the Convention and Protocol, making a number of suggestions to improve contacts with parties. Notably the group decided not to try to define "effective measures" in the reporting requirements of Article 9.4.3 to the London Protocol. MEPC & UNEP-GPA BOUNDARY ISSUES: HULL CLEANING, SPOILT CARGOES ¶15. (U) On hull cleaning, it was agreed that the Secretariat would distribute the &Guidance on Best Management Practices for Removal of Anti-Fouling Coatings from Ships, including TBT hull paints,8 as contained in AFS.3/Circ. 3 (MEPC 59/24 paragraph 13.4). There was also a discussion of Invasive Aquatic Species (IAS) with regard to in-water hull cleaning and dredged material disposal. It was agreed that, while IAS are of significant concern, the governing bodies would not address the role of the LC/LP, if any, in regulating in-water hull cleaning at this time, in light of the ongoing efforts in MEPC in this area. The issue will be discussed at next year,s meeting (LC32/LP5),with a view to reviewing the work undertaken at MEPC at that time. ¶16. (U) With respect to spoilt cargoes, a small ad hoc group met informally on the margins of the LC/LP meeting. Interested parties will collaborate intersessionally, under Canada,s lead, on development of a new IMO &training course module8 and a plain language brochure that summarize the formal guidance on management of spoilt cargoes that the governing bodies adopted in 2008. The governing bodies agreed that these and perhaps other outreach materials on spoilt cargoes would be provided to the LC/LP Scientific Groups for further collaborative work with MEPC. ¶17. (U) Also discussed was collaboration with UNEP-GPA on areas of common interest. These include sub-sea disposal of tailings and other wastes associated with mining; physical alteration and destruction of habitat; and marine litter (marine debris). The governing bodies endorsed the Scientific Groups agreement that a review of sub-sea disposal through outfalls of tailings and associated wastes from mining operations be a new priority element of implementing the 2006 partnership between the Office for the London Convention and Protocol, UNEP-GPA and the UNEP Regional Seas Program. It was agreed that the Secretariat would move quickly to hire a consultant and distribute a circular with a questionnaire, to seek information regarding existing controls on such sub-sea disposal operations. CLINTON