CBD body takes on controversial issues

Attempts by a subsidiary body of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity to arrive at a common position on some highly controversial issues, most notably geoengineering, have proved unsuccessful. These unresolved issues will therefore have to be settled by the parent body when it meets in October in India.

Doreen Stabinsky

THE 16th Meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA 16) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) took place in early May in Montreal, Canada. Three issues were strong contenders in the SBSTTA contest for most controversial issue: geoengineering, taking on synthetic biology as a new and emerging issue to be addressed by the SBSTTA, and REDD+ indicators and safeguards. [REDD+ refers to Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation, and (plus) the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries.]

All three draft recommendations approved by the SBSTTA contain unresolved outstanding issues, reflecting the contentious nature and high stakes of these discussions, which have major implications for our planet's biodiversity. The still-bracketed recommendations will be forwarded to the CBD's 11th Conference of the Parties (COP) - which meets in October in Hyderabad, India - transferring the political fights to the parent body to address.

Geoengineering

At their last meeting in 2010, Parties to the CBD decided, 'in the absence of science based, global, transparent and effective control and regulatory mechanisms for geoengineering, and in accordance with the precautionary approach and Article 14 of the Convention, that no climate-related geoengineering 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 data and are subject to a thorough prior assessment of the potential impacts on the environment'.

This 'de facto' moratorium was welcomed by civil society, given the concerns raised that such untested modifications on a planetary scale, in the name of combating climate change, would not only detract from the real need for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but also lead to unanticipated adverse impacts on biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural considerations.

In the intervening period since then, the CBD Secretariat has carried out several studies and synthesised relevant information. The Secretariat found that 'most geoengineering techniques are associated with unintended impacts on biodiversity, particularly when deployed at a climatically significant scale, together with significant risks and uncertainties'. Its preparatory note also concluded that 'the current regulatory mechanisms that could apply to climate-related geoengineering relevant to the Convention do not constitute a framework for geoengineering as a whole that meets the criteria of being science-based, global, transparent and effective'.

One issue Parties to SBSTTA 16 deliberated, and left unresolved, was the definition of geoengineering. The group of experts convened intersessionally by the CBD Secretariat provided an overly broad definition, according to comments made by many Parties. The experts defined climate-related geoengineering as 'a deliberate intervention in the planetary environment of a nature and scale intended to counteract anthropogenic climate change and/or its impacts through, inter alia, sunlight reflection methods or removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere'.

Many Parties were unsatisfied with this definition, as it could be interpreted very broadly, and include such practices as organic agriculture methods that would increase soil carbon concentrations through the incorporation of animal manures into cropland soils. The UK, a proponent of continued research on geoengineering, was the sole, strong voice for inclusion of this definition.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), on the other hand, defines climate-related geoengineering as 'deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment'. Previously, the SBSTTA had defined the term as 'any technologies that deliberately reduce solar insolation or increase carbon sequestration from the atmosphere on a large scale that may affect biodiversity'.

Another topic of debate was whether the draft conclusions should state that mitigation of climate change must be accomplished through immediate and substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and that geoengineering cannot be seen as a substitute for such efforts. Although supported by many Parties, the wording in the draft recommendation that reflected this sentiment remained controversial and in brackets, with the UK arguing for a formulation that called for rapid and significant reductions in emissions as a priority for tackling climate change, rather than wording that said climate change should be addressed primarily through emission reductions.

The final recommendation notes that many geoengineering techniques do not meet basic criteria for effectiveness, safety and affordability. It also notes that many significant gaps remain in understanding the impacts of geoengineering, including impacts on biological diversity and the associated socioeconomic, cultural and ethical issues, including global justice, the unequal spatial distribution of impacts, benefits and risks, and intergenerational equity.

The recommendation reaffirms the moratorium put in place in 2010, and further requests Parties to report on measures undertaken in accordance with the moratorium decision and on any climate-related geoengineering activities with potential impacts on biodiversity. The information conveyed by Parties would be made available by the Secretariat on the clearing-house mechanism.

One additional paragraph in the final text remains bracketed, which provides a reference to state obligations under customary law. This was not supported by the UK and a non-Party, the United States.

New and emerging issues: how to address synthetic biology?

One standing item on the SBSTTA's agenda is 'new and emerging issues'. Parties sought generally to clarify the criteria and process for identifying a new issue to be taken up by the SBSTTA. They also considered several new issues, including synthetic biology and ground-level ozone. Most of the attention and controversy on this agenda item focused on whether synthetic biology should be taken up as a new and emerging issue.

A number of countries were hesitant to take up any new issues. Due to this reticence, the language being forwarded to the COP is still unresolved, despite other Parties being keen to begin to address synthetic biology as a new issue. The draft recommendation contains three options: 1) no new issues; 2) synthetic biology as a new issue; and 3) no new issues but opening the door for further discussion of synthetic biology as a new issue. In the third option, Parties, other Governments, relevant international organisations, indigenous and local communities and other stakeholders were invited 'to submit additional relevant information, including peer-reviewed scientific information and information from different knowledge systems, on the possible impacts of synthetic biology techniques, organisms and products on biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural considerations'.

Under the second and third options, the CBD Executive Secretary is requested to compile and synthesise the submitted information on the possible impacts of synthetic biology techniques, organisms and products on biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural considerations, and the applicable provisions of the Convention and its Protocols. All three protocols - the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, its Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress and the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-Sharing - were considered relevant to the issue of synthetic biology.

The Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-Sharing was seen as an important inclusion, as Parties and NGOs at the meeting had specifically raised concerns about the possibility of digital transfer of genetic information that could be then synthesised. Digital transboundary transfer and subsequent use of genetic information would precipitate a range of associated access and benefit-sharing issues.

One further paragraph is bracketed in the draft recommendation - a paragraph submitted by the Philippines urging the application of the precautionary approach and prevention of release into the environment or commercial application of synthetic genetic parts and organisms until risks have been assessed and there is adequate basis on which to justify such activities.

REDD+: safeguards or no safeguards?

In a decision from their meeting in 2010, Parties requested the CBD Secretariat, with regard to REDD+, to collaborate with relevant international organisations 'to provide advice, for approval by the Conference of the Parties at its eleventh meeting, including on the application of relevant safeguards for biodiversity. so that actions are consistent with the objectives of the Convention'. REDD+ refers to 'reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries', which is linked to greenhouse gas emission reduction efforts of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

In their 2010 decision, Parties also requested the CBD Secretariat to identify possible indicators to assess the contribution of REDD+ to achieving the objectives of the Convention and to assess potential mechanisms to monitor impacts on biodiversity from these and other ecosystem-based approaches for climate-change mitigation measures.

In the interim, work has progressed under the UNFCCC on REDD+ safeguards. However, the UNFCCC discussion of safeguards is focused on implementation and reporting on the application of safeguards. UNFCCC negotiations are not addressing the question of indicators, which would be used at national or sub-national levels. National or sub-national indicators are politically sensitive, as some countries view them as possibly infringing on sovereign decision-making if externally imposed.

At SBSTTA 16, many countries were supportive of language in the draft recommendation that approved advice on relevant country-specific safeguards contained in the Secretariat's preparatory note. They were also supportive of language on 'Possible indicators to monitor the impacts of REDD+ on biodiversity and indigenous and local communities'. Several countries with a strong interest in the REDD+ outcomes in the UNFCCC, in particular Brazil and Mexico, rejected this language. They argued that any decision in the CBD with regard to safeguards and/or indicators could preempt or prejudice ongoing work under the UNFCCC.

Language in the draft recommendation was carefully sculpted to circumscribe the work of the CBD on REDD+ safeguards. Paragraphs mentioning indicators were either removed or remain in brackets to be forwarded to the COP, as is the paragraph which [approves][takes note of][welcomes] the advice on relevant safeguards.

Conclusion

The CBD SBSTTA is technically a scientific body, established to provide advice to the Parties on scientific and technical issues. But scientific and technical issues are never devoid of politics, and the body routinely engages in substantive political debate. That said, there are some questions clearly not resolvable in the subsidiary body, particularly those of uncertain nature and substance arising from new issues such as geoengineering and synthetic biology. Those issues will need to ripen a bit more before they can be tackled. The REDD+ debates will likely not move very far within the CBD until further progress on the issue is made within the UNFCCC, a negotiating forum with even thornier issues to resolve.u

Doreen Stabinsky is Professor of Global Environmental Politics at College of the Atlantic in Maine, USA.

*Third World Resurgence No. 262, June 2012, pp 2-4