Skip to main content

Marine Geo-Engineering

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook on Marine Environment Protection
  • 4544 Accesses

Abstract

In this chapter an overview is given of the existing international regulation of marine geo-engineering techniques. Two techniques—ocean fertilization and the sequestration of carbon dioxide in sub-seabed geological formations—have been either experimentally studied or even deployed, whereas all other forms of marine geo-engineering have remained in their early infancy. Both techniques could pose a significant risk to the environment. In 2008 Contracting Parties to both the London Convention and the London Protocol and the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted a non-binding moratorium on ocean fertilization activities with the exemption of small-scale research projects. In 2010 this non-binding moratorium was extended to all climate-engineering activities by Parties to the CBD. In 2013 a—legally binding—amendment to the London Protocol with regard to the regulation of marine geo-engineering activities was approved. The amendment could serve as a model for the regulation of other climate-engineering activities (e.g. solar radiation management in the stratosphere) in many respects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For a succinct description of the hypothesis which proposed stimulating the growth of phytoplankton in iron deficient areas of the ocean as a means of sequestering carbon dioxide see Roberts 2012, pp. 251–253.

  2. 2.

    Some treaties declare certain categories of decisions taken by its members as legally binding. See Article 13 (2) OSPAR. However, this is not the common approach, at least for global instruments.

  3. 3.

    The US regards the UNCLOS provisions as a declaration of already existing international customary law.

  4. 4.

    For a more detailed analysis of the UNCLOS provision, especially with regard to OF, see Schlacke et al. (2012): 8 passim.

  5. 5.

    See Article 23 LP. States being Parties to both the London Convention and the London Protocol have contractual obligations to the respective Parties of each treaty.

  6. 6.

    See http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/LCLP/Pages/default.aspx.

  7. 7.

    The fundamental reason for this is to work efficiently by avoiding additional meetings of the Contracting Parties and the Scientific Group.

  8. 8.

    See LC 36/16—Report of the thirty-sixth Consultative Meeting and the ninth Meeting of Contracting Parties.

  9. 9.

    An identical wording could be found in Article III 1 iii London Convention.

  10. 10.

    In many respects, the Specific Guidelines were standard setting for latter regulation at national level. Moreover, Contracting Parties adopted a so called Assessment Framework for carbon dioxide sequestration. See http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/LCLP/EmergingIssues/CCS/Pages/default.aspx.

  11. 11.

    See Article 24 Directive 2009/31/EC of 23 April 2009. See under: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32009L0031&from=EN.

  12. 12.

    The amendments will enter into force after they are accepted by two-thirds of Contracting Parties: Article 21, London Protocol.

  13. 13.

    The development of the definition drew on the Regulatory Framework for Climate-Related Geoengineering relevant to the Convention on Biological Diversity (infra, fn8), the work of the Royal Society (infra, FN 1) and existing treaties such as the UN Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, 1976 (the ENMOD Convention), in force 5 October 1978, United Nations Treaty Series, Vol, 1108, p.151.

  14. 14.

    LC 35/15, p 13. The adopting resolution also contains a reference to this explanatory text in the summary report, see footnote 1.

  15. 15.

    For further details see Ginzky and Frost 2014, pp. 89.

  16. 16.

    The term „coastal water“was very controversial especially with regard to the ocean fertilization research project „LOHAFEX“which was finally conducted in early 2009. For further information see Ginzky 2010, p 57.

  17. 17.

    Both decisions were endorsed by the subsequent COPs.

References

  • Bodle R, Oberthür S, Donat L, Homann G, Sina S, Tedsen E (2014) Options and proposals for the international governance of geoengineering. Umweltbundesamt, Dessau-Roßlau

    Google Scholar 

  • Freestone D, Rayfuse R (2008) Ocean fertilization and international law. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 9:227–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginzky H (2010) Ocean fertilization as climate change mitigation measure–consideration under international law. J Euro Environ Planning Law 7:57–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginzky H, Herrmann F, Kartschall K, Leujak W, Lipsius K, Mäder C, Schwermer S, Straube G (2011) Geoengineering: effective climate protection or megalomania? Umweltbundesamt, Dessau-Roßlau

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginzky H, Frost R (2014) Marine geo-engineering: legally binding regulation under the london protocol. Carbon Clim Law Rev 8:82–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenpeace International, “Challenging ‘geo-engineering solutions’ to climate change: The urgent need for detailed scientific scrutiny and international regulations to protect the oceans from large-scale iron fertilization programmes”, LC/SG 30/12/1, 8 2007

    Google Scholar 

  • IUCN, “Regulation of CO2 sequestration”, LC/SG 30/12, 8 2007

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller DP (2016) Marine climate engineering. In: Markus T, Salomon, M (eds), Handbook on marine environment protection

    Google Scholar 

  • Markus T, Ginzky H (2011) Regulating climate change: paradigmatic aspects of the regulation of ocean fertilization. Carbon Clim Law Rev 4:477–490

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts C (2012) Ocean of life: how our seas are changing. Kindle edn, Allen Lane

    Google Scholar 

  • Schäfer S, Lawrence M, Stelzer H, Born W, Low S, Aaheim A, Adriázola P, Betz G, Boucher O, Carius A, Devine-Right P, Gullberg AT, Haszeldine S, Haywood J, Houghton K, Ibarrola R, Irvine PJ, Kristjansson J-E, Lenton T, Link JSA, Maas A, Meyer L, Muri H, Oschlies A, Proelß A, Rayner T, Rickels W, Ruthner L, Scheffran J, Schmidt H, Schulz M, Scott V, Shackley S, Tänzler D, Watson M, Vaughan N (2015) The European ransdisciplinary assessment of climate engineering (EuTRACE): removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and reflecting sunlight away from Earth. Institute for Advances Sustainable Studies (IASS), Potsdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlacke S, Markus T, Much S (2012) Rechtliche steuerungsmöglichkeiten für die experimentelle erforschung der meeresdüngung. Umweltbundesamt, Dessau-Roßlau

    Google Scholar 

  • Specific Guidelines for the Assessment of Carbon Dioxide for Disposal into Sub-Seabed Geological Formations, Accessed 2 Nov 2012, LC 34/15, annex 8

    Google Scholar 

  • The Royal Society United Kingdom (2009) Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty. The Royal Society, London

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Harald Ginzky .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ginzky, H. (2018). Marine Geo-Engineering. In: Salomon, M., Markus, T. (eds) Handbook on Marine Environment Protection . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60156-4_53

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics