Silvia Ribeiro, HOME Alliance
In a series of pioneering precautionary decisions, the CBD agreed by consensus to prevent the impacts of climate geoengineering on biodiversity and livelihoods. The first decision on ocean fertilization was adopted in 2008 followed by another one on all forms of geoengineering in 2010. Both were reaffirmed by several COP decisions, latest in 2024.
The CBD decisions on geoengineering need to be explicitly taken into account in any joint work program of the Rio Conventions to enhance the positive synergy of the Rio Conventions and ensure that actions on climate change, desertification and land degradation go hand in hand with protecting biodiversity, livelihoods, rights and precaution.
Geoengineering is set of speculative large-scale technological proposals that doesn´t address the roots causes of climate change, prolong dependence on fossil fuels and could pose unprecedented risks to the environment and human rights.
CBD decision X/33 para 8 (w) from 2010 calls on Parties to ensure that no geoengineering activities that affect biodiversity take place until various criteria are met, including a science based, global, transparent and effective control and regulatory mechanism, an adequate scientific basis to justify such proposals and that biodiversity, social and cultural impacts are prevented. The decision made an exception for small-scale scientific research studies in controlled settings. It is also ‘in line and consistent with’ decision IX/16 C on ocean fertilization (a form of marine geoengineering) which explicitly rules out any commercial purpose in such research studies.
Despite these well-founded precautionary decisions, in recent years there has been a proliferation of outdoor geoengineering experiments and projects, on marine, solar and very large-scale terrestrial proposals with significant negative impacts.
Over 40 companies are conducting or planning open sea experiments including ocean fertilisation, ocean alkalinity enhancement, industrial seaweed cultivation and sinking; most with a commercial element; at least half are selling carbon credits in voluntary markets, despite lack of evidence of sequestration and permanence.
There are also very concerning examples of outdoor experiments and even commercial projects on solar geoengineering, e.g. Stardust in Israel.
Several of these projects have been stopped by opposition of indigenous peoples and the communities in the areas affected, who denounced the violation of their rights and the impacts on territories, livelihoods and biodiversity, based on CDB decisions.
Because none of the elements that led to the CBD decisions have been yet met, and concerned by the proliferation of risky outdoor experiments, the COP 16 in Cali reaffirmed all prior geoengineering decisions and urged Parties to ensure its implementation (dec XVI/22 para 6). The CBD must now take actions to esure other conventions respect the moratorium and encourage them to incorporate the implementation of the relevant decisions in their work programs.
