Ocean Fertilisation and Climate Change: The Need to Regulate Emerging High Seas Uses

Abstract

Geo-engineering and environmental modification techniques are increasingly being proposed as climate change mitigation strategies. Ocean fertilisation has been promoted as a simple solution to the problem of increasing atmospheric CO 2 levels. However, neither its environmental safety nor its efficacy has been adequately assessed. Th is article examines the legality of ocean fertilisation under the law of the sea and concludes that it is subject to regulation under the London Convention and London Protocol as its potential for harm is contrary to the aims of these agreements. Hence, the sale of carbon offsets to fund ocean fertilisation activities should be prohibited unless and until an adequate risk assessment based on independent peer-reviewed science has established that the benefits outweigh the potential for harm, and appropriate regulation is in place to ensure that real, measurable, long-term CO 2 sequestration can be independently verified. Th e initial uncertainties surrounding the appropriate regulatory regime for ocean fertilisation highlight the need for a comprehensive global regime for the prior assessment and on-going monitoring of existing, new and emerging high seas activities and uses to ensure they do not have adverse impacts on marine biodiversity and the marine environment in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

Negative emissions—Part 1: Research landscape and synthesis

“…A more general discourse on negative emissions only emerged after the publication of IPCC-AR4 in 2007. Moreover, NETs discourses show a steady increase across all technologies, with the exception of OF, which peaked between 2005 and 2010 and declined thereafter over concerns on adverse side-effect, effectiveness and legal issues (Rayfuse et al 2008, Lukacs 2012, Güssow et al 2010. Recent growth (2011Recent growth ( -2016 in publications has been strongest for BC (33%) followed by the general discussion of NETs (21%), SCS (15%) and DAC (12%).…”

International Governance of the Arctic Marine Environment

“…596 The lack of requirement for prior EIA or the duty to monitor activities to ensure no harm occurs forms another major gap. 597 As displayed previously, there are also deficits concerning area-based management of the high seas, especially the establishment of a network of MPAs. 598 In addition, the interests of non-user states that have no intention of engaging in exploitation generally receive little recognition in high seas management.…”

Ocean Dumping and Fertilization in the Antarctic: Tangled Legal Currents, Sea of Challenges

“…Controversy has arisen over application of the ocean dumping regime to ocean fertilization projects with considerable fragmentation and uncertainties in international responses to date (Sagarin et al, 2007;Freestone and Rayfuse, 2008;Rayfuse et al, 2008). The limited international "grip" is exemplified by the 2009 LOHAFEX ocean fertilization experiment in the Atlantic sector of the Southern Ocean.…”