VZCZCXRO8800
RR RUEHHM RUEHLN RUEHMA RUEHPB RUEHPOD
DE RUEHLO #0894/01 0661745
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 071745Z MAR 07
FM AMEMBASSY LONDON
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 2281
INFO RUEAEPA/HQ EPA WASHDC
RUCPDC/NOAA WASHDC
RUCPDOC/USDOC WASHDC
RUEAWJL/DOJ WASHDC
RHEBAAA/DOE WASHDC
RUEHC/DEPT OF INTERIOR WASHDC
RHEFHLC/HOMELAND SECURITY CENTER WASHINGTON DC
RUEHZN/ENVIRONMENT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 LONDON 000894 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE PLEASE PASS TO IO/IOC FOR M. MORRISSEY 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: IMO PHSA SENV AORC ASEC UK
SUBJECT: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION (IMO): REPORT OF THE 
TWENTY-EIGHTH CONSULTATIVE MEETING OF CONTRACTING PARTIES TO THE 
LONDON CONVENTION, LONDON, OCTOBER 30 - NOVEMBER 3, 2006. 
 
¶1.  SUMMARY:  The combined annual meeting for both the 1972 London 
Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of 
Wastes and Other Matter (the 'London Convention') and the 1996 
Protocol to the London Convention (the 'London Protocol') took place 
in London, October 30 to November 3, 2006.  Parties to the London 
Protocol adopted an amendment that allows for the sub-seabed 
sequestration of carbon dioxide.  Essentially, the amendment adds 
carbon dioxide streams intended for sequestration as a material that 
can be considered for disposal into a sub-seabed geological 
formation, if the stream consists "overwhelmingly" of carbon dioxide 
and no wastes or other matters are added for the purpose of 
disposal.  The amendment was approved by vote after a lengthy 
debate, with five abstentions and all other votes in favor.  The 
United States, not a party to the Protocol, could not vote but 
advocated in favor of allowing carbon sequestration.  This amendment 
will provide an additional mechanism by which to combat global 
climate change and ocean acidification.  Greenpeace International's 
assertion that the U.S. Navy's creation of an artificial reef using 
a former aircraft carrier was contrary to the aims of the London 
Convention was refuted by the U.S. delegation, who explained that 
appropriate actions were taken when creating the reef to control 
sources of marine pollution and to safeguard the environment.  The 
meeting also discussed the creation of a compliance mechanism that 
needs to be in place by March 2008.  A decision was taken to 
establish a standing compliance group of 15 members plus observers. 
The meeting agreed that a compliance working group will meet for two 
days in November 2007 in order to work out the details of the 
mechanism.  U.S. ratification of the London Protocol before that 
time would allow us to participate fully and influence the format 
and function of the compliance mechanism.  END SUMMARY. 
 
¶2.  Overview and Status of London Convention and Protocol- 
The Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of 
Wastes and Other Matter, 1972 (the London Convention) established a 
first-ever global regime for the protection of the marine 
environment from pollution caused by ocean dumping and incineration 
at sea.  It now has eighty-one Parties.  The United States became a 
Party in 1975. 
 
¶3.  The 1996 Protocol to the London Convention (the London 
Protocol), a free-standing treaty, represents the culmination of an 
intensive effort to update the Convention to reflect current views 
on protection of the ocean and scientific improvements in 
environmental assessments.  The Protocol is intended to eventually 
supersede the original London Convention.  Unlike the London 
Convention, which lists substances that may not be dumped, the 
Protocol prohibits ocean dumping of any waste or other matter except 
for those specifically allowed to be considered for dumping (a 
'reverse list').  The text of the Protocol was adopted by 
Contracting Parties to the London Convention parties in 1996, and 
the United States signed the Protocol in 1998.  The Protocol entered 
into force on March 24, 2006.  Currently 30 states are Parties to 
the 1996 Protocol, with at least nine more (including the United 
States) actively working towards accession. 
 
 
¶4.  CO2 Sequestration Amendment to 1996 Protocol - The most 
significant action taken at the meeting was the adoption of an 
amendment to the Protocol that would amend Annex 1 (the "reverse 
list") to explicitly allow sequestration  of "carbon dioxide streams 
from carbon dioxide capture processes," provided that: (1) the 
sequestration "is into a sub-seabed geological formation," (2) the 
CO2 streams to be sequestered "consist overwhelmingly of carbon 
dioxide," though they may contain "incidental associated substances 
derived from the source material and the capture and sequestration 
processes used," and (3) no wastes or other matter are added for the 
purpose of disposal.  The amendment would not allow sequestration in 
the water column. 
 
¶5.  The text of the amendment as adopted was the same as that 
proposed by Australia, co-sponsored by France, Norway, and the 
United Kingdom, and supported by Spain.  Its adoption, however, 
followed lengthy debate both in a working group (chaired by Canada) 
and in plenary, and a roll call vote.  The following twelve 
Contracting Parties to the Protocol voted in favor:  Australia, 
Canada, France, Germany, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Saudi Arabia, 
Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, and Vanuatu.  Belgium, China, 
Denmark, Egypt, and South Africa abstained.  The United States (not 
a Contracting Party to the Protocol) made an intervention supporting 
the amendment. 
 
 
LONDON 00000894  002 OF 004 
 
 
¶6.  Delegations in favor of adoption of the amendment noted 
generally that CO2 sequestration in sub-seabed geological formations 
is one option in a portfolio of measures needed to combat ocean 
acidification and climate change; that a number of promising marine 
CO2 sequestration projects are under consideration around the world 
(notably UK and Norwegian projects in the North Sea and projects off 
the coast of Australia); and that a failure of the Protocol to 
elaborate the legal framework would hinder commercial-scale 
implementation of CO2 sequestration in sub-seabed geological 
formations.  The sponsors of the amendment, especially Australia, 
Norway, and the United Kingdom, were most vocal in its support. 
 
¶7.  Delegations opposed to the amendment claimed that the scientific 
uncertainties about site selection, leakage rates, long-term 
monitoring, and carbon purity argue for developing specific 
guidelines for assessment of CO2 sequestration proposals before 
deciding on the proposed amendment.  Greenpeace International also 
opposed the amendment, drawing attention to the risks of long-term 
storage due to impurities co-disposed with the CO2, and recommending 
that the amendment require that CO2 streams to be sequestered 
consist of 99.9% CO2. 
 
¶8.  The carefully crafted resolution accompanying the amendment was 
a key factor in the amendment's adoption.  Among other things, the 
resolution instructs the London Convention Scientific Group (which 
also serves the London Protocol), in accordance with detailed Terms 
of Reference, to develop guidance for the assessment of CO2 
sequestration in sub-seabed geological formations.  The Scientific 
Group will work to develop this guidance at a special meeting in 
April in Oslo, Norway.  The resulting guidelines will then be 
finalized at the annual meeting of the Scientific Group in Spain in 
June 2007, with a view to their adoption at the Second Meeting of 
Contracting Parties in London in November 2007. 
 
¶9.  The Amendment took effect on February 10, 2007, 100 days after 
the agreement in London. 
 
¶10.  Compliance Mechanism - Some progress was made on the London 
Protocol's compliance mechanism and related procedures, which have 
been under discussion for some time and need to be in place by March 
¶2008.  Most significantly, the chair of the meeting offered a 
proposal that was met with agreement by parties, which established a 
small compliance group of nominated experts, with the opportunity 
for significant involvement for observers.   While the United States 
had been pushing for an open-ended working group to allow for 
transparency and robust participation, we did not speak out against 
the chair's proposal, in part because we were able to get initial 
agreement for a 15 member group and also because of the sense that 
observers would be able to fully participate in the meetings of the 
group.  The other main focus of discussion surrounded which entities 
would be able to bring compliance matters to the compliance group. 
Agreement was reached that a Party could bring a compliance matter 
about itself directly to the compliance group.  A more controversial 
issue was whether a Party could bring a concern about another 
Party's compliance directly to the group or whether it had to go 
through the Meeting of Contracting Parties.  The U.S. supports an 
option that would allow such a matter to be brought directly to the 
compliance group if the Party about which the compliance matter has 
been raised agrees.  Otherwise it would go through the Meeting of 
Contracting Parties.  The group working on this compliance mechanism 
will convene November 1-2, 2007, two days before the next Meeting of 
Contracting Parties.  The Protocol requires the mechanism and 
procedures to be in place two years after entry into force (March 
08). 
 
¶11.  Placement (for Purpose Other Than Disposal) - An ongoing 
discussion within the London Convention concerns the placement of 
material into the ocean for purposes other than disposal of that 
material, e.g.  the creation of artificial reefs.  Greenpeace 
International delivered a paper asserting that the creation of an 
artificial reef out of ex-USS ORISKANY (a former U.S. Navy aircraft 
carrier) near the Florida coast violated U.S. obligations under the 
London Convention.  Article III(1)(b)(ii) of the Convention states 
that dumping does not include placement of matter for a purpose 
other than the mere disposal thereof, provided that such placement 
is not contrary to the aims of the Convention.  Greenpeace claims 
that creation of the reef was contrary to the aims of the Convention 
because the ex-ORISKANY had approximately 700 pounds of PCBs on 
board when it was placed on the ocean floor.  This position did not 
receive any support or other reaction from London Convention Parties 
or other observers when the paper was delivered. 
 
LONDON 00000894  003 OF 004 
 
 
 
¶12.  The United States responded that the U.S. Navy was required to 
clean and prepare the vessel in accordance with the Best Management 
Practices Guidance document developed jointly by the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Maritime 
Administration.  Extensive studies performed by the Navy and 
reviewed by EPA led the USG to conclude that appropriate actions 
were implemented to effectively control any sources of marine 
pollution and to safeguard the environment.  In response to 
follow-up questions from Greenpeace and Spain, the United States 
stated that it will make national authorities responsible for the 
reefing program aware of the exchange of views at the London 
Convention meeting. 
 
¶13.  Scientific Work Group Issues and Actions - The London 
Convention has a Scientific Group that meets each spring and works 
intersessionally on understanding the technical issues of ocean 
dumping.  The Parties to the London Protocol decided to establish a 
Scientific Group that will meet concurrently with the London 
Convention's Scientific Group with the understanding that at future 
Scientific Group meetings the offices of Chair and Vice-Chair would 
consist of members representing both Parties to the Protocol and to 
the Convention.  The Chair of the existing (London Convention) 
Scientific Group provided an overview of the 29th session of the 
Scientific Group (held in June 2006), and the meeting adopted the 
recommendations of this 29th Scientific Group session. 
 
¶14.  Topics discussed included development of action lists for 
dredged material, administration of a questionnaire for developing 
countries, and the status of the Scientific Group's ongoing 
development of Specific Guidelines for the Assessment of Carbon 
Dioxide Streams for Disposal into Sub -seabed Geological Formations. 
 The Scientific Group will hold an intersessional technical working 
group meeting on CO2 sequestration in sub-seabed geological 
formations in Oslo, Norway, April 17-20, 2007. 
 
¶15.  The London Convention parties noted the Scientific Group's 
efforts to administer a brief questionnaire for developing countries 
during the period July 2006 - March 2007.  The questionnaire is 
aimed at identifying suitable distribution or marketing mechanisms 
for the Protocol's "Waste Specific Guidelines", with a view to 
submitting a full report on its outcome, for review by the 
Scientific Group at its spring 2007 session.  The Scientific Group 
will hold its next meeting June 18-22, 2007, in Spain. 
 
¶16.  Other Miscellaneous Issues - Other agenda items discussed at 
the London meetings included strategies to improve reporting of 
ocean disposal, relations with and outreach to other organizations, 
and technical cooperation and assistance.  The meeting discussed an 
ongoing collaboration through a correspondence group between the 
London Convention/Protocol and the IMO's Marine Environment 
Protection Committee on clarifying boundary issues between the 
London Convention/Protocol and MARPOL Annex V.  Various technical 
cooperation projects were noted, including technical assistance to 
South Africa to improve its compliance with the London Protocol, and 
a workshop that took place in China last spring on preventing marine 
pollution and environmental management in ports.  The meeting 
discussed several outreach activities to raise the profile of the 
London Protocol and  to encourage additional countries to join it, 
such as workshops on the Protocol sponsored by the UNEP Regional 
Seas Programme. 
 
¶17.  Elections and Meeting Dynamics - This combined London Protocol 
and London Convention meeting was ably chaired by Mr. Victor Escobar 
of Spain, who was particularly effective in guiding the meeting 
through the discussions on the carbon sequestration amendment.  The 
First Vice-Chair, Ms. Chen Yue from China, did not take an active 
role and seemed content to let Mr. Escobar manage the leadership of 
the meeting.  Mr. Escobar and Ms. Chen were unanimously re-elected 
as Chair and First Vice Chair, respectively, for the intersessional 
period and the next meetings of the London Convention and London 
Protocol, which will be held November 5 to 9, 2007, in London.  As 
no candidates have been nominated for the post of Second Vice Chair, 
the Secretariat will approach possible nominees via appropriate 
channels and prepare a shortlist of candidates, focusing on 
candidates from developing countries, for consideration by member 
states before the next meetings. 
 
¶18.  Comment - The first Meeting of Contracting Parties to the 
London Protocol was an important milestone in global efforts to 
protect the marine environment.  The amendment to allow carbon 
 
LONDON 00000894  004 OF 004 
 
 
sequestration in sub-seabed geological formations was particularly 
significant for the United States.  Although we are not yet a Party 
(and therefore were not eligible to vote), we still strongly 
supported the Australian proposal that was ultimately successful. 
The fact that the Protocol Members were able to debate, discuss and 
come to agreement on this amendment demonstrates the Protocol's 
flexibility in being able to meet changing demands and future 
challenges for the better protection of the marine environment. 
Despite Greenpeace International's claim that the United States was 
acting contrary to the aims of the London Convention through the 
U.S. Navy's artificial reef program, the U.S. delegation's 
explanation of our careful precautions taken to safeguard the 
environment seemed to satisfy the other delegations.  Although there 
was potential for this to be an awkward issue for the United States, 
none of the other delegations seemed interested in supporting 
Greenpeace or prolonging discussions on the topic.  The Department 
and other agencies are now in the process of preparing a 
ratification package for the 1996 Protocol, with plans to submit it 
to the White House for transmittal to the Senate for ratification in 
the near term.  U.S. membership in the Protocol will affirm our 
leadership role in international efforts to control marine pollution 
and protect the environment of the world's oceans. 
 
TUTTLE