VZCZCXRO3644
RR RUEHHM RUEHLN RUEHMA RUEHPB RUEHPOD
DE RUEHLO #0981/01 0951354
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 041354Z APR 08
FM AMEMBASSY LONDON
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 8156
INFO RHMFIUU/HQ EPA WASHINGTON DC
RUCPDC/NOAA WASHDC
RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC
RUEAWJA/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHDC
RHEBAAA/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHDC
RUEHC/DEPT OF INTERIOR WASHDC
RHEFHLC/HOMELAND SECURITY CENTER WASHINGTON DC
RUEHZN/ENVIRONMENT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 07 LONDON 000981 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE PLEASE PASS TO IO/IOC FOR M. MORRISSEY 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PHSA SENV AORC ASEC UK
SUBJECT: IMO: LONDON CONVENTION REPORT - 29TH 
CONSULTATIVE MEETING, LONDON 5 -9 NOVEMBER 2007 
 
¶1. SUMMARY: The International Maritime Organization 
(IMO) combined annual meetings 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, November 5 to 9, 2007.  The 
meetings, which were held concurrently, achieved 
success in a number of key areas, including a 
strong statement on the emerging and controversial 
issue of ocean iron fertilization that urged 
"States to use the utmost caution when considering 
proposals for large-scale ocean fertilization 
operations" and took the view that "given the 
present state of knowledge regarding ocean 
fertilization, such large-scale operations are 
currently not justified." Parties agreed to 
continue studying the scientific and legal 
perspectives of ocean iron fertilization through 
the London Convention/Protocol Scientific Groups 
and a Legal Correspondence Group, with a view to 
its eventual regulation. The London Protocol 
parties approved a compliance mechanism (which the 
United States helped to shape, even though we are 
not yet Protocol members), and adopted guidelines 
for sub-seabed carbon sequestration. The meetings 
also agreed to implement a strategic project to 
remove barriers to compliance with the Convention 
and Protocol. Asked about our progress in ratifying 
the London Protocol, the U.S. delegation informed 
the meeting that the President has submitted the 
Protocol to the Senate for its advice and consent. 
END SUMMARY. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ------ 
-- 
Overview and Status of London Convention and 
Protocol 
--------------------------------------------- ------ 
-- 
 
¶2. 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-two 
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 
March 24, 2006. Currently 32 states are Parties to 
the 1996 Protocol, with at least seven more 
(including the United States) actively working 
towards accession. (NOTE: President Bush 
transmitted the Protocol to the U.S. Senate 
September 6, 2007, with his recommendation that the 
Senate give early and favorable consideration to 
this Protocol and give its advice and consent to 
ratification. END NOTE.) 
 
------------------------ 
Ocean Iron Fertilization 
------------------------ 
 
¶4. Iron fertilization is a potential greenhouse gas 
mitigation technique that works, in theory, by 
adding iron to stimulate phytoplankton blooms that 
 
LONDON 00000981  002 OF 007 
 
 
sequester carbon dioxide in nutrient deficient 
regions of the ocean. In the spring of 2007 a U.S. 
company gained international attention when it 
announced plans for an iron fertilization project, 
for which it planned to sell carbon credits. The 
Scientific Groups of the London Convention and 
Protocol took up this controversial issue at their 
June 2007 meeting, and issued a "Statement of 
Concern" saying that the current knowledge about 
the effectiveness and potential environmental 
impacts of iron fertilization was "insufficient to 
justify large-scale operations," and also forwarded 
the issue to the general meetings of Convention and 
Protocol parties to consider "with a view to 
ensuring adequate regulation of such operations." 
 
¶5. The November annual meeting of London Convention 
and Protocol parties saw lively discussions on the 
topic in plenary and break-out working group 
sessions throughout the week. Several parties and 
observers presented statements expressing their 
opposition to a proposal by a U.S. company for a 
ten-thousand square kilometer iron fertilization 
experiment approximately 350 miles west of the 
Galapagos Islands. Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia, 
Ecuador, Italy, Spain, Panama, Peru and Greenpeace 
International all expressed opposition to this 
particular proposal, and in some cases, to the 
concept of ocean iron fertilization in general. A 
statement by Vanuatu that nations should focus on 
reducing carbon dioxide emissions at the source 
rather than looking for potentially dangerous 
interim carbon sequestration solutions received 
noticeable indications of tacit support in the 
plenary session. 
 
¶6. After considerable discussion about how to best 
handle this issue, the London Convention and 
Protocol parties endorsed the Scientific Groups' 
June 2007 "Statement of Concern" and agreed that 
the scope of work of the London Convention and 
Protocol included ocean fertilization, as well as 
iron fertilization, and that the London Convention 
and Protocol were competent to address this issue 
within the jurisdiction of these treaties. 
Convention and Protocol parties also agreed that 
the legal and scientific aspects of the issue 
needed to be further investigated during the 
intersessional period, in order to reach a more 
informed decision on how to address this issue at 
the next annual meeting in October 2008.  The 
meeting outcome that received the most attention in 
the press was the agreed text that said: 
"recognizing that it was within the purview of each 
State to consider proposals on a case-by-case basis 
in accordance with the London Convention and 
Protocol, parties urged States to use the utmost 
caution when considering proposals for large-scale 
ocean fertilization operations. The governing 
bodies took the view that, given the present state 
of knowledge regarding ocean fertilization, such 
large-scale operations were currently not 
justified." 
 
¶7. The United States joined this consensus, but in 
numerous interventions also tried to balance the 
concerns about the uncertain efficacy and potential 
adverse side effects of iron fertilization with the 
need for further scientific investigations to 
explore the potential of iron fertilization as a 
climate change mitigation strategy. 
 
¶8. COMMENT: The emerging and controversial issue of 
iron fertilization seemed to dominate the agenda, 
and was the main topic of conversation during 
coffee breaks and in the corridors. Throughout the 
discussions on iron fertilization, the United 
States strove to make the point that uncertainties 
about the efficacy and potential adverse side 
effects of iron fertilization should not be used as 
reasons to rule out further scientific 
investigations on a potentially powerful tool for 
 
LONDON 00000981  003 OF 007 
 
 
mitigating global warming.  Nevertheless, when 
voicing support for the final agreed text on iron 
fertilization, the U.S. delegation noted to the 
plenary that our concerns about allowing continued 
research should not be misconstrued as endorsing 
any particular ocean fertilization project, 
proposal or entity, or promoting the concept in 
general at this time. Despite the fact that the 
only private companies with announced plans for 
iron fertilization "experiments" are currently U.S. 
firms, the negative attention garnered by the issue 
did not detract from the U.S. delegation's ability 
to help negotiate a balanced final outcome 
statement, nor hinder our leadership on other 
critical London Convention and Protocol issues. END 
COMMENT. 
 
----------------- 
CO2 Sequestration 
----------------- 
 
¶9. At the 2006 annual meeting, London Protocol 
parties agreed to 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 into sub-seabed geological formations 
(but not into the water column). That amendment 
took effect on February 10, 2007; however certain 
details of the carbon sequestration issue were left 
for the Protocol's Scientific Group to resolve. 
Earlier in 2007 the Scientific Group developed 
specific guidelines for carbon dioxide 
sequestration in sub-seabed geological formations, 
and this meeting of the Contracting Parties adopted 
these "Guidelines for Assessment of Carbon Dioxide 
Streams for Disposal into Sub-seabed Geological 
Formations" and agreed to keep them under review 
and update them in five years or earlier, as 
warranted in light of new developments. The meeting 
also instructed the Scientific Group to develop an 
appropriate uniform format for the reporting of 
data, and to present this format at the next annual 
meeting in October 2008. 
 
¶10. London Protocol Parties also addressed the 
potential issue of transboundary pollution 
resulting from sub seabed injection of carbon 
dioxide, and established a legal and technical 
working group on transboundary carbon sequestration 
issues. The Parties adopted the legal and technical 
working group's terms of reference and accepted 
Germany's offer to host the planned meeting of the 
legal and technical working group in early 2008. 
The terms of reference call for a legal evaluation 
of whether Article 6 of the Protocol, regarding 
export of wastes and other matter for disposal at 
sea, might need to be amended to allow 
transboundary transport of CO2 intended for 
sequestration in sub-seabed geological formations. 
They also call for consideration of the need for 
additional monitoring, notification, reporting, 
permitting, and other requirements. 
 
----------------------------------- 
Compliance Procedures and Mechanism 
----------------------------------- 
 
¶11. The meetings achieved progress on the London 
Protocol's compliance procedures and mechanism and 
related procedures, which had been under discussion 
for many years and needed to be in place by March 
¶2008. Parties adopted compliance procedures and 
mechanisms pursuant to Article 11 of the Protocol. 
While the United States (which was active in the 
discussions even though not yet a Protocol party) 
had long resisted establishment of a formal 
compliance group with a set number of members and 
preferred to have compliance handled on a case-by- 
case basis as had been done under the London 
Convention, the final result is less onerous and 
has more procedural safeguards than some other 
 
LONDON 00000981  004 OF 007 
 
 
mechanisms that have been recently developed in 
other multilateral environmental agreements. For 
example, although the Compliance Group is limited 
to 15 members, elected by the Meeting of 
Contracting Parties and having equitable geographic 
representation, the meetings of the Compliance 
Group are open to any party or non-party observer 
except when a Party whose compliance is in question 
requests a closed meeting. In addition the 
authority of the Compliance Group is limited and it 
may not take measures directly against a party 
having problems with compliance and instead can 
only make recommendations to the Meeting of 
Contracting Parties to this end. In addition, 
safeguards were added to the "party-to-party" 
submission in that the reporting party must first 
undertake consultations with the subject party 
before raising a compliance issue with the 
Compliance Group. Further, notice of all 
submissions shall be sent to all Parties for their 
information, to increase transparency. 
 
¶12. Finally, the United States also achieved 
inclusion of language recognizing the competence of 
the International Atomic Energy Agency over all 
issues involving radioactive wastes and other 
matter.  This section (which recognized the 
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as the 
competent international body for all issues 
involving radioactive wastes and other radioactive 
matter, and for radiation protection of humans and 
the environment), was an item the U.S. delegation 
specifically requested be reinserted back into the 
compliance procedures document. It stated that for 
compliance matters involving radioactive wastes and 
other radioactive matter, the Secretariat shall 
refer the matter to the IAEA for technical 
evaluation and review, and the compliance group 
will take the IAEA's evaluation into account in its 
consideration of the matter.  The U.S. delegation 
took this position as it did not want the 
compliance group to take independent action on 
radiological issues without IAEA involvement and 
advice. With these and other safeguards the 
Compliance Group should be a useful addition to the 
London Protocol regime. The United States will 
remain actively engaged in the implementation of 
the procedures and mechanisms. 
 
------------------------------ 
Artificial Reefs and Placement 
------------------------------ 
 
¶13. 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. A 
Correspondence Group had been working 
intersessionally to develop "Guidance for the 
Placement of Artificial Reefs." This group met 
informally during the week of the London meetings 
to discuss progress that has been made, and the 
Chair of the Correspondence Group sought approval 
of a revised and abbreviated document. The United 
States noted that the proposed format was a useful 
way forward but also noted that we will be able to 
provide more substantive comments on the next 
draft. 
 
¶14. In plenary, Japan made an intervention 
asserting that the Guidelines are legally non- 
binding and intended only for "developing 
countries." The Chair of the Scientific Groups (a 
member of the U.S. delegation) responded by 
agreeing that the Guidelines are legally non- 
binding, but challenged the notion that they are 
intended only for "developing countries," by 
pointing out that they should be useful for a much 
broader audience.  The plenary concluded discussion 
on the topic by urging Parties to provide comments 
and relevant information to the Chair of the 
Correspondence Group to assist with the 
 
LONDON 00000981  005 OF 007 
 
 
finalization of the Guidelines, and agreeing that 
the final Guidelines should be submitted to the 
Governing Bodies with a view to their adoption at 
their next joint session in October 2008. 
 
¶15. The issue of the ex-USS ORISKANY (a former 
aircraft carrier the U.S. Navy used to create an 
artificial reef off the coast of Florida), which 
Greenpeace International raised at the 2006 annual 
meeting, citing concerns over PCBs, was not 
mentioned at the 2007 meeting. 
 
---------------------------------------- 
Scientific Work Group Issues and Actions 
---------------------------------------- 
 
¶16. The London Convention has a Scientific Group 
that meets each spring and works intersessionally 
on the technical issues of ocean dumping.  The 
London Protocol Scientific Group meets concurrently 
with the London Convention's Scientific Group, 
through an agreed arrangement that the offices of 
Chair and Vice-Chair would consist of members 
representing both Parties to the Protocol and to 
the Convention. 
 
¶17. The departing Chair of the London Convention 
Scientific Groups provided an overview of the 30th 
session of the Scientific Group (held in June 
2007), and the meeting adopted the recommendations 
of this 30th Scientific Group session including the 
endorsement of the "Statement of Concern" on ocean 
iron fertilization, adoption of the "Guidelines for 
Assessment of Carbon Dioxide Streams for Disposal 
into Sub-seabed Geological Formations", adoption of 
the terms of reference for the legal and technical 
working group on transboundary carbon sequestration 
issues, and the adoption of a strategic approach 
for implementing the barriers to accession, 
implementation and compliance project.  The 
Contracting Parties adopted standing terms of 
reference for both the London Convention and London 
Protocol Scientific Groups. Among other things, the 
two Groups are to work co-operatively in all 
matters of joint interest and mandate, while 
ensuring that matters of importance to the London 
Convention and London Protocol are adequately 
addressed.  The Scientific Groups will hold their 
next meeting May 19-23 in Guayaquil, Ecuador. 
 
--------------------------------------------- --- 
Technical Cooperation and Barriers to Compliance 
--------------------------------------------- --- 
 
¶18. Parties made note of various technical 
cooperation projects over the past year to improve 
compliance with the London Convention and Protocol. 
They also noted a work group meeting in Spain last 
May on implementation of an e-form for reporting of 
dumping activities.  The meeting discussed several 
outreach activities to raise the profile of the 
London Protocol and encourage additional countries 
to join it, such as workshops on the Protocol 
sponsored by the UNEP Regional Seas Programme, in 
particular a workshop on ocean dumping in February 
2007 in Bahrain for countries in the Middle East 
and another outreach workshop on ocean dumping 
given in Ecuador in October 2007. 
 
¶19. The governing bodies reviewed and adopted a 
Work Plan aimed at a strategic approach to helping 
countries overcome barriers to accession, 
implementation and compliance with the London 
Convention and Protocol. This Work Plan will help 
to prioritize support for States to overcome the 
legislative, institutional, technical and socio- 
economic barriers that have been identified towards 
full compliance with the London Convention and 
Protocol. The governing bodies noted with 
appreciation the substantial contributions pledged 
to execute this Work Plan by Canada (CS$25000), 
France (US$250000), Italy (US$10000), United States 
 
LONDON 00000981  006 OF 007 
 
 
(US$20000), UNEP (US$8000) and Spain (amount yet to 
be confirmed), while the Secretariat informed the 
Meetings that US$63500 had been set aside in the 
IMO-ITCP for this purpose, focusing on countries in 
Eastern Europe and the CIS States for the period 
2008 to 2009, as well as US$30000 for Africa in 
¶2008. The governing bodies also noted with 
appreciation the completion of the long-awaited 
Waste Assessment Guidance Tutorial and progress 
with communicating and distributing the Tutorial to 
the various intended audiences. 
 
--------------- 
BOUNDARY ISSUES 
--------------- 
 
¶20. Certain issues related to marine environmental 
protection that are, in part, also covered by other 
international agreements such as MARPOL, are 
referred to as "boundary issues." Canada reported 
on the efforts of a joint working group between the 
London Convention/Protocol and the IMO's Marine 
Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) to 
clarify boundary issues between the 
Convention/Protocol and MARPOL, particularly with 
respect to spoilt cargoes.  Canada, the lead 
country, is preparing a revised draft of "advice to 
mariners" on managing spoilt cargoes under both 
instruments, taking into account comments on an 
earlier draft submitted by the United States and 
the Netherlands. Canada intends to submit "final 
draft" text for review by the London Scientific 
Groups in May 2008 and later by the Convention and 
Protocol governing bodies and MEPC 58 (October 
2008). 
 
¶21. The U.S. view is that the disposal of spoilt 
cargo at sea is subject to regulation under MARPOL 
only if it constitutes "garbage" as defined in 
MARPOL Annex V, regulation 1. Otherwise, it is 
subject to regulation as "dumping" within the 
London Convention/Protocol. Whether the disposal of 
a particular spoilt cargo is subject to the London 
Convention/Protocol or MARPOL Annex V must be 
determined on a case-by-case basis. Moreover, a 
careful review of Annex V and its implementing 
Guidelines led us to the conclusion that spoilt 
cargoes in most if not all cases do not fall under 
Annex V. 
 
¶22. The United Kingdom reported on the development 
of advice by the London Scientific Groups' 
intersessional correspondence group on the 
management of waste streams resulting from the 
removal of anti-fouling systems from ships. The 
volume of these waste streams is expected to 
increase as a result of the impending entry into 
force (September 2008) of the Anti-Fouling Systems 
Convention (AFS). The Scientific Groups will 
continue their work with the aim of submitting 
advice to MEPC 58 and the next meeting of the 
London Convention and Protocol governing bodies. 
 
------------------------------ 
Elections and Meeting Dynamics 
------------------------------ 
 
¶23. Similar to the 2006 annual meeting, 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 
controversial iron fertilization issue. The First 
Vice-Chair, Ms. Chen Yue from China, took a less 
active role, allowing Mr. Escobar to lead 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 October 27 - 31, 2008, 
in London. As no candidates have been nominated for 
the post of Second Vice Chair, the Secretariat will 
 
LONDON 00000981  007 OF 007 
 
 
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. 
 
------- 
Comment 
------- 
 
¶24. This meeting of the London Convention and 
London Protocol parties was a success from the U.S. 
perspective. All the attention received by iron 
fertilization might seem to diminish the 
significance of some of the achievements at this 
meeting on other important issues covered by the 
London Convention and Protocol. However, the 
mainstay issues of the London Convention and 
Protocol (dumping of dredged material and other 
material at sea) will continue to be critical 
issues for all coastal and maritime states, 
especially given the increased overall concerns 
about land-based sources of marine pollution, and 
the upward trend of maritime trade resulting from 
increased globalization. If and when the United 
States ratifies the 1996 London Protocol (which is 
currently before the Senate), our membership in the 
Protocol will reaffirm our leadership role in 
international efforts to control marine pollution 
and protect the environment of the world's oceans. 
 
TUTTLE