VZCZCXYZ0001
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHLO #3181/01 3541622
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 191622Z DEC 08
FM AMEMBASSY LONDON
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 0732
INFO RHMFIUU/HQ EPA WASHINGTON DC
RUCPDC/NOAA WASHDC
RUCPOC/USDOC WASHDC
RUEAWJL/DOJ WASHDC
RHEBAAA/DOE WASHDC
RUEHC/DEPT OF INTERIOR WASHINGTON DC
RHEFHLC/HOMELAND SECURITY CENTER WASHINGTON DC
RUEHUL/AMEMBASSY SEOUL 0564

UNCLAS LONDON 003181 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE PLEASE PASS TO IO/IOC FOR M. MORRISSEY 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EWWT PHSA SENV KGHG KRAD UK
SUBJECT: IMO: LONDON CONVENTION REPORT ON MARINE 
ENVIRONMENT ISSUES 
 
¶1. SUMMARY: The International Maritime 
Organization's (IMO) 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") made 
progress on several marine environment issues. 
They achieved a strong (but non-binding) resolution 
on the controversial issue of ocean fertilization 
for climate change that will allow scientific 
research while restricting commercial ventures. The 
meetings made progress on new guidelines for 
placement of artificial reefs, a reporting format 
for sub-seabed carbon sequestration projects, and 
establishing a technical cooperation trust fund. 
The meetings also adopted guidance on managing 
spoilt cargo and removal of anti-fouling coatings, 
and agreed to forward these to the IMO's Marine 
Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) for 
consideration and adoption. Other parties were 
pleased to hear that the London Protocol is 
currently before the U.S. Senate, awaiting the 
Senate's advice and consent to ratification. END 
SUMMARY 
 
--------------------------- 
Introduction and Background 
--------------------------- 
 
¶2. The annual meetings for both the 1972 London 
Convention and the 1996 London Protocol were held 
concurrently October 27-31 at the headquarters of 
the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in 
London. The U.S. delegation consisted of 
representatives of Department of State, the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, the Army Corps of 
Engineers, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Organization, the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Coast Guard 
and the Department of Energy. 
 
¶3. The Convention on the Prevention of Marine 
Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 
1972 (the London Convention) established a global 
regime for the protection of the marine environment 
from pollution caused by ocean dumping and 
incineration at sea. It now has eighty-five 
Parties. The United States became a Party in 1975. 
The 1996 Protocol to the London Convention (the 
London Protocol) is a free-standing treaty that 
updates and improves the Convention, and will 
eventually supersede it.  Unlike the London 
Convention, which lists substances that may not be 
dumped in the ocean, 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 Protocol was 
adopted in 1996, and the United States signed it in 
¶1998. The Protocol entered into force March 24, 
¶2006. The Protocol currently has 36 Parties, with 
many more (including the United States) actively 
working towards accession. 
 
----------------------- 
Scientific Group Report 
----------------------- 
 
¶4. 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 Parties to both the Protocol and to 
the Convention. 
 
¶5. The Chair of the London Convention and London 
Protocol Scientific Groups provided an overview of 
the 31st session of the Scientific Groups (held in 
May 2008 in Guayaquil, Ecuador).  The meeting 
endorsed the recommendations of the 31st Scientific 
Group session, including the adoption of the 
 
revised "Generic Waste Assessment Guidelines," the 
revised titles for the Specific and Generic 
Guidelines to be displayed on the London Convention 
website, the "Specific Guidelines for Assessment of 
Inert, Inorganic Geological material," and the 
"Guidance for the Placement of Artificial Reefs." 
Additionally, the meetings adopted the "Draft 
Guidance on Best Management Practices for Removal 
of Anti-Fouling Coatings from Ships, including TBT 
Hull Paints," and the "Draft Guidance on Managing 
Spoilt Cargoes," with the agreement to forward both 
to the 59th session of the International Maritime 
Organization's Marine Environment Protection 
Committee (MEPC) for consideration and adoption. 
The Contracting Parties endorsed the Joint Work 
Programme of the Scientific Groups and agreed to 
merge the LC/LP Consultative Meetings' Joint Long- 
term Programme with the Joint Work Programme of the 
Scientific Groups. 
 
¶6. The Scientific Groups will hold their next 
meeting from May 25 - 29, 2009, in Rome, Italy. 
 
------------------- 
Ocean Fertilization 
------------------- 
 
¶7. Ocean fertilization is a potential greenhouse 
gas mitigation technique that works, in theory, by 
adding iron or other substances to high nutrient 
regions of the ocean in order to stimulate 
phytoplankton blooms that sequester carbon dioxide. 
In dealing with this topic, the United States has 
consistently tried to balance the concerns about 
the uncertain efficacy and potential adverse side 
effects of ocean fertilization with the need for 
further scientific investigations to explore, among 
other things, the potential of ocean fertilization 
as a climate change mitigation strategy. The London 
Convention and Protocol have emerged as the primary 
international mechanisms dealing with this issue, 
at least in terms of impacts on the ocean 
environment. The fall 2007 annual London Convention 
and Protocol meetings agreed to a statement 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 
were currently not justified." The London 
Convention and Protocol Scientific Groups meeting 
(Guayaquil, Ecuador, May 19-23, 2008) considered 
the issue further, and developed a revised set of 
assessment criteria (initially developed at the 
June 2007 Scientific Groups meeting) for states to 
use in evaluating and regulating any potential 
ocean fertilization proposals. Ocean fertilization 
was also discussed at meetings of other 
international organizations and conventions over 
the past year, including the annual meetings of the 
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the 
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC), 
and negotiations of the UN General Assembly's of 
its 2008 Resolution on Oceans and the law of the 
sea. The CBD meeting issued a statement which, 
while legally non-binding, was widely viewed as a 
de-facto moratorium on ocean fertilization. Among 
the criticisms of the CBD decision was the 
complaint by some oceanographers and other 
interested scientists that it could effectively 
restrict scientific research on ocean 
fertilization. 
 
¶8. This year again ocean fertilization was the most 
controversial and time-consuming topic on the 
London Convention/Protocol annual meeting agenda. A 
working group on the topic, led by the Chair of the 
Scientific Groups, Dr. Chris Vivian of the United 
Kingdom, worked throughout the week to develop an 
agreement on appropriate action for the London 
Convention and Protocol parties to take. On October 
31, Convention and Protocol parties approved a 
 
strong, non-binding resolution on ocean 
fertilization that will allow scientific research 
while restricting other ocean fertilization 
activities (including commercial ocean 
fertilization activities). The resolution calls for 
the Convention and Protocol Scientific Groups to 
develop a comprehensive assessment framework for 
parties planning to permit legitimate scientific 
research. Work on this assessment framework will 
continue this spring through an intersessional 
working group (currently proposed for February 9-13 
in London). The resolution also notes that the 
restriction on other ocean fertilization activities 
should be reviewed periodically as scientific 
knowledge about ocean fertilization is further 
established. Some countries, led by Australia and 
joined by some Europeans, advocated either amending 
the London Protocol, or pursuing some other legally 
binding option, in order to strengthen the degree 
of regulation on ocean fertilization. Parties 
agreed to continue working on this concept and 
further consider and develop it. 
 
¶9. Climos, one of the U.S. firms hoping to pursue 
ocean fertilization as a commercial climate 
mitigation technique, attended the meetings as the 
representative of the International Emissions 
Trading Association (IETA), an international 
organization that was recently granted temporary 
accreditation by the IMO to attend London 
Convention/Protocol meetings as a "non-governmental 
organization observer." Although Climos generally 
kept a low-profile, and only spoke up publicly to 
read a general statement about their work and 
goals, their presence created additional 
controversy on the topic, as some parties 
questioned the legitimacy of a single company 
representing a non-profit business association as 
an observer. After some discussion in a smaller 
"heads of delegation" meeting, Parties agreed to 
invite IETA to continue as a NGO observer on an 
interim basis for one additional year, with the 
request that IETA better explain how their 
attendance helps to further the objectives of the 
London Convention and Protocol. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ------ 
- 
Carbon Sequestration Ongoing Research and Reporting 
Format 
--------------------------------------------- ------ 
- 
 
¶10. At the previous annual meetings, the Scientific 
Groups were asked to develop an appropriate uniform 
format for the reporting of data on sub-seabed 
carbon sequestration activities, and to present 
this format at the October 2008 annual meeting. 
During the May Scientific Groups meeting in 
Guayaquil, a working group led by Norway (and 
including Australia, Canada, France, Germany, UK, 
Japan, Korea, USA and Denmark) further developed a 
draft format, and worked intersessionally to 
further revise it. The major issue appeared to be 
one of resolving issues of consistency and 
differences among national reporting frameworks; 
that is, whether to use mass or volume for 
constituents of the carbon dioxide stream. Another 
issue (though not a stumbling block) was that of 
consistency across units to be reported and the 
precise definition of "depth of injection" - 
whether this refers to the depth of the water 
column, or whether it also take into account the 
thickness of the overlying marine sediment. The 
United States took the position that all units 
should be consistent (all flows should either be 
mass or volume and not be mixed) and all volumes 
should be reported as standard cubic meters as 
opposed to a collection of mass units; however the 
consensus was not to adopt this approach. Next was 
the issue of whether to use ppm or ppv (parts-per- 
million by mass or volume). This issue was left for 
 
the next Scientific Groups meeting to determine. 
The general appearance of the tables and layout is 
almost, although not completely, finalized. 
 
¶11. Parties were asked to describe ongoing carbon 
sequestration research and activities, both marine 
and terrestrial. Australia described its Otway 
Basin project, and the European Union described the 
"CO2SINK" project in Germany and the "In Salah" 
industrial-scale CO2 storage project in Algeria. 
The United States outlined ongoing work by the 
Department of Energy's (DOE) Regional Carbon 
Sequestration Partnerships (a joint 
government/industry effort) for determining the 
most suitable geological sequestration 
technologies, regulations, and infrastructure needs 
for carbon capture, storage, and sequestration in 
different areas of the country. The United States 
also mentioned the Weyburn-Midale CO2 Monitoring and 
Storage Project in the oilfields of Alberta, which 
is co-funded with the Government of Canada. 
 
----------------------------------------- 
Transboundary Carbon Sequestration Issues 
----------------------------------------- 
 
¶12. After the London Protocol was amended in 2007 
to allow sub-seabed carbon sequestration, some 
parties began to question how to deal with 
transboundary carbon sequestration issues. At the 
request of Norway, Germany, and several other 
Protocol Parties, the meaning of "export" under LP 
Article 6 in specific relation to sub-seabed 
geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide streams 
under Annex 1 was discussed. Germany hosted an 
intersessional meeting in March 2008 in Bonn to 
discuss this topic, which the United States did not 
attend. Of immediate concern is how the Article 6 
prohibition on export of wastes for dumping impacts 
Parties planning to export CO2 to another country 
for the purpose of sub-seabed geologic 
sequestration. Given the unique circumstance of 
finding sites suitable for carbon sequestration, it 
may be that the most appropriate and efficient site 
is not located within or wholly within a country's 
own jurisdiction. A working group was set up to 
discuss this issue during the week, with options 
for addressing it outlined. Some parties felt that 
an amendment to Article 6 is in order, while others 
(including the United States) wanted to explore use 
of an interpretive resolution. There was general 
support for the policy objective of facilitating 
such export, and work will continue on this topic 
intersessionally. 
 
------------------------ 
Compliance Group Meeting 
------------------------ 
 
¶13. In 2007, the Meeting of Contracting Parties 
finalized and adopted Compliance Procedures and 
Mechanisms (CPM) pursuant to Article 11 of the 
London Protocol. The Compliance Group met for its 
first session from 27 to 29 October 2008 and 
elected Ms. Anne Daniel (Canada) as chair and Ms. 
Zhou Qian (China) as co-chair. Others elected to 
the group included Mr. Mongezi Nqoro (South 
Africa); Professor Hisakazu Kato (Japan); Ms. 
Marinka Bogdanova (Bulgaria); and Captain Federico 
Crescenzi (Italy); for a total of six members. 
Consideration was given to the need to increase the 
nominations for compliance group members, although 
no specific conclusion was reached in this regard. 
The United States was active in the group as an 
observer given our non-party status to the London 
Protocol. There was a general sense among members 
that the group should limit itself primarily to 
procedural decisions at this stage. It was decided 
that the working language of the compliance group 
would be English and that the Group would meet next 
year at the same time as the Meeting of Contracting 
Parties but would remain in contact for any issues 
 
that arose during the intersessional period. The 
Group also developed a statement on how to deal 
with a potential conflict of interest for its 
members when reviewing cases and how it would 
invite and prepare reports to be received from 
Contracting Parties under Articles 9 and 26 of the 
Protocol. The Group recommended the following 
future work items: a) handling referred individual 
cases of non-compliance; b) studying the Final 
Report of the "Barriers to Compliance" project (LC 
29/INF.2) and considering how the work of the 
Compliance Group could both contribute to and 
benefit from this project; c) reviewing dumping 
reports referred to the Compliance Group pursuant 
to paragraph 6.2 of the CPM, including where 
concerns have been raised by the LP Scientific 
Group; d) examining reports received under Articles 
9.4.2 and 9.4.3 of the Protocol; and, e) examining 
how to make the Guidance on National Implementation 
of the Protocol a more effective tool for 
prospective Parties (e.g., providing links to a 
variety of implementing legislation). 
 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
Technical Cooperation and "Barriers to Compliance" 
Project 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
 
¶14. A key accomplishment of this meeting was 
establishing a technical cooperation (TC) trust 
fund, which will be used to fund training programs 
aimed at increasing and improving compliance with 
the London Convention and Protocol, especially in 
developing countries that lack sufficient capacity 
for adequately regulating ocean dumping. The United 
States initially had some reservations on 
establishing such a trust fund, but these were 
allayed by the Secretariat's full explanation of 
the planned structure and accountability procedures 
for the trust fund. The Secretariat assured parties 
that the TC trust fund will be reported to the IMO 
Council; IMO will not need to hire additional 
personnel to manage the fund; auditing costs will 
be taken from TC trust fund contributions (not from 
the general IMO budget) and carried out by regular 
IMO auditors; and the TC trust fund will not 
detract from normal London Convention/Protocol 
Secretariat operations. Responding to a query by 
Australia, the Secretariat assured the meeting that 
contributing parties will be able to direct their 
contributions to specific projects they wish to 
support. 
 
¶15. The meeting also discussed the "Barriers to 
Compliance" project, which resulted from the 
previous annual meeting's decision to adopt a 
strategic approach to help states overcome 
legislative, institutional, technical and other 
"barriers" to full compliance with the London 
Convention and Protocol. At this meeting, parties 
adopted a Barriers to Compliance "Implementation 
Plan" as a living document to be revised as needed 
(the United States already provided some suggested 
revisions). Italy agreed to continue chairing the 
working group that will monitor and assist the 
Secretariat in implementing technical cooperation 
projects aimed at overcoming barriers to fully 
complying with the London Convention and Protocol. 
The Barriers to Compliance project also will pursue 
the goal of encouraging non- parties to join the 
London Protocol.  Various parties offered to 
contribute additional funds to the Barriers to 
Compliance project (which will be put into the TC 
Trust Fund described above), including Canada, 
Spain, Korea, the United Kingdom, and the United 
States.  France already has pledged over USD 
800,000 for the project, and the barriers project 
now has funds of over USD 1.2 million. The LC/LP 
Secretariat is developing plans for workshops in 
various regions and publications of technical 
assistance documents. 
E 
 
---------------- 
Artificial Reefs 
---------------- 
 
¶16. An ongoing discussion within the London 
Convention concerns the placement of material into 
the ocean for purposes other than disposal of that 
material, especially for the creation of artificial 
reefs. A Correspondence Group has been working 
intersessionally to develop "Guidance for the 
Placement of Artificial Reefs" jointly with the 
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The 
United States was very actively involved in 
drafting the Guidance, and a final version was 
presented to the Governing Bodies for adoption at 
the 2008 meeting. The final Guidance was adopted by 
the Contracting Parties, who instructed the 
Secretariat to publish the Guidelines in the UN 
working languages as soon as possible in 2009. The 
issue of the ex-USS ORISKANY (a former aircraft 
carrier 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 2008 meeting. 
 
------------------------------------- 
Spoilt Cargoes and Anti-Fouling Paint 
------------------------------------- 
 
¶17. Certain issues related to marine environmental 
protection that are, in part, also covered by other 
international agreements such as MARPOL (another 
convention in the IMO family that deals with oil 
spills and pollution from ships), are referred to 
as "boundary issues." One boundary issue between 
the London Convention/Protocol and MARPOL is the 
handling of spoilt cargoes.   Canada chaired a 
joint LC/MEPC correspondence group that prepared a 
final draft of "advice to mariners" regarding 
management of spoilt cargoes, which was submitted 
it to the London Scientific Groups for review in 
May 2008. The Governing Bodies adopted this 
"Guidance on Managing Spoilt Cargoes" and agreed to 
forward it to the next meeting of the IMO's Marine 
Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC 59) for 
its consideration and adoption, and recommended 
distributing it through a joint LC-LP/MEPC Circular 
to replace Circular Letter No. 2074, issued in 1998 
on the same topic. The guidance reflects the U.S. 
view 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" under 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, but in most 
cases does not fall under Annex V. 
 
¶18. The governing bodies also developed an outreach 
strategy for the Guidance.  In so doing, the 
governing bodies took into account the fact that 
MARPOL Annex V (Garbage) is currently being 
reviewed in an MEPC Correspondence Group, led by 
Canada, and that the outcome of this review will be 
discussed at MEPC 59 in July 2009. In terms of 
planning and timing of the LC/LP outreach effort on 
spoilt cargo management, and due to the 
relationship between "garbage" and "spoilt 
cargoes," it will be important to coordinate the 
outreach activities on both issues as soon as MEPC 
has adopted the guidance. It was agreed in this 
respect that LC/LP experts should join the MEPC 
Correspondence Group on the review of MARPOL Annex 
V and exchange views on other boundary issues that 
were being explored during the review. 
 
¶19. The governing bodies adopted, at this session, 
the "Guidance on Best Management Practices for 
Removal of Anti-Fouling Coatings from Ships, 
Including TBT Hull Paints," agreed to forward the 
 
Guidance to MEPC 59 for its consideration and 
adoption, and recommended its distribution through 
a joint LC-LP/MEPC circular. 
 
------------------ 
Radioactive Wastes 
------------------ 
 
¶20. Similar to the previous two annual meetings, 
the IAEA updated their progress on activities in 
two major areas - the extension of the system of 
radiological protection to cover protection of the 
environment such as explicitly including 
radiological protection of non-human biota, and 
updating databases on radioactive waste disposal at 
sea, and accidents and losses at sea, involving 
radioactive material.  The IAEA reported on work 
being undertaken by the IAEA, ICRP (the 
International Commission on Radiological 
Protection), the European Commission, and 
international agencies regarding the development of 
mechanisms for the radiological protection of 
humans and the environment. The report noted that 
in 2007, the ICRP approved the revised fundamental 
recommendations on the protection of man and the 
environment. 
 
¶21. The IAEA highlighted that there has been 
significant progress towards the revision of the 
BSS (Basic Standards for Protection Against 
Ionizing Radiation and the Safety of Sources, IAEA 
SS-115 1996), where explicit international 
requirements on environmental radiation protection 
were considered. The revised BSS are being 
developed together with several cosponsoring or 
collaborating organizations following the 
established mechanisms of developing IAEA 
standards, the participation of relevant advisory 
standards committees and, consultation with all of 
its Member States. However, no new developments in, 
or major revisions of, detailed safety standards 
applicable to the control of releases of 
radioactive materials to the environment were 
foreseen before 2009/2010. 
 
¶22. The second part of the IAEA report dealt with 
updating of inventories that the IAEA, upon the 
request of the Contracting Parties, had developed 
and maintained of radioactive materials entering 
the marine environment from all sources, including: 
(a) radioactive waste disposal at sea; and (b) 
accidents and losses at sea involving radioactive 
material. Both France and the United States 
notified the IAEA and the Secretariat, 
respectively, over the last year of corrections to 
their specific sections involving historical 
radioactive waste disposal sites in the Pacific. 
This information was inadvertently omitted in 
earlier reports to the IAEA. The French sites, off 
the coast of Mururoa and Hao Atolls in French 
Polynesia and used in the 1970s, has been verified 
by the IAEA for inclusion in the next update of the 
inventory.  The U.S. site, approximately 90 
kilometers off the coast of Hawaii and used between 
1963 and 1968, has yet to be verified by the IAEA. 
 
¶23. The meeting noted the agreement from the 25th 
Consultative Meeting that Contracting Parties 
should use a precautionary approach and ensure that 
an assessment of potential effects on marine flora 
and fauna and legitimate uses of the sea would be 
included in specific assessments using contemporary 
scientific information. 
 
------------------------- 
Korea and Bauxite Dumping 
------------------------- 
 
¶24. Korea asked a number of countries to 
participate in a lunch meeting on October 28 to 
discuss Korea's ability to accede to the London 
Protocol in light of their continued dumping of 
 
bauxite in the ocean. The non-Koreans present were 
Suzanne Schwartz, USA; Peter Burnett, Australia; 
and Andrew Greaves, UK. Korea explained that under 
Korean domestic law their bauxite dumping must be 
terminated no later than 2015. Other participants 
enquired as to whether the material and process 
were essentially the same as for bauxite known to 
be dumped by Japan, a current Party to the 
Protocol. Korea responded that it was, except that 
it is in very small volumes compared to the dumping 
from Japan. The UK, Australian and U.S. officials 
advised that since Japan had determined that this 
activity was consistent with the Protocol, and no 
Parties had questioned it (even though all Parties 
were aware of it), there was no reason that Korea 
shouldn't be able to accede to the Protocol. In 
fact, Japan has agreed to terminate bauxite dumping 
by 2015, but does not have it in their law as Korea 
does. The lunch meeting participants felt that this 
would provide additional comfort to any Parties who 
were concerned about whether this dumping was 
permissible under the Protocol. Korea thanked the 
group and indicated that this view would be 
provided to their President, who would then decide 
whether or not to proceed with accession to the 
Protocol. 
 
------------------------------ 
Elections and Meeting Dynamics 
------------------------------ 
 
¶25. Again this year the issue of ocean 
fertilization proved to be the most contentious 
topic on the agenda. Parties spent many late 
evenings in a break-out working group on the topic, 
and most of the day on Friday was spent discussing 
the topic in plenary, at times in strongly worded 
debates not typically seen at the normally 
collegial London Convention/Protocol meetings. Mr. 
Victor Escobar of Spain chaired this combined 
meeting of the London Protocol and London 
Convention for the last time. Mr. Escobar has been 
a particularly effective chair during the last few 
years -- an important period in which the London 
Protocol came into force and the controversial 
issues of sub-seabed carbon sequestration and ocean 
fertilization emerged as priorities.  Many 
delegations openly expressed regret that he would 
no longer be fulfilling that role. The meetings 
elected the former First Vice-Chair, Ms. Chen Yue 
of China, as the new Chair for both the London 
Convention and London Protocol, and Mathew Johnson 
of Australia as the new First Vice-Chair.   As no 
nominees were proposed in time to vote, the 
position of Second Vice-Chair is still vacant, and 
the Secretariat will work with the Chair and First- 
Vice Chair to approach possible candidates during 
the intersessional period, for election before the 
next year's annual meetings, which will take place 
in London October 26 - 30, 2009. 
 
------- 
Comment 
------- 
 
¶26. Overall, this meeting was a success from the 
U.S. perspective. In particular, the strong 
resolution on ocean fertilization satisfied the 
U.S. goal of allowing continued scientific research 
while effectively restricting commercial ocean 
fertilization activities until the science is 
further established. Like many other multilateral 
environmental fora these days, the LC/LP meetings 
seemed to be seized with issues related to climate 
change - notably ocean fertilization and carbon 
sequestration. However this has not detracted from 
other accomplishments - notably the agreement on 
new guidelines for placement of artificial reefs, 
assessment tools for inert, inorganic geological 
material, and revised generic waste assessment 
guidelines. These were significant achievements 
that should produce real benefits for the 
 
regulation and control of ocean dumping in the long 
term. The agreement to establish a technical 
cooperation trust fund and the strong support for 
pursuing activities to help developing countries 
overcome barriers to compliance with the Convention 
and Protocol were also an indication of the 
increasing global recognition of the importance of 
controlling ocean dumping and better managing 
marine pollution, especially from land-based 
sources. The United States is still recognized as a 
leader within the London Convention/Protocol 
community. Many of the concrete actions in terms of 
better management of ocean disposal, especially the 
development of implementing methodologies and 
guidelines for testing and disposal of dredged 
material (the bread and butter of the London 
Convention and Protocol) have been the product of 
initiatives led by the United States. However, as 
more and more countries accede to the London 
Protocol, we are gradually losing our influence 
because we remain outside of the Protocol. 
 
TUTTLE