VZCZCXYZ0012
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHC #5725 0211019
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 202113Z JAN 10
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 8893-8896
INFO ENVIRONMENT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COLLECTIVE
RULSJGA/COGARD HQSUPRTCOM WASHINGTON DC
RHMCSUU/HQ EPA WASHINGTON DC

UNCLAS STATE 005725 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
C O R R E C T E D  COPY (SENSITIVE CAPTION ADDED) 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EWWT IMO PHSA SENV UK KRAD KGHG
SUBJECT: IMO: LONDON CONVENTION REPORT ON MARINE 
ENVIRONMENT ISSUES 
 
SUMMARY 
¶1. (U) The annual meetings of Contracting Parties to the 
London Convention (LC) and the London Protocol (LP) on ocean 
dumping were held concurrently 26-30 October at the 
International Maritime Organization in London (LC31/LP4). The 
U.S. delegation consisted of representatives from seven USG 
agencies. An amendment to Article 6 of the LP was adopted 
that will allow the export of carbon dioxide streams for 
sub-seabed sequestration under certain circumstances. 
Progress was made on the draft  Assessment Framework for 
Scientific Research Involving Ocean Fertilization, and 
Parties agreed that work should continue at the next meeting 
of the Scientific Groups (April 19-23, 2010).  Mechanisms for 
potential binding regulation of ocean fertilization were 
briefly reviewed and debated. The Parties did not reach 
consensus on the best approach to addressing ocean 
fertilization activities under the LC and LP, resulting in a 
recommendation that an intersessional ocean fertilization 
working group be formed, with an intersessional meeting to be 
held 1-5 March 2010.  The Meetings approved expenditure of 
over $300K from voluntary contributions for proposed national 
and regional ocean dumping management capacity building 
workshops, including a $75K grant from the United States. 
The Meetings also made progress on compliance issues and on 
cooperation with IMO,s Marine Environment Protection 
Committee on ship hull paint removal, in-water hull cleaning, 
and handling of spoiled cargoes.  Parties were pleased to 
note that the London Protocol is currently on the Obama 
Administration,s Treaty Priority List for Senate action. 
 
 
AMENDMENT TO ALLOW EXPORT OF CARBON DIOXIDE FOR SUB-SEABED 
SEQUESTRATION 
¶2. (SBU) LC31/LP4 discussed at length Norway,s proposed 
amendment to Article 6 (which bans the export of wastes and 
other matter to other countries for dumping or incineration 
at sea) to create a limited exception allowing the export of 
carbon dioxide streams for the purposes of sub-seabed 
sequestration.  As a non-Party to the Protocol, the ability 
of the United States to influence the outcome was somewhat 
limited.  Nevertheless, we successfully steered the amendment 
away from a focus on &prior informed consent8 (which would 
be duplicative of the permitting scheme already applicable) 
and towards greater clarity in the allocation of permitting 
responsibilities between the exporting and importing states. 
Ultimately, the Protocol Parties adopted text amending 
Article 6 that as a preliminary matter seems acceptable to 
the United States, although regrettably it was done without 
consensus.  Although the reasons for opposition were unclear, 
the main concern that was expressed (most vocally by China 
and South Africa, with support from other developing states) 
involved the amendment,s failure to prohibit carbon dioxide 
exports from one global region to another.  The Cook Islands 
gave a passionate intervention declaring that, as a non-Party 
to the LC and LP, adopting an amendment by vote rather than 
consensus would greatly reduce its faith that a small 
country,s voice would be heeded if it acceded.  The United 
States also expressed its support for consensus.  But after 
continued deadlock in the corridors, Norway insisted on a 
roll call vote, resulting in 15 in favor of the resolution 
(Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, 
Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Republic of Korea, 
Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom); 1 (China) against the 
resolution; and 6 abstaining (Kenya, Marshall Islands, 
Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, and Vanuatu).  Despite 
its vote against the amendment, China did acknowledge after 
the vote that it had made every effort at reaching consensus. 
 
¶3. (U) The adopted amendment to Article 6 of the LP will 
allow the export of carbon dioxide streams for sub-seabed 
sequestration if certain criteria are met. Criteria include a 
requirement that the exporting and receiving (importing) 
countries enter into an agreement or arrangement that 
&confirms and allocates8 permitting responsibilities 
consistent with their obligations under the Protocol and 
other applicable international law.  In the case of export to 
non-Parties to the Protocol, the agreement or arrangement 
also needs to contain &provisions at a minimum equivalent to 
those contained in the Protocol . . . to ensure that the 
agreement or arrangement does not derogate from the 
obligations of Contracting Parties under this Protocol to 
protect and preserve the marine environment.8 
 
OCEAN FERTILIZATION 
¶4. (U) Ocean fertilization is the addition of iron or other 
nutrients to ocean surface water to enhance photosynthetic 
fixation of carbon dioxide by phytoplankton.  Although fewer 
than half of the  ocean fertilization, experiments to date 
have resulted in any measurable increase in carbon export to 
the deep ocean (where it may remain out of contact with 
atmosphere for decades to centuries), the experiments have 
sparked commercial interest in developing ocean fertilization 
as a technology to sequester carbon dioxide and to enhance 
fish populations. 
 
¶5. (U) In dealing with this topic, the United States has 
consistently tried to balance the concerns about the 
potential adverse side effects of ocean fertilization as a 
climate change mitigation measure with support for scientific 
research into the global climate system, including research 
into the marine carbon cycle and its role in the global 
carbon cycle. The London Convention and Protocol have emerged 
as the primary international fora for addressing the 
potential impact of ocean fertilization on the marine 
environment.  At last year,s meeting, Convention and 
Protocol parties approved a non-binding resolution on ocean 
fertilization aimed at allowing &legitimate scientific 
research8 while discouraging other ocean fertilization 
activities (LC-LP.1 (2008)).  The resolution also stated that 
scientific research proposals should be assessed on a 
case-by-case basis using an assessment framework being 
developed by the LC/LP Scientific Groups, and that this 
resolution should be reviewed at appropriate intervals in 
light of new and relevant scientific information and 
knowledge.  In 2009, progress was made on the Assessment 
Framework at the February Meeting of the Intersessional 
Technical Working Group on Ocean Fertilization in London 
(LC/SG-CO2 3/5) and the May Meeting of the Scientific Groups 
in Rome (LC/LP SG32).  The Parties agreed that work on the 
Framework will continue at the next meeting of the Scientific 
Groups in London in April 2010 (LC/LP SG33). 
 
¶6. (U) This year again ocean fertilization was one of the 
most controversial and time-consuming topics on the London 
Convention/Protocol annual meeting agenda.  An ocean 
fertilization working group, co-chaired by Netherlands and 
the Chair of the Scientific Groups, primarily considered and 
addressed several policy questions raised during the 
development of the Assessment Framework.  The ocean 
fertilization working group also was tasked with discussing 
various legally binding and non-binding options for 
addressing ocean fertilization developed by the 
Intersessional Legal and Related Issues Working Group on 
Ocean Fertilization in February 2009 (LP CO2 2/5), taking 
into account the interventions made during plenary.  The 
eight options range from the status quo (last year,s 
non-binding resolution), to an interpretative resolution, to 
various amendments to the Protocol and Annex I. 
 
¶7. (SBU) It was quickly apparent during the working group 
discussions that there was no consensus on options for 
regulating ocean fertilization at this meeting.  Saudi Arabia 
joined the United States in advocating no change from the 
current resolution.  This status quo allows time for the 
Assessment Framework to be developed and conforms with our 
position that ocean fertilization should be analyzed in the 
first instance as &placement of matter for a purpose other 
than the mere disposal thereof8 under Article 1.4.2.2.  We 
also favor addressing this issue by resolution rather than 
amendment because a resolution is operative instantly and 
universally for all Parties to both the LC and LP, and is a 
product of consensus.  Several delegations felt there was 
inadequate time to address the intersessional legal working 
group,s options and a paper from Australia and New Zealand 
exploring the possibility of a future amendment to the 
Protocol to allow ( (LC 31/4/1).  Australia and New Zealand 
promoted their idea of a possible future amendment and sought 
to limit discussion only to legally binding approaches. 
Canada tried to present an interpretative resolution (one 
seen as potentially binding by some States) as a middle 
ground approach. 
 
¶8. (U) Instead of discussing the merits of the options at 
length, the ocean fertilization working group developed, and 
the meetings adopted, terms of reference for an 
intersessional working group to further consider the options. 
 A meeting of the intersessional Working Group was proposed 
for 1-5 March2010, in London.  The United States expressed 
budgetary concerns about an intersessional working group, to 
no avail.  Our primary substantive concern in the discussions 
going forward is that non-legally binding options remain open 
to discussion, notwithstanding others, claims that 
consideration must be limited to only binding approaches. 
 
¶9. (SBU) An additional item that was raised during the 
Meeting under ocean fertilization was in respect to the term 
&marine geo-engineering.8  The paper from Australia and New 
Zealand asked the Meetings to consider whether the Convention 
and Protocol should address all &marine geo-engineering8 as 
opposed to just ocean fertilization.  Several delegations, 
including that of the United States, indicated a strong 
desire to continue to focus efforts on ocean fertilization at 
this time, as much work has already been done on this and as 
there is no clear understanding of what &marine 
geo-engineering8 encompasses.  The U.S. view prevailed, 
resulting in deferral of discussions on marine 
geo-engineering.  The Science Groups, however, agreed to 
consider the topic for SG Science Day in 2011 
 
¶10. (SBU) The International Emissions Trading Association 
(IETA), represented by Dan Whaley from Climos (one of the 
U.S. firms hoping to pursue ocean fertilization as a 
commercial climate mitigation technique), attended the 
meeting as a "non-governmental organization observer" on an 
interim basis.  Rather than reach a final decision on IETA,s 
status, Parties again agreed to invite IETA on an interim 
basis for one additional year. 
 
SCIENTIFIC GROUP REPORT 
¶11. (U) The London Convention has a Scientific Group that 
meets each spring and works intersessionally on the technical 
issues of ocean dumping.  The London Protocol has a similar 
Scientific Group.  The two Scientific Groups meet 
concurrently under an arrangement in which the shared offices 
of Chair and Vice-Chairs consist of members representing 
Parties to both the Protocol and the Convention. The Chair of 
the London Convention and London Protocol Scientific Groups 
provided an overview of their 32nd session held in May 2009 
in Rome, Italy.  The meetings endorsed the recommendations of 
the 32nd Scientific Groups session and noted the ongoing work 
on guidelines for bulky items and fish wastes.  The next 
meeting will be 19-23 April 2010 in London. 
 
 
TECHNICAL COOPERATION AND ASSISTANCE 
¶12. (U) In his opening address to the Meetings, the IMO 
Secretary General highlighted &the need to accelerate 
ratification of the London Protocol and, for that purpose, to 
carry out successful outreach activities.8  The Meetings 
again gave high priority to technical cooperation and 
assistance activities this year, especially regarding the 
&Barriers to Compliance8 (B2C) Project, which forms the 
basis for LC/LP outreach program to Contracting Parties and 
non-Contracting States.  The LC/LP,s B2C Project Steering 
Group discussed the B2C Implementation Plan and associated 
reports.  The U.S. delegation is a member of the B2C Steering 
Group.  The B2C Steering Group recommended that the 
Contracting Parties approve proposed national or regional 
capacity building workshops for a cost of about $300,000 from 
voluntary contributions during the 2010-2011 biennium.  A 
capacity building workshop is tentatively planned for the 
Wider Caribbean Region in May 2009 using a portion of the 
$75,000 contributed to the B2C Project by the U.S. in 2009. 
The Steering Group will assist the LC/LP Secretariat in 
improving reporting documents and continuing to develop the 
valuable outreach program.  In addition, the B2C Steering 
Group agreed that coordination with the LC/LP Compliance 
Group would be beneficial for outreach on significant 
technical and compliance issues. 
 
MATTERS RELATED TO MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES 
¶13. (U) The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 
representative gave a progress report on IAEA,s efforts to 
update the two inventory documents for radioactive waste 
disposals and accidents at sea (IAEA TECDOCs 1105 and 1242 
respectively).  IAEA has received reports from all parties 
with relevant information and is proceeding to combine both 
inventories into a single report.  This report will include, 
for perspective, radioactivity introduced into the ocean from 
other sources such as past nuclear weapons testing, the 
Chernobyl accident, and naturally occurring radioactivity. 
The IAEA representative reviewed in detail International 
Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) efforts to 
develop a new international framework for protection of flora 
and fauna in the environment from ionizing radiation.  Due to 
the complexity of the ICRP approach, IAEA considers that it 
could be impractical.  The IAEA representative outlined a 
proposal for developing a more generic, practical, and widely 
applicable method for assessing and judging the radiological 
impact to flora and fauna.  If supported by the LC/LP and 
approved by the IAEA Board of Governors, this method might be 
completed in time for consideration at the next LC/LP 
Consultative meeting.  The governing bodies noted the 
information provided by IAEA and expressed support for the 
IAEA proposal to develop a more practical method for 
assessing the radiological impact to flora and fauna. 
 
 
COMPLIANCE 
¶14. (U) The 2nd Meeting of the Compliance Group was held from 
26-28 October, 2009.  Ms. Pan Kun of China was elected to 
serve as a substitute member for this meeting only to ensure 
the group had the required quorum.  The U.S. participated as 
an observer along with Kenya, Korea, Netherlands, and 
Nigeria.  The group recommended against producing model 
national legislation for prospective parties and instead 
encouraged parties to post examples of legislation from 
various systems for prospective parties to draw upon.  The 
group also recommended posting previously developed guidance 
on national implementation of the Protocol on the LC webpage. 
 They intend to explore the possibility of developing 
commentaries or explanatory reports concerning the Protocol 
during the intersessional period.  This is an effort that 
warrants substantial monitoring to ensure the results do not 
exceed the underlying authority of the group.  Finally, the 
group dedicated a large block of time to examining potential 
reasons for decreases in reporting under both the Convention 
and Protocol, making a number of suggestions to improve 
contacts with parties.  Notably the group decided not to try 
to define "effective measures" in the reporting requirements 
of Article 9.4.3 to the London Protocol. 
 
 
MEPC & UNEP-GPA BOUNDARY ISSUES: HULL CLEANING, SPOILT CARGOES 
¶15. (U) On hull cleaning, it was agreed that the Secretariat 
would distribute the &Guidance on Best Management Practices 
for Removal of Anti-Fouling Coatings from Ships, including 
TBT hull paints,8 as contained in AFS.3/Circ. 3 (MEPC 59/24 
paragraph 13.4).  There was also a discussion of Invasive 
Aquatic Species (IAS) with regard to in-water hull cleaning 
and dredged material disposal.  It was agreed that, while IAS 
are of significant concern, the governing bodies would not 
address the role of the LC/LP, if any, in regulating in-water 
hull cleaning at this time, in light of the ongoing efforts 
in MEPC in this area.  The issue will be discussed at next 
year,s meeting (LC32/LP5), with a view to reviewing the work 
undertaken at MEPC at that time. 
 
¶16. (U) With respect to spoilt cargoes, a small ad hoc group 
met informally on the margins of the LC/LP meeting. 
Interested parties will collaborate intersessionally, under 
Canada,s lead, on development of a new IMO &training course 
module8 and a plain language brochure that summarize the 
formal guidance on management of spoilt cargoes that the 
governing bodies adopted in 2008.  The governing bodies 
agreed that these and perhaps other outreach materials on 
spoilt cargoes would be provided to the LC/LP Scientific 
Groups for further collaborative work with MEPC. 
 
¶17. (U) Also discussed was collaboration with UNEP-GPA on 
areas of common interest.  These include sub-sea disposal of 
tailings and other wastes associated with mining; physical 
alteration and destruction of habitat; and marine litter 
(marine debris).  The governing bodies endorsed the 
Scientific Groups agreement that a review of sub-sea disposal 
through outfalls of tailings and associated wastes from 
mining operations be a new priority element of implementing 
the 2006 partnership between the Office for the London 
Convention and Protocol, UNEP-GPA and the UNEP Regional Seas 
Program. It was agreed that the Secretariat would move 
quickly to hire a consultant and distribute a circular with a 
questionnaire, to seek information regarding existing 
controls on such sub-sea disposal operations. 
CLINTON