FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Books, dissertations, abstract

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 33 | 34 || 36 | 37 |   ...   | 53 |


-- [ Page 35 ] --

Apart from these potential technical needs for governance, some argue that enabling research could be a specific objective of a governance framework in a broader sense. There are two aspects to this: First, “enabling research” could merely mean that a governance framework for a certain topic should generally not stifle desired and acceptable research, a concern that has been raised in the governance debate. 478 Second, it could also mean that a governance framework should actively foster more geoengineering research. The reasoning is a scenario in which inadequate research funding leads to the inability to respond to catastrophic events. On this basis it is argued that international governance should be designed to encourage national spending, develop cost-sharing arrangements even such as international burden-sharing, and incentivize private investment. In addition, it is argued that international governance would generate legitimacy for this research area. 479 From a general governance perspective, this approach could mean a trade-off in which geoengineering research gains legitimacy, awareness and funding. In return, the public gains some transparency and control over what is happening in this area.

However, making this much broader objective of actively fostering research a governance objective appears to presuppose the policy choice that research should be pursued actively and strategically for the specific purpose of being ready for using geoengineering. Although the distinction between merely not stifling research and actively pursuing it might be difficult to draw, the latter appears to be close to the “slippery slope” argument and lock-in scenario, in which research at least factually paves the way for future deployment as a desirable outcome.

This could send an important policy signal away from mitigation and imply another trade-off.

Lane (2010) 53.

Bracmort et al (2010) 19-20; Gordon (2010) ii.

Bodansky (2012) 10.

Options and Proposals for the International Governance of Geoengineering In order to leave this implicit policy choice open, we do not consider actively fostering research to be a governance objective.

6.3.3 How to regulate and design governance The reasons for geoengineering governance outlined above are based on the current scientific knowledge on geoengineering concepts as well as the current public debate and an assessment of their wider implications e.g. for environmental risks and climate policy. Against this background, we would disagree that “it is almost impossible to determine governance requirements until the shape of any of the technologies under consideration is better known.” 480 A number of governance requirements already follow from the reasons outlined above as to why governance is considered necessary or desirable. Precautionary approach The scientific uncertainties regarding most geoengineering concepts, combined with their purpose of having global impacts and their different transboundary risks, call for a precautionary approach. This is not a self-standing objective but a means to the closely linked end of avoiding environmental and other impacts. It is less relevant for research at the modelling and laboratory stage, but already applies to field experiments. The intensity of safeguards required will mainly depend on the geoengineering technique and the scale of the activity in question.

While this is a central aspect of geoengineering governance, the different views regarding its specific implications and its normative anchoring in international law have implications for governance design, e.g. when considering political buy-in. There is a risk that a specific governance approach clearly or implicitly endorses a particular but controversial aspect of the precautionary approach. This could jeopardise the buy-in from states and other actors that have different views. This risk has to be considered. On this basis, and for the purpose of developing governance options, it might be appropriate to detach the specific legal problems regarding the precautionary approach and instead see it as general approach to deal with scientific uncertainty. It at least provides reason and guidance for establishing procedural safeguards for dealing with scientific uncertainty regarding the potential impacts of geoengineering.

From a broader perspective, the precautionary principle on its own does not resolve a conflict between the objectives of avoiding the effects of global climate change vis a vis avoiding the risks of geoengineering. This is likely to be a political choice. Political feasibility and buy-in An international governance framework should in principle aim at bringing on board as many states and other actors as possible, in particular those states that are likely to be capable and willing of pursuing geoengineering. This could contribute to avoiding impacts as well as to avoiding political conflict. Of course this criterion involves political assumptions, assessments and judgments about what could politically be feasible. More specifically aiming at buy-in in the sense of “acceptance” of the governance framework has several aspects, e.g. participation in the regime in the first place as well as acceptance of decisions taken within the regime and ensuring its implementation. In addition, governance can gain acceptance and buy-in across Rayner (2010) 62.

Options and Proposals for the International Governance of Geoengineering instruments, e.g. parties to the LC that are not also parties to the LP could for political reasons nevertheless consider to adhere to governance measures under the latter instrument.

However, political buy-in is only a means to an end and might also be subject to trade-offs. If other governance criteria and objectives needed to be unacceptably compromised, then the costs of ensuring participation could be considered to be prohibitive. It needs to be considered under which conditions it could be worth it not to have some key actors on board - because the trade-off between ensuring their participation and not fulfilling other governance criteria might be unacceptable. Climate context and „moral hazard“ Geoengineering governance should avoid undermining efforts to reduce emissions. Most proponents of geoengineering stress that it is no substitute for reducing emissions, and that geoengineering proposals are primarily considered as complementary to other efforts to limit human-induced climate change. 481 In a 2012 decision, the CBD’s COP emphasised “that climate change should primarily be addressed by reducing anthropogenic emissions by sources and by increasing removals by sinks of greenhouse gases under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, noting also the relevance of the Convention on Biological Diversity and other instruments.” 482 This criterion is to address a plausible “moral hazard” argument that a geoengineering debate and activities have the potential to send political signals towards a departure from emission reductions, and to obstruct the climate change negotiations. For instance, introducing geoengineering would add another layer to the already over-complex climate negotiations.

The link between geoengineering activities and reducing emissions is further complicated by a potential scenario in which states might push for crediting some geoengineering techniques.

This is closely related to the question how geoengineering activities would fit into the established categories of “mitigation” and “adaptation” in international climate change law, in particular the few rules under the UNCCC and the Kyoto Protocol that could be of relevance to geoengineering. 483 A narrow view might hold that geoengineering does not easily fit into these categories: While all geoengineering techniques are intended to counteract climate change and its effects, they do not address emission reductions, and basically they do not address how to adapt to a changed climate. 484 Yet the strict distinction is not always clear: Some geoengineering approaches could be considered as climate change mitigation or adaptation, or even both, for example, some ecosystem restoration activities. 485 In addition, the Kyoto Protocol has recently opened the traditional distinction to some extent by allowing CCS into Bodle (2012) 119; ff., for instance, Williamson et al (2012) 8: „A rapid transition to a low-carbon economy is the best strategy to reduce such adverse impacts on biodiversity. However, on the basis of current greenhouse-gas emissions, their long atmospheric residence times and the relatively limited action to date to reduce future emissions, the use of geoengineering techniques has also been suggested as an additional means to limit the magnitude of humaninduced climate change and its impacts.“ Decision XI/20, para 4 As well as technology development and transfer, capacity buidling and finance, which are not of relevance here.

Bodle (2013) 469. Cf. USGAO (2011) viii, which classifies geoengineering as an response to climate change “other” than mitigation and adaptation.

Williamson et al (2012) 20.

Options and Proposals for the International Governance of Geoengineering the CDM, although CCS does not reduce the production of CO2. Against this background, if geoengineering were to move forward, there could be pressure to credit certain geoengineering activities that do not fit easily into the mitigation category. In addition, treating geoengineering as mitigation or adaptation could for instance have implications for funding institutions and their eligibility criteria. 486 Legitimacy, transparency and participation - Avoid a polarised public The international governance framework should also aim at avoiding a polarised public in particular through transparency and participation. The latter are considered elements of “good” governance and can contribute to a sense of legitimacy of geoengineering decisions. A polarised debate, perhaps similar to instances regarding climate change, would make it difficult for a state to adopt and implement any policy on geoengineering. 487 Legitimacy in that sense can be facilitated by a designing processes that are transparent and include appropriate participation. Transparency of process and geoengineering activities could be one of the means to achieve this end as well as to reduce the risk of political tension. Regarding the latter, transparency of geoengineering activities could involve e.g. requirements for publicity and reporting by states. Flexibility A governance structure needs to allow for some flexibility in order to be able to react to new developments, because (i) there is a lack of scientific knowledge regarding geoengineering as well as climate science, and (ii) the public debate and interest at policy level is at the beginning. Flexibility in this sense should maintain an appropriate level of normative legal certainty and clarity. There are many options and potential elements for combining legal certainty with flexibility, including institutional arrangements and procedures for feeding in and discussing new scientific knowledge, for providing interpretative guidance (regarding e.g.

the scope and content of the governance regime), and for decision-making and amending rules.

6.4 General approach and main governance options This section describes our general approach to governance options from an institutional and normative perspective. Based on the governance criteria and the current state of geoengineering, it provides a preliminary assessment which governance elements might be most appropriate from both perspectives. The cross-cutting issue of addressing research is analysed in a separate sub-section.

6.4.1 The normative perspective: Instruments and techniques From a normative perspective, there is a broad range of binding and non-binding instruments and legal techniques that could be used for fulfilling the governance criteria developed above.

Potential instruments and regulatory techniques include, for instance: guiding principles;

establishing appropriate procedures for the relevant states and actors to agree on common ground and scientific basis; transparency obligations regarding procedure and information, Bodle (2013) 469.

Bodle (2013) 465.

Options and Proposals for the International Governance of Geoengineering e.g. impact assessments or reporting; and specific obligations such as permissions, restrictions or prohibitions. Some of these elements already exist and apply to some or all geoengineering techniques (see above section 5 on the existing legal framework).

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 33 | 34 || 36 | 37 |   ...   | 53 |

Similar works:

«Neuerwerbungsliste 2015/1 E 36 157-34 Arns, Arne; Jensen, Jürgen; Wahl, Thomas; A Consistent Return Level Assessment Considering Present Day and Future Mean Sea Level Conditions Karlsruhe: Bundesanstalt für Wasserbau in: Die Küste, Heft 81, 2014, 525-539 storm surges, numerical modelling, statistical assessment, sea level rise, returns levels, Sturmfluten, numerische Modellierung, statistische Analysen, Meeresspiegelanstieg, -E 36 150-01 Bartholomä, A.; Holler, P.; Schrottke, K.; Kubicki,...»

«Fourth international workshop on Positioning of single nanostructures Single quantum devices Book of Abstracts September 12 14, 2011 Villa Vigoni, Lake Como Funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) Oral Presenations Monday, September 12 M. Atatüre: Quantum dot spins and photons S. Ullrich: Controlled dynamical tuning of the emission characteristics of single QD G. Solomon: Two photon interference from separate quantum dots M. Lippitz: Ultrafast spectroscopy of coupled quantum dots...»

«Früherkennung von bewaffneten Konflikten? Ein Vergleich standardisierter Konfliktanalyseverfahren OeNB Jubiläumsfonds-Projekt Stefan Khittel und Jan Pospisil Arbeitspapier 62 / April 2010 Früherkennung von bewaffneten Konflikten AP 62 Stefan Khittel/Jan Pospisil Früherkennung von bewaffneten Konflikten AP 62 Stefan Khittel/Jan Pospisil Inhaltsverzeichnis Abkürzungen und Akronyme 4 Einleitung: Die ambivalente Thematik von Konfliktfrühwarnung und standardisierter Konfliktanalyse 6...»

«SICROWBAR SICROWBAR DC für Ströme bis 300 A / for currents up to 300 A Überspannungsschutz mit Thyristor für stromrichtergespeiste Feldspulen Overvoltage protection with thyristor for converter-supplied field coils Betriebsanleitung / Operating instructions Ausgabe Edition 09/2013 Answers for industry. SICROWBAR DC für Ströme bis 300 A Überspannungsschutz für stromrichtergespeiste Feldspulen Kompaktbetriebsanleitung Rechtliche Hinweise Warnhinweiskonzept Dieses Handbuch enthält...»

«Prof. Dr. med. Lukas Prantl Facharzt für Chirurgie, Plastische und Ästhetische Chirurgie, Handchirurgie, EBOPRAS, FESSH Leiter des Zentrums für Plastische und Ästhetische, Handund Wiederherstellungschirurgie der Universität Regensburg am Caritas Krankenhaus St. Josef und dem Universitätsklinikum Regensburg lukas.prantl@klinik.uni-regensburg.de Tel. +49-941-9446947 oder -6763 Tel. +49-782-3112 oder -3111 Mobil: +49-176-22705271 Fax: +49-941-9446849 Fax: +49-782-3115...»

«New Issue: Moody's assigns Aa1 to Metropolitan Water District of Southern California's Water Revenue Bonds Global Credit Research 02 Dec 2015 Approximately $4.2 billion in debt affected including the current issue METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Water Enterprise CA Moody's Rating ISSUE RATING Water Revenue Bonds, 2015 Authorization Series A Aa1 Sale Amount $213,000,000 Expected Sale Date 12/08/15 Rating Description Revenue: Government Enterprise Moody's Outlook STA NEW YORK,...»

«Allgemeines Treatment und Vertrag EAGLE PICTURES GERMANY WEDDING ENTERTAINMENT Ihr Ansprechpartner/ ausführender Produzent: Sebastian Bauer Fon: +49 (0) 173 714 26 57 Mail: sebastianbauer@eaglepictures.de EAGLE PICTURES GERMANY Am Sonnengarten 4 88069 Tettnang www.eaglepictures.de für das Jahr 2016 BEISPIEL EINER HOCHZEITSFILMPRODUKTION (WORKFLOW) Vorbesprechung Unverbindliche Reservierung des Termins Vorführung von Demos Besprechung Konzeption Konkretes Angebot Vertragsabschluss Allgemeine...»

«„Lebensader Bregenzerach – von Schoppernau nach Egg“ Phase I Bestandsaufnahme Schwarzenberg, im Juni 2011 heimaten – Raumplanung | Management | Werkstatt Dipl.-Ing. Mag.(FH) Markus Berchtold | Wies 929 | A –6867 Schwarzenberg | t/f +43/5512/25002 | e office@heimaten.com | UID ATU62032204 Lebensader Bregenzerach Inhalt 1. Vorwort 4 2. Einbettung des Projektes 5 2.1. Auszüge aus der „Wasserwirtschaftsstrategie des Landes Vorarlberg 2010“ 5 2.2. Leitsätze aus „Vision Rheintal,...»

«Gudrun Gersmann Hubertus Kohle (Hrsg.) FRANKREICH 1815-1830 TRAUMA ODER UTOPIE? Die Gesellschaft der Restauration und das Erbe der Revolution Mit 31 Abbildungen Franz Steiner Verlag Stuttgart Umschlagabbildung: Theodore Gericault, Das Floß der M e d u s a, 1818/19 (Paris, Louvre) Die Deutsche Bibliothek CIP-Eiriheits aufnähme Frankreich 1815 -1830 : Trauma oder Utopie? ; die Gesellschaft der Restauration und das Erbe der Revolution / Gudrun Gersmann ; Hubertus Kohle (Hrsg.). Stuttgart:...»

«Aus dem Institut für Tierzucht und Tierhaltung der Agrarund Ernährungswissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel SOWS’ MATERNAL BEHAVIOUR AS A MAJOR INFLUENCE ON THE SURVIVAL OF PIGLETS Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades der Agrarund Ernährungswissenschaftliche Fakultät der Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel vorgelegt von Master of Science DIANE WISCHNER aus Ibbenbüren, Nordrhein-Westfalen Dekan: Prof. Dr. U. Latacz-Lohmann Erster...»

<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2016 www.book.dislib.info - Free e-library - Books, dissertations, abstract

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.