IMO. Table of contents. Section Paragraph Nos. Page Nos. 1 INTRODUCTION OCEAN FERTILIZATION

Transcription

1 INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E IMO SCIENTIFIC GROUP OF THE LONDON CONVENTION 31 st Meeting; and SCIENTIFIC GROUP OF THE LONDON PROTOCOL 2 nd Meeting May 2008 Agenda item 16 LC/SG 31/16 7 July 2008 Original: ENGLISH REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FIRST MEETING OF THE SCIENTIFIC GROUP OF THE LONDON CONVENTION AND THE SECOND MEETING OF THE SCIENTIFIC GROUP OF THE LONDON PROTOCOL Table of contents Section Paragraph Nos. Page Nos. 1 INTRODUCTION OCEAN FERTILIZATION WASTE ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE CO 2 SEQUESTRATION IN SUB-SEABED GEOLOGICAL FORMATIONS DEVELOPMENT OF GUIDANCE FOR THE PLACEMENT OF ARTIFICIAL REEFS REPORTING ON DUMPING ACTIVITIES TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION AND ASSISTANCE MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT COASTAL MANAGEMENT ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH ACTIVITIES TO PREVENT MARINE POLLUTION HABITAT MODIFICATION AND ENHANCEMENT OUTCOME OF SCIENCE DAY For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not to request additional copies.

2 - 2 - Section Paragraph Nos. Page Nos. 12 GUIDELINES, MANUALS, BIBLIOGRAPHIES AND INFORMATION EXCHANGE REVIEW OF THE JOINT WORK PROGRAMME ANY OTHER BUSINESS ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR BOTH SCIENTIFIC GROUPS CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF THE REPORT LIST OF ANNEXES ANNEX 1 ANNEX 2 ANNEX 3 ANNEX 4 ANNEX 5 ANNEX 6 ANNEX 7 ANNEX 8 AGENDA FOR THE 31 ST MEETING OF THE SCIENTIFIC GROUP UNDER THE LONDON CONVENTION AND THE 2 ND MEETING OF THE SCIENTIFIC GROUP UNDER THE LONDON PROTOCOL OUTCOME OF THE WORKING GROUP ON OCEAN FERTILIZATION PROPOSED WEBSITE NAMES FOR THE GENERIC GUIDELINES AND THE SPECIFIC GUIDELINES DRAFT REVISED GUIDELINES FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF WASTES OR OTHER MATTER THAT MAY BE CONSIDERED FOR DUMPING DRAFT REVISED SPECIFIC GUIDELINES FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF INERT, INORGANIC GEOLOGICAL MATERIAL WORK PLAN ON REVIEW OF THE BULKY ITEMS GUIDELINES FINAL SURVEY REPORT ON USABILITY AND COMMUNICATION OF THE SPECIFIC GUIDELINES FOR WASTE ASSESSMENT UNDER THE LONDON CONVENTION AND PROTOCOL INCORPORATING A RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED DRAFT FORMAT FOR REPORTING ON CO2 SEQUESTRATION IN SUB-SEABED GEOLOGICAL FORMATIONS UNDER THE LONDON PROTOCOL (WORK IN PROGRESS) ANNEX 9 DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN OF THE BARRIERS TO COMPLIANCE PROJECT ANNEX 10 DRAFT GUIDANCE ON MANAGING SPOILT CARGOES

3 - 3 - LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 11 DRAFT GUIDANCE ON BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES OF REMOVAL OF TBT PAINTS FROM SHIPS (WORK IN PROGRESS) ANNEX 12 JOINT WORK PROGRAMME OF THE SCIENTIFIC GROUPS (THIRTY-SECOND, THIRTY-THIRD and THIRTY-FOURTH MEETINGS) NOTE: PARAGRAPHS STATING SUBSTANTIVE DECISIONS OF THE MEETINGS ARE SHOWN IN BOLD.

4 - 4 - INTRODUCTION 1.1 The 31 st meeting of the Scientific Group under the London Convention and the 2 nd meeting of the Scientific Group under the London Protocol were convened at the Simon Bolivar Conference Centre, Guayaquil, Ecuador, from 19 to 23 May 2008 under the Chairmanship of Dr. Chris Vivian (United Kingdom). 1.2 The meetings were attended by delegations from the following 18 Contracting Parties to the London Convention 1972: AUSTRALIA BELGIUM CANADA CHINA FRANCE GERMANY IRELAND ITALY JAPAN MEXICO NETHERLANDS NORWAY PERU REPUBLIC OF KOREA SOUTH AFRICA SPAIN UNITED KINGDOM UNITED STATES 1.3 The meetings were attended by delegations from the following 14 Contracting Parties to the London Protocol 1996: AUSTRALIA BELGIUM CANADA CHINA FRANCE GERMANY IRELAND ITALY JAPAN NORWAY SAUDI ARABIA SOUTH AFRICA SPAIN UNITED KINGDOM 1.4 Observers from the following State that is neither a Contracting Party to the London Convention 1972 nor to the London Protocol 1996 also attended: ECUADOR 1.5 Representatives from the following United Nations organizations attended the meetings: UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION INTERGOVERNMENTAL OCEANIC COMMITTEE (UNESCO-IOC) UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME (UNEP) 1.6 Observers from the following intergovernmental organizations attended the meetings: PERMANENT COMMISSION FOR THE SOUTH PACIFIC (CPPS) NORTH PACIFIC MARINE SCIENCE ORGANIZATION (PICES)

5 - 5 - LC/SG 31/ The meetings were also attended by observers from the following international non-governmental organizations: GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL WORLD ORGANISATION OF DREDGING ASSOCIATIONS (WODA) OPENING OF THE MEETINGS 1.8 The Chairman opened the proceedings by welcoming all participants to this second joint session of the Scientific Groups. ADDRESS OF WELCOME 1.9 The Ecuadorian Minister for Environment, Ms Marcela Aguiñaga, welcomed all delegates to Guayaquil. She emphasized the importance of Ecuador s membership to international agreements to protect the marine environment as a foundation for its environmental policies and the value of scientific and technical meetings to evaluate the implications of threats to the marine environment, including those of ocean iron fertilization. This had resulted in the clear message which Ecuador and neighbouring States had given jointly in November 2007 that large-scale ocean iron fertilization activities would not be acceptable. She thanked all who had supported this position Admiral Luis Jaramillo Arias, Director of the Directorate-General of Merchant Marine in Ecuador, DIGMER, also welcomed all delegates to Guayaquil. He expressed his appreciation for the IMO/CPPS Regional Workshop to promote the London Protocol, which had been held in Guayaquil from 10 to 12 October This Workshop had been instrumental in preparing Ecuador s position on ocean iron fertilization. He informed the meetings of the importance of Ecuador s membership to several IMO conventions, including MARPOL 73/78, SOLAS, OPRC, Intervention Convention, and FUND 1992, as well as the status of the Galapagos Islands as a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area with a number of associated protective measures, such as ships routeing and areas to be avoided. He indicated that Ecuador s preparation to accede to the London Protocol was progressing well Dr. Fernando Pardo, Under Secretary, Permanent Commission for the South Pacific (CPPS) also welcomed the delegates to the meetings and informed the meetings of the scope and objectives of the CPPS and the Action Plan for the Protection of the Marine Environment and Coastal Area of the South-east Pacific, as well as of the good relationship which the CPPS had established with the LC/LP Parties and with the Office for the London Convention and Protocol for the benefit of both constituencies Mr. René Coenen, Head of the Office for the London Convention and Protocol, also welcomed the delegates on behalf of IMO and drew attention to the wide variety of more traditional as well as new items for discussion by the Scientific Groups at this session, which demonstrated the continuous relevance of the London Convention and Protocol for the protection of the marine environment In response, the Chairman commended Ecuador for the active role it played in matters to protect the marine environment and mentioned that the concerns about ocean iron fertilization, initially by the Action Plan countries, had since been shared by London Convention and Protocol Parties and other countries. These concerns had resulted in the wide attention which this issue would receive in the agenda of the Scientific Groups at this session. He also thanked the

6 - 6 - Minister, the Ecuadorian Government and the CPPS Secretariat for the excellent arrangements they had made to receive the Scientific Groups in the city of Guayaquil. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 1.14 The provisional agenda (LC/SG 31/1) was adopted and is shown in annex 1 to this report. This annex includes a list of documents submitted under each agenda item. The Scientific Groups also adopted a timetable for the meetings, as amended (LC/SG 31/1/1, annex 2). 2 OCEAN FERTILIZATION 2.1 The Chairman recalled that in 2007, the Scientific Groups considered several submissions relating to large-scale iron fertilization of the oceans to sequester CO 2 and developed a Statement of Concern, taking the view that knowledge on the effectiveness and potential environmental impacts of ocean iron fertilization currently was insufficient to justify large-scale operations and that this could have negative impacts on the marine environment and human health. Specific scientific issues were identified which needed further attention as listed in the Scientific Groups report (LC/SG 30/14, paragraphs 2.23 to 2.26). 2.2 It was also recalled that the Scientific Groups had requested the governing bodies to consider the issue of large-scale ocean iron fertilization operations with a view to ensuring adequate regulation of such operations. In particular, they requested that the following issues be addressed by the Contracting Parties:.1 the purposes and circumstances of proposed large-scale ocean iron fertilization operations and whether these are compatible with the aims of the Convention and Protocol;.2 the need, and potential mechanisms, for regulation of such operations; and.3 the desirability of bringing proposals for such operations to the attention of other international instruments and institutions (LC/SG 30/14, paragraph 2.27). 2.3 In November 2007, the governing bodies endorsed the Statement of Concern, and agreed that the scope of work of the London Convention and Protocol included ocean fertilization, as well as iron fertilization. They also agreed to study further the issue from the scientific and legal perspectives with a view to its regulation under the Convention and Protocol and established the Legal Intersessional Correspondence Group on Ocean Fertilization (LICG) under the lead of the United Kingdom to carry out the tasks as described in the process of future work between the LICG and the Scientific Groups (LC 29/17, paragraphs 4.14 to 4.28). 2.4 The Secretariat informed the meetings that it had invited organizations which have specific expertise in this field or which had expressed a specific interest in becoming involved in the planned scientific and technical discussions, including UNESCO-IOC; the North Pacific Marine Science Organization (PICES); the Surface Ocean Lower Atmospheric Study (SOLAS); the Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research (SCOR); and GESAMP. 2.5 The Scientific Groups were invited to address at this session the issues requested by the governing bodies to understand better the implications of ocean fertilization on the marine environment and to provide the scientific/technical basis for evaluating such activities, inter alia, by responding to the queries of a scientific or technical nature from the LICG (LC 29/17,

7 - 7 - LC/SG 31/16 paragraph 4.27 and annex 6). The specific terms of reference given were also shown in annex 3 to the annotated agenda (LC/SG 31/1/1). 2.6 The delegation of Canada, in introducing its document LC/SG 31/2 entitled: Background and Literature Review Addressing Main Elements in the LC/LP Scientific Groups Statement of Concern on Ocean Fertilization, outlined the potential benefits and impacts of fertilizing the open ocean with iron, nitrogen or phosphorous, or of ocean pumping to fertilize surface waters with deep-ocean nutrients for the purpose of sequestering atmospheric carbon. The document also addressed the criteria that should be considered in assessing these activities as climate change mitigation measures, namely: the duration of likely sequestration, the sustainability of the practice employed, and the method of verifying and measuring carbon sequestration. 2.7 The delegation of the United Kingdom introduced both the interim report of the Legal Intersessional Correspondence Group on Ocean Fertilization and the two supporting documents (LC/SG 31/2/1; LC/SG 31/INF.16 and LC/SG 31/INF.17). The first document contained the summary to the questionnaire distributed to Contracting Parties on 11 February 2008 that addressed the legal issues associated with ocean fertilization to assist the Scientific Groups in their deliberations. The following three scenarios were identified in the questionnaire: Scenario 1: Ocean fertilization with the addition of iron, a micro nutrient; Scenario 2: Ocean fertilization with the addition of nitrogen or phosphorus compounds; and Scenario 3: Ocean fertilization by bringing water up from the depth using physical devices introduced into the ocean, e.g., pipes. 2.8 The Scientific Groups were invited to review the findings of the LICG and address the specific technical/scientific questions raised in this document. Particular focus and comment were requested for each scenario on:.1 the nature of source material used for fertilization and, in particular for iron fertilization, its source;.2 the quantity of material to be used and the scale;.3 the likely impacts of the material on the marine environment both due to the nature and scale of use;.4 the likelihood of the activity achieving its stated purpose;.5 a technical view of the applicability of Annex I to the Convention and Annexes 1 and 2 to the Protocol; and.6 further details on Scenario 3, with particular regard to the nature, volume and impact of material moving in the pipes. 2.9 The representative of UNESCO-IOC introduced the statement of the IOC ad hoc Consultative Group on Ocean Fertilization (LC/SG 31/2/2). The representative mentioned that

8 - 8 - this Consultative Group had provided general comments, as well as responses to the following specific questions by the Scientific Groups in relation to ocean fertilization:.1 what constitutes large scale in the ocean?;.2 a clear justification of the need for experiments at scales of order (200 km by 200 km); and.3 an assessment of the impacts on oceans of experiments at such scales The representative mentioned that the scientific knowledge needed to write a set of regulations that would separate damaging ocean fertilization activities from benign fertilization activities, was still lacking. Spatial scale was not a sufficient determinant, whereas duration, amounts, location, etc., would matter. A possible response might be to allow legitimate scientific experimentation to proceed while disallowing other ocean-fertilization activities In terms of possible ways forward, he mentioned two options, while stressing that the IOC ad hoc Consultative Group on Ocean Fertilization had not achieved full consensus on these options:.1 Option 1: Allow scientific experiments to proceed, and disallow commercial activities until such time that the science existed to develop science-based regulations. If an ocean fertilization activity would generate revenue based on the results of the activity, then it should not be considered legitimate science; and.2 Option 2: Develop a panel that would approve or disapprove each fertilization activity on a case-by-case basis The Secretariat introduced the press release on the position of SCOR and GESAMP on the deliberate nutrient additions to the Ocean (LC/SG 31/INF.2). It was highlighted that SCOR and GESAMP expressed their concerns about the recent attention of the commercial sector for deliberate fertilization of the ocean while so many scientific uncertainties are yet to be resolved. SCOR and GESAMP agreed that any deliberate large-scale addition of nutrients to the ocean must be conducted in such a way that the outcomes of these experiments are statistically quantified and independently verified with respect to but not limited to:.1 changes in new primary production and total community respiration rates at the fertilization site and downstream of the site;.2 assimilative capacity of selected ocean regions;.3 changes in the drawdown of carbon dioxide from the overlying atmosphere, and carbon dioxide and essential macro-nutrients (P, N, and Si) from the surface waters;.4 changes in the production of carbon dioxide and other gases relevant to climate change (e.g., nitrous oxide, methane, and dimethyl sulfide) in surface and mesopelagic waters;.5 changes in denitrification rates within the oxygen minimum zone;

9 - 9 - LC/SG 31/16.6 changes in the production of toxins that might be detrimental to other organisms, for example, by harmful algal blooms;.7 changes in the export of carbon to a depth where sequestration for at least 100 years is likely;.8 changes in ph and oxygen concentrations in the water column;.9 changes in biomass, composition, and biodiversity of phytoplankton, bacteria, and zooplankton, and recruitment of fish and shellfish; and.10 changes in food web structure The Secretariat informed the meetings that GESAMP, at its 35 th Session held in Accra, Ghana, from 12 to 16 May 2008, considered whether further action was needed in addition to the above-mentioned statement GESAMP had agreed to carry on the discussion intersessionally by correspondence and to develop a scoping document for GESAMP 36 in Discussion of this document should enable GESAMP to decide on what action to take on this issue within its mandate The Scientific Groups noted the useful listing by the United Kingdom of sources of information available on the Internet on ocean fertilization and related matters for now and to follow the issue in the future (LC/SG 31/INF.15) The Scientific Groups also noted that in UN General Assembly Resolution 62/215 concerning Oceans and the Law of the Sea (2007) 1, reference was made to the action the governing bodies had taken in November 2007 on ocean fertilization and that further work on this issue would be followed with interest by the United Nations community The Scientific Groups further noted that the Biodiversity Convention s Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBTTA) had made draft recommendations on ocean fertilization to the 9 th Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP 9/CBD) convened in Bonn, Germany, from 19 to 30 May The draft recommendations, inter alia, requested increased collaboration on this issue including with IMO, in particular, on the compilation of scientific information on potential impacts on marine biodiversity and urged CBD Parties to act in accordance with the decision taken by the London Convention and Protocol governing bodies in November The observer from the North Pacific Marine Science Organization (PICES) informed the Scientific Groups that PICES was an intergovernmental scientific organization established in 1992 with Canada, China, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation and the United States as its members. The scientists within PICES had been involved in six out of 12 iron fertilization experiments during the past 15 years and PICES had provided a platform to facilitate research activities on ocean iron fertilization in the North Pacific. An Advisory Panel on Iron fertilization experiments in the sub-arctic Pacific Ocean had been established which had coordinated three experiments so far. The Advisory Panel not only helped coordinate the field experiments but also facilitated data synthesizing and publications. 1 Chapter IX on the marine environment and marine resources, paragraphs 97 and 98 refer.

10 The Scientific Groups noted that the newly-established PICES Working Group (WG 22), Iron supply and its impact on biogeochemistry and ecosystems in the North Pacific Ocean, co-chaired by Dr. Shigenobu Takeda (Japan) and Dr. Fei Chai (United States), would focus on two primary goals over the next three years:.1 to promote better understanding of natural and anthropogenic iron supplies to the North Pacific and their impact on biogeochemistry and ecosystems; and.2 to facilitate closer ties among various research communities (aerosol, physical oceanography, biology, chemistry and modelling) to better integrate new findings and provide needed feedback to help coordinate research activities Regarding future ocean iron fertilization experiments it was noted that, PICES could act as an independent scientific organization, not only providing scientific expertise on such experiments in the Pacific Ocean, but also independent evaluation and assessments. The review process would contribute to advancing scientific knowledge on this issue and to a better understanding of the potential impact on marine ecosystems in the North Pacific The Scientific Groups also noted the concerns of the Surface Ocean Lower Atmosphere Study (SOLAS) about the possibility of commercial exploitation of iron fertilization as a means to sequester CO 2 in the deep ocean. The position of SOLAS is that the state of present knowledge is insufficient to propose iron fertilization as an effective sequestration option and that it is critical and essential that robust and independent scientific evaluation and assessment are undertaken before large-scale fertilization is considered SOLAS is an international research body which has been closely involved in supporting and synthesizing non-commercial studies of both natural and artificial iron fertilization. As such, SOLAS provided an international context for evaluation and communication of scientific results that are obtained from field experiments. Independent expert review, through an open process, was essential to ensure that there is an adequate critical scientific evaluation of the results of the future purposeful iron addition experiments. Such a review must be both independent and international, and is in the interests of advancing scientific knowledge and understanding relevant to sustainable use of the surface ocean The Scientific Groups, being aware of the fact that the terms of reference it had received on this issue might be too much to complete in one session (LC/SG 31/1/1, annex 3), prioritized the tasks of the Working Group as follows:.1 respond to queries of a scientific or technical nature from the LICG (item 7);.2 consider how the phrase contrary to the aims of the London Convention/Protocol could be addressed from a scientific and technical perspective in the context of ocean fertilization (item 6);.3 consider the concepts of scale (spatial and temporal) and clarify what is meant by large-scale in the Statement of Concern (item 5); and.4 further develop the issues requiring evaluation in the Statement of Concern and forward these to the next session of the governing bodies for endorsement (items 2 and 3). If time allowed the remaining issues should be addressed.

11 LC/SG 31/ In view of the fact that at least five United Nations entities (UN, UNESCO-IOC, CBD, GESAMP and the London Convention/Protocol) were now involved in the issue of ocean fertilization, good coordination within the United Nations system would become important Having noted the comments and suggestions received from the floor, the Scientific Groups established the Working Group on Ocean Fertilization, under the lead of Dr. Gi-Hoon Hong (Republic of Korea), which was charged with the tasks mentioned in document LC/SG 31/1/1, annex 3, as prioritized in paragraph 2.23 above. OUTCOME OF THE WORKING GROUP 2.26 The Working Group on Ocean Fertilization met from 19 to 22 May 2008 under the chairmanship of Dr. Gi-Hoon Hong (Republic of Korea) and was attended by delegations from Australia, Canada, China, Ecuador, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Peru, the Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Spain, the United States, UNESCO-IOC, PICES/SOLAS and Greenpeace International. Ms Celeste Powell (Australia) served as the Group s rapporteur The Working Group addressed all substantive issues in its terms of reference as shown in its report (LC/SG 31/WP.3/Rev.1), except for due to lack of time the issue of what research may be needed to address those issues requiring evaluation to better understand the potential for impacts and the effectiveness (depending on purpose) of ocean fertilization and thus reduce uncertainties (item 4 of the terms of reference). RECOMMENDATIONS 2.28 In light of its discussions, the Working Group recommended the Scientific Groups to:.1 request advice from the Legal Intersessional Correspondence Group (LICG) regarding the appropriateness or otherwise of provisions identified in paragraph 4 of its report 2 to the phrase contrary to the aims of the Convention/Protocol ;.2 request that Contracting Parties and the Secretariat consolidate new information on scientific research on ocean fertilization as it becomes available and make it available to other Contracting Parties for use in assessing proposals; and.3 use appendix 3 to the Working Group report as the list of considerations for evaluating ocean fertilization activities (as applicable). ACTION BY THE SCIENTIFIC GROUPS 2.29 The Scientific Groups adopted the report of the Working Group on Ocean Fertilization as shown in annex 2 to this report and, in particular:.1 endorsed all three recommendations of the Working Group; 2 The relevant provisions of the London Protocol on this issue are Article 1.10 (Definition of Pollution ), Article 2 (Objectives), Article 3.3 (transfer of pollution), and Article 3.1 (precautionary approach). Similarly, the relevant provisions of the London Convention on this issue are: Articles I, II, VII.1, VII.2, VII.3 and XII.

12 acknowledged that although the valuable advice by the Working Group at this session and relevant developments in other fora since November 2007 were an indication of progress, the Statement of Concern of 2007 on large-scale fertilization by the Scientific Groups remained valid;.3 requested the Secretariat to liaise with the United Kingdom as the lead-country for the LICG, so that the LICG could use the technical information from this session in its report to the next meeting of the governing bodies (LC 29/17, paragraph );.4 stressed the importance that technical/scientific expertise is included in delegations when the issue of ocean fertilization is discussed further at the next meeting of the governing bodies; and.5 requested the Secretariat to liaise with other United Nations entities (UN, UNESCO-IOC, CBD, GESAMP) and other relevant organizations involved in the discussion of ocean fertilization, as good coordination would be important Finally, the Scientific Groups expressed their great appreciation for the achievements of Dr. Gi-Hoon Hong and the members of his Working Group at this session. 3 WASTE ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE.1 REVIEW OF THE GENERIC GUIDELINES (WAG/1997) 3.1 The Chairman recalled that in 2003, the Scientific Group had started its review of the Generic Guidelines adopted in Substantial progress was made and, in 2006, an intersessional Correspondence Group was established, under the lead of the Republic of Korea, with the following terms of reference:.1 seek user-friendly names for the Generic and Specific Guidelines displayed at the London Convention/London Protocol website;.2 clarify paragraph 2.1 of the Generic Guidelines, (Waste Prevention Audit); and.3 prepare changes for accommodating the state of the art in knowledge and technology. 3.2 It was also recalled that in 2007, the Scientific Groups considered draft amendments to the Generic Guidelines and agreed to use, in the interim, the official names of the Generic and Specific Guidelines for display at the London Convention website. The Groups were invited to finalize the review at this session. 3.3 The Chairman of the intersessional Correspondence Group, Dr. Gi-Hoon Hong (Republic of Korea) introduced the report of his Group, as shown in document LC/SG 31/3/2, and stated that it included the amendments to the Generic Guidelines (WAG/1977) as proposed by the Group. The Correspondence Group consisting of Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom, the United States and the International Energy Agency (OECD/IEA) had achieved substantial progress intersessionally.

13 LC/SG 31/ The Scientific Groups, having noted that while some issues remained to be resolved and that the user-friendly names for the Specific Guidelines could be finalized, re-established the Working Group on the Review of the Generic Guidelines, under the lead of Mr. Matt Johnston (Australia) and charged it to:.1 continue and finalize the review of the Generic Guidelines, in light of the comments received in plenary; and.2 present a written report to plenary showing the changes made to document LC/SG 31/3/2, with recommendations as appropriate, for adoption by the governing bodies in October OUTCOME OF THE WORKING GROUP 3.5 The Working Group on the Review of the Generic Guidelines, convened under the lead of Mr. Matt Johnston (Australia), met on 22 May 2008 to finalize the review. It was attended by delegations from Australia, Germany, Japan and the United States. The Working Group agreed on a revised text of the Generic Guidelines as shown in annex 2 to its report (LC/SG 31/WP.14). The annexes annotate also the changes to the text previously agreed at the 28 th Session of the Scientific Group, as shown in document LC/SG 29/2/ The key proposed changes to annex 1 to the report (Proposed website names) were the following: (1) the addition of the article the to the official names used under the Convention/Protocol; (2) the harmonization of the names to be used on the London Convention website; and (3) the addition of the name of the Carbon Dioxide Streams Assessment Guidelines. 3.7 The key proposed changes to annex 2 to the report (Generic Guidelines) were an update of the language and concepts to reflect recent LC/LP publications and guidance, in particular, the Carbon Dioxide Streams Assessment Guidelines, as well as a revised assessment Figure or schematic diagram (annex 1 of annex 2 to the report). The Working Group developed three options for the assessment Figure for consideration by the Scientific Groups:.1 the existing diagram;.2 an adaptation of the existing diagram (Option A); and.3 a more conceptual diagram (Option B). ACTION BY THE SCIENTIFIC GROUPS 3.8 The Scientific Groups adopted the report of the Working Group (LC/SG 31/WP.14) and, in particular:.1 agreed to forward the revised titles for the Specific and Generic Guidelines to be displayed on the London Convention website, as shown in annex 3 to this report, to the next session of the governing bodies, with a view to their adoption;.2 agreed to forward the draft Revised Generic Waste Assessment Guidelines as shown in annex 4 to this report to the next session of the governing bodies, with a view to their adoption;

14 based on the Groups preference for an adaptation of the existing diagram (Option A), agreed that further work should be carried out on this diagram, under the lead of Australia, to be included in the final draft of the Generic Waste Assessment Guidelines and for decision by the governing bodies in October 2008; and.4 agreed to recommend that a consistency check should be carried out between the Generic and the Specific Guidelines now that both sets of guidelines had been updated. 3.9 The Scientific Groups expressed their appreciation to all delegations who had contributed to the review both in the Correspondence Group and during this session and, in particular, to Dr. Gi-Hoon Hong for the leadership shown in the past few years on this matter and to Mr. Matt Johnston who had led the review at this session..2 REVIEW OF THE SPECIFIC GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSMENT OF INERT, INORGANIC GEOLOGICAL MATERIAL 3.10 It was recalled that in 2007, the Scientific Groups commenced the review of the Specific Guidelines for Assessment of Inert, Inorganic Geological Material taking into account the Eligibility Criteria for Inert, Inorganic Geological Material which were adopted in 2006 (LC 28/15, annex 8). The Scientific Groups were invited to review work undertaken by the intersessional Correspondence Group, and taking into account comments received, finalize the review at this session as a high-priority item Dr. Elizabeth Kim (United States), Chairman of the Correspondence Group, introduced the proposed revisions and annotated comments to these Specific Guidelines, as suggested by the members of the intersessional Correspondence Group (LC/SG 31/3/Rev.1). The Correspondence Group consisted of Canada, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, the Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom, the United States and Greenpeace International On advice of Dr. Kim, the Scientific Groups reconvened the Working Group on these Specific Guidelines and charged it to continue the review, according to its terms of reference and submit a final draft for approval by the Groups. OUTCOME OF THE WORKING GROUP 3.13 The Working Group on the Review of the Specific Guidelines for Assessment of Inert, Inorganic Geological Material convened under the lead of Dr. Elizabeth Kim (United States) on 20 May 2008 to finalize the review. It was attended by delegations from Canada, Ireland, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Spain and Greenpeace International. The Working Group considered all comments and agreed the revised text as shown in the annex to its report (LC/SG 31/WP.1) The primary changes proposed for the Guidelines involve updating language to correspond to the Eligibility Criteria for Inert, Inorganic Geological Material, including appending these Eligibility Criteria as an annex to these Guidelines.

15 LC/SG 31/16 ACTION BY THE SCIENTIFIC GROUPS 3.15 The Scientific Groups adopted the report of the Working Group (LC/SG 31/WP.1) and, in particular:.1 approved the Revised Specific Guidelines for the Assessment of Inert, Inorganic Geological Material, as set out in annex 5 to this report; and.2 agreed to forward these Guidelines to the governing bodies for their consideration and adoption in October The Chairman thanked all delegations who had contributed to the review both in the Correspondence Group and during this session and, in particular, Dr. Elizabeth Kim for the efficient leadership shown on this urgent matter..3 REVIEW OF THE SPECIFIC GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSMENT OF BULKY ITEMS 3.17 The Chairman recalled that in 2003, the 25 th Consultative Meeting requested the LC Scientific Group to consider revisions to the Specific Guidelines for Assessment of Bulky Items, primarily comprising iron, steel, concrete, etc., and that if policy interpretations emerged, these should be referred back to the Consultative Meeting. The Scientific Groups commenced this review in 2007 and established an intersessional Correspondence Group under the lead of China. It was also agreed to involve the small island developing States (SIDS) among the Contracting Parties in this review, as these Specific Guidelines were aimed at addressing the waste management issues experienced by such States The Scientific Groups were invited to consider progress of work conducted by the Correspondence Group during the intersessional period and continue the review of these guidelines. This activity was assigned a medium priority in the Joint Work Programme and is due for completion in The delegation of China gave a progress report and stated that no correspondence had been conducted as yet. The delegation hoped to present a work plan with timelines to this session. Communications with the SIDS would be undertaken following advice from the Secretariat, as many of these States are not usually represented at London Convention meetings Taking into account the various comments and suggestions, the Scientific Groups invited Mr. Chuanlin Huo (China), together with interested delegations, to prepare a draft work plan with recommendations on the way forward. ACTION BY THE SCIENTIFIC GROUPS 3.21 The Scientific Groups, having noted the draft Work Plan on Review of the Bulky Items Guidelines, as prepared by Mr. Chuanlin Huo (China) (LC/SG 31/WP.13), agreed to re-establish the Correspondence Group on the Review of the Specific Guidelines for the Assessment of Bulky Items, under his lead, with a view to undertake work as set out in annex 6 to this report and with the aim of completion of this activity in The delegations from Australia, China, Germany, the Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom, the United States and Greenpeace International indicated their interest to participate in this review.

16 USABILITY AND COMMUNICATION OF THE SPECIFIC GUIDELINES 3.23 It was recalled that at the 29 th Session of the Scientific Group in 2006, an intersessional Correspondence Group was established under the lead of South Africa to conduct a survey mainly with developing countries aimed at gathering views on the clarity, utility and accessibility of all Specific Guidelines developed under the London Convention and Protocol. The survey followed concerns raised about the Specific Guidelines at the IMO/UNEP/NEPAD Regional Workshop held in Mombasa, Kenya (April 2004) It was also recalled that in 2007, the Scientific Groups considered the outcome of the survey and instructed that Correspondence Group to further clarify, where necessary, the comments received from specific countries. The governing bodies, in November 2007, noted that an interim response summarizing the main survey results had been communicated to all respondents to it, in anticipation of a final analysis for consideration and approval at the next meeting of the governing bodies in The Scientific Groups were invited to comment on the draft final survey report at this session, noting that there was also a linkage with a proposed extension of the WAG Tutorial project concerning the application of non- or low-technology techniques (see also chapter 7 of this report) The Chairman of the Correspondence Group, Dr. Yazeed Petersen (South Africa), introduced the draft final survey report on usability and communication of the Specific Guidelines as prepared by that Group (LC/SG 31/3/3). He highlighted that the report incorporated the Scientific Groups response or clarification to comments raised by the survey participants. The main conclusion of the report was that, in terms of practical implementation, the Specific Guidelines were considered to have substantial value, although some countries could benefit from additional technical information on case studies, analytical procedures and methods, criteria and procedures for setting limits, monitoring parameters and methods, etc. The development of an online catalogue of links to further information resources was recommended in this regard (section 5.2 of document LC/SG 31/3/3) Delegations that spoke were satisfied with the report and it was suggested that a single response by the Scientific Groups to all comments raised might be the best way forward. Links to the Joint Work Programme, as contained in document LC/SG 31/13, could also be used for this purpose In the ensuing discussion, the Scientific Groups agreed to reconvene the Working Group informally, under the lead of South Africa, to finalize the Scientific Groups response to the survey results and suggest ways of making improvements to the London Convention website to address the identified need for additional technical information. OUTCOME OF THE WORKING GROUP 3.29 The Working Group on the Usability and Communication of the Specific Guidelines met under the lead of Dr. Yazeed Petersen (South Africa) on 21 May 2008 and was attended by delegations from the Netherlands, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States. It agreed the final survey report including the response to comments submitted, as set out in the annex to its report (LC/SG 31/WP.7).

17 LC/SG 31/16 Action by the Scientific Groups 3.30 The Scientific Groups adopted the report of the Working Group (LC/SG 31/WP.7) and:.1 approved the final survey report on the usability and communication of the Specific Guidelines, including the appended response to comments submitted, as set out in annex 7 to this report;.2 agreed to issue the report to survey participants prior to the next meeting of the governing bodies scheduled for October 2008;.3 agreed to submit the survey report to the next meeting of the governing bodies, for endorsement; and.4 agreed to take into account the results of the survey when planning further technical co-operation and review activities under the Joint Work Programme ( ) of the Scientific Groups The Chairman thanked all delegations who had contributed to the outcome of this important issue and, in particular, Dr. Petersen for the leadership and determination shown since he started this assignment at the 29 th Session of the Scientific Group..5 GUIDANCE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF ACTION LISTS AND ACTION LEVELS FOR DREDGED MATERIAL 3.32 It was recalled that in 2002, the LC Scientific Group agreed to prepare technical guidance on the development of an Action List under the Generic Guidelines that would assist Contracting Parties in developing their own National Action Lists and address the potential effects on human health and the marine environment. It was agreed to focus, initially, on Action Lists for dredged material. In June 2007, the Scientific Groups continued their work in accordance with the Terms of Reference on Guidance for the Development of Action Lists and Action Levels for Dredged Material and re-established the intersessional Correspondence Group under the lead of Canada to finalize this task The Scientific Groups were invited to consider the final draft text, submitted by the lead country, with a view to completing this high priority activity at this session The Chairman of the Correspondence Group, Ms Linda Porebski (Canada), introduced her report (LC/SG 31/3/1) and updated the Scientific Groups on developments since that report was submitted. It was noted that comments and revisions to the submitted document were provided by Australia, Canada, Iran, Ireland, Japan, the Netherlands, the Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom, the United States, Greenpeace International and OECD/IEA An informal meeting of the Correspondence Group was held on 16 May 2008 to enhance the text and revise the appendices. Text was provided by Australia, Belgium and the United States and the meeting was attended by Canada, Ireland and Greenpeace International. Further work would focus on the executive summary and the main text, a decision on additional appendices, complete references and glossary and the conduct of a final edit.

18 The Scientific Groups reconvened the Working Group, under the lead of Ms Linda Porebski (Canada), and charged it to finalize the draft Guidance and present the final draft text for approval by the Groups. OUTCOME OF THE WORKING GROUP 3.37 The Working Group on Guidance for the Development of Action Lists and Action Levels met under the lead of Ms Linda Porebski (Canada) on 20 May 2008 to finalize the Guidance. It was attended by delegations from Belgium, Canada, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, the Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom, the United States, Greenpeace International and WODA. The Working Group had rearranged the appendices, removed the flow charts contained in the initial draft and reached consensus on the final draft text, as shown in the annex to its report (LC/SG 31/WP.2). ACTION BY THE SCIENTIFIC GROUPS 3.38 The Scientific Groups adopted the report of the Working Group (LC/SG 31/WP.2) and approved the final draft text shown in that report. The Groups also agreed that a verification of the references and the specific country examples used in the Guidelines would be carried out after the meeting by the countries concerned. Subsequently, the final draft text of the Guidelines would be forwarded to the governing bodies for their consideration and approval in October The Scientific Groups also recommended that the Guidelines, after their adoption by the governing bodies, be published by IMO in 2009 following a sound technical edit by the IMO Publishing Service The Chairman thanked all delegations who had contributed to the outcome of this Working Group and, in particular, Ms Porebski for the leadership and determination she had shown when she took over this assignment at the 29 th Session of the Scientific Group in NATIONAL ACTION LEVELS AND THEIR APPLICATION 3.41 As no documents had been received under this item of the agenda, Contracting Parties were urged to report their experience with the guidance just completed to future sessions of the Scientific Groups..7 EXPERIENCE WITH PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION OF ALL SPECIFIC GUIDELINES 3.42 It was recalled that in 2007, the Scientific Group had reviewed two interesting documents under this item of the agenda, one from the United Kingdom on the application of the de minimis concept under the London Convention and one from Canada on results of a workshop hosted by Environment Canada in November 2006 on decision-making for contaminated dredged material management Contracting Parties were invited to indicate their experiences with practical implementation of all Specific Guidelines to the next joint session of the Scientific Groups.

19 LC/SG 31/16.8 APPLICATION OF BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES 3.44 The Chairman recalled that at previous meetings the Scientific Groups had reviewed several informative reports on biological assessment techniques and testing approaches/results and that the issue had also been the focus of the Science Day discussions held at the 25 th session of the LC Scientific Group in Jamaica in As no documents were received under this item of the agenda, Contracting Parties were urged to provide documents to the next joint meeting of the Groups..9 ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS 3.46 It was recalled that Contracting Parties were invited to report on the development of alternative waste management options, e.g., in the form of case studies, or resulting from the application of the waste prevention audit under the Waste Assessment Guidance The delegation of the United States introduced a published report documenting the results of a Workshop sponsored by the EPA/USACE on the 4 Rs of dredging contaminated sediment: Resuspension, Residuals, Release, and Risk (LC/SG 31/INF.8). The Workshop, held in 2006, discussed the relationships among the 4 Rs of environmental dredging and a series of recommendations for reducing the uncertainty associated with environmental dredging of contaminated sediment. Delegations could contact for further information: Dr. Todd S. Bridges, United States Army Engineer Research & Development Centre, Todd.S.Bridges@erdc.usace.army.mil The delegation of the United States also announced that it is currently developing technical engineering guidance on environmental dredging, i.e. the dredging of contaminated sediments for the purpose of accomplishing environmental remediation/restoration (LC/SG 31/INF.13). Environmental dredging in this context was the removal of contaminated sediments from a water body for the purposes of remediation and risk reduction. Environmental dredging can assist in minimizing material to be disposed at sea and contribute to better management of contaminated sediments. This was considered a different approach to the one used for navigational dredging for the purposes of improving navigability. It was highlighted that the guidance would address a range of topics, including: evaluating site conditions and sediment characteristics; project goals and performance standards; equipment capabilities and selection; evaluation of production, project duration, and transport; methods for predicting resuspension, residuals and release; control measures; operating methods and strategies; and monitoring It was noted that the document was currently undergoing a peer review and is expected to be released in October Delegations could contact for further information: Dr. Paul Schroeder, United States Army Engineer Research & Development Center, Paul.R.Schroeder@erdc.usace.army.mil The Scientific Groups thanked the United States for their very informative presentations and invited further announcements and case studies to be presented to the next session of the Scientific Groups.

20 DISPOSAL MANAGEMENT MEASURES (E.G., CAPPING) 3.51 It was recalled that in June 2007, the Scientific Groups agreed to include this issue as an ongoing item of medium priority on the agenda, having noted a case study by the United Kingdom on its experiences with capping of contaminated dredged material, and the observation that monitoring of the cap was important as a feedback mechanism to adaptive management (LC/SG 30/14, paragraph 3.64 and annex 7) The Scientific Groups noted that the United States was updating its technical guidance on this issue as existing guidance was more than 10 years old. It was also noted that the United Kingdom would submit a report on monitoring of a capped site in the Tyne estuary to a future session of the Groups The Chairman urged Contracting Parties to present submissions addressing the capping of dredged material to the next session of the Scientific Groups. 4 CO 2 SEQUESTRATION IN SUB-SEABED GEOLOGICAL FORMATIONS:.1 DEVELOPMENT OF A REPORTING FORMAT FOR CO 2 SEQUESTRATION PERMITS; AND.2 REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE LEGAL AND TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP ON TRANSBOUNDARY CO 2 SEQUESTRATION ISSUES. 4.1 The Chairman recalled that in June 2007, the LP Scientific Group recommended the development of a specific reporting format, listing the items that Contracting Parties would have to include when reporting on their carbon dioxide sequestration activities in sub-seabed geological formations (LC/SG 30/14, paragraphs 2.6 and 2.7). In November 2007, the Meeting of Contracting Parties endorsed this recommendation and instructed the LP Scientific Group to:.1 develop a specific reporting format for CO 2 sequestration in sub-seabed geological formations;.2 liaise in this regard with other organizations recording CO 2 sequestration (OSPAR) and carbon credits;.3 identify who should do the recording; and.4 present a proposal to the next Meeting of Contracting Parties in 2008 (LC 29/17, paragraphs 4.10 and 4.11). 4.2 The delegation of Norway introduced a draft reporting format and stated that it had developed this format based on the one used in the framework of the OSPAR Convention (LC/SG 31/4/1). 4.3 The LP Scientific Group noted that the discussion should not only address what exactly should be reported about in the LP format, but also any recommendations how reporting under the Protocol should fit in with the other requirements countries have to comply with under the UNFCCC, existing carbon credit schemes, etc.