{"id":30024,"date":"2026-10-07T17:38:52","date_gmt":"2026-10-07T22:38:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?p=30024"},"modified":"2026-10-07T17:42:12","modified_gmt":"2026-10-07T22:42:12","slug":"parties-to-the-london-convention-and-protocol-debate-marine-carbon-dioxide-removal-governance","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/10\/07\/parties-to-the-london-convention-and-protocol-debate-marine-carbon-dioxide-removal-governance\/","title":{"rendered":"Parties to the London Convention and Protocol Debate Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal Governance"},"content":{"rendered":"

The parties to the 1972 Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (London Convention<\/a>) and the 1996 Protocol to that Convention (London Protocol<\/a>) are meeting this week. High on the agenda, as has been the case for the last decade and more, is \u201cmarine geoengineering including ocean fertilization.\u201d The parties\u2019 discussions on this topic could have a significant impact on international governance of marine carbon dioxide removal (mCDR)\u2014a suite of approaches that aim to mitigate climate change by enhancing the ocean\u2019s natural ability to uptake and store carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.<\/p>\n

At this year\u2019s meeting, parties to the London Convention and London Protocol are considering adopting a series of assessment frameworks, which are intended to help countries determine whether certain mCDR projects are \u201clegitimate scientific research\u201d that is not contrary to the aims of the London Convention and London Protocol. This is important because the parties have previously said<\/a> that only such research, and no other mCDR projects, should be allowed.<\/p>\n

This blog first provides some background on mCDR governance under the London Convention and London Protocol. Second, it describes the assessment framework proposals, which include an update to one adopted in 2010<\/a> for ocean fertilization and two new assessment frameworks for ocean alkalinity enhancement (OAE) and ocean sinking of biomass. Third, the blog analyzes questions around the legal status of the assessment frameworks, if they are approved. Fourth, the blog discusses party debates about when economic interests in scientific research are impermissible. A follow up blog will discuss some of the takeaways after the meeting has concluded.<\/p>\n

Brief Background on mCDR Governance under the London Convention and London Protocol<\/strong><\/p>\n

The London Convention and London Protocol are two separate but related treaties that aim to control marine pollution, in particular, pollution caused by ocean dumping which is defined to include any \u201cdeliberate disposal at sea of wastes or other matter from vessels, aircraft, platforms or other man-made structures.\u201d The London Convention has 87 parties<\/a> and the London Protocol has 56 parties<\/a>. The two treaties operate in parallel, with distinctions in the obligations they impose, but both require parties to adopt domestic laws governing ocean dumping.<\/p>\n

mCDR has been a frequent topic of discussion among the parties to the London Convention and London Protocol over the last two decades. The parties have had to consider (among other things) whether mCDR techniques that add material to the ocean should be treated as dumping and, if so, how the treaties apply to them. (See this primer<\/a> for more on the treaties\u2019 application to mCDR.) As part of those discussions, in 2008, the parties adopted a non-binding decision stating that \u201cocean fertilization activities other than legitimate scientific research should not be allowed.\u201d In 2010, the parties adopted an assessment framework<\/a> to evaluate proposed ocean fertilization projects. The assessment framework establishes provisions for an initial assessment designed to assess whether a project has the proper scientific attributed to be considered legitimate scientific research, and includes provisions on environmental assessment and monitoring of projects. According to the framework, only projects that do not present unacceptable risks to the marine environment should be allowed. (See here<\/a> for a case study on the application of the assessment framework to a proposed ocean fertilization field trial.)<\/p>\n

The parties to the London Protocol, but not the London Convention, adopted an amendment on marine geoengineering activities<\/a> in 2013. That amendment is intended to create a legally binding regulatory framework for listed activities. To date, ocean fertilization is the only listed activity. The amendment also has yet to enter into force. In the absence of this binding legal framework, the parties are continuing to explore nonbinding decisions aimed at governing mCDR activities.<\/p>\n

In a 2023 statement<\/a>, the parties stated that OAE and ocean sinking of biomass for mCDR should be treated similarly to ocean fertilization, meaning that some legitimate scientific research may be allowed but deployment should be deferred. Since then, the parties have been working to develop assessment frameworks to guide the evaluation of proposed OAE and biomass sinking research projects, and on other issues related to implementation of the 2023 statement.<\/p>\n

Assessment Framework Proposals<\/strong><\/p>\n

In recent years, a subset of parties to the London Convention and Protocol have been working to update<\/a> the 2010 assessment framework for ocean fertilization and develop similar frameworks for OAE<\/a> and biomass sinking<\/a>. The frameworks are intended as a tool to help parties determine whether proposed projects constitute legitimate scientific research and are not contrary to the aims of the London Convention and Protocol.<\/p>\n

The proposed updated assessment framework for ocean fertilization<\/a> includes a number of notable changes from the previous 2010 version<\/a>. Among other things, the updated framework adds details to the criteria that must be evaluated as part of the initial assessment of whether a project qualifies as legitimate scientific research. For example, the 2010 version required that research projects be \u201cdesigned to answer questions that will add to the body of scientific knowledge\u201d and that the researcher provide a \u201cclear justification for why the expected outcomes cannot be reasonably achieved by other methods. In addition:<\/p>\n