Conclusions and recommendations
House of Commons video conferencing facilities
1. We
welcome the review that the House is carrying out of the audio-visual
facilities in committee rooms to enable the taking of oral evidence
in committee by video link. (Paragraph 14)
Definition of geoengineering
2. We
conclude that weather techniques such as cloud seeding should
not be included within the definition of geoengineering used for
the purposes of activities designed to effect a change in the
global climate with the aim of minimising or reversing anthropogenic
climate change. (Paragraph 28)
3. In our view, geoengineering
as currently defined covers such a range of Carbon Dioxide Removal
(CDR) and Solar Radiation Management (SRM) technologies and techniques
that any regulatory framework for geoengineering cannot be uniform.
(Paragraph 30)
4. We conclude that
geoengineering techniques should be graded according to factors
such as trans-boundary effect, the dispersal of potentially hazardous
materials in the environment and the direct effect on ecosystems.
The regulatory regimes for geoengineering should then be tailored
accordingly. Those techniques scoring low against the criteria
should be subject to no additional regulation to that already
in place, while those scoring high would be subject to additional
controls. (Paragraph 33)
Regulatory framework
5. Through
its involvement in the existing international regulatory arrangements
such as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and when
these instruments come up for revision we recommend that the Government
raise geoengineering, particularly those for Carbon Dioxide Removal
(CDR), and seek to develop, in conjunction with other governments,
the arrangements provided by these international instruments so
that they address research on, and deployment of, CDR geoengineering
techniques. (Paragraph 38)
6. We conclude that
there is a gap in the regulatory framework for geoengineering
techniques, especially for SRM techniques. (Paragraph 40)
7. We recommend that
the Government review its policy on geoengineering to give it
greater priority. (Paragraph 49)
8. The science of
geoengineering is not sufficiently advanced to make the technology
predictable, but this of itself is not grounds for refusing to
develop regulatory frameworks, or for banning it. There are good
scientific reasons for allowing investigative research and better
reasons for seeking to devise and implement some regulatory frameworks,
particularly for those techniques that a single country or small
group of countries could test or deploy and impact the whole climate.
(Paragraph 54)
9. We conclude that
there is a need to develop a regulatory framework for geoengineering.
Two areas in particular need to be addressed: (i) the existing
international regulatory regimes need to develop a focus on geoengineering
and (ii) regulatory systems need to be designed and implemented
for those SRM techniques that currently fall outside any international
regulatory framework. (Paragraph 55)
Public engagement
10. We
recommend that the Government give greater priority to public
engagement on geoengineering by, for example, showing how it relates
to its policy on the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. We
welcome the work of Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)
on public engagement on geoengineering and we request that, when
the work is completed, the Government provide our successor committee
with an explanation of how it will inform its policy on geoengineering.
(Paragraph 58)
The formulation of a regulatory framework
11. While
accepting that the development of a "top-down" regulatory
framework may have risks and limitations, we consider that these
are outweighed by the benefits of an international framework:
legitimacy; scientific standards; oversight mechanisms; and management
of environmental and trans-boundary risks. (Paragraph 65)
12. We welcome the
production of the principles by a group of academics which provide
a basis to begin the discussion of principles that could be applied
to the regulation of geoengineering. (Paragraph 66)
13. We conclude that
Principle 1 of the suggested five key principles on how geoengineering
research should be guided—"Geoengineering to be regulated
as a public good"—needs, first, to be worked up in
detail to define public good and public interest. Second, the
implied restriction suggested in the explanatory text to the Principle
on intellectual property rights must be framed in such a manner
that it does not deter investment in geoengineering techniques.
Without private investment, some geoengineering techniques will
never be developed. (Paragraph 71)
14. We conclude that
Principle 2—"Public participation in geoengineering
decision-making"—is to be supported but it needs to
spell out in the explanatory text what consultation means and
whether, and how, those affected can veto or alter proposed geoengineering
tests. (Paragraph 74)
15. We endorse Principle
3—"Disclosure of geoengineering research and open publication
of results". The requirement to disclose the results of geoengineering
research should be unqualified. We recommend that the Government
press for an international database of geoengineering research
to encourage and facilitate disclosure. (Paragraph 77)
16. We also endorse
Principle 4—"The independent assessment of impacts".
But it too needs to be worked up in more detail in the explanatory
text to: (i) define impacts; (ii) produce agreed mechanisms for
assessing impacts, including for assessing the impact of global
warming; and (iii) determine whether and how compensation should
be assessed and paid. The agreement of these arrangements will
need to command the broadest level of support across the globe
and we consider that UN-led, multilateral processes are the best
way to secure concurrence. (Paragraph 82)
17. We endorse Principle
5—"Governance before deployment of any geoengineering
technique". We recommend that the Government carry out research,
and press for research to be carried out through international
bodies on the legal, social and ethical implications, and regulation
and governance of geoengineering. (Paragraph 84)
18. We conclude that
the key principles should not include the precautionary principle
as a discrete principle. (Paragraph 86)
19. While some aspects
of the suggested five key principles need further development,
they provide a sound foundation for developing future regulation.
We endorse the five key principles to guide geoengineering research.
(Paragraph 87)
Regulation of research and testing
20. Provided
those carrying out research follow a code of practice along the
lines of that suggested by the Royal Society, incorporating in
particular Principle 3 on the disclosure of geoengineering research
and open publication of results, we see no reason for an international
regulatory regime applying to paper and computer modelling of
geoengineering techniques. (Paragraph 90)
21. We consider that
a ban, even a short-term ban, on all SRM geoengineering testing
would prevent work on geoengineering as "Plan B". It
may well also be unenforceable and be counter-productive as those
carrying out tests do so in secrecy. (Paragraph 94)
22. We conclude that
development and small tests of SRM geoengineering should be allowed
provided they:
a) are fully in accordance with an internationally
agreed set of principles such as those we have considered in this
Report;
b) have negligible or predictable environmental
impact; and
c) have no trans-boundary effects. (Paragraph
95)
23. We
consider that any testing that impacts on the climate must be
subject to an international regulatory framework. (Paragraph 96)
24. We recommend that
any UK SRM programmes should involve international scientists,
particularly including those from vulnerable developing countries,
and that these programmes should give priority to research on
SRM schemes that may preserve global public welfare. We further
recommend that the UK Government press the governments of other
countries to a adopt similar approach to SRM research. (Paragraph
98)
International regulatory arrangements
25. We
consider that the way forward for the regulation of geoengineering
is through the UN and we recommend that the UK Government and
other interested countries develop proposals for the regulation
of not only CDR but also SRM techniques and begin to press them
through the UN. (Paragraph 100)
26. We recommend that
the UK Government is proactive in persuading and working with
other governments to press for regulatory arrangements for geoengineering
through the UN. They should do this on the basis of the following
principles and objectives:
a) geoengineering to be regulated as a public
good;
b) public participation in geoengineering
decision-making;
c) disclosure of geoengineering research and
open publication of results;
d) independent assessment of impacts;
e) governance arrangements to be clear before
deployment;
f) decisions to be based on the best
scientific evidence, including social science;
g) regulatory measures to be able to respond
rapidly;
h) regulatory measures imbued with a high
level of flexibility to be able, for example, to encompass new
technologies as they emerge; and
i) prohibition of the use of geoengineering
techniques for military purposes. (Paragraph 103)
27. We
recommend that the Government press for a suitable international
body to commission a review of existing international and regional
mechanisms to: (i) consider the relevant roles of the existing
international bodies in the regulation of geoengineering; (ii)
identify existing mechanisms that could be used to regulate geoengineering
research and deployment activities, if suitably extended as necessary;
and (iii) identify where regulatory gaps exist in relation to
geoengineering methods proposed to date, and establish a process
for the development of mechanisms to address these gaps. (Paragraph
106)
28. We recommend that,
in parallel with the development of an international regulatory
framework, the UK Government press for the establishment of an
international consortium, to explore the safest and most effective
geoengineering options, while building a community of researchers
and developers. (Paragraph 109)
29. We recommend that
the UK should take the lead in raising geoengineering within international
bodies such as the EU and the Commonwealth. (Paragraph 112)
Collaborative working with the US Congress
30. We
must put on record that we are enthusiastic supporters of collaborative
working between national legislatures on topics with international
reach such as geoengineering and we consider that there are a
range of measures that could be taken to streamline the process
of collaborative working. (Paragraph 117)
31. We conclude that
in future collaborative working between legislatures House of
Commons committees should request the committee with which collaboration
is taking place to provide a "permanent" witness—either
an official or member of the committee—to provide oral evidence
via video link at all oral evidence sessions. (Paragraph 119)
32. We consider that
in future when House of Commons committees participate in collaborative
work they should include a statement in the call for submissions
that, subject to the appropriate considerations of privilege,
memoranda received may be passed to the committee in the other
legislature. Reciprocal arrangements should be sought from the
other committee. It should also be agreed that the committee receiving
the memorandum will arrange and lead on publication. (Paragraph
120)
33. We consider that
the House of Commons should consider procedural changes to the
effect that, where a select committee resolves to carry out collaborative
working with a committee in another national legislature, a member
of that committee attend—or communicate via video link—private
sessions of the House of Commons committee. (Paragraph 121)
34. Science, technology
and engineering are key to solving global challenges. Only through
international collaboration will these challenges be met with
success. We suggest that the next Science and Technology Committee
should re-establish the working relationship with the US House
of Representatives Science and Technology Committee. It should
also consider making working connections with other international
committees. (Paragraph 122)
Conclusion
35. We
are clear that serious consideration for the regulatory arrangements
for geoengineering needs to start now, not once highly disruptive
climate change is under way. (Paragraph 123)
| 
