PROTECTIONS UNDER SPECIFIC TREATY REGIMES

1. Present and future generations’ right to a balanced and healthful ecology is protected through strict screening of

climate engineering deployment opportunities – adequate scientific bases and consideration of socio-economic, cultural,

and ethical issues; and taking into account associated environmental risks.

I. KYOTO PROTOCOL

The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate

Change (UNFCCC), which commits its Parties by setting internationally binding emission reduction targets.

(http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php) It implements the objective of the UNFCCC to fight global warming by

reducing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere to a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic

interference with the climate system.

It was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December 1997 and entered into force on 16 February 2005. As of June 2013,

there are 192 parties to the Kyoto Protocol, including all the member-nations of the Pacific Small Island Developing States

(PSIDS). ("Kyoto Protocol Status of Ratification”, Retrieved 12 October 2006)

The Kyoto Protocol has not addressed climate engineering concepts or governance (Cf. the report by the UNFCCC

technical subsidiary body SBSTA on future financing options for technology transfer, FCCC/SB/2009/2, p. 79) Nevertheless,

in view of the slow progress on the climate negotiations for a post-2012 regime, the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC has

recently warned that carbon dioxide removal techniques, a kind of climate engineering mechanism, might have to be

developed. In fact, carbon capture and storage in geological formations has been considered for inclusion in the Kyoto

Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) (Decision 7/CMP.6, paras. 1–3; decision 2/CMP.5, para. 29).

Nevertheless, the Kyoto Protocol mandates that mechanisms constituting anthropogenic interference with the

climate system should be able to address the issue of global warming within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to

adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development

to proceed in a sustainable manner” (Cf. the report by the UNFCCC technical subsidiary body SBSTA on future financing
options for technology transfer, FCCC/ SB/2009/2, p. 79.) In other words, climate engineering deployment opportunities

should strictly comply with the aforementioned time-frame, otherwise they’d be denied under the protocol. This screening

requirement effectively affords protection to present and future generations’ right to a balanced and healthful ecology

within the regional context of PSIDS.

II. PARIS AGREEMENT

The Paris Agreement is an agreement within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

(UNFCCC) dealing with greenhouse gas emissions mitigation, adaptation and finance starting in the year 2020. It was hailed

as a landmark international deal when 194 countries signed up to sweeping pledges on the environment at a United

Nations meeting in the French capital. Among its member-nations are those belonging to the PSIDS.

(http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php).

Paris Agreement supplies a new architecture for international cooperation on global climate change that relies on

bottom-up national mitigation and adaptation plans, combined with more rigorous procedural safeguards to promote

accountability and more ambitious targets over time (D Bodansky, “The Paris Climate Change Agreement: A New Hope?”

(2016) AJIL (forthcoming)). At the heart of the Paris Agreement is the objective of limiting global average temperatures to

“well-below 2°C” and “to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C” — a goal that appears unlikely to be

achieved without large-scale implementation of carbon removal technologies. (United Nations Framework Convention on

Climate Change (UNFCCC), Adoption of the Paris Agreement, 12 December 2015, Dec CP.21, 21st Sess, UN Doc

FCCC/CP/2015/L.9 [Paris Agreement])

While the Paris Agreement does not address the issue of climate engineering expressly, the target of limiting

global average temperature rise to no more than 2°C (a goal that appears unlikely to be achieved in the absence of

significant amounts of carbon removal) raises questions with respect to how the issue of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and

solar radiation management (SRM) technologies may be addressed under the said international agreement.

Nevertheless, the Paris Agreement mandates that measures addressing climate change, including climate

engineering deployment opportunities, should take into consideration, as a requirement, the potential threats such
responses might pose to vulnerable individuals and groups in the pursuit of aggregate social benefits (Preamble, Paris

Agreement, http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php). This would presumably include consideration by the

parties of whether climate engineering interventions would comply with specific human rights protections under both

customary international law and treaties. Also, the agreement commands that states can identify and include climate

engineering measures in their nationally-determined contributions (NDCs) only if such measures conform to the underlying

principles set forth in to mitigation (article 4), adaptation (article 7), climate finance (article 9), technology development

and transfer (article 10), capacity building (article 11) and transparency (article 13); which basically take into account

associated environmental risks.

Climate engineering deployment opportunities should strictly comply with the aforementioned requirements

otherwise they’d be denied under the agreement. Such screening requirements effectively afford protection to present

and future generations’ right to a balanced and healthful ecology within the regional context of PSIDS.

III. CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY (CBD)

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) may be the most important general environmental treaty due to its

broad provisions to protect biodiversity—which is impacted by many large scale human activities—and to its near-universal

participation. Signed by 150 government leaders at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, CBD is dedicated to promoting sustainable

development and recognizes that biological diversity is about more than plants, animals and microorganisms and their

ecosystems – it is about people and our need for food security, medicines, fresh air and water, shelter, and a clean and

healthy environment in which to live (https://www.cbd.int/convention/).

Currently, 196 countries are parties to the CBD, including all those belonging to the PSIDS (CBD List of Parties,

https://www.cbd.int/information/parties.shtml). The CBD has referred to and incorporated the work of the London

Convention/London Protocol (LC/LP) in its own decisions, thus widening their application beyond the smaller number of

Parties to the LC/LP. With respect to ocean fertilization, in decision X/29, the Conference of the Parties to the CBD, at its

tenth meeting (COP 10), in October 2010, reaffirmed the precautionary approach and provided guidance to Parties with a
view to ensuring that no ocean fertilization takes place unless in accordance with its decision IX/16 of 2008. It also invited

Parties to act in accordance with the LC/LP Assessment Framework (CBD decision X/29, para. 13(e) and paras. 57–62).

In 2010, the countries, which are parties to the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Biological Diversity, met for a

conference of treaty partners in Nagoya, Japan. The treaty partners reached an agreement providing that "no climate-

related geo-engineering activities that may affect biodiversity take place, until there is an adequate scientific basis on which

to justify such activities and appropriate consideration of the associated risks for the environment and biodiversity and

associated social, economic and cultural impacts, with the exception of small-scale scientific research studies [under

controlled circumstances].” (COP 10 Decision X/33 (2010) X/33. Biodiversity and Climate Change) Although the 2010 CBD

decision on climate engineering is not legally binding, yet the decision is important for a global governance framework

because of the consensus of the 196 Parties it represents and the political signal it sends.

Moreover, CBD, which gathered at its 13th Conference of the Parties (COP 13) in Mexico from December 4-17,

2016, decided to reaffirm its landmark moratorium on climate engineering that it first agreed to in 2010. The reaffirmation

of the CBD moratorium on climate engineering was taken by consensus of 196 governments. CBD still stays “No” to

manipulating the climate (http://www.etcgroup.org/content/un-convention-still-says-no-manipulating-climate).

Another CBD decision (CBD Decision X/33) calls for the integration of the views and experiences of indigenous and

local communities and stakeholders into the consideration of the possible impacts of climate engineering on biodiversity

and related social, economic and cultural considerations (UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/33, available at www.cbd.int/cop10/doc/.).

Integrating such views is important as indigenous peoples and local communities, especially in developing countries, tend

to be among the populations whose livelihoods are most reliant upon biodiversity resources.

Climate engineering deployment opportunities that may affect biodiversity should be strictly based on adequate

scientific basis on which to justify such activities and appropriate consideration of the associated risks for the environment

and biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural impacts. Otherwise, such opportunities will be frowned

under the convention. Such screening requirements effectively afford protection to present and future generations’ right

to a balanced and healthful ecology within the regional context of PSIDS.

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL MODIFICATION CONVENTION (ENMOD)

The ENMOD Convention is a treaty that addresses severe environmental harm as a military or any other hostile

use. It was a reaction to deliberate attempts at weather modification by the US during the Vietnam War, (Weather

Modification: Hearings before the Subcommittee on Oceans and International Environment of the Committee on Foreign

Relations, United States Senate, 1974, Vietnam Center and Archive, www.virtualarchive.vietnam.ttu.edu/.) and was

intended to restrict such means of warfare (ENMOD preamble, first sentence: “Guided by the interest of ... saving mankind

from the danger of using new means of warfare”.). The convention provides rules and procedures that could apply to

climate engineering when used for hostile or military purposes, as well as definitions, such as on environmental

modification, which may be useful to consider as precedents for other processes.

As of 2018, 78 countries are parties to the ENMOD Convention. Among the nations belonging to the PSIDS, only

Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands are parties therein. (http://treaties.un.org, accessed on 6 March 2018). Be that as it

may, enlisting environmental protections under this convention is still warranted as the interests of these countries

continue to be relevant in the entire regional context.

Although the ENMOD convention is a less well-known multilateral agreement, provides rules and procedures that

could apply to climate engineering when used for hostile or military purposes, as well as definitions, such as on

environmental modification, which may be useful to consider as precedents for other processes. Such convention prohibits

military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe

effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party. Its definition of “environmental

modification techniques” would include most proposed large scale forms of climate engineering, and its parties may not

use these for any “military or any other hostile use”, as a strict requirement for their deployment.

The foregoing prohibitive requirement does away with the evils of deploying climate engineering mechanisms in

military or any other hostile use under the pretext of climate change mechanism, which could have catastrophic effects to

the environment; not to mention the use of weather modification techniques. Said requirement effectively affords

protection to present and future generations’ right to a balanced and healthful ecology within the regional context of

PSIDS.
V. VIENNA CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE OZONE LAYER AND THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL

The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and its Montreal Protocol on Substances that

Deplete the Ozone Layer are the most widely ratified treaties in United Nations history.

The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer is a Multilateral Environmental Agreement which

acts as a framework for the international efforts to protect the ozone layer. It was agreed upon at the Vienna Conference

of 1985 and entered into force in 1988. In terms of universality, it is one of the most successful treaties of all time, having

been ratified by 197 states, including nations belonging to the PSIDS (Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone

Layer". United Nations Treaty Series. Accessed 6 March 2018). The general obligations under the Vienna Convention

require its Parties to take “appropriate measures” to protect human health and the environment against adverse effects

resulting or likely to result from human activities which modify or are likely to modify the ozone layer.

Two years after the adoption of the Vienna Convention, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the

Ozone Layer was agreed upon, in an effort to apply limits to the production and consumption of the main chemicals that were

causing the destruction of the Earth's protective ozone layer. Since adoption of the Montreal Protocol, the Parties also

adopted several amendments to that Protocol: the London Amendment (1990), the Copenhagen Amendment (1992), the

Montreal Amendment (1997), the Beijing Amendment (1999), and the Kigali Amendment (2016) (The Montreal

Protocol,http://www.sviva.gov.il/English/env_topics/InternationalCooperation/IntlConventions/Pages/ViennaConvention.aspx).

The Vienna Convention and its Montreal Protocol mandate that climate engineering mechanisms (e.g. aerosol

injection) that are likely to be deployed in order to address the issue of climate change should not result to extensive

modifications in the ozone layer composition, i.e. should not make way for changes in the physical environment or biota,

including changes in climate, which have significant deleterious effects on human health or on the composition, resilience

and productivity of natural and managed ecosystems, or on materials useful to mankind. Absent of that sufficient

assurance based of adequate scientific study, deployment of climate engineering opportunities would be contrary to the

convention and its protocol (Article 1 (2) of the Vienna Convention).

 Climate engineering deployment opportunities should strictly comply with the aforementioned requirement or

they’d be denied under the agreement. Such screening requirement effectively affords protection to present and future

generations’ right to a balanced and healthful ecology within the regional context of PSIDS.

2. Present and future generations’ right to a balanced and healthful ecology is protected through strict supervision of

existing climate engineering mechanisms – proactive accounting, monitoring, and controlling of actual emissions and

pollutions of harmful chemicals from the said mechanisms.

I. KYOTO PROTOCOL

Recall that the Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty which extends the 1992 United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that commits State Parties to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, based on the

scientific consensus that (a) global warming is occurring and (b) it is extremely likely that human-made CO2 emissions have

predominantly caused it.

The objective of the Kyoto Protocol, is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level

that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Carbon dioxide removal techniques

would reduce greenhouse gas concentrations and would as such not be contrary to this objective. Solar radiation

management techniques would not change greenhouse gas concentrations. However, both sets of technologies may have

effects that, in themselves, could be considered as “(dangerous) anthropogenic interference in the climate system”.

Hence, aside from imposing the time-frame screening requirement as a condition sine qua non for the

deployment of climate change mechanisms under the protocol, it also mandates that actual emissions of harmful chemicals

have to be monitored and precise records have to be kept of the trades carried out (Monitoring emission targets, Kyoto

Protocol; http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php).

Registry systems track and record transactions by Parties under the mechanisms: The UN Climate Change

Secretariat, based in Bonn, Germany, keeps an international transaction log to verify that transactions are consistent with
the rules of the Protocol. Also, reporting under the protocol is done by Parties by submitting annual emission inventories

and national reports under the Protocol at regular intervals (http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php).

The above-stated regulatory measures under the Kyoto Protocol concerning existing climate engineering

mechanisms effectively protect the right of the present and future generations to a balanced and healthful ecology.

II. PARIS AGREEMENT

To reiterate, the Paris Agreement is an agreement within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate

Change (UNFCCC) dealing with greenhouse gas emissions mitigation, adaptation and finance starting in the year 2020. It

aims to respond to the global climate change threat by keeping a global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees

Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees

Celsius (http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php).

Aside from the above-mentioned screening requirements, Paris Agreement mandates, in deploying climate

engineering mechanisms to reduce the NDCs, policies be adopted on the basis of accurate and reliable scientific data.

Reliance on unproven technologies contravenes this principle and can be viewed as a violation under the agreement (See

PJ Sullivan et al, “Defining and Implementing Best Available Science for Fisheries and Environmental Science, Policy, and

Management” (2006)). Also, market mechanisms in the development of CDR technologies – a kind of climate engineering

mechanism – require developing reliable accounting methodologies, including addressing issues of permanence that arise

in relation to carbon sequestration. The NDCs, which are largely at the discretion of states, provide little purchase for the

regulation of CDR technologies. However, the eventual need to use market incentives to realize the development and

scaled deployment of CDR technologies will likely require international cooperation to address the inclusion of CDR

technologies in market mechanisms. Given the bottom up architecture of the Paris Agreement, market rules and

methodologies are likely to play an important element in driving domestic and international policy on CDR development,

and legal and policy disagreements over CDR could play out over the negotiation of these rules.
 Furthermore, the Paris Agreement contains a dedicated transparency provision, which is intended to facilitate the

monitoring, reporting and verification of NDCs, as well as adaptation responses and support such as existing climate

engineering mechanisms (Paris Agreement, http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php.). As the transparency

requirements apply specifically to “removals by sinks,” CDR activities could be included in the transparency requirements,

which will require the development of agreed-upon accounting methodologies, although latter requirement may present a

significant challenge as accounting methodologies for different forms of carbon removal and storage currently involve high

degrees of variability and uncertainty.

Surely, the above-mentioned requirements of strict supervision existing climate engineering mechanisms under

the Paris Agreement effectively protects the right of the present and future generations to a balanced and healthful

ecology.

III. UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA (UNCLOS)

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), also called the Law of the Sea Convention or the

Law of the Sea Treaty, is the international agreement that resulted from the third United Nations Conference on the Law of

the Sea (UNCLOS III), which took place between 1973 and 1982. The Law of the Sea Convention defines the rights and

responsibilities of nations with respect to their use of the world's oceans, establishing guidelines for businesses, the

environment, and the management of marine natural resources. The Convention, concluded in 1982, replaced four 1958

treaties. UNCLOS came into force in 1994, a year after Guyana became the 60th nation to ratify the treaty (The United

Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (A historical perspective)". United Nations Division for Ocean Affairs and the

Law of the Sea; Retrieved 6 March 2018). As of June 2016, 167 countries and the European Union have joined in the

Convention, including those belonging to the PSIDS (http://treaties.un.org, accessed on 6 March 2018).

Under the treaty, States have the general obligations to protect and preserve the marine environment (article

192) and to take all measures necessary to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from any

source, including pollution by dumping (articles 1, 194 and 210). In addition, States are required to take all measures

necessary to ensure that activities under their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage by pollution to other States and

their environment (article 194). In taking measures to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment,
States shall act so as not to transfer, directly or indirectly, damage or hazards from one area to another or transform one

type of pollution into another (article 195) as some climate engineering technologies may involve a transfer of one form of

pollution (excessive greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere) into another (excessive greenhouse gases in the

oceans). UNCLOS also provides that dumping within the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone or onto the

continental shelf shall not be carried out without the express prior approval of the coastal State (article 210).

With regard to pollution of the marine environment resulting from the use of technologies under their jurisdiction

or control, States are required to “take all measures necessary to prevent, reduce and control” such pollution (article 196).

Furthermore, when States have reasonable grounds for believing that planned activities under their jurisdiction or control

may cause substantial pollution of or significant and harmful changes to the marine environment, they shall, as far as

practicable, assess the potential effects of such activities on the marine environment and shall communicate reports of the

results of such assessments (article 206).

Indeed, the above-mentioned requirements of strict supervision existing climate engineering mechanisms under

the UNCLOS effectively protects the right of the present and future generations to a balanced and healthful ecology, as it

requires party-states to comply with such specific obligations relating to the protection and preservation of the marine

environment.

IV. LONDON CONVENTION (LC) AND LONDON PROTOCOL (LP)

The "Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter 1972", the

"London Convention" for short, is one of the first global conventions to protect the marine environment from human

activities and has been in force since 1975. Its objective is to promote the effective control of all sources of marine pollution

and to take all practicable steps to prevent pollution of the sea by dumping of wastes and other matter. Currently, 87

States are Parties to this Convention.

In 1996, the "London Protocol" was agreed to further modernize the Convention and, eventually, replace it.

Under the Protocol all dumping is prohibited, except for possibly acceptable wastes on the so-called "reverse list". The

Protocol entered into force on 24 March 2006 and there are currently 50 Parties to the Protocol. Among the nations
belonging to the PSIDS, only Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tonga, and Vanuatu are parties therein.

(http://treaties.un.org, accessed on 6 March 2018). Be that as it may, enlisting environmental protections under this

convention is still warranted as the interests of these countries continue to be relevant in the entire regional context.

The LC/LP Assessment Framework is not legally binding in form or in wording. In addition, participation in the

London Convention and London Protocol is not comparable to the CBD or the UNFCCC, for instance, in terms of number of

Parties. However, the LC/LP Assessment Framework was incorporated by reference in CBD decision X/29 on ocean

fertilization. Also, the framework is important for the global governance because of the consensus of the 50 Parties it

represents and the political signal it sends.

The London Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (London

Convention) and its Protocol (London Protocol) could be applicable to ocean fertilization, since it provides rules on marine

pollution. The London Convention lays down prohibited substances. When Parties want to dump prohibited substances in

oceans they have to undergo an environmental impact assessment, obtain a permit, and comply with monitoring

requirements (Annex II).

In fact, in 2010, the LC/LP agreed to continue its work towards providing “a global, transparent and effective

control and regulatory mechanism for ocean fertilization activities – a kind of climate engineering mechanism – and other

activities that fall within the scope of the London Convention and London Protocol and have the potential to cause harm to

the marine environment” (Resolution LC-LP.2(2010), para. 5; IMO (2010))

Truly, the above-mentioned requirements of strict supervision existing climate engineering mechanisms under the

LC/LP effectively protects the right of the present and future generations to a balanced and healthful ecology, as it requires

party-states to address marine pollution from dumping of wastes and other matter at sea that could sprung from

employing ocean fertilization climate engineering mechanisms.

V. VIENNA CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE OZONE LAYER AND THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL

Recall that the general obligations under the Vienna Convention require its Parties to take “appropriate

measures” to protect human health and the environment against adverse effects resulting or likely to result from human

activities which modify or are likely to modify the ozone layer. Also, its Montreal Protocol imposes specific obligations,

especially to phase down certain substances that deplete the ozone layer with respect to certain activities, i.e., the import,

export, production and consumption of a number of ozone‑depleting substances.

The Vienna Convention and its Montreal Protocol provides a framework under which climate engineering could be

further regulated. It would appear to be within the mandate of the Conference of the Parties to establish further

knowledge and provide guidance in this regard under article 6(4), and the effect of materials and processes used in

particular climate engineering concepts on the ozone layer would have to be assessed.

Remarkably, the above-mentioned regulatory provisions on existing climate engineering mechanisms under the

Vienna Convention and its Montreal Protocol effectively protect the right of the present and future generations to a

balanced and healthful ecology, as it requires party-states to take “appropriate measures” to protect human health and the

environment against adverse effects resulting or likely to result from human activities which modify or are likely to modify

the ozone layer.

3. Present and future generations’ right to a balanced and healthful ecology is protected through strict implementation

of environmental damage control methods and immediate reparation of damages that are likely caused by existing

climate engineering mechanisms.

I. Kyoto Protocol

Largely based on mitigation and adaptation, today’s international climate policy aims to prevent dangerous

anthropogenic interference with the climate system (1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Art. 2.). Although
mitigation and adaptation could significantly reduce the risks of climate change, they cannot eliminate all climate change

impacts, and some degree of harm is unavoidable.

A route for damaged countries to seek redress could be under the dispute settlement provisions of the Kyoto

Protocol. The dispute settlement provisions also include options such as arbitration or submission of a dispute to the

International Court of Justice (ICJ) in certain, limited circumstances.

Also under the Kyoto Protocol is the provision on conciliation as a means to claim reparation of damages resulting

from existing climate engineering mechanism that caused trans-boundary harm across jurisdictions (An option for

advancing the UNFCCC negotiations: settling disputes through a conciliation commission, FIELD briefing, July 2012.). If a

Party requests conciliation, a conciliation commission is created. It is formed by an equal number of members appointed by

each of the Parties involved in the dispute and a Chair. The members chose a Chair jointly. The conciliation commission’s

award is recommendatory, not legally binding, but it would be likely to carry considerable political and moral weight. An

award could also clarify legal questions and help develop international law on climate change.

Although pursuing a dispute through conciliation might be time-consuming and complicated, the advantages of

this approach include resolving the dispute under the Kyoto Protocol, helping to reinforce environmental damage control

methods and immediate reparation of damages that are likely caused by existing climate engineering mechanisms. This

surely guarantees a protection in favor of present and future generations’ right to a balanced and healthful ecology, even if

through damage mitigation and reparation facilities.

II. PARIS AGREEMENT

Article 8 of the Paris Agreement addresses loss and damage associated with climate change through

“cooperation and facilitation.” It recognized the importance of averting, minimizing and addressing loss and damage

associated with the adverse effects of climate change, including extreme weather events and slow onset events, and the

role of sustainable development in reducing the risk of loss and damage. (Article 8, Paris Agreement on loss and damage;

http://unfccc.int/adaptation/workstreams/loss_and_damage/items/7545.php) Specifically, it addresses loss and damage

associated with climate change impacts in developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of

climate change.

The thrust of loss and damage is retrospective, focusing on impacts associated with harms that cannot be

reasonably averted. It cannot be denied, however, that one of the contributors to the existing effects of climate change is

the deployment of climate engineering mechanisms. Example of such instance is the diversion of excessive greenhouse gas

concentrations in the atmosphere into the oceans, a mechanism under CDR climate engineering strategies, could cause the

oceans to become more acidic, effectively contributing to the adverse effects of global climate change

(http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/20Reasons.pdf) .

Although the Paris Agreement does not address the issue of reparation of damages arising from climate

engineering activities expressly, it provides protections concerning the loss and damage associated with climate change

impacts especially in PSIDS member countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change. This

surely guarantees a protection in favor of present and future generations’ right to a balanced and healthful ecology, even if

through damage mitigation and reparation facilities.