Pioneering Marine CDR Policy

Combining science & international law to advance mCDR policy

In our journey to remove carbon and mitigate climate change, policy for marine carbon dioxide removal (mCDR) has a crucial role to play. At the heart of this is the need for a well-defined regulatory framework to make sure that marine CDR methodologies and projects can scale in an environmentally responsible way. Navigating these policies requires a deep understanding of the national and international regulations, and involvement in their climate related developments. It also requires policy makers to take into account the full risks of climate change to ocean and human health, and to shift roles into key leaders, leading new climate crisis mitigation solutions. As an active startup in the field, we are excited to share our insights in hopes that it will help executives, fellow mCDR startups, and policymakers progress in the right direction. In this post, we will cover:

• Existing regulatory frameworks governing the sea
• Basic outline of a permitting process
• Links to open databases of environmental permits
• A few mCDR startups/projects leading the way
• People and organizations to follow to stay up to date on mCDR policy

We’ve put quite a lot of effort into this blog post, so we hope you’ll enjoy it and find it useful.

Existing Regulatory Frameworks Governing the Sea

UNCLOS

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) was introduced in 1982 and came into effect in 1994. It is signed by 168 countries (including most of the countries surrounding the Black Sea) and is the most comprehensive international convention defining many aspects such as territorial waters, exclusive economic zones, rights of passage, scientific research, and environmental protection. Part XII of the UNCLOS elaborates on protection of the marine environment, while Part XIII details policy promoting marine scientific research. It established rules related to the protection of the marine environment, regulating pollution, and the management of marine resources. These regulations allow for scientific research to be conducted and encourage sharing the findings internationally. They also mandate that coastal states take measures to prevent pollution and dumping of waste, and hold states liable for damage caused by pollution of the marine environment. Let’s take a look at how pollution and dumping are defined in the UNCLOS (taken from Part 1, Article 1, Section 1, sub-sections 4 and 5. Page 20 of the linked PDF document) :

4. "pollution of the marine environment" means the introduction by man, directly or indirectly, of substances or energy into the marine environment, including estuaries, which results or is likely to result in such deleterious effects as harm to living resources and marine life, hazards to human health, hindrance to marine activities, including fishing and other legitimate uses of the sea, impairment of quality for use of sea water and reduction of amenities;

5. (a) "dumping" means: 
(i) any deliberate disposal of wastes or other matter from vessels, aircraft, platforms or other man-made structures at sea; 
(ii) any deliberate disposal of vessels, aircraft, platforms or other man-made structures at sea;

The definition of dumping excludes 2 conditions, one of which is particularly interesting:

(b) "dumping" does not include:
…
(ii) placement of matter for a purpose other than the mere disposal thereof, provided that such placement is not contrary to the aims of this Convention.

If the purpose of ocean biomass storage or ocean alkalinity enhancement is to mitigate the climate crisis, does it mean that they are legal and can be performed freely? The answer is yes, as long as it is demonstrated that the environmental impacts at gigaton scale are not polluting the marine environment and therefore not “contrary to the aims of this Convention”. This is where meticulous science and accurate MRV, implemented by mCDR leaders, is crucial to advancing the regulatory frameworks, and is encouraged by the UNCLOS in Articles 238 to 241, which promote open scientific research and international collaboration. Similar language appears in other conventions as we will soon see. 

The London Protocol

The London Convention began in 1972 as an international agreement to prevent and regulate the disposal of harmful substances into the marine environment. In 1996 the London Protocol extended and replaced the London Convention. The protocol is overseen by the International Maritime Organization and is signed by 53 countries including Bulgaria, Ukraine, and Georgia. The Protocol forbids dumping material of any kind in the sea, aside from a list of materials (detailed in Annex I) which may be allowed with a permit. This list includes dredged material (500 megatons are permitted yearly), organic material of natural origins (e.g. biomass), and pure CO2 streams in sub seabed geological formations. As in the UNCLOS, the definition of dumping according to the London Protocol also contains the exception of “placement of matter for a purpose other than the mere disposal thereof, provided that such placement is not contrary to the aims of this Convention.”

It’s important to note that the London Protocol is aware of and is examining various mCDR techniques and their environmental implications. It convenes the Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP) which includes Work Group 41 dedicated to mCDR solutions, or, in their words, ocean interventions for climate change mitigation. One method which has been tried, reviewed, and classified as allowed for research purposes only, is ocean fertilization. The framework for marine geoengineering is detailed in Annex 4 and 5, which have not yet been fully incorporated into the London Protocol.

The Bucharest Convention & The Black Sea Commission

The Bucharest Convention, more formally known as the Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution, is a regional treaty that aims to prevent, reduce, and control pollution in the Black Sea. It was signed in 1992 by all the countries that border the sea, and became effective in 1994. The convention was put into place because of the realization of the importance of the sea, and the need for its protection. There are three main goals: controlling land-based sources of pollution, dumping of waste, and enabling joint action in the case of accidents like oil spills. The convention includes specific measures to regulate and monitor what is entering the Black Sea, and requires compliance with the regulations. This language in the convention is similar to the UNCLOS with respect to reducing pollution and adverse effects on the marine ecosystem, and includes the same exclusion from the definition of dumping: 

“Placement of matter for a purpose other than the mere disposal thereof, provided that such placement is not contrary to the aims of this Convention.” (Article II, 1. b. ii.).

The Espoo Convention

The Espoo Convention, more formally known as the Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, is a United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) convention signed in Espoo, Finland, in 1991 and entered into force in 1997. The Convention sets out the obligations of Parties, states that have agreed to be bound by the Convention, to carry out an environmental impact assessment of certain activities at an early stage of planning. It also lays down the general obligation of States to notify and consult each other on all major projects under consideration that are likely to have a significant adverse environmental impact across boundaries. Several sections are relevant in the context of mCDR: Article 2, Article 9, Appendix I, and Appendix III. Article 2 specifies the obligation to perform a transboundary EIA when an activity listed in Appendix I is proposed. Article 2 also states that activities that are not listed in Appendix I, may still require an EIA if they meet the criteria in Appendix III. Appendix I lists activities such as fossil fuel production, processing, or storage, nuclear energy, toxic or dangerous waste disposal, hydroelectric dams, and major deforestation. Appendix III lists the criteria when considering a transboundary EIA for any other activity: size, location, and effects. Lastly, Article 9 of the convention specifies that parties should give special consideration to research programs aimed at “improving existing qualitative and quantitative methods for assessing the impacts of proposed activities”. As of April 2014, the treaty had been ratified by 44 states, including Ukraine, Bulgaria, Romania, and the European Union.

The EU MSFD

The EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) was put in place to protect the marine ecosystem and biodiversity upon which human health and marine-related economic and social activities depend. The Directive requires EU Member States to develop national marine strategies in order to achieve and maintain “good environmental status”. The marine strategies comprise regular assessments of the marine environment, setting objectives and targets, establishing monitoring programmes and putting in place measures to improve the state of marine waters. The directive does define pollution as any human caused introduction of materials, noise or energy which may adversely affect human health, marine life, biodiversity, or legitimate use of marine resources, but it does not address dumping specifically and does not define any permitting process. The MSFD instructs EU Member States to define their own implementation of the strategies for monitoring and improving ocean health.

The US MPRSA

In the United States, the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) is a federal law that was enacted in 1972. This act regulates the introduction of materials into the ocean by prohibiting any dumping, construction, or discharge that is dangerous or harmful to the ecosystem. Currently, the only material that is explicitly allowed to be introduced to marine environments is built-up sediment in rivers and dams, also called dredged material. The EPA allows exceptions for materials depending on their necessity and impact. Marine CDR research, if it requires placing any material in the ocean, is addressed by the MPRSA and necessitates a permit. In a broader sense, the White House recognized the need for a focused effort on defining mCDR policy and announced its mCDR Strategy in 2023, including $100M of CDR research funding. Along with the EPA, the DOE, and NOAA, the US government is making significant efforts to advance marine CDR.

What does it all mean in real life?

Startups and researchers working on mCDR are investing a lot of effort to receive permits and perform transparent and scientifically accurate pilots in real aquatic environments. In every country, since the international regulation is implemented in the local legislation with some adjustments, pilot projects require a deep understanding of the local procedures. The local rules and regulations may differ in specific language from the international conventions and may be influenced by other laws involving general water management or mineral resource management. Usually the process for evaluating permit requests and granting licenses is performed by the environmental agency, requires some level of public engagement, and often involves other government agencies as well. It is recommended to hire an environmental law firm, or an environmental consulting company, with abundant experience in acquiring environmental permits. Expect the process to take anywhere from 4 months to 15 months, depending on the size of the project, the potential environmental impact, and the complexity of the bureaucracy. 

In EU countries, for example, the environmental permit process begins with a notification to the environmental agency and an initial screening process, allowing for a fast tracked permit where there’s no concern for environmental impacts. Since mCDR projects are new and most agencies are unfamiliar with the space, permit requests would advance to the scoping stage, which requires a detailed project presentation document and convenes a professional committee deciding on the scope of an environmental impact assessment (EIA) required to perform. EIAs include scientific background studies, on-premise surveys, and sufficient public discourse. After an EIA is concluded, summarized, and submitted again to the agency, the professional committee reviews and decides whether to reject or provide a permit.

In Israel, as another example, there is a rather short permitting process for “dumping permits”. The process takes 3 months, and can provide a permit for placing material in the sea under strictly defined conditions: type of material, quantity, deposition location, duration, etc. To submit a permit request one must fill out a form with all the information required for the Dumping Permits Committee to assess the request, and the request is reviewed and decided upon in less than 90 days. This process resembles the process defined for dumping permits by the London Protocol, and even though it is simple and relatively short, it is still recommended to work with a professional consultant who is experienced in the process.

Public References for Environmental Permits

If this is your first encounter with environmental permitting, you must be asking yourself “is this humanly possible?”. The answer is: yes! Of course it is. Being persistent, responsible, and diligent is the key to success, and always having some reference points makes it easier to understand what is expected as well as what has already been permitted. Many countries manage an open database of ocean dumping permits. Here are a few:

• Ireland
• OSPAR (North East Atlantic Convention for Ocean Protection)
• UK
• Canada
• Israel (in Hebrew…)

You can find quite a lot of information on line, as in many countries this information should be publicly available. In our own Google searches we found EIA screening & scoping documents in Romania and Georgia, so it is very likely that the right search in the right language may yield beneficial results (hint: the “site:” and “filetype:pdf”, as well as other Google search operators are very handy).

mCDR Startups Leading the Way with Regulatory Permits

As we dream of a future where marine CDR technologies are integrated and streamlined into our environmental permitting policies, some startups are paving the way, educating regulators, and breaking the ice for the first permits. The following list of startups summarizes the world’s leading efforts in understanding and implement marine CDR:

• The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute’s LOC-NESS Project is in the public comments phase for their permit from the US EPA.
• Planetary Technologies in the UK and Canada, applies Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement (OAE) to increase the ocean’s capacity to store carbon.
• Vesta.earth in North Carolina, is removing carbon by dispersing olivine sand to accelerate rock weathering.
• And lastly, Ocean Visions maintains a Database of mCDR Field Trials performed by startups and research groups all over the world.

How do I Stay Up to Date?

There is quite a lot of work done by experts and groups to promote science and policy in support of mCDR. Here’s a list of our favorites:

• Wil Burns, Co-Director of the Institute for Responsible Carbon Removal, writes on Illuminem, and records the podcast Plan Sea.
• Romany Webb, Deputy Director at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia U, (also see her book)
• Ocean Visions, pioneering NGO working to advance Marine CDR sine 2019, led by Brad Ack and David Koweek
• Carbon to Sea, an NGO funding Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement research, led by Antonius Gagern
• [C] Worthy, a non profit research organization building the tools to ensure safe and effective mCDR, led by Matt Long

If you are a marine CDR company and looking to join an alliance or business association advocating for CDR and ocean responsibility, you can look at the following organizations:

• The Negative Emissions Platform
• The World Ocean Council
• The Carbon Business Council
• The Carbon Removal Alliance

And lastly, more focused on CDR in general but are a great source of policy related information are Sebastian Manhart,  Eve Tamme, Robert Höglund, and Anna Lerner Nesbitt.

So, what’s next?

Effectively combining science, technology, and policy, mCDR is emerging as to create a new, responsible industry, which will play a key role in managing carbon emissions and fighting climate change. Navigating the intricate international and local marine protection policies is crucial. By promoting a transparent, scientific, technology driven approach (i.e. high-end MRV), a clear regulatory framework will emerge to support the growth of mCDR in parallel to protecting our oceans. With the efforts of startups, researchers, and policymakers, we are moving toward a future where mCDR is an important tool for a healthier planet.