Solar Radiation Modification resolution withdrawn at UNEA-6

Sun image. Collected

New Delhi, 12 March (Radhika Chatterjee): A resolution on Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) was withdrawn at the 6th session of the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA-6) by its proponents after member states failed to find consensus on it. UNEA 6 convened from 26 Feb – 1 March, in Nairobi, Kenya.

Related to issues of climate change, this resolution was controversial when it was tabled with discussions continuing till the late hours including on the concluding day of the meeting of the Committee of the Whole (COW) on 28 February. The proponents of the resolution finally withdrew the resolution, following the persistence of wide divergences amongst member states over various issues.

Initially, the list of proponents and co-sponsors of the resolution included Guinea, Senegal, Monaco and Switzerland. Senegal and Guinea however withdrew their support from the resolution during the 6th meeting of the Open Ended Committee of Permanent Representatives (OECPR-6). In the end, the draft resolution had Switzerland and Monaco as its proponents and Georgia and Israel as co-sponsors.

The resolution proposed the setting up of a “scientific expert group” on SRM and requested the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) to provide the secretariat for the “work of the scientific expert group and to prepare a report” that would “inform the discussions of the expert group”. Some of the things this report was expected to work on, as mentioned in its operative paragraph 2, were:

“a.  The criteria and approaches that define SRM technologies;

b. The state of the science, including existing research frameworks, challenges and gaps;

c. The actors and state of activities with regard to development, application, deployment and control of SRM technologies;

d. The current knowledge of potential impacts, including risks, benefits and uncertainties, with regard to each SRM technology;

e. Ethical considerations, including moral hazard and adverse lock-in effects; and

f. Recommendations for further work;”

The resolution also requested “the Executive Director to engage with the relevant entities of the United Nations, including treaty secretariats and intergovernmental bodies, in particular the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), in the preparation of the above-mentioned document;”

Some of the key issues over which countries sparred included: whether or not a ‘non-use agreement’ on geoengineering, and existing moratoriums on geoengineering under different international conventions and decisions should be mentioned in the resolution; whether a reference should be made to the ‘precautionary principle’; if there should be mention on the need for having any kind of oversight or governance mechanism on SRM research/work; what should the work focus on; and which institution should the work proposed by the resolution occur. As regards climate change, a key point of divergence was on the issue of maintaining a differentiation between developed and developing countries.

Non-use agreement, precautionary principle, existing moratoriums and global governance mechanism on geoengineering

Right from the first day of discussions, the Africa Group expressed its concerns regarding SRM technologies. Djibouti, speaking on behalf of the African Group said, “SRM, management, or manipulation poses severe and maybe even existential risks to Africa and to the world. Decision 19/5 of the African Ministers at AMCEN (African Ministerial Conference on the Environment) adopted in August 2023 expressed concerns about the technology and confirmed that it is not a technology to be considered for use. This decision inter alia expressed concern on the promotion of SRM, and called for a global governance mechanism for non-use of solar radiation management which aligns with the proposal for the establishment of an international Solar Geoengineering Non-Use Agreement (SGNUA) supported by more than 450 academics from around the world, including the world’s leading scholars of global environmental governance. The African Group also believes that SRM deflects responsibility for the fight against climate change from the humans who are responsible for the change in our climate. Under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement, we, the Parties, through our nationally determined contributions, have committed to implement actions to mitigate against climate change and keep the temperature increase in this century within 1.5 degrees centigrade. We must, therefore, take responsibility and execute mitigatory actions on climate change. SRM is likely to be considered as a silver bullet and will weaken our collective resolve to fight climate change. Additionally, there are so many uncertainties about SRM, including the impacts and risks of the use of the technology. Therefore, in accordance with the precautionary principle and in the absence of evidence of its safety and a full global consensus on its acceptability, the African Group continues to hold serious concerns about SRM”. It proposed that UNEP, through its Executive Director, work towards the establishment of a mechanism “that will compile the views of the member states on this matter”.

South Africa, Zambia, Kenya, echoed the Africa Group’s statement. Brazil, Pakistan, Fiji, supported African Group’s point on having a reference to non-use agreement on geoengineering in the resolution text. The need for having language on precautionary principle from the Rio Declaration was also supported by Mexico, Brazil, Pakistan, Fiji, Vanuatu, European Union (EU), United Kingdom, Norway, and Canada.

Arguing in favour of having strong language on precautionary principle, Mexico said, the resolution should include references to decision X.33 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) on a moratorium on climate related geoengineering. It also suggested the inclusion of this language in the preambular paragraphs of the resolution: “Deploring in the strongest possible terms geoengineering experiments that have taken place without the authorization and consent of states, Indigenous People, or local communities.” Explaining further, Mexico said, “These experiments have taken place in north of Mexico without the consent of Mexico. It is an issue of sovereignty.”

Colombia echoed Mexico on “the need to put a spotlight on” the requirement of taking “consent from states and local communities before deploying” SRM technologies.

Mexico also called for the inclusion of Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration “that recognize environmental issues are best handled with the participation of concerned citizens”. This was supported by Ecuador. It also asked for the recognition of “rights of access to environmental information, public participation on the environmental decision-making process”. This was supported by the African Group, Iran, Cameroon, and Colombia.

The United States (US) opposed the inclusion of non-use agreements. It was also opposed to having any reference to moratoriums in the preambular paragraphs of the resolution. It said however that “it was fine” with mentioning the “precautionary approach”. The US also questioned the proposals made by the Africa Group and the EU on having a governance mechanism for SRM. It asked “Governance by whom; what constitutes use; and what technology.” It added that “governance is a means to an end, and not an end”.

Saudi Arabia also opposed the inclusion of non-use agreements, moratoriums and references to the precautionary principle in the resolution. It also expressed reservations about including references to public participation in environmental decision-making process, as proposed by Mexico.

Focus of work on SRM

The Africa Group proposed the convening of “a scientific consultative group on SRM with balanced regional representation” and invited “the Executive Director to establish a mechanism whose main objective is to compile the views of member states on the appropriate way to outline the scientific research on the impact of SRM technologies.”

The Africa Group also stressed that this repository should have a transdisciplinary focus and contain information and “knowledge on SRM, including environmental, social, economic, political, security, legal, ethical and geopolitical aspects”. This was supported by Kenya, Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, Fiji and Vanuatu. The US and India opposed the inclusion of this point in the resolution text.

Pakistan suggested the inclusion of the following language in the operative paragraph section of the resolution: “Given the fact that while Parties are discussing SRM, most of the phenomenon relevant to SRM is mostly shrouded in mystery. Many of the questions remained unanswered which render Parties constrained to give any proper and logical consideration to the proposal. This entails that details of technology be first discussed and questions answered in any form that seems desirable to give confidence to the Parties that it may not lead to any harm for the planet and the life existent on it”. It further added that “Risks are not potential. They are not mild or potential – they are unacceptable. Replace ‘potential risks’ with ‘unacceptable risks’ throughout the text,” it added further.

Proposing substantial language changes to the operative paragraphs of the resolution, EU said that the expert group should focus on identifying risks posed by SRM instead of focusing on its benefits. The focus of the work should be on identifying risks, “environmental and social costs, including in regard to risks for and impacts on the environment, in particular biodiversity and ecosystem services and the climate”, it said further.

It also added that the work should be “to assess the current state, including challenges, of governance frameworks for research, and restrictions or prohibitions of potential deployment, including activities and decisions by the UN and other intergovernmental bodies as well as relevant multilateral environmental agreements, for each SRM technology.”

The EU also asked for an evaluation of “ethical issues, including moral hazard, adverse lock-in effects and consideration about the distribution of the socio-economic and environmental impacts across the world, impact on human rights and security, and geopolitical risks”. It further said that the expert group should focus on identifying “the range of national, regional, and international response options for voluntary and legally binding strategies and approaches” and “to develop options for a concept for a mechanism or a repository on ongoing research, and regulatory and policy measures undertaken by member states on SRM to be established, in close cooperation with the secretariat of WMO, in order to promote transparency and contribute to a comprehensive assessment of risks from SRM activities”.

Expressing its concerns about risks of SRM, the EU proposed the addition of the following language in the preambular paragraph: “Deeply concerned about the risks posed by field experiments, including the risks that such experiments could lead to the development of technical infrastructure to the deployment of SRM and convinced that these risks should be minimized, as well as about the risks of rogue deployment”.

The US, Saudi Arabia, Japan, and India on the other hand wanted the focus of the work to remain strictly on the science of SRM. They also asked for the work to focus on both the risks and benefits of SRM as a sole focus on risks would prejudge the direction of work. Canada too supported a focus on both risks and benefits of SRM.

US said, “the policy process should be informed by best available science, and not get ahead of science.” 

Saudi Arabia said that the work should be based on “robust science” and highlight not just the risks, but also “potential benefits” of SRM as outlined in the IPCC reports. It further added, “We need scientific experts to actually assess this technology. There are a lot of gaps. We need to know more about this technology, from a scientific robustness.” India expressed its support for having the focus of work on developing a “scientific understanding” of SRM.

Institution for hosting work on SRM

On the issue of which institution should host the work on SRM, the Africa Group said that UNEP should lead the work. US, Saudi Arabia, and China however felt having the work under UNEP would amount to duplication since work on SRM was already being carried out in other institutions like the WMO and the IPCC.

The US said, “We believe World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) is the right body for this work. We do not see the need for this resolution, and would not support the creation of an expert group under UNEP as per this resolution. It (WCRP) draws from scientists globally, particularly from developing countries. We think that is the appropriate body to take this up at this stage.” As discussions proceeded, the US position evolved, and it said the work could also be carried out by UNEP in collaboration with WMO’s WCRP lighthouse activity. It further added that since the work was already happening under WCRP, a duplication of process would occur if the work is also undertaken under UNEP.

(“The World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) coordinates research around some of the most pressing scientific questions in relation to the compounded nature of the climate system, to find answers together with all nations, looking at it from multitude of disciplines.”)

Echoing the US proposal, Japan said that the “WCRP is the most appropriate body to address the scientific knowledge gaps and answer the benefits of SRM.”  Canada expressed its support for the work happening in collaboration between UNEP and WCRP.

The EU suggested that the work should happen under UNEP but in cooperation with other international organizations like WMO. It however expressed reservations against “singling” WCRP for this purpose for the sake of maintaining balance. Elaborating on its concerns on WCRP and WMO, it said, “little is known about the work of WCRP. One thing is very clear, that is the WMO…They will look at the benefits mostly. We are interested in looking at the processes, land etc… we are interested in a broad consultative process,” said the EU further.

India said, “If at all there is going to be a consideration of establishing such a group, under UNEA, it should feed into the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) under UNFCCC. It has to be seen in a holistic manner…SRM technologies are being researched in different parts of the world. We need to understand how it is progressing and need to integrate (that) under the process of UNFCCC.”

Brazil proposed that engagement should also occur with the World Academy of Sciences to “to promote and fund scientific capacity building in developing countries on SRM impact research.”

(“The World Academy of Sciences is (TWAS) is the hub for a global network of scientists and organizations working to advance science in the developing world.”).

Commenting on the nature of the expert group, Indonesia, Russian Federation and Cuba said they would prefer to have it as an “intergovernmental platform”. Brazil pointed out that the expert group should have “experts from diverse background and diverse geographies”.

Differentiation between developed and developing countries

On the issue of climate change specifically, all countries said that any work on SRM technology should not take attention away from the need for rapidly reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But they diverged on the manner in which references should be made in respect of developed and developing countries.

Citing the language of the Paris Agreement, Argentina proposed the inclusion of a reference “to the specific needs and special circumstances of developing countries, especially those that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change”. Africa Group, Ecuador and South Africa echoed Argentina’s proposal. Later into the discussion, Argentina withdrew this proposal.

Opposing the use of this language, US said it would prefer to see simpler language in this context. Citing from the outcome document from the global stoctake (GST) from COP 28, it said the preambular paragraphs should instead begin with “Recognizing that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time, and recognizing that limiting global warming to 1.5 degree Celsius with no or limited overshoot requires deep, rapid, sustained reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions of 43% by 2030 and 60% by 2035 relative to the 2019 level and reaching net zero CO2 emissions by 2050. ”  The EU said “we should try to avoid comparisons of who is more vulnerable” during this discussion.

Responding to the interventions made by US and EU, Saudi Arabia said there seemed to be “a sentiment to delete differences between developed and developing countries”, and suggested the addition statements from the GST outcome to “elaborate on differences between developed and developing countries”. It also asked for the inclusion of the temperature goal as mentioned in the Paris Agreement.

On the day of the closing plenary of UNEA-6, Switzerland made this statement on the SRM resolution:

“Given the current knowledge and information gap around SRM technology and their risks and uncertainties, we believe it is in the interest of global communities to share information on the current status of these technology including risks, and uncertainties as well as research activities and knowledge gaps. All member states and stakeholders should have access to such information. And to date this is not the case. The access is limited in particular for developing countries”. It further stressed that the resolution was aimed at increasing transparency and better access to information for all, and “it included principles such as the precautionary approach”.

Summarizing the negotiations that occurred over the two weeks on the resolution, it said, “there was general acknowledgement that more research and access to information is needed. Views were divergent on how the expertise of institutional actors can be brought together – and if the gathering of information should only focus on risks and uncertainties or could as well include potential benefits. Views also differed on the question whether activities should go beyond the endeavor of information compilation and access to information. We regret that UNEA-6 could not come to a conclusion on this important matter. However, the discussions have been informative and useful. We have started a global conversation about this important topic, a topic that continues to be of relevance for this delegation and many other member stakes and stakeholders.”

(Switzerland along with Burkina Faso, Micronesia, Georgia, Liechtenstein, Mali, Mexico, Montenegro, Niger, Republic of Korea, and Senegal had made a similar proposal on SRM at UNEA-4 in 2019. Switzerland was forced to withdraw the resolution at that time too as countries had failed to find consensus over the issue.) – Third World Network