African Ministers Reject SRM – an “Unacceptable Climate Solution”

SRM’s potential risks, contributions, and governance challenges are of grave importance. They require serious high-level attention, particularly in climate-vulnerable regions like Africa, both from national governments and from regional coordinating bodies like AMCEN. It is possible that some form of coordinated international declarations that governments will not pursue SRM “use” – i.e., potential interventions big enough to have significant climate impact – would help calm concerns about reckless or unilateral use and build toward the needed serious governance deliberations.

Unfortunately, the statements on SRM from the recent AMCEN 20 suggest the needed serious, high-level governmental attention has not yet begun. The statements do not signal that SRM-related concerns received priority attention, being deeply buried in a large volume of conference outputs. (They appear as one of 63 resolutions in the ministerial declaration, and one of 12 points in one of the 11 decisions adopted by the Conference.) The statements are perfunctory and conclusory, appearing to take no account of the growing body of research on SRM’s effects in Africa. And they repeat, largely verbatim, claims advanced for more than 15 years by a few NGOs who advocate pre-emptive prohibition of SRM, who first worked in a few countries in Europe and North America but now increasingly target political fora in the Global South. In one sign that the energy for the statements comes from these groups rather than from participating governments, two of the groups⁶ made celebratory announcements of the statements nearly two weeks before they were finalized.

Statements calling for a “non-use agreement” (NUA) carry especially acute risks for climate-vulnerable regions, which are not obvious. While a true non-use agreement might help advance good global SRM governance, in this context the term “non-use agreement” has been captured by a specific 2022 proposal, which in addition to suspending SRM “use” would also bar public funding for SRM research, associated international deliberations, and other actions needed to advance SRM knowledge and capability. This over-broad, prohibitory form of NUA would pre-empt the ability of policy-makers to make informed decisions about SRM’s potential benefits and harms and its potential use or non-use.

In a positive shift in the SRM debate, however, there are now many African scientists and researchers working on SRM and its implications for their continent. Some of these African experts weighed in two months ago when one of the prohibitionist groups denounced an international SRM forum held in Cape Town and featuring African SRM research. Given the reluctance of Global North governments to start serious discussions of SRM, there is an opportunity for governments of the Global South, in Africa and elsewhere, to exercise world leadership in shaping SRM’s governance. But this will require serious critical examinations of the implications of these technologies for the African region, which cannot be accomplished relying on talking points developed a decade ago in Berlin, Utrecht, and Washington. When African governments decide to begin this serious, critical examination of SRM and its implications for their region, they will be able to call on a strong and growing group of African experts to inform their deliberations. This important strengthening of independent African climate science and policy capacity is to be celebrated.

At its most recent meeting in July 2025, the African Ministerial Conference on the Environment (AMCEN) reaffirmed, resoundingly and clearly, its unequivocal rejection of solar radiation modification technologies as having any role to play in addressing climate change. Environmental ministers from across the African continent have called for a global non-use agreement on solar geoengineering, noting the profound environmental, ethical, and geopolitical risks on a planetary scale that development and use of such technologies pose.

As a co-initiator and signatory of the academic initiative calling for an International Non-Use Agreement on Solar Geoengineering, I greatly welcome this AMCEN decision and the continued vital African leadership that it represents.

This is not the first time that African countries have voiced such opposition to solar geoengineering. Previous decisions and positions include the AMCEN’s 2023 Decision 19/5 calling for a global governance mechanism for non-use of solar radiation modification, and the proactive leadership by the African Group during multilateral deliberations on solar geoengineering at the 6th session of the United Nations Environment Assembly in February 2024. This time, AMCEN has not only reaffirmed its full rejection of any attempts to promote solar geoengineering technologies, but has also requested that African countries advance this solar geoengineering non-use position in all other relevant international negotiations and processes.

This call from African ministers sends a clear message to the rest of the world: some of the most vulnerable countries to climate change are leading the opposition to solar geoengineering. Those promoting and investing in research that may result in technology development will need to acknowledge this political reality of strong African rejection.

And African countries are not alone in their resolute call for non-use of solar geoengineering. During UNEA-6, the African Group’s strong stance against solar geoengineering found support from several other countries in the Global South, including Colombia, Fiji, Mexico, Pakistan, and Vanuatu. In other UN settings, Vanuatu and other Pacific Island countries have also urged States to “refrain from developing and using these technologies and prohibit their development and use” and to “proactively ban false and dangerous ‘solutions’ such as geoengineering”.

With this decision from AMCEN, close to sixty countries in the Global South, including some of those most vulnerable to climate change, have now spoken out against solar geoengineering, calling for the negotiation of a non-use agreement on solar geoengineering or a similar mechanism. The views of large swaths of civil society are clear as well, with extensive and long-standing opposition to solar radiation modification technologies, and with over 2000 civil society organisations, with global membership, having endorsed the academic initiative calling for an International Non-Use Agreement on Solar Geoengineering. The support of African civil society for these recent AMCEN decisions has also been widespread.

The case is clear – solar geoengineering is a non-starter. And this case is now being made, unequivocally and convincingly, by political leadership emanating from the Global South.

The 20th AMCEN position on SRM reflects historical patterns similar to the non-alignment movement of 1961, where Global South states avoided alignment with major power blocs during the Cold War. The call for a global non-use agreement seeks to navigate power dynamics without prohibiting SRM research and funding. Given that many Africans rely on climate conditions for their livelihoods, uncertainties surrounding SRM, along with public unfamiliarity and ethical concerns, hinder support for its potential deployment. Additionally, past and current global power structures do not favor Africa, raising fears that the continent may become a “laboratory” for untested SRM strategies.

The preliminary findings of my research on African perceptions of solar geoengineering indicate general unfamiliarity with SRM, mixed feelings about its potential outcomes, and suspicions of Western motives. There’s also a religious perspective viewing SRM as “playing God.”

AMCEN’s stance is understandable, and Africa must not be used as a testing ground for SRM. Nevertheless, ongoing research is essential to ensure Africa is not left behind in SRM governance and understanding.

Looking at the AMCEN statements from a political perspective, I interpret them as evidence that African governments have maintained their uniform opposition to SRM, in anticipation of SRM possibly appearing on the agenda of the seventh session of the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA-7) this December.

AMCEN made a similar statement at its last meeting in 2023, before UNEA member states considered a Swiss proposal to establish a scientific expert group on SRM just prior to UNEA-6 in 2024. During those discussions, the African Group held firm in their rejection of any consultative or information mechanism tied to the science-based World Meteorological Organization or informed by submissions from member states more receptive to SRM – this was a key (though not the only) reason why the Swiss pulled the proposal from further consideration.

Today, AMCEN appears to be preparing for the possibility that something similar might arise at UNEA-7, and working to ensure that African governments act as one to advocate for “non-use” of SRM if that were to happen.