Can Formal SRM Governance Be Built From Informal Principles?

With several research programs across the world progressing to outdoor trials,¹ the governance of solar radiation management (SRM) research and development is a pressing question. Attempts to progress governance through international forums, e.g., the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA), have been slow and unsuccessful to date. Domestically, SRM-specific laws and institutional governance processes are yet to be developed beyond individual projects.²

The lack of formal rules contrasts with the proliferation of bottom-up governance norms developed by academics, scientific bodies, and non-governmental organisations over the past 15 years. These voluntary proposals lack the oversight and accountability mechanisms needed for effective governance, and it is highly unlikely that informal governance proposals alone will ever engender public confidence.

In a recent paper, we considered whether these voluntary proposals could guide the development of formal governance mechanisms, such as institutional research ethics processes and domestic laws. Such domestic mechanisms would apply directly to individual researchers, organisations, and/or companies, whereas international law only binds nation states.³

We synthesised 10 prominent sets of norms proposed for SRM research and development.⁴ We wanted to understand the level of similarity between the different proposals, and the disciplinary and geographic diversity of their authors.

Despite different target audiences, scopes, and funding sources, the 10 proposals are interrelated, with later proposals building off earlier efforts. Most proposals were authored by a multidisciplinary team, demonstrating efforts to integrate expertise from natural and social sciences and experience from domestic and international policymakers. However, there is an over-representation of authors affiliated with institutions from OECD countries, which raises questions about the extent to which these governance proposals reflect non-OECD perspectives. Multi-stakeholder processes capturing a diversity of views will be required to translate general principles into formal rules for each country. Where transboundary impacts are a concern, consulting with neighbours will also be important.

When it comes to the principles themselves, we found a high degree of similarity across the 10 proposals. This allowed us to distil a common set of 29 governance principles for SRM research, divided into three categories.

The first category is principles that clarify the governance objectives, that is, what governing aims to achieve. Objectives include enabling responsible research, realising the potential climate benefits of SRM, minimising risks, and ensuring that SRM research does not detract from mitigation and adaptation efforts. Governance should also be consistent with existing laws and promote intergenerational justice and intra-generational/environmental justice.

The second category of principles is about the form and timing of governance. All proposals support SRM governance at an early stage, including for research activities. There is also strong support for policymakers to adopt an incremental and adaptive governance approach. This refers to the use of flexible mechanisms that enable governance to adapt and evolve in response to changing knowledge and conditions. In this vein, all proposals recommend placing temporary limits on SRM research to manage risk and uncertainty concerning the scope and likelihood of impacts. However, the proposals differ in how this should be done, with only limited support for placing temporary bans (“moratoria”) on certain SRM activities. There is stronger support for adopting mechanisms to manage the progress of individual projects, such as “stage gates” or “exit ramps”. However, to avoid operating as de facto moratoria, criteria for these “stage gates” and “exit ramps” must be clearly specified.

The final category is procedural and operational principles aimed at achieving one or more of the SRM governance objectives set out above. They include principles for managing risk and uncertainty, such as the need for risk assessment, risk management and monitoring processes, and adopting a precautionary approach. There are also principles aimed at promoting research quality and credibility, such as transparency, access to information, and the peer review of results. Finally, there are principles that relate to public involvement. These include the need for public engagement, establishing dispute resolution processes, and promoting international cooperation.

These procedural and operational principles are contained in most, if not all, of the governance proposals, but are broad and generalised. There is considerable flexibility for states and institutions to interpret and adapt them to their own jurisdictional/organisational contexts. However, there are outstanding questions about how principles should be implemented in practice.

For example, all proposals advocate for public participation processes but do not specify who must be consulted, at what stages, through what mechanisms, and in respect of what types of activities. Something that will require close attention is engagement with vulnerable, marginalised groups and First Nations Peoples, including their recognition as rights holders, not merely interested parties. Greater clarity is also needed about when public engagement is required (i.e. during project planning and/or as part of risk assessment), and what forms of consent are required for research activities.

Informal governance proposals alone cannot settle the finer details of SRM governance and ensure they are followed. The next step is for research institutions and governments to move towards implementing these principles in a way that suits the governance needs of SRM research and development in their jurisdictions, in consultation with communities and stakeholders.