UNEA6 fails to adopt SRM resolution

[Janos Pasztor Biz]



A missed opportunity at UNEA-6

The UN Environment Assembly, the governing body of the UN’s Environment Programme (#UNEP), is currently having its 6th session #unea6 in Nairobi.

Yesterday, it failed to approve a draft resolution on solar radiation modification (#SRM). The original draft  called for a way to collect what is known about such techniques; creating an international repository; and have experts review that information.  After a few days of negotiations, it ended up only asking that UNEP prepare options for a transparent, publicly available registry of information on who-is-doing-what on SRM.

Yesterday, in the last minute, even that reduced draft resolution did not get acceptance.  This was a missed opportunity, one that will have negative impacts for the coming years – whether one is against or for SRM.

First, at a time when the world is heading into an increasingly likely, and potentially long period of temperature overshoot, and when different state and non-state actors are engaged in a range of SRM activities without the appropriate regulatory oversight, and often with no transparency, having impartial information from a trusted source on what is happening would have been very much needed.

Second, having such information available would have been an important input into discussions that governments as well as non-state actors really must have to enable them to make evidence-based decisions sooner or later whether to reject SRM, or accept SRM as part of the necessary response strategies to a prolonged overshoot situation.  

Third, if UNEA /UNEP – the principal UN institution that is supposed to bring to the attention of governments emerging issues that have impacts on the environment - cannot get a mandate from governments to do this on emerging techniques like SRM, then this actually makes it more difficult for UNEA/UNEP to fulfil its fundamental mandate and thereby it weakens this key multilateral institution – at a time when in fact  it needs to be strengthened.

Fourth, addressing issues of SRM are not about “normalizing” this technique, as some claim.  It is simply about creating the evidence-base for governments to eventually make decisions on whether or not to make use of SRM to complement the priority emission reductions they must do, and to assess the risk sand other implications of making use of SRM versus not doing so. We know from inter alia the IPCC that there is a governance gap around SRM, in that whatever governance is there, it is neither robust nor comprehensive.  The information that would have come from the proposed registry would have perhaps helped to better understand that gap.   Putting one’s head in the sand and assuming that this issue does not exist is no way to deal with planetary resilience. 

The international community has failed yesterday on this issue.  It was a missed opportunity.  I hope one way or another in UNEA/UNEP or elsewhere this issue can be revisited – and soon.

      Janos 

☞ My latest [and last article authored as C2G Executive Director] on “SRM Governance in the Context of Temperature Overshoot”.

☞ ☞ You may also wish to listen to the Challenging Climate podcast’s 43rd episode with me, focussing on C2G’s work over the last 7 years.  

=============================
Janos Pasztor
CH-1180 Rolle, Switzerland
Cell/WhatsApp: +41-797395503 | off...@pasztor.net | LinkedIn

Sent from my iPhone