The health implications of SRM ethics and governance: a Global South perspective - Report

[Geoengineering News]

https://zenodo.org/records/19615541

Principal investigator (PI): Florencia Luna

Co-PI: María Florencia Santi

Suggested citation: Luna, F.; Santi, M. F.; Daly, T. & Mastroleo, I. (2026) (eds.) Final report: Thealth implications of SRM ethics and governance: a Global South perspective. WHO climate change, health, ethics initiative supported by Wellcome Grant 306679/Z/23/Z.

Executive summary

As the global failure to curb emissions continues, the world faces a worsening climate-health crisis. Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) is increasingly discussed as a potential intervention to alleviate climate impacts, but presents deep uncertainties, known and unknown risks as well as complex scientific, ethical, social, and public health trade-offs.

This Report has been undertaken at the Bioethics Program, FLACSO Argentina in collaboration with international researchers. This three part-Report aims to provide a clear overview of the current ethical debates surrounding governance and public engagement of SRM and possible health consequences. It also attempts to sketch some answers and to provide a roadmap for the World Health Organization (WHO) to ask questions about the health-related ethics and governance of SRM.

And hopes to show that—though SRM is in a preliminary stage and it is not certain it will be deployed—an anticipatory governance framework is urgently needed. And that WHO may be one among the international organisms to take the lead.

Part I situates SRM governance within the broader climate response action portfolio and underscores some of its challenges and gaps in governance. We then focus on the analysis of relevant terminology, particularly the idea of defining SRM and geoengineering in terms of their aims. We build on this analysis to address basic aspects of ethics and governance of SRM research.

Part II undertakes a bibliographic review of the current literature of SRM and human health. The literature on human health consequences of SRM is limited, and there is a growing agreement that SRM would generate uneven human-health outcomes across regions due to higher exposure

to vulnerabilities that amplify cascading health risks in the Global South. We also consider mental health within a public health framework, and argue that any SRM scenario should be accompanied by investment that aims to promote and safeguard public mental health. This Part highlights the importance of investigating the physical and mental health consequences of SRM in order to avoid exacerbating existing health risks and vulnerabilities.

Part III moves to the global arena and its governance challenges. We first review the main ethical and governance frameworks proposed to guide research and potential deployment of SRM, with a focus on their relevance to human health. We find scarce representation of the Global South in the development of these proposals and mostly indirect references of the impacts of these

technologies on human health. We then focus on public engagement through a health lens, and argue from a perspective of global climate justice that governments and international organisations should invest in and strengthen capacity-building initiatives to ensure meaningful participation of researchers and local communities. Finally, we propose some considerations for an anticipatory governance framework to align current considerations on SRM with the health protection mandate and policy frameworks of the WHO and its Member States.

We propose several ethical considerations:

1) to prioritize mitigation and adaptation as climate response options, and mandate non-

substitution as an enforceable guardrail;

2) to anchor all SRM governance of WHO in a “health-first” mandate;

3) to encourage research and knowledge on health impacts within SRM balance

assessments;

4) to design an international anticipatory system of good governance;

5) to center equity, justice and co-stewardship by the Global South and communities with vulnerabilities, and

6) to consider the interests, voices and specificities of the different countries and regions of the Global South.

Source: Zenodo