Unedited version – 15 June 2020 Report International governance issues on climate engineering Information for policymakers Commissioned by the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) International Risk Governance Center Unedited version (15 June 2020) International Governance of Climate Engineering Imprint This report was prepared under contract from the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN). The contractor bears sole responsibility for the content. Commissioned by: Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), International Affairs Division, 3003 Bern, Switzerland. The FOEN is an agency of the Federal Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications (DETEC). Contractor: EPFL (Ecole polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne), International Risk Governance Center (IRGC) Author: Marie-Valentine Florin (Ed.), Paul Rouse, Anna-Maria Hubert, Matthias Honegger, Jesse Reynolds To cite this report: Florin, M.-V. (Ed.), Rouse, P., Hubert, A-H., Honegger, M., Reynolds, J. (2020). International governance issues on climate engineering. Information for policymakers. Lausanne: EPFL International Risk Governance Center (IRGC). Individual chapters: name of author, ‘title of chapter’ in Florin, M.-V. (Ed.), International Governance of Climate Engineering. Information for policymakers (2020), Chapter nr, Lausanne: EPFL International Risk Governance Center (IRGC). DOI:10.5075/epfl-irgc-277726 For any questions, please contact: [email protected] Cover photo by USGC on Unplash i Unedited version (15 June 2020) International Governance of Climate Engineering Abstract Some climate engineering technologies are being developed to remove CO2 from the atmosphere (carbon dioxide removal, CDR), which is expected to contribute to reducing and preventing climate change. Some other technologies (solar radiation modification, SRM) would artificially cool the planet and could reduce some symptoms and risks of climate change. Meaningful steps may need to be taken soon to lay a foundation for a decision process regarding research, policy, regulation and possible use. Driven by questions and needs from the international policymaking community to better understand the potential benefits as well as opportunities, risks, uncertainties and other challenges of CDR and SRM, at both technical and governance levels, this report reviews and compares technologies and their potential contributions, costs, risks, uncertainties, before surveying the current legal and institutional landscape of governance regarding climate engineering. It then addresses trade-offs between risks and discusses possible options for international governance, including criteria for evaluating options. The need for more inclusive approaches and the pros- and cons of institutional fragmentation are emphasized. Options for sites of international governance are discussed, for various technologies, as well as general principles and specific recommendations to: distinguish between CDR and SRM as well as among CDR techniques; accelerate authoritative, comprehensive, and international scientific assessment; encourage the research, development, and responsible use of some CDR techniques; internationally build capacity for evaluating CDR and SRM; facilitate non-state governance; and explore potential further governance of SRM while remaining agnostic concerning its use. ii Unedited version (15 June 2020) International Governance of Climate Engineering Executive Summary This report addresses issues of international governance of climate engineering, as composed of two families of technologies, carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and solar radiation modification (SRM), as technologies to address causes and consequences of climate change. The field is marked by complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity. A range of different governance arrangements would be beneficial at various levels, but political input will be necessary for the conversation to produce an effective outcome. Altogether, the four chapters in this report offer a review of techniques and governance instruments and issues, to provide information and options for international policymaking. Chapter 1: Review of technologies for CDR and SRM by Paul Rouse Chapter 1 provides an overview of two classes of emerging climate-altering technologies: Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR), and Solar Radiation Modification (SRM). Further, approaches to the permanent sequestration of the billions of tonnes of carbon that may be removed are reviewed. For each technique, the chapter explains the principles that underlie them, their technological readiness, their potential to contribute to reducing CO2 concentrations or temperature warming, the economics and social responses to each and their possible impacts. The technologies discussed in this chapter are: CDR Nature-based approaches: afforestation and reforestation, carbon sequestration in soils; restoring wetlands, peatlands and coastal habitats; macroalgal cultivation Hybrid approaches: biochar production and deposition, ocean fertilization, enhancing ocean alkalinity with terrestrial weathering Engineered approaches: Direct air carbon dioxide capture and storage (DACCS); bioenergy with carbon capture and (BECCS) Other CDR techniques Sequestration: sequestering carbon in the oceans; crop residues oceanic carbon sequestration, mineralization of injected CO2 within geologic structures SRM Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB) Other SRM techniques This chapter highlights the breadth of uncertainties and ambiguities involved in climate-altering technologies, which gives rise to a complex set of agenda for the policy debate. Whether it be CDR or SRM, whether it be the planting of trees, or bold proposals to change the stratosphere – there are no simple solutions. New research should inform decisions about techniques. However, science alone cannot provide answers. As such, any future decisions about climate-altering technologies, or prioritization of techniques will require a rebalancing of the debate away from expert analysis alone, toward a plural, socially situated deliberation. This is necessary to help better understand the challenges and opportunities, and guide the choices we must make collectively. At the heart of these deliberations must lie governance. Perhaps the only certainty is that almost all facets of climate-altering technologies are uncertain, and within those uncertainties reside ignorance and ambiguities, in which actors’ own interpretive and normative iii Unedited version (15 June 2020) International Governance of Climate Engineering responses will affect perspectives on the tolerability of risks. Continued dialogue and deliberation, informed by robust research, may be the only way forward currently available. Chapter 2: International Legal and Institutional Arrangements relevant to the Governance of Climate Engineering Technologies by Anna-Maria Hubert Given its potential for far-reaching consequences, climate engineering has the potential to intersect with many different subject areas of international law, including international human rights, international development, international peace and security, intellectual property, and food security. This chapter focuses on the potential application of international law related to the protection of the environment, and provides an overview of (1) general norms: duty to Prevent Transboundary Environmental Harm, Precautionary Principle, Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment and Duty of International Cooperation, (2) key instruments: 1992 UNFCCC and 2015 Paris Agreement, 1985 Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and its 1987 Montreal Protocol, 1992 UNCBD, 1996 Protocol to the 1972 Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 2013 London Protocol Amendment on Marine Geoengineering, and others; (3) international institutions relevant to the governance proposed for climate engineering technology: United Nations Security Council, United Nations General Assembly, UNEP, ILC, United Nations High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development, UNESCO and IOC, WMO, IPCC and ISO, and (4) some development of soft-law principles and instruments. With few exceptions, international law remains largely silent on the regulation of climate engineering measures and their development. Though dependent on the overarching aims and objectives of governance, this chapter points to potentially significant gaps in existing legal regimes, suggesting the need for further cooperation at the international level to promote effective, legitimate and fair governance of these emerging technologies. In addition, the analysis in this chapter also points to how existing instruments and institutions that have expressly addressed geoengineering regulation and governance to date, also reflect a “limited” approach in line with their specific objectives, scope and mandate, leading to a one-dimensional perspective on climate engineering rather than a comprehensive and integrated approach to its governance. At the same time, this survey of the existing international legal landscape shows that there are a number of general norms of international environmental law, treaties and soft-law instruments and international institutions with relevance to geoengineering. The international legal and institutional landscape relevant to climate engineering thus presents a complex ‘patchwork’ of overlapping norms and institutional mandates. Taken together, these underscore the need for some