Editing IPCC:AR6/SR15/Chapter-4 (section)

==== 4.3.8.1 Governance and institutional feasibility ====

<div id="section-4-3-8-1-block-1"></div>

There is ''robust evidence'' but ''medium agreement'' for unilateral action potentially becoming a serious SRM governance issue (Weitzman, 2015; Rabitz, 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r748|748]]</sup> , as some argue that enhanced collaboration might emerge around SRM (Horton, 2011) <sup>[[#fn:r749|749]]</sup> . An equitable institutional or governance arrangement around SRM would have to reflect views of different countries (Heyen et al., 2015) <sup>[[#fn:r750|750]]</sup> and be multilateral because of the risk of termination, and risks that implementation or unilateral action by one country or organization will produce negative precipitation or extreme weather effects across borders (Lempert and Prosnitz, 2011; Dilling and Hauser, 2013; NRC, 2015b) <sup>[[#fn:r751|751]]</sup> . Some have suggested that the governance of research and field experimentation can help clarify uncertainties surrounding deployment of SRM (Long and Shepherd, 2014; Parker, 2014; NRC, 2015c; Caldeira and Bala, 2017; Lawrence and Crutzen, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r752|752]]</sup> , and that SRM is compatible with democratic processes (Horton et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r753|753]]</sup> or not (Szerszynski et al., 2013; Owen, 2014) <sup>[[#fn:r754|754]]</sup> .

Several possible institutional arrangements have been considered for SRM governance: under the UNFCCC (in particular under the Subsidiary Body on Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA)) or the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD) (Honegger et al., 2013; Nicholson et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r755|755]]</sup> , or through a consortium of states (Bodansky, 2013; Sandler, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r756|756]]</sup> . Reasons for states to join an international governance framework for SRM include having a voice in SRM diplomacy, prevention of unilateral action by others and benefits from research collaboration (Lloyd and Oppenheimer, 2014) <sup>[[#fn:r757|757]]</sup> .

Alongside SBSTA, the WMO, UNESCO and UN Environment could play a role in governance of SRM (Nicholson et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r758|758]]</sup> . Each of these organizations has relevance with respect to the regulatory framework (Bodle et al., 2012; Williamson and Bodle, 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r759|759]]</sup> . The UNCBD gives guidance that ‘that no climate-related geo-engineering activities that may affect biodiversity take place’ (CBD, 2010) <sup>[[#fn:r760|760]]</sup> .

<div id="section-4-3-8-2"></div>

<span id="economic-and-technological-feasibility"></span>