View previous stories
	Killing humanitarians is part of a broader attack on international humanitarian law by OCHA, Inter-Agency Standing Committee, UNICEF   May 2026   States must act to protect Civilians in Armed Conflict   Protecting Civilians in Armed Conflict is a Responsibility that Member States and the UN Security Council Must Uphold. Statement by Principals of the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC):   "As the Protection of Civilians Week unfolds in New York, we strongly condemn and raise the alarm about the growing and blatant violations of International Humanitarian and Human Rights Law meant to protect civilians in armed conflict.   Across conflicts, civilians, including children, are killed, injured, and displaced at an alarming scale. Sexual violence is used as a tactic of war, overwhelmingly affecting women and girls and devastating lives. Homes, schools, places of worship, hospitals, including maternal wards, are destroyed or damaged, as are civilian infrastructure and assets, such as water systems, transport network, markets, food production. Essential services are collapsing. Forced displacement is accelerating.   Conflict-induced hunger and famine are spreading, often driven by unlawful siege tactics, starvation, and the arbitrary denial of humanitarian access. This is happening despite the existence of clear obligations under International Humanitarian Law and the framework reaffirmed by UN Security Council resolution 2417 (2018), which condemns the deliberate starvation of civilians and the use of hunger as method of warfare.   And a decade after the adoption of UN Security Council resolution 2286 (2016) that demands the protection of the wounded, sick, and medical personnel, violence, attacks and threats against healthcare workers and facilities continue with impunity. More than 10,000 incidents against health care facilities and workers have been verified to date.   Aid workers are also under attack and killed in unprecedented numbers. More than 1,000 humanitarian colleagues have been killed over the past three years. Many others are arbitrarily detained. Often the first to respond, staff from national and local organisations and community initiatives pay an unacceptably high toll. Many women-led-organisations addressing lifesaving protection and gender-based violence are being attacked.   From Gaza to El Fasher, and from Kharkiv to Beirut, the use of explosive weapons in populated areas is devastating civilian lives. At the same time, new technologies, including drones and artificial intelligence, are reshaping warfare and expanding the battlefield.   Wars have rules that apply to all parties to conflict. The problem is not a lack of law. The problem is the failure to uphold them consistently, the erosion of accountability and inaction, even in the face of atrocities.   Protecting civilians is a legal obligation and a moral imperative. For the sake of our shared humanity, rules that protect civilians must be upheld.   http://interagencystandingcommittee.org/inter-agency-standing-committee/statement-principals-iasc-protecting-civilians-armed-conflict-responsibility-member-states-and-un http://www.unocha.org/news/un-heads-condemn-failure-protect-civilians-growing-threats-their-security   20 May 2026   Briefing to the UN Security Council on the protection of civilians in armed conflict - by Edem Wosornu, Director, Crisis Response Division for OCHA, on behalf of Tom Fletcher, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator:   "One civilian was killed approximately every 14 minutes in 2025. These are only the deaths that the United Nations could document across 20 armed conflicts. We know the real toll is far higher in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in Sudan, in Ukraine, in the occupied Palestinian territory and beyond.   I saw some of this devastation myself over the past year during my visits to countries affected by war.   Civilians, including children, are killed in their homes, in markets, at work, at school, on roads, and while fleeing for safety. All too often, they are not collateral damage. They are the target.   Explosive weapons continue to tear through towns and cities, destroying not only lives but the systems that sustain them such as power grids, water networks, schools, and hospitals.   Health care is under attack. Ten years after this Council adopted Resolution 2286 on the protection of health care in armed conflict, the situation has only gotten worse.   In 2025, the United Nations recorded more than 1,350 attacks on medical care across 18 conflicts. Hospitals and ambulances were hit. Medical personnel were killed, detained, intimidated, or criminalized simply for doing their jobs.   Conflict‑driven hunger has deepened. 147 million people faced acute food insecurity in 2025, driven largely by armed conflict. Two famines were confirmed – not because food was unavailable, but because of the way parties conducted hostilities, used siege tactics, and denied humanitarian access. Food has become a weapon of war.   Sexual violence remains widespread. The United Nations reported over 9,300 cases last year – the overwhelming majority women and girls – many of whom will struggle to get the basic assistance they need. We know that number unfortunately is much higher.   Children are abducted and recruited to fight. Too many are injured and killed – a direct result of the use of explosive weapons in densely populated areas. Information and Communication Technology, including social media, is used to abduct, to extort, and recruit children.   Journalists are targeted. According to UNESCO (the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), 186 journalists were killed while covering wars and conflict zones between 2022 and 2025 – a 67 per cent increase compared to the period 2018-2021.   Persons with disabilities are left behind when bombs fall and warnings fail.   Last month, the Emergency Relief Coordinator, Tom Fletcher, briefed this Council on attacks against humanitarian workers. Since then, eight more colleagues were confirmed killed in 2025. Already in 2026, 144 humanitarian workers have been reported killed, injured, abducted or detained as they try to serve those in need.   New technologies are intensifying these risks. Armed drones and artificial intelligence are accelerating the pace and reach of violence, often in densely populated areas. The use of drones increased by 4,000 per cent from 2020 to 2024 across conflicts. The impact is not only physical. The impact is psychological – constant fear, constant disruption. The consequences for children are alarming.   None of this is inevitable. These patterns are the result of choices. The choice by parties of conflict to ignore their obligations to protect civilians, and, too often, to target them.   The choice by some to adopt increasingly permissive interpretations of international humanitarian law, hollowing out the very rules designed to protect civilians during war. The choice to subordinate the protection of civilians to claims of military necessity or exceptional threat. The choice to let impunity prevail.   The choice to harness technology to increase lethality, sow devastation, and spread misinformation, instead of using it to better protect civilians.   And the choice to attack the United Nations Charter, humanitarian norms, and the tools built over decades – that extraordinary scaffolding meant to protect people from and during war.   My message to this Council and to the United Nations membership is simple: there is another path. Other choices are possible. They must be made. They must be made because protecting civilians, ensuring respect for the law, and ending impunity is not only a legal and moral obligation.   It is also in Member States’ shared interest. In a world where conflicts are rising and rearmament is accelerating, unrestrained force and unapologetic brutality do not make anyone safer. They put everyone at risk.   Those who believe war will never reach them, their families, or their people are living in a dangerous illusion. War does not respect borders. It does not respect privileges.   So, the law exists. The tools exist. What is needed now is the resolve, the leadership, the courage, and the moral clarity to hold the line and to push it forward.   Protecting civilians requires more than expressions of concern. Protecting civilians requires genuine commitment that translates into concrete action. To uphold the United Nations Charter and prevent disagreements from escalating into armed conflict.   To ensure respect for international humanitarian law, without exceptions, without selectivity, regardless of who the parties are. No reinterpretation. No exceptionalism. No double standards.   To avoid the use of explosive weapons in populated areas and call out those who raze entire cities to the ground. To stop the transfer of weapons when there is a clear risk they will be used against civilians. To safeguard medical care, humanitarian personnel and journalists; not stigmatize them, not criminalize them.   To keep human control over the use of force. To steer AI and technology toward greater, not lesser, protection of civilians. To help victims seek justice. And to end impunity.   Protecting civilians in armed conflict is not charity. It is the minimum that humanity and civilization require. It is central to peace and security.   It is a responsibility of this Council and of every Member State that signed the United Nations Charter. And it is what many people around the world expect the Member States of the United Nations to do. It cannot be outsourced, it cannot be postponed, it cannot be diluted. It is the choice we have to make, now.   http://www.unocha.org/news/ocha-tells-security-council-protecting-civilians-cannot-be-outsourced-postponed-or-diluted http://www.unocha.org/news/over-1000-aid-workers-killed-often-hands-member-states-un-relief-chief-demands-action http://www.icrc.org/en/statement/icrc-president-un-security-council-open-debate-protection-civilians-armed-conflict http://www.icrc.org/en/statement/icrc-ifrc-world-red-cross-red-crescent-day-call-uphold-protections-civilians-medical-personnel-humanitarian-workers-communities-depend-on http://globalprotectioncluster.org/publications/2474/communication-materials/advocacy-note/poc-advocacy-note-civilian-protection-2026 http://civiliansinconflict.org/press-releases/joint-civil-society-statement-ahead-of-the-2026-open-debate-on-the-protection-of-civilians-in-armed-conflict/   11 April 2026   End impunity for violations of the rules of war - Principals of the Inter-Agency Standing Committee   "We are alarmed by the sustained violations of the rules of war and international humanitarian law.   In just the last month across the Middle East, thousands of civilians have been killed and injured. Hundreds of thousands have been displaced, many multiple times. The numbers continue to rise and essential services are increasingly difficult to access.   Health workers, hospitals and ambulances have been targeted. Schools have been struck. Civilian infrastructure – including bridges, residential buildings, houses, water facilities and power plants – has been destroyed.   This leaves us especially concerned about women and children and others with specific needs. Global supply chains are also impacted, with food and fuel prices on the rise.   Our humanitarian colleagues have been caught up in the hostilities. Aid workers have been killed or injured in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, in Iran and in Lebanon in alarming numbers, national staff and local organizations, working courageously on the humanitarian front lines every day.   We strongly condemn all attacks on civilians, including humanitarian and health workers, as well as civilian objects. We demand that all parties – whether Member States of the United Nations or armed groups – respect their legal obligation to protect civilians, including humanitarian personnel, and civilian infrastructure.   All violations must be met with accountability. Even wars have rules, and these rules must be respected".   http://interagencystandingcommittee.org/inter-agency-standing-committee/statement-principals-inter-agency-standing-committee-end-impunity-violations-rules-war-0 http://www.unicef.org/press-releases/statement-principals-inter-agency-standing-committee http://www.icrc.org/en/statement/icrc-ifrc-world-red-cross-red-crescent-day-call-uphold-protections-civilians-medical-personnel-humanitarian-workers-communities-depend-on   April 2026   Violence against health care in conflict   A decade after world leaders pledged to protect health workers and facilities in conflict, violence against health care has only deepened. In 2025, the Safeguarding Health in Conflict Coalition documented 2,546 attacks in 33 countries — including hospitals bombed, medical staff kidnapped, and drone strikes targeting search-and-rescue teams. Funding cuts have further gutted health services in nearly three-quarters of conflict-affected countries. Our report, Care in the Crosshairs presents the full scope of this crisis and calls on states and international institutions to act.   http://insecurityinsight.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/2025-SHCC-Annual-Report.pdf http://safeguarding-health.com/2026/05/01/2026-call-to-action-to-end-violence-against-healthcare/ http://safeguarding-health.com http://insecurityinsight.org/ http://phr.org/news/with-hospitals-and-medics-increasingly-under-fire-countries-must-implement-un-resolution-to-protect-health-care-in-conflict-phr/   New York, 8 April 2026   Statement to the United Nations Security Council by Tom Fletcher, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, pursuant to resolution 2730 (2024) on the safety and security of humanitarian personnel and the protection of United Nations and associated personnel:   "In 2025, at least 326 humanitarians were recorded as killed across 21 countries, bringing the total number of humanitarians killed in three years to over 1,010.   We recognise, grieve and honour each of our 326 colleagues, and commit the work ahead to their memory.   Of those over 1,000 deaths, more than 560 were in Gaza and the West Bank, 130 in Sudan, 60 in South Sudan, 25 in Ukraine and 25 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.   That number – over 1,000 – compares to 377 recorded as killed globally over the previous three years – so that’s almost tripling the death count.   This is not an accidental escalation – it is the collapse of protection.   These humanitarians were killed while distributing food, water, medicine, shelter. They died in clearly marked convoys and on missions coordinated directly with authorities.   And, too often, they were killed by Member States of the United Nations.   Humanitarians know we face risks. It is the nature of our work, the places in which we operate.   These deaths are not because we are reckless with our lives. They are because parties to the conflict are reckless with our lives.   So, on behalf of over a thousand dead humanitarians and their families, we ask: why?   Is it because the world no longer believes in Security Council resolution 2730, in which you spoke with such moral urgency about ending violence against humanitarians?   Is it because international humanitarian law, forged by a generation of wiser political leaders for just such a time as this, is no longer convenient?   Is it because it is more important to protect those designing, selling, supplying and firing lethal weapons – including drones, cyber tools, artificial intelligence – than protecting us?   Is it because those killing us feel no cost for their actions? How many were prosecuted? How many of their leaders resigned? On how many investigations did the UN Security Council insist? Were you ever selective in your outrage?   Or is it because Member States see these numbers as collateral damage, part of the fog of war? Or worse, are we now seen as legitimate targets?   And perhaps the most chilling question: if these deaths were ‘preventable,’ why then were they not prevented?   Over 110 Member States have chosen to act together through the political declaration on the protection of humanitarians.   Yet across multiple crises, humanitarians are not just being killed. Our action is being restricted, penalized, delegitimized. We are told where not to go, whom not to help.   We are harassed or arrested for doing our job. And we are lied about – and those lies have these consequences.   And, of course, when humanitarians are harmed, aid often stops. Clinics close, food doesn’t arrive.   In Yemen, 73 UN and dozens of NGO personnel remain arbitrarily detained by the Houthis. In Afghanistan and Yemen, women humanitarians are prevented from doing their jobs. In Gaza, Israel restricts UN agencies and international NGOs. In Myanmar, insecurity and access constraints cut off aid to over 100,000 people in a single month.   And in Ukraine, drone attacks have forced aid groups to pull back from frontline communities.   In all these cases, the results of the deaths of humanitarians is too often the death of hope for millions who rely on them.   These trends, alongside the collapse in funding for our lifesaving work, are a symptom of a lawless, bellicose, selfish and violent world. Killing humanitarians is part of the broader attack on the UN Charter and on international humanitarian law.   International humanitarian law was never, and is not now, an academic exercise. In honour of our colleagues killed, and in solidarity with those now risking their lives, we ask you to act with much greater conviction, consistency and courage.   I normally conclude with three asks of this Council. But it seems insulting to over one thousand colleagues killed to echo back to you the commitments of SCR 2730: protection, integrity, accountability.   We come here not to remind you of these commitments, but to challenge you to uphold them. Because if we cast aside these hard-won principles, then the integrity of this Council, and the laws we are here to protect, die with our colleagues".   http://www.unocha.org/news/over-1000-aid-workers-killed-often-hands-member-states-un-relief-chief-demands-action http://news.un.org/en/story/2026/04/1167267
	International Non-Use Agreement on Solar Geoengineering by Solar Geoengineering Non-Use Agreement Team   July 2026   Precaution Means Non-Use: A Response to UNEP’s Working Paper on Solar Radiation Modification   On 12 May 2026, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) released a working paper presented as a synthesis of the current state of scientific knowledge on solar radiation modification (SRM). Its headline finding is unequivocal: SRM is not “a viable climate response” (key finding 1).   The paper is clear and candid about the severe limitations of SRM modelling, the idealised assumptions on which projected benefits rest, the concentration of research and funding in a handful of high-income countries, and the profound governance and justice problems that any SRM deployment would raise.   We welcome this candour. These positions also align very well with those taken by more than 600 academics advocating for an international non-use agreement on solar geoengineering.   Yet the paper’s conclusions do not consistently follow from its own evidence. Having documented why SRM cannot presently be considered viable, it nonetheless leaves the door open to future use and frames expanded research — including outdoor experimentation — as the appropriate response to the very risks it identifies.   Four features of the paper warrant a response. Each of these is as much a question of international law, as of science or policy.   1. “More research” as the answer to problems research cannot solve   The paper’s central move is a non sequitur. It identifies risks that are, on its own account, profound and in part irreducible — termination shock, geopolitical instability, uneven regional impacts, and committed multi-generational dependency (pp. 8, 9, 11) — and then prescribes more modelling and field research as the response.   But it concedes in the same breath that idealised models “assume globally coordinated governance, stable deployment over time and well-controlled interventions” (p. 4), and that field experiments are “inherently limited in scope” and cannot resolve uncertainties in global-scale climate responses (p. 8). Better models and more experiments cannot dissolve what are not, at root, knowledge gaps.   The decisive risks of SRM are social, political and intergenerational: they concern who would control a planetary thermostat, on whose behalf, and with what recourse for those harmed. Finer parameterisation of aerosol microphysics does not touch on these political questions.   This is also where the paper’s treatment of equity falls short. It rightly notes the concentration of research in the Global North and calls for “reciprocal capacity sharing, regionally-led research and full recognition of diverse knowledge systems” (key finding 4).   But capacity sharing in research is not the same as decision-making power over whether the technology is developed at all, and the working paper does not confront that distinction.   The deeper point, which the non-use literature has also emphasized, is that SRM at planetary scale is not governable in a globally inclusive and just manner within the existing international system. More research cannot make an ungovernable technology governable.   It risks instead entrenching the research momentum and funding architectures that — as the paper itself warns — narrow future choices and legitimise deployment pathways (p. 17). This is the risk of lock-in that the paper flags but does not allow to discipline its own recommendations.   Furthermore, greater care must be taken when applying the ‘research’ label. It is imperative to safeguard the right to freedom of scientific research and to protect the integrity of institutions dedicated to research and knowledge production against subversion.   While legitimate research warrants protection, speculative and risky endeavours should not be legitimised under the guise of ‘research’. Ultimately, such an approach amounts to a strategy of ‘learning by doing’ on a pathway to potential deployment, constituting ‘post-caution’ rather than pre-caution.   2. The precautionary principle is a constraint, not a licence   The paper’s most consequential error is legal. Instead of treating precaution as a constraint, it asserts that there is “a growing consensus that precaution does not mean inaction, but rather demands careful, inclusive and globally coordinated oversight” (p. 16) and that “precaution does not mean paralysis” (p. 18).   This inverts the principle. Precaution operates as a constraint on activities that may cause serious or irreversible harm under conditions of scientific uncertainty; it is not a warrant to generate that harm in order to study it.   The confusion has a recognisable structure. The precautionary principle does not itself need to be “balanced” against competing considerations; instead, it structures and disciplines the balancing exercise.   Applying it involves, at a minimum, two steps: a scientific assessment of impacts, probabilities and uncertainties, followed by a decision-making phase in which the costs and benefits of action and inaction are weighed against the objective of reducing risk to an acceptable level. Where serious and unacceptable risks remain after that process, the principle justifies prohibition even absent full scientific proof.   What it does not authorise is the pitting of one speculative risk against another — the “risk–risk” framing now common in the SRM debate — so as to license experimentation on the grounds that unmitigated warming is itself dangerous.   The dangers of warming are real; and are an argument for the mitigation the working paper rightly prioritises, rather than the justification for a second planetary-scale intervention whose fundamental risks are known to be and/or likely to be grave and unevenly distributed.   This reading is now firmly anchored in international jurisprudence. In its 2024 Advisory Opinion (para 257), the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea held that the due-diligence obligation to protect the marine environment is closely linked to the precautionary approach, such that States breach it if they disregard or fail adequately to account for risks of serious harm.   The International Court of Justice, in its Advisory Opinion of 23 July 2025, confirmed the precautionary approach as a guiding principle of the applicable law and located the duty to prevent significant environmental harm in customary international law binding on all States (paras 224, 293–294 and 315). The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in Advisory Opinion OC-32/25, went furthest: it grounded States’ heightened due-diligence obligations in the precautionary principle and expressly applied a reversal of the burden of proof in environmental matters.   That last point is decisive for SRM. Under a precautionary standard with a reversed burden, it falls to those who would develop and deploy the technology to demonstrate that it is safe and governable — not to the exposed to prove, in advance and against idealised models, that it is not. Framing precaution as a permission slip for outdoor experimentation is unsupportable in light of this jurisprudence.   We therefore reject the self-serving framing of precaution that runs through parts of the paper. Insistence on more research and field experimentation is not precautionary. Instead, if applied to a planetary-scale, partly irreversible and ungovernable intervention, the precautionary principle points in one direction: non-use.   3. Non-use is the outcome of expanded deliberation, not its suppression   A recurring rhetorical move in the paper is to distinguish those “calling for strengthened governance” from those who “wish to silence discourse” (p. 16), and to characterise advocates of restrictive governance as implicitly silencing debate and discourse (p. 16).   This is not a neutral empirical observation; it mischaracterises and delegitimises a considered legal and political position calling for restricting a dangerous activity. Academics advocating for non-use of SRM, for example, have not silenced discourse, to the contrary, they have enlivened it.   Opposition to SRM does not seek to foreclose inquiry. Instead, it actively engages in and broadens discourse and debates on SRM. While expanding the space for debate and discourse, it calls for restricting risky and unjust practices and systems.   This non-use position builds on two decades of research and deliberation across the natural and social sciences, law and global governance — recently including the peer-reviewed case for a non-use agreement, the comparative legal analysis of how such a regime could be designed, and the assessment of its political feasibility.   This position is also reflected in the decisions of States: the African Ministerial Conference on the Environment has called for a non-use mechanism and reaffirmed its unequivocal rejection of stratospheric aerosol injection and other forms of solar geoengineering; Mexico announced a ban on all SRM-related experiments, and Pacific Island States prevented a permissive SRM resolution at UNEA-6 and secured reaffirmation of the de facto moratorium on geoengineering under the Convention on Biological Diversity.   To recast this body of considered judgement as censorship is both factually wrong and rhetorically corrosive. It is also in tension with the working paper’s own, more careful acknowledgement elsewhere that effective governance must rest on legal, ethical and scientific grounds (p. 16) —standards that restrictive-governance positions meet.   A non-use agreement also does not call for bans on atmospheric or climate science; instead it targets the specific development pathway — funding, patents, outdoor experiments, deployment and institutionalisation — that turns research into a deployed technology.   These distinctions, which the working paper’s own evidence supports, are precisely what its “silencing discourse” framing of opposition to SRM obscures.   4. Participation is not consent, and consultation is not governance   The paper repeatedly invokes “inclusive governance”, “inclusive participation” and “inclusive deliberation” as the answer to SRM’s equity problems (e.g. pp. 5, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15–18). Inclusion matters. But the paper avoids acknowledging the significant difference between participation and the power to decide — and this avoidance carries a precise legal cost.   It matters in law — and the normative and ethical considerations underpinning it — that the communities most exposed to outdoor experimentation and to any future SRM deployment are overwhelmingly those least represented in decision-making arenas.   The principle of free, prior and informed consent — codified in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and affirmed by the Inter-American Court in the climate context — cannot be approximated by “transparent, internationally supervised research” (p. 14).   Consultation that informs but does not bind is not consent; and consent over a discrete project is not collective governance of a planetary intervention.   The UN Human Rights Council Advisory Committee has already concluded that new technologies intended for climate protection can interfere with the enjoyment of human rights and pose physical, political and social risks to frontline communities, including Indigenous Peoples (paras 57 and 66).   Against that background, a regime that offers the exposed a seat at a consultative table while reserving decision-making to a few capable States and their funders is not “inclusive governance”; it is incompatible with States’ positive obligations under international human rights law.   The Inter-American Court has now recognised a peremptory (jus cogens) prohibition on massive and irreversible environmental harm — a standard that a technology designed to alter the entire climate system, with acknowledged potential for irreversible and inequitably distributed effects, cannot credibly satisfy.   Operationalising UNEP’s own conclusion   The working paper’s own finding is that SRM is not a viable climate response. The task now is to give that finding effect. Calling for broad consultation and improved modelling is not a substitute for taking a clear decision or stance; and the decision on which the evidence, the precautionary principle and the human rights framework converge is restriction, not facilitation.   What is needed is not a global research programme but a global agreement restricting the development of solar geoengineering technologies.   Such an agreement is neither unprecedented nor utopian. International law already offers a rich repertoire of prohibitory and restrictive regimes from which States could draw — among them the Environmental Modification Convention, the Anti-Personnel Land Mine Ban Convention, the Montreal Protocol’s control of ozone-depleting substances, the Basel Convention’s restrictions on hazardous-waste movements, the London Protocol’s reverse-list approach and its moratorium on ocean fertilisation, and the moratorium on mining in Antarctica.   Furthermore, restrictions on development and use of biological and chemical weapons in the Biological and Chemical Weapons Conventions neither silenced discourse nor impeded decades of progress in the biological and chemical sciences or technologies.   More broadly, the legal principle of systemic integration means that any future SRM regime would in any event need to account for existing legal obligations and the customary no-harm rule — a body of law that, as our prior research shows, is far better suited to constraining this technology than to enabling it.   Building on that foundation, an International Non-Use Agreement on Solar Geoengineering could commit States to five core measures: no public funding for development, no outdoor experiments, no patents, no deployment of technologies developed by third parties, and no support for the institutionalisation of SRM as a policy option in international fora.   Governments in Africa and the Pacific have already shown the way. It is within UNEP’s mandate, and consistent with its own conclusion, to support rather than dilute that leadership.   A UNEP working paper should not be used to justify research budgets and activities that the same report’s analysis does not warrant. We urge UNEP to operationalise key finding 1 — and to help move the international community from a posture of open-ended exploration to one of principled non-use.   http://www.solargeoeng.org/precaution-means-non-use-a-response-to-uneps-working-paper-on-solar-radiation-modification/ Visit the related web page
	View more stories