Emerging technologies potentially have far-reaching impacts on the conservation, as well as the sustainable and equitable use, of biodiversity. Simultaneously, biodiversity itself increasingly serves as an input or source material for novel technological applications. In this chapter, we assess the relationship between the regime of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, or “the Convention”) and the governance of three sets of emerging technologies: geoengineering, synthetic biology and gene drives, as well as bioinformatics. The linkages between biodiversity and technology go beyond these cases, with, for example, geographic information systems, satellite imagery or possibly even blockchain technology playing potentially important roles for implementing the CBD’s objectives. Here, however, we focus on technologies that have been subject to extensive debate and rulemaking activity under the CBD.

Besides emissions reductions, CDR, and adaptation, the only remaining means to limit climate change impacts is solar geoengineering. While it could greatly reduce climate change, including in ways that the other responses cannot, solar geoengineering also poses serious environmental risks and social challenges. For these reasons, it has been controversial, including with respect to international law. In this chapter, I advocate a forceful case that the global testing or deployment of solar geoengineering could be consistent with international law. I secondarily argue that international law even encourages it. To be clear, the fact that solar geoengineering could be consistent with international law does not mean that it necessarily would be. Like all other activities of significant scale, it could be conducted in ways that would be contrary to international law.

This chapter evaluates possible options and approaches for potential future regimes on the international governance of climate engineering. Developing international governance of CDR and SRM – especially in case of their large-scale use – will be a long process across several decades. However, meaningful steps may need to be taken soon to lay a foundation for this lengthy, uncertain process. Furthermore, some shorter-term international governance actions – including of CDR’s and SRM’s research – could be beneficial.

The chapter offers explicit criteria for the assessment of governance options, including to reduce climate change and its impacts, contribute to sustainable development, support greenhouse gas emissions reductions, establish and maintain legitimacy, foster peace and stable international relations, and reflect current knowledge and adapt to changing conditions.

Possible governance sites – including but not limited to intergovernmental institutions – are then discussed. Among possible candidates, it is difficult to imagine the international governance of CDR and SRM without the climate change regime having a central role. Because the IPCC aims to be neutral with respect to policy, it can and should contribute to, but not take the lead in governance. The biodiversity regime is well-positioned to legitimately contribute to international governance that prioritizes sustainable development and poverty eradication, although its governance would largely be limited to that concerning impacts on biodiversity. Notably, UNEP’s mandate and capabilities include identifying emerging issues, conducting scientific reviews, and catalyzing international governance across issue areas and sectors. The creation of de-novo international process and decentralized governance should also be considered.

The chapter suggests possible substantive options for governance, which are to facilitate research; encourage the responsible use of CDR; regulate risks for sustainable development; further integrate with existing governance; build governance capacity; strengthen international cooperation; leverage the private sector; implement breakpoints, stage gates and moratoria; and establish a foundation for future decision-making.

The chapter closes with six specific recommendations:

• to distinguish between CDR and SRM as well as among the diverse CDR techniques in their additional dedicated governance;
• to accelerate authoritative, comprehensive, and international scientific assessment;
• to encourage the research, development, and responsible use of some CDR techniques;
• to help build capacity for evaluating CDR and SRM in some of those countries that lack the resources to do so
• to facilitate the elaboration and implementation of non-state governance; and
• to explore potential further governance of SRM while remaining agnostic concerning its ultimate use.

Solar climate engineering—intentional modification of the planet’s reflectivity—is coming under increasing consideration as a means to counter climate change. At present, it offers the possibility of greatly reducing climate risks, but would pose physical and social risks of its own. This chapter offers an introduction to solar climate engineering, and explores its potential, risks, and legal and regulatory challenges. It also contextualizes these proposals with respect to other emerging technologies and the broader socio-political milieu. The chapter discusses the contours of existing and potential regulation, particularly at the international level. These aspects include regulatory rationales, diverse characteristics of proposed regulatory regimes, difficulties in defining the regulatory target, and the management of uncertainty through precaution. The chapter closes with suggested future research directions in the law and regulation of solar climate engineering.

In the face of dire forecasts of climate change and disappointing emissions abatement, some scientists and others are increasingly suggesting and researching intentional, large-scale interventions in natural systems in order to counteract climate change. These ‘climate engineering’ or ‘geoengineering’ proposals presently appear to hold the potential to significantly reduce the risks from climate change, but they also would pose environmental and social risks and would raise numerous legal questions, particularly at the international level. After introducing climate engineering, this chapter suggests why climate engineering is challenging for international environmental law and its scholars, briefly describes applicable international legal instruments and reviews the existing legal scholarship on the international environmental law of climate engineering, with particular attention to proposals for future international regulation. It closes with suggestions for future research.