• In this strategy reflective glass foam tiles are deployed into surface waters. The tiles are made of silica sand and may be augmented on the bottom with alkalizing materials or nutrients to promote carbon dioxide removal in the surrounding water (Haley and Nicklas 2021). It was proposed for the North Atlantic gyre, not specifically the Arctic.

• Expected physical changes (global)
  • Increased albedo of sea surface, decreased absorption of radiation, decreased temperature
• Expected physical changes (Arctic region)
  • Increase albedo of sea surface, decreased absorption of radiation, decreased temperature

• Unknown

• Sea surface in ice-free areas

• Ice free ocean areas
  • Proposed for North Atlantic gyre, but could be applied to Arctic.

• Times and places with sunlight. Arctic-specific deployment would only be effective in summer.

• In this strategy reflective glass foam tiles are deployed into surface waters. The tiles are made of silica sand and may be augmented on the bottom with alkalizing materials or nutrients to promote carbon dioxide removal in the surrounding water (Haley and Nicklas 2021). It was proposed for the North Atlantic gyre, not specifically the Arctic.

• Expected physical changes (global)
  • Increased albedo of sea surface, decreased absorption of radiation, decreased temperature.
• Expected physical changes (Arctic region)
  • Increase albedo of sea surface, decreased absorption of radiation, decreased temperature.

• Unknown

• Sea surface in ice-free areas

• Ice free ocean areas
  • Proposed for North Atlantic gyre, but could be applied to Arctic

• Times and places with sunlight. Arctic-specific deployment would only be effective in summer.

• In this strategy reflective glass foam tiles are deployed into surface waters. The tiles are made of silica sand and may be augmented on the bottom with alkalizing materials or nutrients to promote carbon dioxide removal in the surrounding water (Haley and Nicklas 2021). It was proposed for the North Atlantic gyre, not specifically the Arctic.

• Expected physical changes (global)
  • Increased albedo of sea surface, decreased absorption of radiation, decreased temperature.
• Expected physical changes (Arctic region)
  • Increase albedo of sea surface, decreased absorption of radiation, decreased temperature.

• Unknown

• Sea surface in ice-free areas

• Ice free ocean areas
  • Proposed for North Atlantic gyre, but could be applied to Arctic

• Times and places with sunlight. Arctic-specific deployment would only be effective in summer.

• In this strategy reflective glass foam tiles are deployed into surface waters. The tiles are made of silica sand and may be augmented on the bottom with alkalizing materials or nutrients to promote carbon dioxide removal in the surrounding water (Haley and Nicklas 2021). It was proposed for the North Atlantic gyre, not specifically the Arctic.

• Expected physical changes (global)
  • Increased albedo of sea surface, decreased absorption of radiation, decreased temperature.
• Expected physical changes (Arctic region)
  • Increase albedo of sea surface, decreased absorption of radiation, decreased temperature.

• Unknown

• Sea surface in ice-free areas

• Ice free ocean areas
  • Proposed for North Atlantic gyre, but could be applied to Arctic

• Times and places with sunlight. Arctic-specific deployment would only be effective in summer.

• In this strategy reflective glass foam tiles are deployed into surface waters. The tiles are made of silica sand and may be augmented on the bottom with alkalizing materials or nutrients to promote carbon dioxide removal in the surrounding water (Haley and Nicklas 2021). It was proposed for the North Atlantic gyre, not specifically the Arctic.

• Expected physical changes (global)
  • Increased albedo of sea surface, decreased absorption of radiation, decreased temperature.
• Expected physical changes (Arctic region)
  • Increase albedo of sea surface, decreased absorption of radiation, decreased temperature.

• Unknown

• Sea surface in ice-free areas

• Ice free ocean areas
  • Proposed for North Atlantic gyre, but could be applied to Arctic

• Times and places with sunlight. Arctic-specific deployment would only be effective in summer

Impact on

• Global
  • Unknown
    • Ideal increase to albedo of 0.5 in low latitudes (J. Haley pers. comm.).
• Arctic region
  • Unknown, but lower effectiveness in Arctic than at low latitudes due to low incidence of sun in the Arctic (J. Haley pers. comm.).

• Global
  • Unknown
• Arctic region
  • Unknown

• Global
  • Unknown
    • Theoretical reflectivity potential in the tropics is 180-200 W/m².
• Arctic region
  • Unknown
    • Theoretical highest reflectivity potential is 46 W/m².

• Direct or indirect impact on sea ice?
  • If possible, indirect effect via change in albedo of the surface ocean with subsequent decreases in absorption and temperatures.
• New or old ice?
  • If possible, temperature reductions could enhance production of new ice and prevent melting of existing ice.
• Impact on sea ice
  • Unknown

Scalability

• Unknown

• Unknown
  • Low efficiency in the Arctic compared to the tropics.

• Unknown, will require:
  • Development of appropriate tile.
  • Testing of tile in the field.
  • Plan for deployment.

• Unknown, likely > 20 yr

• Unknown, likely > 20 yr

Cost

• Unknown
  • Silica sand (SiO₂) is claimed to be an abundant and low-cost material (Haley and Nicklas 2021).
    • Recommended location by Haley and Nicklas (2021) for silica sand is the Sahara desert (Mauritania or Western Sahara). Tiles would be created in factory in Sahara, loaded onto barges and dumped in ocean locations.

• Unknown
  • Electricity to make tiles could possibly be generated by renewable sources (photovoltaic panels in the Sahara desert; Haley and Nicklas 2021).
  • Fossil fuels needed to transport tiles to ships and then for transport by ship to deployment site.

Impact on

• Global
  • Unknown
    • Ideal increase to albedo of 0.5 in low latitudes (J. Haley pers. comm.)
• Arctic region
  • Unknown, but lower effectiveness in Arctic than at low latitudes due to low incidence of sun in the Arctic (J. Haley pers. comm.)

• Global
  • Unknown
• Arctic region
  • Unknown

• Global
  • Unknown
    • Theoretical reflectivity potential in the tropics is 180-200 W/m²
• Arctic region
  • Unknown
    • Theoretical highest reflectivity potential is 46 W/m²

• Direct or indirect impact on sea ice?
  • If possible, indirect effect via change in albedo of the surface ocean with subsequent decreases in absorption and temperatures
• New or old ice?
  • If possible, temperature reductions could enhance production of new ice and prevent melting of existing ice
• Impact on sea ice
  • Unknown

Scalability

• Unknown

• Unknown
  • Low efficiency in the Arctic compared to the tropics

• Unknown, will require:
  • Development of appropriate tile
  • Testing of tile in the field
  • Plan for deployment

• Unknown, likely > 20 yr

• Unknown, likely > 20 yr

Cost

• Unknown
  • Silica sand (SiO₂) is claimed to be an abundant and low-cost material (Haley and Nicklas 2021).
    • Recommended location by Haley and Nicklas (2021) for silica sand is the Sahara desert (Mauritania or Western Sahara). Tiles would be created in factory in Sahara, loaded onto barges and dumped in ocean locations.

• Unknown
  • Electricity to make tiles could possibly be generated by renewable sources (photovoltaic panels in the Sahara desert; Haley and Nicklas 2021).
  • Fossil fuels needed to transport tiles to ships and then for transport by ship to deployment site.

Impact on

• Global
  • Unknown
    • Ideal increase to albedo of 0.5 in low latitudes (J. Haley pers. comm.)
• Arctic region
  • Unknown, but lower effectiveness in Arctic than at low latitudes due to low incidence of sun in the Arctic (J. Haley pers. comm.)

• Global
  • Unknown
• Arctic region
  • Unknown

• Global
  • Unknown
    • Theoretical reflectivity potential in the tropics is 180-200 W/m²
• Arctic region
  • Unknown
    • Theoretical highest reflectivity potential is 46 W/m²

• Direct or indirect impact on sea ice?
  • If possible, indirect effect via change in albedo of the surface ocean with subsequent decreases in absorption and temperatures
• New or old ice?
  • If possible, temperature reductions could enhance production of new ice and prevent melting of existing ice
• Impact on sea ice
  • Unknown

Scalability

• Unknown

• Unknown
  • Low efficiency in the Arctic compared to the tropics

• Unknown, will require:
  • Development of appropriate tile
  • Testing of tile in the field
  • Plan for deployment

• Unknown, likely > 20 yr

• Unknown, likely > 20 yr

Cost

• Unknown
  • Silica sand (SiO₂) is claimed to be an abundant and low-cost material (Haley and Nicklas 2021).
    • Recommended location by Haley and Nicklas (2021) for silica sand is the Sahara desert (Mauritania or Western Sahara). Tiles would be created in factory in Sahara, loaded onto barges and dumped in ocean locations.

• Unknown
  • Electricity to make tiles could possibly be generated by renewable sources (photovoltaic panels in the Sahara desert; Haley and Nicklas 2021).
  • Fossil fuels needed to transport tiles to ships and then for transport by ship to deployment site.

Impact on

• Global
  • Unknown
    • Ideal increase to albedo of 0.5 in low latitudes (J. Haley pers. comm.)
• Arctic region
  • Unknown, but lower effectiveness in Arctic than at low latitudes due to low incidence of sun in the Arctic (J. Haley pers. comm.)

• Global
  • Unknown
• Arctic region
  • Unknown

• Global
  • Unknown
    • Theoretical reflectivity potential in the tropics is 180-200 W/m²
• Arctic region
  • Unknown
    • Theoretical highest reflectivity potential is 46 W/m²

• Direct or indirect impact on sea ice?
  • If possible, indirect effect via change in albedo of the surface ocean with subsequent decreases in absorption and temperatures
• New or old ice?
  • If possible, temperature reductions could enhance production of new ice and prevent melting of existing ice
• Impact on sea ice
  • Unknown

Scalability

• Unknown

• Unknown
  • Low efficiency in the Arctic compared to the tropics

• Unknown, will require:
  • Development of appropriate tile
  • Testing of tile in the field
  • Plan for deployment

• Unknown, likely > 20 yr

• Unknown, likely > 20 yr

Cost

• Unknown
  • Silica sand (SiO₂) is claimed to be an abundant and low-cost material (Haley and Nicklas 2021).
    • Recommended location by Haley and Nicklas (2021) for silica sand is the Sahara desert (Mauritania or Western Sahara). Tiles would be created in factory in Sahara, loaded onto barges and dumped in ocean locations.

• Unknown
  • Electricity to make tiles could possibly be generated by renewable sources (photovoltaic panels in the Sahara desert; Haley and Nicklas 2021).
  • Fossil fuels needed to transport tiles to ships and then for transport by ship to deployment site.

• 1 – one theoretical study
  • Summary of existing literature and studies:
    • One paper published (Haley and Nicklas 2021), no other further work so far, no application to Arctic.

• Unlikely

• 1 – one theoretical study
  • Summary of existing literature and studies:
    • One paper published (Haley and Nicklas 2021), no other further work so far, no application to Arctic

• Unlikely

• • 1 – one theoretical study
    • Summary of existing literature and studies:
      • One paper published (Haley and Nicklas 2021), no other further work so far, no application to Arctic

• • Unlikely

• • 1
    • Summary of existing literature and studies:
      • One paper published (Haley and Nicklas 2021), no other further work so far, no application to Arctic

• • Unlikely

• TRL
  • TRL 1
    • Summary of existing literature and studies:
      • One paper published (Haley and Nicklas 2021), no other further work so far, no application to Arctic
• Technical feasibility within 10 yrs
  • Unlikely

• TRL -- 1
  • Summary of existing literature and studies:
    • One paper published (Haley and Nicklas 2021), no other further work so far, no application to Arctic
• Technical feasibility within 10 yrs
  • Unlikely

Physical and chemical changes

• Co-benefits
  • With dissolving components on bottom of tiles could provide some benefit to locally ameliorating ocean acidification (Haley and Nicklas 2021).
  • Dissolving components on bottom of tiles could potentially stimulate microalgal blooms for CDR (Haley and Nicklas 2021). However, this co-benefit would depend on which kind of microalgae and their value for zooplankton.
• Risks
  • Tiles would eventually end up on beaches or in the middle of gyres.

Impacts on species

• Co-benefits
  • Reduced risk of ocean acidification if deployed with alkalizing materials.
  • Dissolving components on bottom of tiles could potentially stimulate microalgal blooms. However, this co-benefit would depend on which kind of microalgae and their value for zooplankton.
• Risks
  • The tiles could reduce the amount of sunlight entering the surface water, therefore decreasing phytoplankton growth in the water column.
  • Fish may ingest tiles.
  • Tiles could potentially leach materials that could harm marine (or beach) organisms.

Impacts on ecosystems

• Co-benefits
  • Reduced risk of ocean acidification if deployed with alkalizing materials.
  • Dissolving components on bottom of tiles could potentially stimulate microalgal blooms. However, this co-benefit would depend on which kind of microalgae and their value for zooplankton.
• Risks
  • If phytoplankton populations are impacted this could have an impact on primary productivity other organisms in the food web.

Impacts on society

• Co-benefits
  • Largely unknown
    • Job creation where tiles are produced and for deployment.
• Risks
  • Largely unknown
    • Silica sand mining could impact communities.

Ease of reversibility

• Hard
  • Tiles will be stochastically dispersed in the ocean with surface currents. It may be logistically challenging to retrieve the tiles back if needed.
  • Any alkalizing material or nutrients that dissolved in the ocean would be irretrievable.

Risk of termination shock

• Medium
  • If deployment of tiles stopped, albedo of ocean would return to open water conditions and temperatures would increase.

Physical and chemical changes

• Co-benefits
  • With dissolving components on bottom of tiles could provide some benefit to locally ameliorating ocean acidification (Haley and Nicklas 2021).
  • Dissolving components on bottom of tiles could potentially stimulate microalgal blooms for CDR (Haley and Nicklas 2021). However, this co-benefit would depend on which kind of microalgae and their value for zooplankton.
• Risks
  • Tiles would eventually end up on beaches or in the middle of gyres.

Impacts on species

• Co-benefits
  • Reduced risk of ocean acidification if deployed with alkalizing materials.
  • Dissolving components on bottom of tiles could potentially stimulate microalgal blooms. However, this co-benefit would depend on which kind of microalgae and their value for zooplankton.
• Risks
  • The tiles could reduce the amount of sunlight entering the surface water, therefore decreasing phytoplankton growth in the water column.
  • Fish may ingest tiles.
  • Tiles could potentially leach materials that could harm marine (or beach) organisms.

Impacts on ecosystems

• Co-benefits
  • Reduced risk of ocean acidification if deployed with alkalizing materials.
  • Dissolving components on bottom of tiles could potentially stimulate microalgal blooms. However, this co-benefit would depend on which kind of microalgae and their value for zooplankton.
• Risks
  • If phytoplankton populations are impacted this could have an impact on primary productivity other organisms in the food web.

Impacts on society

• Co-benefits
  • Largely unknown
    • Job creation where tiles are produced and for deployment.
• Risks
  • Largely unknown
    • Silica sand mining could impact communities.

Ease of reversibility

• Tiles will be stochastically dispersed in the ocean with surface currents. It may be logistically challenging to retrieve the tiles back if needed.
• Any alkalizing material or nutrients that dissolved in the ocean would be irretrievable.

Risk of termination shock

• If deployment of tiles stopped, albedo of ocean would return to open water conditions and temperatures would increase.

• Co-benefits
  • With dissolving components on bottom of tiles could provide some benefit to locally ameliorating ocean acidification (Haley and Nicklas 2021).
  • Dissolving components on bottom of tiles could potentially stimulate microalgal blooms for CDR (Haley and Nicklas 2021). However, this co-benefit would depend on which kind of microalgae and their value for zooplankton.
• Risks
  • Tiles would eventually end up on beaches or in the middle of gyres.

• Co-benefits
  • Reduced risk of ocean acidification if deployed with alkalizing materials.
  • Dissolving components on bottom of tiles could potentially stimulate microalgal blooms. However, this co-benefit would depend on which kind of microalgae and their value for zooplankton.
• Risks
  • The tiles could reduce the amount of sunlight entering the surface water, therefore decreasing phytoplankton growth in the water column.
  • Fish may ingest tiles.
  • Tiles could potentially leach materials that could harm marine (or beach) organisms.

• Co-benefits
  • Reduced risk of ocean acidification if deployed with alkalizing materials.
  • Dissolving components on bottom of tiles could potentially stimulate microalgal blooms. However, this co-benefit would depend on which kind of microalgae and their value for zooplankton.
• Risks
  • If phytoplankton populations are impacted this could have an impact on primary productivity other organisms in the food web.

• Co-benefits
  • Largely unknown
    • Job creation where tiles are produced and for deployment.
• Risks
  • Largely unknown
    • Silica sand mining could impact communities.

• Tiles will be stochastically dispersed in the ocean with surface currents. It may be logistically challenging to retrieve the tiles back if needed.
• Any alkalizing material or nutrients that dissolved in the ocean would be irretrievable.

• If deployment of tiles stopped, albedo of ocean would return to open water conditions and temperatures would increase.

• Co-benefits
  • With dissolving components on bottom of tiles could provide some benefit to locally ameliorating ocean acidification (Haley and Nicklas 2021).
  • Dissolving components on bottom of tiles could potentially stimulate microalgal blooms for CDR (Haley and Nicklas 2021). However, this co-benefit would depend on which kind of microalgae and their value for zooplankton.
• Risks
  • Tiles would eventually end up on beaches or in the middle of gyres.

• Co-benefits
  • Reduced risk of ocean acidification if deployed with alkalizing materials
  • Dissolving components on bottom of tiles could potentially stimulate microalgal blooms. However, this co-benefit would depend on which kind of microalgae and their value for zooplankton.
• Risks
  • The tiles could reduce the amount of sunlight entering the surface water, therefore decreasing phytoplankton growth in the water column
  • Fish may ingest tiles
  • Tiles could potentially leach materials that could harm marine (or beach) organisms

• Co-benefits
  • Reduced risk of ocean acidification if deployed with alkalizing materials
  • Dissolving components on bottom of tiles could potentially stimulate microalgal blooms. However, this co-benefit would depend on which kind of microalgae and their value for zooplankton.
• Risks
  • If phytoplankton populations are impacted this could have an impact on primary productivity other organisms in the food web.

• Co-benefits
  • Largely unknown
    • Job creation where tiles are produced and for deployment.
• Risks
  • Largely unknown
    • Silica sand mining could impact communities.

• Tiles will be stochastically dispersed in the ocean with surface currents. It may be logistically challenging to retrieve the tiles back if needed.
• Any alkalizing material or nutrients that dissolved in the ocean would be irretrievable.

• If deployment of tiles stopped, albedo of ocean would return to open water conditions and temperatures would increase.

• Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
  • Application of any approach in national waters (within territorial waters or a state’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ)) would be governed by those states. Small-scale field studies would likely be within national jurisdiction. However, even if applied with national jurisdiction there may be potential for transboundary effects due to dispersal of materials. Any application on the high seas would be within international jurisdiction. See “Existing governance” for other available information on relevant governance structures.
• Specific to Reflective Glass Foam Tiles:
  • No additional information.

• Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
  • The Arctic Ocean is governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which includes all Arctic coastal states except the United States. The United States, however, is bound to customary law “including customs codified or that have emerged from UNCLOS” (Argüello and Johansson 2022).
    • UNCLOS and marine scientific research (MSR):
      • MSR is governed by Part XIII of UNCLOS. In general, the right of states to conduct MSR is subject to the rights and duties of other states under UNCLOS (UNCLOS Article 238). There is a duty on parties to promote and facilitate MSR (UNCLOS Article 239).
      • MSR shall be conducted exclusively for peaceful purposes, it may not unjustifiably interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea, and it must be conducted in compliance with all relevant regulations adopted in conformity with the Convention, including those for the protection and preservation of the marine environment (UNCLOS Article 240).
      • States are responsible and liable for damage caused by pollution of the marine environment arising out of MSR undertaken by them or on their behalf (UNCLOS Article 263(3)).
        • Any approaches that involve adding material or energy to the ocean that would cause or be likely to cause damage to the marine environment would constitute “pollution of the marine environment” within the meaning of Article 1(1)(4) of UNCLOS, and States would have a duty to minimize the pollution pursuant to Article 194.
    • National Jurisdiction and MSR under UNCLOS
      • In a coastal state’s territorial sea (12 nautical miles from shore baseline), the coastal state has the exclusive right to regulate, authorize, and conduct MSR.
      • In a coastal state’s EEZ (200 nautical miles from shore baseline), coastal states also have the right to regulate, authorize, and conduct MSR, and MSR by other states requires the consent of the coastal state (UNCLOS Article 246(2)). States ordinarily give their consent, and they are required to adopt rules to ensure that consent is not delayed or denied unreasonably. UNCLOS further specifies grounds for refusing consent, including if the MSR involves introducing harmful substances into the marine environment (UNCLOS Article 246(5)(b)).
    • Areas outside National Jurisdiction and MSR under UNCLOS
      • On the high seas, UNCLOS provides for freedom of MSR (UNCLOS Article 87(1)(f)), but it must be done with due regard for the interests of other States in their exercise of the freedom of the high seas (Articles 87(2)).
      • The high seas are reserved for peaceful purposes (Article 88) and no state may subject a portion of high seas to its sovereignty (Article 89).
  • For an Arctic-specific application, the 2017 Agreement on Enhancing Arctic Scientific Cooperation is relevant. This is a legally binding agreement signed in 2017 by all Arctic States negotiated in the Arctic Council. It promotes international cooperation and favorable conditions for conducting scientific research, facilitates access to research areas, infrastructure, and facilities, and promotes education and training of scientists in Arctic issues. The agreement also encourages participants to utilize traditional and local knowledge as appropriate as well as encourages communication between traditional and local knowledge holders and participants. This may provide a framework for consultation with stakeholders including Indigenous peoples in intervention research, planning, and testing (Chuffart et al. 2023).
  • These approaches may be subject to regulation by the London Protocol as a type of solar radiation modification (C2G 2021 Evidence Brief CAT Arctic). Article 6 prohibits the placement of matter into the sea for marine geoengineering activities and to date has been used to regulate ocean iron fertilization.  The London Protocol only applies to the currently 55 parties to the Protocol, which includes Arctic coastal states except the United States and Russia.
  • The Arctic Council has been called upon as a venue for providing oversight on approaches to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice, or to establish working groups to provide guidance (Bodansky and Hunt 2020, Bennett et al. 2022). However, the current geopolitical landscape and lack of participation from Russia makes consensus difficult.
• Specific to Reflective Glass Foam Tiles:
  • It is not clear yet as to whether reflective glass foam tiles would be considered a harmful substance.

• Here we define justice related to approaches to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice through distributive justice, procedural justice, and restorative justice. Following COMEST (2023), we consider questions of ethics through a justice lens. Note that this is not an exhaustive list of justice dimensions and as the field advances, so will the related considerations and dimensions.
• Distributive justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
    • If distributive justice is considered, the objective would be that benefits and costs of research or potential deployment of the approach be distributed fairly while protecting the basic rights of the most vulnerable.
  • Specific to Reflective Glass Foam Tiles:
    • No additional information.
• Procedural justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
    • If procedural justice is considered, people affected by research would have an opportunity to participate and have a say in how the approach will be researched, deployed, and governed.
    • Bennett et al. (2022) suggests an inclusive governance approach that incorporates stakeholder concerns in the design and deployment of approaches and effectively communicates risk.  Within the development of such a framework there is an opportunity to prioritize Indigenous self-determination and procedural justice (Chuffart et al. 2023). Note, however, that stakeholders may also include non-local people.
  • Specific to Reflective Glass Foam Tiles:
    • No additional information.
• Restorative justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
    • It is unknown if there have been restorative justice actions for any Surface Albedo Modification approaches. If restorative justice is considered, plans would be developed for those who could be harmed by the approach to be compensated, rehabilitated, or restored.
  • Specific to Reflective Glass Foam Tiles:
    • No additional information.

• Unknown

• Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
  • The principle of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is the foundation for engagement with Indigenous Peoples.
  • Particular to any potential Arctic research or deployment, The Inuit Circumpolar Council (2022) has published Circumpolar Inuit Protocols for Equitable and Ethical Engagement, which include eight protocols:
    • ‘Nothing About Us Without Us’ – Always Engage with Inuit
    • Recognize Indigenous Knowledge in its Own Right
    • Practice Good Governance
    • Communication with Intent
    • Exercising Accountability – Building Trust
    • Building Meaningful Partnerships
    • Information, Data Sharing, Ownership, and Permissions
    • Equitably Fund Inuit Representation and Knowledge
  • Any meaningful engagement with Indigenous peoples needs to consider context. Whyte (2018) states, “Indigenous voices should be involved in scientific and policy discussions of different types of geoengineering. But, context matters. Geoengineering discourses cannot just be associated with geoengineering to the exclusion of topics and solutions that Indigenous peoples value.”
• Specific to Reflective Glass Foam Tiles:
  • No additional information.

• Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
  • Application of any approach in national waters (within territorial waters or a state’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ)) would be governed by those states. Small-scale field studies would likely be within national jurisdiction. However, even if applied with national jurisdiction there may be potential for transboundary effects due to dispersal of materials. Any application on the high seas would be within international jurisdiction. See “Existing governance” for other available information on relevant governance structures.
• Specific to Reflective Glass Foam Tiles:
  • No additional information.

• Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
  • The Arctic Ocean is governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which includes all Arctic coastal states except the United States. The United States, however, is bound to customary law “including customs codified or that have emerged from UNCLOS” (Argüello and Johansson 2022).
    • UNCLOS and marine scientific research (MSR):
      • MSR is governed by Part XIII of UNCLOS. In general, the right of states to conduct MSR is subject to the rights and duties of other states under UNCLOS (UNCLOS Article 238). There is a duty on parties to promote and facilitate MSR (UNCLOS Article 239).
      • MSR shall be conducted exclusively for peaceful purposes, it may not unjustifiably interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea, and it must be conducted in compliance with all relevant regulations adopted in conformity with the Convention, including those for the protection and preservation of the marine environment (UNCLOS Article 240).
      • States are responsible and liable for damage caused by pollution of the marine environment arising out of MSR undertaken by them or on their behalf (UNCLOS Article 263(3)).
        • Any approaches that involve adding material or energy to the ocean that would cause or be likely to cause damage to the marine environment would constitute “pollution of the marine environment” within the meaning of Article 1(1)(4) of UNCLOS, and States would have a duty to minimize the pollution pursuant to Article 194.
    • National Jurisdiction and MSR under UNCLOS
      • In a coastal state’s territorial sea (12 nautical miles from shore baseline), the coastal state has the exclusive right to regulate, authorize, and conduct MSR.
      • In a coastal state’s EEZ (200 nautical miles from shore baseline), coastal states also have the right to regulate, authorize, and conduct MSR, and MSR by other states requires the consent of the coastal state (UNCLOS Article 246(2)). States ordinarily give their consent, and they are required to adopt rules to ensure that consent is not delayed or denied unreasonably. UNCLOS further specifies grounds for refusing consent, including if the MSR involves introducing harmful substances into the marine environment (UNCLOS Article 246(5)(b)).
    • Areas outside National Jurisdiction and MSR under UNCLOS
      • On the high seas, UNCLOS provides for freedom of MSR (UNCLOS Article 87(1)(f)), but it must be done with due regard for the interests of other States in their exercise of the freedom of the high seas (Articles 87(2)).
      • The high seas are reserved for peaceful purposes (Article 88) and no state may subject a portion of high seas to its sovereignty (Article 89).
  • For an Arctic-specific application, the 2017 Agreement on Enhancing Arctic Scientific Cooperation is relevant. This is a legally binding agreement signed in 2017 by all Arctic States negotiated in the Arctic Council. It promotes international cooperation and favorable conditions for conducting scientific research, facilitates access to research areas, infrastructure, and facilities, and promotes education and training of scientists in Arctic issues. The agreement also encourages participants to utilize traditional and local knowledge as appropriate as well as encourages communication between traditional and local knowledge holders and participants. This may provide a framework for consultation with stakeholders including Indigenous peoples in intervention research, planning, and testing (Chuffart et al. 2023).
  • These approaches may be subject to regulation by the London Protocol as a type of solar radiation modification (C2G 2021 Evidence Brief CAT Arctic). Article 6 prohibits the placement of matter into the sea for marine geoengineering activities and to date has been used to regulate ocean iron fertilization.  The London Protocol only applies to the currently 55 parties to the Protocol, which includes Arctic coastal states except the United States and Russia.
  • The Arctic Council has been called upon as a venue for providing oversight on approaches to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice, or to establish working groups to provide guidance (Bodansky and Hunt 2020, Bennett et al. 2022). However, the current geopolitical landscape and lack of participation from Russia makes consensus difficult.
• Specific to Reflective Glass Foam Tiles:
  • It is not clear yet as to whether reflective glass foam tiles would be considered a harmful substance.

• Here we define justice related to approaches to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice through distributive justice, procedural justice, and restorative justice. Following COMEST (2023), we consider questions of ethics through a justice lens. Note that this is not an exhaustive list of justice dimensions and as the field advances, so will the related considerations and dimensions.
• Distributive justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
    • If distributive justice is considered, the objective would be that benefits and costs of research or potential deployment of the approach be distributed fairly while protecting the basic rights of the most vulnerable.
  • Specific to Reflective Glass Foam Tiles:
    • No additional information.
• Procedural justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
    • If procedural justice is considered, people affected by research would have an opportunity to participate and have a say in how the approach will be researched, deployed, and governed.
    • Bennett et al. (2022) suggests an inclusive governance approach that incorporates stakeholder concerns in the design and deployment of approaches and effectively communicates risk.  Within the development of such a framework there is an opportunity to prioritize Indigenous self-determination and procedural justice (Chuffart et al. 2023). Note, however, that stakeholders may also include non-local people.
  • Specific to Reflective Glass Foam Tiles:
    • No additional information.
• Restorative justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
    • It is unknown if there have been restorative justice actions for any Surface Albedo Modification approaches. If restorative justice is considered, plans would be developed for those who could be harmed by the approach to be compensated, rehabilitated, or restored.
  • Specific to Reflective Glass Foam Tiles:
    • No additional information.

• Low

• Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
  • The principle of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is the foundation for engagement with Indigenous Peoples.
  • Particular to any potential Arctic research or deployment, The Inuit Circumpolar Council (2022) has published Circumpolar Inuit Protocols for Equitable and Ethical Engagement, which include eight protocols:
    • ‘Nothing About Us Without Us’ – Always Engage with Inuit
    • Recognize Indigenous Knowledge in its Own Right
    • Practice Good Governance
    • Communication with Intent
    • Exercising Accountability – Building Trust
    • Building Meaningful Partnerships
    • Information, Data Sharing, Ownership, and Permissions
    • Equitably Fund Inuit Representation and Knowledge
  • Any meaningful engagement with Indigenous peoples needs to consider context. Whyte (2018) states, “Indigenous voices should be involved in scientific and policy discussions of different types of geoengineering. But, context matters. Geoengineering discourses cannot just be associated with geoengineering to the exclusion of topics and solutions that Indigenous peoples value.”
• Specific to Reflective Glass Foam Tiles:
  • No additional information.

• Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
  • Application of any approach in national waters (within territorial waters or a state’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ)) would be governed by those states. Small-scale field studies would likely be within national jurisdiction. However, even if applied with national jurisdiction there may be potential for transboundary effects due to dispersal of materials. Any application on the high seas would be within international jurisdiction. See “Existing governance” for other available information on relevant governance structures.
• Specific to Reflective Glass Foam Tiles:
  • No additional information.

• Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
  • The Arctic Ocean is governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which includes all Arctic coastal states except the United States. The United States, however, is bound to customary law “including customs codified or that have emerged from UNCLOS” (Argüello and Johansson 2022).
    • UNCLOS and marine scientific research (MSR):
      • MSR is governed by Part XIII of UNCLOS. In general, the right of states to conduct MSR is subject to the rights and duties of other states under UNCLOS (UNCLOS Article 238). There is a duty on parties to promote and facilitate MSR (UNCLOS Article 239).
      • MSR shall be conducted exclusively for peaceful purposes, it may not unjustifiably interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea, and it must be conducted in compliance with all relevant regulations adopted in conformity with the Convention, including those for the protection and preservation of the marine environment (UNCLOS Article 240).
      • States are responsible and liable for damage caused by pollution of the marine environment arising out of MSR undertaken by them or on their behalf (UNCLOS Article 263(3)).
        • Any approaches that involve adding material or energy to the ocean that would cause or be likely to cause damage to the marine environment would constitute “pollution of the marine environment” within the meaning of Article 1(1)(4) of UNCLOS, and States would have a duty to minimize the pollution pursuant to Article 194.
    • National Jurisdiction and MSR under UNCLOS
      • In a coastal state’s territorial sea (12 nautical miles from shore baseline), the coastal state has the exclusive right to regulate, authorize, and conduct MSR.
      • In a coastal state’s EEZ (200 nautical miles from shore baseline), coastal states also have the right to regulate, authorize, and conduct MSR, and MSR by other states requires the consent of the coastal state (UNCLOS Article 246(2)). States ordinarily give their consent, and they are required to adopt rules to ensure that consent is not delayed or denied unreasonably. UNCLOS further specifies grounds for refusing consent, including if the MSR involves introducing harmful substances into the marine environment (UNCLOS Article 246(5)(b)).
    • Areas outside National Jurisdiction and MSR under UNCLOS
      • On the high seas, UNCLOS provides for freedom of MSR (UNCLOS Article 87(1)(f)), but it must be done with due regard for the interests of other States in their exercise of the freedom of the high seas (Articles 87(2)).
      • The high seas are reserved for peaceful purposes (Article 88) and no state may subject a portion of high seas to its sovereignty (Article 89).
  • For an Arctic-specific application, the 2017 Agreement on Enhancing Arctic Scientific Cooperation is relevant. This is a legally binding agreement signed in 2017 by all Arctic States negotiated in the Arctic Council. It promotes international cooperation and favorable conditions for conducting scientific research, facilitates access to research areas, infrastructure, and facilities, and promotes education and training of scientists in Arctic issues. The agreement also encourages participants to utilize traditional and local knowledge as appropriate as well as encourages communication between traditional and local knowledge holders and participants. This may provide a framework for consultation with stakeholders including Indigenous peoples in intervention research, planning, and testing (Chuffart et al. 2023).
  • These approaches may be subject to regulation by the London Protocol as a type of solar radiation modification (C2G 2021 Evidence Brief CAT Arctic). Article 6 prohibits the placement of matter into the sea for marine geoengineering activities and to date has been used to regulate ocean iron fertilization.  The London Protocol only applies to the currently 55 parties to the Protocol, which includes Arctic coastal states except the United States and Russia.
  • The Arctic Council has been called upon as a venue for providing oversight on approaches to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice, or to establish working groups to provide guidance (Bodansky and Hunt 2020, Bennett et al. 2022). However, the current geopolitical landscape and lack of participation from Russia makes consensus difficult.
• Specific to Reflective Glass Foam Tiles:
  • It is not clear yet as to whether reflective glass foam tiles would be considered a harmful substance.

• Here we define justice related to approaches to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice through distributive justice, procedural justice, and restorative justice. Following COMEST (2023), we consider questions of ethics through a justice lens. Note that this is not an exhaustive list of justice dimensions and as the field advances, so will the related considerations and dimensions.
• Distributive justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
    • If distributive justice is considered, the objective would be that benefits and costs of research or potential deployment of the approach be distributed fairly while protecting the basic rights of the most vulnerable.
  • Specific to Reflective Glass Foam Tiles:
    • No additional information.
• Procedural justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
    • If procedural justice is considered, people affected by research would have an opportunity to participate and have a say in how the approach will be researched, deployed, and governed.
    • Bennett et al. (2022) suggests an inclusive governance approach that incorporates stakeholder concerns in the design and deployment of approaches and effectively communicates risk.  Within the development of such a framework there is an opportunity to prioritize Indigenous self-determination and procedural justice (Chuffart et al. 2023). Note, however, that stakeholders may also include non-local people.
  • Specific to Reflective Glass Foam Tiles:
    • No additional information.
• Restorative justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
    • It is unknown if there have been restorative justice actions for any Surface Albedo Modification approaches. If restorative justice is considered, plans would be developed for those who could be harmed by the approach to be compensated, rehabilitated, or restored.
  • Specific to Reflective Glass Foam Tiles:
    • No additional information.

• Low

• Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
  • The principle of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is the foundation for engagement with Indigenous Peoples.
  • Particular to any potential Arctic research or deployment, The Inuit Circumpolar Council (2022) has published Circumpolar Inuit Protocols for Equitable and Ethical Engagement, which include eight protocols:
    • ‘Nothing About Us Without Us’ – Always Engage with Inuit
    • Recognize Indigenous Knowledge in its Own Right
    • Practice Good Governance
    • Communication with Intent
    • Exercising Accountability – Building Trust
    • Building Meaningful Partnerships
    • Information, Data Sharing, Ownership, and Permissions
    • Equitably Fund Inuit Representation and Knowledge
  • Any meaningful engagement with Indigenous peoples needs to consider context. Whyte (2018) states, “Indigenous voices should be involved in scientific and policy discussions of different types of geoengineering. But, context matters. Geoengineering discourses cannot just be associated with geoengineering to the exclusion of topics and solutions that Indigenous peoples value.”
• Specific to Reflective Glass Foam Tiles:
  • No additional information.

• Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
  • Application of any approach in national waters (within territorial waters or a state’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ)) would be governed by those states. Small-scale field studies would likely be within national jurisdiction. However, even if applied with national jurisdiction there may be potential for transboundary effects due to dispersal of materials. Any application on the high seas would be within international jurisdiction. See “Existing governance” for other available information on relevant governance structures.
• Specific to Reflective Glass Foam Tiles:
  • No additional information.

• Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
  • The Arctic Ocean is governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which includes all Arctic coastal states except the United States. The United States, however, is bound to customary law “including customs codified or that have emerged from UNCLOS” (Argüello and Johansson 2022).
    • UNCLOS and marine scientific research (MSR):
      • MSR is governed by Part XIII of UNCLOS. In general, the right of states to conduct MSR is subject to the rights and duties of other states under UNCLOS (UNCLOS Article 238). There is a duty on parties to promote and facilitate MSR (UNCLOS Article 239).
      • MSR shall be conducted exclusively for peaceful purposes, it may not unjustifiably interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea, and it must be conducted in compliance with all relevant regulations adopted in conformity with the Convention, including those for the protection and preservation of the marine environment (UNCLOS Article 240).
      • States are responsible and liable for damage caused by pollution of the marine environment arising out of MSR undertaken by them or on their behalf (UNCLOS Article 263(3)).
        • Any approaches that involve adding material or energy to the ocean that would cause or be likely to cause damage to the marine environment would constitute “pollution of the marine environment” within the meaning of Article 1(1)(4) of UNCLOS, and States would have a duty to minimize the pollution pursuant to Article 194.
    • National Jurisdiction and MSR under UNCLOS
      • In a coastal state’s territorial sea (12 nautical miles from shore baseline), the coastal state has the exclusive right to regulate, authorize, and conduct MSR.
      • In a coastal state’s EEZ (200 nautical miles from shore baseline), coastal states also have the right to regulate, authorize, and conduct MSR, and MSR by other states requires the consent of the coastal state (UNCLOS Article 246(2)). States ordinarily give their consent, and they are required to adopt rules to ensure that consent is not delayed or denied unreasonably. UNCLOS further specifies grounds for refusing consent, including if the MSR involves introducing harmful substances into the marine environment (UNCLOS Article 246(5)(b)).
    • Areas outside National Jurisdiction and MSR under UNCLOS
      • On the high seas, UNCLOS provides for freedom of MSR (UNCLOS Article 87(1)(f)), but it must be done with due regard for the interests of other States in their exercise of the freedom of the high seas (Articles 87(2)).
      • The high seas are reserved for peaceful purposes (Article 88) and no state may subject a portion of high seas to its sovereignty (Article 89).
  • For an Arctic-specific application, the 2017 Agreement on Enhancing Arctic Scientific Cooperation is relevant. This is a legally binding agreement signed in 2017 by all Arctic States negotiated in the Arctic Council. It promotes international cooperation and favorable conditions for conducting scientific research, facilitates access to research areas, infrastructure, and facilities, and promotes education and training of scientists in Arctic issues. The agreement also encourages participants to utilize traditional and local knowledge as appropriate as well as encourages communication between traditional and local knowledge holders and participants. This may provide a framework for consultation with stakeholders including Indigenous peoples in intervention research, planning, and testing (Chuffart et al. 2023).
  • These approaches may be subject to regulation by the London Protocol as a type of solar radiation modification (C2G 2021 Evidence Brief CAT Arctic). Article 6 prohibits the placement of matter into the sea for marine geoengineering activities and to date has been used to regulate ocean iron fertilization.  The London Protocol only applies to the currently 55 parties to the Protocol, which includes Arctic coastal states except the United States and Russia.
  • The Arctic Council has been called upon as a venue for providing oversight on approaches to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice, or to establish working groups to provide guidance (Bodansky and Hunt 2020, Bennett et al. 2022). However, the current geopolitical landscape and lack of participation from Russia makes consensus difficult.
• Specific to Reflective Glass Foam Tiles:
  • It is not clear yet as to whether reflective glass foam tiles would be considered a harmful substance.

• Distributive justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
    • If distributive justice is considered, the objective would be that benefits and costs of research or potential deployment of the approach be distributed fairly while protecting the basic rights of the most vulnerable.
  • Specific to Reflective Glass Foam Tiles:
    • No additional information.
• Procedural justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
    • If procedural justice is considered, people affected by research would have an opportunity to participate and have a say in how the approach will be researched, deployed, and governed.
    • Bennett et al. (2022) suggests an inclusive governance approach that incorporates stakeholder concerns in the design and deployment of approaches and effectively communicates risk.  Within the development of such a framework there is an opportunity to prioritize Indigenous self-determination and procedural justice (Chuffart et al. 2023). Note, however, that stakeholders may also include non-local people.
  • Specific to Reflective Glass Foam Tiles:
    • No additional information.
• Restorative justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
    • It is unknown if there have been restorative justice actions for any Surface Albedo Modification approaches. If restorative justice is considered, plans would be developed for those who could be harmed by the approach to be compensated, rehabilitated, or restored.
  • Specific to Reflective Glass Foam Tiles:
    • No additional information.

• Low

• Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
  • The principle of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is the foundation for engagement with Indigenous Peoples.
  • Particular to any potential Arctic research or deployment, The Inuit Circumpolar Council (2022) has published Circumpolar Inuit Protocols for Equitable and Ethical Engagement, which include eight protocols:
    • ‘Nothing About Us Without Us’ – Always Engage with Inuit
    • Recognize Indigenous Knowledge in its Own Right
    • Practice Good Governance
    • Communication with Intent
    • Exercising Accountability – Building Trust
    • Building Meaningful Partnerships
    • Information, Data Sharing, Ownership, and Permissions
    • Equitably Fund Inuit Representation and Knowledge
  • Any meaningful engagement with Indigenous peoples needs to consider context. Whyte (2018) states, “Indigenous voices should be involved in scientific and policy discussions of different types of geoengineering. But, context matters. Geoengineering discourses cannot just be associated with geoengineering to the exclusion of topics and solutions that Indigenous peoples value.”
• Specific to Reflective Glass Foam Tiles:
  • No additional information.

• Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
  • Application of any approach in national waters (within territorial waters or a state’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ)) would be governed by those states. Small-scale field studies would likely be within national jurisdiction. However, even if applied with national jurisdiction there may be potential for transboundary effects due to dispersal of materials. Any application on the high seas would be within international jurisdiction. See “Existing governance” for other available information on relevant governance structures.
• Specific to Reflective Glass Foam Tiles:
  • No additional information.

• Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
  • The Arctic Ocean is governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which includes all Arctic coastal states except the United States. The United States, however, is bound to customary law “including customs codified or that have emerged from UNCLOS” (Argüello and Johansson 2022).
    • UNCLOS and marine scientific research (MSR):
      • MSR is governed by Part XIII of UNCLOS. In general, the right of states to conduct MSR is subject to the rights and duties of other states under UNCLOS (UNCLOS Article 238). There is a duty on parties to promote and facilitate MSR (UNCLOS Article 239).
      • MSR shall be conducted exclusively for peaceful purposes, it may not unjustifiably interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea, and it must be conducted in compliance with all relevant regulations adopted in conformity with the Convention, including those for the protection and preservation of the marine environment (UNCLOS Article 240).
      • States are responsible and liable for damage caused by pollution of the marine environment arising out of MSR undertaken by them or on their behalf (UNCLOS Article 263(3)).
        • Any approaches that involve adding material or energy to the ocean that would cause or be likely to cause damage to the marine environment would constitute “pollution of the marine environment” within the meaning of Article 1(1)(4) of UNCLOS, and States would have a duty to minimize the pollution pursuant to Article 194.
    • National Jurisdiction and MSR under UNCLOS
      • In a coastal state’s territorial sea (12 nautical miles from shore baseline), the coastal state has the exclusive right to regulate, authorize, and conduct MSR.
      • In a coastal state’s EEZ (200 nautical miles from shore baseline), coastal states also have the right to regulate, authorize, and conduct MSR, and MSR by other states requires the consent of the coastal state (UNCLOS Article 246(2)). States ordinarily give their consent, and they are required to adopt rules to ensure that consent is not delayed or denied unreasonably. UNCLOS further specifies grounds for refusing consent, including if the MSR involves introducing harmful substances into the marine environment (UNCLOS Article 246(5)(b)).
    • Areas outside National Jurisdiction and MSR under UNCLOS
      • On the high seas, UNCLOS provides for freedom of MSR (UNCLOS Article 87(1)(f)), but it must be done with due regard for the interests of other States in their exercise of the freedom of the high seas (Articles 87(2)).
      • The high seas are reserved for peaceful purposes (Article 88) and no state may subject a portion of high seas to its sovereignty (Article 89).
  • For an Arctic-specific application, the 2017 Agreement on Enhancing Arctic Scientific Cooperation is relevant. This is a legally binding agreement signed in 2017 by all Arctic States negotiated in the Arctic Council. It promotes international cooperation and favorable conditions for conducting scientific research, facilitates access to research areas, infrastructure, and facilities, and promotes education and training of scientists in Arctic issues. The agreement also encourages participants to utilize traditional and local knowledge as appropriate as well as encourages communication between traditional and local knowledge holders and participants. This may provide a framework for consultation with stakeholders including Indigenous peoples in intervention research, planning, and testing (Chuffart et al. 2023).
  • These approaches may be subject to regulation by the London Protocol as a type of solar radiation modification (C2G 2021 Evidence Brief CAT Arctic). Article 6 prohibits the placement of matter into the sea for marine geoengineering activities and to date has been used to regulate ocean iron fertilization.  The London Protocol only applies to the currently 55 parties to the Protocol, which includes Arctic coastal states except the United States and Russia.
  • The Arctic Council has been called upon as a venue for providing oversight on approaches to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice, or to establish working groups to provide guidance (Bodansky and Hunt 2020, Bennett et al. 2022). However, the current geopolitical landscape and lack of participation from Russia makes consensus difficult.
• Specific to Reflective Glass Foam Tiles:
  • It is not clear yet as to whether reflective glass foam tiles would be considered a harmful substance.

• Distributive justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
    • If distributive justice is considered, the objective would be that benefits and costs of research or potential deployment of the approach be distributed fairly while protecting the basic rights of the most vulnerable.
  • Specific to Reflective Glass Foam Tiles:
    • No additional information.
• Procedural justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
    • If procedural justice is considered, people affected by research would have an opportunity to participate and have a say in how the approach will be researched, deployed, and governed.
    • Bennett et al. (2022) suggests an inclusive governance approach that incorporates stakeholder concerns in the design and deployment of approaches and effectively communicates risk.  Within the development of such a framework there is an opportunity to prioritize Indigenous self-determination and procedural justice (Chuffart et al. 2023). Note, however, that stakeholders may also include non-local people.
  • Specific to Reflective Glass Foam Tiles:
    • No additional information.
• Restorative justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
    • It is unknown if there have been restorative justice actions for any Surface Albedo Modification approaches. If restorative justice is considered, plans would be developed for those who could be harmed by the approach to be compensated, rehabilitated, or restored.
  • Specific to Reflective Glass Foam Tiles:
    • No additional information.

• Low

• Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
  • The principle of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is the foundation for engagement with Indigenous Peoples.
  • Particular to any potential Arctic research or deployment, The Inuit Circumpolar Council (2022) has published Circumpolar Inuit Protocols for Equitable and Ethical Engagement, which include eight protocols:
    • ‘Nothing About Us Without Us’ – Always Engage with Inuit
    • Recognize Indigenous Knowledge in its Own Right
    • Practice Good Governance
    • Communication with Intent
    • Exercising Accountability - Building Trust
    • Building Meaningful Partnerships
    • Information, Data Sharing, Ownership and Permissions
    • Equitably Fund Inuit Representation and Knowledge
  • Any meaningful engagement with Indigenous peoples needs to consider context. Whyte (2018) states, “Indigenous voices should be involved in scientific and policy discussions of different types of geoengineering. But, context matters. Geoengineering discourses cannot just be associated with geoengineering to the exclusion of topics and solutions that Indigenous peoples value.”
• Specific to Reflective Glass Foam Tiles:
  • No additional information.

• Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
  • Application of any approach in national waters (within territorial waters or a state’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ)) would be governed by those states. Small-scale field studies would likely be within national jurisdiction. However, even if applied with national jurisdiction there may be potential for transboundary effects due to dispersal of materials. Any application on the high seas would be within international jurisdiction. See “Existing governance” for other available information on relevant governance structures.
• Specific to Reflective Glass Foam Tiles:
  • No additional information.

• Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
  • The Arctic Ocean is governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which includes all Arctic coastal states except the United States. The United States, however, is bound to customary law “including customs codified or that have emerged from UNCLOS” (Argüello and Johansson 2022).
    • UNCLOS and marine scientific research (MSR):
      • MSR is governed by Part XIII of UNCLOS. In general, the right of states to conduct MSR is subject to the rights and duties of other states under UNCLOS (UNCLOS Article 238). There is a duty on parties to promote and facilitate MSR (UNCLOS Article 239).
      • MSR shall be conducted exclusively for peaceful purposes, it may not unjustifiably interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea, and it must be conducted in compliance with all relevant regulations adopted in conformity with the Convention, including those for the protection and preservation of the marine environment (UNCLOS Article 240).
      • States are responsible and liable for damage caused by pollution of the marine environment arising out of MSR undertaken by them or on their behalf (UNCLOS Article 263(3)).
        • Any approaches that involve adding material or energy to the ocean that would cause or be likely to cause damage to the marine environment would constitute “pollution of the marine environment” within the meaning of Article 1(1)(4) of UNCLOS, and States would have a duty to minimize the pollution pursuant to Article 194.
    • National Jurisdiction and MSR under UNCLOS
      • In a coastal state’s territorial sea (12 nautical miles from shore baseline), the coastal state has the exclusive right to regulate, authorize, and conduct MSR.
      • In a coastal state’s EEZ (200 nautical miles from shore baseline), coastal states also have the right to regulate, authorize, and conduct MSR, and MSR by other states requires the consent of the coastal state (UNCLOS Article 246(2)). States ordinarily give their consent, and they are required to adopt rules to ensure that consent is not delayed or denied unreasonably. UNCLOS further specifies grounds for refusing consent, including if the MSR involves introducing harmful substances into the marine environment (UNCLOS Article 246(5)(b)).
    • Areas outside National Jurisdiction and MSR under UNCLOS
      • On the high seas, UNCLOS provides for freedom of MSR (UNCLOS Article 87(1)(f)), but it must be done with due regard for the interests of other States in their exercise of the freedom of the high seas (Articles 87(2)).
      • The high seas are reserved for peaceful purposes (Article 88) and no state may subject a portion of high seas to its sovereignty (Article 89).
  • For an Arctic-specific application, the 2017 Agreement on Enhancing Arctic Scientific Cooperation is relevant. This is a legally binding agreement signed in 2017 by all Arctic States negotiated in the Arctic Council. It promotes international cooperation and favorable conditions for conducting scientific research, facilitates access to research areas, infrastructure, and facilities, and promotes education and training of scientists in Arctic issues. The agreement also encourages participants to utilize traditional and local knowledge as appropriate as well as encourages communication between traditional and local knowledge holders and participants. This may provide a framework for consultation with stakeholders including Indigenous peoples in intervention research, planning, and testing (Chuffart et al. 2023).
  • These approaches may be subject to regulation by the London Protocol as a type of solar radiation modification (C2G 2021 Evidence Brief CAT Arctic). Article 6 prohibits the placement of matter into the sea for marine geoengineering activities and to date has been used to regulate ocean iron fertilization.  The London Protocol only applies to the currently 55 parties to the Protocol, which includes Arctic coastal states except the United States and Russia.
  • The Arctic Council has been called upon as a venue for providing oversight on approaches to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice, or to establish working groups to provide guidance (Bodansky and Hunt 2020, Bennett et al. 2022). However, the current geopolitical landscape and lack of participation from Russia makes consensus difficult.
• Specific to Reflective Glass Foam Tiles:
  • It is not clear yet as to whether reflective glass foam tiles would be considered a harmful substance.

• Distributive justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
    • If distributive justice is considered, the objective would be that benefits and costs of research or potential deployment of the approach be distributed fairly while protecting the basic rights of the most vulnerable.
  • Specific to Reflective Glass Foam Tiles:
    • No additional information.
• Procedural justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
    • If procedural justice is considered, people affected by research would have an opportunity to participate and have a say in how the approach will be researched, deployed, and governed.
    • Bennett et al. (2022) suggests an inclusive governance approach that incorporates stakeholder concerns in the design and deployment of approaches and effectively communicates risk.  Within the development of such a framework there is an opportunity to prioritize Indigenous self-determination and procedural justice (Chuffart et al. 2023). Note, however, that stakeholders may also include non-local people.
  • Specific to Reflective Glass Foam Tiles:
    • No additional information.
• Restorative justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
    • It is unknown if there have been restorative justice actions for any Surface Albedo Modification approaches. If restorative justice is considered, plans would be developed for those who could be harmed by the approach to be compensated, rehabilitated, or restored.
  • Specific to Reflective Glass Foam Tiles:
    • No additional information.

• Low

• Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
  • The principle of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is the foundation for engagement with Indigenous Peoples.
  • Particular to any potential Arctic research or deployment, The Inuit Circumpolar Council (2022) has published Circumpolar Inuit Protocols for Equitable and Ethical Engagement, which include eight protocols:
    • ‘Nothing About Us Without Us’ – Always Engage with Inuit
    • Recognize Indigenous Knowledge in its Own Right
    • Practice Good Governance
    • Communication with Intent
    • Exercising Accountability - Building Trust
    • Building Meaningful Partnerships
    • Information, Data Sharing, Ownership and Permissions
    • Equitably Fund Inuit Representation and Knowledge
  • Any meaningful engagement with Indigenous peoples needs to consider context. Whyte (2018) states, “Indigenous voices should be involved in scientific and policy discussions of different types of geoengineering. But, context matters. Geoengineering discourses cannot just be associated with geoengineering to the exclusion of topics and solutions that Indigenous peoples value.”
• Specific to Reflective Glass Foam Tiles:
  • No additional information.