Currently, there is no dedicated, formal international SRM governance for research, development, demonstration or deployment . Some multilateral agreements-such as the UN Convention on Biological Diversity or the Vienna Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer-indirectly and partially cover SRM, but none is comprehensive, and the lack of robust and formal SRM governance poses risks . While governance objectives range broadly, from prohibition to enabling research and potentially deployment , there is agreement that SRM governance should cover all interacting stages of research through to any potential, eventual deployment with rules, institutions and norms . Accordingly, governance arrangements are co-evolving with respective SRM technologies across the interacting stages of research, development, demonstration and-potentially-deployment . Stakeholders are developing governance already in outdoors research, for example for MCB and OAC experiments on the Great Barrier Reef . Co-evolution of governance and SRM research provides a chance for responsibly developing SRM technologies with broader public participation and political legitimacy, guarding against potential risks and harms relevant across a full range of scenarios, and ensuring that SRM is considered only as a part of a broader portfolio of responses to climate change . For SAI, large-scale outdoor experiments even with low radiative forcing could be transboundary, and those with deployment-scale radiative forcing may not be distinguished from deployment, such that MacMartin and Kravitz  argue for continued reliance on modelling until a decision on whether and how to deploy is made, with modelling helping governance development. For further discussion of SRM governance, see Chapter 14, WGIII.
IPCC
Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability
IPCC Report