TWN Info Service on Climate Change (Jan24/02)
26 January 2024
Third World Network

IPCC’s 7^th assessment cycle to deliver product on adaptation

Delhi, 26 January (Indrajit Bose)-The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), at its 60^th Session in Istanbul from 16-20 January, agreed to produce a significant product related to adaptation.

Members agreed that “a distinct product revising and updating the 1994 IPCC Technical Guidelines on impacts and adaptation, including adaptation indicators, metrics and methodologies will be scoped, developed, reviewed and should be considered for approval and acceptance in conjunction with the Working Group 2 Report (on ‘Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability’) and will be published as a separate product” in its 7^th Assessment Report (AR7) cycle.

The issue of adaptation guidelines and metrics had proved contentious and an issue that arose was in relation to responding to requests from the UNFCCC process to the IPCC only in relation to the global stocktake (GST) (a process of collective assessment under the Paris Agreement), but missing the invitation from the UNFCCC to update the 1994 impacts and adaptation guidelines and a request for collaborating with the IPCC under the Glasgow–Sharm el-Sheikh work programme on the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) agreed to in Dubai at COP 28/CMA 5. (The CMA is the Conference of Parties to the PA).

(Paragraph 21 of decision 3/CMA.4 invited the IPCC “to consider updating its 1994 technical guidelines for assessing climate change impacts and adaptation as part of its 7^th assessment cycle, as appropriate”.)

(Paragraph 38-d of the CMA 5 decision on the GGA speaks to “the opportunities for building on the best available science, including collaboration with the IPCC and organizations, to provide information relevant to facilitating implementation of the UAE Framework for Global Climate Resilience… developing indicators, metrics and methodologies…”. The UAE Framework is to guide the achievement of the GGA and the review of overall progress in achieving it.)

Many developing countries led by South Africa underscored the importance of this invitation and for the IPCC to update its 1994 technical guidelines and to respond to collaborating on adaptation metrics and indicators. India, Saudi Arabia, Kenya, Egypt, Algeria, Iran, Iraq, Bolivia and Brazil, among others supported this call. Netherlands, however, said that it would not be feasible to have guidelines for adaptation for this cycle and an experts meeting in preparation for the 8^th cycle might be an outcome.

Following further discussions on when the guidelines should be adopted and how they would be presented, members arrived at the decision on a distinct product in conjunction with WG2 report.

A developing country negotiator explained to TWN that getting agreement on such a product in the AR7 cycle is a big step forward, especially for developing countries. “There has been a continuing reluctance among developed countries to focus on adaptation in any concrete form. While it is paid lip service to, they did not want any concrete product focused on adaptation guidelines, metrics, and indicators. Having brought the world to 1.1°C warming due to their inaction on mitigation, it would not have been good to send a message to the world that the IPCC does not want a focused product on adaptation because it has other things on its mind,” the negotiator said.

Besides the adaptation issue, other contentious issues that emerged during the meeting included whether there should be additional special reports and methodology reports in the AR7 cycle; and workshop on IPCC inventory software, among others. (Also see related TWN update titled, “IPCC’s 7th assessment cycle must not compromise science, say developing countries.)

This update presents a snapshot of some of the contentious issues and the decisions agreed at the 60^th Session of the IPCC. 

Topic of additional reports

Members had agreed in the 6^th assessment cycle (AR6) that AR7 would develop a Special Report on ‘Climate change and Cities’ and a Methodology Report on ‘Short-lived climate forcers’ (SLCFs).

In its presentation to members, the Secretariat grouped the submissions received from members on the issue of special reports under four clusters: Reversible and irreversible climate change impacts and how to avoid and respond to tipping points; Exceeding a Warming Level and Returning; Climate Change and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs); and Adaptation. (Prior to the session, member countries had made submissions on the issue of additional reports, a collation of which can be found here and a synthesis of the views on the products for the seventh assessment cycle can be found here.)

Several members expressed their views, which ranged from some suggesting topics for an additional special report and a methodology report while some suggested no additional reports for the 7^th assessment cycle. Several member countries suggested that the topics proposed could be accommodated within the chapters of the WG reports and therefore there was no need for an additional special report. The issue of additional reports was also closely linked to the timeline of the WG assessment reports.

Following further discussions, with an explicit round of discussion on the topic of a special report, there was no meeting ground that could be found, and it was agreed that there would be no additional special report. However, the members agreed to hold an expert meeting on Carbon Dioxide Removal Technologies (CDR), Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage (CCUS)and provide a methodology report on these by the end of 2027.

During the discussions, India said it was not in favour of additional reports for the AR7 cycle, though it was open to hearing the views of other Panel members. and that the focus should be on the 3 WG reports, a SYR, besides the agreed special report on ‘Climate change and Cities’ and methodology report on SLCFs. It suggested that the topics proposed by member countries could be accommodated within the scope of the assessment reports, either in a chapter or within a section in a chapter or via cross-cluster boxes. On topics proposed for a special report linking it to the GST, India said there needs to be new scientific findings and the potential risk for such a targeted report towards GST being policy prescriptive. On calls for a special report on adaptation, India responded that the call from the UNFCCC for indicators and metrics must find a response from the IPCC, with the caution that the focus of a special report on adaptation must not become an exercise of determining mitigation co-benefits out of adaptation, adding that workshops and expert meetings were not enough, as the GGA work programme under the UNFCCC had already conducted several such workshops.

Saudi Arabia supported India on the option of no additional special report. It expressed its concern on suggestions on maladaptation and said it did not agree with such proposals. It also said that the IPCC should not prepare material dedicated for GST, given that the GST is a separate process with its own inherent complexities. Most of the topics could be covered in the assessment reports, it added. China echoed India, Saudi Arabia and South Africa and suggested sticking to the agreed special report.

Iran expressed its preference for the special report to be focused on adaptation, especially on water, however, it said given the diversity of the topics, arriving at consensus would be difficult and suggested including the topics in the relevant WG assessment reports. Venezuela said it supported the idea of a special report on loss and damage as well as the topic of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Pakistan recommended producing a CDR report and a special report on loss and damage.

Grenada suggested having a special report targeted to the GST 2. Such a special report could cover current warming and impacts to date, state of adaptation, mitigation, means of implementation and support, finance needs and loss and damage, it added. Grenada’s suggestion was supported by other island nations including Belize and Bahamas. Bahamas proposed adaptation and loss and damage as the topic of the special report.

Chile said it was necessary to begin working on common metrics to measure progress on adaptation and such a technical approach would not warrant a special report. Chile asked for a workshop headed by WG 2 instead and for the workshop to produce a report in time for the GST. Argentina expressed its preference for tipping points and supported Chile’s views on a report on adaptation metrics. Brazil called for a special report on tipping points and said that having just one special report would not add necessary inputs to the second GST.

The US expressed its preference for a light cycle, which did not include any additional special report. It said there needs to be strong scientific merit in pursuing a special report and it did not see the topics suggested to become standalone special reports. It called for placing the suggested topics under the WG reports and suggested these are considered during the scoping of the WG reports. Responding to suggestions on exceeding a warming level and returning, the US said they should not be giving a message that the world has given up the 1.5°C target or pathways. It further stressed that the role of IPCC is to inform the UNFCCC process and contribute to the GST but that it would not support “rigour compromised for an earlier date”. It said it sees the merits on the CO2 removals methodology report proposal, but suggested an expert meeting and “moving to a potential methodology report”, but that is a decision to be taken later.

Italy, France, Spain supported the US in the approach on an expert meeting on CO2 removals. Bolivia suggested that any discussion on CO2 removal or CCS in any format should be carried out taking into account protection of integrity of mother Earth.

According to Switzerland, the topic of tipping points was crucial since they needed to focus on “understanding of consequences after a threshold is crossed”. It suggested ways of exploring a special report connected to all the 3 WGs. Ukraine proposed a special report on risks for climate resilient development but given the disagreement on the topic, suggested that members decide on an additional special report in principle and postpone the discussion on topic of the special report to a later stage. France suggested a topic along the lines of risk management in the context of extreme events exacerbated by climate change, and supported Chile’s proposal of having a workshop on adaptation metrics.

Luxembourg supported the topic of exceeding certain warming and including tipping points, irreversibility, impacts and likelihood of high-risk events. It also said that systems transition in the light of the PA could also be an interesting topic and called for a methodology report on CDR. Belgium said it would not support a special report on tipping points and suggested climate change and SDGs as the topic of the additional special report. It also said that the special report must be solutions oriented and focus on climate action, including issues related to equity, adaptation, including adaptation metrics, enabling conditions, means of implementation as well as social obstacles, but without duplicating the full assessment report. It also added that there were communications risk associated with overshoot and the international community must do everything to avoid any overshoot. It voiced its support to a methodology report on negative emission methodologies.

The UK said an additional special report should be a focused report on solutions, integrating mitigation and adaptation and be along the lines of systems transition. It said tipping points is an important topic but it would not be supportive of overly singling it out. It also said it would like to see an additional methodology report on guidelines for greenhouse gas removals. Ireland expressed its support for a methodology report on CO2 removals and said an expert meeting would help. Italy, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands supported the idea of a product or a methodology report on CO2 removals. Norway supported an expert meeting on adaptation metrics, alongside good coverage in the WG 2 assessment report.

Japan supported the option on reversible impacts, tipping points as well as exceeding and returning. It did not support the topic of SDGs and added that adaptation could be considered under the WG 2 assessment report. It also said it supports the idea of a methodology report on CO2 removal and CCS, but that they can consider this issue after the completion of the methodology report on SLCF. Sweden suggested an update of the 1.5°C Special Report as a topic with a focus on enabling the necessary transitions.

Denmark supported the idea of exceeding and returning from different temperature scenarios and suggested “Mitigation and adaptation aspects of exceeding 1.5°C and returning” as a working title of the second special report.  Netherlands suggested collaboration among the WG and for the special report to be used for GST. It supported ideas around overshoot, tipping points and related risks for adaptation. Germany supported an expert workshop on carbon removals and the need to focus on issues that are of relevance to the GST. Russia suggested a second special report exploring climate change and biodiversity issues.

Egypt supported India and said that many of the special reports could be included in the report of the WGs and could be put through scoping and delivered. It wondered what kind of information would be included in the special report targeted to the GST, which ran the risk of not providing complete information. On suggestions to convene a workshop on adaptation metrics, it questioned the weight of a workshop report for the UNFCCC process.

South Africa said if there are proposals for a second special report, it should focus on adaptation. It supported the Kenyan proposal of a special report on adaptation metrics and indicators as well as including assessment of adaptation at a regional level, including adaptation needs. It also suggested loss and damage as a potential topic, with a regional focus, quantifying economic and non-economic losses.

Following the discussions, the decision adopted “confirmed that a Special Report on Climate Change and Cities will be provided in early 2027 and that the Task Force on National Greenhouse as Inventories (TFI) will provide a Methodology Report on Short-lived Climate Forcers by 2027.”

The decision adopted also “thanked the IPCC Bureau and Secretariat for providing a synthesis of Member countries views on products for the Seventh Assessment Cycle in document … (here) and noted that topics identified for proposed IPCC Special Reports ….(here) are important and should be where possible addressed in the (AR7) suite of products.”

The decision also agreed that the TFI would “hold an Expert Meeting on Carbon Dioxide Removal Technologies, Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage and provide a Methodology Report on these by the end of 2027” and that this would “be developed with the Methodology Report on Short Lived Climate Forcers.” The decision requested the IPCC Bureau to consider options for Expert Meetings and Workshops and recognized the importance and value of these”.

Integrating Indigenous Peoples knowledge

Several members called for the integration of indigenous peoples’ knowledge to be reflected in the IPCC products. Bolivia led this call, and was supported by Guatemala, Brazil, New Zealand and Canada, among others.

Bolivia stressed that the 7^th cycle should include the full consideration of other non-anthropocentric epistemologies to address the issues of climate change mitigation and adaptation, including epistemologies of indigenous peoples based on worldviews, values and approaches that are ecocentric, biocentric and cosmocentric. The IPCC needs to take into account that there are diverse values (principles) of nature and different relationships between human beings and nature, including those based on non-anthropocentric approaches, it added.  The IPCC should avoid the intensive use of scenarios, taking into account that there are also different means of science beyond the use of scenarios, it said further. Furthermore, the IPCC must include a broad participation of indigenous peoples in the reflections and the production of results, added Bolivia. “We oppose an IPCC that marginalises, invisibilises and discriminates against indigenous and native peoples, as well as alternative non-capitalist approaches that are non-market based (approaches) to promote a just transition and climate justice,” it said. It also proposed the convening an expert meeting and establish a task force in 2024 to consider the issue of integrating indigenous peoples epistemologies and local knowledge systems in IPCC reports and other outcomes.

Following discussions, the decision adopted on “Options for the Programme of Work in the 7^th  assessment cycle” states that “the IPCC 7^th Assessment Cycle will be robust, comprehensive, accurate, inclusive and use diverse literature and knowledge sources including drawing on Indigenous Peoples’ Knowledge and Local Communities’ Knowledge.”

IPCC workshop on the IPCC Inventory Software

Another contentious issue emerged on whether the IPCC should accept an invitation by the UNFCCC to convene a workshop on IPCC inventory software.

While most countries supported the idea of a training workshop given its link to the first biennial transparency report due end of this year, Germany underscored that the UNFCCC and IPCC processes were separate and highlighted that the IPCC does not provide capacity building nor training and it should be made “crystal clear” that the IPCC does not organize workshops and that it is a one-off event which did not set any precedence. It also said the IPCC would go “bankrupt” if it accepts invitations from the UNFCCC to host workshops.

Following a huddle, the IPCC approved the organization of an IPCC Workshop on the IPCC Inventory Software, with several disclaimers that it’s not the practice of IPCC to organise technical workshops (further details below). (In 2021, under decision 5/CMA.3 the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the PA [CMA] invited the IPCC to organize a technical training workshop in the second half of 2024 on its inventory software and the linkages of the software with the reporting tool for the electronic reporting of common reporting tables.)

Within the scope of the IPCC Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (TFI) is the production of a software that allows user to estimate and report anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and removals according to IPCC good practice, as well as to encourage its use. By June 2024 the IPCC TFI expects to have completed the functionality for the interoperability of the IPCC Inventory Software with the UNFCCC reporting tool for the national greenhouse gas inventory (NGHGI) common reporting tables (CRT), which means that the users could transfer data from the IPCC Inventory Software to compile the UNFCCC CRT.

The US supported that effort and said it would be a very valuable exercise to help uses understand the IPCC software. The US further suggested the TFI takes into account the budget process (for the workshop) and discuss with UNFCCC regarding costs. On the timing of the workshop the US suggested earlier in 2024 or as early as in the second half of 2024.

South Africa reiterated the importance of the workshop and added that the IPCC software is intrinsically linked to the biennial transparency reports, which is due by the end of the year under the UNFCCC’s enhanced transparency framework regime. It suggested the workshop be convened in July.  Saudi Arabia, India, Iran supported South Africa and emphasized the need for such training for developing countries. Saudi Arabia stressed the urgent need for enhancing the understanding of developing countries of IPCC’s software tool and its interoperability with the CRT tool.

Norway suggested an in-person 3-day workshop, with the potential for hybrid settings in place, and underscored the importance of facilitating countries to be familiarized with the IPCC tool. Norway suggested however that it would not be intuitive if IPCC bore all the costs.

In response to the comments, the UNFCCC secretariat representative said that the UNFCCC would be interested in co-organising the workshop in Bonn, along with fundraising for it.  Germany expressed concerns regarding the format of the workshop and suggested Parties huddle to arrive at a resolution.

Following the huddle, it was decided that “Considering the invitation from the CMA (Decision 5/CMA.3, paragraph 21) with a view to the mandate and objectives of the TFI, noting that it is past practice that the UNFCCC organizes workshops related to inventory software with contributions from the TFI; also noting the IPCC does not organize training workshops, approves the organization of an IPCC Workshop on the IPCC Inventory Software; recognizing the specific focus on the demonstration of the IPCC software and its interoperability function to the UNFCCC reporting tool; and highlighting that this will not set a precedent regarding any future invitations from the UNFCCC;

The decision adopted invites the UNFCCC secretariat to support the organization of the IPCC workshop, in particular to: “participate to the Workshop to demonstrate interoperability with the UNFCCC ETF reporting tool; identify the national entity responsible for the national GHG inventory to be invited; support logistics of holding the Workshop”.

The decision also requests the IPCC Secretariat “in a reasonable time prior to the Workshop to issue a call for nomination of one relevant expert to national IPCC focal points conveying the information received from the UNFCCC secretariat”.

Drawing a parallel between the discussions under the inventory workshop and the link to GST, India drew out the contradiction in the approach where on the one hand, the decision on training workshop spoke about the caveat of not setting any precedent regarding further invitations from the UNFCCC, while on the other hand, the same countries were trying to adjust the entire IPCC cycle to inform the GST process.

Lessons learned from AR 6

During the discussions on lessons learned from the sixth assessment cycle, members voiced their views and agreed on a process to review the lessons learned. They all agreed to create a task group to examine the issues under lessons learned.  (The lessons learned document presents a set of around 100 observations and recommendations from member countries, bureau members and technical support units on scientific processes, organizational elements, and communication. These observations and recommendations encompass a wide range of topics and potential actions for various entities within the IPCC, the IPCC focal points, bureau and secretariat.)

India supported the suggestion of a task group to consider the lessons learned with a focused mandate to provide a compendium of best practices for the future. It clarified that there is no need to engage in any modification of the principles and rules of procedure for this. Reflecting on some of the lessons learned presented in the document, India said issues raised on equity were included under the broad heading of regional representation, in one sentence which suggested that “involving scientists from the global South may help in foregrounding questions of equity and CBDR”.

India further elaborated, “We note that this is not simply a question of representation of developing country authors. The question is of balanced representation of literature, that is not based on a merely majoritarian view of what is relevant, but that represents varied viewpoints.” India also said that references to the most vulnerable and marginalised sections of the world, though necessary, “do not exhaust the meaning of the term equity”.

It further highlighted that across all three AR6 WG Reports, “one of our most prominent concerns was the insufficient attention paid to the foundational principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC) and taking into account national circumstances which is the cornerstone of cooperation in global climate action. This is not policy prescription, but the pathway to good science from a social and economic perspective.” If the global literature on this subject is sparse and limited, then that should be signaled clearly, it said adding that good scientific practice includes the signaling of gaps. Its absence gives the wrong impression that equity does not matter in solutions to global warming, said India further.

It also pointed out that a major issue that gets only cursory attention in the documents is that of ignoring the work of developing country governments. The focus is instead on academic research from developed countries that studies developing countries, produced in academic centers far removed from their subjects. This disconnects the work of the IPCC from the ground realities of the world we live in, it said.

It also pointed out that while the lessons learned document took note of their concerns on scenarios, it discussed this only in the context of transparency. “The privileging of a short set of Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP) scenarios, and fitting all studies of climate impact, adaptation and risk assessment, mitigation and other aspects to the framework of these SSPs in the Reports, we consider a serious problem,” it said. India also added that such an approach excludes other models and approaches and leads to an unbalanced assessment of the global literature and knowledge generation on these issues. (See TWN briefing paper on the Equity assessment of global mitigation pathways in the IPCC AR 6 here.)

On scientific work, it said that, often in the AR6 cycle, scientific evidence linked to a particular narrative gained prominence instead of an evidence based and non-narrative-based approach. This resulted in a noticeable divide in the deliberations, it added. The IPCC, it said, “needs to maintain the credibility of its outputs by examining such narratives on the touchstone of credible scientific analysis and evidence. It is important that the IPCC assessments reflect the full range of scientific findings - and avoid cherry picking both in the literature being assessed, and in the Summary for Policymakers”.

India also raised concerns regarding “communications and outreach material and events prepared by the IPCC” and suggested that the IPCC outreach needs to be aligned with the content of the SPMs and the headline statements and key concepts therein. “For instance, the outreach of the WG I contribution to AR6, including the press conference for the release of the Report, did not mention the word carbon budget even once, despite its occurrence on several occasions throughout the SPM. Similarly, while there are more than 20 references to equity and climate justice in the SPM of WG II Report, the outreach does not mention it even once. Another example is the wide and publicity given to the scenario results of the WGIII, while the caveats and assumptions behind such scenario results are not acknowledged in the outreach at all,” said India.

 

Saudi Arabia also supported the launch of a task group and for the lessons learned to be looked at objectively and comprehensively. It said that the lessons learned document was not comprehensive and may require revision. It also said that it did not agree with the proposed collaboration with sister organisations and for the repercussions of such proposals to be looked into. It also said that it did not agree with the proposal to revise the principles and procedures of the IPCC.

Bolivia said it would be important to launch a process to collect additional opinions and views and the priority is to “decolonize the IPCC” and how the IPCC responds to equity, climate justice, CBDR to respond to the climate crisis. It suggested there should be more communication between IPCC and other bodies and gave the example of collaborating with the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). It said there is a need to have bilateral exchange so that the IPCC process is more streamlined.

Egypt supported the creation of a task group and said that the principles of inclusiveness, consensus and ownership by governments must continue. It highlighted the importance of the SPM negotiations by governments as well as regional representation. Venezuela supported the creation of a task group and supported India’s intervention. It stressed the need to assess coordination between IPCC and other sister organisations. Brazil said there should be a further call for submissions from members on the lessons learned. It also proposed a longer IPCC plenary meeting with a focus on the conclusions of the task group and its implementation.

Switzerland said that agility and sound management of the process are important and there is need to respond to emerging requests. It also underscored the importance of interdisciplinarity. France suggested that authors and teams need to be given lower workload. Supporting the idea of creation of a task group, Belgium suggested that the task group must make actionable recommendations and emphasized the importance of inclusivity.

The US said that there is a need for governments to consider many of the issues reflected in the lessons learned document. Some of the issues could potentially get broad support, while for the other issues such as change of policies and procedures, there will be a need for further discussions, it said. The US supported the idea of an ad hoc group comprising governments to discuss the matter. “The idea would not be to act on them but provide space for governments to discuss in future panel meetings and arrive at a way forward,” it said.

Following further interventions, members decided “to set up an Ad-Hoc Group with the mandate to advise governments on the way forward in considering the Lessons Learned from the Sixth Assessment Cycle…” It was also decided that the Ad-Hoc Group will work intersessionally and will start its work as soon as feasible with the view to report back for consideration at its 61st Session. Members also decided that the Ad Hoc Group will be co-chaired by USA and South Africa and the Ad Hoc Group will be open to all members who may wish to join the Group. Bureau members, Technical Support Unit and Secretariat will serve as advisors.

Another issue that drew a lot of discussion was whether some of the future meetings in the AR7 cycle could be convened virtually to lower the carbon footprint of IPCC meetings. Developing countries were near unanimous in their call for physical meetings to the extent possible due to issues related to connectivity, time zone and working double shifts in their countries alongside attending IPCC meetings. Sources said many of the members of the IPCC Bureau also supported the view of developing countries.