TWN Info Service on Climate Change (Apr22/06)
7 April 2022
Third World Network

IPCC: Controversy over country classification in assessment report

Delhi, 7 April (Indrajit Bose) — One key issue that proved contentious during the approval of the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Working Group 3 (WG 3) on ‘Climate Change Mitigation’, was over the classification of countries into developed and developing countries.

This divergence reflected in various parts of the SPM, with the United States (US) and Germany objecting to the use of the term developed countries and developing countries, citing political bearings with the same classification under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), (and which is also the case under the Paris Agreement).

The negotiations over the SPM took place from 21 March-3 April, in a virtual mode.

Developing countries advocated for the references to remain, but due to persistent opposition from developed countries, the term ‘developed countries’ was dropped from sub-section B.3 of the SPM on different regions’ contribution to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

A sentence in sub-section B.3 of the SPM version considered for approval read as follows:

“B.3.1 Developed countries¹³ with 16% of the global population emitted 24% of global GHG emissions in 2019, while least developed countries with 14% of the global population emitted 3%.^14,15 Developed countries have contributed 45% to cumulative CO2 emissions since 1850. Since 2010, they have reduced GHG emissions by 1.1Gt CO2-eq, while 83% of net growth in GHGs occurred in Asia and the Pacific.

 

FOOTNOTE 13: See Annex II, Part I, section 1 for regional classifications adopted in this report.”

FOOTNOTE 14: Estimated emissions for Least Developed Countries exclude CO2-LULUCF (land use, land use change and forestry) due to limited availability of consistent national-level data for these countries.

FOOTNOTE 15: Small Island Developing States (SIDS) are estimated to have emitted 0.50% of global GHG emissions in 2019, including CO2-LULUCF, and their contribution is not depicted separately in Figure SPM.2. SIDS have lower per capita emissions than the global average.”

Responding to statements in the sub-section referring to developed countries, the US said that an arbitrary approach had been followed with respect to categorisation of countries and suggested authors classify countries based on their income levels.

The authors clarified that the basis for the classification is the UN Statistics Division Standard Country or Area Codes for Statistical Use, also known as the M49 Standard, which covers geographical regions, and also identifies developed regions, developing regions and least developed countries. The authors also said the classification is consistent with the 6-region classification, which comprise the following:

·         Developed countries (North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific developed);

·         Eastern Europe and West Central Asia

·         Latin America and Caribbean

·         Africa

·         Middle East

·         Asia and developing Pacific (Eastern Asia, Southern Asia, and South-East Asia and developing Pacific).

Despite the authors’ explanation, the US sought further response from the authors on the broader basis of classification. The US said further that developed and developing country categorisation was not parallel to the UNFCCC and suggested that listing regions would be “intuitive, succinct and clear”. Germany suggested to reflect the countries grouped under developed and developing countries. Luxembourg suggested highlighting in a footnote that these categorisations were different from the UNFCCC categorisation.

(The UNFCCC categorizes countries as Annex I [referring to industrialised economies] and Annex II [ as developed country Parties and other developed Parties] who have to provide financial resources to developing countries], and non-Annex I, referring to developing economies. The Paris Agreement refers to developed and developing countries.)

In response, the authors clarified that Annex II of the WG 3 report makes clear which countries fall under the developed and developing countries classification.

The US said it was not prepared to sign on the sentence, given the “political angle” attached to the terms.

India responded that they should stick to the underlying technical assessment which uses the term developed and developing countries extensively.

Following further deliberations in a contact group, the authors suggested a footnote to clarify the use of the term developed countries, which read:

“FOOTNOTE 13: The term ‘developed country’, if used in a statistical context in this Summary, refers to countries in three of the geographical regions specified in this Working Group III report, Annex II, part I: North America; Europe; and Australia, Japan, and New Zealand. This term does not correspond to Annex I or Annex II of the UNFCCC. The usage of the term does not express an opinion or judgement about the stage of any countries’ development.”

Saudi Arabia, supported by Brazil, suggested deleting the footnote and to retain the term developed countries in the statement.

Netherlands agreed with the proposal of deleting the footnote, but called for naming the regions in the sentence rather than using the term developed countries.

United Kingdom, France, Germany, Ukraine, Canada and the US supported Netherlands’ proposal and the US added that such categories had become outdated as many in developing countries had undergone rapid development and it would not be accurate to reflect such countries as developing.

Following continued resistance by developed countries to not use the term, the authors conceded to naming the regions in the statement, which read:

“B.3.1: North America, Europe; and Australia, Japan and New Zealand, with 15% of the global population emitted 23% of global net anthropogenic GHG emissions in 2019, while Africa and Southern Asia, with a combined 41% of the global population emitted 17%.”

The sentence above was agreed to in the contact group, but when it came for approval in plenary, the US objected to its approval. The US referred to the paragraph as “a bit unusual in terms of close to kinds of things in negotiations” and said it got into different regional and country aspects, which was not the case for the 4^th and 5^th Assessment Reports (AR) of the IPCC.

Saudi Arabia responded that the developed-developing country classification had been used across IPCC working groups and that AR5 too referred to developed and developing countries and not regional differences.

Bolivia responded that they would like the original formulation of developed countries to be brought back since there was overwhelming support for the term in Chapter 2 of the underlying technical assessment. It further said that the IPCC should not be creating new regional classifications. Argentina, South Africa, Brazil, China, Saudi Arabia, India, and Egypt, Ecuador agreed with Bolivia on retaining the developed-developing country classification.

The US said the underlying datasets were based at the country level, so information could be aggregated on any number of regions and that there aren’t two country categories in the world since many countries had undergone “dynamic development”. “There is no list of countries called developed or developing. There are major emitters and some are not major emitters,” it said further, and called for full coverage of regional information, and stressed the need for policymakers to understand especially regional trends of “emerging economies”.

Chile supported the text without the developed-developing country classification.

India pointed to the discussions in the contact group and reiterated that the desire to be “named” was expressed, which was the reason for the formulation in the first place. India also said that modellers have categorised developed countries and developing countries in different regions adding that developed and developing countries have universal recognition among policymakers.  It suggested returning to the original language of using developed and developing countries, with due qualification as required scientifically.

Discussions followed in a huddle where observers were not allowed to participate. According to sources, the same divergences continued in the huddle, with the US pushing for a regional reflection of numbers on their share of emissions rather than reflecting just one set of region. There seemed to be consensus in the huddle to keep the formulation general and avoid mention of categorization.

The text that eventually got adopted in sub-section B.3 has no references to developed countries. Instead, there are general statements made about share of emissions.

(The issue of classification between developed and developing countries also showed up in finance discussions. Separate article to follow.)