|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on Climate Change (Jan24/01) Delhi, 26 Jan (Indrajit Bose) — The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) at its 60th session in Istanbul from 16-20 January agreed on its work programme for the 7th assessment report (AR7) cycle after intense negotiations among member governments, called Panel members. Members agreed on the work programme morning of 20th January, after highly contested negotiations that lasted nearly 27 hours at a stretch, and a day after the scheduled closing of the meeting. Several contentious issues emerged during the meeting. These included the timeline of AR7, including its 3 Working Group (WG) assessment reports; whether a Synthesis Report (SYR) should be produced; the sequence of the reports; alignment of the IPCC Assessment Report cycle with the Global Stocktake (GST) process under the Paris Agreement (PA); whether to update the 1994 adaptation guidelines; whether there should be additional special reports and methodology reports in the AR7 cycle; and workshop on IPCC inventory software, among others. (Further article on contentious issues will follow.) (The IPCC is a UN body for assessing the science related to climate change. It produces 3 WG assessment reports. WG 1 is on ‘The physical science basis’; WG 2 is on ‘Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability’ and WG 3 is on ‘Mitigation of climate change’. A SYR is usually also produced synthesizing information from the 3 WG reports and other special reports producing during an assessment cycle.) Among the key divergences was the demand by developed countries and several island nations to advance the AR7 cycle to end in 2028, so that all the reports are produced in time for the 2nd GST (which will be held over 2027-2028 and will culminate in late 2028). (The GST is a process under the PA to assess the collective progress of Parties in achieving its goals and is held every five years, with the first one concluding last year at COP28 in Dubai, UAE). But doing that would come at a cost, which developing countries such as India, China, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, Kenya and others were not willing to pay. The cost, as explained by the WG Co-Chairs, would be in the form of not having enough time for the development of literature, shortened review period of reports by governments, less time for author selection, and no chance of additional expert meetings or workshops if the WG reports had to be delivered by 2028. Developing countries said they must not sign on to anything that would impact the robustness, comprehensiveness and credibility of the IPCC reports and affect their capacities in terms of reviewing reports and not having enough literature by developing country authors. Following further negotiations, members decided that a “Synthesis Report for the 7th Assessment Cycle will be produced by late 2029, after the completion of WG reports” and requested the IPCC Bureau to prepare a document outlining the month and year of delivery (for the WG reports), and to present it to the members at its next meeting for consideration and decision. Hence, the dates for the delivery of the WG reports remain to be settled, while that of the SYR has been decided, i.e. by late 2029. This update presents a snapshot of the discussions under the Planning for the AR7 cycle. Planning for the AR7 Cycle Members had agreed in the 6th 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). There were varied views on the timeline of the AR7 cycle of when it would end, sequencing of the WG assessment reports and alignment with the GST process. Some countries wanted the AR7 cycle to deliver all its products in 2028, some insisting on even the first half of or early 2028, in time for the second GST (GST 2), while others did not want to compromise on the science and said IPCC should deliver whatever products are ready by 2028. Differences also arose over whether there should be a SYR. The only convergence among members was around delivering the three WG reports in the AR7 cycle; however, their timelines could not be agreed upon. To set the stage for the discussions, an Informal group on programme of work (IGOPW) comprising the Chair of the IPCC and Co-Chairs of the WGs had prepared a report prior to IPCC -60, that proposed three options for the consideration of members. These included:
During the discussions, it emerged that Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, France, Germany, Canada, Russia, Netherlands, Denmark, Italy, Turkey, Ireland, Belgium, Japan, Norway, Venezuela, Morocco, Pakistan, Brazil, Singapore and Argentina expressed their preference for the classical option. (See highlights of exchange below). The United States (US), Jamaica, Grenada and other island nations supported the light cycle option. They said the IPCC must respond to the invitation by the UNFCCC to provide information for the GST. Some countries such as India, China, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bolivia, Algeria did not want to be bound by the options presented and expressed their preference of following the usual order of WG 1, 2 and 3 reports, followed by the SYR, in addition to the special report on Cities and report on the SLCF. Others, such as Luxembourg, UK, Austria preferred a combination of the approaches presented. There was limited support for the special report gallery option. When the discussions began, Germany expressed concerns on the light cycle option and said they are willing to discuss it only if the WG Co-Chairs assured them that this was feasible. France said that the “light” cycle could be attractive but that it could not be done and reducing the time for discussions would lower the quality nor allow for new products and it would be more difficult to promote inclusiveness in the light cycle. However, as discussions progressed, the developed countries that were calling for a classical cycle and wanted an additional special report turned their focus on aligning with the GST timeframe and getting the WG assessment reports delivered in the “first half of 2028”. (The “light option” had proposed that the WG reports would be delivered in the second half of 2028.) Developing countries such as India, Saudi Arabia, China, Egypt, Algeria, Bolivia, South Africa, Brazil, and Argentina were concerned about compromising science and were not in favour of curtailing the timelines of the WG assessment reports. They sought clarification from the Co-Chairs of the WGs on how a truncated timeline might affect the quality of the assessments. The Co-Chairs of the WGs assured that “to shift the timeline to finish sooner without sacrificing the robustness of the report” would be possible but with the following implications:
The Co-Chairs also clarified that if the above caveats are followed, it would be possible to complete the 3 WG assessment reports in the first half of 2028, but not the SYR. (It is to be noted that among the lessons learned from the AR 6 cycle, which was discussed in Istanbul, one item was included in relation to the number of reports in the AR6 cycle. The AR 6 cycle produced 3 special reports along with 3 WG assessment reports and a SYR. The relevant paragraph reads: “Although there is general recognition of the relevant work and knowledge produced by IPCC during the AR6, thanks primarily to the astonishing efforts of its voluntary author base and the tireless contributions of Bureau members, it is also recognized that it has had its toll, particularly on the authors, Bureau members and the Technical Support Units. The number of reports during this upcoming cycle must be carefully decided upon, considering that the high number of reports during AR6 cycle created many challenges and resulted in an increased workload for all involved. It is important for the IPCC to find ways to ensure that future cycles do not become overly burdensome.” Pointing to the implications of a shortened cycle would have on the AR7 cycle, India asked the Co-Chairs, “What is the meaning of comprehensive then?” and said the implications of a shortened cycle would have on the AR7 cycle did not constitute comprehensiveness. It also said that the actual product and delivery would rest with the authors who were not in “the scene yet”. It further added that the approach seemed to be to “fit the science into the GST” and stressed that science is important “irrespective of the GST”. India added that underrepresented communities did not mean just indigenous peoples. “In science, developing country authors are also underrepresented, women authors are underrepresented,” it said further. It also said that it would like a framework that emphasizes the role of the WGs and a comprehensive, robust and inclusive AR7 cycle ensuring the presence and perspectives of marginalized or underrepresented communities and that the cycle will terminate towards the end of 2029 or early 2030. “Tailoring a cycle to the purpose of the GST is a very severe limitation,” said India, adding that discussions on aligning with the GST had happened during the AR6 cycle, however no consensus could be reached. It pointed to the different mandates of the IPCC and the UNFCCC process and the fundamental differences in the principles that govern their work. The GST decision emphasizes equity and common but differentiated responsibilities, among other aspects; however, in the IPCC, authors do not conform to these principles, it explained. It also said that the request from the UNFCCC is for “relevant and timely” information, which the IPCC would provide by way of delivering information from products that are ready in 2028. Saudi Arabia echoed the same sentiments as India and asked how a shortened cycle could be comprehensive when the entire point is to assess science, which is based on literature. It stressed that literature needs to evolve and truncating the timeline would be a disservice to science as well as to developing countries who intend to contribute to the literature. On the shortened time for government review of reports, it said there is disparity in the capacity among countries to digest and react to drafts of reports, and these would impact the quality of the reports and pose undue burden on developing countries. Egypt stressed that credibility, robustness, comprehensiveness is of crucial importance and expressed concerns around less government engagement in terms of shortened review period. It also highlighted capacity challenges in developing countries and the need for large-scale coordination to review such reports. It also said that the lessons learned indicated inclusion of available literature, not just in English but other languages as well and asked how this would be dealt with in a truncated timeline. Egypt called for the AR7 cycle to conclude in 2030 and whatever reports were ready in 2028 could form an input to the GST. It also expressed concern around changing the timeline not just for AR7, but for subsequent cycles too in terms of aligning with the GST, and this would mean no additional expert meetings nor special reports. It further said that GST is not the universal end goal of climate policy and the next round of nationally determined contributions (NDCs) would be in 2030, which the IPCC reports would also inform. South Africa said the shortening of government review periods posed a challenge for developing countries where there are only one or two people coordinating the reviews and such a scenario would limit the level and the kind of inputs the countries could provide. Brazil added that it would be very relevant to have an additional special report, and ending the cycle in 2028 would kill this option. (Further details on the discussions on topic of additional reports below). Argentina said it did not want to sacrifice the robustness of the process and the IPCC should not “artificially accelerate the process”. Netherlands said it preferred sticking to the full cycle till 2030, with additional products, since the Co-Chairs had pointed out that a truncated timeline would leave no room for an additional special report and impact government review. Russia said it is not good to hurry science, sticking to the classical option. However, other developed countries and the island nations ignored the implications and the caveats pointed out by the Co-Chairs and focused only on the Co-Chair’s statement that they could deliver “robust” WG assessment reports in the first half of 2028. This, they said was crucial, to influence GST 2. Some countries such as Belize, Grenada, and Germany justified their support of the truncated timeline by saying scientific literature was growing exponentially and they were willing to work in the shortened government review period. In response, Co-Chairs of WG 3 said that they were unwilling to shorten the time for the authors and unwilling to go less than 6 weeks for government review, adding that however “if we move back the end date of the report, we move back the end date for literature cut-off; so yes, it will be impacted”. Lengthy discussions, sometimes heated, continued in plenary, contact group and huddle settings to resolve the outstanding issues. Different options emerged as the draft decision texts evolved. On ending the cycle, various options were proposed, which included first half of 2029, second half of 2029 and 2030. On the sequence, several developing countries suggested they follow the usual practice of WG 1 to be released first, followed by WGs 2 and 3 and then the SYR. However, according to sources, in one of the huddles, Denmark had proposed that they need only the WG 3 report (on mitigation), ready in time for GST 2, to send a strong signal to the world, while the other reports could come in later. This was countered by several developing countries as having a very “mitigation-centric” outlook towards the GST 2, and this was unacceptable, since the GST is a comprehensive process looking at collective efforts on mitigation, adaptation, loss and damage, means of implementation and support and response measures, among others. Discussions continued as the various iterations of the draft texts evolved reflecting these varied options. Eventually, it was decided that during the 7th Assessment Cycle “the IPCC will provide a comprehensive Assessment Report consisting of 3 WG contributions in the following sequence unless the Panel decides otherwise: a. WG I – The Physical Science Basis; b. WG II – Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability; c. WG III – Mitigation of Climate Change” Members also requested the “Bureau to prepare a document outlining the month and year of delivery on the basis of an AR7 strategic plan, taking into account the different views expressed in the IPCC-60…for the delivery of these reports in a timely and policy relevant manner and present it to the Panel at its next meeting for consideration and decision.” It was also decided that a SYR will be produced by late 2029, after the completion of WG reports. The decision also states that the “WG contributions and the SYR will be developed in accordance with Procedures for the preparation, review, acceptance, adoption, approval and publication of the IPCC reports and the need to be inclusive in representation and literature assessment as well as ensuring the products of the IPCC remain policy relevant but policy neutral, robust and comprehensive”. Highlights of exchange on 7th assessment cycle The US voiced its support for the light cycle, and said if the member governments did not reach consensus on the topic of the 2nd special report, they should proceed with the assessment reports. Missing the deadline of GST 2 would have an impact and there is a need to assess the impact of assessment reports being released after GST 2, it said. It added that it did not see how the classical option resolves these challenges and reiterated its preference to conclude AR7 by 2028. Countries supporting the classical option — Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, France, Germany, Canada, Russia, Netherlands, Denmark, Italy, Turkey, Ireland, Belgium, Japan, Norway, Venezuela, Morocco, Pakistan, Brazil, Singapore and Argentina, suggested that it would offer a stable structure to the cycle and highlighted the importance of cross WG interactions. Germany said that this would ensure that the process is robust and Singapore articulated that the classical option allows for greater interactivity between IPCC and UNFCCC, and that subsequent WG reports could take feedback from GST 2 and set the stage for GST 3. Switzerland said the SYR report would contribute to the development of the next round of NDCs. India said it hesitated to use the words “light” or “classical”, but it was of the view that the larger purpose is served best served with sticking to the structure of the assessment cycle which includes the 3 WG reports and the SYR. On suggestions by countries such as the United Kingdom (UK) that the scoping of the SYR report is done alongside the other WG reports, India said the first draft of the WG reports should be ready before scoping the SYR and that it cannot be scoped alongside products it is supposed to synthesize. On sequence, it said there needs to be an order. The SYR comes after the WG reports, and cannot come after a special report. Similarly, a special report cannot follow WG reports since special reports are usually followed by comprehensive WG assessments. It suggested a sequence where the special reports come first, followed by WG 1,2,3 and then the SYR. Saudi Arabia also expressed its preference for the traditional structure and disagreed with the label “light” option. The work undertaken will not be light and it is a question of rigour versus quantity and “our preference is rigour”. It also clarified it prefers maintaining the current practice of SYR after the 3 WG reports. Bolivia supported India, Egypt and Saudi Arabia and said the traditional approach would promote consistency. (See separate article on other issues from the Istanbul meeting).
|
||
