TWN Info Service on Climate Change (Aug24/01)
9 August 2024
Third World Network

Governments approve IPCC’s Cities Special Report outline after intense negotiations

Kathmandu/New Delhi, 9 August (Prerna Bomzan/Indrajit Bose): The 61^st session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC-61) met from 27 July to 2 August 2024 in Sofia, Bulgaria, and successfully approved the outline of the Special Report on Climate Change and Cities, the only Special Report of the current seventh assessment cycle (AR7), which is now decided to be prepared and approved as the first AR7 product in March 2027.

Given its significance in the current AR7 cycle, the decision (IPCC-LXI-5) to agree on the outline of the Special Report on Climate Change and Cities (SR-Cities) was a special highlight, following long-drawn, intense negotiations throughout to aim for a substantive “balance” in the outline, starting with the fundamental, overarching framing of “equity and differentiation” between developing and developed countries, as well as between different regions and national circumstances, that was starkly missing in the text. The inclusion of clear language on differentiation across the board in the outline, was called by Saudi Arabia, India, China, Egypt, Iraq, Algeria, Venezuela, Cuba, South Africa, Kenya, Libya, Timor-Leste, Senegal, Argentina and Russia. (See details below on SR-Cities)

(The IPCC is the UN body for assessing the science related to climate change. It produces three Working Group Assessment Reports – WG I on ‘The physical science basis’; WG II on ‘Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability’ and WG III on ‘Mitigation of climate change’. A Synthesis Report is usually produced synthesizing information from the three WG reports and other Special Report/s – assessment on specific issue – produced during an assessment cycle. Methodology Report/s are also produced by the IPCC which provide practical guidelines for the preparation of greenhouse gas inventories).

The 61^st session’s high-level opening was addressed by Bulgaria’s Minister for Environment Petar Dimitrov, the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Nevyana Miteva and the Mayor of Sofia Vassil Terziev, along with the IPCC Chair Professor Jim Skea, President of the World Meteorological Organisation Dr Abdulla Ahmed Al Mandous, the Deputy Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme Elizabeth Mrema and the Director of the UNFCCC Secretariat’s Adaptation Division Youssef Nassef, the latter two via video messages.

Two other important decisions in relation to AR7 products that drew mixed results were:

(i) Outline of the 2027 IPCC Methodology Report on Inventories for Short-Lived Climate Forcers (MR SLCF) – which was agreed, following contested discussions, the report to be prepared and approved in the second half of 2027 according to the workplan as contained in Annex 4 to the decision (IPCC-LXI-7).

The decision further comprises the terms of reference (Annex 1), the table of contents (Annex 2) and the instructions to experts and authors (Annex 3). (Separate article will follow on the MR SLCF)

(ii) Strategic Planning Schedule for the AR7 cycle – which was not agreed following lengthy discussions, and eventually it was decided (IPCC-LXI-9) that “…based on the reports of the scoping meetings of the Working Group and Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories reports, the Panel will agree at its 62^nd session on the scope, outline, and the work plan including schedule and budget.”

The schedule is in relation to the delivery of all AR7 products, namely, SR-Cities; MR SLCF; Methodology Report on Carbon Dioxide Removal Technologies, Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage (MR CDR/CCUS); WG I, WG II, WG III Assessment Reports and the Synthesis Report (SYR).

 

During the 60th session of the IPCC in Istanbul from 16-20 January earlier this year, the Panel had agreed on its work programme for AR7 after intense negotiations among member governments. The Panel though had not been able to agree on the timelines of the three Working Group (WG) reports, and had requested the bureau to prepare a document “outlining the month and year of delivery on the basis of an AR7 strategic plan….for the delivery of the three working group reports”. (See related TWN Update)

The disagreements among governments continued over whether all the WG reports should be produced before the second Global Stocktake (GST) process under the Paris Agreement or to ensure timelines are not truncated in any manner so that the process remains inclusive and science is not compromised.

Within a record closing schedule time, the IPCC-61 session managed to address all issues contained in the long provisional agenda, among which the following two issues particularly drew divergences and lacked consensus, resulting in only procedural decisions: on the lessons learned from AR6 (decision IPCC-LXI-3) and on the options for expert meetings and workshops for AR7 (decision IPCC-LXI-6).

(See all IPCC-61 decisions adopted by member governments, also referred to as the Panel)

Negotiations on the outline of the SR-Cities

The following is a snapshot of the difficult and lengthy negotiations towards reaching some “balance” in the substance of the outline of the SR-Cities, highlighting some key issues across the five chapters:

Chapter 1: Cities in the context of climate change: framing of the report

Chapter 2: Cities in a changing climate: trends, challenges and opportunities

Chapter 3: Actions and solutions to reduce urban risks and emissions

Chapter 4: How to facilitate and accelerate change

Chapter 5: Solutions by city types and regions

Key issues: framing of equity and differentiation between developing and developed countries as well as different regions and national circumstances as opposed to a common, policy prescriptive approach e.g. on typologies, scenarios, among others; inclusion of global, regional, national, and local context and perspectives; equal and independent treatment of both mitigation and adaptation actions and solutions; a stand-alone focus on loss and damage; inclusion of means of implementation – finance, technology transfer, capacity building – crucial for developing countries; inclusion of negative socio-economic impacts of response measures in the context of climate mitigation action faced by developing countries; contestations over specific concepts and terminologies, such as maladaptation, incremental and transformative adaptation, net-zero targets, tipping points as well as social tipping point, demand-side measures, consumption-based emissions, among others. These critical issues needed to be addressed to strike the “balance” of the overall outline argued proponents from both developing and developed countries.

On the first day 27 July, the proposed outline contained in Annex 3 of the information document (IPCC-LXI/INF.1) resulting out of the scoping meeting, was opened for discussion, which evolved into multiple iterations in the process towards improving the balance of the outline and ensuring all key issues raised are addressed and agreed by consensus. Eventually, on the closing day 2 August, the fourth revised iteration of the conference room paper (CRP.4) was approved as the final outline.

The consensus was hard earned with a series of long and late ‘huddles’ (in informal setting aiming for agreement in principle) on all key issues raised. In particular, the second last day of 1 August, it was focused on resolving the four specific sticky issues of references to maladaptation, transformational and incremental adaptation; loss and damage; net zero targets; tipping points and social tipping points, which was facilitated and led by IPCC Vice Chair Ramon Pichs-Madruga (Cuba). The late hour agreed conclusions on these four issues paved the way for the approval of the final outline the next day. (See details at the end).

The reflection of the key issues as addressed in the approved outline, signals some “delicate balance” is what negotiators concluded, as told to TWN, whose representatives were also present in Sofia.

Equity and Differentiation

The issue of “equity and differentiation” encompassed all key issues and spoke to the overall context at all levels – global, regional, national, local. The issue therefore remained central to strike the “balance” aimed in the negotiations and was clearly identified as a focused topic for discussion at the outset in a contact group mandated by IPCC Chair Skea (United Kingdom) after hearing strong and loud views on the issue.

At the first plenary on 27 July, when the proposed outline was opened for discussion, Saudi Arabia underlined the need of ensuring an “inclusive and balanced” outline, emphasising that starting from the very first chapter, the outline needs to be contextualised with the fundamental lens of “differentiation” between developing and developed countries and different regions and national circumstances. It reminded about the “historical” aspect and how it was important to understand “how we got here” to start with, resulting in different development pathways with different stages and disparities. It gave the example of developing countries often struggling with weaker infrastructure and higher vulnerabilities while developed countries are more resilient. It was crucial to recognise the different starting points, diverse capacities and experiences of developing countries facing multiple challenges and pressing priorities such as poverty eradication and sustainable development, including the critical balancing act on synergies and tradeoffs and hence, it was essential to embed the “principles of equity and differentiation” across the board.

India seconded Saudi Arabia and pointed out that the outline did not mention “developing” and “developed” countries which is a critical issue in the overall context, calling for a “balanced approach”. In the absence of such fundamental differentiation, it spoke to the issue of city “typologies” in the first framing chapter as a major concern, and underscored that more clarity was needed in the text on the different levels of development of cities in the developing and developed world, adding that any framing of typology must emerge from literature and not be imposed by authors. In particular, it referred to the “unrepresentative” case in the AR6 WGII report when a single term, “planetary urbanism”, was used as a framing by authors that dominated the text. It clearly elaborated that the term focuses on infrastructure with people subsumed in the narrative, while on the contrary, in urban studies and literature, experts are well aware of the differentiation between developing and developed countries, hence using “Southern urbanism” substantially to express viewpoints of the former. Yet, this term was not picked up by authors, hence a repeat of it was of particular concern, India clarified. Further, it strongly supported retaining “equity” in the text as a very crucial issue and also called for inclusion of equity in relation to “scenarios” as well.

China reinforced calls on equity, differentiation and the related issue of typologies, as well as overall balance across all pillars, noting “sensitivities and complexities” of the issues that needed to be addressed in a “careful, balanced” manner.

The inclusion of clear language on differentiation across the board in the outline was echoed by Egypt, Iraq, Algeria, Venezuela, Cuba, South Africa, Kenya, Libya Timor-Leste, Senegal, Argentina, Libya and Russia. South Africa also highlighted inclusion of “historical” impacts in relation to differentiation which was mentioned earlier by Saudi Arabia and later echoed by Algeria.

On the other hand, the United States (US) pushed for a “common” approach language as opposed to a differentiated one, and further made clear that it saw equity in the “local” context and in the context of vulnerability which ran contrary to the views of the proponents who viewed equity at all levels – global, regional, national, local – and across all elements in the five chapters. Developed countries such as the United Kingdom (UK), Denmark, Switzerland, Belgium, Sweden, Japan, Italy and the US also pushed back on any reference to “historical” especially in the context of emissions which they argued was excluding current and future trends and in general, opposed to reflection of any differentiation in the outline.

It is to be noted that there was insertion of “historical socio-economic trends” (chapter 2, fifth bullet) in the first iteration text (CRP.1) on 29 July, but was eventually dropped given strong push back by opponents.

In the approved outline, the treatment of differentiation is captured broadly by “development status” (chapter 1, third bullet) and “development stage” (chapter 2, second bullet; chapter 5, second bullet).  There is no explicit mention of “developing” and “developed” countries in the outline.

Further, the insertion of “differentiated” in CRP.1 was struck off with the final language in the outline as “common and different urban development trends” (chapter 2, second bullet) which was specifically proposed by the US. Following the same proponent’s call on the “common” approach framing, the word was added to read as “common and context specific” in relation to urban and rural mitigation options (chapter 3, first and second bullets), when “context specific” had been inserted to embed differentiation which was strongly called by Saudi Arabia and India. They also insisted on adding “equity” in the context of “scenarios” (chapter 2, third bullet) given current scenarios did not factor it in, therefore creating lot of challenges for developing countries.

The call for “global” and “regional” context was improved with addition of language in the first framing chapter as well as in the second chapter on trends, challenges and opportunities. However, the outline is silent in the “national” context.

The term “typologies” was eventually dropped from the first framing chapter given deep divergence on the issue. The related fifth bullet reads, “framing of multi-dimensional urban characteristics, including physical, socioeconomic and environmental features”.

Mitigation and Adaptation

Developing countries largely called for a strong “balance” on the issue of mitigation and adaptation across the five chapters, given adaptation action as a pressing challenge and priority to them. Saudi Arabia and India specifically stressed on an “equal and independent” treatment of both issues in their own right, further bringing in the context of equity and differentiation as another fundamental underpinning.

Following prolonged discussions to ensure an equal, independent, balanced approach to the issue, additional language on “adaptation” was inserted in the third chapter on actions and solutions (fifth, sixth, eight bullets) as well as in the concluding chapter 5, sixth bullet which now reads, “adaptation and mitigation options”.

However, language was also added on “consumption-based emissions” (chapter 2, third bullet), and “demand-side mitigation measures” (chapter 3, sixth bullet), which was particularly pushed by Norway, Sweden and the European Union (EU) adding specificity to the element of mitigation which was denounced by India and Saudi Arabia, who argued to keep the outline “general” and to avoid it being “policy prescriptive” which is outside the mandate of the IPCC.

The persistent call by Saudi Arabia for the inclusion of the “negative” socio-economic consequences of “response measures” in the form of “mal mitigation” action, faced by developing countries, was left unheeded. In the context of the inclusion of language on “climate inaction” which was driven by developed countries, language was also added to read  “…and the cost and benefits of action and inaction…” (chapter 4, second bullet) to strike a balance. (Response measures are actions, policies, and programmes that countries, undertake in response to climate. change, mostly for mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions.)

Means of Implementation – Finance, Technology, Capacity Building

Developing countries such as Saudi Arabia, India, China, Algeria, Iraq, South Africa, Malaysia, Timor-Leste, Mozambique, and Indonesia emphasised the importance of means of implementation – finance, technology, capacity building – for climate action which was clearly missing in the outline and not referenced at all.

In particular, the language on “finance” was added in chapter 4 (seventh bullet) to read “finance, financial instruments, legal frameworks, economic and policy instruments”. Saudi Arabia made clear about the importance of adding finance to the list which otherwise read very policy prescriptive and was supported by India, who also elaborated that inclusion of finance spoke to critical issues of access and availability as well. Switzerland had particularly pushed back on the inclusion of finance, instead emphasising on “financial means in place” such as “financial systems” and “income”, to take climate action.

Maladaptation, Loss and Damage, Net-Zero Targets, Tipping Points and Social Tipping Point

On the second last day of 1 August, these four sticky issues still drew divergences and further engagement on these contested issues were particularly pushed by India, Saudi Arabia and Kenya who clearly stated that the text iteration (CRP.3) as it stood did not represent “balance” on the matter with their concerns not adequately addressed. Chair Skea (UK) eventually called for a “huddle” which was facilitated by IPCC Vice Chair Ramon Pichs-Madruga (Cuba), finally leading to a late night agreement on the four issues in a show of “maximum flexibility” to reach consensus.

On reference to maladaptation, the key concern pointed out by India and Saudi Arabia was the serious divergence in the understanding of the concept which proved detrimental to developing countries, given current literature on it which is not balanced e.g. provision of housing in relation to informal settlements in developing countries was considered as maladaptation. Further, qualifiers such as “transformative” adaptation was problematic as opposed to “incremental” adaptation used in developing countries which was also supported by Kenya who stated repeatedly that the contested concepts of maladaptation and transformative adaptation will be clear once indicators and metrics on adaptation would be completed [referring to the ongoing work under the Global Goal on Adaptation under the Paris Agreement], and should not be used at this point of time.

India further argued that the overwhelming literature in maladaptation in WG II focused mainly in developing countries which was a serious political concern. The alternate language proposed by India was “different types and scales of adaptation as well as responses to adaptation” and by Saudi Arabia was “different forms of adaptation” to avoid any specificity and keep the outline general, which was supported by Kenya as a constructive suggestion forward. However, there was strong push back by the US, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, Canada, the UK and France in this regard. The final compromise reached was to replace maladaptation by “maladaptive practices” (chapter 5, fifth bullet) which was suggested by Denmark, along with the deletion of “incremental and transformative adaptation” from the final outline.

On loss and damage – appearing as “losses and damages” in the outline to which India had raised concerns at the outset calling instead for the correct usage of the term “loss and damage” but in vain, which was a key lingering issue with the consistent demand by Kenya for a stand-alone bullet in the concluding chapter 5 on solutions by city types and regions, which was strongly echoed by almost all developing countries but was equally resisted by the US as its “redline”. Following prolonged discussions, there was still no consensus reached on a stand-alone bullet in chapter 5 and instead, the compromise was to agree on “losses and damages, vulnerability, impacts and risks” (tenth bullet) which was suggested by Denmark.

On reference to net-zero targets, the key issue again was divergences on a common understanding and meaning of the concept itself, which was pointed out by India and proposed to replace it instead with “adaptation and mitigation targets”. It also made clear that net-zero targets was in a “global” context which was supported by Russia, South Africa and Saudi Arabia, the latter raising its specific concern that it did not have net -zero targets but instead has adaptation and renewal energy targets so how these would be factored in, and suggested “contributions towards net-zero targets”, to replace the evolving language of “role of cities in achieving net-zero targets”.  The final compromise reached was “…role of cities in net-zero targets” (chapter 3, sixth bullet).

On tipping points and social tipping point, disagreements arose on whether to retain two references to “tipping points” and one reference to “social tipping point” in the outline, with developing countries such as India and Saudi Arabia not in favour of mentioning tipping points, including social tipping points. Developed countries led by Belgium, Netherlands, Norway, and the UK however, wanted to retain the references.

India and Saudi Arabia said there was no need to prescribe social tipping points in the outline, and some very specific concepts should not be picked up for particular underlining to authors. They said the authors would look at literature and include the topic as relevant in any case. India further said that in AR 6, social tipping is expressed as either catastrophic collapse or unprecedented situations or for positive development and suggested using a broader term.

Responding to developed countries’ insistence on social tipping points, India referred to the reference to social tipping points in chapter 13 of WG III report, which read, “For example, some argue for social tipping interventions (STI) alongside other technical and political interventions so that they can ‘activate contagious processes of rapidly spreading technologies, behaviours, social norms, and structural reorganisation’ (Otto et al. 2020). They argue that these STIs are inter alia: removing fossil fuel subsidies and incentivising decentralised energy generation; building carbon neutral cities; divesting from assets linked to fossil fuels; revealing the moral implications of fossil fuels; strengthening climate education and engagement; and disclosing information of GHG emissions (Otto et al. 2020).” India said if developed countries wanted to signal mitigation via social tipping, they should state it clearly rather than going through the “odd language” of social tipping points. The final compromise reached was the deletion of “social tipping point” from the outline with the retention of only one reference on “tipping points” (chapter 4, first bullet).