TWN Info Service on Climate Change (Mar25/01)
10 March 2025
Third World Network

IPCC APPROVES WORKING GROUP REPORT OUTLINES

Delhi, 10 March (Indrajit Bose) — The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) approved the outlines of its three Working Group (WG) reports for the 7^th Assessment Cycle (AR 7) at its 62^nd session held in Hangzhou, China from 24-28 February. The meeting ended late on 1 March following intense negotiations that lasted nearly 40 hours at a stretch, involving several contentious issues.

The Panel could not decide on the proposed implementation plans of the WG reports involving their timelines and budgets until 2028, nor the outline of the ‘Methodology Report on Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) Technologies, Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage (CCUS)’.

Following lengthy discussions, the Panel decided to approve the 2025 budget and invited the Working Groups to begin their work as indicated by the 2025 budget. The work this year involves call for authors nominations, decision on selection of authors and convening the first lead authors meeting (LAM). The panel also decided to defer the consideration of the timelines of the WG reports to its next session. (Further details below.)

(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 synthesis report (SYR) is usually also produced synthesizing information from the 3 WG reports and other special reports produced during an assessment cycle.)

Among the key divergences on the timeline of the WG reports was the demand by developed countries, several Small Island Developing States (SIDs) and Least Developed Countries (LDCs) to advance the AR7 cycle to end in 2028, so that the reports are produced in time for the Paris Agreement’s 2^nd Global Stocktake (GST) (which will be held over 2027-2028). (The GST is a process under the Paris Agreement to assess the collective progress of Parties in achieving its goals and is held every five years. The first one concluded in 2023 at COP28 in Dubai, UAE). On the other hand, several developing countries such as India, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Kenya were of the view that time is required to produce reports that are rigorous, accurate and contain robust science, with the inclusive participation of scientists from developing country, through the publication of peer-reviewed literature and the inclusion of their perspectives.

The key contentious issues in the WG 1 report included whether there should be a separate chapter on mountains; whether air quality should figure in the outline; whether and how tipping points should be treated; use of the word “storyline” in the outline; and whether to have plain language summaries of chapters. Besides, there were requests to include references such as historical emissions in the context of carbon budgets in one of the chapter bullets; an exclusive chapter on monsoons; mention of sea-level rise and tropical cyclones, etc. in the outline. The issue of referencing limitations of carbon sinks also proved contentious. (See details below).

This update presents highlights of the discussions on the timelines and WG 1 report outline. (Further articles on the other WG reports will follow.)

 

Timelines of the WG Reports

According to the proposed implementation plan, the approval of the summary for policymakers and acceptance of the underlying report for the WG 1 report was scheduled for May 2028; that of WG 2 report was scheduled for June 2028; and for WG3, it was July 2028.

Developing countries such as India, China, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kenya and South Africa pointed out that the timeline presented for AR 7 was a shortened one, which would impact availability of literature from developing countries and additionally, governments would have no time left between reviewing the final draft of the reports, which they said was an issue of capacity and would burden their experts. They also drew attention to the need for adequate time to ensure that the quality of the scientific output was not compromised, while drawing attention to the length of the outlines of WGs 2 and 3, which would require adequate time and not a truncated schedule.

India suggested, as a bridging proposal, that the WG 1 report be finalized in mid-2028; the WG 2 report in Dec. 2028; and the WG 3 report in the first quarter of 2029, which it said would give sufficient comfort that the AR 7 cycle would be inclusive and comprehensive, while ensuring the quality of the science. It also said that it is important to promote the participation of scientists from across the global South as well as representing their research and perspectives, which a rushed timeline would not be able to accomplish. It said the timeline had been severely curtailed and there had been a compression of time at every stage of the process. In particular, the gap between the approval of the timeline and the first lead authors meeting was shortened by 6 months for WG1, 13 months for WG2 and 14 months for WG3, compared to the proposed implementation plan for AR 6. It clarified that the comparison was not with the actual implementation schedule of AR 6 (which was extended even further due to COVID and accompanying restrictions), but the original proposed timeline. It also said that new literature would have to be produced for some of the chapters agreed in the outline, and as per the current plan, the first working order draft would be available next year. (The expert review of the first order draft for WG 1 is scheduled for August 2026; that of WG2 is scheduled for Oct. 2026; and that of WG3 is scheduled for Nov. 2026). “Who will produce literature?” asked India, and it reminded that authors have not yet been selected. It also said that it takes a lot of time, especially for authors from developing countries to publish papers. Ignoring these realities is tantamount to the IPCC saying that “concerns by developing countries are valid but we will have developed countries address those concerns”.

Saudi Arabia said the shortened timeline would impact the comprehensiveness of the reports and called for at least two months’ gap between government review periods. It said while the WGs have the luxury to develop their implementation plans separately, “we as governments do not have dedicated groups for each WG.” It said that for WG2, the time between scoping meeting in Dec. and the final approval of the report was only 3.5 years. This has major implications on literature in that it significantly shortens the time for literature to develop, as well as inclusivity, it said. It also said that “the time between scoping (when literature based on the signals of the scoped outline) and LAM4 (the cutoff date for literature) has been drastically curtailed. For example, in AR5, that duration was 4.3 years, in AR6 4.2 years, while it is very concerning that for AR7 it is planned to be just over 3 years. It also said that the suggested timeline would result in only developed countries having the capacity to provide comments on review drafts since the reviews were one after the other. (The review period of the final government review draft as per the proposed implementation plan for WG 1 was 20 Dec 2027 to 25 Feb 2028; for WG 2 it was 25 Feb to 21 April 2028; and for WG 3, it was 24 April to 18 June 2028). It also said that the timeline did not factor in the review and approval of other reports in the AR 7 cycle (The Special Report on Cities and Climate Change and the Methodology Report on CDR and a Methodology Report on Short-lived Climate Forcers).

South Africa said that it is important to not rush the assessments and pointed out that since not all experts can participate in them, the review periods assumed significance. It said the existing plan would put a lot of pressure on the experts from developing countries. It also said that many of the African countries had left the meeting (owing to the meeting not closing on time) and said it is important to develop an informed, inclusive and practical schedule that did not leave out scientists from the region. “We need time to develop the science needed for the global South in a balanced, pragmatic manner,” it said, adding that there are too many overlaps between review periods and if the experts feel overloaded, they will not participate in the review process (which is voluntary).

Those pushing for adoption of the timeline and budgets as presented by the IPCC Bureau included Ireland, Nepal, Germany, Australia, Chile, Italy, Malawi, Canada, Jamaica, Chad, Japan, Denmark, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Austria, Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium, Norway, Australia, Turkey and Hungary, among others. They essentially said the processes would ensure comprehensiveness and to trust the IPCC Bureau to deliver and that the IPCC would lose its policy relevance if the implementation plans did not get adopted, and that climate action was urgent to undertake. They also said they could look at ways to improve inclusivity within the proposed timelines. Some of the developed countries including Luxembourg, said the meeting would be seen as a failure for China as the host country if the Panel could not adopt the implementation plans.

India reminded the meeting that the backlog (in undertaking ambitious climate action by developed countries) goes back to AR 4, adding that countries need to show urgency in action, not in report writing. It reiterated that the real problem was the compression of time given to scientific work, excluding the time devoted for review and re-emphasized the importance of producing an assessment that would be of value and developing a strategic plan around its proposed schedule.

 

Responding to comments that the meeting would be a failure for the host country, China reminded that its role was to just host the meeting and provide hospitality and logistics and that it was not the same as being a presidency of a COP. It said it sees the failure narrative as a threat to “Hangzhou and its citizens” and urged developed countries to refrain from such an approach. It suggested the Panel huddle to find a solution.

A long huddle followed, which established a smaller team to discuss the timelines; however, there was no consensus in the end.  Back in the closing plenary, Italy suggested providing as a “wiggle room” the option of moving the process up by a month.

India responded that one month at the beginning or at the end was not a viable counter suggestion. Saudi Arabia and South Africa supported India. South Africa added that it was not an issue about extending the cycle by one month or bringing it forward. The issue also was about multiple overlaps in the process, which would make things extremely difficult for developing countries. 

IPCC Chair Jim Skea observed that there were two options: one driven by effective and inclusive participation and the second by trying to find a landing zone within the Paris Agreement (i.e. aligning with the GST process) and added that the two were inherently different designs. He said he was “deeply skeptical” that consent could be gained for either of these options at the current session.

The Panel finally decided to approve the 2025 budget and invited the WGs to begin their work as indicated by the 2025 budget. The Panel also decided to defer the consideration of the timelines of the WG reports to its next session.

WG 1 Report Outline

The following is the agreed chapter outline of the WG 1 report:

Summary for Policymakers (SPM)

Technical Summary

Chapter 1: Framing, methods and knowledge sources

Chapter 2: Large-scale changes in the climate system and their causes

Chapter 3: Changes in regional climate and extremes, and their causes

Chapter 4: Advances in process understanding of Earth system changes

Chapter 5: Scenarios and projected future global temperatures

Chapter 6: Global projections of Earth system responses across time scales

Chapter 7: Projections of regional climate and extremes

Chapter 8: Abrupt changes, low-likelihood high impact events and critical thresholds, including

tipping points, in the Earth system

Chapter 9: Earth system responses under pathways towards temperature stabilization,

including overshoot pathways

Chapter 10: Climate information and services

The outline was agreed following a lot of discussions and several issues proved contentious.

(The outlines presented for approval were the result of a scoping meeting of experts who had gathered in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia in Dec. 2024 to draft the outlines of the three WG contributions to AR7.)

Following discussions, some of the chapter titles as well as sub-bullets underneath the chapters were changed to reflect the discussions and consensus.

For example, on the historical carbon budget sentence, a bullet in chapter 5 originally read, “Total and remaining carbon budgets”, which was changed to “Total, historical, and remaining carbon budgets” due to requests by South Africa and Saudi Arabia.

In chapter 9, a bullet originally read, “Global and regional Earth system responses to global net-zero emissions, and long-term implications”. Upon India’s questioning of why the reference was not on temperature stabilisation, and support from Saudi Arabia and Maldives, the bullet was reframed to: “Global and regional Earth system responses to pathways towards temperature stabilization, including to global net-zero, negative and net-negative emissions, and long-term implications.”

On tipping points, the original title of chapter 8 read, “Abrupt changes, tipping points and high impact events in the Earth system”, and sub-bullet 8.2 read, “Abrupt changes, tipping points and high impact events and their drivers within the Earth system components and their ecosystems”.

India, and Saudi Arabia objected to use of the term “tipping points” and said the term had colloquial use and referred to non-scientific events and should therefore be replaced by high-impact, low probability events. The countries also objected to the word “storylines” in a sub-bullet from Chapter 8, which read, “Case studies and storylines”.

The Co-Chairs of WG 1, Robert Vautard (France) and Xiaoye Zhang (China) insisted that the topic has been included since there is a lot of literature on tipping points. Italy, Vanuatu, Finland, Switzerland, Senegal, France, Denmark, Jamaica, Chile and Turkey, among others, supported the term tipping points.

Following lengthy discussions, the compromise reached read: “critical thresholds, including tipping points” in the title along with a footnote in the corresponding sub-bullet.

The title read, “Abrupt changes, low-likelihood high impact events and critical thresholds, including tipping points, in the Earth system. Sub bullet 8.2 read, “Abrupt changes, low-likelihood high impact events and tipping points1 within the Earth system components and their ecosystems, their drivers and occurrence conditions”. Footnote 1 reads: “A critical threshold beyond which a system reorganizes, often abruptly and/or irreversibly (IPCC AR6 Glossary definition)”.

Following suggestions by India and Saudi Arabia, the word storylines was also dropped from chapter 8 (which initially read, “Case studies and storylines”). India explained that storylines are reduction of complex scientific phenomena, explore the limits of plausibility and tend to be subjective and should therefore be dropped. The Co-Chairs suggested the term physical climate storylines but with continued disagreements, the term was dropped from the outline.

 There was a request from countries such as Bhutan and Nepal for a chapter on mountains, while Sweden and Norway called for references to ‘high altitude regions’ in the outline, and this led to a chapter on mountains and polar regions being briefly considered, but this proposal was dropped in the absence of any agreement. Even though there was no separate chapter, mountains are referred to in chapter 2 (“Regions and spatial scales of analysis, including land and oceanic regions and typological areas such as mountains, low lying coastal areas, and polar, tropical, desert, and semi-arid regions”) and chapter 4 (“Cryosphere processes including in high mountain and polar regions”). 

On the issue of air quality, India and Saudi Arabia were opposed to mention of air quality in chapter 4 (the sub-bullet read, “Short-lived climate forcers, air quality and climate interactions”). However, Luxembourg, Ireland, Maldives and Chile, among others, wanted to retain the reference, which was supported by the Co-Chairs of the WG. The Co-Chairs suggested modification to “Short-lived climate forcers, connections to air quality and climate interactions” which was finally accepted.

On carbon sinks, Saudi Arabia said it wanted to reflect carbon sinks in a positive light. The relevant sub-bullet in Chapter 4 read, “Projected changes in biogeochemical cycles, including vulnerability of carbon sinks and pools”. South Africa wanted to see the word limits mentioned, while Kenya suggested the word efficacy. Several formulations emerged, including vulnerability and resilience, which was supported by Brazil, and the compromise reached read, “Projected changes in biogeochemical cycles, including carbon sinks and pools”.

There was also no separate chapter on monsoons, but it found mention in chapters 2, 4 and 6. The relevant sub-bullets read: in chapter 2: “Changes in modes of climate variability and monsoons”; chapter 4: “Atmospheric processes, including circulation, weather patterns, monsoons, clouds and their interactions with atmospheric composition” and “Land-atmosphere-ocean interactions including monsoons”; in chapter 6: “Projected changes in modes of climate variability and monsoons”.

On the issue of plain language summaries, when the outline was presented for approval, each of the chapter had a heading called “plain language summaries”, which the Co-Chairs explained was for those readers who did not have the capacity to understand IPCC jargon. The Co-Chairs further explained that the plain language summaries would go through review process, including expert review as well as government review processes.

India expressed concern about such summaries and explained that these would end up competing with the SPM for attention. (The SPM goes through a process of line-by-line approval by governments). It said the plain language summaries, if they were insisted upon, should also be subject to line-by-line approval. It received support from Saudi Arabia and Russia.  Several governments such as Australia, Canada, Sweden, and France supported the idea of such summaries.

The plain language summaries evolved into a suggestion for a plain language overview, but given continued disagreements and a brief huddle, the proposal on plain language summaries or overview were both finally dropped from the outline.

(Further articles to follow).