|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on Climate Change (Mar25/05) IPCC: STICKY ISSUES IN APPROVAL OF OUTLINES OF WG3/ WG2 REPORTS Delhi, 13 March (Indrajit Bose) — The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) approved the outline of its Working Group (WG) 3 Report on ‘Mitigation and Climate Change’ and WG 2 Report on ‘Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability’ at it 62nd session in Hangzhou, China, held from 24 February to 1 March following intense negotiations. (Also see related TWN article on the WG 1 outline and timeline of the WGs.) This article presents the key contentious that came up during the discussions on the outlines of WG 3 Report and some highlights of contentious issues on the WG 2 Report outline. Working Group 3 Outline The following is the agreed chapter outline of the WG 3 report: Summary for Policymakers Technical Summary Chapter 1: Introduction and framing Chapter 2: Past and current anthropogenic emissions and their drivers Chapter 3: Projected futures in the context of sustainable development and climate change Chapter 4: Sustainable development and mitigation Chapter 5: Enablers and barriers Chapter 6: Policies and governance and international cooperation Chapter 7: Finance Common elements across Chapters 8-13 Chapter 8: Services and demand Chapter 9: Energy systems Chapter 10: Industry Chapter 11: Transport and mobility services and systems Chapter 12: Buildings and human settlements Chapter 13: Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Chapter 14: Integration and interactions across sectors and systems Chapter 15: Potentials, limits, and risks of Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) Annex: Glossary Several contentious issues emerged during the approval of the outline, which comprised chapter titles and bullets under each of the chapter titles. The discussions were presided over by WG 3 Co-Chair Joy Jacqueline Pereira (Malaysia) and Vice-Chair of WG 3 Jan Sigurd Fuglestvedt (Norway). (The outline presented for approval was the result of a scoping meeting of experts who had met in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia in Dec. 2024 to draft the outlines of the three Working Group contributions to AR7.) The contentious issues included language around policy prescriptiveness; references to equity; whether solar radiation modification (SRM) should be part of the outline; costs of inaction; whether the issue of trade should stay; whether emissions associated with existing and long-lived infrastructure should be retained in a chapter on past and current emissions; the term “nexus”; among others. Mention of differentiation between developed and developing countries, historical responsibility, carbon budget and framing of just transition were also discussed. Equity, differentiation and carbon budget On equity, Germany expressed concern on the extensive use of the term in the outline and suggested streamlining such language; otherwise, it would include language such as enabling environment, governance etc. It referred to equity and justice as “normative and value-laden” words. Switzerland too said reference to equity should be more concentrated and suggested that the IPCC produce analytical work on fair shares. It also suggested adding references to human rights and intergenerational equity to the outline. India said it supports the focus on equity, sustainable development and justice as a crosscutting theme in the outline, and these were overarching themes and could not be confined to one particular chapter. Saudi Arabia, and Nepal also welcomed the mention of equity in the outline. To Germany’s comment regarding equity being normative and value laden, India said it was surprised to hear such remarks, especially since it had been identified that equity was a major gap in the previous assessments, and which needed to be rectified. Saudi Arabia echoed similar sentiments. References to equity were retained in bullets in chapters 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11,13 and 15. On differentiation, a bullet in chapter 1 read, “Framing providing overarching concepts and key policy-relevant issues of the mitigation of climate change including equity within and between countries, just transition in its broader sense, differentiation in the context of development, regionalization, and considerations of Indigenous knowledges”. India, China and Saudi Arabia suggested adding differentiation between developed and developing countries; however, with objections from several developed country-Panel members, the sentence was changed to differentiation considering stages of development. The agreed sentence reads, “Framing, in the context of AR7, providing overarching concepts related to mitigation, including equity within and between countries, just transitions in its broader sense, differentiation considering stages of development, and circumstances, regionalization, and considerations of Indigenous knowledges and local knowledge.” In chapter 2 on “Past and current anthropogenic emissions and their drivers”, India, supported by Kenya and Saudi Arabia, suggested adding total carbon budgets and not just remaining carbon budgets to one of the bullets. The agreed bullet reads, “Historical anthropogenic emissions and emissions trends on an annual and cumulative basis (global, by region, sector, GHG (greenhouse gases), non-GHG, etc., using different indicators and definitions, at different scales), including estimates of uncertainty, and consistency with national inventories, and relationship to total and remaining carbon budgets”. Also in chapter 2, upon requests by Russia and supported by India and Saudi Arabia, among others, a bullet changed from “assessment of historical emissions” to “historical anthropogenic emissions.” The agreed bullet reads, “Historical anthropogenic emissions and emissions trends on an annual and cumulative basis (global, by region, sector, GHG, non-GHG, etc., using different indicators and definitions, at different scales), including estimates of uncertainty, and consistency with national inventories, and relationship to total and remaining carbon budgets”. Switzerland wanted to add assessment of historical, current and future trends of fossil fuel production to chapter 2, which was not accepted. In chapter 4, Kenya suggested adding carbon budget in a bullet on “Pathways in the context of sustainable development.” The agreed sentence reads, “Pathways in the context of sustainable development and the remaining carbon budgets, considering different stages of development, and circumstances…” Kenya said achieving sustainable development in the remaining carbon budget requires unprecedented global cooperation and equity. Policy-prescriptive language Saudi Arabia said the outline often went into policy prescriptive areas that needed correction. It said the outline should be a framework to guide authors and not be prescriptive and should not have names of specific technologies for instance. The term “evaluation/evaluate” (with respect to policies) suggests that the IPCC is the judge of climate policies, approaches, options, strategies, all of which is in contradiction with the principles of the IPCC, it added. Responding to comments from the floor, it also said that that “the discussions on evaluating national policies, idea of 1.5°C alignment, are reminiscent of discussion on the NDC (nationally determined contributions) synthesis report under the UNFCCC”. “We are not here to send political signals, or tell countries what to do. As a reminder “IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy. In other words, this report is not intended to be a policy brief, or a vehicle for top-down analysis; it is a bottom-up scientific assessment of the literature,” it said further. India, China and Egypt agreed with Saudi Arabia on the need for the IPCC to steer clear of the policy prescription approach. In this regard, in chapter 2, Saudi Arabia proposed deleting the bullet, “Policy, actions, and governance at different scales (global, regional, national, and local), including ex-post analysis of impacts on emissions and drivers”. Algeria, Egypt, and China supported Saudi Arabia. According to India, ex-post analysis is a very narrow approach to policy analysis and it said the language should change to more general formulation of “assessment of policies”. Switzerland was in favour of keeping “ex-post”. The United Kingdom (UK) said policies must be assessed across levels, supported by Australia. However, with continued disagreement, the sentence evolved into deletion of ex-post analysis first and subsequently the entire bullet was dropped. References to “ex-post policy and governance evaluation” were also in chapters 6 and common elements across chapters 8-13. The reference was deleted in chapter 6, and replaced by “Policies and implementation as appropriate” in common elements across chapters 8-13. Also, the title of Chapter 6 changed from “Policies and governance at national, international, and subnational levels” to “Policies and governance and international cooperation”. Another example of policy prescription was in a bullet in chapter 3 that read, “Assessment of current policies, NDCs, long-term targets, other national policies and scenarios, and consistency between national and global futures, in the context of the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement”. Saudi Arabia said the bullet seemed oddly reminiscent of functions that are carried under the UNFCCC and not the IPCC. It said the focus should be on emissions trajectories, not of consistency of policies with climate goals. It also said that the bullet shifts the focus to comparing national policies with global goals, which is a policy-driven analysis. Following further discussions and support from India, China, Egypt, and Algeria, the bullet changed to, “Projected emissions pathways considering current policy and projections, and relationships between national and global projected scenarios, in the context of the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement”. In yet another example, Brazil, supported by India and Saudi Arabia also asked why chapter 13 on Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) referred to NDCs and the Paris Agreement. (The relevant bullet read, “Consideration of how the AFOLU sector is treated in the NDCs under the Paris Agreement and interactions with other relevant UN Conventions and other relevant international instruments). The bullet was then deleted. Solar Radiation Management (SRM) On SRM, India expressed concerns around including it in the outline given the risk of SRM being considered as a mitigation option. (In chapter 6, the corresponding bullet read, “Governance of net-negative emissions and solar radiation modification”). The concerns were echoed by several countries such as Belize, Nepal, Canada, Norway, Belgium, Italy, Timor Leste, Denmark and Germany. Different formulations evolved such as “Ethics and governance of solar radiation modification”, which the UK was willing to accept. However, India said it cannot live with mention of SRM in mitigation and that its risks should be studied in WG2 instead. The bullet was dropped from the chapter. Energy In chapter 9 on “Energy”, contention arose over a bullet that read, “Navigating transitions from unabated fossil fuels to electrification and clean energy carriers across sectors, load rebalancing and storage, demand-side management, and smart energy systems.” Objections by Saudi Arabia, China, and Algeria led to the bullet being re-drafted to “Energy transitions”. Switzerland, Ireland and Denmark, among others, wanted language on transitioning away from fossil fuels in the bullet. However, China remarked not to specify any kind of energy and reminded the panel that it was IPCC, not an intergovernmental panel on fossil fuels. Cost of inaction On the cost of action and inaction, the UK suggested that both should be part of the outline and the cost of inaction also needs to be measured. The proposal was supported by Switzerland, Belgium, Australia, UK and Vanuatu, among others. Luxembourg suggested there must be consistent information on benefits of avoided impacts as well as costs of delayed action. The corresponding bullet in chapter 3 read: “Economics of global and national mitigation and development pathways, including mitigation benefits and costs of action and inaction, investment needs, employment effects, co-benefits, and spillover effects”. Responding to comments, India said the cost of inaction (lack of adequate mitigation action by developed countries) was essentially the cost of adaptation and loss and damage which are being addressed elsewhere (in WG2 report). The reference to the cost of action and inaction would end up in confusion, said India and called for deletion of inaction. India also said that benefits of avoided impacts was also a problem largely due to historical responsibility since who undertakes climate action and who benefits is not uniformly distributed. Those supporting the term continued to insist on including “costs of inaction”. However, continued disagreements among the Panel members led to its deletion. Emissions from long-lived infrastructure On emissions associated with existing and long-lived infrastructure, the bullet in chapter 2 read, “Emissions associated with existing and long-lived infrastructure”. Saudi Arabia requested deletion of the bullet because it did not align with the objective of the chapter whose focus was past and current emissions and their drivers. It explained that currently planned infrastructure had not contributed to emissions and are therefore outside the scope of the chapter. Kenya, China, India, Algeria and Togo supported Saudi Arabia. China said it did not want to highlight just one or two drivers and that the more important driver that was appropriate in the chapter was fossil fuel emissions caused by colonialism since industrial revolution. India said not all currently planned infrastructure becomes reality and developing countries need means of implementation for that. Norway, Switzerland, Ireland and the UK, among others objected to deletion of the bullet. Following continued disagreement, the bullet was dropped from the outline. Trade, just transition and legal framework In Chapter 5 on “Enablers and barriers”, reference to international relations was deleted on India’s request and trade was deleted due to requests by China, Saudi Arabia and Maldives. So, the sentence that originally read, “International relations and cooperation, trade, and supply chains”, was changed to “International cooperation and supply chains”. On just transition, Saudi Arabia pointed to a bullet in chapter 5, which read, “Labor as enabler and barrier to mitigation, including supply, organization, wellbeing, skills, just transition”. It suggested separating just transitions as a separate bullet since the scope of the issue was broader than just labour. Kenya, India, China and Russia supported Saudi Arabia and the agreed independent bullet reads, “Just transitions” in chapter 5. In chapter 6, the bullet “legal frameworks and litigation for climate action” was dropped due to requests from Saudi Arabia, China and Egypt. WG 2 Report Outline The following chapter outline was agreed: Summary for Policymakers Technical Summary Chapter 1: Point of departure, framing and key concepts Global Assessment Chapters Chapter 2: Vulnerabilities, impacts and risks Chapter 3: Current adaptation progress, effectiveness and adequacy Chapter 4: Adaptation options and conditions for accelerating action Chapter 5: Responses to losses and damages Chapter 6: Finance Regional Assessment Chapters Common Bullets to all Regional Assessment Chapters Chapter 7: Africa Chapter 8: Asia Chapter 9: Australasia Chapter 10: Central and South America Chapter 11: Europe Chapter 12: North America Chapter 13: Small Islands Thematic Assessment Chapters Common bullets to all thematic assessment chapters Chapter 14: Terrestrial, freshwater and cryospheric biodiversity, ecosystems and their Services Chapter 15: Ocean, coastal and cryospheric biodiversity, ecosystems and their services Chapter 16: Water Chapter 17: Agriculture, food, forestry, fibre and fisheries Chapter 18: Adaptation of human settlements, infrastructure and industry systems Chapter 19: Health and well-being Chapter 20: Poverty, livelihoods, mobility and fragility The discussions were facilitated by Co-Chairs Winston Chow (Singapore) and Bart van den Hurk (Netherlands). Among the contentious issues that surfaced included references to maladaptation and transformational adaptation, which were not included in the outline as presented for approval. Switzerland, Burundi, Vanuatu, Denmark, Panama, and Germany, among others called for including maladaptation and France and Australia insisted on including transformational adaptation, but these did not find agreement with India. Both maladaptation and transformational adaptation do not figure in the agreed outline. Several countries also called for risks of SRM to figure in the outline. The relevant bullet that was agreed reads, “Risks, risk management and ethics of Solar Radiation Modification”. There was also considerable discussion on how losses and damages should be reflected, whether all information related to losses and damages should be concentrated in one chapter (chapter 5) or as part of other chapters too. A particular bullet in chapter 2 read, “Synthesis of observed and projected impacts, including economic and non-economic losses and damages, building on both slow onset and extreme Climatic-Impact Drivers, including detection and attribution”. Kenya, Nepal, Jamaica, Chile and Vanuatu, among others stressed the importance of including quantification in the sentence. The sentence evolved into “Synthesis of observed and projected economic and non-economic losses and damages, building on both slow to rapid onset events and climate extremes, including quantification, detection and attribution as appropriate”. Italy expressed its opposition to quantification, while Saudi Arabia suggested stopping at extremes. A huddle followed and agreement was found in the formulation that reads, “Assessment of methodologies and synthesis of observed and projected economic and noneconomic losses and damages, building on both slow to rapid onset events and climate extremes, including quantification, as appropriate”. Another issue that proved contentious was use of the word “adequacy” in the title and bullets of Chapter 3. Germany among others opposed the term, while Saudi Arabia, India, Maldives, China, Panama and Nepal, among others expressed their support for the term. The term was retained in the title (“Current adaptation progress, effectiveness and adequacy”) and the bullet (“Adequacy and effectiveness of support for adaptation and risk management”). Contention also arose over a bullet in Chapter 20 that read, “Differentiated capabilities and responsibilities, and asymmetric access to information, finance and decision-making fora”. Switzerland among other countries opposed use of the term differentiated. In subsequent iterations of the bullet, the word differentiated was replaced by “asymmetric”. However, given no agreement, the word “differentiated” was restored. Technical Guidelines for Assessing Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation The IPCC also approved the outline of the ‘202X IPCC Technical Guidelines for Assessing Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Including Indicators, Metrics and Methodologies: Update to the 1994 IPCC Technical Guidelines for Assessing Climate Change Impacts and Adaptations’. (The IPCC at its 60th session in January 2024 had 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 WG 2 Report and will be published as a separate product” in its 7th Assessment Report cycle. See related update.) The following outline was agreed: Section 1: Introduction Section 2: Adaptation in practice Section 3: Technical Guidelines Section 4: Tools, building blocks and enablers Conclusion As seen from above, the process to reach agreement on the outlines of the IPCC’s respective WG Reports were indeed contentious and political, given the importance of the IPCC Reports to the UNFCCC process. The difficult deliberations in China on the outlines of these Reports foreshadow what will certainly be even more challenging in approving the eventual findings of these Reports in the respective Summary for Policy Makers.
|
||
