|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on Climate Change (Mar25/06) Discussions on IPCC Report on CO2 Removal/Carbon Capture to continue at next session Kathmandu, 17 Mar (Prerna Bomzan): At the 62nd session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 62) held from 24 Feb until 1 Mar in Hangzhou, China, which approved the chapter outlines of the three working group (WG) reports of the upcoming seventh assessment report cycle (AR 7), negotiations did not conclude in a decision on the “outline” of the ‘Methodology Report on Carbon Dioxide Removal Technologies, Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage’ (MR CDR/CCUS). (The IPCC is a UN body for assessing the science related to climate change. It produces three WG Assessment Reports: WG 1 ‘The Physical Science Basis’; WG 2 ‘Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability’; and WG 3 ‘Mitigation of Climate Change’ reports. Methodology Report/s produced by the IPCC provide practical guidelines for the preparation of national greenhouse gas inventories.) The IPCC at its 60th session in Jan 2024, decided (Decision IPCC-LX-9) that the Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (TFI) should produce a MR CDR/CCUS by the end of 2027, and to be developed with the MR on Short Lived Climate Forcers whose outline was approved (See TWN update) at the 61st session.) The key contention until the final hours in relation to the outline of MR CDR/CCUS, centred around whether or not to include “waterbodies”, proposed in “Volume 7: Direct Removal of CO2 from Waterbodies. Alkalinity Enhancement of Waterbodies”, with opponents to the proposal citing critical issues such as “premature”, “experimental” technologies, “environmental” impacts and issues concerning “national jurisdictions” of “waterbodies” in relation to whether it referred to “closed systems” or “open systems” like oceans; while proponents arguing that CDR/CCUS from waterbodies is already being undertaken, hence the need for a “methodology report” for “accurate” inventories. The protracted negotiations until the very end did not meet consensus, and the Panel finally agreed to continue discussion on “Volume 7” at its next 63rd session later in the year, to “agree” on the MR CDR/CCUS outline. The ‘title’ of the MR CDR/CCUS and “Volume 6: Carbon Dioxide Capture, Transport, Utilization and Storage” which had also heard divergent views, were “agreed” in principle, as was informed at the closing plenary when concluding this agenda item with no decision. (See details below). Process and mode of work Negotiations on the MR CDR/CCUS were based on the proposed outline, prepared and presented by the Co-Chairs of the TFI Mazhar Hayat (Pakistan) and Takeshi Enoki (Japan), which resulted out of the scoping meeting held in October 2024 in Denmark. The document presented the background, scope and approach of the proposed outline. (The scope of the proposed outline stated the following, which was also touched upon by TFI Co-Chairs during their presentation and responses to members’ comments and queries: “The IPCC Guidelines already cover issues related to Afforestation/Reforestation, Soil carbon sequestration in croplands and grasslands, Peatland and coastal wetland restoration, Agroforestry, Improved Forest Management, Biochar amendments, Carbon Capture and Storage from process gases. The aim of the
new Methodology Report is to provide an updated and sound scientific
basis for supporting the preparation and continuous improvement of
national greenhouse gas inventories in relation to estimation and
reporting of carbon dioxide removal technologies, carbon capture,
utilization and storage. In order to achieve the overall aim, the
new Methodology report will: This work will not revise the 2006 IPCC Guidelines but will update and provide new guidance for the 2006 IPCC Guidelines where gaps or out-of-date science have been identified. The Methodology Report will not replace the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, but will be used in conjunction with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Generally, national inventories should include greenhouse gas emissions and removals taking place within national territory and offshore areas over which the country has jurisdiction [2006 IPCC Guidelines, Volume I, Chapter 8.2.1]”.) The proposed ‘title’ of the MR CDR/CCUS outline, accompanied by an explanatory note, read as follows: “2027 IPCC Methodology Report on Carbon Dioxide Removal Technologies, Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage (Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines). The reference
to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories,
and thus the notation 2006 IPCC Guidelines, includes the following
three methodological reports: The proposed format of the MR CDR/CCUS comprised an overview chapter and seven volumes following the format of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2006 IPCC Guidelines) to make it easier for inventory compilers to use the MR together with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, as follows: “Overview Chapter Besides “Volume 7” on “waterbodies” as make-it-or-break-it issue, the other divergent views were around the ‘title’ of MR CDR/CCUS and its scope, whether it should be a “supplement” to the existing 2006 IPCC Guidelines as reflected in the proposed ‘title’ or an independent “stand-alone” report, similar to the approved outline of MR on Short Lived Climate Forcers. There were also some issues pertaining to “Volume 6: Carbon Dioxide Capture, Transport, Utilization and Storage” such as tracking of CO2 including treatment of short term/long term storage; treatment of direct air capture and direct water capture; transboundary storage; among others. After the first round of comments received at the plenary on 24 Feb, Co-Chair Enoki (Japan) announced the mode of work into a dedicated ‘contact group’ setting to deep dive on the divergent issues and aiming to reach agreement on the outline, for consideration at the plenary for approval. The ‘contact group’ led by Xueting Peng (China) and María José Sanz (Spain) worked until the closing day, with the negotiating text evolving into numerous ‘conference room papers’ (CRP) with options to resolve the key sticky issues. During the process, the ‘title’ was agreed as well as “Volumes 1-6” in principle. On 1 March at the closing plenary, after a final attempt to resolve the only remaining issue of “Volume 7”, that resulted in no agreement, the Panel decided to start negotiations again on “Volume 7” in the next 63rd session to “agree” on the outline of MR CDR/CCUS. The following section summarises negotiations on (i) “Volume 7” including its interaction with “Volume 6” and (ii) the ‘title’ of the MR CDR/CCUS, as the key contentious issues. “Volume 7: Direct Removal of CO2 from Waterbodies. Alkalinity Enhancement of Waterbodies” At the plenary presentation on the proposed outline on 24 Feb, Co-Chair Enoki (Japan) had informed that the proposed “Volume 7: Direct Removal of CO2 from Waterbodies. Alkalinity Enhancement of Waterbodies” resulted out of the scoping meeting using the assessment criteria to identify fundamental “gaps” among others, in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. “Volume 7” was identified as the new “sixth” IPCC sector, alongwith “Volume 6: Carbon Dioxide Capture, Transport, Utilization and Storage” as the new “fifth” IPCC sector, as per the assessment criteria – the existing four sectors in inventories are energy; industrial processes and product use; agriculture, forestry, and other land use; waste. “Volume 7” was
proposed as: India explicitly made clear that it did not support the inclusion of “Volume 7” given concerns regarding waterbodies and asked for its removal, also stating that an “appendix” is not an option. It was of the view that MRs must be developed when the technologies themselves are mature, and for CO2 removal from oceans, the techniques being discussed are themselves nascent and various aspects related to their potential, risks etc. is not yet well developed. Chile supported removing references to waterbodies as well. Vanuatu also expressed “uncertainties” on waterbodies and urged for a “precautionary approach” with regard to inclusion of “speculative” technologies. Azerbaijan echoed on the uncertainties and potential “adverse” effects of alkalinisation technologies. France, Belgium, Switzerland, and Sweden did not support the reference to waterbodies, as well with Germany highlighting that technologies mentioned are “highly immature, far away from market deployment and most likely very harmful for ecosystems and biodiversity”. Turkiye, and Norway, stated that the term waterbodies can be moved to “Volume 6”. Saudi Arabia emphasised that it is essential to “retain Volume 7” on waterbodies. Singapore supported Volume 7 as well. On 25 Feb at the ‘contact group’ setting, “three options” were presented for “Volume 7”, as follows: (1) keep Volume 7 as is (2) delete Volume 7 (3) delete Volume 7 and add a chapter in Volume 6 about “Direct CO2 removals from waterbodies” [stripping out CO2 from water]” In a CRP 3 text, in Volume 6, the proposed chapter in “option 3” read, “[Chapter 3bis. Direct Removal of CO2 from Waterbodies – new guidance on enhancing sinks by capture of CO2 from water with storage or other utilization]”. (Chapter 3 in the text read as, “Direct Air Capture”) Germany stated that ocean alkalinisation is “highly contentious” and that unless scientifically proven it will set a “precedent”. It also referrred to the “London Convention” pertaining to marine pollution, and chose option 2 of deletion of Volume 7. France, and Canada, followed suit as well as Belgium opted the same citing it goes against all principles of “precautionary”. Denmark suggested to remove alkalinisation and keep all three options. The Netherlands said that there should be a “differentiated” approach between direct air capture and alkalinisation, as well as direct air capture in “closed” systems with “limited risks” compared to “open” systems so preferred preserving the option of direct air capture in Volume 6. India reiterated deletion of “Volume 7” on grounds of its concerns on still experimental technologies which does not warrant a “methodology report”. Azerbaijan supported deletion of “Volume of 7” as well. Saudi Arabia, China, Singapore, and Italy supported “option 1” to “keep Volume 7”. In the next iteration CRP 5 text, in Volume 6, the proposed chapter in “option 3” read, “[Chapter 3bis Direct Removal of CO2 from waterbodies in closed systems – New guidance on capture of CO2 from waterbodies within territorial jurisdiction with storage or other utilization.] However, at the ‘contact group’ negotiations, it was learnt that the “option 3” of adding a chapter in “Volume 6” about “Direct CO2 removals from waterbodies” and deleting “Volume 7” altogether, was eventually dropped, and retaining “Volume 7” as is. At the plenary on 1 March, Chair Jim Skea (United Kingdom) after hearing persistent divergent views on “Volume 7” by members and with the text still containing “placeholders”, proposed the way forward by inviting the TFI Co-Chairs to come with a final “clear and unambiguous proposal” on the MR CDR/CCUS outline, else it would move to the next session. Co-facilitator Sanz (Spain) next presented a final option on “Volume 7” to members which was contained in CRP 10 text, and also reported that “Volumes 1-6” are now agreed. The final option on “Volume 7”, with its “Chapter 3: alkalinity enhancement of waterbodies” as an “Appedix”, was as follows: “Volume 7. Direct
Removal of CO2 from waterbodies, Alkalinity Enhancement of Waterbodies This option was “unacceptable” to Germany, Austria, France. The Netherlands was willing to accept it as a “compromise” if acceptable to all. Germany also proposed to adopt the MR outline with “Volumes 1-6” only. China stated to consider the proposal, while Saudi Arabia expressed disappointment that there is no agreement and proposed to revert to the text where “Volume 7 is still bracketed [not agreed]” but where a lot of flexibility was demonstrated on the language to make some progress. Hearing no clear consensus from members, Co-facilitator Sanz (Spain) stated that members “note the progress made” and “to continue work on Volume 7 in the next session [63rd session]” in order to reach agreement on the MR/CDR CCUS outline. Sweden, and Denmark expressed disappointment. Saudi Arabia clarified the conclusion of the session that “Volumes 1-6 are gavelled” and “start negotiations on Volume 7 next session”. In the CRP 10
text, the agreed “Volume 6” reads as follows: Title of MR CDR/CCUS The proposed outline ‘title’ read, “2027 IPCC Methodology Report on Carbon Dioxide Removal Technologies, Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage (Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines)”. (2006 IPCC Guidelines include: 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2006 IPCC Guidelines); 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands (Wetlands Supplement); 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2019 Refinement) India did not support the ‘title’ and its scope with the inclusion of text contained in paranthesis “supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines” as it considered the MR CDR/CCUS as a “stand-alone” report, just as the MR on Short Lived Climate Forcers, and not an “update” to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines as currently framed in the “overview chapter”. It said that “supplement” has implications and the sensitivities come from “reporting under the UNFCCC’s decision 18/CMA.1” which refers to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for national inventory reporting. It underlined to be specifically stated that the MR should seen be as “additional guidance” to that covered in 2006 IPCC guidelines. South Africa stated similar concerns pointing out that it viewed the MR as a “stand-alone assessment”, just as the MR on Short Lived Climate Forcers, and not a “supplement/update”. It also called for deletion of the text in paranthesis. Algeria supported both India and South Africa, while Kenya sought more clarification on the interpretatio of “supplement”. Saudi Arabia stated to retain the ‘title’ as is since the report more accurately reflects its “supplementary and complementary nature” rather than implying it “replaces or revises” the existing guidelines as a refinement. Norway, the Netherlands, UK, Sweden, and Denmark, preferred the ‘title’ as is reflecting “supplement” to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Co-Chair Enoki (Japan) responded that the MR is a “stand-alone” document with “no legal linkage” with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and assured that at the moment it is not included in the national inventory hence “no additional burden” to countries. He clarified said that a “supplement” has “no implications in principle”. On 27 Feb at the plenary, Co-facilitator Sanz (Spain) proposed a revised ‘title’ accompanied by a text elaborating on the reference and “notation” to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, which read: “2027 IPCC Methodology
Report on Carbon Dioxide Removal Technologies, Carbon Capture, Utilization, and
Storage for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (Additional guidance)”. South Africa responded that the text in paranthesis “additional guidance” is still redundant and called for its removal from the ‘title’. India called for removal of the text “and thus the notation 2006 IPCC Guidelines”. Algeria supported both South Africa and India. Germany and the Netherlands supported the revised ‘title’. Saudi Arabia stated that the revised ‘title’ is a “good compromise”. Co-Chair Enoki (Japan) provided assurance that the MR CDR/CCUS will be “additional” to the existing three MRs on national greenhouse gas inventories and “not replacing” the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. The approved
‘title’ with the explanatory note reads: The reference
for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, includes the following three
methodological reports: With the ‘title’, and “Volumes 1-6” agreed in principle, negotiations on “Volume 7” will be crucial to reach final agreement on the MR CDR/CCUS outline, in the next 63rd session to be hosted by Peru later in the year.
|
||
