Concerned over bid to rush IPCC report: India

India along with other developing countries has flagged serious concerns over attempts by developed nations to shorten the timeline for the delivery of the seventh assessment cycle report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), people familiar with the matter said.

The 60th session of the IPCC, held in Istanbul between January 16 and 20, was fraught with intense debates on how and when the panel will inform the world about the state of the crisis.

While the meeting, attended by 195 member countries, was held to draw out a schedule for the 7th, and possibly the most important cycle with time running out on meeting the Paris goal of 1.5°C, observers said the meeting ended with the IPCC bureau failing to arrive at a consensus on delivery of reports.

According to schedule, the final Synthesis Report of this cycle is expected by the end of 2029.

“Many developing countries were concerned that the agenda of the developed countries was to rush the IPCC AR7 for completion in less than five years (four and a half years or less) and therefore compromise on the quality of the reports. Some developed countries also shared these concerns, notably Russia. Many other developed countries were initially for a longer timeline like the developing countries but slowly fell in line with the US which was pushing for an early timeline,” a senior official from India’s delegation told HT.

The IPCC informs governments about the state of knowledge of climate crisis by examining all relevant literature on the subject. The panel completed its sixth assessment cycle last year with the Synthesis Report — a summary of its earlier reports — releasing in March 2023.

On Friday, the Third World Network, a non-profit international research and advocacy group, reported that the US, Jamaica, Grenada and other island nations supported the light cycle option (with fewer products and shorter timeline than the AR6). These nations also called on IPCC to respond to the invitation by the UNFCCC to provide information for the second global stocktake (GST) scheduled for 2027-28 period.

The first GST, which reviewed the progress made globally on curbing climate crisis in line with the Paris Agreement, was completed last year.

The Indian official said that it was clarified repeatedly by IPCC co-chairs that while accelerating reports was possible, it involved many compromises that went against interests of developing countries.

“As is clear from the TWN (Third world Network) report, with an early timeline there would be less time for our scientists to prepare and publish adequate literature reflecting our point of view including equity, climate justice, common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, sustainable production and consumption and other aspects. With an accelerated timeline, it would be dominated by the literature from developed countries which overwhelmingly ignore these aspects as happened in AR6 with the Special Report on 1.5 Degree Warming. Given their much higher capacities and availability of resources, this is certain to happen and developing countries therefore need the time for their scientific community to be heard,” the official said, requesting anonymity.

The IPCC process is such that developing countries, including India, devote a lot of time and effort to review draft reports to avoid inclusion of biased information, officials said, adding that authors also need the time to reflect on the review comments in subsequent drafts.

“The outcomes demanded by the US included also eliminating the Synthesis Report which is very important, and the normal practice, in order to provide an integrated overview of all aspects of climate change and how to tackle it,” the official said.

“…it became clear that the purpose of the developed countries in speeding up of the reports was not based on any scientific requirement at all but merely trying to get some findings before the second GST, which would end by late 2028. By rushing the findings in this manner, the final IPCC output could be tailored to favour the developed country viewpoint,” he added.

Pointing to the implications of a shortened cycle would have on the AR7 cycle, India asked the co-chairs what the meaning of “comprehensive” was.

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, the TWN reported.

India was supported by the Brazil, South Africa, India and China (BASIC) and Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDC).

Officials also said most developing countries were against a mitigation-centric approach, sensing a push to shift the mitigation burden on emerging economies.

Another important development from the IPCC meeting was the resolution to produce a report related to state and needs for adaptation in countries.

Many developing countries led by South Africa underscored the importance of IPCC updating its 1994 technical guidelines on adaptation including adaptation indicators, metrics and methodologies. India, Saudi Arabia, Kenya, Egypt, Algeria, Iran, Iraq, Bolivia and Brazil, among others supported this call.

“India’s role was critical in ensuring that the IPCC agreed to produce a special knowledge product on adaptation in AR7, including the revision and update of the 1994 Technical Guidelines on Impact Assessment and consideration of adaptation metrics, targets and indicators. The developed countries mostly opposed this or diluted this into a mitigation-centric report while developing countries hesitated on the modalities and were confused. India’s intervention was consistently carried forward to ensure the final decision,” the official said.