62nd Plenary Meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: The Area of Tension between Science and Politics

IPCC stands for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It is a committee of the United Nations (UN) that assesses scientific findings relating to climate change and currently consists of 196 member states. And it is precisely these governments who cultivate a close exchange with the scientific community (i.e. with experts who, as the authors of reports, represent the basis of the IPCC’s work).

One of the main functions of the IPCC is the regular provision of so-called Assessment Reports (AR) that illustrate and assess the status of climate change research. Important decisions on content and the time at which reports are approved are decided together in regular plenary sessions involving the 196 member states. Representatives from the scientific community and governments take part in these meetings. This connection between governmental and scientific players is a core component of the IPCC process. It ensures that reports from the international community are supported. IPCC Assessment Reports are, inter alia, so important in pointing the way ahead in international climate policy. For example, IPCC Assessment Reports were instrumental in establishing the 1.5 degree target or the goal of halving greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Each AR encompasses three main components:

1. The scientific fundamentals of climate change, drawn up by Working Group I (WG I)
2. Effects, adaptation and vulnerability, assessed by Working Group II (WG II)
3. The reduction of climate change, assessed by Working Group III (WG III)

In addition, a Synthesis Report is compiled which summarises and assesses the most important findings of the three reports. Aside from this, different Special Reports are compiled during each cycle that address special and currently relevant subtopics. For example, last year saw a Special Report being compiled on global warming of 1.5 °C and one on the ocean and cryosphere. In addition, Methodology Reports are published that provide practical guidelines for the preparation of greenhouse gas inventories.

Cycle relating to the 7th Assessment Report

The last, or rather 6th cycle, was concluded in 2023 with the publication of the Synthesis Report. We are currently in the cycle pertaining to the 7th Assessment Report.

1. This began in July 2023 with the 59th Plenary Meeting of the IPCC in Nairobi. The new IPCC Bureau consisting of scientists was selected at this event.
2. The subsequent 60th Plenary Meeting was held in Istanbul in January 2024. A decision was reached there indicating that a Special Report on the topic of climate change and urban centres would be published during the cycle. In addition, agreement was reached on a Methodology Report addressing the subject of CO2 extraction technologies and CO2 capture, use and storage. A decision on a Methodology Report addressing transient climate-impacting substances was also reached.
3. The 61st Plenary Meeting was held in Sofia in August 2024. Structuring of content and the schedule for the three contributions (WG I, II & III) to the main report were addressed (ProClim reported on this). The member states were, however, unable to agree on a definitive timetable for the publication of the three contributions, and the decision was postponed until the Plenary Meeting in February 2025.
4. A so-called Scoping Meeting was then held in December 2024 in Kuala Lumpur (ProClim reported on this). Scoping Meetings are only attended by representatives from the scientific community nominated by the countries and selected by the IPCC Bureau. These representatives formulate proposals which can then be discussed in Plenary Meetings in the presence of government delegations, and decisions are then reached (see diagram above: Scoping).
5. Consultation on content-related guidelines and the schedule for the three main WG reports were continued at the 62nd Plenary Meeting in Hangzhou, China (see image above: Approval of Outline).

Key meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The decision regarding the schedule for the 7th Assessment Report was a controversial issue at the 62nd Plenary Meeting at the end of February in Hangzhou. The decision to be reached was on when the three reports should be approved and published. The question as to whether the Report on the Mitigation of Climate Change (WG III) should be published before or after the second Global Stocktake (GST-2) in 2028 in time for the 33rd UNO Climate Conference (COP33) in India indicated that political interests were divided.

_{What is a Global Stocktake? The Global Stocktake is a form of inventory. It means that everything relating to the current state of global climate measures and support activities is examined, deficiencies are determined and, together, an improved course for accelerating climate measures is defined.
This stocktaking exercise occurs every five years, with the conclusion of the first stocktaking (GST-1) in 2023 being decided at the 28th UNO Climate Conference (COP28). It laid the foundation for the next round of climate action plans in the context of the Paris Agreement (Nationally Determined Contributions or NDCs), which should have been submitted by 10 February 2025 by all member states of the Paris Convention.
The next Global Stocktake (GST-2) is due in 2028 and will influence the next round of NDCs (for 2035–2040), which should be submitted in 2030.}

Whether the results from the previous AR6 or new insights from AR7 can serve as a basis for GST-2 can significantly influence this initial position and estimation. GST-2 will, in turn, determine the ambition of the NDCs of the signatory states to the Paris Climate Agreement for the period from 2035 to 2040 and the planning of NDCs in 2035 (for 2040-45). This time period from 2035 to 2045 is regarded as decisive by the scientific community if the Paris climate goals are to be achieved.

Ambitious states regard the publication of the AR7 report prior to the GST-2 to be an important basis for negotiation if all signatory states to the Paris Climate Agreement are to be motivated to realise ambitious NDCs. The situation is different for countries that pursue less ambitious climate goals or whose greenhouse gas emissions have increased dramatically in the recent past: they are less interested in publication before the GST-2. How did negotiations develop in this politically strained IPCC Plenary Meeting? We asked Sebastian König a few questions on this subject.

Kislig: Sebastian König, you participated in the 62nd IPCC Plenary Meeting. What role did you play there, and what were your goals or intentions as you travelled to Hangzhou?

König: The Swiss delegation travelled to Hangzhou with three key objectives. Firstly, scientifically ambitious content-related guidelines should be adopted for all three Working Group reports. Secondly, a schedule should be adopted for the publication of reports that is oriented on international climate negotiations, particularly GST-2. And thirdly, we concentrated on the adoption of the Methodology Report on Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) Technologies and Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage. Clear standards should be created for countries to demonstrate how they can report on the application of these technologies.

Kislig: Are you satisfied with the results?

König: The 62nd IPCC Meeting was, from the point of view of Switzerland, only partially successful. We welcome the fact that content-related guidelines for all three reports were defined. They encompass issues which can be considered progressive and an expansion of the Assessment, including mentioning climatic tipping points, future-oriented scenarios in the event of the 1.5 degree limit being exceeded or the essential protection requirement relating to mountainous regions. As an alpine country, Switzerland is particularly affected in this regard.

Another important point was the discussion of Solar Radiation Management (SRM, see ProClim fact sheet for more information). Switzerland concentrated on promoting the focus on the assessment of risks and the ethical aspects of these technologies, without depicting them as a solution to defeating climate change. This goal was attained.

Kislig: What more did Switzerland hope to achieve?

König: Various important topics were not included in the guidelines. For example, the role of fossil energies in global warming, the limitations of adaptation and counterproductive adaptation measures (so-called maladaption) relating to climate change or the cost of doing nothing were not addressed thematically or were, from our point of view, mentioned too little.

In addition, a few attempts were made during negotiations to remove core scientific concepts from the guidelines. Switzerland joined forces with like-minded countries to oppose these. Attempts of this nature weaken the impact of global climate science. It is particularly regrettable that the climate goals of countries (NDCs) in the Paris Agreement and the role of fossil fuels were not taken into account in the thematic strategy of AR7. The terminology which has now been negotiated is not directly binding for the authors. However, it leads one to the conclusion that further negotiations, particularly in the final round, will be of a political character.

Kislig: The states could not agree on a timetable that concurs with the climate negotiations. What was the reason for this failure?

König: Large emerging nations were primarily responsible here for blocking progress. Their growing contribution to the global greenhouse gas emissions will also play a role in the next Assessment Report.

In addition to Switzerland, small island states and the least developed countries in particular are interested in an ambitious timetable. These states are particularly affected by climate change. They unfortunately had to leave promptly at the official ending of the meeting, and were unable to participate in the negotiations. Inclusiveness was therefore absent in the final hours of the negotiation. This weakened our position in the final vote.

After 39 hours of non-stop negotiations, Switzerland and other countries were ultimately able to prevent the worst-case scenario, namely that no decisions would be reached. The states finally agreed on the minimum goal, and the work will continue for the rest of this year. Negotiations relating to the timetable and upcoming milestones will continue at the 63rd IPCC Meeting this autumn.

Kislig: In addition, the suggestions of the scientific community relating to content and the timetable of the Methodological Report (MR) regarding carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and carbon capture, use and storage (CCUS) were discussed at the Plenary Meeting. How did you experience this process? And which decisions were ultimately taken?

König: The discussions regarding CDR and CCUS were intensive, but constructive. It unfortunately proved impossible to reach any agreement on the content-based orientation of the report, particularly regarding technologies for the removal of CO₂ from bodies of water. Simultaneously, the fact that technologies whose effectiveness has not yet been proven were not included in the report was positive. After all, that would amount to a legitimisation of those technologies.

Kislig: What exactly do these decisions mean when it comes to the further timetable and for international and national climate policy?

König: Political discussions on the time schedule for the main AR7 reports are not yet concluded and will be resumed in the next Plenary Meeting this autumn. From the point of view of Switzerland, it is essential that all three reports should be adopted in time in 2028 for the second Global Stocktake on the occasion of COP33.

On a national level, these decisions mean that our scientists can now involve themselves actively in the IPCC process. We have managed to anchor topics in the context of IPCC reports which are also areas of focus in research in Switzerland. The broad content of the three reports and the links between working groups offer a diverse research community in Switzerland the opportunity to get involved. The call to nominate authors for the reports will be launched over these days through the IPCC Platform Switzerland.

Kislig: Thank you very much, Sebastian König, for your fascinating categorisation of the negotiations in Hangzhou.

IPCC & ProClim

ProClim promotes the participation of researchers from Switzerland in the IPCC on behalf of the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN). It operates the IPCC Platform Switzerland, on which all relevant information and calls are also rolled out.