A recap shows how countries fought over language in the IPCC report, and who was left to have the final say
Deliberations over the wording in the United Nations IPCC report, which provides policymakers with regular scientific assessments on climate change, take time—and the entire project is a painstaking process. The science has to be correct, and the advised actions have to be attainable and fair to all, particularly for those who have been affected the most by climate change.
The responsibility of such a high-stakes endeavor warrants attention to the details. But determining who crafts the language and makes the final edit appears to just be a matter of who can persevere long enough to be one of the last decision-makers in the room.
That’s according to a recounting by the Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB), an independent reporting service on United Nations environment and development negotiations. It is exclusively allowed to cover the meetings where government representatives craft their portion of the IPCC report, but is excluded from huddles where detailed discussions can happen.
According to ENB, the words of the IPCC report were decided by 195 governments around the world, with debates ranging from Saudi Arabia pushing back on Finland’s suggestion of saying the root cause of climate change is fossil fuels, to Norway watering down language on cutting emissions, to China trying to cut out the core finding—that carbon pollution must drop two-thirds in 12 years to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees celsius. (China was, however, fine with leaving the statistics in a related chart.)
In addition to sometimes resulting in watered-down language, these self-interested debates made the meeting last two full days past its scheduled ending. The work of putting together the report usually takes time, with delegates meeting in plenary sessions and working until the early morning hours. Despite pushes by delegates and by Hoesung Lee, the IPCC chair, deliberations went deep into every detail. Paragraphs, captions, figures, and footnotes all were debated, resulting in taxing hours that were particularly challenging for smaller delegations.
Instead of concluding on a Friday as scheduled, report writing went into the weekend, when many of the delegates had already planned to be back in their home countries. As participant numbers dwindled, especially those representing developing countries, concerns of representation increased. ENB details that one delegate fought back in tears late into the weekend, crying, “The inclusive process is not happening. The ones struggling the most are the ones that are leaving…it is our lives that we are here fighting for!”
By Sunday morning of that weekend, some of the remaining delegates considered a revised version of a headline statement, including deleting the word “anthropogenic” before CO2 emissions and a reference to the carbon budget for 2°C as opposed to 1.5°C.
Ecuador and Bolivia called for referencing projected losses and damages. Saudi Arabia called for deleting “adverse” in a reference to observed adverse impacts. Meanwhile Denmark and Chile objected, noting “adverse” is approved language. The US stepped in to suggest “accelerated mitigation and adaptation will reduce the risks for humans.”
Delegates ultimately decided to retain the word “adverse” and supported adding references to losses and damages. They added the sentence “Climate resilient development integrates adaptation and mitigation to advance sustainable development for all.”
By Sunday evening, delegates had been working for 72 hours straight. When all was said and done, the IPCC chair said the panel had “never finished an approval” on schedule, and that the make-up of participants present was not what the IPCC “rules, procedures, and spirits” demand.
At the end, no delegates from South America or Africa were present; nor were most delegates from developing countries. Delegates that remained from developed countries like the US, UK, Canada, and other European countries admitted that the countries hardest hit by climate change—namely Haiti, Niger, Somalia, Sudan, and the Maldives, among other island-states—no longer had a voice in the room.
The remaining delegates reached an informal agreement to avoid changing text unless absolutely necessary. But whether the process will improve for the next IPCC report remains to be seen.
Join 500,000+ readers who start their day with Quartz.
By subscribing, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
