EDEN suggested discussing information on budgetary implications of different phases of communication work during the FiTT.
VENEZUELA lamented that “unilateral coercive measures” put his country in a difficult position regarding contributions to the IPCC and other international organizations.
SWITZERLAND asked for clarification regarding disproportionately high daily budgets for Bureau sessions compared to plenary sessions, and whether support for communications might not be more urgently needed by the Secretariat than an external liaison officer. WGI Vice-Chair Greg Flato concurred, querying possible resulting shifts in capacity within the Secretariat.
GERMANY requested clarification on the envisaged functions of the additional P-4 position requested by the Secretariat. IPCC Secretary Mokssit explained that the terms of reference (ToR) for the new role are yet to be decided, but the role is intended to take on aspects of work currently being done by several different members of the Secretariat.
On Friday, FiTT Co-Chair Helen Plume presented a draft decision on the IPCC Trust Fund Programme and Budget for the years 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025 (Draft Decision IPCC-LVII- 4). She said the decision encourages member countries to continue contributing or to make first time contributions to the IPCC Trust Fund and, if possible, given the decline in annual voluntary contributions, increase their contributions. She said the decision asks the Secretariat to: develop a report outlining the core functions of the Secretariat and its needs, and explore the possibility of more climate-friendly itineraries.
The decision was adopted.
decides to allow the use of the Trust Fund resources in 2022 and 2023 for enhancing security, participation and IT-related needs in meetings, including reimbursing the cost of connectivity improvement, travel-related health and sanitary measures, and other arrangements to enable participation of delegates and experts from developing countries and countries with economies in transition in the activities of the IPCC, if needed, due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Audit of the 2021 Financial Statements: On Tuesday, the Secretariat presented the report on the audit (IPCC-LVII/INF/1). The Panel took note of the report.
On Tuesday, the Secretariat introduced the document (IPCC-LVIII/Doc.3), explaining that the Secretariat had received 20 applications for observer status, including four UN system organizations and 16 non- or inter-governmental organizations. She noted that while all of the organizations qualify for observer status, two—from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Holy See—required further consideration.
On NATO, she said that some members had expressed reservations related to: the benefits of NATO admission; its status as a military organization; and the non-scientific aspects of the organization.
Noting that consideration of the Holy See’s application had been deferred from IPCC-52, she said that the Holy See had requested admission to the IPCC as a non-member Observer State with enhanced procedural rights, including: the right to speak in turn rather than after participating states; the right to have its communications circulated to participating states; the right to provide comments on the government/expert review of IPCC reports and technical papers and the final review stage of the Summary for Policymakers; the right of reply; and the right to raise points of order.
SOUTH AFRICA, CHINA, CUBA, VENZUELA, IRAN, NICARAGUA, ANGOLA, and the RUSSIAN FEDERATION opposed inclusion of NATO as an observer. CHINA said that NATO is the biggest military alliance in the world and has little to do with climate change. The RUSSIAN FEDERATION said the organization does not have any competency in the field of climatology.
GERMANY, AUSTRALIA, CANADA, the UK, DENMARK, NORWAY, and the US supported NATO’s application. The US emphasized that the process has been followed and there are no additional criteria to be applied. CANADA said it would be inappropriate to deviate from the process for evaluating applicants’ competency. AUSTRALIA highlighted NATO’s interest in climate change security issues and disaster risk management. The UK cautioned against changing procedures or criteria in an ad hoc way.
On the Holy See, the US, supported by GERMANY and NORWAY, called for further discussion to ensure that the requested rights and responsibilities are in line with the IPCC rules of procedure. SENEGAL queried the rules related to applications for funding, noting that allowing an observer to apply as a state would create unfair competition. SWITZERLAND said the Holy See’s rights should be aligned with other UN processes. The UK said some of the Holy See’s requests exceed the rights granted to the EU.
The IPCC Legal Officer clarified that NATO meets the threshold for observer status, specifically through a climate action plan and platform it is developing. She further clarified that the Vatican is treated as an observer state and is seeking to be treated analogously to the EU.
CHINA reiterated its opposition to granting observer status to NATO, saying that the IPCC is a scientific platform and allowing a military organization to join would not be conducive to the scientific journey.
The US underscored that issues of climate change and national security are highly relevant to the policy community, said objections seemed to be based on the organization specifically and not the scope of its work, and asked that the record reflect that there was not a broader objection to the kinds of organizations that can apply for observer status.
NORWAY said it was not acceptable to reject an application based on lack of consensus at one meeting. Secretary Mokssit proposed suspending the admission of NATO and the Holy See pending further consideration. The Panel agreed to treat the Holy See and NATO as pending cases.
the overall size of the Bureau.
Alluding to discussions on the transition to the seventh assessment cycle, Akhtar noted the Panel is also invited to take note of compiled additional considerations outside of the mandate of the ad hoc group (IPCC-LVII/Doc.6, Annex II).
Many countries expressed support for maintaining the Bureau’s current size, structure, and composition.
COMOROS called for better representation of African countries. WGIII Vice-Chair Ramón Pichs-Madruga stressed the need for geographical balance in the Bureau and among authors, and for efficiency.
IPCC Vice-Chair Barrett, on behalf of the Gender Action Team and supported by WGI Vice-Chair Carolina Vera and WGIII Vice-Chair Pichs-Madruga, called for gender equity.
The REPUBLIC OF KOREA favored maintaining one IPCC Chair, saying this role should be scientifically and politically neutral and not count towards regional representation.
WGI Vice-Chair Vera called for developing criteria for deciding on Bureau changes and, supported by many countries, called for a more formal and procedural role for WG Vice-Chairs. WGI Vice-Chair Sergey Semenov said the Vice-Chairs’ functions include chairing, addressing conflicts of interest, and receiving data and generalizing it for presentation. He said they should also monitor the membership of the IPCC.
When discussions continued on Wednesday, many Bureau members lamented “underutilization” of the talent within the Bureau during the last cycle and called for: reflections of the current Bureau being taken into consideration in designing the next Bureau; a handover workshop between incoming and outgoing Bureaus early in the seventh cycle; clear ToR for Vice-Chairs and WG Vice-Chairs; and considering diversity of skills, gender, and age in addition to regional representation.
Mark Howden, WGII Vice-Chair, called for considering what is fit for purpose looking forward, rather than what worked in the past. IPCC Vice-Chair Youba Sokona called for discussing the workplan, stressing that the structure and composition of the Bureau depends on future work. He cautioned that continuing as during past cycles may threaten the pertinence of IPCC’s work, since reality has changed.
Edwin Aldrian, WGI Vice-Chair, stressed the importance of intra-regional balance and suggested term limits for Bureau members, with ANGOLA suggesting two-cycle limits.
CHINA supported maintaining the current structure and clarifying ToRs for the Vice-Chairs and WG Vice-Chairs.
WGI Vice-Chair Flato lauded the efficiency of each IPCC Vice-Chair serving as a senior connector to one WG during AR6. He cited procedural challenges, since TG Data Chairs are appointed, not elected, and said the current cooperation worked well.
Seeing no strong argument for fundamental change in structure, WGIII Vice-Chair Andy Reisinger called for measures to improve gender balance and ensure that all regions are represented by Vice-Chairs in all WGs.
WGI Co-Chair Valerie Masson-Delmotte lamented an increasing disconnect between the IPCC and “the harsh reality outside.” She called for measures to ensure the IPCC is fit for purpose, including changes in WG structure and envisaged products, better addressing gender inequalities in governance and assessments, and consideration of people at the science-policy interface and early career researchers for Bureau positions. WGI Vice-Chair Jan Fuglestvedt stressed the importance of lessons learned from the current Bureau.
SWITZERLAND called for: considering representation of all regions at the highest level and making WG Vice-Chairs liaison focal points to improve cross-WG collaboration.
WGIII Co-Chair Jim Skea, supported by PERU, suggested that the role of W