GLOBAL STOCKTAKE 2, BETWEEN THE “NO TEXT” THREAT AND THE SCIENCE DISPUTE

The table on the procedural and logistical modalities of the second cycle of the Global Stocktake (GST2) arrives at COP30 in unusual conditions for a process of this importance. At COP29 in Baku, the Parties were unable to adopt any decision on the modalities of GST2. It was not a lack of text, but a lack of political outcome: the work ended with an informal note full of alternative options in brackets, which did not converge in a formal decision.

The entire issue has therefore been postponed to 2025: a significant delay for one of the pillars of the Paris Agreement, although not unprecedented in the history of climate negotiations.

At the SB62 Mid-Term Negotiations in Bonn in June, the co-facilitators managed to transform months of discussions into a more structured version. The text brought together options, alternatives and parentheses from all positions. It was not a compromise, but a basis on which to start working again.

This is the version on which the Parties resumed negotiations in Belém, but the real sticking point is time. If the second cycle of the GST were to follow even partially the structure of the first one, the process should start as early as 2026, and getting there without updated procedures would mean compressing all the phases, sacrificing the very part that proved most fragile in the first Global Stocktake: the preparation of the final political decision.

The threat of the ‘no text option’: a return to pre-GST1

Among the most disruptive issues discussed in Belém was the so-called “no text option”, proposed by India and supported by some countries in the Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDC) group.

The idea is simple but radical in its consequences: to close the agenda without a new decision, stating that the Parties will continue to apply the existing decision, i.e. 19/CMA.1 (Katowice, 2018), adopted for the first Global Stocktake, to the methodologies.

The consequence would be to freeze the process by using rules devised before a real cycle has been completed. 

When 19/CMA.1 was adopted, the Global Stocktake was still a “theoretical” process: no Party had yet experienced a full cycle, there was no real data on how the phases would intertwine, nor on the operational requirements that would emerge.

After GST1 (2018–2023), however, certain essential structural elements became clear, which were completely absent from the 2018 text. Especially five, raised over the last two years:

1. Avoid overlap between technical and political phases

The GST is divided into two distinct stages:

• Technical Assessment (TA) — the analysis phase based on technical dialogues, which produces factual information on global climate action;
• Consideration of Outputs (CoO) — the final political phase, during which the Parties transform technical evidence into a negotiated decision.

In GST1, these two phases did not formally overlap, but the transition has been perceived as overly compressed. The last round of technical dialogues ended in June 2023 (SB58 in Bonn), about five months before COP28. Technical summaries and other key materials came late, and the political phase began almost immediately in Dubai, with little time to process the results.

Many countries have described this model as ‘too compressed’ and ‘unsustainable’ from an operational point of view.

2. Ensuring adequate time for the political side (Consideration of Outputs)

The CoO is the stage at which the CMA decides:

• what key messages to draw from scientific work;
• what to ask governments to do when reviewing their NDCs;
• how to direct the multilateral system.

In GST1, this phase lasted less than two weeks, within COP28, and was considered too short for such an important process. 19/CMA.1 gives no indication of how to ensure a broader and more structured political space for this component.

3. Manage the new mandates created in the following years

The 2018 decision reflected a GST that was still limited to mitigation, adaptation and means of implementation, without taking into account subsequent institutional developments. After GST1, however, many Parties highlighted thematic areas that were not envisaged at the time, in particular Loss and Damage, which became a substantial part of the discussion. Furthermore, adaptation in the first cycle was assessed without a common framework: the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) was not operational yet. Today, however, the work underway at COP30 should produce indicators and metrics that will feed into GST2 and allow for a comprehensive and quantitative picture of an issue that has been difficult to define for years due to its local rather than global nature. None of this is covered by 19/CMA.1, which does not provide tools to integrate these new mandates into the next cycle.

4. Integrating IPCC science into the Assessment Report 7 cycle

The IPCC’s AR7 cycle is taking on a more distributed configuration in terms of time and products than in the past: in addition to the three Working Group Reports and the Synthesis Report, it includes several planned special reports (e.g. on Cities and Climate Change, Short-lived Climate Forcers, Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR)/Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage (CCUS)), with releases scheduled between 2026 and 2027. Furthermore, the Synthesis Report is not expected until around 2029, while GST2 is expected to be completed in 2028.

The result is that the scientific and political calendars are not automatically synchronised: GST2 will not be able to rely on the Synthesis Report AR7 but will have to decide how to effectively use a number of IPCC products coming at different times.

5. Envisage events that may occur between sessions

After GST1, requests for additional technical consultations with the IPCC and other scientific bodies have emerged, but without a clear framework.

For GST2, many countries are calling for the formal establishment of intersessional events in order to:

• avoid overloading during the COP;
• analyse technical materials in advance;
• improve transparency and inclusiveness, especially for delegations with less capacity.

In summary: simply reapplying 19/CMA.1 in 2025 without any updates would mean failing to incorporate many of the most important lessons learned from the first Global Stocktake.

Why closing at COP30 is necessary

The Global Stocktake calendar does not leave much room for manoeuvre.

If GST2 is to be activated in 2026, the modalities must be adopted now. A postponement beyond COP30 would mean repeating the critical issues of GST1, but with an even tighter schedule, an even larger amount of scientific data and a more complex political context. This is a risk we cannot take during this critical decade.

Closing the table in Belém is therefore not just a procedural matter; it is a prerequisite for ensuring that the second Global Stocktake, one of the most important processes of the Paris Agreement, does not suffer from the same weaknesses as the first, but with even less time available to correct them.

Article by Anna Pelicci, head of delegation of the Italian Climate Network

Cover image: photo by Anna Pelicci