GLOBAL STOCKTAKE 2, TEXT STILL UP IN THE AIR: THE BALL IS NOW IN THE MINISTERS’ COURT

• No progress on GST2 and risk of a “no text option”: The talks on the second cycle of the Global Stocktake did not make the expected political leap; the text remains informal, full of brackets and without status, while the risk of closing without a decision is still real.
• Deep divisions on timing, structure and the role of the technical and political phases: Groups are divided between those who want more time and three technical dialogues and those who prefer to maintain the structure of GST1. Tensions also persist over the overlap between phases and the possible introduction of Loss and Damage as a separate thematic area.
• The role of the IPCC remains unresolved and the decision has been passed on to the ministers: no progress has been made on coordination with the IPCC’s AR7; all the dividing lines remain unresolved at the CMA, where the ministers will decide whether to refine GST2 or accept the “no text option”.

At COP30 in Belém, the table on the procedural and logistical modalities of the second round of the Global Stocktake (GST2) failed to make the desired political leap. The threat of the “no text option”, which we reported on Thursday, has not disappeared: it remains a real risk that, luckily, at least for now, has not materialised. The Parties are seeking agreement in closed-door meetings, and the subsidiary bodies (SBs) are closing with a procedural conclusion that refers to CMA7, the decision-making body of the Parties that have ratified the Paris Agreement, rather than shelving the current draft. However, the text reaches the ministers full of brackets and without formal status: it is draft text, still to be worked on, and not a consolidated basis.

Discussions on the timing and structure of the second round of the Global Stocktake are far from straightforward. The proposals on the table have now crystallised into two opposing positions. On the one hand, some groups (EIG, African Group, AILAC and LDC) are calling for more time overall and three technical dialogues. On the other, India and LMDC (Like-Minded Developing Countries) insist that, if no agreement is reached, the GST1 structure should remain in place by default: no updates, no new decisions, and the provisions of 19/CMA.1 should apply. 

The most obvious tug-of-war concerns the overlap between the technical and political phases. AOSIS (Alliance of Small Island States) and LDC (Least Developed Countries) are calling for at least a full year for the Consideration of Outputs, to avoid a repeat of the rush experienced in 2023. Others, more cautious, fear that extending the political window means sacrificing the technical part, especially in a cycle that will have to integrate much more content than the previous one.

The divide is even more apparent when it comes to the content. Small island states and several Latin American countries are calling for Loss and Damage to become a separate area of the Global Stocktake. South Africa, India, Saudi Arabia and Ghana, on the other hand, prefer to maintain the original architecture, perhaps referring to “emerging issues”, but without redefining the scope. It is a political rather than a technical contention, and at this stage only the ministers can resolve it. The second week of COP – the truly political one – will have to be followed very closely.

And what about the role of the IPCC? Almost untouched. No substantive discussion, despite the fact that the schedule for the IPCC’s Seventh Assessment Report (AR7) does not coincide with that of the second Global Stocktake and requires precise choices on how to use reports that will arrive in installments.

This new week of COP will therefore proceed to CMA with a text that resolves nothing and contains all these fracture lines. It will now be up to the ministers to decide whether to really refine Global Stocktake 2 or to let the “no text option” prevail under the guise of a technical postponement. Such an outcome would mean repeating the mistakes of the first cycle, but with even less time to correct them.

Article by Anna Pelicci, head of the Italian Climate Network delegation at COP30 in Belém.

Cover image: UN Climate Change – Kiara Worth