Ministers! Save the Second Periodical Review as the Science-Policy Interface of the Convention

11 December 2019

Last week the Global Carbon Project side event reminded us again how small the window is to avoid dangerous climate change.

The pressure to act and incorporate recent science to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) is rising. ECO is dismayed that Parties have not yet reached an agreement on the scope of the Second Periodical Review (SPR) working from 2020-2022. Without a decision on the scope, the FCCC would have no impressive science-based advisory body any more – and the science-policy interface of the Convention would be seriously damaged.

ECO fears that the science part of the SPR could become a victim in a political war on other important items like Pre-2020, and calls on ministers to find consensus and make a speedy decision at COP25 so that it will be possible to start the review next year.

As you know the SPR has to evaluate new climate science published since the First Periodic Review  (e.g. IPCC three Special Reports) and to analyse all actions based on equity taken by all countries to reach the ultimate goal of the Paris Agreement and to  formulate climate policy conclusions. 

For ECO, it is helpful to be aware of the new CONSTRAIN report zeroes on the remaining carbon budget by Climate Analytics as well as projected surface warming rates over the next 20 years. Both topics are crucially important to the implementation of the Paris Agreement.  Building on the methodology used in the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C, the report presents the remaining carbon budget as 395 (235) Gt CO2 if meeting the warming limit of 1.5°C with a 50% (66%) probability. Present annual emissions are roughly 40 Gt CO2 annually. Additionally, ECO also sees the Gap reports by UNEP as another important base.