CIEL Experts Available to Comment on 63rd Session of IPCC, the UN Authority on Climate Science – Center for International Environmental Law | CIEL

Report on the 63rd Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

Introduction: Negotiations on Climate Science and Sustainable Development

The 63rd Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) convened in Lima, Peru, from October 27-30, 2025. The session focused on critical negotiations regarding the 7th Assessment Cycle and the scope of the Methodology Report on Carbon Dioxide Removals (CDR) and Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage. The outcomes of these discussions hold significant implications for the global pursuit of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 13 (Climate Action) and SDG 14 (Life Below Water).

Marine Geoengineering: A Point of Contention for SDG 14 (Life Below Water)

The Debate Over Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR)

A central point of contention during the negotiations was the proposed inclusion of marine CDR, also known as marine geoengineering, within the IPCC’s planned Methodology Report. Proponents suggest these techniques could contribute to climate mitigation, but their inclusion is highly contested due to profound risks to marine ecosystems, which directly challenges the objectives of SDG 14 to conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas, and marine resources.

Risks to Marine Ecosystems and Biodiversity

The deployment of marine CDR at a scale sufficient to impact the climate presents a range of threats that could undermine progress on SDG 14. A recent report from the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), ‘A Gathering Storm: How Marine Geoengineering Threatens All Ocean Basins,’ highlights these dangers.

• Exacerbation of Stressors: Marine CDR introduces new and poorly understood risks to ocean environments already severely degraded by overexploitation, pollution, and climate change.
• Unpredictable Impacts: The large-scale intervention required for these techniques could have unforeseen and irreversible consequences for marine biodiversity and the delicate balance of ocean ecosystems.
• Legitimacy Concerns: Including these highly speculative techniques in an official IPCC report could lend them undue credibility, encouraging high-risk experimentation in global ocean basins despite significant scientific and ethical barriers.

Implications for SDG 13 (Climate Action) and International Governance

Effectiveness and Distraction from Core Climate Goals

The debate over marine CDR is intrinsically linked to the integrity of global climate strategies under SDG 13. Critics, including CIEL experts, argue that focusing on speculative technological fixes may serve as an “escape hatch” for the fossil fuel industry, diverting attention and resources from proven and essential climate mitigation strategies such as the rapid phase-out of fossil fuels.

Alignment with International Frameworks and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals)

The consideration of marine CDR by the IPCC occurs within a complex international legal landscape, highlighting the importance of coherent governance as called for in SDG 17. Key international agreements have already established a precautionary approach to geoengineering.

1. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD): A longstanding de facto moratorium on geoengineering exists under the CBD, which was reaffirmed at COP16. This moratorium is designed to protect biodiversity in line with SDG 14 and SDG 15 (Life on Land).
2. London Convention / London Protocol: This body is actively considering restrictions on marine geoengineering techniques, including ocean alkalinity enhancement, and has advised that such activities, other than legitimate scientific research, should be deferred.

The IPCC’s decision on whether to include these techniques in its Methodology Report will therefore have a significant impact on its alignment with other international bodies and the collective global effort to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals in a safe and equitable manner.

Analysis of the Article in Relation to Sustainable Development Goals

SDG 13: Climate Action

This goal is central to the article, which revolves around the 63rd Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the “UN body responsible for climate science.” The entire discussion focuses on strategies to address climate change, specifically the “Methodology Report on Carbon Dioxide Removals (CDR) and Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage.” The debate over marine geoengineering is a debate about the methods and risks associated with climate mitigation efforts.

SDG 14: Life Below Water

The article directly addresses this goal by highlighting the significant threats that marine geoengineering poses to marine ecosystems. It states that marine CDR “brings a range of new risks to oceans already severely stressed by overexploitation, pollution, and climate change.” The mention of the London Convention/London Protocol, which governs marine pollution, and the concerns about techniques like “ocean alkalinity enhancement” further connect the article’s content to the protection of marine life and ocean health.

SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

This goal is relevant as the article describes the complex interplay between multiple international bodies and agreements. The IPCC meeting itself is an example of global partnership. The text highlights a conflict or lack of coherence between different international policies, citing the IPCC’s consideration of marine CDR while other bodies, like the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the London Convention/London Protocol, have established moratoriums or restrictions on such activities. This points to the need for policy coherence for sustainable development.

Specific Targets Identified

SDG 13: Climate Action

1. Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning.

The article discusses the creation of an “IPCC Methodology Report on Carbon Dioxide Removals and Carbon Capture.” Such reports are foundational scientific documents used by governments worldwide to develop and integrate climate change policies and strategies. The debate over what to include in this report directly influences the future of global and national climate planning.

SDG 14: Life Below Water

1. Target 14.2: By 2020, sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts, including by strengthening their resilience, and take action for their restoration in order to achieve healthy and productive oceans.
2. Target 14.a: Increase scientific knowledge, develop research capacity and transfer marine technology… in order to improve ocean health and to enhance the contribution of marine biodiversity to the development of developing countries.

Target 14.2 is addressed through the explicit concern that marine CDR poses “a range of new risks to oceans” and could have significant adverse impacts. The reference to the “longstanding de facto moratorium on geoengineering under the Convention on Biological Diversity” is a direct example of an international policy aimed at protecting marine ecosystems from such impacts. Target 14.a is relevant because the London Convention/London Protocol’s position that activities “other than legitimate scientific research should be deferred” highlights the global debate on the need for more scientific knowledge before deploying high-risk marine technologies.

SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

1. Target 17.14: Enhance policy coherence for sustainable development.

The article exemplifies the challenge of achieving policy coherence. While the IPCC is considering a methodology report that would legitimize marine CDR, the article points out that this contradicts the “de facto moratorium on geoengineering under the Convention on Biological Diversity” and potential restrictions under the London Convention/London Protocol. This conflict between the approaches of different international bodies is a direct illustration of the need for greater policy coherence on environmental issues.

Indicators for Measuring Progress

SDG 13: Climate Action

• Implied Indicator: The content and adoption of the IPCC’s Methodology Report on Carbon Dioxide Removals.

The article implies that the final outline and content of this IPCC report will serve as a key indicator of how the international community plans to approach novel climate mitigation techniques. The decision to include or exclude marine geoengineering methodologies would be a measurable outcome reflecting the global strategy on climate action.

SDG 14: Life Below Water

• Implied Indicator: The status and enforcement of international moratoriums and restrictions on marine geoengineering.

The article explicitly mentions the “de facto moratorium on geoengineering under the Convention on Biological Diversity” and that the “London Convention / London Protocol is considering restricting additional marine geoengineering techniques.” The existence, reaffirmation, and expansion of these legal instruments can be used as a direct indicator to measure progress in protecting marine ecosystems from the potential adverse impacts of these new technologies.

SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

• Implied Indicator: The degree of alignment between policies of different international bodies (IPCC, CBD, London Convention/Protocol) on geoengineering.

The progress towards Target 17.14 can be measured by observing the outcome of the IPCC negotiations. An outcome where the IPCC’s report acknowledges and aligns with the moratoriums and restrictions from the CBD and London Protocol would indicate an increase in policy coherence. Conversely, a contradictory outcome would indicate a lack of coherence. The negotiation process itself is an indicator of the international effort to align these policies.

Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: ciel.org