By Jennifer Huang and Eda Kosma
The second global stocktake (GST2) will launch at the end of the 31st Conference of the Parties (COP31) in 2026 and conclude at COP33 in 2028. The GST’s technical assessment phase enables Parties and non-Party stakeholders to assess the collective progress towards achieving the purpose and long-term goals of the Paris Agreement and opportunities for enhancing action and support to achieve them. As Parties share views with the Subsidiary Body (SB) Chairs on their management of the GST timeline and process, they may want to consider whether to ensure that a third Technical Dialogue is held to provide a clear opportunity to discuss key 2028 scientific and financial reports.
As one of the most high-profile processes under the Paris Agreement, the GST allows Parties to take stock of climate science and the progress on climate action. Every five years, the GST assesses collective progress in achieving the Paris Agreement and its long-term goals, considering mitigation, adaptation, and means of implementation and support (e.g., finance, capacity-building, and technology transfer), in light of equity and the best available science. The outcome of the GST shall inform Parties in: (i) updating and enhancing, in a nationally determined manner, their actions and support; and (ii) enhancing international cooperation for climate action.
The GST is integral to the Paris Agreement’s “ambition mechanism,” which includes the enhanced transparency framework and Parties’ nationally determined contributions (NDCs).
Decision 19/CMA.1 set out the phases and components of the GST and rough parameters for their timing. From 2024-25, Parties discussed potential adjustments to those elements, such as their timeframe. At COP30, Parties gave the SB Chairs the authority to manage them. In June and in a subsequent July 2026 note, the SB Chairs have shared messaging on preparations for GST2 that includes an indicative timeline. One significant change from GST1 is the potential length of the technical assessment phase, which could be shorter and not include a third Technical Dialogue as was the case for GST1. Typically held during SB sessions, the Technical Dialogue provides space for interactive discussions among Parties, experts, and civil society on key themes and inputs.
The potential change to only two Technical Dialogues reflects the desire of some Parties for a longer negotiation period on the GST outcome than was the case under GST1, and without overlap of the political phase with the technical assessment phase—although the SB Chairs’ indicative timeline is not clear as to exactly when the technical assessment phase concludes. Unless otherwise widely agreed, each phase of GST2 should arguably operate for the same length of time as they did under GST1.
Only having two technical dialogues would implicate several inputs into GST2 that are anticipated in 2028. The first is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s first 7th Assessment Report (AR7) Working Group report which could be published as early as May 2028. (Strong divergences over whether AR7 Working Group reports should be published through 2028 or 2029 have delayed agreement on a clear timetable.) The second is a series of five major financial reports by the Standing Committee on Finance (SCF). This includes a progress report on the new collective quantified goal (NCQG) on climate finance provisionally set to be published just ahead of COP33—the SCF’s first assessment of collective progress toward both the NCQG’s $300B goal and the $1.3T call.
Decision 19/CMA.1, paragraph 20 sets out that the input phase for the GST ends six months before the political phase “unless critical information that requires consideration emerges after the cut-off date.” Any IPCC WG reports and the SCF finance reports that may be published in 2028 would be critical inputs to the GST process and should be considered. This could happen intersessionally, such as through an ad hoc webinar or GST-focused event held at a Regional Climate Week. However, this approach means that these reports will not be discussed in-person in the same formal process as the Technical Dialogue and that Parties and non-Party stakeholders may have greater difficulty participating in intersessional events that will likely be virtual or hybrid—particularly if not informed well in advance.
While there is still time to influence the GST2 timeline, Parties may want to consider whether they want the opportunity to discuss these documents through a third Technical Dialogue or whether an ad hoc response is sufficient.
The technical assessment phase provides a key foundation for the GST outcome, including the subsequent negotiated political phase. Parties should ensure that engagement on key issues in the technical assessment effectively informs the GST’s ultimate political messaging, which arguably did not happen for GST1. Doing so guarantees that the GST2 outcome usefully informs and galvanizes climate action and support through to mid-century, when the best available science says the world must reach net-zero carbon dioxide emissions. As the final GST before 2030, GST2 must catalyze the next decade of climate action in an era of overshoot.
