Inside the Global Stocktake: Governance, Components, and What Gets Assessed

Susana Paola Navas
Jan 6
4 min read

In my previous post, I examined the Global Stocktake (GST) outcomes from COP28 and what they revealed about the gap between current climate ambition and the Paris Agreement goal.

But knowing what the GST found is only half the story. Understanding how the GST produces those findings, and what it actually assesses, reveals where leverage exists to influence the next round of NDCs and climate policy direction.

This post dives into the governance structure that ensures the GST is credible and balanced, the three-component assessment process, and the thematic areas and cross-cutting issues that shape its conclusions. For climate professionals, policymaker, and negotiators, this is the institutional machinery that will drive ambition through 2030.

Global Stocktake Governance: Who Runs it?

The GST is designed to be legitimate, balanced, and scientifically grounded. Its governance architecture reflects the delicate North-South balance at the heart of the Paris Agreement.

The CMA at the Top

The ultimate authority rests with the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement (CMA) - all 198 UNFCCC Parties represented equally. The CMA:

Sets the GST schedule (every five years)
Adopts the guiding questions and decisions texts.
Reviews and endorses the final outcomes that inform future NDCs.

Two Subsidiary Bodies Provide Balance

Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI): Handles data collection, reporting, standards, and practical coordination of technical dialogues
Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA): Ensures scientific rigor by integrating IPCC assessments and Research & Systemic Observation (RSO) findings.

These bodies jointly develop the guiding questions that frame the entire process.

Co-Facilitators and the High-Level Committee

Each thematic area has two co-facilitators

One from a developed country (Annex I)
One from a developing country (non-Annex I)

This co-facilitation model prevents any one group from dominating the narrative. This ensure balanced representation, and synthesize inputs.

A High-Level Committee, appointed by the CMA, oversees the final political phase. It includes ministers and senior negotiators responsible for bridging technical findings and political decisions at the closing session of the GST.

Global Stocktake Components: From Data to Direction

To keep the assessment comprehensive yet focused, the GST evaluates progress across several thematic pillars established in the Katowice Package (COP24, 2018), this allows to transform raw information into actionable political guidance.

Component 1: Information Collection and Preparation

This is the evidence-gathering phase:

Sources: NDCs, biennial transparency reports, IPCC assessments, RSO dialogues, finance reports, national communications
Non-Party inputs: Civil society, indigenous groups, private sector, youth submit evidence
Output: Synthesis reports summarizing emissions trends, adaptation efforts, finance flows, and equity considerations.

Key role: Creates a common evidence base for technical discussions.

Component 2: Technical Assessment

Experts and Parties engage in thematic technical dialogues organized by SBI and SBSTA

Mitigation dialogues: Are NDCs sufficient? Which sectors need acceleration?
Adaptation dialogues: Are efforts keeping pace with observed impacts?
Support dialogues: Is finance, technology, and capacity-building adequate?

Process: Roundtables, expert panels, and structured Q&A sessions produce factual summaries and “key messages” identifying gaps, barriers, and opportunities.

Output: Technical reports that are policy-relevant but no prescriptive.

Component 3: Considerations of Outputs

The political phase where CMA (all Parties) interprets technical findings:

Key questions: What do these gaps mean for our next NDCs? What cooperative actions are needed?
High-Level Committee lead ministerial roundtables

Final Output: A CMA decision with:

Overall findings from the GST
Political guidance for NDC revisions
Direction for enhanced international cooperation

Why this progression matters: It converts science into politics without losing credibility.

GST Thematic Areas: What Gets Assessed

The GST evaluates climate action across five thematic areas defined in Katowice:

Mitigation (Including Response Measures)

Global emissions trajectory and sectoral contributions (energy, agriculture, industry, transport)
Cumulative impact of submitted NDCs
Response measures: Socio-economic effects of mitigation (e.g., job transitions, energy security)

Adaptation (Including Loss and Damage)

Observing climate impacts and risk patterns.
Assessing national adaptation plans and strategies.
Documenting support provided (finance and technology) for adaptation.
Highlighting experiences of vulnerable communities and the adequacy of Loss and Damage finance.

Means of Implementation and Support

Climate finance flows: Are they adequate, predictable, and equitable?
Technology transfer: Access to green energy, climate-smart agriculture, resilient infrastructure.
Capacity-building: Institutional expertise to implement NDCs and adaptation.

Integrated and Holistic Approaches

Systemic transformation: Are economies fundamentally shifting, or just tweaking?
Cross-sectoral coordination: Energy + agriculture + water + urban planning
Nature-based solutions: Forests, wetlands, marine ecosystems.

Cross-Cutting: Fairness and Equity

Every assessment is framed by:

Equity: Is burden-sharing fair between developed/developing nations?
Best available science: Are findings grounded in IPCC/RSO evidence?
Systemic transformation: Are we addressing root causes, not symptoms?

Why This Matters for Climate Professionals

Mastering the Global Stocktake´s governance, components, and thematic focus equips climate professionals, policymakers, and NGOs with precise leverage points to elevate NDC ambition through 2030.

The GST´s balanced co-facilitation and phased structure - from data synthesis to CMA decisions - highlight opportunities for negotiators to defend positions, advocates to amplify vulnerable voices, and analysts to sharpen finance adequacy arguments. This machinery ensures credibility while driving systemic shifts in mitigation, adaptation, and support.

Your Role	GST Leverage Points
Policy Analyst	Technical dialogues → evidence synthesis → stronger NDC arguments
Negotiator	Co‑facilitator model → balanced representation → defend national positions
Advocate	Non‑Party submissions → thematic dialogues → amplify equity concerns
Finance Expert	Support assessment → adequacy arguments → pressure donors
Scientist	IPCC/RSO integration → translate findings to policy language