Amicus Curiae Brief presented by ClientEarth 21 November 2016 74. The Commission may rely on the findings of the IPCC, including the AR5, as fact. This approach was taken by the District Court of the Hague in the 2015 case, Urgenda Foundation v State of the Netherlands,58 which found that: "[t]he UN Climate Change Convention also made provision for the establishment of the IPCC as a global knowledge institute. The IPCC reports have bundled the knowledge of hundreds of scientists and to a great extent represent the current climate science. The IPCC is also an intergovernmental organisation. The IPCC's findings serve as a starting point for the COP decisions, which are taken by the signatories to the UN Climate Change Convention during their climate conferences. Similarly, the Dutch and European decision-making processes pertaining to the climate policies to be pursued are also based on the climate science findings of the IPCC. The court - and also the Parties - therefore considers these findings as facts."59 75. The IPCC uses the term ‘likely’ to denote more than 66% likelihood and ‘very likely’ as more than 90%. Findings in the IPCC's assessment reports that are described as being ‘likely’ or ‘very likely’, therefore, more than satisfy civil standards of proof that the finding is more likely than not.60 The Commission should, therefore, accept as proven those findings of the IPCC described as ‘likely’ or ‘very likely’. 76. The IPCC identifies the following key risks that span sectors and regions: 58 Urgenda Foundation v. The State of the Netherlands, C/09/456689/HA ZA 13-1396, Judgement of 24 June 2015, available in English at http://edigest.elaw.org/sites/default/files/urgenda.pdf 59 See note 32 at p 34. 60 T F Stocker (and others) Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis - Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (CUP, 2013), p 2. 38