• Election of the chair of the #IPCC – The Economist
    #GIEC

    Editor’s note: the ipcc’s new chair will be elected at its 59th session in Nairobi on July 25th-28th. Three weeks ago we invited all four candidates for the post to contribute a piece to this section; Dr Roberts and Jean-Pascal van Ypersele agreed to do so.

    • Debra Roberts on why she is running to be chair of the IPCC
    https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2023/07/24/debra-roberts-on-why-she-is-running-to-be-chair-of-the-ipcc

    The organisation should be more inclusive, and more focused on assessing climate measures’ effectiveness, she says

    • Jean-Pascal van Ypersele on why he is running to be chair of the IPCC
    https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2023/07/24/jean-pascal-van-ypersele-on-why-he-is-running-to-be-chair-of-the-ipcc

    He believes that the climate panel can serve policymakers’ needs better

    #paywall

    • Debra Roberts on why she is running to be chair of the IPCC
      The organisation should be more inclusive, and more focused on assessing climate measures’ effectiveness, she says

      D. R. :
      REFLECTING ON THE Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) sixth assessment cycle, known as AR6, I am struck by the extent to which global challenges, once distant or abstract, are now immediate and personal. Global crises made me caregiver to my 100-year-old father during the covid pandemic; contributed to a week of poverty-fuelled civil unrest where I live in South Africa; and saw flood waters engulf our home because of the ever-warming atmosphere.

      These experiences remind us why science is so important. Evidence-based decision-making has allowed the world to respond to the pandemic, attribute extreme events to climate change and understand that inequity anywhere undermines a safer, more sustainable future for everyone.

      For the past 35 years the IPCC has provided decision-makers with scientific evidence to inform policy. Over the first five assessment cycles the panel explained the causes and impacts of climate change, whereas the most recent cycle has focused on identifying solutions.

      But during the United Nations’ “decade of action”—aimed at stepping up action to tackle the world’s biggest challenges—it is clear that we need not only solutions, but also an assessment of their feasibility and effectiveness to inform ambitious short-term action. And action is critical as the AR6 reports conclude that the pace and scale of what has been done so far are insufficient to tackle climate change. This is the challenge for the seventh assessment cycle, AR7.

      Having worked at the interface between science, policy and practice for more than 30 years in the fields of climate change, biodiversity, sustainability and resilience, I know how difficult it is to turn science into action. Experience has taught me that the best outcomes come from working together to prioritise equity and shared responsibility.

      My priority as chair of the IPCC would be to build a strong leadership team. I would harness the strengths of the vice-chairs and the Working Group and Task Force/Group co-chairs and bureaus to strategically plan the scientific workflow of the cycle and determine how we make IPCC operations more sustainable. That will involve assessing and reducing the carbon footprint of IPCC’s own activities. An AR7 leadership team with a shared vision and clear roles would drive even stronger scientific integration than we saw in AR6. The Special Report on Cities offers an early opportunity to put increased integration into practice.

      Ensuring more balanced representation of women and scientists from the global south, and addressing data gaps for the south, should be priorities for AR7. My appointment as the first female chair, and the first from Africa, would encourage more women and global-south scientists to volunteer their time. I would also work with the IPCC vice-chairs to liaise more closely with member governments, who are responsible for identifying national experts, to ensure that a more representative range of authors are nominated for AR7 reports.

      In addition, we need to make the work environment more inclusive, for instance by training people to work effectively in diverse, multicultural teams. Ensuring that the Gender Action Team concludes the work on a code of conduct and complaints process should also help.

      Engaging more young scientists is critical. By involving early-career scientists and IPCC scholarship recipients, and providing clear roles for Chapter Scientists, who give technical and logistical support to authors, we can help ensure the longevity of the organisation.

      Strengthening the organisation must be accompanied by actions that enhance the scientific leadership of the IPCC. Given the increase in climate-change-related literature, I believe AR6 was the last assessment cycle in which it was possible to produce a comprehensive assessment of the literature using traditional means. In AR7 we should evaluate new tools such as AI and machine learning, which can potentially assist the assessment process and increase access to non-English literature. We must ensure that authors from the global south have equal access.

      AR7 will require broader engagement with those who hold indigenous and local knowledge, which will be crucial in developing strategies that improve stewardship of ecosystems, increase biodiversity and improve resilience. Better co-ordination with the work of other global initiatives, such as the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, which was created to bridge the gap between biodiversity science and policy, should also be prioritised.

      Finally, if IPCC reports are to inform fast and far-reaching implementation, we must be willing to question whether lengthy assessment reports delivered at the end of the decade of action are the best approach. Shorter, more focused special reports may better support ambitious action and the second Global Stocktake—the process that enables governments and other stakeholders to assess progress made in meeting the goals of the Paris agreement on climate change. We should step up regionally focused communication efforts and encourage other networks, including NGOs, to produce their own reports based on IPCC material. The chair should play a central role in IPCC communications. As a skilled science communicator, I am well placed to do that.

      In the decade of action, we need IPCC leadership with the right experience. As an active publishing scientist and skilled practitioner, I bring a practical approach to the science. My experience would help me to build bridges inside and outside the IPCC. I would ensure that the panel’s work stays independent of politics, is fair and balanced, prioritises scientific integrity and creates a work environment that values all voices. The science of AR7 will be critical to ensuring we leave no person, place or ecosystem behind.■

      Debra Roberts is IPCC Co-Chair of Working Group II (Sixth Assessment Cycle); heads the sustainability and resilience function in eThekwini municipality in Durban; and holds the Professor Willem Schermerhorn Chair in Open Science from a Majority World Perspective at the University of Twente.

    • Jean-Pascal van Ypersele on why he is running to be chair of the IPCC
      He believes that the climate panel can serve policymakers’ needs better

      J.-P. Y :
      THIS YEAR marks the 35th anniversary of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the halfway point to achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030. Our planet is facing challenges that have no historical equivalent. Action, based on the best scientific assessments, is needed on a number of fronts: to stay on track with the 1.5°C goal and accelerate reductions in emissions; to engineer a just transition to more climate-resilient economic development; to put the most climate-vulnerable countries on a stronger footing and provide funding for a broader set of developing countries; and to find the right mix of climate-change mitigation, adaptation and other societal objectives.

      Action means alerting the world to the consequences of inaction while looking for ways to tackle the climate crisis. The IPCC has been doing this consistently, for example providing lists of technologies and measures that could help reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by 2030, with a clear indication of their lifecycle costs.

      I am convinced that the IPCC can serve policymakers’ needs even better. Scientists and policymakers need to discuss issues freely before any IPCC report is written, to increase the policy relevance of such documents. Many of the policymakers I met during my campaign to chair the IPCC told me their job would be easier if climate action (SDG 13) was better integrated into the 2030 agenda and the 16 other SDGs. We must let the IPCC help those policymakers.

      In its most recent reports, the IPCC helped to break down the barriers between different, siloed objectives by demonstrating links and synergies between them. Eradicating poverty (SDG 1), for example, is essential while adapting to climate change, reducing net CO2 emissions and improving people’s health. I intend to continue on this track if I become chair and I propose the preparation of a special report on climate change and sustainable development, with a full assessment of the many synergies (and the trade-offs) between the 17 SDGs. The world needs more solutions and more inspiration, rather than another doom-and-gloom report.

      The IPCC has transformed the production and communication of climate-change knowledge, greatly enhancing awareness and acceptance of the global emergency. I want to reinforce this authority by making the IPCC the global voice of climate. This requires a comprehensive communication strategy. I initiated work on this when I was vice-chair between 2008 and 2015. But getting the message across remains a challenge. I want to improve the readability of report conclusions and make it easier for decision-makers and the public to digest the IPCC’s output. And I want to encourage feedback from both constituencies. Our reports should not only disseminate knowledge but also spark dialogue.

      Inclusivity will be central to my programme as chair. During my campaign visits to more than 25 countries, I was struck by the diversity of human experience. I met many people who had been deeply affected by climate change, ranging from vulnerable women in fishing communities in Bangladesh, to a boy who had seen his friend drowned in a Belgian river swollen by torrential rains, to ministers from small islands that had seen a quarter of their annual GDP wiped out by a hurricane. I also met those trying to help, from experts in carbon capture and storage in Saudi Arabia to remote-sensing scientists monitoring disasters at the European Space Agency. I have talked to climate modellers trained in physics, just as I am; to social and behavioural scientists studying the mental and sociological obstacles to further climate action; and to pension-fund managers trying to make their portfolios greener.

      Climate change experienced in Alaska, France, Vanuatu or Zimbabwe differs in ways we can only grasp and respond to if we study the situations of those on the frontline in different parts of the world. The IPCC is a global organisation, and to continue to be respected globally it must be even more inclusive than it is today.

      I aim to increase the participation of experts from developing and climate-vulnerable countries, particularly women and early-career scientists, from all relevant disciplines, including economic and social sciences. There is evidence that women are particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. It cannot be acceptable that they make up only one-third of IPCC report authors. And we need more young experts—who will have more time to make a difference—just as much as we need the knowledge of indigenous people. We also need to remedy the under-representation of experts from the global south.

      The IPCC is well established as an epistemic authority in climate science and serves as a model of international expertise. But it needs to evolve if it wants to stay ahead of the climate emergency and a fast-changing social and geopolitical context. In the next assessment period, our work must be characterised by greater relevance, stronger communication and, above all, inclusivity. I am determined to serve as the chair who makes the IPCC the most solid, most scientific and most eloquent voice on climate, leaving no one unaware, no one behind.■

      Jean-Pascal van Ypersele is professor of climatology and sustainable development sciences at UCLouvain. He was vice-chair of the IPCC between 2008 and 2015.