IPCC ELECTIONS | Debra Roberts: «There isn’t a single technology that will solve the climate crisis»

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is holding elections from July 25 to 28 in Nairobi (Kenya). It will proceed to elect a new Bureau and the Bureau of the Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (TFI).

The person who will chair the IPCC will be elected on July 26. Four people are running for the position. Climática has prepared a common questionnaire with 10 questions to understand the proposals of the four candidates.

Debra Roberts, 62, is a scientist born in South Africa, where she has lived for the majority of her professional career. Roberts, who holds a PhD in biogeography, has received the nomination of her country. She seeks to chair the IPCC during the most important decade for climate action. If successful, she will be the first woman to hold the position.

Since 2016, she has led the Sustainable and Resilient City Initiatives Unit of the eThekwini Municipality (Durban, South Africa). She also serves as chair of the Scientific Council of AXA Research Fund. She was previously on the South African negotiating team for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

At the IPCC, she was lead author of Chapter 8 (Urban Areas), and contributing author of Chapter 12 (Africa), in the Working Group II report of the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5, 2014). During the Sixth Assessment Cycle (2015-2023) she was co-chair of IPCC Working Group II.

Roberts, listed in 2019 as one of the world’s 100 most influential people in climate policy, has been working for three decades at the science-policy-practice interface in areas such as biodiversity planning and management, climate change adaptation and mitigation and sustainable development and resilience at local and international scales. Now, she seeks to bring that knowledge and experience to the largest group of climate change specialists.

Why have you decided to run in these elections?

The decision to nominate me for IPCC Chair was made in 2022 by the Cabinet of the South African Government. I accepted the nomination because I believe the seventh assessment cycle of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a critical one and that my more than 30 years of experience at the science-policy-practice interface put me in a good position to positively contribute to the leadership of the organisation, helping it to innovate and respond effectively to the challenges and opportunities of the cycle.

Why should you be the next person to lead the IPCC?

We are already a third of the way through the United Nations’ ‘decade of action,’ focused on accelerating sustainable solutions to the world’s biggest challenges. Policymakers are having to make increasingly difficult decisions about the many challenges we face. So it is important that the IPCC Chair has the right experience for the key task we must confront in this decade. That task is implementation. This is why I am moving forward with my candidacy for Chair of the AR7 cycle: I am a scientist with a strong academic profile, working at the science-policy-practice interface. With three decades of leading on-the-ground policy and practice, I bring a practical approach to the science: always asking what can be most useful to the decision makers who must make evidence-led judgments on which strategies to implement. I have extensive experience across diverse fields including biodiversity, climate change adaptation, climate change mitigation, sustainability and resilience, and can use those skills to help maintain the scientific caliber of the IPCC. As a skilled communicator and bridge builder I can also increase awareness of the IPCC and ensure a more integrated approach to its work. I also believe that electing the IPCC’s first female Chair would send a strong signal to female scientists around the world and assist in improving gender balance in the IPCC. Considering all these factors, I view this as a singular moment in time during which I will be of the greatest service to the IPCC and its members.

If elected the next IPCC chair, what actions would you like to implement?

As Chair of the IPCC I would have three priorities.

First, I want to build on the progress we have already made by strengthening the foundations of the IPCC so we can continue to deliver in accordance with our growing scientific mandate. I have learned from my years working at the science-policy-practice interface that the best outcomes come from working together, prioritising equity and shared responsibility. If elected, I want to work alongside the IPCC Vice-Chairs in a Steering Committee, building a strong, unified and expert leadership team. I will also support continued and improved integration between the three Working Groups and with the Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories and the Task Group on Data Support for Climate Change Assessments, to deliver even more integrated and policy-relevant products. In addition, I want to create cultural and working practices that uplift our people through respectful and supportive leadership and advance our work on diversity, equity and inclusion. Championing gender parity and the inclusion of more early-career scientists in the work of the IPCC is also a priority.

Second, the IPCC is the gold standard of climate change science assessment. I want to build on this so that policymakers and practitioners are armed with world-class evidence based on the most comprehensive knowledge across geographies and academic disciplines. Years of work and phenomenal effort by the global research community have led to a dramatic expansion in the available literature around climate change, which has intensified the workloads of our volunteer scientists, making a comprehensive assessment of the literature increasingly difficult.

We can address this challenge by working with the artificial intelligence, machine learning and machine reading communities, to find new ways to provide authors with practical support so they can expand the volume of literature they draw on without sacrificing the timelines we must adhere to. We additionally need to draw on a wider base of knowledge, such as practitioner knowledge, Indigenous knowledge and literature in non-English languages, if we are to provide evidence that drives action on the ground. We can also improve our processes and productivity by building stronger links with organisations like the World Climate Research Programme, the United Nations (UN) Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, the UN Convention to Combat Desertification, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services and UN-Habitat, and encourage ongoing support from the scientific community by engaging science academies around the world.

Finally, I want to ensure that the IPCC’s work can inform more real-world decisions than ever before. There is a demonstrated and popular need for the IPCC to provide more regional evidence and expertise, so our work is even more useful for policymakers and practitioners who need to understand the reality of the situation, along with tangible strategies for their state or region. My experience as a practitioner-scientist means I am clearly acquainted with what that takes: for example, governments are faced with the very real need to understand the implications of both climate change variability and climate change in their region in the next five years, not only the impact of climate change over the next century – and they need evidence on what they can do this year to protect their citizens and improve their way of life.

The use of Special Reports would allow us to move faster, enabling more real-world decisions to be informed by the best and latest scientific knowledge. They can specifically address topics requested by the Panel, be highly relevant to policy decisions and encourage working groups to collaborate.

Continuing to improve regional evidence and the use of regional expertise through a broader base of nominations will also enhance the scientific leadership of the IPCC and create a more balanced and equitable assessment. And the development of more regionally-focussed communication material will help increase the impact of IPCC reports.

What do you think the role of the IPCC should be in this and the following decades?

The role of the IPCC will continue to evolve as the needs of the Panel change over time. I anticipate a growing demand from the Panel to provide evidence that can inform feasible and effective implementation in different regional contexts, as well as to assess the impacts of exceeding 1.5^oC of global warming and the strategic responses available to different sectors and systems.

The Working Group III report published last year had among its authors two employees of oil companies and a climate change denier. Do you think it is right that they are part of the IPCC reports? Could their inclusion affect the Panel’s credibility?

In selecting authors from the nominations brought by IPCC member governments and IPCC observer organisations, the Working Group Bureaus consider not only the range of scientific, technical and socio-economic views and expertise required, but also issues of geographical representation, to ensure appropriate diversity of experts from developing and developed countries and countries with economies in transition. The selection process also focusses on gathering a mix of authors with prior IPCC experience and those who are new to the process, and strives to develop gender balance within author teams. Diversity of the author pool is the strength of the IPCC process. It ensures that many different viewpoints, perspectives and disciplines are considered during the assessment process and contribute to robust scientific outcomes. Everyone selected has an important contribution to make to the discussion.

One of the main criticisms of the IPCC is the lack of gender and country diversity among its authors. Do you share this view? What do you think needs to change for the Panel to improve in both areas?

The IPCC continues to improve representation within its author teams. For example, at the time of the first assessment report in 1990, only 8% of the authors were women; in this sixth assessment cycle, 33% were women. Having a woman lead the IPCC for the first time would be an important step towards encouraging even greater gender balance and demonstrating that the IPCC is prepared to walk the talk.

In my experience as one of the only three female Working Group Co-Chairs in the IPCC’s history, there were numerous occasions during this cycle where female colleagues came to me and indicated that it was empowering to see a woman leading Working Group II for the first time, and that this made them more confident in their contributions to the report.

Regional diversity also continues to improve. For example, in the fifth assessment cycle 8% of authors came from the African region. That figure increased to 11% this cycle. But there is obviously still a lot of work needed to improve regional and gender balance by, for example, encouraging a broader range of nominations from IPCC National Focal Points, increasing the awareness of the work of the IPCC amongst tertiary institutions, university networks and science academies and increasing the capacity of authors to work in diverse teams.

Another criticism that the IPCC often receives is that its reports use watered-down language in the Summaries for Policymakers (SPMs) because they result from negotiation with countries. Do you see this as an advantage or a disadvantage?

The strength of the IPCC lies in its co-production process, which sees both the policy and scientific communities working together to deliver scientifically accurate and policy-relevant reports. But it is always the scientists who ‘hold the pen’ and have the final say on the content of the SPMs, ensuring that IPCC summary products are an accurate reflection of the literature assessed.

The climate crisis and biodiversity loss are the two major environmental crises of our time and require joint action. A few years ago, the IPCC and IPBES published a joint report. Do you think that collaboration between the two should be further strengthened?

If we are to create a safe and sustainable present and future for ourselves, all decision makers must deal not only with climate change, but also a broad range of other challenges. Those include biodiversity loss, pollution, rapid urbanisation, poverty and inequity. The IPCC can improve its relevance and the impacts of its reports by building stronger links not only with the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, but also with organisations such as the World Climate Research Programme, the United Nations (UN) Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, the UN Convention to Combat Desertification and UN-Habitat.

I would like to know your positions on certain technologies such as nuclear power, carbon capture and storage (CCS), carbon dioxide removal (CDR), renewable hydrogen and electric vehicles. Also, what are your views on meat, always a controversial topic?

It is important to recognise that there isn’t a single technology that will solve the climate crisis. The IPCC reports indicate that ambitious mitigation will necessitate the use of a broad range of approaches, including the electrification of end uses such as transport. Such electricity would need to come from low- or no-carbon technologies, with different shares from nuclear, biomass, non-biomass renewables and fossil fuels in combination with carbon capture and storage.

The move to net zero CO₂ energy systems will also include the need to use carbon capture and storage, and carbon dioxide removal and energy carriers such as low-emissions hydrogen. A shift to balanced and sustainable healthy diets that feature plant-based foods produced in resilient, sustainable and low-GHG emission systems has been identified as a major opportunity for adaptation and mitigation while generating significant co-benefits in terms of human health.

All mitigation strategies, however, face implementation challenges, including technology risks, scaling and costs. The most appropriate strategies depend on national and regional circumstances, including enabling conditions and technology availability. But the IPCC reports also point to our need to understand the synergies and trade-offs that emerge out of all mitigation and adaptation interventions.

Finally, do you consider yourself optimistic in the current context of climate and biodiversity crisis?

I am a pragmatist; a great deal of hard work lies ahead if we are to deal with the complex challenges from climate change, biodiversity loss, poor health, poverty, inequity, vulnerability, overconsumption etc. Science provides us with the evidence we need to understand the causes and responses to these challenges, but it will take a society- and economy-wide response if we are to leave no one, no place and no ecosystem behind.

* Anna Oakes has assisted in translation.