IPCC ELECTIONS | Jean-Pascal van Ypersele: «Hundreds of millions of people are already at risk today, and will be even more so tomorrow»

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 know the proposals of the four candidates.

Belgian Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, 66, is professor of climatology and sustainable development sciences at the Catholic University of Leuven (Belgium). In 2015, he came close to being elected IPCC chair for the Sixth Assessment Cycle. He is now trying again for the Seventh Cycle.

A physicist by training, van Ypersele completed his PhD at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in the United States. He has been publishing on climate change and sustainable development with an interdisciplinary approach for over 40 years. 

Van Ypersele is a member of the Royal Belgian Academy. In 2016 he created, with the support of the Walloon Government (one of the three regions of Belgium), the Walloon Platform for the IPCC. He has participated in almost all climate summits (COP) as scientific advisor to his country’s delegation. In addition, van Ypersele has regularly collaborated with the UN and the European Union, especially in the preparation of reports. He claims that he often acts as advisor/consultant for governments and heads of state (and even for Greta Thunberg).

Van Ypersele has been working with the IPCC since 1995. He served as IPCC vice-chair during the Fifth Assessment Report (2008-2015). He was lead author of the Third Assessment Report (2001) and was elected vice-chair of Working Group II – in charge of the report on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability – in 2002. He has also been co-author and review editor on several other panel reports.

He has received numerous awards and distinctions over the course of his professional career. The most recent was the Harvard Leadership Prize from the Harvard Club of Belgium, in 2018. Now, Van Ypersele’s primary aspiration is to hold the highest position of responsibility in the largest climate change think tank.

Why have you decided to run in these elections?

There are emergency situations in an increasing number of countries as a result of climate change. It has become a vital and even existential issue for some. Hundreds of millions of people are already at risk today, and will be even more so tomorrow. I consider those people my sisters and brothers. I intend to put my long experience of climate change to the service of the international community, in the North, in the South – everywhere – in order to move things forward at pace. The IPCC assessment reports assess and summarise our knowledge of climate change and what can be done about it, and I would like to ensure this knowledge serves to ensure the best decisions are made, leaving no one behind.

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

I would start by answering that I have only missed two COPs since the first one in 1995. During COPs, we hear a lot from individual countries, but there is one voice that we do not hear: the voice of the climate. The IPCC must be the global voice of climate science, so that it can support decision-makers at key moments. The IPCC’s messages, its reports reflecting the reality of current and projected climate change, as well as its impacts and options for action, must be communicated as clearly as possible. It is not enough to place 4,000-page reports or even 40-page summaries on the desks of political decision-makers. We need to be more proactive. No one should be unaware of what the IPCC is saying, based on science.

I have been a climate scientist, originally a climate modeller, for more than 40 years, and I have worked and published with scientists across disciplines working on climate impacts, adaptation and mitigation: geographers and social scientists, demographers, sociologists, philosophers, engineers and economists. I understand the diversity of scientific cultures and vocabularies around the IPCC table, and I know what working across different disciplines looks like. I have also worked at the science-policy interface for more than 30 years, advising the Belgian, the European and the Fiji (a member of G77 and China) governments on climate and sustainable development issues.  I also have been a lead author of the IPCC Third Assessment Report and a review editor many times. I have 13 years of experience in the IPCC Bureau: vice-chair of Working Group II on impacts, vulnerability, and adaptation (2002-2008) and IPCC Vice-Chair from 2008 to 2015. The IPCC needs someone with such broad and comprehensive knowledge and experience.

I would also like the IPCC to be truly representative of the full range of climate situations and solutions needed. To achieve this, it is very important to go and see what is happening across the world, in very concrete terms. Not just at a ministerial level, but also on the ground, to see the reality of the impacts of climate change and the solutions being implemented. During this campaign for IPCC Chair, I was lucky to be able to make field visits, notably to Ethiopia, Kenya, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Bangladesh and India. These visits allowed me to see suffering, but also hope. If elected, I will be a 200% IPCC Chair: 100% for the IPCC itself – to make it more effective, more eloquent, better understood, more relevant, etc.; and 100% to develop partnerships with other organisations, to solve the problems that the IPCC will not be able to solve on its own, and to be in touch with the situations on the ground. I will be making as many visits as possible, starting with countries that I have not had the opportunity to visit during the campaign. I think this is very important. For the IPCC to be the voice of the climate, its Chair must have both feet on the ground, must be in touch with reality. I am full of inspiration after visiting more than 25 countries over the past six months.

If elected as the new IPCC chair, what actions would you like to implement? What do you think the role of the IPCC should be in this and the following decades?

As presented in my campaign programme (see www.jpvanyp.be), I plan to work on five strategic axes:

• Improving the IPCC’s communication strategy to ensure that it is the most scientifically solid and clear voice of climate;
• Delivering policy-relevant products through a strengthened dialogue between the IPCC and decision-makers;
• Reinforcing the IPCC’s role in building enhanced synergies between the 17 Sustainable Development Goals and climate change;
• Mainstreaming climate justice and fair transition considerations into all IPCC work and activities;
• Ensuring the effective participation of more developing country scientists, women, young scientists and under-represented disciplines and knowledge, including Indigenous Knowledge, to the IPCC for the next assessment cycles.

For each of these axes, concrete actions are being developed and innovative partnerships with international institutions will be established. During my campaign, I have already established initial contacts with the Green Climate Fund, UNESCO, the African Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the African Union, the World Bank, the Ban Ki-moon Foundation, the European Commission, the Economic Commission for Africa, the International Monetary Fund, the Global Green Growth Institute, the Union of Economic and Social Councils and Similar Institutions of Africa (UCESA) … They are all ready to engage with the IPCC.

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 can be part of the IPCC reports? Don’t you think it could affect the Panel’s credibility?

The IPCC needs to focus more on solutions to adapt to the unavoidable impacts of climate change and to mitigate further climate change. To do so, different sources of scientific information need to be considered. In principle, there is no reason to ban any person who has relevant expertise from contributing but evidently, any tangible conflict of interests must be avoided. There is no space for “denying” scientific facts. The IPCC has a conflict-of-interest policy, to which I contributed when I was a Vice-Chair. It was last reviewed and amended in 2016, before the writing of AR6. It is time to take stock of how it has been applied and further clarify what constitutes an actual conflict of interest. It is also important to remember that the quality of IPCC reports is the result of the work of a large group of people, and that the review process is of paramount importance. I want to take all necessary steps to ensure that all parts of all reports are thoroughly examined by knowledgeable experts.

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

The poor gender and country diversity among authors is of course an issue that concerns me. I have clear ideas on how to improve the situation and I have already started working on them. For example, I have spoken with the Green Climate Fund and they are prepared to ask the GCF Board to adapt the guidelines of their Readiness Programme to allow governments to provide funding to IPCC authors. I plan to develop more innovative partnerships to ensure that developing country authors have the financial and material means to participate in the IPCC. When it comes to gender inclusivity, efforts must be made to achieve a proportion of 50% of female authors, and I am in touch with the President of one of the largest universities focused on female students, the Ewha Womans University in Seoul (Republic of Korea) to develop concrete actions towards this goal. We also need to ensure that the IPCC is an environment entirely free of any sexual harassment or prejudice to nurture genuine gender inclusivity. I would like to note that my campaign team includes many highly-qualified women, who advise me on different matters, including gender inclusivity.

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

It is undoubtedly a clear strength that the Summaries for Policy Makers (SPM) are approved by consensus. They form a scientific basis that is not rejected by any country, which constitutes a solid foundation for negotiation and collective action. The IPCC reports published so far, including the SPMs, contain a lot of clear statements on the urgency of the climate situation and the feasibility of solutions. However, the IPCC was less successful during AR6, especially for the Synthesis report, in managing the process of SPM approval in a timely manner. This had concrete consequences on the participation of many countries, especially for developing countries who could not have delegates attending discussions two days after the planned deadline. This is an area for improvement which I want to contribute to, with a view to increasing inclusivity as well as the ability of everyone to focus on the key points of each SPM.

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?

Climate change and biodiversity loss are indeed heavily interconnected challenges that cannot be approached separately and require an exchange of knowledge between IPCC and IPBES. This has been the outcome of the workshop report from the IPBES-IPCC co-sponsored meeting on Biodiversity and Climate Change based on new knowledge and the latest developments in environmental policy. This report represents the first-ever collaboration between the two intergovernmental science-policy bodies. IPCC and IPBES need to strengthen their collaboration, given the ever-stronger overlaps in their work and the solutions needed.

We need to present a portfolio of solutions to mitigate both climate and biodiversity crises and their impacts on societies. Any further collaboration between the IPCC and IPBES also needs to be embedded in the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs, by providing scientific information to support the implementation of the SDGs and assessing whether current actions sufficiently tackle the climate and biodiversity crises and their societal impact. I intend to engage with the IPBES for the preparation of a possible policy-relevant Special Report on “Climate Change and Sustainable Development.” with a complete assessment of the many synergies (and of the tradeoffs) that can be found between the 17 SDGs. Such a report would be extremely valuable as a timely input for the second Global StockTake due to take place in 2028 under the Paris Agreement.

I would like to know your position 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.

As IPCC Chair candidate, I don’t wish to be prescriptive about a list of specific technologies, sectors, or lifestyle choices. My position on each of these will be wholly aligned with scientific evidence and, if I am elected IPCC Chair, I will reflect on the content of the IPCC assessments in the best manner, and ensure that they are relevant and available for policy makers.

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

Solutions exist, they are within our reach. The role of the IPCC is to assess and share all available options with decision-makers. I am and I have always been an optimist: I believe that we can limit climate change and biodiversity loss in a way that is just and fair and that will contribute to alleviating poverty all over the world.

I am also certain that a more connected, diverse and inclusive IPCC, with a stronger and clearer voice can deliver the scientific evidence base that ensures policymakers pull us, humanity, back to a place of safety and resilience, where climate justice has been addressed, where the global economy has been decoupled from spiralling carbon emissions, and where a sustainable future for our children has been secured.

It is often said that, to achieve progress in challenging areas like the climate crisis, you must have your eyes wide open but at no point become disillusioned. This is actually a perfect description of a scientific approach: tirelessly working towards the evidence needed to make sure the right decisions are made.

* Anna Oakes has assisted in translation.