Past and Future of the IPCC: Institutional Context and Reform for the Future

The Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) cycle of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which began in 2016, will finally come to an end with the release of its Synthesis Report (SYR), scheduled in March 2023. Although the release of its reports was delayed due to the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, each Working Group’s reports drew wide public attention, demonstrating the significance of the IPCC in science, policy and society. Soon, the next Seventh Assessment Report (AR7) cycle will begin, following the election of new IPCC Bureau members in the summer of 2023. And in the coming months, there would likely be global debate over the potential reform of the work and structure of the IPCC. In this series of seminars, we invite two international scholars (Prof Mike Hulme and Dr Kari De Pryck) who have been studying the IPCC for many years from a critical social science standpoint. Prof Hulme and Dr De Pryck are experts in Science and Technology Studies (STS) and edited the first social science book that comprehensively analysed the institutional architectures of the IPCC, covering its origins, history, processes, participants, products, and influence. The book was published by Cambridge University Press in December 2022. Through conversations with some guests who have been involved in IPCC activities, we aim to have broader discussions with our audiences about the historical development—how the IPCC has become such a global authority of climate science and what are the achievements and challenges of the IPCC—and the future directions of the IPCC.
IPCC reports are arguably the most authoritative source of climate science. Guided by the so-called ‘policy-relevant but not policy-prescriptive’ principle, the IPCC has been providing useful scientific information for international negotiations at UNFCCC and today it enjoyed a high degree of credibility among international climate communities. However, with the more severe impacts of climate change and the slow progression of emission reduction, the IPCC’s own mission itself is being called into question. Some call for a shift from policy-neutral scientific assessment to more solution-oriented policy advice. Indeed, at a time when the world is taking a major step of social transformation towards rapid decarbonisation, if the IPCC continued the business-as-usual approach of producing comprehensive reports in 5-7 years, it would widen the gap between science and policy, raising a question about its policy relevance. Coming close to the end of the AR6 cycle, now is the time to rethink the future of the IPCC. Widely recognised as the success of a global scientific advisory body, discussing institutional reform of the IPCC will be a touchstone for exploring new relationships between science and policy in a rapidly changing world.

Mike Hulme

Kari De Pryck

Institute for Future Initiatives, The University of Tokyo
sugiyama-staff★ifi.u-tokyo.ac.jp(★→@)