People often talk about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as if it were a full-blown science agency, located in a building in some unmentioned locale. The truth is that it hardly exists, and it’s hard for something that hardly exists to organize itself in the midst of a 21st-century communications battle. But as part of the external review, discussed in an earlier post, some are hoping to change exactly that.

“It’s surprising to me that they’ve gotten as much done as they have on almost no resources whatsoever,” says Timothy Wirth, president of the United Nations Foundation, noting that the current budget is less than $5 million annually. “It would certainly be my hope that the nations of the world upon looking at this would beef up the IPCC.”

At present, the IPCC is more like a corps of volunteer scientists spread far and wide across the planet. It has a main office in Geneva, but IPCC and United Nations officials say something on the order of 10 people work there, with additional staff supporting the working groups in other locations. The IPCC doesn’t have a communications staff, nor even formal internal mechanisms to respond to a barrage criticism or media queries.

Janos Pasztor, who handles climate issues for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, says the organization needs “appropriate managerial support” to be able to do its job and communicate the science in the current political and media environment. "Many feel it does not have that now,” he says.

Chris Field, co-chair of the impacts and adaptation working group for the next assessment, divides the resource question into two categories. When it comes to assessing the science, he says the IPCC needs “more expertise, more eyes and more transparency,” which basically translates into quality scientists and proper procedures. The resources in this case – the scientists themselves – are basically free. It’s the organization that matters. But it’s a different set of questions when it comes to core staff.

—

“The management structure of the IPCC was put together more than 20 years ago,” Field says. “The science was unfolding slowly, and the need for communications was more modest.” The situation has changed dramatically since then, and he hopes the panel will provide some suggestions as to what kind of additional resources are needed in this area.

In addition to resources, the review will also look at fundamental structural issues, Pasztor says. The IPCC is basically a joint project between the World Meteorological Organization or the United Nations Environment Programme, and that means that what little staff it does have technically reports to one of those agencies. “Money is part of it,” he says, “but it’s also the managerial structures.”

Who knows what will come of these discussions. Ultimately it’s the governments of the world that will decide whether to change the IPCC structure and provide additional resources. But it’s perfectly clear that many see this not as a standard review of procedures but as an opportunity to fundamentally change the IPCC itself.

“I think there is great freedom in the evaluation panel to consider whatever they feel is of relevance to the workings of the IPCC,” says Robert Dijkgraaf, who co-chairs the InterAcademy Council, which will be heading up the review. “It would be a wasted opportunity if you were to start the fifth assessment and did not take this opportunity now to come with recommendations as to how to improve it.”