The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s forthcoming special report on climate change and cities has more women than men on its authorship team, for the first time in the organisation’s history, Carbon Brief analysis shows.
The IPCC released a list earlier this month of the 97 authors (pdf) who will write the cities report – which is scheduled for publication in March 2027.
With 46 men and 51 women, it is the first report in the IPCC’s 37-year history to have more women than men as authors.
Meanwhile, with 39 authors from institutions in the global south and 58 from the global north, this report has the fifth-highest representation of authors from the global south.
The report is one of the multiple documents, including special reports, working group reports and methodology reports, that will make up the IPCC’s seventh assessment cycle (AR7).
Last year, Carbon Brief published an in-depth analysis of the gender and country of affiliation of the authors of major IPCC reports, from the first assessment report in 1990 to the sixth assessment report in 2023.
The analysis has now been expanded to include all reports published since 1990 by the IPCC, including assessment reports, special reports and methodology reports.
It shows a steady increase in the proportion of women and scientists from global-south institutions contributing to the IPCC reports, but highlights that these groups are still underrepresented.
Gender balance
Carbon Brief has analysed the coordinating lead authors, lead authors and review editors who have worked together to produce dozens of IPCC reports.
The chart below shows the gender balance of the authors of all IPCC reports ever published.
Each IPCC assessment cycle is marked by the publication of three working-group reports, which are summarised in a synthesis report. Carbon Brief has grouped these four reports under the headline “assessment reports” for every assessment cycle.
The first, second and third assessment reports are indicated by the acronyms FAR, SAR and TAR. Subsequent assessment reports are indicated by AR, followed by the name of the assessment cycle.
Most assessment cycles also saw the publication of “special reports”, focusing on specific areas of climate change, and “methodology reports” – technical documents that focus on specific areas of the IPCC’s methodology. Acronyms for these reports are given as SR and MR, respectively, followed by the name of the assessment cycle.
For example, the special reports on 1.5C, the ocean and cryosphere and climate change and land – published over 2018-19 – are part of the sixth assessment cycle and are referred to collectively as SR6.
To assign each special and methodology report to an assessment cycle, Carbon Brief assumes that assessment reports are the last documents to be published in each assessment cycle. Carbon Brief has grouped the authors from special reports (“SR”) and methodology reports (“MR”) separately for each assessment cycle.
The analysis shows that when the IPCC’s first-ever assessment report was published in 1990, only 8% of authors were women. The representation of women in the IPCC has steadily risen over time and by the sixth assessment cycle (2018-22) more than one-third of authors were women.
The special report on climate change and cities is the only output from the seventh assessment cycle with a publicly available authorship list to date. With 46 men and 51 women, the IPCC cities report is the first in the organisation’s history to have more women than men on its author list.
The IPCC’s seventh assessment cycle – which will include the three main working group reports, one special report and two methodology reports – is likely to have hundreds of authors. The authorship teams for the other reports have not yet been selected.
The graphic below shows a more detailed view. Each dot represents one person – with women shown in orange and men in purple. Where one author contributed to multiple working group reports in the same assessment cycle, these repeats have been removed. Grey dots indicate that the gender of the author could not be determined.
For more information on why gender representation is important in climate science, read Carbon Brief’s 2021 analysis on the lack of diversity in climate science.
Global-south representation
Carbon Brief also analysed how the proportion of IPCC authors from institutions in the global south has changed.
Here, “global south” is defined as countries in Africa, Asia (excluding Japan), Latin America and Oceania (excluding Australia and New Zealand). “Global north” is defined as countries in North America and Europe, as well as Australia, New Zealand and Japan.
The chart below shows the percentage of authors from the global south in every IPCC report.
When the IPCC published its first assessment report, only 11% of authors were from institutions in the global south. This percentage has risen over the years, reaching 38% in the sixth assessment reports, the analysis shows.
With 58 authors from institutions in the global north and 39 from the global south, the IPCC’s cities report is the organisation’s fifth-most global south-dominated report.
(The highest-ranking report for global-south authorship, with 53 authors from the global north and 54 from the global south, was the special report on climate change and land. Published in 2019, this was part of the sixth assessment cycle.)
The graphic below shows a more detailed representation of IPCC authors from institutions in the global north and south. Each dot represents one person – with experts from global-south countries shown in dark blue and global-north countries in light blue. Where one author contributed to multiple working group reports in the same assessment cycle, these repeats have been removed.
The upcoming cities report includes authors from institutions in 54 different countries. The most highly represented countries are Japan, the Netherlands, the UK and the US, with six authors each.
The map below shows the number of authors from institutions in each country, across all IPCC reports included in this analysis. The map on the top shows countries in the global north while the map on the bottom shows those in the global south. Darker colours indicate more authors.
Every author in the cities report has two countries listed next to their name, labelled “country” and “citizenship”. Carbon Brief used the former – which indicates the country where the scientist works – for the analysis above, because citizenship data is not available in earlier reports.
However, IPCC scientists previously told Carbon Brief that, sometimes, experts from the global south find it easier to apply to join the IPCC via institutions in the global north.
An analysis of the citizenship of authors of the IPCC cities report finds that 51 are from global-south countries. However, only 39 are affiliated with institutions in the global south.
Methodology
Carbon Brief obtained data used in this analysis from a range of sources, including the IPCC website, the IPCC’s technical support unit and analysis by Carbon Brief staff.
(The “methodology” section of Carbon Brief’s 2023 analysis on IPCC authorship contains more details on how Carbon Brief collected authorship data from the main working group reports and recent special reports.)
Carbon Brief downloaded authorship data on the AR7 special report on climate change and cities from the IPCC website, which lists data on each author’s gender, citizenship and the country where their institution was based.
For authorship data on all the methodology reports and the special reports published before the fifth assessment cycle, Carbon Brief manually extracted information from the report pdfs, which were accessed on the IPCC archive.
In many early reports, only the initials were given for authors’ first names. In these instances, Carbon Brief used internet searches or a ChatGPT-based tool to find first names. If ChatGPT provided a name, Carbon Brief double-checked its accuracy with internet searches.
Similarly, Carbon Brief used internet searches and ChatGPT to suggest the most likely gender of the authors based on the information available. In some instances, it was not possible to find the authors’ first name or gender and so gender was recorded as “unknown” in the analysis.
Carbon Brief recognises that gender is not best categorised using a binary “male” or “female” label and appreciates that the methods used of determining author gender could result in inaccuracies. However, for the purpose of this analysis, this method was deemed suitable.
As many results were recorded manually, or with the use of artificial intelligence, Carbon Brief acknowledges the possibility of human error. Authorship data collected from earlier reports are more likely to contain these errors. However, the large sample size of more than 5,600 authors in total may mitigate the effect of any such inaccuracies on the overall trends identified.
The post IPCC’s special report on cities is its first with majority-women authorship team appeared first on Carbon Brief.
IPCC’s special report on cities is its first with majority-women authorship team
June Rubis is a steering group committee member for the Cali Fund, from Sarawak in Malaysian Borneo.
At COP16 in Cali, governments made a significant commitment: at least half of the funding from the new Cali Fund should support the self-identified needs of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, including women and youth. It was a watershed moment for multilateral benefit-sharing.
The challenge now is to translate that commitment into access arrangements that recognise the different institutions, priorities and decision-making processes of Indigenous Peoples and local communities.
For generations, biodiversity and traditional Indigenous knowledge have provided significant value to companies who depend on nature’s genetic diversity to discover new drugs that fight diseases, create products that improve health, and grow crops resilient to extreme heat and flooding events. While some compounds are sampled directly from the source country, increasingly the digital blueprints are held in online public databases which are freely accessible to use for innovation and research.
Countries urged to ramp up “insufficient” nature policies at COP17
The Cali Fund was established at COP16 to encourage commercial users of Digital Sequence Information, or DSI, to share benefits arising from its use. Estimates suggest it could generate over $3.5 billion a year – a stark contrast to the modest $10,656 currently committed to the fund from just five SMEs, underlining how much progress must be made at COP17 over the next two weeks.
The COP16 decision that set up the fund offers two routes for money to reach Indigenous Peoples and local communities: through government authorities, and through direct payments to institutions identified by Indigenous Peoples and local communities themselves.
Varied ways of organising
Indigenous Peoples and local communities organise through a wide range of institutions. Some have national or regional organisations experienced in managing international grants. Others work through territorial organisations, customary institutions, community associations, cooperatives or networks. Some have professional finance teams and audited accounts; others have extensive experience governing territories, collective resources or conservation work without having been organised around international funding requirements.
For direct access, some questions are already apparent. Which institutions should be able to receive funds? How should they be identified? What fiduciary standards should apply? How should safeguards and accountability work where institutional capacities differ? What support may be needed where institutions have strong community mandates but less experience with international finance?
Comment: Protecting nature is a public duty, not a Wall Street profit opportunity
If access is designed mainly around institutions that already meet the expectations of large international finance mechanisms, early funding will tend to favour those already familiar to funders. They will gain further experience and become better positioned for future funding, while institutions with less administrative capacity may remain outside the system despite strong community mandates and long histories of stewardship.
These first decisions matter most, because they set the terms for everyone who follows.
The role of intermediaries requires care. Some Indigenous organisations may want a fiscal host to hold and manage funds on their behalf. Communities may choose to work through an NGO they trust. Government-facilitated arrangements may work well in particular national contexts.
What matters is the function an intermediary performs and the authority that comes with it. Providing administrative support is different from deciding which Indigenous organisations qualify, which priorities can receive support, or how success will be assessed. Direct access means communities keep that decision-making authority.
Decision-making power
The COP16 decision refers to institutions that Indigenous Peoples and local communities identify. But authority among Indigenous Peoples does not sit in one kind of body. It may sit with territorial organisations, customary institutions, community associations or combinations of these. Legal recognition and customary authority do not always align neatly.
Global deforestation slowed in 2025 but Brazil’s election could undo “fragile” gains
An important feature of the Cali Fund’s governance is that Indigenous Peoples and local communities participate as full members of the Steering Committee, rather than as observers. Seven Indigenous Peoples and local community representatives, one from each of the seven socio-cultural regions, participate in consensus-based decision-making alongside representatives of governments and UN entities. Six additional representatives from civil society, scientific institutions and the private sector participate as observers.
That representation carries responsibility. Institutional legitimacy, access and representation take different forms across the seven socio-cultural regions. Indigenous Peoples and local communities members therefore have an important role in bringing those differences into the Fund’s governance and in ensuring that arrangements developed for one context do not become the assumed model for everyone else.
Safeguards and clear responsibilities
COP17 can establish the core principles and direction, while allowing operational pathways to develop in ways that respond to different regional contexts. The decisions countries take in Yerevan will shape how that flexibility is realised in practice.
The choices made around access will influence which institutions are able to participate, which routes become established and which forms of authority are recognised within the funding architecture. The aim should be an architecture with enough structure to maintain confidence while allowing for different forms of Indigenous and community governance.
A credible direct-access pathway will need safeguards, financial oversight and clear responsibilities. This would give the 50% commitment a stronger institutional foundation.
The Cali Fund’s importance will ultimately depend not only on how much funding reaches Indigenous Peoples and local communities, but on whether they are able to determine how the money is accessed, governed and used. This requires access pathways that recognise their institutions, priorities and decision-making processes, rather than requiring them to conform to a single predetermined model.
The post COP17 must settle who decides how Cali Fund money is disbursed appeared first on Climate Home News.
COP17 must settle who decides how Cali Fund money is disbursed
The UK government has approved extraction at the Jackdaw gas field in the North Sea, despite acknowledging that this decision could make it harder for Britain to convince other countries to move away from fossil fuel production.
UK energy secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh approved the drilling on Wednesday after months of high-profile debate, fuelled in part by interventions from US President Donald Trump. She argued that the project would boost energy security in the wake of the Middle East fossil fuel crisis, protect hundreds of jobs and add £2.9 billion ($3.88bn) to the UK economy.
She said Jackdaw’s gas would be cleaner than imported gas and would not prevent the UK from meeting its legally-binding carbon targets and its goal of net zero by 2050. As the field is already licensed, she said extraction was consistent with the Labour Party’s 2024 manifesto promise not to issue any new oil and gas licenses.
The same morning, the government announced a new Energy Wealth Fund to reinvest oil and gas revenues in the climate transition. It will start with £2 billion ($2.67bn) from the government and be topped up over time with tax revenues from offshore oil and gas production.
Climate campaigners in the UK and abroad were quick to condemn the decision, while a leading legal expert told Climate Home News it goes against the advice of the International Court of Justice. Meanwhile, the government’s own documents reveal that it recognises the drilling could damage the UK’s reputation and its ability to push forward the global transition away from fossil fuels.
“Climate leadership” blow
The 92-page decision document says Fahnbulleh “acknowledges that international standing on climate is important and accepts that a decision to grant consent may not further the UK’s international climate leadership.”
It adds: “She acknowledges concerns about the potential implications for the UK’s credibility and influence – including the difficulty inherent in encouraging other states to move away from fossil fuel production while the UK continues, in a limited and transitional way, to draw on its own domestic resources.”
While noting that Jackdaw has not been issued with a new license – just permission to extract gas – the document says Fahnbulleh “accepts this does not fully resolve the underlying tension in the UK’s position” but “considers this alongside the substance of the UK’s wider record [on emissions reduction], which remains significant”.
It continues that she accepts these concerns are “legitimate” and weigh against approving gas extraction, but only gives this argument a “moderate negative weight” set against the benefits of gas production.
“Huge” wrong signal
In international climate talks, the UK has long supported the transition away from fossil fuels and is one of very few major oil and gas producers to ban new licenses. Across the North Sea, the Norwegian government continues to make offshore areas available for oil and gas exploration through annual licensing rounds.
Climate experts and campaigners shared the concern, acknowledged in the decision document, that approving Jackdaw could set a precedent for fossil fuel production elsewhere. Sam Fankhauser, professor of climate change economics at Oxford University, said the direct climate impact of Jackdaw is “much smaller than the debate around it would suggest” but the “wrong signal it sends, however, is huge”.
-
Carbon capture industry faces tough future, as UK raids green spending
Despite a spate of projects getting underway, the mood at an industry conference in London this week was low with government subsidies set to shrink -
Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs
More than 30 countries have failed to submit an NDC, but only three have repeatedly ignored the committee’s efforts to engage with them -
Turkish giant sponsoring COP31 cut climate goals then cashed in on oil boom
COP31 sponsors should be screened for “climate integrity”. Yet Koç Holding has become a top partner while its oil refiner runs flat out and its climate targets slip
Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change, said that while Jackdaw’s output will be very small, “it will signal to other fossil fuel producers that they too should carry on with business as usual, less than a month before the COP31”.
Kenyan campaigner Mohamed Adow, director of Power Shift Africa, called the decision “a serious blow to Britain’s international climate credibility” as “the UK cannot expect developing countries to move away from fossil fuels while giving the green light to new drilling in its own backyard”.
International Court of Justice
In July 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) advised that government failure to take appropriate climate action “including through fossil fuel production” may amount to an internationally wrongful act.
The UK voted in favour of a United Nations resolution welcoming the advisory opinion. Yet, in its Jackdaw decision document, it notes that the ICJ opinion is not legally binding and says the UK does not accept the court’s opinion that the customary international law duty to prevent significant harm to the environment applies to climate change.
Fahnbulleh concludes that, although it will have “significant effect on the environment”, gas drilling in Jackdaw “would not lead to significant harm to the environment” – and so does not breach any duty to prevent such harm. Instead, the government document says the duty should be considered “as a matter of policy rather than legal obligation”.
Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh, who led Vanuatu’s legal team pushing for the ICJ’s advisory opinion, told Climate Home News that treating the duty as a matter of policy rather than legal obligation is “not how international law works”. “An advisory opinion is not a judgement,” she said, “but it states the law as it stands, and that law binds the UK whether or not it accepts it.”
“Even as a matter of policy,” she added, “the decision asks the wrong question: whether Jackdaw on its own would cause significant harm. The Court found that accumulated emissions are already causing significant harm. What matters is whether approving new production is consistent with the stringent due diligence the duty requires.”
Public support for decision
While the decision was criticised by climate campaigners and the opposition Green party, polling reported by Politico suggests that 55% of British adults support drilling at Jackdaw, with just 14% opposed. Even supporters of the UK’s net zero target back new drilling by more than two to one, the polling found.
Jackdaw is one of two North Sea oil and gas fields the government has been debating whether to extract more from for months. While Jackdaw is a small gas field, the other, Rosebank, is a much larger field that holds mostly oil.
Rosebank’s emissions are estimated to be around seven times higher than Jackdaw’s. Fahnbulleh told Sky News that Rosebank is “different” to Jackdaw because its oil would be exported, whereas Jackdaw’s gas will be used in the UK, adding that she will consider it “in its own right”.
The Guardian reported on Wednesday that UK officials say Fahnbulleh is minded to refuse approval for Rosebank. She has not yet taken a final decision on Rosebank, the newspaper said, but a ruling is expected later this year.
The post UK approves gas drilling despite admitting blow to “climate leadership” status appeared first on Climate Home N