Climate change assessments Review of the processes and ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

they are an editor. In selecting Review Editors, the Bureaux should select from developed and developing countries and from countries with economies in transition, and should aim for a balanced representation of scientific, technical, and socio-economic views. 4.2.4.1 First review (by experts) First draft Reports should be circulated by Working Group/Task Force Bureau Co-Chairs for review by experts selected by the Working Group/ Task Force Bureaux and, in addition, those on the lists provided by governments and participating organisations, noting the need to aim for a range of views, expertise, and geographical representation. The review circulation should include: • Experts who have significant expertise and/or publications in particular areas covered by the Report. • Experts nominated by governments as Coordinating Lead Authors, Lead Authors, contributing authors or expert reviewers as included in lists maintained by the IPCC Secretariat. • Expert reviewers nominated by appropriate organisations. The first draft Reports should be sent to Government Focal Points, for information, along with a list of those to whom the Report has been sent for review in that country. The Working Group/Task Force Bureau Co-Chairs should make available to reviewers on request during the review process specific material referenced in the document being reviewed, which is not available in the international published literature. Expert reviewers should provide the comments to the appropriate Lead Authors through the relevant Working Group/Task Force Bureau Co-Chairs with a copy, if required, to their Government Focal Point. Coordinating Lead Authors, in consultation with the Review Editors and in coordination with the respective Working Group/Task Force Bureau Co-Chairs and the IPCC Secretariat, are encouraged to supplement the draft revision process by organising a wider meeting with principal Contributing Authors and expert reviewers, if time and funding permit, in order to pay special attention to particular points of assessment or areas of major differences. 90 Climate change assessments | Review of the processes and procedures of the IPCC
4.2.4.2 Second review (by governments and experts) A revised draft should be distributed by the appropriate Working Group/ Task Force Bureau Co-chairs or through the IPCC Secretariat to governments through the designated Government Focal Points, and to all the coordinating lead authors, lead authors and contributing authors and expert reviewers. Governments should send one integrated set of comments for each Report to the appropriate Working Group/Task Force Bureau Co-chairs through their Government Focal Points. Non-government reviewers should send their further comments to the appropriate Working Group/Task Force Bureau Co-Chairs with a copy to their appropriate Government Focal Point. . . . Annex 1: Tasks and responsibilities . . . 4. Expert reviewers Function: To comment on the accuracy and completeness of the scientific/ technical/socio-economic content and the overall scientific/technical/ socio-economic balance of the drafts. Comment: Expert reviewers will comment on the text according to their own knowledge and experience. They may be nominated by Governments, national and international organisations, Working Group/Task Force Bureaux, Lead Authors and Contributing Authors. 5. Review Editors Function: Review Editors will assist the Working Group/Task Force Bureaux in identifying reviewers for the expert review process, ensure that all substantive expert and government review comments are afforded appropriate consideration, advise lead authors on how to handle contentious/controversial issues and ensure genuine controversies are reflected adequately in the text of the Report. Comment: There will be one or two Review Editors per chapter (including their executive summaries) and per technical summary. In order to carry out these tasks, Review Editors will need to have a broad understanding of the wider scientific and technical issues being addressed. The workload will be particularly heavy during the final stages of the Report preparation. This includes attending those meetings where writing teams are considering the results of the two review rounds. Review Editors Climate change assessments | Review of the processes and procedures of the IPCC 91
Page 1 and 2:
October 2010 Climate change assessm
Page 3 and 4:
Climate change assessments
Page 5 and 6:
Foreword In March 2010, the InterAc
Page 7 and 8:
Contents Foreword iii Committee to
Page 9 and 10:
Preface Since its founding more tha
Page 11 and 12:
IAC report review This report was e
Page 13 and 14:
Acknowledgements Community input wa
Page 15 and 16:
management structure comprises the
Page 17 and 18:
amount of evidence available and th
Page 19 and 20:
1. Introduction The Intergovernment
Page 21 and 22:
assessment, they must carry out the
Page 23 and 24:
Number of authors 1500 1200 900 600
Page 25 and 26:
BOX 1.2 Roles of participants in IP
Page 27 and 28:
The IPCC assessment process in brie
Page 29 and 30:
Preparation of the Synthesis Report
Page 31 and 32:
2. Evaluation of IPCC’s assessmen
Page 33 and 34:
authors are chosen and others are n
Page 35 and 36:
efore incorporating them (Appendix
Page 37 and 38:
ange of viewpoints offered and pote
Page 39 and 40:
for rejected comments. In the case
Page 41 and 42:
Summary for Policymakers A Summary
Page 43 and 44:
in each of the three Working Group
Page 45 and 46:
3. IPCC’s evaluation of evidence
Page 47 and 48:
Table 3.3 Likelihood scale used by
Page 49 and 50:
models, conditional on the SRES sce
Page 51 and 52:
4. The likelihood scale used by Wor
Page 53 and 54:
change. The area suitable for agric
Page 55 and 56:
Fourth Assessment Report by present
Page 57 and 58: not consistently followed in the fo
Page 59 and 60: Recommendation ►The likelihood sc
Page 61 and 62: 4. Governance and management The IP
Page 63 and 64: The IPCC makes all of its major dec
Page 65 and 66: The IPCC Bureau The IPCC Bureau com
Page 67 and 68: Ismail A.R. El Gizouli (Sudan - Act
Page 69 and 70: ex officio member of the Executive
Page 71 and 72: were interviewed by the Committee o
Page 73 and 74: Working Groups and Technical Suppor
Page 75 and 76: Recommendation ►The IPCC should c
Page 77 and 78: 5. Conclusions IPCC’S processes a
Page 79 and 80: Editors could help them provide the
Page 81 and 82: Increasing transparency. Transparen
Page 83 and 84: making the assessment reports short
Page 85 and 86: esponded to the Committee’s quest
Page 87 and 88: dents have suggested testing the co
Page 89 and 90: References Agrawala, S., 1998a, Con
Page 91 and 92: Kahan, D., 2010, Fixing the communi
Page 93 and 94: Appendix A Letters of request to th
Page 95 and 96: Climate change assessments | Review
Page 97 and 98: Climate change assessments | Review
Page 99 and 100: Appendix B Questionnaire on IPCC pr
Page 101 and 102: F. Crooks, CSIR/SABS, South Africa
Page 103 and 104: Girma Orssengo, University of Weste
Page 105 and 106: Appendix D Excerpts of IPCC procedu
Page 107: IPCC review process (IPCC, 1999, Se
Page 111 and 112: Plan to treat issues of uncertainty
Page 113 and 114: C. An order of magnitude can be giv
Page 115 and 116: 14. Likelihood, as defined in Table
Page 117 and 118: Appendix E Committee biographies Ha
Page 119 and 120: to 2001, he worked at the Frontier
Page 121 and 122: Appendix F Acronyms and abbreviatio
Page 123: IAC Secretariat Het Trippenhuis Klo
show all

Climate change assessments Review of the processes and ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?