Climate change assessments Review of the processes and ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Recommendation ► The IPCC should revise its process for the approval of the Summary for Policymakers so that governments provide written comments prior to the Plenary. Another concern raised by respondents to the Committee’s questionnaire was the difference in content between the Summary for Policymakers and the underlying report. The distillation of the many findings of a massive report into the relatively brief, high-level messages that characterize the Summary for Policymakers necessarily results in the loss of important nuances and caveats that appear in the Working Group report. Moreover, the choice of messages and description of topics may be influenced in subtle ways by political considerations. Some respondents thought that the Summary for Policymakers places more emphasis on what is known, sensational, or popular among Lead Authors than one would find in the body of the report. A recent review by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, for example, observed that the Working Group II Summary for Policymakers in the fourth assessment is more focused on the negative impacts of climate change than the underlying report, an approach agreed to by participating governments (PBL, 2010). Synthesis Report The Synthesis Report is intended to summarize and integrate the findings of the three Working Group reports in a form designed to address issues of concern to policymakers in nontechnical language. In practice, the actual framework of the Synthesis Report is negotiated within the Panel and thus varies from one assessment to the next. It is the Committee’s judgment that the Synthesis Report is most valuable when it is structured as a document that attempts to integrate, not simply summarize, the findings of the three Working Group reports. This is a challenging task. Respondents to the Committee’s questionnaire were divided about the usefulness of the Synthesis Report. Scientists commonly found the report to be redundant with the Working Group reports and too political. Several thought that better integration among Working Groups would eliminate the need for a Synthesis Report. The selection of authors can be a mystery, involving an unexplained mix of Coordinating Lead Authors and Lead Authors. In contrast, government representatives generally found the report valuable and more accessible than the Summary for Policymakers 24 Climate change assessments | Review of the processes and procedures of the IPCC
in each of the three Working Group reports. There was disagreement about whether the Synthesis Report should cover issues or policy questions, with different approaches tried in different assessments. The production of the Synthesis Report is supported by a Technical Support Unit, sometimes with assistance from one or more of the Working Group Technical Support Units. Given the utility of the Synthesis Report to government representatives, the constitution and management of the Technical Support Unit is of critical importance. Conclusions The overall structure of the IPCC assessment process appears to be sound, although significant improvements are both possible and necessary for the fifth assessment and beyond. Key improvements include enhancing the transparency of the process for selecting Bureau members, authors, and reviewers; strengthening procedures for the use of the so-called ‘gray literature;’ strengthening the oversight and independence of the review process; and streamlining the report revision process and approval of the Summary for Policymakers. Climate change assessments | Review of the processes and procedures of the IPCC 25
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: Summary for Policymakers A Summary
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 and 108:
IPCC review process (IPCC, 1999, Se
Page 109 and 110:
4.2.4.2 Second review (by governmen
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?