Dr R K Pachauri BBC Green Room 15 Jun 10;
As the latest meeting of the InterAcademy Council's review into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change convenes in Montreal, IPCC chairman R K Pachauri says the past year has been "momentous" for the organisation, and not always for the right reasons. In this week's Green Room, he sets out how and why the panel was established, and argues that it plays a vital role in the global climate policy debate.
I would like to start by saying that I am not deaf to those who do not agree with the scientific consensus on man-made climate change.
Nor, indeed, to those who do not agree with the findings - or, in some cases, the existence - of the IPCC.
Such scepticism is inevitable, and has been the case with every area of new knowledge that has burst into human consciousness.
We who are on the side of the consensus must remind ourselves that the evolution of knowledge thrives on debate.
The last year has been a momentous one indeed for the IPCC and climate science, and not always for the most welcome of reasons. The discovery of a mistake in our AR4 report - even as we prepared to start work on AR5 - led to considerable controversy.
It was, and is, inevitable that such an incident would lead to criticism and - quite rightly - to both internal and external examination.
However, at times in the last six months it has become apparent that many people either do not know, or have forgotten, what the IPCC actually is: what it was formed to do, who it reports to, and what its current mandate is.
Without that starting point - of understanding based in current and historical knowledge - there is a danger that the wrong conclusions can be drawn about the organisation's future.
Shared responsibility
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 through the mandate of the UN General Assembly.
It is not - and it is important to remember this - a UN body but, as its title suggests, an intergovernmental organisation, which means that ultimately its decisions have to be taken by the panel as a whole (ie all the governments of the world).
Contrary to allegations made by some of our wilder critics, there is no role - and no desire - for an executive function making decisions of its own.
It is also worth noting that most of the IPCC's more public figures - myself included - are not paid for our work.
Only our small secretariat in Geneva is paid - and the total budget for our organisation, which is responsible for co-ordinating the work of several thousand scientists around the world, is just £6m a year: hardly the giant, monolithic bureaucracy that some of our critics claim.
Another myth is that the IPCC was founded as a climates science organisation alone, publishing up-to-date science on the subject and nothing more.
Quite the contrary: going back to the IPCC's foundation, it is pertinent to observe that resolution A/RES/43/53 of the UN General Assembly, which was adopted on December 6, 1988, charged the IPCC to: "provide internationally co-ordinated scientific assessments of the magnitude, timing and potential environmental and socio-economic impact of climate change and realistic response strategies".
The wording of this resolution is important.
It clearly requires the IPCC to go beyond merely assessing various aspects of climate change and mandates it to provide an assessment of "realistic response strategies", as well as addressing socio-economic concerns.
The same resolution also defines by implication the audience that should be addressed by the IPCC by calling upon "non-governmental organisations, industry and other productive sectors to play their due role".
So, right from its foundation the strength of the IPCC lay in the fact that it is not only able to mobilise the best available expertise from across the globe - in climate science, yes, but also in economics, business, engineering and so on - but, through its voting structure, it also ensures that all the assessment reports are "owned" by the 194 sponsoring governments around the world.
Under the microscope
Notwithstanding my observation that the IPCC has always been charged with delivering more than climate science expertise alone, it is true to say its role in informing decision-makers across the globe has evolved rapidly over the past two decades.
As someone who has long been involved in the IPCC - first as a lead author in the Second Assessment Report and then as vice chairman during the Third Assessment Report and finally as chairman since 2002 - I have seen the rapid spread of its findings.
As the scope of those findings has increased - to address its broader mandate outlined above - it is inevitable that everything that the IPCC does is now under the lens of public scrutiny and criticism.
This requires the Panel to ensure a high level of transparency and objectivity in all that it does.
All the IPCC's reports are subject to open, extensive and transparent review at every stage of drafting.
What do I mean by that?
Well, the IPCC bases its work on the most recent relevant sources of literature available worldwide and undertakes a two-stage review process - first by external experts, and then by governments and experts simultaneously. The results of these processes are then made available to anyone who wants to see them.
Most of the literature we assess is peer-reviewed. However, there are areas such as the ones related to response measures where lots of important and relevant information is not in scientific peer-reviewed literature, but published by very respected institutions, for example from the International Energy Agency or the OECD.
'Wonderful organisation'
The IPCC is now working on the preparation of the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5).
This has begun on a positive and heartening note: in spite of all the attacks on climate scientists over the last year, around 3,000 outstanding scientists from all over the world have been nominated, more than ever before.
From these, around 600 are under selection to become the actual authors of the AR5, and several more as contributing authors and expert reviewers.
Meanwhile, as the process of author selection continues, we continue to look at improving our work in any way we can.
Earlier this year, we at the IPCC, together with the secretary-general of the United Nations, requested the InterAcademy Council to review the processes and procedures followed by the IPCC.
This review is currently in hand, and its outputs will be considered seriously at our plenary session in October.
The AR5 will, therefore, not only build on the remarkable record of the IPCC in the 22 years of its existence but also benefit from the views of the most dominant scientific body in the world, the InterAcademy Council, which can only add further authority to the output of the Panel.
The IPCC and the scientific community at large should welcome the development of a vigorous debate on the science of climate change (so long as the level of that debate does not descend to personal abuse, as it has done at times).
But welcoming a debate should never equate to losing our focus and our passion for fulfilling our purpose.
For that purpose is more relevant now than it ever has been: given the extent and global nature of the challenge, if the IPCC did not already exist, someone would need to invent it urgently.
It is that sense of urgency and necessity that drives the volunteer spirit of this wonderful organisation I have the honour to chair - a spirit that we can all be proud of.
Dr R K Pachauri is chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The Green Room is a series of opinion articles on environmental topics running weekly on the BBC News website
Climate panel chief welcomes climate debate
Richard Black BBC News 15 Jun 10;
The head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, says he welcomes "the development of a vigorous debate" on climate science.
In an article for the BBC's Green Room series, he says those on the side of "consensus" must remember that debate drives the evolution of knowledge.
The panel and its chairman have been much criticised in recent months over errors in its landmark 2007 report.
Tuesday sees the second public session of a review into its operations.
An expert review panel convened by the InterAcademy Council (IAC) - a network of science academies across the world, such as the UK's Royal Society - will hear testimony from four expert witnesses at the session in Montreal.
The panel is chaired by US economist Harold Shapiro, a former adviser to Presidents George Bush and Bill Clinton.
Dr Pachauri says the IPCC welcomes the review - indeed, it requested such a process, realising that as a 20-year-old institution, many of its practices might benefit from an update.
"As the scope of (its) findings has increased... it is inevitable that everything that the IPCC does is now under the lens of public scrutiny and criticism," he writes.
"This requires the panel to ensure a high level of transparency and objectivity in all that it does."
Broader view
Critics have accused the IPCC of making multiple errors in its 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), but Dr Pachauri admits to just one - citing 2035 as the date by which Himalayan glaciers may have melted away.
"It was, and is, inevitable that such an incident would lead to criticism and - quite rightly - to both internal and external examination," he writes.
"However, at times in the last six months it has become apparent that many people either do not know, or have forgotten, what the IPCC actually is: what it was formed to do, who it reports to, and what its current mandate is."
The remit goes much further than climate science, he points out, with the UN resolution that established the body in 1988 calling on it to "provide internationally co-ordinated scientific assessments of the magnitude, timing and potential environmental and socio-economic impact of climate change and realistic response strategies."
Giving testimony
Tuesday's session of the InterAcademy Council review will hear testimony from four people who have all worked closely with the IPCC down the years.
Robert Watson, now a senior UK government adviser, chaired the organisation between 1997 and 2002.
Christopher Field, an ecologist based at Stanford University in California, now leads the working group on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability.
The other two speakers are Hans von Storch, director of the Institute of Coastal Research in Geesthacht, Germany, and John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, US.
Dr Christy, in particular, has criticised the IPCC's "politicisation" in the past.
Dr Pachauri presented his views at the opening session, held in Amsterdam last month.
The IAC panel will conclude its deliberations by the end of August. Its report will then go out for peer review before being formally presented at an IPCC meeting in South Korea in October - a meeting that will set parameters for the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5).
Dr Pachauri notes in his Green Room article that despite the intense, sometimes highly personal criticism aimed at climate scientists in recent months, about 3,000 have been nominated to take part in AR5 - more than ever before.
Read more!
Posts
visitors since Nov 07