1 / 19

Symposium ‘IPCC na 2007’ KNMI 10 oktober 22007

Symposium ‘IPCC na 2007’ KNMI 10 oktober 22007. Leo Meyer Head TSU IPCC Milieu en Natuur Planbureau. About IPCC. Established by WMO and UNEP (1988): 180 UN governments

trung
Télécharger la présentation

Symposium ‘IPCC na 2007’ KNMI 10 oktober 22007

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Symposium ‘IPCC na 2007’KNMI 10 oktober 22007 Leo Meyer Head TSU IPCC Milieu en Natuur Planbureau

  2. About IPCC Established by WMO and UNEP (1988): • 180 UN governments • Assesses scientific information on climate change, impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation from (peer reviewed) literature • No research, no monitoring, no recommendations • Key messages - policy relevant but not policy prescriptive • Include incertainties, gaps in knowledge

  3. About IPCC and UNFCCC • 1990: First Assessment Report • 1992: Framework Convention Climate Change • 1995: Second Assessment Report • 1997: Kyoto Protocol • 2001: Third Assessment Report • 2005: Kyoto Protocol being ratified • 2007: Fourth Assessment Report • 2008: post Kyoto agreement ?

  4. IPCC SecretariatWMO/UNEP IPCC chair IPCC Bureau Working Group I The Physical Science basis WGI co-chairs Working Group III Mitigation WGIII co-chairs Working Group II Impacts ,vul-nerability and adaptation WGII co-chairs Task force on National GHG Inventories NGGIP co-chairs Technical Support Unit USA Technical Support Unit Japan Technical Support Unit Netherlands Technical Support Unit UK Experts, Authors, Contributors, Reviewers

  5. The IPCC AR4 process 2003-2007 • 2003: • scoping meetings by invited experts on outline • Panel decision on outline of WG I, II, III reports • 2003 -2004: • Nominations of authors by govts and institutes • Selection of authors

  6. How were authors selected • Governments/institutes submitted CVs - over thousand nominations received • IPCC Bureau/TSU matched CVs against required expertise for chapters and sections in approved outline • Balance of geography and ‘schools’ • Academics, NGO and industry representation • Ca 15 lead authors per chapter selected • WG Cochairs invited authors to fill in gaps in expertise, keeping geogr. balance • Lead Authors appointed Contributing Authors

  7. The writing process 2003-2007 • 1th Lead Author meeting • ‘Zero order draft’ (ZOD) • 2th Lead Author meeting • First Order Draft (FOD) • 3th Lead Author meeting • Second Order Draft (SOD) • 4th Lead Author meeting • Final draft

  8. The review process (1) • Expert reviewers nominated by countries , institutions or volunteers • Submit their comments on drafts to author team • Author teams address all comments at Lead Author Meetings; • Review Editors ensure appropriate treatment ( written approval at end)

  9. The review process (2) • Informal review; • First order draft (FOD) review by experts; • Second order draft (SOD) review by experts and governments; • Final Draft, and review (govts only) of draft Summary for Policy Makers (SPM)

  10. The SPM approval session • Authors prepare text proposal based on govt review of SPM • In a plenary WG session of IPCC , line-by-line approval of SPM until • Concensus by all countries • Lead authors approve changes • Formal acceptance of underlying report (without changes) by IPCC at plenary meeting

  11. Timeline WG 3 LA meetings 1 2 2004 2005 2006 3 4 2007 June 2005 October 2004 February 2006 October 2006 ZOD FOD SOD Final draft Expert Review Gov/Expert Review Informal Review May 2007:Approval of the report SPM Review

  12. IPCC after 2007 If it is not broken, don’t fix it ‘, but: • IPCC structure and products need to adapt to changing circumstances • More public exposure • Adaptation and mitigation: yes but how? • IPCC review process OK but objectivity and transparency could be improved • Quality of writing can (always) be improved

  13. Improvements of the review process (1) • Make expert review AR5 anonymous (NB Govt review: not anonymous) • Enhances objectivity of authors • Positive experience with IPCC Special Report On Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage 2005 • Was proposed to Bureau by WG III

  14. Improvements of the review process (2) • More Review editors needed • Further improve treatment of comments • but no content report to Plenary 3. Responses to review comments to be published directly after LA meeting • (now: only after completion report) • increases transparency

  15. Improve writing process WG III • Problem: overcommitted authors – all volunteers - but deadlines don’t move • Solution: • Pay (Coordinating) Lead Authors ? • Pay support staff to writing teams? • Add paid editors to TSU’s/cochairs?

  16. IPCC structure and products (1) • Working Group structure (I,II,III methodology) needs to be reviewed • IPCC clients are better served with shorter, more frequent and more focused reports • But periodic assessment of climate system observations, projections, and impacts and vulnerability should be maintained

  17. IPCC structure and products (2) • ‘Special Reports’ take 2-3 years - long for policy makers; ‘Technical Papers’: quicker but no news • Suggestion: ‘Fast Track Special Report’: like T.P. but with new literature • Possible subjects: sectoral mitigation; specific technologies; regional adaptation; extreme events; …

  18. Fast Track Special Report Procedure almost identical to TP: • Request by UNFCCC or Panel • Selection of authors through govt and institute nominations • Allow new literature • expert & govt review first draft • government review final draft • Approval by IPCC Bureau • Notes differences in views if needed

  19. Other wishes • More authors and reviewers from Private Sector and NGO’s • More authors needed from Developing Countries and Economies in transition: capacity building needed • More products for outreach ( popularized versions, presentations, courses …)

More Related