Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
Science-for-policy
Behind the establishment of the IPCC was a conscious effort by some scientists to get the
science-for-policy mechanism right. Pitfalls at the policy interface were all too familiar to
thoseinvolved.Ontheonehandtherewerealwaysscientists withextremeviewscapturing
media attention and generating an inflated sense of alarm. When the intergovernmental
assessment panel was first formally proposed at the tenth World Meteorological Congress
in May 1987, the ice age scare of the 1970s was well remembered. Asked to assess the
science behind this scare, national scientific academies delivered sobering reports and the
that well-founded alarm might go unheeded, especially when a global problem requires a
cooperative response. The IPCC was to provide the balance.
The basic design was for two distinct tiers: first the scientific assessment and then
the science-policy interface. In the first tier were elected experts from the relevant fields
assessingthecurrentstateofthescience.Theydraftedareport,circulateditforpeerreview
and then redrafted it in response to that review. The second tier involved science-literate
government delegates agreeing on a plain language summary of the report. This
'PolicymakersSummary'wouldbe,atthesametime,groundedinscience,policyrelevant,
yet politically neutral and agreed by all.
The workload of the assessment was divided between three working groups: Working
Group I to assess the scientific basis of warming concerns; Working Group II, to assess
impacts of this warming; and Working Group III, to consider response strategies, whether
mitigation or adaptation. When the expert authors of each group submitted their completed
report they would also provide a drafted summary. This would then be finalised by
consensus at a meeting of the delegations. All this was to take place before the three
parts of the report arrived at a full session of the IPCC. There, a further summary of
these summaries would be negotiated to consensus, thereby producing a peak document
for delivery into the policy debate. Indeed, as the process came to completion, just such
a 'synthesis report' was drafted by the renowned atmospheric scientist chairing the IPCC,
Bert Bolin.
At only the fourth full session of the IPCC it was even partially approved before the
Brazilian-led revolt left it in tatters on the floor of that conference hall in Sundsvall. But
that is getting ahead of ourselves.
Greenhouse postponed
The IPCC Working Group I had the easiest task as they trod a familiar path of US
