The scientists and the apocalypse - Climate Change: The Facts - page 175

but already before Sundsvall in the policy discussion of Working Group III there were
demands that the post-industrial rich sponsor a more sustainable industrial development
across the impoverished regions of the world. 24 The IPCC process had begun with the
scientific leadership ready to address the sensitivities of development politics. Their first
problemwastogetdelegationstoshowup.Atrustwassoonestablishedtofundattendance
and a special committee convened to support the active participation of those struggling
even to find science-literate delegates. It was only with this success that the trouble began.
The revolt
August 1990, and the conflict in the policy group arrived unresolved in Sundsvall with
Brazil proclaiming its intentions before the fourth full session of the IPCC even began.
Disrupting the approval process with novel amendments, they blocked consensus on the
synthesis report. As the dishevelled proceedings dragged on into the evening of the final
day, it seemed a sabotage attempt had succeeded. But in the desperate small hours of the
night, Bolin managed to salvage a summary of sorts. This was not the one he had drafted,
but mostly a patchwork of extracts from the already approved working group summaries.
There were also two novel insertions: one, a disclaimer that the report does not reflect the
positions of all participating governments; the other, a declaration that rapid technological
transfer is urgently required. 25
An embarrassment to the process, this synthesis was never widely distributed and only
ever published two years later behind another report. Never again would the IPCC delve
intothefraughtdomainofpolicyproposals,henceforthrestrictingitselfto'policy-relevant'
advice. But before it was able to produce another full report, the struggle for control of the
policy agenda threatened its very survival.
The December 1990 resolution to replace UNEP management of the treaty process
with an independent International Negotiating Committee (INC) did still name the IPCC
as a source of technical advice. 26 But, in the drafting of the FCCC by this committee,
this emerged as only an 'interim' arrangement, until the 'conference of parties to the
convention' (COP) could establish its own Subsidiary Body of Scientific and Technical
Advice(SBSTA).Thepurposeofthisbodywouldbetoprovide'assessmentsofthestateof
scientificknowledge.'SBSTAwould'preparescientificassessments'anditwouldrespond
to any technological questions of the parties. The wording could not be clearer: at the first
Conference of Parties meeting (COP1), SBSTA would replace the IPCC. 27
Alive and walking Frankenstein
As its future was thrown into doubt, the IPCC had another problem, which was in the
doubtful advice it continued to provide. Under the interim arrangement, in the lead-up to