Review Calls for Stricter IPCC Checks, More Transparency
Stricter controls urged for the UN's climate body
BBC News.com, Aug. 30, 2010
The
UN's climate science body needs stricter checks to prevent damage to
the organisation's credibility, an independent review has concluded.
The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has faced mounting
pressure over errors in its last major assessment of climate science in
2007.
The review said guidelines were needed to ensure IPCC leaders were not seen as advocating specific climate policies.
It also urges transparency and suggests changes to the management of the body.
The
IPCC has admitted it made a mistake in its 2007 climate assessment in
asserting that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.
Officials at the UN body say this error did not change the broad picture of man-made climate change.
The
review committee stressed that previous IPCC science assessments had
been largely successful, but it said the body's response to revelations
of errors in its 2007 report had been "slow and inadequate".
Critics
have previously called on the UN panel's chair, Dr Rajendra Pachauri,
to resign. Responding to the report, Dr Pachauri said he wanted to stay
to implement changes at the organisation.
In
the past year, climate science and political negotiations aimed at
dealing with global warming, such as the Copenhagen summit, have come
under unprecedented scrutiny.
The IPCC's
reports are designed to provide a detailed assessment of the state of
climate science; they are read by policy-makers around the world.
In February, the
UN panel suggested setting up an independent review, feeling that its
20-year-old rules might need an overhaul. It was overseen by the
Inter-Academy Council (IAC), an international umbrella body for science
academies.
There was also a
sense the UN body may have been ill-equipped to handle the attention in
the wake of "Himalayagate" and the release of e-mails hacked from the
Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and the the University of East Anglia, in
the UK.
The e-mails issue
came to light in November last year, when hundreds of messages between
CRU scientists and their peers around the world were posted on the
internet, along with other documents.
Critics said the
e-mail exchanges revealed an attempt by the researchers to manipulate
data and three independent reviews were initiated into the affair.
Public scrutiny
This review of
the IPCC's workings was released at a news conference in New York on
Monday. Among the committee's recommendations was that the UN body
appoint an executive director to handle day-to-day operations and speak
on behalf of the body.
It also said the current limit of two six-year terms for the chair of the organisation is too long.
The
report says that the post of IPCC chair and that of the executive
director should be limited to the term of one climate science
assessment.
Asked
if he would consider resigning if requested to, the current chair Dr
Pachauri told reporters he would abide by any decision the IPCC made. Dr
Pachauri became head of the organisation in 2002 and was re-elected for
his second term in 2008.
A
conflict of interest charge has also been levelled at Dr Pachauri over
his business interests. The IPCC chair has vigorously defended himself
over these charges, but the report says the UN organisation needed a
robust conflict of interest policy.
Speaking at news
conference in New York, Harold Shapiro, who chaired the IAC committee's
review, said: "Overall, in our judgment, the IPCC's assessment process
has been a success and has served society well."
But he said fundamental changes would help the IPCC continue to perform successfully under a "public microscope".
Dr Shapiro conceded that controversy over errors in climate science assessments had dented the credibility of the process.
'Slow' response
The review did
not address the state of knowledge in climate science, but instead
concentrated on review processes at the UN body, including the use of
non-peer reviewed sources, and quality control on data.
It says the UN
body should establish an executive committee which could include
individuals from outside the climate science community in order to
enhance credibility and independence.
The committee said processes used by the UN panel to review material in its assessment reports were thorough.
But it said
procedures needed tightening to minimise the number of errors. And the
IAC urged editors to ensure genuine controversies were reflected and
alternative views were accounted for.
The
report asserts that each IPCC working group used a different variation
of the IPCC's uncertainty guidelines and the committee found that the
guidance was not always followed.
In
addition, it says that the Working Group II report, which formed part
of the IPCC's 2007 assessment and focused on adaptation to and
mitigation of climate change, was flawed in parts.
The
IAC says it contained statements which were asserted with "high
confidence", but were in fact based on little evidence. The report urges
IPCC authors to make future projections only when there is sufficient
evidence to do so.
The
use by the IPCC of so-called "grey literature" - that which has not
been peer-reviewed or published in scientific journals - has sparked
controversy, partly because this type of material was behind the glacier
error.
The
committee said such literature was often relevant and appropriate for
inclusion in the IPCC's assessment reports. But it said authors needed
to follow the IPCC's guidelines more closely and that the guidelines
themselves are too vague.
The report's recommendations are likely to be considered at the IPCC's next plenary meeting in South Korea in October.
