Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

GEORGE L. BROWN, JA, California ROM
RALPH M. HALL. TONDO

JAMES A TRAFICANT, JA, Ohio
JAMES A HAYES, Louisiana

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennesse

PETE GEREN, Texas

TIM ROEMER Indiana

ROBERT E (BUD) CRAMER, JA, Alabama

JAMES A BARCIA, Michigan

PAUL MCHALE, Pennsylvania

JANE HARMAN, California

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

DAVID MINGE. Minnesota
JOHN W.OLVER, Massachusetts
ALCEEL HASTINGS Faride
LYNN N. RIVERS. Michigan
KAREN MCCARTHY, MESOU
MIKE WARD, Kentucky
ZOE LO GREN. California
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania

SHEILA JACKSON LEE. Taxes
WILLIAM P. LUTHER, Minneso
*Ranking Democratic Member

I understand that the Second Assessment Report (SAR) of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is scheduled to be approved in a plenary session in Rome in December.

I also understand that the Ad Hoc Group on the Berlin Mandate (AGBM) established by the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change met last August in Geneva. At that time, AGBM decided to consider at its third session in March 1996 aspects of the SAR that are relevant to its negotiation of various proposals for new commitments after the year 2000 for Annex I Parties to the Convention, which includes the United States (US). The AGBM will also consider any related conclusions or advice of the Convention's Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA)

Secretaries Christopher and O'Leary and Dr. Baker

October 19, 1995

Page two

A number of individuals and groups have raised concerns about several procedural and policy aspects relating to the IPCC, IPPC SAR, COP, AGBM and SBSTA. Consequently, I would appreciate your response to the attached questions they have about these matters.

I request your responses to these questions by November 20, 1995. To the extent necessary, please consult with the Office of the US Global Change Research Program, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and any other agency that can be helpful.

Should you have any questions regarding this request please contact Dr. Harlan Watson (202-225-9816) or Mr. Larry Hart (202-225-7281) of the Subcommittee staff. Thank you for your immediate attention to this request.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

ATTACHMENT-QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE DANA ROHRABACHER

[blocks in formation]

October 19, 1995

Please explain the applicable procedures for preparation, review, approval, and publication of the SAR's final drafts to be considered at the December meeting of the IPCC Plenary in Rome and include the timetable actually provided by the IPCC for governments and others to review and comment on the SARS and the related synthesis report. This should include a discussion of the roll and selection of lead authors and of the preparation of summaries of each assessment.

Did the US and the IPCC fully comply with all applicable procedures?

b.

C.

Is the timetable adequate?

2.

3.

4.

I understand that the IPCC also proposed to adopt a lengthy synthesis report on "Knowledge Relevant to the Interpretation of Article 2 of the Convention" and an 8page Summary for Policymakers of that report. This proposal was apparently made without any adherence to the applicable IPCC procedures. I also understand that the IPCC recently abandoned the longer document. It has been reported to me, however, that some want to incorporate one or more sections of the abandoned report in the Summary for Policymakers, which has been retitled.

a.

b.

C.

Please explain the origin and basis of both reports and why it is appropriate at this late date to try to incorporate portions of the abandoned synthesis report in the retitled Summary.

Did any person or persons in your agencies participate in, or approve of, the original decision, later abandoned, that the IPCC merely should "accept" the longer Synthesis Report, rather than requiring its line-by-line approval by governments in December?

Please identify those persons and explain why the US apparently supported that process.

It is my understanding that the draft reports of the three IPCC Working Groups for the
SAR and the draft Synthesis Report are likely to be revised at meetings in Montreal and
Madrid in some significant respects before December. Please provide a copy of the
US government's comments on each such draft.

A draft of the so-called "Synthesis Report" forming part of the SAR found its way to the media via the Internet even though clearly marked "For Internal Use Only. Do not Cite/Distribute." The September 10, 1995 edition of the New York Times cited the draft document. The September 22, 1995 edition of Science reports that the "source of the leak" was the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) which posted the draft on the World Wide Web, "to make the synthesis, which had been transmitted to the US government for comment, more accessible to US scientists who would help supply that critique." The article explains that a New York Times reporter, while apparently "surfing" the Internet, read the report and "considered its appearance on the Web to be tantamount to publication." The Science article cites the Executive Director

ATTACHMENT-Questions Submitted by Representative Dana Rohrabacher
October 19, 1995

Page 2

5.

of the USGCRP and an IPCC official employed by the US in Washington for this
explanation of the "leak".

An article in the October 16, 1995 edition of the Wall Street Journal suggests that the
document on the Internet was prepared by IPCC Working Group II, not Working Group
I which concentrates on science issues. The article states by definition Working Group
Il is "not in the business of assessing the latest science on the greenhouse issues."

a.

b.

C.

d.

e.

f.

Please identify the portion of the draft Synthesis Report that was carried on the
Internet.

Why did the US ignore the explicit statement "Do not Distribute" on the draft document and place the document on the Internet?

Please identify the US scientists whose comments were being sought through the Internet.

Please provide a copy of the invitation for scientist's comments that was carried on the Internet and the US comments submitted to the IPCC on that document.

To what extent has the US previously solicited comments on draft IPCC documents from scientists through the Internet or other methods?

Why were the other methods not used in this case?

In an August 28, 1995 statement on the future of the IPCC, the US delegation at Geneva said that the IPCC will need to be "restructured to serve the needs of the COP and SBSTA" and suggested that the IPCC modify its "expert and government review mechanisms" so it can respond to the needs of the AGBM "in a timely fashion." The US added:

"We envisage that the AGBM and the COP will need the IPCC to provide reports within a 6-12 month timeframe. We believe that the AGBM and the COP need the type of credible assessments for which the IPCC is so well known. These special reports will need to be focused on the needs of the COP and must be delivered on time-we believe the IPCC can deliver."

The AGBM currently is scheduled to complete its work as early as March 1997. It has scheduled, as of now, a total of five, one-week meetings spread out between October 1995 and March 1997 for this purpose.

a.

Please explain how and to what extent the IPCC needs to be restructured and its review mechanisms modified to meet AGBM needs from March 1996 to

ATTACHMENT-Questions Submitted by Representative Dana Rohrabacher

October 19, 1995

Page 3

b.

What is a "timely fashion"?

6.

C.

d.

e.

f.

g.

h.

i.

Since the COP and SBSTA are permanent and have long-term duties, what is their need for this new accelerated procedure?

Please explain how the IPCC and SBSTA will avoid duplication of effort.

Was the above statement intended to suggest that some new process be established by the IPCC for interpreting or elaborating on matters in the SAR?

Who would make such interpretations or elaborations and what weight should the AGBM, COP, SBSTA and each Party, as well as the news media and the public, give them?

How will this new process affect the credibility, independence, and transparency of the IPCC?

What has been the normal timeframe for IPCC reports, including special reports? Do you contemplate eliminating or modifying peer review or Working Group involvement, including line-by-line government approval of Summaries for Policymakers or of future reports provided by the IPCC to the COP or any of the subsidiary bodies? If so, please explain why.

I understood that IPCC reports benefitted from peer review and the requirement of government line-by-line approval. How will sound science be assured in a field with so many uncertainties?

At the August meeting in Geneva, SBSTA supported the independence of the IPCC and identified a preliminary list of areas where the IPCC could assist SBSTA in providing timely information and advice on scientific and technical issues. SBSTA apparently also envisaged the need for IPCC scientific and technical advice on special emerging projects within short periods like one year or so. SBSTA, however, did not separately identify its short- and long-term requirements, but agreed to a consultative mechanism between the offices of SBSTA and the IPCC.

a.

Which of the items on SBSTA's preliminary list would require IPCC restructuring or modification?

7.

b.

What is the status of the SBSTA/IPCC consultative mechanism?

In Geneva in August, a US statement called on the IPCC to develop a work plan for the

« PreviousContinue »