Page images
PDF
EPUB

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.

Sincerely,

Dam Rabbala

Dana Rohrabacher

Chairman

Subcommittee on Energy and Environment

Attachment

ATTACHMENT – QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE DANA ROHRABACHER October 19, 1995

[blocks in formation]

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.

j.

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

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

Page 4

8.

a.

b.

C.

d.

"The need is to evaluate and assess future effects of proposed amendments and protocols. This would necessarily include, among other options, the effects of targets and timetables, on an incremental basis, over the next 25-30 years, with benchmarks, for example, at 2005, 2010, 2015, 2020 and 2025. This would involve both top-down and bottom-up approaches. Some evaluations would involve interaction among topdown modelers currently engaged in assessing, on an integrated basis, the likely projections of changes resulting fromtargets and timetables as well as other approaches. We envision bottom-up assessments utilizing sector models and other methods. These sectors could be along the lines that we have previously related in our intervention on inputs. The IPCC has the capability to engage experts in a relatively short timeframe to develop a moderately large number of estimates and projections that would then become the basis for a special assessment report to COP-2."

What is the status of this US work plan proposal?

What is the purpose and timing of the work plan and why is this a function of the IPCC?

What is the IPCC's capability to engage experts?

During the AGBM process or COP-2, is the US planning to advocate or support hard or soft targets and timetables of any kind or economic-sector approaches in its protocol negotiations? If so, is the US seeking to gain support for them through the use of an expedited process?

The Parties participating in the SBSTA and the AGBM are the same.

a.

b.

C.

Is SBSTA organized to provide by next March "relevant advice" to the AGBM about the SAR?

The Secretariat was requested to prepare a document identifying issues and input's for SBSTA's considerations, including those relevant for the AGBM. What is the status of that document?

The US also states a belief that there are a number of issues arising from the
SAR "that will need to be further developed in order to be useful to the AGBM."
Since the SAR is not yet final, such a belief by the US seems premature. What

« PreviousContinue »