Rohrabacher: October 19, 1996 Response p. 6 4B. 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. 4C. ᏎᎠ . 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. 4E. TO WHAT EXTENT HAS THE US PREVIOUSLY SOLICITED COMMENTS ON DRAFT IPCC DOCUMENTS FROM SCIENTISTS THROUGH THE INTERNET OR OTHER METHODS? 4F. WHY WERE THE OTHER METHODS NOT USED IN THIS CASE? Answer (4.A-F): IPCC The IPCC Second Assessment consists of four parts: WG I on the science of climate change, IPCC WG II on analyses of impacts, adaptation to and mitigation of climate change, IPCC WG III on the economic and social dimensions of climate change, and a Synthesis Report drawing from all three WG reports information relevant to interpreting Article 2 of the Framework Convention on Climate Change. For each of these four parts, the IPCC has carried out an extensive review process. After review by co-authors and by a select group of scientific experts, the IPCC conducts a paper review by governments prior to the report being considered by the IPCC Working Group Plenaries (or the full IPCC plenary in the case of the Synthesis Report) for acceptance. As part of the government review, the IPCC distributes a copy of the draft report to more than 150 nations, to hundreds of scientific experts, and to several dozen participating non-governmental organization (NGOS) spanning the spectrum from environmental to industrial to academic that are accredited to the IPCC. The IPCC guidelines explicitly indicate that governments may wish to organize their own mechanisms for consulting experts in preparing their responses; the guidelines do require that the results of such domestic reviews be coordinated into an integrated set of comments. (Note: a copy of the IPCC guidelines is attached). The USG sought input for the preparation of its comments from (a) invited scientific experts, (b) agencies of the USG, who might themselves refer the report to experts they would select, and (c) the stakeholder community, envisioned as anyone with a special interest or expertise in Rohrabacher: October 19, 1996 Response P. 7 The USG interagency review process was coordinated by the Subcommittee on Global Change Research (SGCR, which oversees the US Global Change Research Program) on behalf of the Department of State, which serves as the official USG contact point to the IPCC. For each IPCC report, the process involved: the SGCR selecting a chair of the review; the chair identifying review coordinators for each the chapter coordinators identifying and soliciting names of expert scientific reviewers; the report and/or individual chapters being the publication in the Federal Register (and also on relevant electronic bulletin boards, etc.) of a notice of availability of the reports for review, with information on how to request a paper copy of the report and how to submit review comments; the assembly and collation of all comments; the interagency review, evaluation, and synthesis of comments to be included in the official USG response; final interagency clearance of the comments; and transmission of the comments to the IPCC. In addition to its formally vetted, USG-accepted and collated comments, the United States also forwarded to the IPCC a notebook containing all of the original individual comments received during our review process. The entire sequence of steps described above occured within six to eight weeks in order to meet the time schedule that was set by the IPCC to assure timely publication of the Second Assessment Report. The full text of the August 1995 draft of the Synthesis Report was made available on the Internet. This was the official government review draft of the Synthesis Report, which, as provided for under the IPCC guidelines, the United States was circulating for full review by experts in the preparation of a comprehensive set of comments. In the U.S. is meant to ensure that any draft is not used uncritically as the basis for policy development, is not referenced in publications, and is considered only an intermediate step in a formal government and non-government expert deliberation and approval process. As indicated above, the USG had chosen an open process involving agencies, scientific experts, and other interested parties by making available all of the draft IPCC WG reports and the draft Synthesis Report through a Federal Register notice. This was intended to ensure that all parties, especially stakeholder groups, would have an opportunity to contribute to the formulation of USG comments on this important assessment. The materials made available through the Federal Register notice were paper copies and were distributed by express mail to allow additional time for review. Due to the delay this was causing in distributing reports, and because of the time and cost involved in reproducing them, the USGCRP had received several inquiries asking if electronic versions could be made available (i.e., via internet). As it was not possible in the short time available to reproduce text, figures, and reference points to the text electronically, this was not done for the three WG reports. However, because the Synthesis Report was shorter than the WG reports, the USGCRP was able to place the text of this report on Internet to facilitate access and redistribution. Given that the report was already available via request based on the Federal Register notice, the mounting of the report on Internet was not the only, nor even the principal, way that the draft text was made available. By making the report more widely available, we were seeking as broad a consideration and set of input as possible. Copies of the text mounted on Internet are unfortunately not available. Instead, attached please find a copy of the IPCC guidelines for consulting experts. We have no means of knowing for certain how individuals who commented received the draft report whether they received the text in the electronic form or even if they received a copy of the text from the USG, given its general availability in the US and overseas. - For the 1990, 1992, and 1994 IPCC reviews, the USG solicited comments from specific experts through requests by agency representatives. These requests generally went to scientific experts of all perspectives, and selected representatives of a variety of stakeholder groups. this process that indicated the solicitation of comments was It was indicated above, not only mailed the report out to selected experts, but also made the report more widely available through a Federal Register notice process. With respect to article in The New York Times on this issue, we do note that the Internet text was reproduced with the same text as on the printed version: "Not for citation of reproduction." Furthermore, in our view, a draft report which is openly available to all requesting a copy cannot be said to have been "leaked". With respect to the point made in the Wall Street Journal article, the draft Synthesis Report (placed on Internet) draws from each of the three IPCC WG reports. It therefore contains material about climate change science, including effects, climate change impacts, and socio-economic aspects. 5. 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. 5A. 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 MARCH 1997. Answer: At the IPCC's 11th Plenary Session in Rome in December 1995, the Panel agreed by consensus on a new procedure that would enable the IPCC to prepare "Technical Papers" based on the IPCC's Second Assessment Report. The IPCC agreed to review this new procedure two years from the date of its adoption. Under the new procedure, it is possible that the IPCC can produce "Technical Papers" in as little as six months from the appointment of lead authors. Rohrabacher: October 19, 1996 Response P. 10 that many "Technical Papers" produced by the IPCC will be completed in time to meet the needs of the AGBM. More likely, such technical papers may be of greater use to the convention's other subsidiary bodies the Subsidiary Body on Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) and the Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI) -- in their ongoing work to implement the Convention. A copy of the IPCC procedures regarding the production of "Technical Papers" is attached. As the IPCC prepares in 1997 to begin work on its Third Assessment Report, to be completed in the year 2000 or 2001, a number of proposals to restructure the Panel may be considered. No such proposals have yet been tabled. 5.B. WHAT IS A "TIMELY FASHION?" Answer: A timely fashion is to provide information to the Convention or one of its subsidiary bodies in a timeframe that will enable them to do their work as decided by governments, including the US government. IPCC would then have to evaluate whether it could provide the information in the time span allotted in a manner consistent with its high standards, transparency and approved peer-review procedures. 5.C. SINCE THE COP AND SBSTA ARE PERMANENT AND HAVE LONG-TERM DUTIES, WHAT IS THEIR NEED FOR THIS NEW ACCELERATED PROCEDURE? - Answer: Until the IPCC adopted new procedures for the production of "Technical Papers" at its 11th Plenary Session in Rome, the "IPCC Procedures" envisioned only two kinds of efforts - special reports that require 12-18 months to produce, and full assessment reports that require about five years. Having the capability now to produce "Technical Papers", which could be completed in about 6 months from the time lead authors are selected, may enable the IPCC to be more responsive to the needs of the COP. Please note, in this connection, that while the COP meets only annually, the SBSTA meets about three times annually, with about four months between sessions. 5.D. PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THE IPCC AND SBSTA WILL AVOID DUPLICATION OF EFFORT. Answer: IPCC and SBSTA have agreed on a procedure for the leadership of the SBSTA and the other subsidiary bodies of the convention (SBI and the AGBM) to meet at regular intervals with the Chair of the IPCC and the Co-Chairs of |