List of Attachments Tab A. Answers to questions submitted by Representative Rohrabacher Tab B: Question 1 Copy of the IPCC procedures for preparation, review, Tab C: Question 2 List of individuals involved on the drafting team for the Tab D: Question 3 Copy of final texts of the summary for policymakers from WG Copy of the IPCC procedures regarding the production of Copy of the IPCC budget for 1994, 1995, 1996, & 1997 Tab J: Question 11 . FCCC prepared report on Annex I Party national Text of FCCC Secretariat's in-depth review of U.S. Tab K: Question 13 Copies of FCCC Article 4.1 and Article 12.1 U.S. intervention from AGBM-3: commitments US AGBM presentation 1992 scenario tables Tab L: Question 14 Developing country Copy of the initial report on an inventory and assessment -2 Tab M: Question 19 List of measures considered for analysis and for case study development Tab N: Question 20 List of references of chap 18 of IPCC (Annex I) Tab 0: Question 21 Copy of global change and health proposal submitted to CDC and NOAA Response to Chairman Rohrabacher JA. 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 SAR'S 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. Answer: Attached please find a copy of materials adopted at the IPCC's Tenth Session (Nairobi, 10-12 November 1994). These materials include a brief description of "The IPCC Review Process" as well as the "IPCC Procedures for Preparation, Review, Acceptance, Approval and Publication of its Reports." Please note that the latter document includes two annexes, Annex 1 on the "IPCC Workshop Policy", and Annex 2 on the "Tasks and Responsibilities for Lead Authors, Contributors and Expert Reviewers of IPCC Reports and IPCC Government Contacts." Following publication of the IPCC's First Assessment Report in 1990, and in anticipation of beginning work on its Second Assessment Report in 1994, the IPCC sought to respond to concerns that its procedures were not sufficiently rigorous. While a strength of the IPCC has been its flexibility and its ability to avoid bureaucratic process so as to produce high-quality assessments of vital use to the international community within demanding deadlines, the IPCC nevertheless recognized the value of a more systematic approach to its assessment efforts. Consequently, the IPCC adopted the enclosed procedures, which benefitted from close interaction with the Parties and with non-governmental organizations, particularly from certain representatives of the U.S. private sector, in the development process. Also attached, please find a copy of the timetable used in the production of the Second Assessment Report, provided by the IPCC Secretariat in Geneva. The role of IPCC lead authors is described in the enclosed Annex 2 "Tasks and Responsibilities for Lead Authors, Contributors and Expert Reviewers of IPCC Reports and IPCC Government Contacts" to the "IPCC Procedures for Preparation, Review, Acceptance, Approval and Publication of IPCC Reports." In addition, Section 2 on "Organization of Rohrabacher: October 19, 1996 Response p. 2 selected. Please note that the IPCC Working Group bureau designated one lead author from among the group selected to serve as the "convening lead author" for each chapter of the IPCC's SAR. The "convening lead author" was responsible in each case for maintaining communications with the other lead authors and ensuring that the work was prepared on time. 1B. DID THE US AND THE IPCC FULLY COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE PROCEDURES? Answer: By and large the IPCC followed its procedures closely and admirably in producing its Second Assessment Report. At one point, the IPCC Chair and Executive Secretary issued a letter (dated July 31, 1995) indicating that the drafting Team of the Synthesis Report would submit a lengthy document to the 11th IPCC Plenary for its "acceptance", and that a shorter summary of that document would be submitted to the 11th Plenary for line-by-line approval by governments. This letter occasioned considerable concern on the part of some representatives of the U.S. private sector who maintained, rightly, that the "IPCC Procedures" did not provide for "acceptance" of a document produced by any group other than an IPCC working group. Subsequently, the IPCC Chair issued another letter explaining that a shorter version of the Synthesis Report developed by the drafting team would be submitted for line-by-line approval by governments at the IPCC 11th Plenary, and the IPCC subsequently followed this approach. The IPCC Chair also extended the deadline for comments on the original "Synthesis Report" draft that had been circulated for comment. Answer: Communications involving over 100 countries in undertakings as mammoth as the IPCC Second Assessment Report are invariably complex. The IPCC's efforts in this regard are virtually unparalleled. While experts and governments could always use more time, they demonstrated at the 11th Plenary in Rome in December 1995, and at the plenary sessions of the working groups in Madrid, Montreal and Geneva, that the timetable, while difficult, was largely adequate. 2. 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 8 PAGE SUMMARY FOR |