While re-acknowledging that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had erred in projecting the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers due to global warming, R K Pachauri, who chairs the panel, said the agency would unveil a strategy next week on correcting the mistake, besides strengthening the science of tracking climate change.
With all the criticism over the mistake, the IPCC has decided to bring in editors and coordinating lead authors for its fifth assessment report.
The former are to include many of the most established scientists in areas relevant to the assessment. Review editors are independent experts and selected based on lists provided by governments and participating organisations.
They do the first review of the report.
CLAs supplement the draft revision process and pay special attention to particular points of assessment or areas of major differences and do the second review.
In another first, the panel has taken into consideration the nominees' expertise, geographical and gender balance, and experience with assessments, while selecting the authors and editors.
"The number of nominations to work on AR5 increased 50 per cent to about 3,000. From those, we selected 831 experts, compared with 559 in 2004.
"These experts were selected from fields including meteorology, engineering, biology, physics, oceanography, statistics and economics and represent a broad diversity of geographic locations and viewpoints," Pachauri had said.
The IPCC, marred with controversies, would not have taken these steps had the Inter Academy Council not made its recommendations to the former last month while evaluating the panel's functioning.
The IAC made these suggestions because of incorrect projection of the disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers by the panel in its Fourth Assessment Report.
The 2007 report had said that the "likelihood of (the glaciers) disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate."
But it was later revealed that it was based on a 1999 news article which was itself based on speculation, rather than original research. The article had been cited in a 2005 World Wildlife Fund report, which was in turn cited in the IPCC volume.
"We acknowledge the mistake and the IAC's suggestions and the report will be discussed next week in Busan (South Korea).
"The
Learning from error
More, the IAC has suggested a better management structure. The IPCC is considering constituting a formal decision-making body to facilitate efficient progress between meetings of the panel, especially on issues such as error correction and questions of scientific integrity, besides improving the responsiveness in urgent situations.
Another suggestion the panel is considering is limiting the IPCC chair's term to the timeframe of one assessment.
"At the IPCC's plenary in October, the governments that form the IPCC will carefully review the recommendations of the IAC.
It is important to remember that those governments will decide what actions to take.
"Whatever those actions are, it is clear that the recommendations from the IAC and other organisations will help guide the processes and procedures of the IPCC's future assessments of climate science," Pachauri had then said.
The council had also suggested the panel implement a communications strategy "that emphasises transparency, rapid and thoughtful responses, and relevance to stakeholders, and which includes guidelines about who can speak on behalf of IPCC and how to represent the organisation appropriately".
To this, the panel says it has increased its investments in clear communication by upgrading the post of communications officer in the secretariat, engaging outside expertise to meet extra demands, and working toward a comprehensive communications strategy.
Besides, the IAC emphasise engagement of local experts and inclusion of those from countries outside the region on the author teams.
"Concerted efforts are being made to encourage broad use of contributing authors with relevant expertise for the region, including experts working outside the region.
"A separate chapter on 'Regional Context' will help ensure that regional chapter authors and REs understand the strengths and limitations of the available regional climate information," the panel said.
