developed countries. However, a significant number of contributors from
developing countries were also involved. That so many of the world’s scientists
contributed or were involved in the review process meant that there was a
genuine feeling of ownership of the report by the world scientific community.
The IPCC process led to a significant degree of consensus. It is sometimes
pointed out that ‘consensus’ amongst scientists is not necessarily a sign of
scientific health; argument and disagreement are seen to be more usual building
blocks of scientific advance. But the ‘consensus’ achieved by the IPCC is not
complete agreement about everything; it is agreement particularly about what we
know and what we do not know — distinguishing clearly those matters about
which there is reasonable certainty from those where there remains much
uncertainty and where there continues to be lively debate and disagreement. It is
this limited ‘consensus’ which is reflected in the Executive Summary of the 1990
IPCC Report which has been widely acclaimed for the clarity and crispness of its
presentation.
It was clear from an early stage that not only was the scientific content of the
assessment important but also the way in which it was presented. Scientists left to
themselves do not always recognize what is relevant to policymakers or present
their material with the maximum clarity. Further, the presentation of a scientific
document can appear to a policymaker to convey a political message even though
none was intended, for instance through the selection of the particular material
employed.
It has therefore been helpful in the presentation of the science of climate change
to involve policymakers themselves or their representatives in the formulation of
the summary of the reports. For instance, they were full participants in the
government review process and in the Working Group Plenary Meeting which
agreed the wording of the report. The report was greatly improved in its relevance
and clarity through their participation. In addition the large number of
governments which had a part in the process felt ownership of the report.
The IPCC was therefore able to provide to the Earth Summit at Rio in 1992 a
clear assessment of the science of climate change that was owned both by the
world scientific community and by governments. These characteristics were
essential to providing governments with the confidence to formulate and to sign
the Framework Convention on Climate Change at that 1992 Conference and to
take appropriate action. They have continued to be essential in the generation of
subsequent reports which have provided input to the on-going work of the
FCCC, for instance to the Kyoto Protocol of 1997.
5 The Science Policy Interface
The work of the IPCC illustrates the following five important features which I
believe should characterize the scientific assessments that form an input to policy
making.
The first has already been mentioned, namely the separation of what is known
with reasonable certainty from what is unknown or very uncertain. All
statements from scientists that have policy implications should make this
distinction and should describe and quantify the uncertainty as fully as possible.
An Overview of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
5
developing countries were also involved. That so many of the world’s scientists
contributed or were involved in the review process meant that there was a
genuine feeling of ownership of the report by the world scientific community.
The IPCC process led to a significant degree of consensus. It is sometimes
pointed out that ‘consensus’ amongst scientists is not necessarily a sign of
scientific health; argument and disagreement are seen to be more usual building
blocks of scientific advance. But the ‘consensus’ achieved by the IPCC is not
complete agreement about everything; it is agreement particularly about what we
know and what we do not know — distinguishing clearly those matters about
which there is reasonable certainty from those where there remains much
uncertainty and where there continues to be lively debate and disagreement. It is
this limited ‘consensus’ which is reflected in the Executive Summary of the 1990
IPCC Report which has been widely acclaimed for the clarity and crispness of its
presentation.
It was clear from an early stage that not only was the scientific content of the
assessment important but also the way in which it was presented. Scientists left to
themselves do not always recognize what is relevant to policymakers or present
their material with the maximum clarity. Further, the presentation of a scientific
document can appear to a policymaker to convey a political message even though
none was intended, for instance through the selection of the particular material
employed.
It has therefore been helpful in the presentation of the science of climate change
to involve policymakers themselves or their representatives in the formulation of
the summary of the reports. For instance, they were full participants in the
government review process and in the Working Group Plenary Meeting which
agreed the wording of the report. The report was greatly improved in its relevance
and clarity through their participation. In addition the large number of
governments which had a part in the process felt ownership of the report.
The IPCC was therefore able to provide to the Earth Summit at Rio in 1992 a
clear assessment of the science of climate change that was owned both by the
world scientific community and by governments. These characteristics were
essential to providing governments with the confidence to formulate and to sign
the Framework Convention on Climate Change at that 1992 Conference and to
take appropriate action. They have continued to be essential in the generation of
subsequent reports which have provided input to the on-going work of the
FCCC, for instance to the Kyoto Protocol of 1997.
5 The Science Policy Interface
The work of the IPCC illustrates the following five important features which I
believe should characterize the scientific assessments that form an input to policy
making.
The first has already been mentioned, namely the separation of what is known
with reasonable certainty from what is unknown or very uncertain. All
statements from scientists that have policy implications should make this
distinction and should describe and quantify the uncertainty as fully as possible.
An Overview of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
5