WORKING GROUP I
SESSION
LEAD AUTHORS
MEETING
TS / SPM
DRAFTING
INFORMAL REVIEW
EXPERT REVIEW
GOVERNMENT
REVIEW
1998
1999
2000
2001
Bad Munsteriefel
Scoping Meeting
Vienna
VII
1
Paris
2
Arusha
3
Auckland
4
Victoria
Shanghai
New
York
Shanghai
VIII
5
Figure 2 Key steps in the
preparation of the
Working Group I
component of the IPCC
Third Assessment Report
(adapted from Figure 4 of
J. Zillmann, in Focus,
May—June 2001,
Australian Academy of
Technological Sciences and
Engineering)
for the 14 chapters, representing a range of disciplines and countries; for each
chapter at least one Lead Author came from a developing country. For each
chapter, one or two Convening Lead Authors were appointed along with
between 4 and 12 Lead Authors, depending on the length of the chapter and the
breadth of its coverage. Contributions for consideration by the Lead Authors
were also invited widely from the scientific community; those who contributed
substantially (typically numbering 50 per chapter) are listed alongside the Lead
Authors as Contributing Authors. The chapter drafting process began at a Lead
Authors’ meeting in Paris in late 1998.
The review process is fundamental to the IPCC and the credibility of its
reports. For the TAR there were four separate stages of review between mid-1999
and early 2001. First, a draft known as the zero draft was sent in June 1999 to a
few expert scientists for informal review. The results of the review were used by the
Lead Authors meeting in Arusha, Tanzania, to assist in revising the chapters to
produce the first draft that was then sent out for formal review to over 300
experts. These had been nominated by countries, by the Lead Authors, or were
scientists who had offered to contribute to the review process. A very large
number of review comments were received. All were logged and formally
responded to by the Lead Authors at a meeting in Auckland in February 2000.
The Auckland meeting produced a second draft of the chapters that was then
sent to governments for review and also sent again to the experts who had
responded to the expert review. Governments typically asked scientists within
their countries to assist in the review, the scientists’ comments being consolidated
by the governments before the submission of their review. All these comments
were logged and used to produce the final version of the chapters at a Lead
Authors’ meeting in Victoria, Canada, in July 2000.
Because of some controversy that was raised about the role of Lead Authors in
J. Houghton
12
SESSION
LEAD AUTHORS
MEETING
TS / SPM
DRAFTING
INFORMAL REVIEW
EXPERT REVIEW
GOVERNMENT
REVIEW
1998
1999
2000
2001
Bad Munsteriefel
Scoping Meeting
Vienna
VII
1
Paris
2
Arusha
3
Auckland
4
Victoria
Shanghai
New
York
Shanghai
VIII
5
Figure 2 Key steps in the
preparation of the
Working Group I
component of the IPCC
Third Assessment Report
(adapted from Figure 4 of
J. Zillmann, in Focus,
May—June 2001,
Australian Academy of
Technological Sciences and
Engineering)
for the 14 chapters, representing a range of disciplines and countries; for each
chapter at least one Lead Author came from a developing country. For each
chapter, one or two Convening Lead Authors were appointed along with
between 4 and 12 Lead Authors, depending on the length of the chapter and the
breadth of its coverage. Contributions for consideration by the Lead Authors
were also invited widely from the scientific community; those who contributed
substantially (typically numbering 50 per chapter) are listed alongside the Lead
Authors as Contributing Authors. The chapter drafting process began at a Lead
Authors’ meeting in Paris in late 1998.
The review process is fundamental to the IPCC and the credibility of its
reports. For the TAR there were four separate stages of review between mid-1999
and early 2001. First, a draft known as the zero draft was sent in June 1999 to a
few expert scientists for informal review. The results of the review were used by the
Lead Authors meeting in Arusha, Tanzania, to assist in revising the chapters to
produce the first draft that was then sent out for formal review to over 300
experts. These had been nominated by countries, by the Lead Authors, or were
scientists who had offered to contribute to the review process. A very large
number of review comments were received. All were logged and formally
responded to by the Lead Authors at a meeting in Auckland in February 2000.
The Auckland meeting produced a second draft of the chapters that was then
sent to governments for review and also sent again to the experts who had
responded to the expert review. Governments typically asked scientists within
their countries to assist in the review, the scientists’ comments being consolidated
by the governments before the submission of their review. All these comments
were logged and used to produce the final version of the chapters at a Lead
Authors’ meeting in Victoria, Canada, in July 2000.
Because of some controversy that was raised about the role of Lead Authors in
J. Houghton
12