From: Stavins,Robert Sent: Thursday,April 17,2014 4:06 PM
TO: Ottmar Edenhofer,Co-Chair,Working Group III,AR5,IPCC
Ramon Pichs-Madruga,Co-Chair,Working Group III,AR5,IPCC
Youba Sokona,Co-Chair,Working Group III,AR5,IPCC
CC: Rajendra Pachauri,Chairman,IPCC
Jan Minx,Head of Technical Support Unit,Working Group III
FROM: Robert Stavins
SUBJECT: Thoughts on the Government Approval Process for SPM.5.2 (International Cooperation) of the Summary for Policymakers of Working Group 3, Fifth Assessment Report, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Dear Ottmar,Ramon,and Youba:
I am writing to you today to express my disappointment and frustration with the process and outcome of the government approval meetings in Berlin this past week,at which the assembled representatives from the world’s governments, considered and,in effect,fundamentally revised or rejected parts of the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of IPCC Working Group 3 over a period of five long days (and nights). My focus in this letter is exclusively on one section of the SPM, namely SPM.5.2,International Cooperation. I am not representing nor referring to any other parts of the SPM.
Also,none of what I have to say should be taken as reflecting negatively on you (the Co-Chairs of Working Group 3),the WG 3 Technical Support Unit (TSU),nor the overall leadership of the IPCC. On the contrary,I thought that all of you did a remarkable job over the five years of work on AR5,as well as during the week in Berlin. The problems about which I’m writing arose despite,not because of your excellent leadership and support.
More broadly,the problems I identify in this letter are not a consequence of personal failings of any of the individuals involved. My intent is not to criticize the country representatives,the IPCC leadership,the TSU,the Lead Authors,or the Coordinating Lead Authors. The problems I seek to identify are structural,not personal.
Further,as Co-Coordinating Lead Author (CLA) of Chapter 13 (International Cooperation: Agreements and Instruments) of the underlying report,I had primary responsibility –together with my Co-Coordinating Lead Author,Dr. Zou Ji –for drafting the text for Section SPM.5.2 (International Cooperation) of the SPM, and nothing in this letter should implicate Zou Ji,for whom I have great respect and with whom I have enjoyed working. He may or may not share any of the views I express below.
Another caveat is that none of the problems I describe in this letter apply to either the Technical Summary nor the underlying Chapter 13. Indeed,because of the problems with Section SPM.5.2 on international cooperation in the SPM,it is important that interested parties refer instead to the Technical Summary,or better yet,the original Chapter 13.
In this letter,I will not comment on the government review and revision process that affected other parts of the SPM,other than to note that as the week progressed,I was surprised by the degree to which governments felt free to recommend and sometimes insist on detailed changes to the SPM text on purely political,as opposed to scientific bases.
The general motivations for government revisions –from most (but not all) participating delegations –appeared to be quite clear in the plenary sessions. These motivations were made explicit in the “contact groups,” which met behind closed doors in small groups with the lead authors on particularly challenging sections of the SPM. In these contact groups,government representatives worked to suppress text that might jeopardize their negotiating stances in international negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
I fully understand that the government representatives were seeking to meet their own responsibilities toward their respective governments by upholding their countries’interests,but in some cases this turned out to be problematic for the scientific integrity of the IPCC Summary for Policymakers. Such involvement —and sometimes interference —with the scientific process of the IPCC was particularly severe in section SPM.5.2 on international cooperation. It is to that section of the SPM that I now turn.
In the early morning of Monday,April 7,2014,a draft of SPM.5.2 was completed and approved by the assembled team of CLAs in Berlin. The draft,a copy of which is attached as Item A,had been extensively revised over the preceding months in response to comments received from governments around the world (to whom multiple drafts had been sent as part of the normal IPCC process). The draft in Item A was sent to governments on April 7 through the IPCC’s PaperSmart system.
The plenary session of government representatives turned their attention to SPM.5.2 at approximately 10:00 pm on Friday,April 11 . When it became clear that the country delegates were unwilling to move forward with the consideration of the text in plenary,you established a contact group to work on acceptable text. You gave the group 2 hours to come up with acceptable text. That group began its work at approximately 11:00 pm (and continued past 1:00 am on Saturday,April 12 ).
The contact group included representatives from of a diverse set of countries, ranging from small to large,and from poor to rich. Hence,I do not believe that the responsibility for the problems that arose are attributable to any specific country or even set of countries. On the contrary,nearly all delegates in the meeting demonstrated the same perspective and approach,namely that any text that was considered inconsistent with their interests and positions in multilateral negotiations was treated as unacceptable. In fact,several (perhaps the majority) of the country representatives in the SPM.5.2 contact group identified themselves as negotiators in the UNFCCC negotiations. To ask these experienced UNFCCC negotiators to approve text that critically assessed the scholarly literature on which they themselves are the interested parties,created an irreconcilable conflict of interest. Thus,the country representatives were placed in an awkward and problematic position by the nature of the process.
Over the course of the two hours of the contact group deliberations,it became clear that the only way the assembled government representatives would approve text for SPM.5.2 was essentially to remove all “controversial” text (that is,text that was uncomfortable for any one individual government),which meant deleting almost 75% of the text,including nearly all explications and examples under the bolded headings. In more than one instance,specific examples or sentences were removed at the will of only one or two countries,because under IPCC rules,the dissent of one country is sufficient to grind the entire approval process to a halt unless and until that country can be appeased.
I understand that country representatives were only doing their job,so I do not implicate them personally;however,the process the IPCC followed resulted in a process that built political credibility by sacrificing scientific integrity. The final version of SPM.5.2,as agreed to by the contact group,and subsequently approved in plenary (at approximately 3:00 am,April 12 ),is attached to this letter as Item B.
No institution can be all things for all people,and this includes the IPCC. In particular,in the case of the IPCC’s review of research findings on international cooperation,there may be an inescapable conflict between scientific integrity and political credibility. If the IPCC is to continue to survey scholarship on international cooperation in future assessment reports,it should not put country representatives in the uncomfortable and fundamentally untenable position of reviewing text in order to give it their unanimous approval. Likewise,the IPCC should not ask lead authors to volunteer enormous amounts of their time over multi-year periods to carry out work that will inevitably be rejected by governments in the Summary for Policymakers.
I hope I have made it clear that my purpose is not to condemn the country representatives,the IPCC leadership,the TSU,the Lead Authors,or the Coordinating Lead Authors. The problem is structural,not personal. In my view, with the current structure and norms,it will be exceptionally difficult,if not impossible,to produce a scientifically sound and complete version of text for the SPM on international cooperation that can survive the country approval process.
More broadly,I urge the IPCC to direct public attention to the documents produced by the lead authors that were subject to government (and expert) comment,but not subject to government approval. I believe that tremendous public good would arise from publicizing the key findings of the Technical Summary and the individual chapter Executive Summaries,instead of the Summary for Policymakers. I know that as the leaders of the IPCC,you see it to be your responsibility to convey to the public (and policy makers) the results of the hard scientific work that the hundreds of lead authors put into the report over the past five years,and not simply the constrained version of the Summary for Policymakers produced over the past week.
The mission of the IPCC is important,and the scientific work carried out by the hundreds of lead authors of AR5 Working Group 3 was solid and important,as validated by the Technical Summary and the underlying chapters. I hope this letter can be constructive and helpful for the future work of the IPCC.
Best wishes,
Rob
Robert N. Stavins, Albert Pratt Professor of Business & Government, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University Director, Harvard Environmental Economics Program Director of Graduate Studies, Ph.D. Programs in Public Policy and Political Economy & Government Co-Chair, Harvard Business School-Kennedy School Joint Degree Programs Director, Harvard Project on Climate Agreements
Home
