The UN's climate change body has been told to stick to the science and avoid playing politics in a landmark review of how it operates.
7:00AM BST 31 Aug 2010
Comment
A group of leading scientists from around the world said on Monday that the leaders of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had left themselves open to the accusation that they had "gone beyond IPCC's remit".
In March the Amsterdam-based InterAcademy Council (IAC) was called in after a number of errors were found in the IPCC's landmark 2007 Fourth Assessment Report into man-made climate change.
Key among those was the unsubstantiated claim - based on an article inNew Scientist magazine - that most of the Himalayas' glaciers would have melted by 2035.
Its inclusion gave ammunition to those sceptical about the climate change science, who dug for further evidence that the IPCC's report was flawed and the organisation biased.
On Monday the IAC announced its recommendations on how to strengthen the IPCC, saying it "needs fundamental reform" to convince an ever more sceptical public that its science was solid.
It did not call into question the main findings of the 2007 report, and said that overall its assessment process of the rate of, and risks from, climate chance had "been a success and served society well".
However, the IAC said: "IPCC’s slow and inadequate response to revelations of errors in the last assessment, as well as complaints that its leaders have gone beyond IPCC’s mandate to be 'policy relevant, not policy prescriptive' in their public comments, have made communications a critical issue."
Harold Shapiro, a Princeton University professor of economics, who chaired the IAC committee, noted that "controversies have erupted over the perceived impartiality of IPCC towards climate policy".
He said guidelines should be drawn up "on how to speak on the IPCC's behalf while staying within the the bounds of IPCC reports".
The report also recommended that a "rigorous conflict-of-interest policy" should be drawn up for senior IPCC leadership and authors of its reports. In the future no individual should chair the IPCC for more than one six-year term, it stated.
Additionally, "formal qualifications for the chair and all other Bureau members need to be developed", the IAC said.
While Prof Shapiro stipulated that the IAC's recommendations were "not in any way motivated by an evaluation of the current leadership of IPCC", many will see them as putting pressure on Dr Pachauri.
The Indian scientist, who started his career as a railway engineer, refused to resign following the Himalaya debacle.
He has also been dogged by questions over conflict of interest, which he has resolutely denied. He has been in the post since 2002 - he was awarded a new six-year term in 2008 - and he plans to remain until 2014.
The IAC also said the IPCC should tighten up on its use of so-called "gray literature" - that which has not been peer-reviewed.
Prof Shapiro said: "IPCC has guidelines for the use of such sources, but these guidelines are vague and have not always been followed."
Gray literature should still be used because it was often relevant, but the guidelines should be "more specific" and "more strictly enforced", he said.
Dr Pachauri welcomed the report, saying: "We already have the highest confidence in the science behind our assessments. We’re now pleased to receive recommendations on how to further strengthen our own policies and procedures.”
