Editorial: Time for Rajendra Pachauri to go
The world鈥檚 leading climate science body must 鈥渇undamentally reform鈥� its organisation and how it operates if it is to regain the public鈥檚 trust, according to a major review.
The United Nations鈥� (IPCC) was hit by a series of scandals earlier this year, when some statements in its were found to be either exaggerated or incorrect.
Advertisement
In the aftermath of these revelations, the (IAC), an umbrella organisation made up of scientific societies from around the world, was asked to investigate the IPCC鈥檚 procedures and practices, and to report on how they should be reformed. Their , led by Princeton economist , was released on Monday.
The review says the 鈥淚PCC assessment process has been successful overall鈥�. But it says the IPCC鈥檚 organisation has changed little in 20 years, despite the fact that its reports have grown ever longer and more complex. It says the organisation must have stronger leadership and become more nimble to continue to function and command trust.
The report also notes that many of the IPCC鈥檚 procedures, while adequate in themselves, have not been strictly followed. This lack of rigour is, the authors say, responsible for many of the errors that crept into the fourth assessment report in 2007.
Grey literature
The controversy began with 鈥済laciergate鈥�. The fourth assessment report had claimed that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035, but this statement could not be backed up and was eventually traced to a quote supplied to 快猫短视频 for a 1999 article.
IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri eventually conceded that the statement was incorrect, but the damage was done and the media rushed to identify other mistakes. A 快猫短视频 investigation revealed few major errors, but there was a failure to clearly identify statements that were not well-supported by evidence.
The IAC review says that the IPCC has policies in place for fact-checking its reports and conveying uncertainty, but that in many cases they were not followed. It recommends 鈥渃learer guidelines and stronger mechanisms for enforcing them鈥�. In particular, 鈥済rey literature鈥� that has not been peer-reviewed should be clearly flagged.
According to Shapiro, many of the errors 鈥渃ame from not paying enough attention to review editors鈥� comments.鈥� He speculated that the editors may simply have been overwhelmed by the number of review comments, noting that the fourth assessment report received 90,000 such comments.
Day-to-day operations
At present the IPCC has a . The reports are produced by working groups of unpaid scientists. A single bureau provides overall guidance, and a secretariat offers organisational support. Major decisions are made at annual meetings of the IPCC, which is made up of representatives from 194 member countries.
The IAC says this structure is unwieldy and slow to respond to potential errors, and needs two additional features. One is an executive committee, which would make any major decisions that were required in the months between panel meetings. The other is a full-time executive director who would tackle the day-to-day running of the IPCC, in particular by taking charge of the secretariat. Under the current structure, the IPCC chair has limited powers in managing the organisation.
In a press conference in New York City, Pachauri said that in 2006 he established an informal 鈥渆xecutive team鈥� with many of the responsibilities suggested for the executive committee. He argued that the IAC鈥檚 recommendations simply extended a process that the IPCC had already started.
The IAC also suggested that the IPCC should have an official conflict of interest policy, which would govern the outside interests that senior members are permitted to have, and ensure that they are disclosed. Other international institutions, such as the UN鈥檚 , already have such policies in place.
Pachauri to go?
In a move that will inevitably be seen as a criticism of the IPCC鈥檚 leadership, the IAC recommended that senior managers should only be permitted to serve one six-year term in their roles. This implies that Pachauri should not oversee the forthcoming fifth assessment report, as he presided over the previous assessment.
Shapiro told reporters: 鈥淎n organisation like the IPCC needs to have its leadership constantly changed鈥� to maintain its 鈥渙verall virility鈥�. He said that the suggested changes 鈥渨ere not motivated by or connected with Dr Pachauri or any other leader鈥�.
Pachauri said that the decision about his future is down to the IPCC鈥檚 member governments. 鈥淚 will abide by any decision the IPCC makes,鈥� he said. He stressed that he had been instructed to oversee the next report, and that 鈥渦ntil I see something different, it鈥檚 a task that I can鈥檛 walk away from鈥�.
When this article was first posted, the first sentence began: 鈥淭he world鈥檚 climate science authority鈥︹��
