Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde IPCC and the Double Logic of International Expertise
-
Upload
tommaso-venturini -
Category
Education
-
view
57 -
download
1
Transcript of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde IPCC and the Double Logic of International Expertise
4s Barcelona - 2 September - 2016IPCC and the Double Logic of International Expertise
Kari de Pryck, Tommaso Venturini, Audrey BaneyxUniversite de Geneve, King’s College London, Sciences Po Paris
AIm and plan of the presentation
1. Brief presentation of the IPCC and the stakes around the representation of developing countries and regions
2. Presentation of the database of IPCC scientific participations (not members)
3. Preliminary results
a. Developed vs developing country representation
b. Regional representation
A few things to know
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
5 Assessment Reports AR1 (1990) AR2 (1995) AR3 (2001) AR4 (2007) AR5 (2014)
3 Working Groups
WG I WG II WG III assesses the physical scientific assesses the vulnerability of assesses options for mitigating aspects of the climate system socio-economic and natural climate change through limiting and climate change systems to climate change or preventing GHG emissions and consequences of climate change enhancing activities removing them and options for adapting to it
3 types of role IPCC Bureau Selected Authors Invited Authors IPCC Chair and Vice-Chairs Lead Authors (LA) Contributing Authors (CA) WG/TF Co-Chairs and Vice-chairs Contributing Lead Authors (CLA) Review editors (RE)
A few things to know
Scientific representation in the IPCC
The BureauScientists elected by the Panel. Mainly answers to criteria of
● North/South representation● geographical representation following WMO regions
Selected rolesfor chapters
“The composition of the group of Coordinating Lead Authors and Lead Authors for a chapter, a report or its summary shall aim to reflect:
● the range of scientific, technical and socio-economic views and expertise;● geographical representation (ensuring appropriate representation of experts from developing and
developed countries and countries with economies in transition); there should be at least one and normally two or more from developing countries;
● a mixture of experts with and without previous experience in IPCC;● gender balance.” (IPCC, 2013, p. 5-6)
Invited authorsfor chapters
No requirements
General trends
● Increase in the number of participations● WG1 > WG2 > WG3 (except AR2)
● For WG1, invited > selected ● For WG2 and WG3, selected > invited
North/South balance - roles’ evolution
CLA + RE + LA
● Except for AR1, rather stable participation ratio for developed/developing countries
CABureau
North/South balance in working groups
● WG1 is the least balanced working group
● Unbalance is higher for invited roles
Top 10 IPCC countries
Countries CLA + RE + LA
USA 817
UK 321
Australia 173
Germany 171
Canada 151
China 149
Japan 143
India 140
France 126
Netherlands 111
Countries CA
USA 1538
UK 591
Germany 344
Australia 259
Canada 245
N/A 217
France 159
Switzerland 134
Japan 122
Netherlands 121
Countries Bureau
Brazil 6
USA 6
Australia 5
Canada 5
China 5
Japan 5
Russian Federation 5
UK 5
Argentina, Cuba, France, Germany, India, Netherlands, Saudi Arabia
4
Most active countries
All other countries
UK
USA
All other developing
South AfricaBrasil
India
China
Conclusion
● Persistence over time of asymmetry between developing and developed country(higher in WGI than in WGII and WGIII);
● This asymmetry tends to decrease in the highest roles of the IPCC, (particularly the Bureau) due to the rules set by the IPCC to enhance the participation of developing countries. However, when such rules do not apply (CA), the asymmetry grows.
● The IPCC remains dominated by a few countries (Western countries; US and UK - 39%) among developing countries, the IPCC is dominated by BASIC countries - 48%
● The regional balance is also asymmetrical in the IPCC
● However, it is less asymmetrical than other categorizations(e.g UN regions and UNFCCC grouping)