Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work

PROCEDURES FOR THE PREPARATION, REVIEW, ACCEPTANCE, ADOPTION,

APPROVAL AND PUBLICATION OF IPCC REPORTS Adopted at the Fifteenth Session (San Jose, 15-18 April 1999) amended at the Twentieth Session(Paris, 19-21 February 2003), Twenty-First Session (Vienna, 3 and 6-7 November 2003), TwentyNinth Session (Geneva, 31 August-4 September 2008), Thirty-Third Session (Abu Dhabi, 10-13 May

2011), Thirty-Fourth Session (Kampala, 18-19 November 2011),Thirty-Fifth Session (Geneva, 6-9 June 2012) and the Thirty-Seventh Session (Batumi, 14-18 October 2013)

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. DEFINITIONS

3. IPCC MATERIAL

4. ASSESSMENT REPORTS, SYNTHESIS REPORTS, SPECIAL REPORTS AND

METHODOLOGY REPORTS

4.1 Convening a Scoping Meeting to Prepare Report Outline

4.2 General Procedures for Preparing IPCC Reports

4.3 Preparation of Reports by the Working Groups and the Task Force on National Greenhouse

Gas Inventories

4.3.1 Compilation of Lists of Potential Coordinating Lead Authors, Lead Authors, Contributing Authors, Review Editors and of Government Focal Points

4.3.2 Selection of Lead Authors 4.3.3 Preparation of Draft Report

4.3.4 Review 4.3.4.1 First Review (by Experts) 4.3.4.2 Second Review (by Governments and Experts) 4.3.5 Preparation of Final Draft Report

4.4 Preparation, Approval and Acceptance of Summaries for Policymakers and Adoption of Overview Chapters of Methodology Reports

4.5 Acceptance of Reports

4.6 Reports Approved and/or Adopted by the Panel 4.6.1 The Synthesis Report

4.7 Addressing Possible Errors in Assessment Reports, Synthesis Reports, Special Reports and Methodology Reports

5. TECHNICAL PAPERS

6. IPCC SUPPORTING MATERIAL

7. WORKSHOPS AND EXPERT MEETINGS

7.1 IPCC Workshops and Expert Meetings

12 7.2 Co-sponsored Workshops and Expert Meetings

ANNEX 1 TASKS AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR LEAD AUTHORS, COORDINATING LEAD AUTHORS, CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS, EXPE RT REVIEWERS AND REVIEW EDITORS OF

IPCC REPORTS AND GOVERNMENT FOCAL POINTS

ANNEX 2 PROCEDURE ON THE USE OF LITERATURE IN IPCC REPORTS

ANNEX 3 IPCC PROTOCOL FOR ADDRESSING POSSIBLE ERRORS IN IPCC ASSESSMENT REPORTS, SYNTHESIS REPORTS, SPECIAL REPORTS AND METHODOLOGY REPORTS

1. INTRODUCTION

This revised Appendix to the Principles Governing IPCC Work contains the procedures for the preparation, review, acceptance, adoption, approval and publication of IPCC reports and other materials relevant to methodologies. These Procedures for the Preparation, Review, Acceptance, Adoption, Approval and Publication of IPCC Reports were adopted at the Fifteenth Session of the IPCC (San Jose, 15-18 April 1999) and amended at the Twentieth Session (Paris, 19-21 February 2003), Twenty-First Session (Vienna, 3 and 6-7 November 2003), Twenty-Ninth Session (Geneva, 31 August-4 September 2008), Thirty-Third Session (AbuDhabi, 10-13 May 2011), Thirty-Fourth Session (Kampala, 18-19 November 2011) and ThirtyFifth Session (Geneva, 6-9 June 2012).

2. DEFINITIONS

The definitions of terms used in this document are as follows:

“Acceptance” of IPCC Reports at a Session of the Working Group or Panel signifies that the material has not been subject to line by line discussion and agreement, but nevertheless presents a comprehensive, objective and balanced view of the subject matter.
“Adoption” of IPCC Reports is a process of endorsement section by section (and not line by line) used for the longer report of the Synthesis Report as described in section 4.4 and for Overview Chapters of Methodology Reports.
“Approval” of IPCC Summaries for Policymakers signifies that the material has been subject to detailed, line by line discussion and agreement.
“Assessment Reports” are published materials composed of the full scientific and technical assessment of climate change, generally in three volumes, one for each of the Working Groups of the IPCC. Each of the volumes may be composed of two or more sections including: (a) a Summary for Policymakers (b) an optional technical summary and (c) individual chapters and their executive

summaries.

“Members of the IPCC” are countries who are Members of WMO and/or the United Nations.
“Methodology Reports ” are published materials, which provide practical guidelines for the preparation of greenhouse gas inventories. Such reports may be composed of two or more sections including: (a) an Overview Chapter, which broadly describes the background, structure and major features of the report, (b) individual chapters and (c) technical Annexes.

“ Observer Organisation ” refers to a body or an agency, whether national or international, governmental, intergovernmental or non-governmental which is qualified in matters covered by the IPCC and which has been admitted by the Panel in accordance with the IPCC Policy and Process for Admitting Observer Organisations to be represented at Sessions of the Panel and any of its Working Groups. 1

1 The IPCC has a "Policy and Process for Admitting Observer Organizations". See: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipccprinciples/ipcc-principles-observer-org.pdf“Reports” refer to the main IPCC materials (including Assessment, Synthesis, Methodology and Special Reports and their Summaries fo r Policymakers and Overview Chapters).
“Session of a Working Group” refers to a series of meetings at the plenary level of the governmental representatives to a Working Group of the IPCC.

“Session of the Bureau” refers to a series of meetings of the elected members of the IPCC Bureau who may be accompanied by a representative of their government.

“Session of the Panel” refers to a series of meetings at the plenary level of the governmental representatives to the IPCC.
“Special Report” is an assessment of a specific issue and generally follows the same structure as a volume of an Assessment Report.
“Summary for Policymakers” (“SPM”) is a component of a Report, such as an Assessment, Special or Synthesis Report, which provides a po licy-relevant but policy-neutral summary of that Report.
“Supporting Material” consists of three categories: (1) Workshop proceedings and material from Expert Meetings which are either commissioned or supported by the IPCC, (2) software or databases to facilitate the use of the IPCC Methodology Reports, and (3) guidance material (guidance notes and guidance documents) to guide and assist in the preparation of comprehensive and scientifically sound IPCC Reports and Technical Papers.
“Synthesis Reports” synthesise and integrate materials contained within the Assessment Reports and Special Reports and are written in a non-technical style suitable for policymakers and address a broad-range of policy-relevant but policy-neutral ques tions. They are composed of two sections as follows: (a) a Summary for Policymakers and (b) a longer report.

“ Task Force Bureau” refers to the elected members of the Bureau of the Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. It is chaired by two Co-chairs, referred to in the following as Task

Force Bureau Co-chairs.
“Technical Papers” are based on the material already in the Assessment Reports and Special Reports and are prepared on topics for which an objective international scientific/technical perspective is deemed essential.
“Working Group Bureau” refers to the elected members of the Bureau of a Working Group. It is chaired by Co-chairs, referred to as “Working Group Co-chairs”.

3. IPCC MATERIAL

There are three main classes of IPCC material, each of which is defined in Section 2.

A. IPCC Reports (which include Assessment, Synthesis and Special Reports and their Summaries for Policymakers and Methodology Reports)

B. Technical Papers

C. Supporting Material

The different classes of material are subject as appropriate to different levels of formal endorsement. These levels are described in terms of acceptance, adoption and approval as defined

in Section 2.

The different levels of endorsement for the different classes of IPCC material are as follows:

A. In general, IPCC Reports are accepted by the appropriate Working Group. Reports prepared by the Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories are accepted by the Panel. Summaries for Policymakers are approved by the appropriate Working Groups (Section 4.2) and subsequently accepted by the Panel (Secti on 4.4). Overview chapters of Methodology Reports are adopted, section by section, by the appropriate Working Group or in case of reports prepared by the Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories by the Panel (Section 4.4). In the case of the Synthesis Report the Panel adopts the underlying Report, section by section, and approves the Summary for Policymakers. The definition of the terms “acceptance”, “adoption” and "approval" will be included in the IPCC published Reports (Section 4.6).

34 during the r eview process. B. Technical Papers are not accepted, approved or adopted by the Working Groups or the Panel but are finalised in consultation with the Bureau, which will function in the role of an Editorial Board (Section 5).

C. Supporting Materials are not accepted, approved or adopted (Section 6).

4. ASSESSMENT REPORTS, SYNTHESIS REPORTS, SPECIAL REPORTS AND

METHODOLOGY REPORTS

4.1 Convening a Scoping Meeting to Prepare Report Outline

Each IPCC Assessment Report, Special Report, Methodology Report and Synthesis Report, as defined in Section 2 of Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC work, should be preceded by a scoping meeting that develops its draft outline (and explanatory notes as appropriate). Nominations for participation will be solicited from Government Focal Points, observer organisations, and Bureau members. Participants should be selected by the relevant respective Working Group Bureau/Task Force Bureau and, in case of the Synthesis Report, by the IPCC Chair in consultation with the Working Group Co-Chairs. In selecting scoping meeting participants, consideration should be given to the following criteria: scientific, technical and socio-economic expertise, including the range of views; geographical representation; a mixture of experts with and without previous experience in IPCC; gender balance; experts with a background from relevant stakeholder and user groups, including governments. The Working Group/Task Force Bureau and, in the case of the Synthesis Report, the IPCC Chair will report to the Panel on the selection process including a description of how the selection criteria for participation and any other considerations have been applied, and including a list of participants.

Based on the report of the scoping meeting the Panel will decide whether to prepare a report and agree on its scope, outline, and the work plan including schedule and budget.

4.2 General Procedures for Preparing IPCC Reports

In Assessment Reports, Synthesis Reports, and Special Reports, Coordinating Lead Authors (CLAs), Lead Authors (LAs), and Review Editors (REs ) of chapter teams are required to consider the range of scientific, technical and socio-econom ic views, expressed in balanced assessments. Authors should use calibrated uncertainty language that expresses the diversity of the scientifically and technically valid evidence, based mainly on the strength of the evidence and the level of agreement in the scientific, technical, and soci o-economic literature. The IPCC guidance notes on addressing uncertainties are available on the IPCC website 2

.

The review process generally takes place in three stages: expert review of IPCC Reports, government/expert review of IPCC Reports, and government review of the Summaries for Policymakers and Overview Chapters and/or the Synthesis Report.

Working Group/Task Force Bureau Co-Chairs should aim to avoid (or at least minimise) the overlap of government review periods for different IPCC Reports and with Sessions of the Conference of the

Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its Subsidiary Bodies.

Expert review should normally be eight weeks, but not less than six weeks, except to the extent decided by the Panel. Government and government/expert reviews should not be less than eight weeks, except to the extent decided by the Panel.

All written expert and government review comment s will be made available to reviewers on request

2 See: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/uncertainty-guidance-note.pdfThe drafts of IPCC Reports and Technical Papers which have been submitted for formal expert and/or government review, the expert and government review comments, and the author responses to those comments will be made available on the IPCC website as soon as possible after the acceptance by the Panel and the finalisation of the Report or Technical Paper. The IPCC considers its draft reports, prior to acceptance, to be pre-decisional, provided in confidence to reviewers, and not for public distribution, quotation or citation.

4.3 Preparation of Reports by the Working Groups and the Task Force on National

Greenhouse Gas Inventories

It is essential that the Working Group and Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories work programmes allow enough time in their schedules, according to procedures, for a full review by experts and governments and for the acceptance of the report. The Working Group/Task Force Bureau Co-Chairs are responsible for implementing the work programme and ensuring that proper review of the material occurs in a timely manner.

To ensure proper preparation and review, the following steps should be undertaken:

1. Compilation of lists of potential Coordinating Lead Authors, Lead Authors, Contributing Authors,

Review Editors and of Government Focal Points. 2. Selection of Coordinating Lead Authors, Lead Authors and Review Editors. 3. Preparation of draft Report.

4. Review a. First Review (by experts). b. Second Review (by governments and experts). 5. Preparation of final draft Report. 6. Acceptance of Report at a Session of the Working Group(s) or the Panel respectively.

4.3.1 Compilation of Lists of Potential Coordinating Lead Authors, Lead Authors, Contributing Authors, Review Editors and of Government Focal Points

At the request of Working Group/Task Force Bureau Co-Chairs, through their respective Working Group/Task Force Bureau, and the IPCC Secretariat, governments, observer organisations and the Working Group/Task Force Bureaux should identify appropriate experts for each area in the Report who can act as potential Coordinating Lead Authors, Lead Authors, Contributing Authors or Review Editors. To facilitate the identification of experts and later review by governments, governments should also designate their respective Focal Points. IPCC Bureau Members and Members of the Task Force Bureau should contribute where necessary to identifying appropriate Coordinating Lead Authors, Lead Authors, Contributing Authors, and Review Editors in cooperation with the Government Focal Points within their region to ensure an appropriate representation of experts from developing and developed countries and countries with economies in transition. These should be assembled into lists available to all IPCC Members and maintained by the IPCC Secretariat. The tasks and responsibilities of Coordinating Lead Authors, Lead Authors, Contributing Authors, Review Editors and Government Focal Points are outlined in Annex 1.

4.3.2 Selection of Coordinating Lead Authors, Lead Authors and Review Editors

Coordinating Lead Authors, Lead Authors and Review Editors are selected by the relevant Working Group/Task Force Bureau, under general guidance and review provided by the Session of the Working Group or, in case of reports prepared by the Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, the Panel, from those experts cit ed in the lists provided by governments and observer organisations, and other experts as appropriate, known through their publications and works. 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;

56  a mixture of experts with and without previous experience in IPCC;

 gender balance.

The Working Group/Task Force Bureau will report to the Panel on the selection process and the

extent to which the aims were achieved. The IP CC should make every effort to engage experts from the region on the author teams of chapters addressing specific regions, but should also engage experts from countries outside of the region when they can provide an essential contribution to the

assessment.

The Coordinating Lead Authors and Lead Authors selected by the Working Group/Task Force Bureau may enlist other experts as Contributing Authors to assist with the work.

At the earliest opportunity, the IPCC Secretariat should inform all governments and observer organisations who the Coordinating Lead Authors, Lead Authors and Review Editors are for different chapters and indicate the general content area that the person will contribute to the chapter.

4.3.3 Preparation of Draft Report

Preparation of the first draft of a Report should be undertaken by Coordinating Lead Authors and Lead Authors. Experts who wish to contribute material for consideration in the first draft should submit it directly to the Lead Authors. Contributions should be supported as far as possible with references from the peer-reviewed and internationally available literature, and with copies of any unpublished material cited. Clear indications of how to access the latter should be included in the

contributions. For material available in electroni c format only, a hard copy should be archived and the location where such material may be accessed should be cited.

Lead Authors will work on the basis of these contributions, the peer-reviewed and internationallyavailable literature, including manuscripts that can be made available for IPCC review and selected non-peer review literature according to Annex 2 and IPCC Supporting Material (see Section 6). Material which is not published but which is available to experts and reviewers may be included provided that its inclusion is fully justified in the context of the IPCC assessment process (see Annex 2).

In preparing the first draft, and at subsequent stages of revision after review, Lead Authors should clearly identify disparate views for which there is significant scientific or technical support, together with the relevant arguments. Technical summaries provided will be prepared under the leadership of the Working Group/Task Force Bureaux.

4.3.4 Review

Three principles governing the review should be borne in mind. First, the best possible scientific and technical advice should be included so that the IPCC Reports represent the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic findings and are as comprehensive as possible. Secondly, a wide circulation process, ensuring representation of independent experts (i.e. experts not involved in the preparation of that particular chapter) from developing and developed countries and countries with economies in transition should aim to involve as many experts as possible in the IPCC process. Thirdly, the review process should be objective, open and transparent.

Working Group/TFI Co-chairs should arrange a comprehensive review of reports in each review phase, seeking to ensure complete coverage of all content. Those parts of a Working Group report that are cross-cutting with other Working Group reports should be cross-checked through the relevant Authors and Co-chairs of that other Working Group.

To help ensure that Reports provide a balanced and co mplete assessment of current information, each Working Group/Task Force Bureau should normally select two to four Review Editors per chapter (including the executive summaries) and per technical summary of each Report.Review Editors should normally consist of a member of the Working Group/Task Force Bureau, and an independent expert based on the lists provided by governments and observer organisations. Review Editors should not be involved as authors or reviewers for material for which they are a Review Editor. In selecting Review Editors, the Bureaux should select from developed and developing countries and from countries with economies in transition, and should aim for a balanced representation of scientific, technical, and socio-economic views.

4.3.4.1 First Review (by Experts)

First order draft Reports should be circulated by Working Group/Task Force Bureau Co-Chairs for review. The Working Group/Task Force Bureaux shall seek the participation of reviewers encompassing the range of scientific, technical and socio-economic views, expertise, and geographical representation and shall actively undertake to promote and invite as wide a group of experts as possible. This includes experts nominated as Coordinating Lead Authors, Lead Authors, Review Editors or Contributing Authors as included in lists maintained by the IPCC. Government Focal Points should be notified of the commencement of this process.

The first draft Reports should be sent to Government Focal Points, for information, along with a list of those to whom the Report has been sent for review in that country.

The Working Group/Task Force Bureau Co-Chairs should make available to reviewers on request during the review process specific material referenced in the document being reviewed, which is not available in the international published literature.

Expert reviewers should provide the comments to the appropriate Lead Authors through the relevant Working Group/Task Force Bureau Co-Chairs with a copy, if required, to their Government

Focal Point.

Coordinating Lead Authors, in consultation with the Review Editors and in coordination with the respective Working Group/Task Force Bureau Co-Chairs and the IPCC Secretariat, are encouraged to supplement the draft revision process by organi sing a wider meeting with principal Contributing Authors and expert reviewers, if time and funding permit, in order to pay special attention to particular points of assessment or areas of major differences.

4.3.4.2 Second Review (by Governments and Experts)

A revised draft should be distributed by the appropriate Working Group/Task Force Bureau Cochairs or through the IPCC Secretariat to governments through the designated Government Focal Points, and to all the Coordinating Lead Authors, Lead Authors and Contributing Authors and Expert Reviewers. The Working Group/Task Force Bureaux shall seek the participation of reviewers encompassing the range of scientific, technical and socio-economic views, expertise, and geographical representation and shall actively undertake to promote and invite as wide a group of experts as possible. This includes experts nominated as Coordinating Lead Authors, Lead Authors, Review Editors or Contributing Authors as included in lists maintained by the IPCC. Government Focal Points should be notified of the commencement of this process.

Governments should send one integrated set of comments for each Report to the appropriate Working Group/Task Force Bureau Co-chairs through their Government Focal Points.

Non-government reviewers should send their further comments to the appropriate Working Group/Task Force Bureau Co-Chairs with a copy to their appropriate Government Focal Point.

4.3.5 Preparation of Final Draft Report

Preparation of a final draft Report taking into account government and expert comments for submission to a Session of a Working Group or, in case of a report prepared by the Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, to the Panel for acceptance should be undertaken by Coordinating Lead Authors and Lead Authors in consultation with the Review Editors. If necessary,

78 and timing and funding permitting, a wider meeting with principal Contributing Authors and expert and government reviewers is encouraged in order to pay special attention to particular points of assessment or areas of major differences. It is important that Reports describe different (possibly controversial) scientific, technical, and socio-economic views on a subject, particularly if they are relevant to the policy debate. The final draft should credit all Coordinating Lead Authors, Lead Authors, Contributing Authors, reviewers and Review Editors by name and affiliation (at the end of the Report).

4.4 Preparation, Approval and Acceptance of Summaries for Policymakers and Adoption of Overview Chapters of Methodology Reports Related to National Greenhouse Gas

Inventories

Summary sections of Reports approved by the Working Groups and accepted by the Panel will principally be the Summaries for Policymakers, prepared by the respective Working Groups of their full scientific, technical and socio-economic A ssessments, and Summaries for Policymakers of Special Reports prepared by the Working Gr oups. The Summaries for Policymakers should be subject to simultaneous review by both experts and governments, a government round of written comments of the revised draft before the approval Session and to a final line by line approval by a Session of the Working Group.

Responsibility for preparing first drafts and revised drafts of Summaries for Policymakers, lies with the respective Working Group Co-Chairs. The Summaries for Policymakers should be prepared concurrently with the preparation of the main Reports.

The first review of the Summaries for Policymakers will take place during the same time period as the Expert Government Review of the Second Order Draft of the full report. The final draft of the Summaries for Policymakers prepared by the respec tive Working Groups and Overview Chapters of Methodology Report related to National Greenhouse Gas Inventories will be circulated for a final government round of written comments in preparation of the Session of the Working Group(s) that approves it or Session of the Panel that adopts it.

Approval of the Summary for Policymakers at the Se ssion of the Working Group, signifies that it is consistent with the factual material contained in the full scientific, technical and socio-economic Assessment or Special Report accepted by the Working Group. Coordinating Lead Authors should be consulted in order to ensure that the Summary for Policymakers is fully consistent with the findings in the main report. These Summaries for Policymakers should be formally and prominently

described as:

"A Report of (Working Group X of) the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."

For a Summary for Policymakers approved by a Working Group to be endorsed as an IPCC Report, it must be accepted at a Session of the Panel. Because the Working Group approval process is open to all governments, Working Group approval of a Summary for Policymakers means that the Panel cannot change it. However, it is necessary for the Panel to review the Report at a Session, note any substantial disagreements, (in accordance with Principle 10 of the Principles Governing IPCC Work) and formally accept it.

Overview Chapters of Methodology Reports relat ed to National Greenhouse Gas Inventories will be adopted section by section by the Panel. The Overvi ew Chapters should be subject to simultaneous review by both experts and governments. Responsibility for preparing first drafts and revised drafts lies with the respective Task Force Bureau Co-Chairs. The Overview Chapters should be prepared concurrently with the preparation of the main Reports.

4.5 Acceptance of Reports

Reports presented for acceptance at Sessions of the Working Groups, or in case of reports prepared by the Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories reports presented for acceptance by the Panel, are the full scientific, technical and socio-economic Assessment Reportsof the Working Groups, Special Reports and Methodology Reports, that is, the IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories or the IPCC Technical Guidelines for Assessing Climate Change Impacts and Adaptations. The subject matter of these Reports shall conform to the terms of reference of the relevant Working Groups, or the Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories and to the work plan approved by the Panel.

Reports to be accepted by the Working Groups, and reports prepared by the Task Force on

National Greenhouse Gas Inventories will under go expert and government/expert reviews. The purpose of these reviews is to ensure that the Reports present a comprehensive, objective, and balanced view of the areas they cover. While the large volume and technical detail of this material places practical limitations upon the extent to which changes to these Reports will normally be made at Sessions of Working Groups or the Panel, "acceptance" signifies the view of the Working Group or the Panel that this purpose has been achieved. The content of the authored chapters is the responsibility of the Lead Authors, subject to Working Group or Panel acceptance. Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter. These changes shall be identified by the Lead Authors in writing and made available to the Panel at the time it is asked to accept the Summary for Policymakers, in case of reports prepared by the Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories by the end of the Session of the Panel which adopts/accepts the report.

Reports accepted by Working Groups, or prepared by the Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories should be formally and prominently de scribed on the front and other introductory covers

as:

"A report accepted by Working Group X of the IPCC (or, a report prepared by the Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories of the IPCC and accepted by the Panel) but not approved in detail."

4.6 Reports Approved and Adopted by the Panel

Reports approved and adopted by the Panel will be the Synthesis Report of the Assessment Reports and other Reports as decided by the Panel whereby Section 4.4 applies mutatis mutandis

.

4.6.1 The Synthesis Report

The Synthesis Report will synthesise and integrate materials contained within the Assessment Reports and Special Reports and should be written in a non-technical style suitable for policymakers and address a broad range of policy-relevant but policy-neutral questions approved by the Panel. The Synthesis Report is composed of two sections as follows: (a) a Summary for Policymakers and (b) a longer report. The IPCC Chair will lead a writing team whose composition is agreed by the Bureau after nominations by the IPCC Chair in consultation with the Working Group Co-Chairs. In selecting the writing team for the Synthesis report, consideration should be given to the following criteria: scientific, technical and socio-economic expertise, including the range of views; geographical representation; a mixture of experts with and without previous experience in IPCC; gender balance. The IPCC Chair will report to the Panel on the selection process including a description of how the selection criteria for par ticipation and any other considerations have been applied. An approval and adoption procedure will allow Sessions of the Panel to approve the SPM line by line and to ensure that the SPM and the longer report of the Synthesis Report are consistent, and the Synthesis Report is consistent with the underlying Assessment Reports and Special Reports from which the information has been synthesised and integrated. This approach will take 5- 7 working days of a Session of the Panel.

Step 1: The longer report (30-50 pages) and the SPM (5-10 pages) of the Synthesis Report are prepared by the writing team.

910 Step 2: The longer report and the SPM of the Synthesis Report undergo simultaneous expert/government review.

Step 3: The longer report and the SPM of the Synthesis Report are then revised by Lead Authors,

with the assistance of the Review Editors.

Step 4: The revised drafts of the longer report and the SPM of the Synthesis Report are submitted to Governments, and observer organisations eight weeks before the Session of the Panel.

Step 5: The longer report and the SPM of the Synthesis Report are both tabled for discussion in the

Session of the Panel:

 The Session of the Panel will first prov isionally approve the SPM line by line.

 The Session of the Panel will review and adopt the longer report of the Synthesis Report, section by section, i.e. roughly one page or less at a time. The review and adoption process for the longer report of the Synthesis Report should be accomplished in the following manner:

- When changes in the longer report of the Synthesis Report are required either to conform it to the SPM or to ensure consistency with the underlying Assessment Reports, the Panel and authors will note where changes are required in the longer report of the Synthesis Report to ensure consistency in tone and content. The authors of the longer report of the Synthesis Report will then make changes in the longer report of the Synthesis Report. Those Bureau members w ho are not authors will act as Review

Editors to ensure that these documents are consistent and follow the directions of the

Session of the Panel.

- The longer report of the Synthesis Report is then brought back to the Session of the Panel for the review and adoption of the revised sections, section by section. If inconsistencies are still identified by the P anel, the longer report of the Synthesis Report is further refined by the Authors with the assistance of the Review Editors for review and adoption by the Panel. This process is conducte d section by section, not line by line.

 The final text of the longer report of t he Synthesis Report will be adopted and the SPM approved by the Session of the Panel.

The Report consisting of the longer report and the SP M of the Synthesis Report is an IPCC Report and should be formally and prominently described as:

"A Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."

4.7 Addressing Possible Errors in Assessments Reports, Synthesis Reports, Special Reports and Methodology Reports

The procedures to be followed for investigating possible errors in an Assessment Report, Synthesis Report, Special Report or Methodology Report and, if appropriate, implementing its correction are defined in the IPCC Protocol for Addressing Possible Errors in IPCC Assessment Reports, Synthesis Reports, Special Reports or Methodology Reports (see Annex 3).

5. TECHNICAL PAPERS

IPCC Technical Papers are prepared on topics for which an objective, international scientific/technical perspective is deemed essential. They:

a. are based on the material already in the IPCC Assessment Reports, Special Reports or Methodology Reports;b. are initiated: (i) in response to a formal request from the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) or its Subsidiary Bodies and agreed by the IPCC Bureau; or (ii) as decided by the Panel;

c. are prepared by a team of Lead Authors, including a Coordinating Lead Author, selected by the Working Group/Task Force Bureaux in accordance with the provisions of Sections 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 for the selection of Lead Authors and Coordinating Lead Authors;

d. are submitted in draft form for simultaneous expert and government review with circulation to expert reviewers and Government Focal Points in accordance with Section 4.3.4.1 at least four weeks before the comments are due;

e. are revised by the Lead Authors based upon the comments received in the paragraph above, and with assistance from at least two Review Editors per entire Technical Paper who are selected as per the procedures for selecting Review Editors for Assessment Reports, Synthesis Reports, Special Reports and Methodology Reports in Section 4.3.2 of this Appendix and carry out the roles as listed in Section 5 of Annex 1;

f. are submitted for final government review at least four weeks before the comments are due;

g. are finalised by the Lead Authors, in consultation with the IPCC Bureau which functions in the role of an Editorial Board, based on the comments received; and,

h. if necessary, as determined by the IPCC Bureau, would include in a footnote differing views, based on comments made during final government review, not otherwise adequately reflected in the paper.

The following Guidelines should be used in interpreting requirement (a) above: The scientific, technical and socio-economic information in Technical Papers must be derived from:

(a) The text of IPCC Assessment Reports and Special Reports and the portions of material in cited studies that were relied upon in these Reports.

(b) Relevant models with their assumptions, and scenarios based on socio-economic assumptions, as they were used to provide information in t hose IPCC Reports, as well as emission profiles for sensitivity studies, if the basis of their construction and use is fully explained in the Technical Paper.

The Technical Papers must reflect the balance and objectivity of those Reports and support and/or explain the conclusions contained in those Reports.

Information in the Technical Papers should be referenced as far as possible to the subsection of the relevant IPCC Reports and related material.

Such Technical Papers are then made available to the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties or its Subsidiary Bodies, in response to its request, and thereafter publicly. If initiated by the Panel, Technical Papers are made available publicly. In either case, IPCC Technical Papers prominently should state in the beginning:

"This is a Technical Paper of the Intergov ernmental Panel on Climate Change prepared in response to a request from (the Conference of the Parties to) / (a Subsidiary Body of) the

United Nations Framework Convention on Clim ate Change / (decision of the Panel). The material herein has undergone expert and government review but has not been considered by the Panel for formal acceptance or approval."

1112 6. IPCC SUPPORTING MATERIAL

Supporting material consists of three categories:

(i) published reports and proceedings from Workshops and Expert Meetings within the scope of the IPCC work programme that have IPCC recognition, (ii) material, including databases and software, commissioned by Working Groups, or by the Bureau of the Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories in support of the assessment or methodology development process which IPCC decides should have wide dissemination, and (iii) guidance material (guidance notes and guidance documents) that guides and assists in the preparation of comprehensive and scientifically sound IPCC Reports and Technical Papers.

Procedures for the recognition of Workshops and Expert Meetings are given in Sections 7.1 and 7.2. Arrangements for publication of supporting material should be agreed as part of the process of IPCC recognition or commissioned by Working Groups/the Task Force Bureau to prepare specific supporting material. All supporting material of categories (i) and (ii) should be formally and prominently described on the front and other introductory covers as:

"Supporting material prepared for consideration by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This supporting material has not been subject to formal IPCC review processes."

Guidance material (guidance notes and guidance documents) is material to guide and assist authors in the preparation of comprehensive and scientifically sound IPCC Reports and Technical Papers. Guidance notes and documents are usually the responsibility of Working Group Bureaux, the Task Force Bureau or IPCC Chair as appropriate, but may also be commissioned by the Panel, the IPCC Executive Committee or the IPCC Bureau. Guidance notes and documents are developed and finalised by the relevant Working Group Bureaux, the Task Force Bureau or the IPCC Chair. The Executive Committee will oversee the consistency of these materials. Guidance notes and documents should be accessible together with the IPCC Principles and Procedures and published.

7. WORKSHOPS AND EXPERT MEETINGS

7. 1 IPCC Workshops and Expert Meetings

IPCC Workshops and Expert Meetings are those that have been agreed upon in advance by an IPCC Working Group, or by the Panel as useful or necessary for the completion of the work plan of a Working Group, the Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories or a task of the IPCC. Only such activities may be designated as "I PCC" Workshops or Expert Meetings. Their funding should include full and complete provision for participation of experts from developing countries and

countries with economies in transition.

An IPCC Expert Meeting focuses on a specific topic bringing together a limited number of relevant experts. The relevant Working Group/Task Force Bureaux, or the IPCC Chair, will identify and select participants to Expert Meetings.

An IPCC Workshop considers cross-cutting or complex topics requiring input from a broad community of experts. It requires nominations by Government Focal Points and, as appropriate, observer organisations. The relevant Working Group/Task Force Bureaux, or the IPCC Chair, may also nominate experts and will select the participants to the Workshop.

Proposals for IPCC Workshops or Expert Meetings will be submitted to the Panel for its decision through the relevant Working Group/Task Force Bureaux, or the IPCC Chair. The proposals will include descriptions of the topic(s), and clarify the choice for an Expert Meeting or a Workshop.The composition of participants to Expert Meetings and Workshops shall aim to reflect: - The relevant range of scientific, technical and socio-economic views and expertise, - Geographical representation as appropriate, - A mixture of experts with and without previous experience in IPCC,

- Gender balance.

The relevant Working Group/Task Force Bureaux, or the IPCC Chair, may install a Scientific Steering Committee to assist in organizing these meetings, taking into account the criteria

mentioned above.

Government Focal Points should be notified of the list of invited participants to an Expert Meeting or Workshop at the earliest opportunity after the selection has taken place.

The relevant Working Group/Task Force Bureaux, or the IPCC Chair, will convene the Expert Meeting or Workshop and report to the IPCC Bureau and Panel on the selection process, including a description of how the selection criteria and any other considerations for participation have been applied.

The proceedings of IPCC Workshops and Expert Meetings should normally be published summarising the range of views presented at the meeting. Such proceedings should:

- include a full list of participants; - indicate when and by whom they were prepared; - indicate whether and by whom they were reviewed prior to publication; - acknowledge all sources of funding and other support; - indicate prominently at the beginning of the document that the activity was held pursuant to a decision of the relevant Working Group or the Panel but that such decision does not imply Working Group or Panel endorsement or approval of the proceedings or any recommendations

or conclusions contained therein.

7.2 Co-sponsored Workshops and Expert Meetings

IPCC co-sponsorship may be extended to other Workshops or Expert Meetings if the IPCC Chair, as well as the Co-Chairs of the relevant Working Group/Task Force Bureau determine in advance that the activity will be useful to the work of the IPCC. IPCC co-sponsorship of such an activity does not convey any obligation by the IPCC to provide financial or other support. In considering whether to extend IPCC co-sponsorship, the following factors should be taken into account:

- whether full funding for the activity will be available from sources other than the IPCC;- whether the activity will be open to government experts as well as experts from nongovernmental organisations participating in the work of the IPCC; - whether provision will be made for participa tion of experts from developing countries and countries with economies in transition; - whether the proceedings will be published and made available to the IPCC in a time frame relevant to its work; - whether the proceedings will: - include a full list of participants; - indicate when and by whom they were prepared; - indicate whether and by whom they were reviewed prior to publication; - specify all sources of funding and other support; - prominently display the following disclaimer at the beginning of the document:

"IPCC co-sponsorship does not imply IPCC endorsement or approval of these proceedings or any recommendations or conclusions contained herein. Neither the papers presented at the Workshop/Expert Meeti ng nor the report of its proceedings have been subjected to IPCC review."

1314 ANNEX 1

TASKS AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR LEAD AUTHORS, COORDINATING LEAD AUTHORS, CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS, EXPERT REVIEWERS AND REVIEW EDITORS OF IPCC

REPORTS AND GOVERNMENT FOCAL POINTS

1. LEAD AUTHORS

Function: To be responsible for the production of designated sections addressing items of the work programme on the basis of the best scientific, technical and socio-economic information

available.

Comment: Lead Authors will typically work as small groups which have responsibility for ensuring that the various components of their sections are brought together on time, are of uniformly high quality and conform to any overall standards of style set for the document as a whole.

The task of Lead Authors is a demanding one and in recognition of this the names of Lead Authors will appear prominently in the final Report. During the final stages of Report preparation, when the workload is often particularly heavy and when Lead Authors are heavily dependent upon each other to read and edit material, and to agree to changes promptly, it is essential that the work should be accorded the highest priority.

The essence of the Lead Authors’ task is synthesis of material drawn from available literature as defined in Section 4.2. Lead Authors, in conjunction with Review Editors, are also required to take account of expert and government review comments when revising text. Lead Authors may not necessarily write origi nal text themselves, but they must have the proven ability to develop text that is scientific ally, technically and socio-economically sound and that faithfully represents, to the extent that this is possible, contributions by a wide variety of experts. The ability to work to deadlines is also a necessary practical requirement. Lead Authors are required to record in the Report views which cannot be reconciled with a consensus view but which are nonetheless scientifically or technically valid.

Lead Authors may convene meetings with Contributing Authors, as appropriate, in the preparations of their sections or to discuss expert or government review comments and to suggest any Workshops or Expert Meetings in their relevant areas to the Working Group/Task Force Bureau Co-Chairs. The names of all Lead Authors will be acknowledged in the Reports.

2. COORDINATING LEAD AUTHORS

Function: To take overall responsibility for coordinating major sections of a Report.

Comment: Coordinating Lead Authors will be Lead Authors with the added responsibility of ensuring that major sections of the Report are completed to a high standard, are collated and delivered to the Working Group/Task Force Bureau Co-Chairs in a timely manner and conform to any overall standards of style set for the document.

Coordinating Lead Authors will play a leading role in ensuring that any crosscutting scientific or technical issues which may involve several sections of a Report are addressed in a complete and coherent manner and reflect the latest information available.The skills and resources required of Coordinating Lead Authors are those required of Lead Authors with the additional organisational skills needed to coordinate a section of a Report. The names of all Coordinating Lead Authors will be acknowledged in the Reports.

3. CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS

Function: To prepare technical information in the form of text, graphs or data for assimilation by the

Lead Authors into the draft section.

Comment: Input from a wide range of contributors is a key element in the success of IPCC assessments, and the names of all contributors will be acknowledged in the Reports. Contributions are sometimes solicited by Lead Authors but unprompted contributions are encouraged.

Contributions should be supported as far as possible with references from the peer reviewed and internationally available literature, and with copies of any unpublished material cited;

clear indications of how to access the latter should be included in the contributions. For material available in electronic format only, the location where such material may be

accessed should be cited.

Contributed material may be edited, merged and if necessary, amended, in the course of developing the overall draft text.

4. EXPERT REVIEWERS

Function: To comment on the accuracy and completeness of the scientific/technical/socio-economic

content and the overall scientific/technical/socio-economic balance of the drafts.

Comment: Expert reviewers will comment on the text according to their own knowledge and experience.

5. REVIEW EDITORS

Function: Review Editors will assist the Working Group/Ta sk Force Bureaux in identifying reviewers for the expert review process, ensure that a ll substantive expert and government review comments are afforded appropriate consideration, advise lead authors on how to handle contentious/controversial issues and ensure genuine controversies are reflected adequately in the text of the Report.

Comment: There will be two to four Review Editors per chapter (including their executive summaries) and per technical summary. In order to carry out these tasks, Review Editors will need to have a broad understanding of the wider scientific and technical issues being addressed. The workload will be particularly heavy during the final stages of the Report preparation. This includes attending those meetings where writing teams are considering the results of the two review rounds. Review Editors are not actively engaged in drafting Reports and cannot serve as reviewers of those chapters of which they are Authors. Review Editors can be members of a Working Group/Task Force Bureau or outside experts agreed by the Working Group/Task Force Bureau.

Although responsibility for the final text remains with the Lead Authors, Review Editors will need to ensure that where significant differences of opinion on scientific issues remain, such differences are described in an annex to the Report. Review Editors must submit a written report to the Working Group Sessions or the Panel and where appropriate, will be requested

1516 to attend Sessions of the Working Group and of the IPCC to communicate their findings from the review process and to assist in finalising the Summary for Policymakers, Overview Chapters of Methodology Reports and Synthesis Reports. The names of all Review Editors will be acknowledged in the Reports.

6. GOVERNMENT FOCAL POINTS

Function: To prepare and update the list of national experts as required to help implement the IPCC work programme, and to arrange the provision of integrated comments on the accuracy and completeness of the scientific and/or technical content and the overall scientific and/or

technical balance of the drafts.

Comment: Government review will typically be carried out within and between a number of Departments

and Ministries. For administrative convenienc e, each government and observer organisation should designate one Focal Point for all IPCC activities, provide full information on this Focal Point to the IPCC Secretariat and notify the Secretariat of any changes in this information. The Focal Point should liaise with the IPCC Secretariat regarding the logistics of the review process(es). The full exchange of information is of particular importance.ANNEX 2

PROCEDURE ON THE USE OF LITERATURE IN IPCC REPORTS

This annex is provided to ensure that the IPCC process for the use of literature is open and transparent. In the assessment process, emphasis is to be placed on the assurance of the quality of all cited literature. Priority should be given to peer-reviewed scientific, technical and socio-economic

literature if available.

It is recognized that other sources provide crucial information for IPCC Reports. These sources may include reports from governments, industry, and research institutions, international and other organizations, or conference proceedings. Use of this literature brings with it an extra responsibility for the author teams to ensure the quality and validity of cited sources and information 3 . In general, newspapers and magazines are not valid sources of scientific information. Blogs, social networking sites, and broadcast media are not acceptable sources of information for IPCC Reports. Personal communications of scientific results are also not acceptable sources.

The following additional procedures are specified:

1. Responsibilities of Coordinating, Lead and Contributing Authors The Coordinating Lead Authors will ensure that all sources are selected and used in accordance with the procedures in this Annex.

The author team is required to critically assess information they would like to include from any source. Each chapter team should review the quality and validity of each source before incorporating information into an IPCC Report. Authors who wish to include information that is not publicly or commercially available are required to send the full reference and a copy, preferably electronically, to the relevant Technical Support Unit. For any source written in a language other than English, an executive summary or abstract in English is required.

These procedures also apply to papers undergoing the publication process in peer-reviewed journals at the time of the government or expert review.

All sources will be integrated into the reference section of the IPCC Report.

2. Responsibilities of the Review Editors The Review Editors will support and provide guidance to the author team in ensuring the consistent application of the procedures in this Annex.

3. Responsibilities of the Working Group /Task Force Bureau Co-Chairs For sources that are not publicly or commercially available, the Working Group/Task Force Bureau Co-Chairs coordinating the Report will make these sources available to reviewers who request them during the review process.

4. Responsibilities of the IPCC Secretariat For sources that are not publicly or commercially available, the IPCC Secretariat will store these sources after publication of an IPCC report, in order to support the “IPCC Protocol for Addressing Possible Errors in IPCC Assessment Reports, Synthesis Reports, Special Reports or Methodology Reports”.

3 see IPCC-XXXII/INF.4, Notes on the Informal Task Group on Pr ocedures, containing gener al guidance on the use of literature in IPCC, page 7, section 2. http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session32/inf04_p32_r ev iew_ipcc_proc_proced_notes_informal_task_group.pdf

1718 ANNEX 3

IPCC PROTOCOL FOR ADDRESSING POSSIBLE ERRORS IN IPCC ASSESSMENT REPORTS, SYNTHESIS REPORTS, SPECIAL REPORTS AND METHODOLOGY REPORTS

Adopted by the Panel at the Thirty-Third Session (Abu Dhabi, 10-13 May 2011) and amended at the Thirty-Seventh Session (Batumi 14-18 October 2013)

Preamble

At its 32nd Session (October 2010), the IPCC Panel noted the proposed protocol for addressing errors in previous assessment reports (IPCC-XXXII/INF.8). The Panel tasked the IPCC Chairman, the IPCC Vice-Chairs, the Co-Chairs of Working Groups I, II and III and the Task Force on Inventories to take any necessary steps to ensure that this protocol is finalised and then used for evaluation of potential errors and developing errata as appropriate. The protocol is presented

below.

This protocol is intended to be used only to correct errors that could have been avoided in the

context of the information available at the time t he report was written. Its use should be reserved for errors of fact or accuracy. The protocol cannot be used to make changes that reflect new knowledge or scientific information that became available only after the literature cut-off date for the report in question. It cannot be used to propose the consideration of additional sources not cited in the existing assessment, unless directly relevant to an error of fact or accuracy. It must also not be invoked to reflect a difference in opinion compared with an author team or a new interpretation of knowledge or scientific information.

This protocol is intended to address the full r ange of possible errors from typographical errors through complicated issues of sourcing, interpretation, analysis, or assessment, arising from the previously mentioned errors of fact or accuracy.

Responsibility for implementing the error correction protocol rests with the current Co-Chairs of the relevant Working Group or Task Force product containing the alleged error. If the error is in a Synthesis Report, responsibility rests with the current IPCC Chairman. In all cases, the relevant Coordinating Lead Authors and Co-Chairs of the report containing the alleged error or, in the case of the Synthesis Report, the IPCC Chairman and relevant Working Group Co-Chairs at the time of that assessment, will be kept informed of the evaluation and participate as appropriate.

The protocol is presented as a decision tree, which is based on a set of underlying principles. The procedure to be followed for investigating the claimed error and, if appropriate, implementing its correction depends on the location of the claimed error, i.e., whether it resides in a Chapter or the Technical Summary of a Working Group Contribution to an Assessment Report or of a Special Report, or in a Methodology Report, in the Summary for Policymakers of a Working Group Contribution or of a Special Report, or in the Overview Chapter of a Methodology Report, or in a Synthesis Report.IPCC Protocol for Addressing Errors in IPCC Assessment Reports, Synthesis Reports, Special Reports or Methodology Reports

Principles underlying this protocol for handling errors:

1. This protocol is intended to be used only to correct errors that could have been avoided in the context of the information available at the time the report was written.

2. The IPCC Secretariat is the entry point for all error reporting.

3. The IPCC Secretariat maintains an internal error tracking system. Entries are made in consultation with the current Co-Chairs of the relevant Working Group (WG) or Task Force (TF) or in case of an error in a Synthesis Report in consultation with the current IPCC Chairman. This system informs the leadership of IPCC and the Technical Support Units (TSUs), via a protected website, about the current status of all active error handling

processes.

4. To the extent possible, corrections should be based on consensus, consistent with the IPCC principles that form the foundation for the underlying reports.

5. Responsibility for decisions at steps during the process is with the current WG or TF Bureau of the WG or TF product in which the alleged error resides. If the error is in a Synthesis Report, responsibility rests with the current IPCC Bureau.

6. Responsibility for implementation is with the current Co-Chairs of the WG or TF product in which the alleged error resides. If the error is in a Synthesis Report, responsibility rests with

the current IPCC Chairman.

7. Original authors (Coordinating Lead Authors (CLAs), and Lead Authors (LAs) if necessary) must be involved as appropriate. Communication with them is via the current Co-Chairs of the relevant WG or TF (the IPCC Chairman in the case of the Synthesis Report). If any of the individuals identified as playing leading roles on behalf of author teams of previous reports are not available, then the current Co-Chairs of the WG or TF (the IPCC Chairman in the case of the Synthesis Report) will identify an individual or individuals best qualified to

take over those roles.

8. For alleged errors regarding the previous asse ssment cycles, the previous Co-Chairs of the relevant WG or TF and the previous IPCC Chairman need to be kept informed and may be consulted as appropriate.

9. Handling of alleged errors must be coordinated across Chapters, Executive Summaries of Chapters, Technical Summaries of WG Contributions, Summaries for Policymakers for Working Groups, Synthesis Reports, Summarie s for Policymakers for Synthesis Reports, and Overview Chapters of Methodology Reports.

10. At the start of the process, the claimant is informed by the IPCC Secretariat about the next steps in a general way, and referred to this “IPCC Protocol for Addressing Possible Errors in IPCC Assessment Reports, Synthesis Reports, Special Reports or Methodology Reports”. The claimant will again be informed at the conclusion of the process.

11. Errata are posted on the IPCC and WG or TF websites after the conclusion of the process. A short explanatory statement about the error may also be posted.

1920 Section 1: If the alleged error is in a Working Group Contribution or Special Report (Chapter or Technical Summary) or in a Methodology Report, start here. Otherwise, go to Section 2.

For all alleged errors, it is essential to evaluate the possibility of consequences for the Summary for Policymakers of a WG Contribution to an Assessment Report, for the Summary for Policymakers of a Special Report, for the Overview Chapter of a Methodology Report , or for a Synthesis Report.

Note: This section describes the procedure that is followed to address errors in a Working Group Contribution or a Special Report (Chapter or Technical Summary) or in a Methodology Report

. Figure 1 provides an overview of the protocol for section 1.

Step 1 : An alleged error is reported to the IPCC Secretariat. If received elsewhere, it is passed to the IPCC Secretariat. A new entry is made in the internal error tracking system.

Step 2 : The IPCC Secretariat forwards the claim to the current Co-Chairs of the relevant WG (or TF). The IPCC Secretariat acknowledges receipt to the claimant, providing information about the next steps in a general way, and refers the claimant to the “IPCC Protocol for Addressing Possible Errors in IPCC Assessment Reports, Synthesis Reports, Special Reports or Methodology Reports”.

Step 3:

The current WG or TF Co-Chairs and relevant Bureau decide whether action on the claim is warranted. They may consult previous Co-Chairs or CLAs of the relevant chapter. The condition for further processing is that one or more of the relevant current WG or TF Co-Chairs and relevant

Bureau find that action is warranted.

If consensus is reached that action is not warrant ed, the IPCC Secretariat informs the claimant and

closes the case.

If no consensus is reached or if the consensus is reached that action is warranted, the current WG or TF Co-Chairs consult the CLAs (or LAs if necessary) of the chapter.

If the CLAs of the chapter with the alleged error agree that there is an error, continue with step 4A.

If the CLAs of the chapter with the alleged error do not agree that there is an error, continue with step 4B.

Step 4A : (for cases where the authors agree that there is an error) For typographical errors, decisions on and posting of errata are handled by the current Technical Support Unit of the relevant WG or TF under the supervision of its Co-Chairs. The CLAs of the relevant chapters and WG or TF Bureau are informed. The IPCC Secretariat is informed, posts the errata, and closes the case.

Otherwise, go to step 5A.

Step 5A : (for cases where the authors agree that there is an error) The current WG or TF Co-chairs and CLAs (and LAs if necessary) of the chapter with the alleged error evaluate the error and decide whether the correction requires expertise beyond the author

team.

If the author team has the appropriate expertise to construct an erratum, then one is constructed by

the CLAs and submitted to the current WG or TF Bureau for approval. Following approval, the Secretariat informs the claimant and the erratum is posted on the IPCC and WG or TF websites.

The case is then closed.If further expertise is required, then the relevant Co-Chairs and WG or TF Bureau appoint a Review Team containing, as a minimum, two experts who were not involved in drafting the chapter, plus at least one CLA or LA from the chapter with the error, and charges that Review Team with proposing, within two months’ time, an erratum statement. The Co-Chairs then submit this to the relevant WG or TF Bureau for approval. Following approval, the Secretariat informs the claimant and the erratum is posted on the IPCC and WG or TF websites. The case is then closed.

If the authors, Review Team, and WG or TF Bureau fail to reach consensus on an erratum statement, then the WG or TF Co-Chairs inform the Executive Committee of the disagreement, and they ask the IPCC Chairman to appoint, within two months, an Independent Review Committee. This committee should consist of at least three experts not involved in drafting the chapter with the alleged error and not involved as a Bureau Member, CLA, or LA on the assessment with the alleged error or the current assessment. The Independent Review Committee, after consultation with the authors, the Review Team, the Co-Chairs, and the WG or TF Bureau, is tasked to propose a revised erratum. If consensus is now reached with the authors, the Co-Chairs then submit this to the relevant WG or TF Bureau for approval. Following approval, the Secretariat informs the claimant, and the erratum is posted on the IPCC and WG or TF websites. The case is then closed.

If the current WG or TF Co-Chairs, the WG or TF Bureau and the relevant CLAs still cannot come to consensus, the current WG or TF Co-Chairs and the IPCC Chairman draft a “Contested Erratum” statement, signed by the IPCC Chairman. This is posted on the IPCC and WG or TF erratum websites. This statement reports the claimed e rror, and explains that issues have been raised but

these cannot be resolved before this matter is rea ssessed in the present or next cycle. The IPCC Chairman and relevant WG or TF Co-Chairs decide on a communications strategy if needed. The

case is then closed.

Step 4B : (for cases where the authors do not agree that there is an error)

The WG or TF Co-Chairs inform the Executive Co mmittee of the disagreement. The CLAs of the chapter with the alleged error provide the WG or TF Co-Chairs with a brief document explaining why the text in question does not contain an error. The WG or TF Co-Chairs then appoint, within two months, an Initial Review Group of two Bureau members and at least one CLA or LA from the current assessment if available, otherwise at leas t one expert who was not involved in drafting the chapter. The Initial Review Group is tasked to analyze the text in question and decide if they agree with the CLAs of the chapter with the alleged error. The response from the Initial Review Group is

due in two months.

If the Initial Review Group agrees that there was no error, then the WG or TF Co-Chairs inform the relevant CLAs and task them with preparing, with in two months, a brief document explaining why the text in question was in fact not an error. The current WG or TF Co-Chairs submit the document to the current WG or TF Bureau for approval. After approval by the WG or TF Bureau, the IPCC Secretariat informs the claimant, and the case is closed.

If the Initial Review Group finds there is an error, the WG or TF Bureau considers the report from the Initial Review Group, as well as from the authors, and aims to find consensus with the authors and the Initial Review Group on the development of an erratum.

If consensus is reached, the CLAs, in consultation with the Initial Review Group, develop an erratum statement, which is submitted to the WG or TF Bureau for approval. Following approval, the IPCC Secretariat informs the Executive Committee and the claimant, and the erratum is posted on the

IPCC and WG or TF websites. The case is then closed.

If consensus is not reached continue with step 5B.

Step 5B: (for cases where the authors do not agree that there is an error)

The WG or TF Co-Chairs inform the Executive Co mmittee of the disagreement, and they ask the current IPCC Chairman to appoint, within two months, an Independent Review Committee. This committee should consist of at least three experts not involved in drafting the chapter with the

2122 alleged error and not involved as a Bureau Member, CLA, or LA on the assessment with the alleged error or the current assessment. The Independent Review Committee is tasked to evaluate the alleged error.

If the Independent Review Committee agrees there is no error, they prepare, within two months, a brief document explaining why the text in question was in fact not an error. The current WG or TF

Co-Chairs submit the document to the current WG or TF Bureau for approval. After approval by the current WG or TF Bureau, the IPCC Secretariat informs the claimant, and the case is closed.

If the Independent Review Committee finds there is an error, they are tasked with providing, within two months, a proposed course of action. The WG or TF Bureau informs the relevant CLAs about the proposed action and, if agreement is found with them that there is an error and how to handle it, the authors develop an erratum statement, which is s ubmitted to the WG or TF Bureau for approval. Following approval, the IPCC Secretariat informs the Executive Committee and the claimant, and the erratum is posted on the IPCC and WG or TF websites. The case is then closed.

If the current WG or TF Co-Chairs, the WG or TF Bureau and the relevant CLAs still cannot come to consensus, the current WG or TF Co-Chairs and the IPCC Chairman draft a “Contested Erratum” statement, signed by the IPCC Chairman. This is posted on the IPCC and WG or TF erratum websites. This statement reports the claimed error, and explains that issues have been raised but

these cannot be resolved before this matter is r eassessed in the present or next cycle. The IPCC Chairman and relevant WG or TF Co-Chairs decide on a communications strategy if needed. The

case is then closed.

Note : before posting any erratum, the WG or TF Co-Chairs should evaluate possible consequences of the erratum for the Summary for Policymakers, Overview Chapter or Synthesis Report. If there are consequences, the relevant process in Sections 2 and/or 3 of this protocol needs to occur after the process in Section 1.Section 2:

If the alleged error is in the Summary for Policymakers of a Working Group Contribution or of a Special Report, or in the Overview Chapter of a Methodology Report, start here. If it is in a Synthesis Report, go to Section 3.

Note : For errors in the Summary for Policymakers or Overview Chapter that arise from an underlying Chapter or the Technical Summary of a WG Contribution or of a Special Report or in a Methodology Report , the error evaluation and correction process described in Section 1 of this protocol must be completed first to address the error in the underlying Chapter and/or Technical Summary or in a Methodology Report

.

Step 1 : An alleged error is reported to the IPCC Secretariat. If received elsewhere, it is passed to the IPCC Secretariat. A new entry is made in the internal error tracking system.

Step 2 : The IPCC Secretariat forwards the claim to the current Co-Chairs of the relevant WG or TF. The IPCC Secretariat acknowledges receipt to the claimant, providing information about the next steps in a general way, and refers the claimant to the “IPCC Protocol for Addressing Possible Errors in IPCC Assessment Reports, Synthesis Reports, Special Reports or Methodology Reports”.

Step 3:

The current WG or TF Co-Chairs and relevant Bureau decide whether action on the claim is warranted. They may consult previous Co-Chairs or CLAs of the relevant chapter. The condition for further processing is that one or more of the relevant current WG or TF Co-Chairs and relevant

Bureau find that action is warranted.

If consensus is reached that action is not warrant ed, the IPCC Secretariat informs the claimant and

closes the case.

If no consensus is reached or if the consensus is reached that action is warranted, the current WG or TF Co-Chairs consult the past WG or TF Co-Chairs who were authors of the Summary for Policymakers or Overview Chapter, as well as the CLAs of the relevant chapter of the underlying
report.

If the past WG or TF Co-Chairs and relevant CLAs agree that there is an error, continue with step

4A.

If the past WG or TF Co-Chairs and relevant CLAs do not agree that there is an error, continue with step 4B.

Step 4A : (for cases where the past WG or TF Co-Chairs and relevant CLAs agree that there is an error) For typographical errors, decisions on and posting of errata are handled by the current Technical Support Unit of the relevant WG or TF under the supervision of its Co-Chairs. The WG or TF Bureau and the past WG or TF Co-Chairs who were authors of the Summary for Policymakers or Overview Chapter are informed. The IPCC Secretariat is in formed. It then informs the Executive Committee, posts the errata, and closes the case.

Otherwise, go to step 5A.

Step 5A : (for cases where the past WG or TF Co-Chairs and relevant CLAs agree that there is an error) The current WG or TF Co-chairs and the past WG or TF Co-Chairs who were authors of the Summary for Policymakers or Overview Chapter with the alleged error, as well as the CLAs of the relevant chapter of the underlying report, evaluate the error.

2324 The past WG or TF Co-Chairs and relevant CLAs construct an erratum statement for the Summary for Policymakers or Overview Chapter and submit it to the current WG or TF Bureau for approval. Following WG or TF Bureau approval, the proposed erratum is submitted to the Panel for approval. To allow for rapid response, the Panel may delegate this approval step to the Executive Committee, which can decide that the erratum be posted on the IPCC and WG or TF websites and that the claimant be informed, or can decide to defer to the next session of the IPCC Bureau or of the Panel. Following approval, the Secretariat informs the claimant and the erratum is posted on the IPCC and

WG or TF websites. The case is then closed.

If the past WG or TF Co-Chairs and relevant CLAs fail to reach consensus on an erratum statement with the WG or TF Bureau, the Panel, or the Executive Committee, then the WG or TF Co-Chairs inform the Executive Committee of the disagree ment, and they ask the IPCC Chairman to appoint, within two months, an Independent Review Committee. This committee should consist of at least three experts not involved in drafting the Summar y for Policymakers or Overview Chapter with the alleged error and not involved as a Bureau Member, CLA, or LA on the assessment with the alleged error or the current assessment. The Independent Review Committee, after consultation with the past WG or TF Co-Chairs and relevant CLAs, the current WG or TF Co-Chairs, and the WG or TF Bureau, is tasked to propose a revised erratum. The current WG or TF Co-Chairs then submit this to the relevant WG or TF Bureau for approval. Following WG or TF Bureau approval, the proposed erratum statement is submitted to the Panel for approval. To allow for rapid response, the Panel may delegate this approval step to the Executive Committee, which can decide that the erratum be posted on the IPCC and WG or TF websites and that the claimant be informed, or can decide to defer to the next session of the IPCC Bureau or of the Panel. Following approval, the Secretariat informs the claimant, and the erratum is posted on the IPCC and WG or TF websites. The case is

then closed.

If the past WG or TF Co-Chairs and relevant CLAs, the current WG or TF Co-Chairs, the WG or TF Bureau, and the Panel or the Executive Committee st ill cannot come to consensus, the current WG or TF Co-Chairs and the IPCC Chairman draft a “Contested Erratum” statement, signed by the IPCC Chairman. This is posted on the IPCC and WG or TF erratum websites. This statement reports the claimed error, and explains that issues have been raised but these cannot be resolved before this matter is reassessed in the present or next cycle. The IPCC Chairman and relevant WG or TF Co-Chairs decide on a communications strategy if needed. The case is then closed.

Step 4B : (for cases where the past WG or TF Co-Chairs and relevant CLAs do not agree that there is an error) The current WG or TF Co-Chairs inform the Executive Committee of the disagreement. The past

WG or TF Co-Chairs who were authors of the Summa ry for Policymakers or Overview Chapter with the alleged error, as well as the CLAs of the relevant chapter of the underlying report, provide the current WG or TF Co-Chairs with a brief document explaining why the text in question does not contain an error. The current WG or TF Co-Chairs then appoint, within two months, an Initial Review Group of two Bureau members and at least one CLA or LA from the current assessment if available, otherwise at least one expert who was not involved in drafting the Summary for Policymakers or Overview Chapter with the alleged error or relevant chapter of the underlying report. The Initial Review Group is tasked to analyze the text in question and decide if they agree with the past WG or TF Co-Chairs and relevant CLAs. The response from the Initial Review Group

is due in two months.

If the Initial Review Group agrees that there was no error, then the current WG or TF Co-Chairs inform the past WG or TF Co-Chairs and relevant CLAs and task them with preparing, within two months, a brief document explaining why the text in question was in fact not an error. The current WG or TF Co-Chairs submit the document to the current WG or TF Bureau for approval. After approval by the WG or TF Bureau, the IPCC Secretariat informs the claimant, and the case is

closed.If the Initial Review Group finds there is an error, the WG or TF Bureau considers the report from the Initial Review Group, as well as from the authors, and aims to find consensus with the past WG or TF Co-Chairs and relevant CLAs and the Initial Review Group on the development of an erratum.

If consensus is reached, the current WG or TF Co-Chairs, in consultation with the Initial Review Group, develop an erratum statement, which is submitted to the WG or TF Bureau for approval. Following WG or TF Bureau approval, the proposed erratum statement is submitted to the Panel for approval. To allow for rapid response, the Panel may delegate this approval step to the Executive Committee, which can decide that the erratum be posted on the IPCC and WG or TF websites and that the claimant be informed, or can decide to defer to the next session of the IPCC Bureau or of the Panel. Following approval, the IPCC Secretariat informs the claimant and the erratum is posted

on the IPCC and WG or TF websites. The case is then closed.

If consensus is not reached continue with step 5B.

Step 5B: (for cases where the past WG or TF Co-Chairs and relevant CLAs do not agree that there is an error) The current WG or TF Co-Chairs inform the Executive Committee of the disagreement, and they ask the current IPCC Chairman to appoint, within two months, an Independent Review Committee. This committee should consist of at least three experts not involved in drafting the Summary for Policymakers or Overview Chapter with the al leged error and not involved as a Bureau Member, CLA, or LA on the assessment with the alleged error or the current assessment. The Independent Review Committee is tasked to evaluate the alleged error.

If the Independent Review Committee agrees there is no error, they prepare, within two months, a brief document explaining why the text in question was in fact not an error. The current WG or TF Co-Chairs submit the document to the current WG or TF Bureau for approval. After approval by the current WG or TF Bureau, the IPCC Secretariat informs the claimant, and the case is closed.

If the Independent Review Committee finds there is an error, they are tasked with providing, withintwo months, a proposed course of action. The WG or TF Bureau informs the past WG or TF CoChairs and relevant CLAs about the proposed action and, if agreement is found with them that there is an error and how to handle it, the past WG or TF Co-Chairs and relevant CLAs develop an erratum statement, which is submitted to the WG or TF Bureau for approval. Following WG or TF Bureau approval, the proposed erratum statement is submitted to the Panel for approval. To allow for rapid response, the Panel may delegate this approval step to the Executive Committee, which can decide that the erratum be posted on the IPCC and WG or TF websites and that the claimant be informed, or can decide to defer to the next session of the IPCC Bureau or of the Panel. Following approval, the IPCC Secretariat informs the claimant and the erratum is posted on the

IPCC and WG or TF websites. The case is then closed.

If the current WG or TF Co-Chairs, the WG or TF Bureau and the past WG or TF Co-Chairs and relevant CLAs still cannot come to consensus, the current WG or TF Co-Chairs and the IPCC Chairman draft a “Contested Erratum” statement, si gned by the IPCC Chairman. This is posted on the IPCC and WG or TF erratum websites. This statement reports the claimed error, and explains

that issues have been raised but these cannot be resolved before this matter is reassessed in the present or next cycle. The IPCC Chairman and relevant WG or TF Co-Chairs decide on a communications strategy if needed. The case is then closed.

2526 Section 3:

If the alleged error is in a Synthesis Report.

Note : For errors in the Synthesis Report that arise from an underlying Chapter or the Technical Summary or the Summary for Policymakers of a WG Contribution, the error evaluation and correction process described in Sections 1 and/or 2 of this protocol must be completed first to address the error in the underlying Chapter, Technical Summary and/or Summary for Policymakers.

Step 1 : An alleged error is reported to the IPCC Secretariat. If received elsewhere, it is passed to the IPCC Secretariat. A new entry is made in the internal error tracking system.

Step 2 : The IPCC Secretariat forwards the claim to the current IPCC Chairman, all WG Co-Chairs, and the

Executive Committee. The IPCC Secretariat ack nowledges receipt to the claimant, providing information about the next steps in a general way, and refers the claimant to the “IPCC Protocol for Addressing Possible Errors in IPCC Assessment Reports, Synthesis Reports, Special Reports or Methodology Reports”.

Step 3: The current IPCC Chairman, WG Co-Chairs, and IPCC Bureau decide whether action on the claim is warranted. They may consult previous Chairs, re levant WG Co-Chairs, or CLAs of the relevant chapter. The condition for further processing is that the current IPCC Chairman or one or more of

the relevant current WG Co-Chairs and Bureau find that action is warranted.

If consensus is reached that action is not warrant ed, the IPCC Secretariat informs the claimant and

closes the case.

If no consensus is reached or if the consensus is reached that action is warranted, the current IPCC

Chairman consults the Chairman and the relevant WG Co-Chairs of the assessment with the alleged error.

If the Chairman and the relevant WG Co-Chairs of the assessment with the alleged error agree that there is an error, continue with step 4A.

If the Chairman and the relevant WG Co-Chairs of the assessment with the alleged error do not agree that there is an error, continue with step 4B.

Step 4A : (for cases where the Chairman and the relevant WG Co-Chairs of the assessment with the alleged error agree that there is an error) For typographical errors, decisions on and posting of errata are handled by the current Technical Support Unit of the Synthesis Report or of the relevant WG under the supervision of the IPCC Chairman and WG Co-Chairs as appropriate. The past Chairman as leader of the writing team for the Synthesis Report is informed. The IPCC Secr etariat is informed, posts the errata, and closes

the case.

Otherwise, go to step 5A.

Step 5A : (for cases where the Chairman and the relevant WG Co-Chairs of the assessment with the alleged error agree that there is an error) The current IPCC Chairman and WG Co-chairs, in collaboration with the Chairman and the relevant WG Co-Chairs of the assessment with the alleged error, evaluate the error.

The past Chairman and relevant WG Co-Chairs of the assessment with the alleged error (with relevant CLAs if appropriate) construct an erratum statement for the Synthesis Report and submit it to the current IPCC Bureau for approval. Following IPCC Bureau approval, the proposed erratum issubmitted to the Panel for approval. To allow for rapid response, the Panel may delegate this approval step to the Executive Committee, which can decide that the erratum be posted on the

IPCC and WG or TF websites and that the claimant be informed, or can decide to defer to the next session of the IPCC Bureau or of the Panel. Following approval, the Secretariat informs the claimant and the erratum is posted on the IPCC website. The case is then closed.

If the past Chairman and relevant WG Co-Chairs of the assessment with the alleged error (with relevant CLAs if appropriate) fail to reach consensus on an erratum statement with the IPCC Bureau, the Panel, or the Executive Committee, then the current IPCC Chairman informs the Executive Committee of the disagreement, and appoints, within two months, an Independent

Review Committee. This committee should consist of at least three experts not involved in drafting the Synthesis Report with the alleged error and not involved as a Bureau Member, CLA, or LA on the assessment with the alleged error or the current assessment. The Independent Review Committee, after consultation with the past Chairman and relevant WG Co-Chairs of the assessment with the alleged error (with relevant CL As if appropriate), the current IPCC Chairman and WG Co-Chairs, and the IPCC Bureau, is tasked to propose a revised erratum. The current IPCC Chairman then submits this to the IPCC Bureau for approval. Following IPCC Bureau approval, the proposed erratum statement is submitted to the Panel for approval. To allow for rapid response, the Panel may delegate this approval step to the Executive Committee, which can decide that the erratum be posted on the IPCC and WG or TF websites and that the claimant be informed, or can decide to defer to the next session of the IPCC Bureau or of the Panel. Following approval, the Secretariat informs the claimant, and the erratum is posted on the IPCC website. The case is

then closed.

If the past Chairman and relevant WG Co-Chairs of the assessment with the alleged error (with relevant CLAs if appropriate), the current WG Co-Chairs, the IPCC Bureau, and the Panel or theExecutive Committee still cannot come to consensus, the IPCC Chairman and the relevant WG CoChairs draft a “Contested Erratum” statement, signed by the IPCC Chairman. This is posted on the IPCC and WG erratum websites. This statement reports the claimed error, and explains that issues have been raised but these cannot be resolved before this matter is reassessed in the present or next cycle. The current IPCC Chairman and WG Co-C hairs decide on a communications strategy if

needed. The case is then closed.

Step 4B : (for cases where the Chairman and the relevant WG Co-Chairs of the assessment with the alleged error do not agree that there is an error) The current IPCC Chairman informs the Executive Committee of the disagreement. The past

Chairman and relevant WG Co-Chairs of the assessment with the alleged error (with relevant CLAs if appropriate) provide the current IPCC Chairman with a brief document explaining why the text in question does not contain an error. The current IPCC Chairman then appoints, within two months, an Initial Review Group of two Bureau members and at least one CLA or LA from the current assessment if available, otherwise at least one expert who was not involved in drafting the Synthesis Report with the alleged error or relevant chapter of an underlying WG report. The Initial Review Group is tasked to analyze the text in question and decide if they agree with the past Chairman, relevant WG Co-Chairs, and relevant CLAs . The response from the Initial Review Group

is due in two months.

If the Initial Review Group agrees that there was no error, then the current IPCC Chairman informs the past Chairman and relevant WG Co-Chairs of the assessment with the alleged error (with relevant CLAs if appropriate) and tasks them with preparing, within two months, a brief document explaining why the text in question was in fact not an error. The current IPCC Chairman submits the document to the current IPCC Bureau for approval. After approval by the IPCC Bureau, the IPCC Secretariat informs the claimant, and the case is closed.

If the Initial Review Group finds there is an error, the IPCC Bureau considers the report from the Initial Review Group, as well as from the past Chairman, relevant WG Co-Chairs, and relevant CLAs, and aims to find consensus with the past C hairman, relevant WG Co-Chairs, relevant CLAs, and the Initial Review Group on the development of an erratum.

2728 If consensus is reached, the current IPCC Chairman, in consultation with the Initial Review Group, develops an erratum statement, which is submitted to the IPCC Bureau for approval. Following IPCC Bureau approval, the proposed erratum statement is submitted to the Panel for approval. To allow for rapid response, the Panel may delegate this approval step to the Executive Committee, which can decide that the erratum be posted on the IPCC and WG or TF websites and that the claimant be informed, or can decide to defer to the next session of the IPCC Bureau or of the Panel. Following approval, the IPCC Secretariat informs the claimant and the erratum is posted on the

IPCC website. The case is then closed.

If consensus is not reached continue with step 5B.

Step 5B: (for cases where the Chairman and the relevant WG Co-Chairs of the assessment with the alleged error do not agree that there is an error)

The current IPCC Chairman informs the Executiv e Committee of the disagreement, and appoints, within two months, an Independent Review Committee. This committee should consist of at least three experts not involved in drafting the Synthesis Report with the alleged error and not involved as a Bureau Member, CLA, or LA on the assessment with the alleged error or the current assessment. The Independent Review Committee is tasked to evaluate the alleged error.

If the Independent Review Committee agrees there is no error, they prepare, within two months, a brief document explaining why the text in question was in fact not an error. The current IPCC

Chairman submits the document to the current IP CC Bureau for approval. After approval by the IPCC Bureau, the IPCC Secretariat informs the claimant, and the case is closed.

If the Independent Review Committee finds there is an error, they are tasked with providing, within two months, a proposed course of action. The IPCC Bureau informs the past Chairman and relevant WG Co-Chairs of the assessment with the alleged error (and relevant CLAs if appropriate) about the proposed action and, if agreement is found with them that there is an error and how to handle it, the past Chairman, relevant WG Co-Chairs, and relevant CLAs develop an erratum statement, which is submitted to the IPCC Bureau for approval. Following IPCC Bureau approval, the proposed erratum statement is submitted to the Panel for approval. To allow for rapid response, the Panel may delegate this approval step to the Executive Committee, which can decide that the erratum be posted on the IPCC and WG or TF websites and that the claimant be informed, or can decide to defer to the next session of the IPCC Bureau or of the Panel. Following approval, the IPCC Secretariat informs the claimant and the erratum is posted on the IPCC website. The case is then

closed.

If the current IPCC Chairman, the IPCC Bureau, and the past Chairman, relevant WG Co-Chairs, and relevant CLAs still cannot come to consensus, the IPCC Chairman and the relevant Co-Chairs draft a “Contested Erratum” statement, signed by the IPCC Chairman. This is posted on the IPCC erratum website. This statement reports the claimed error, and explains that issues have been raised but these cannot be resolved before this matter is reassessed in the present or next cycle. The IPCC Chairman and WG Co-Chairs decide on a communications strategy if needed. The case

is then closed.No Y es

No Y es

S t ep 4A: T

ypo g r aphical

e r r or?

No Y es

WG or TF T SU d r a f

ts &

posts e r r a tum and S t ep 5A: D oes author

team have sucie n t expertise?

No Y es WG or TF Co-Chai r s appoint R eview T eam

Propose e r r a tum

Submit t o
WG or TF Bu r eau

C onsensus approval?

No

Y es

No Y es CL A s d r a f

t

e r r a tum

Submit t o
WG or TF Bu r eau

C onsensus

app r o v al?

No

Y es R evise

No Y es No Y es

Y

es

P ost e r r a tum and notify claima n t No Y es

C onsensus

on e r r or?

No

Y es S t ep 2: IP C C S ec r eta r i a t

ac k n o wledges and sends

t o r ele v a n t WG C o - chairs

CL A s a g r ee th a t

the r e is an e r r or? S t ep 3: C o - chairs & WG

Bu r eau - a c tion w a r r a n t ed?

S ec r eta r i a t in f o r ms
claima n t

S t ep 5B: WG or TF Co-Chairs inform IPCC ExCom; IPCC Chairman appoints Independent Review Committee

Is the r e an e r r or?

Notify claimant S t ep 4B: WG or TF C o - Chairs

in f

o r m IP C C ExCom & appoint

I nitial R eview G r oup

Is the r e an e r r or?

Propose revised erratum

Consensus app r o v al? CL A s d r a f

t e

r r a tum

Consensus approval? The blue blue box represents the domain where authors agree that there is something to address. The red box is the domain where the authors, at least initially, do not agree that an error is present. The gure is designed for a alleged error in the Chapters or Technical Summary of a WG contribution (Section 1 in the protocol) . The process for a Summary for Policymakers or the Synthesis report parallels that for a potential error in a WG report, but with the responsible parties adjusted to reect responsibility and expertise.

Submit t o
WG or TF Bu r eau

No R evise

WG or TF Co-Chairs a n d

Chairman draft “Contested Erratum”; post and notify claimant Post erratu m and notify claima n t WG or TF Co-Chairs a n d

Chairman draft “Contested Erratum”; post and

notify claimant WG or TF Co-Chairs inform IPCC ExCom; IPCC Chairman appoints Independent Review Committee

Submit t o WG or TF Bureau D r a f t explanation

Submit t o
WG or TF Bu r eau

Consens u s

approva l ?

Y

es R evise

No I ndepende n t R eview Committee to propose course of action

Consensus on e r r or?

Consensus on e r r or? I ndepende n t R eview Committee to propose revised erratum

Submit t o WG or TF Bureau Y es

No Step 1: Alleged error

reported to IPCC

Secretariat 

## Figure 1: Schematic representation of IPCC Protocol for Addressing Possible Errors in IPCC Assessment, Synthesis, Special, & Methodology Reports