date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 10:08:08 EST
subject: IPCC chapter on Europe
to: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, Wolfgang.Cramer@pik-potsdam.de, firstname.lastname@example.org, A.Jordan@uea.ac.uk, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, tim.carteratXYZxyz.fi
To Dr Kundzewicz and all IPPC Chapter 13 authors, with copy to other authors
of the ACACIA report.
Re: IPCC Tar WGII draft report Chapter 13, EUROPE
Lead authors of IPCC WGII are meeting in Canberra over 7-11 December to
consider reviewers, comments on the draft chapter on Europe. I regret tat I
shall not be attending due to commitments elsewhere. However, Dr Kundzewicz
who will be present and I have consulted with him about the work to be done
in Canberra and we believe this to be readily achievable (particularly
considering the relatively strong state of the chapter).
I offer below some thoughts bout here we go from here.
FIRST, we have a quite strong chapter which we should now take the time to
stand back and look at with respect to the key messages we wish to convey. We
can start this process in Canberra and have two further months until the next
SECONDLY, revision is needed of the exec summary in order to encompass E.
Europe and Russia. The current bullet points are drawn from some careful
thinking by the ACACIA authors, but refer to the EU. Should they not say
something also about the adaptive capacity of Europe and the impact on it
relative to other (more negatively) regions?
THIRDLY, the section on previous work needs expanding, and we need to make
clear (in the exec summary and thru points in the text) what our new
conclusions are. I think this chapter represents a massive advance on the
previous IPCC regional summary, so we cannot list all the now points, but at
least can summarise the new conclusions.
FOURTH, the chapter has a north and western bias fist because the ACACIA
report is stronger on the north and his is reflected here. We must try to
balance this with more material on the Mediterranean area. Second, Zbysek
needs help to build on the remarkable input he has made with colleagues from
eastern Europe, especially by adding much more information on European Russia
FIFTH, scenarios. This requires plenary discussion, but I think the climate
scenarios should remain here though perhaps reduced. They are in fact the
IPCC rather than ACACIA scenarios since these are the same. Reviewers'
criticisms that the scenarios are not 'used' in the assessment are true for
all the TAR. The point is that readers will wish to know what climate change
may face Europe, and they should be able to read about it here. I am sending
separately a short file with text from Jordan and colleagues on the economic
and technical scenarios of Europe which I recommend should be a new 13.1.4.
SIXTH, at this stage I do not think we can add new authors (reviewers have
noted there are none from France and SE Europe)l but will you raise this
with the Secretariat to see if IPCC regulations would allow, and then
consider who might be appropriate.
SEVENTH, I agree that we should include more material from the US country
studies in E. Europe.
FINALLY, it seems that the specific comments from reviewers are minor but
useful, and should be incorporated where possible.
Perhaps authors could agree that any post-Canberra additions by authors
should be submitted to Zbysek and me latest end January. This would allow
one month for editing and a final turn around by e-mail.
Best wishes for a sucessful meeting, and my apologies for not being with you.