Communication, still not a priority for IPCC.
by Thierry Libaert

It is always difficult when one strongly believes in a particular subject to develop a critical stance as this may appear as a deconstructive posture.

This appears even truer as regards the issue of global warming. If I believe like 99% of scientists, not only, in the reality of climate change, but in its anthropogenic nature, in its estimated serious consequences and in the need to act now, I have to consider as very bad the draft communication strategy, that just has been published by the IPCC; a communication which certainly does not meet the current challenges.

An important event in this regard will take place in the coming days. The 34th session of the IPCC, to be held from Nov. 14th to 19th in Kampala, will offer an opportunity to discuss this communication strategy.

The fact that the strategy constitutes the 20th and last document submitted for discussion (IPCC XXXIV / Doc 20. Review of the IPCC Process and procedures. Communications strategy) already gives an idea of the importance given to communication by the IPCC management.

The document is available on the following Website:
http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session
34/doc20_p34_review_ipcc_proc_comm_strat.pdf 

One remembers that following last year’s Climategate controversy, the Interacademic Council (IAC) had urged the IPCC to develop a communications strategy. While some disparate fragments had already been issued several months ago (which can also be found on the IPCC website), the IPCC now takes another step.

Besides some remaining burdens, one can detect some consistency. I nevertheless remain very concerned with this document, which cannot easily be seen as “strategic”.

On a positive note: The IPCC makes a real statement on the current situation and on the dangers associated with an almost total lack of communication, which left the floor open to Climate skeptics. And the danger was even stronger considering that NGOs represent the IPCC’s natural allies. Climate skeptics could therefore easily step into the breach and denounce a potential conflict of interest between the IPCC’s work and environmental activism.

The present text points out the lack of responsiveness, the lack of openness to cultural expectations from various parts of the globe as well as the general organizational weakness. Let us here underscore that since beginning of 2011, no official head of communication has yet been appointed at IPCC, despite the call for applications published in January 2011.

My criticism is both general and particular:

On a more general note, the text puts the cart before the horse: a real communication strategy begins by examining the communication objectives, the messages, the vision, the ambition, the attitude, and the values. None of that is mentioned here. The paper goes directly to the proposals for the implementation of communications tools. The previous document on this subject ( http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session33/ipcc_p33
_decisions_taken_comm_strategy.pdf  ) certainly took on board some of these issues, but with the current document, one can witness a complete lack of strategic vision for the benefit of a purely instrumental approach.

Likewise, this document appears to be written from a purely "defensive" perspective as if the IPCC's communication should consist of a permanent crisis communication. Hence, if the IPCC wants precisely to get out of a situation of crisis communication, the first thing to do would be to proactively work on a strong reputation, to be keen on enhancing its current image, thus far from this pure reactive approach.

More specifically:

- I am somewhat skeptical about the urge to respond to the media within 48 hours. It should be important in Public Relations to distinguish between different kinds of requests and while a request for CNN should be treated in the next hour it does not matter if a local media has to wait until the following week. A bit of realism is sometimes necessary.

- Nothing on social networks. It is surprising to notice in what world the IPCC staff and its president are living when referring only to traditional media. Without mentioning the existence of blogs, forums, and the overall impact of social media

- There is nothing on the alliances’ strategy (the need to involve external allies) , which however represents one major key to a successful crisis communication.

- It is surprising to read that the communication structure should be based in London as almost all European institutions are currently based in Brussels.

- I consider as more than absurd the low ambition regarding the communication structure. The document calls for a decentralization. Yes, it surely is politically more acceptable, but if you want to build a strong and consistent image, it is best to first create a structure which allows a strong leadership and real coordination.

In short, with such a low threshold as regards communication objectives, climate skeptics still have good days ahead.

Thierry Libaert Professor in Public Relations. Institut d’Etudes Politiques. Paris.

Thierry Libaert
Professor in Public Relations. Institut d’Etudes Politiques. Paris

©  Tous droits réservés

Magazine de la communication de crise et sensible.
www.communication-sensible.com