Summary, they are not. Subheadings in this section are confusing. Fewer bullets should be presented in the Executive Summary (ES), and each bullet should be a synthesis of the separate but related key findings from the chapters. The key findings also include a lot of repetition; for example key findings on global and polar ozone based on observations are provided under ES.3.2 and repeated under ES.3.4. The authoring team should consider focusing on key statements of the future only in ES.3.4.

The ordering of the key questions appears to be random. The Executive Summary should present the key questions in a logical order. For example, in Section ES.3.1 (beginning on SAP P. 6), the production bullet (L. 136-140) should come before the bullet on abundances (L. 123-135). In addition, the bullet on radiative forcing (L. 141-146) would seem to belong in Section ES.3.4 (beginning on SAP P. 9).

To fulfill its purpose, the Executive Summary should be restructured to accommodate its intended audiences. One restructuring option is to present each key question directly followed by an associated finding, as in the “Summary for Policymakers” in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/ Technology & Economic Assessment Panel (IPCC/TEAP) Special Report, Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System: Issues Related to Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons (IPCC/TEAP 2005). With this option, each finding is more closely linked with the key question it addresses, as recommended in Chapter 2 of this review for all SAP sections. Another restructuring option is to organize the Executive Summary in three parts to address three audience categories: (1) “Recent Major Findings and Current Scientific Understanding” to inform the international community and the public in general, (2) “Additional Scientific Evidence and Related Information” to inform scientists, and (3) “Implications for Policy Formulation” to inform decision-makers. An example of this option is the Executive Summary in the World Meteorological Organization’s (WMO) report, Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2006 (WMO 2007).

In addition to restructuring, the Executive Summary of the draft SAP would benefit from an improved presentation of background information. The authoring team should consider defining key terms related to stratospheric ozone, as presented in SAP Chapter 1, for example. The Executive Summary does not define technical terms, making it confusing for a non-technical audience to read. Some specific examples of such terms are listed in the “Specific Comments” section below. An example of text to omit from the Executive Summary is the discussion in the first few pages about the organization of the report and the context of the report. This text could be moved into the preface when it is eventually written for the final SAP.

Although the Executive Summary of the draft SAP is consistent with the findings of the SAP, it is not as effective as it could be. At a minimum, the Executive Summary should address the objectives and questions as presented in the SAP prospectus (specified in Sections 1.2 and 1.5 of the prospectus).

Specific Comments

  • P. 7, L. 136-138, “Total global production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) and substitute chemicals have declined substantially since the late



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement