WG III, under the leadership of Bert Metz of the Netherlands,3 actively sought out sector experts and industry specialists in the development of the report, and also held a series of “outreach” sessions with industry around the world to ensure that they had ample opportunity to contribute to the development of the final report. [...] Nor, of course, does the Panel work in a “vacuum.” It served as the credible, independent source of scientific information for the development of the UNFCCC and later the Kyoto Protocol.4 In particular, the role of the First and Second Assessment Reports, respectively, cannot be under- estimated in laying the groundwork and support for the Convention and the Protocol. [...] In this interaction between the IPCC and the UNFCCC, it must be kept in mind that many of the government reviewers of the Summaries for Policy Makers and the Synthesis Reports were also, in fact, negotiators at Rio and Kyoto. [...] One of the unintended impacts of this feature had been to further marginalize UNEP as an effective international champion for sustainable development—the very issue that has helped raise the environment to the top of the global agenda was the one issue that UNEP has had the least direct control in managing (at least at the international policy/management side). [...] Kyoto played a critical and necessary role in establishing a global value to car- bon and in sending positive investment signals, directly and indirectly, for clean energy invest- ments worldwide.5 By itself, this is a tremendous achievement, and in the view of the author, 3 WG III is the Working Group responsible for discussing the range of mitigation activities available to address climate chang