Adaptation by linzhengnd


									      Towards Global Coordination of the Impacts, Adaptation and
          Vulnerability (IAV) Research Community: First Steps

This is a draft report compiled from the Workshop on Climate Change Impacts,
    Adaptation and Vulnerability (IAV) Community Coordination held on
               8-9 January 2009 at NCAR in Boulder, CO, USA

                          This workshop was sponsored by:

           The Institute for the Study of Society and the Environment (ISSE)

       The Analysis, Integration and Modeling of the Earth System (AIMES); and

               The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
1. Introduction
This brief report summarizes discussions and thoughts from participants at a recent workshop
on improving coordination in the climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability (IAV)
research community. The timing of the workshop (January 2009) coincided with ongoing
preparations for the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC). Its goals were two-fold: (1) to initiate discussions that would
contribute to an upcoming meeting in Amsterdam on „Lessons Learned from AR4: Moving
Adaptation and Mitigation Forward‟ and (2) to develop a straw man outline for the broader
community on approaches for contributing to improved coordination of IAV research and
enhanced communication with other IPCC Working Groups. Specific goals outlined in the
background paper to the Boulder workshop were:
         (a) To discuss appropriate strategies and avenues for communicating and
            coordinating research efforts within the IAV community and between IAV and
            climate modeling (CM) and integrated assessment modeling (IAM) groups.
         (b) To develop a small set of agreed potential questions and issues which distinguish
            the global strategic contribution of IAV research from that of other research
            communities, during and beyond the development of IPCC AR5.
         (c) To provide feedback to the CM and IAM scenarios groups on the most effective
            approaches for developing, interpreting and distributing socioeconomic scenarios
            and narrative story lines that meet the needs of both impact and adaptation
            assessments as well as regionally grounded assessments of the feasibility and
            effectiveness of mitigation options.

The primary intention of this document is to provide a proposal for coordinating and
structuring IAV activities internationally. The hope is that the discussions held in Boulder can
provide a springboard for further discussion, refinement and then implementation of a
coordination plan, with a view on strengthening the IAV research base and disseminating
IAV knowledge to the wider scientific community, to decision-makers and to the public at

2. Rationale
Over a period of many years, the impacts adaptation and vulnerability (IAV) community has
developed a diverse toolbox of empirical, experimental, theoretical and modeling approaches
for undertaking impact and vulnerability assessments, for investigating the processes of
adaptation and for addressing the full complexity of dimensions and scales of adaptation
actions. Typically, this richness is spread across a diversity of disciplines, institutions and
individuals, often emanating from small research centers or individual researchers, but
generally lacking overall coherence and structure. This has at least two implications: (1) it is
difficult to harmonize or compare assumptions, tools and research practices within and across
different groups, constraining effective communication and evaluation of results; (2) it is
difficult to deliver clear, consensus messages to the climate, development and integrated
assessment modeling communities, and similarly, for these groups to gain a clear channel of
communication with the IAV community.
Prior to the Boulder workshop, an email was distributed in late August, 2008 to more than 90
colleagues in the international IAV community, inviting participation in a process of self-
organization. About 40 responded positively with interest, thoughts, and some suggestions of
other persons to contact and other activities to link up with. Responses to the initial queries
that would provide both the links and possible foci for the IAV research community included:

  Connecting with the IPCC new scenarios process, including integrating climate change
   scenarios into a risk/vulnerability management perspective and influencing the design,
   delivery and interpretation of the scenarios

  Playing a leadership role in the development of the proposed new “library” of
   socioeconomic scenarios and story lines

  Strengthening the representation of adaptation research in IPCC and other climate
   change science arenas

  Increasing attention to relationships between adaptation and mitigation

Suggestions about how to move toward a coordinated structure for channeling information,
seeking community support, and representing our knowledge and interests included:
  Determining who among the IAV community would like to be involved in the new
   scenarios process

  Identifying which IAV researchers would like to use the new scenarios and what they
   would like to get from them

  Identifying who would like to be involved in the development of socioeconomic
   scenarios and story lines

  Identifying who would like to be involved in interactions with IPCC and other
   international organizations about climate change adaptation.

A network approach was proposed to develop structures for coordinating international IAV
research activities, with a view on developing an international research agenda and possible
new programs. This would require coordinated IAV research efforts embracing, for example,
basic research, model inter-comparison studies (e.g., IGBP/GAIM/GCTE), thresholds,
irreversibility, collection of new information and studies on observed impacts and
adaptations, provision of models, tools, data and scenarios, development of guidance for IAV
practitioners, workshops and conferences to exchange information and design new
collaborative research and organization of training courses. It was clear that a network
should be science/research based, should encompass basic and applied/synthetic research and
the humble acknowledgment that a single network may not serve all needs.

3. Overarching Themes and Organizational Nuclei for IAV
Participants were charged with identifying issues of highest importance for improving IAV
knowledge, what possible foci could be considered for IAV action and what the possible
linkages with other climate change science communities might be. Four questions that
encompass IAV research issues were suggested:
1. How much adaptation do we need between now and around 2030 in order to cope with
   „inevitable‟ climate change?
2. What are the likely climate impacts over the 21st century taking into account adaptation?
   What are the unavoidable impacts? What are the likely impacts from a range of
3. What are the processes, relationships and interactions in human and natural systems that
   result in vulnerability to climate change?
4. What are the interactions between mitigation and adaptation? Where are they mutually
   exclusive and where do they overlap or generate feedbacks?

Through discussion in break out groups it was possible to frame these questions in some
detail, explore implementation strategies, and identify required interactions with other
groups. From a structural perspective, workshop participants identified nine possible

organizational nuclei whereby the four themes could be addressed either independently, or
through integration. The proposed nuclei suggest that the structure for the community need
not form a single group but rather consist of a number of related groups that come together
under a single coordinated network to address proposed research themes in an integrative
fashion. The nine research areas, or organizational nuclei proposed were:
1. Impacts and adaptation assessment:
  Impacts of climate change in the past, present, and future (e.g. studies related to
   paleoclimate reconstruction, environmental history, empirical studies of extreme events
   and model-based estimates of future changes)
  Observations, experiments, and models (the need for harmonized multi-scale models and
   for the use of meta-analyses and meta-frameworks)
  Modeling and development of quantitative and qualitative tools for assessments (this
   also considers aggregation issues such as emergent properties and non-linear responses)

2. Investigation of risk uncertainty and decision making
3. Storyline and scenario development, their application, communication (within the
   community) and distribution at a range of scales.

4. Adaptation: past, present and future
    Adaptive management, measuring and monitoring
    Assessment of adaptation interventions
    Community based adaptation and sustainable livelihoods
    Limits to adaptation

5. Processes interacting with vulnerability
  Institutions and governance; decisions, decision-making and decision support
  Demographic processes: migration and mobility
  Political and economic processes (socio-political) determining development pathways
   (e.g., failed states, non-states, stumbling states)
  Inter-comparison of research findings from vulnerability assessments; what are the
   common frameworks and how can they be better harnessed to draw generalizations?

6. Costing and valuation: monetary, non-monetary and social
7. Observations and data systems
    Observations of changes and historical human/environmental interactions
    Detection and attribution of impacts from anthropogenic causes
    Need for observatory applications – historical, anthropological, etc.
    Need to work with people who collect and synthesize datasets not necessarily related to
     climate change, but integral to measuring impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability (foe
     example, human/environment interactions, institutional dimensions, socioeconomic and
     demographic indicators, species distributions, climate conditions)

8. Integration of impacts, adaptation and vulnerability

  Interactions with mitigation of climate change
  Regional integration

9. Extreme events, thresholds and key vulnerabilities

4. First Steps Towards Self-Organization

Workshop participants proposed several opportunities and goals for near-, mid- and longer-
term coordination and network development. Some opportunities for continued discussion
through upcoming meetings and workshops were identified but, as noted in the long-term
planning, the small group that convened in Boulder recognized that there is a much larger
IAV constituency that would need a voice. Specifically, workshop participants suggested
various opportunities for future IAV network development:

Near-Term Opportunities
Continue discussions and further develop ideas proposed in the Boulder workshop at several
upcoming meetings:

Workshops Specifically Targeting IAV Communities
  Amsterdam late January 2009
  Planned meeting in Brazil, late 2009, explicitly targeting developing country
Other Planned Meetings of Opportunity
  World Climate Conference 3 (WMO/WCRP Climate prediction and information for
    decision-making, Geneva, Switzerland: 31 August – 4 September 2009:
  IHDP Open Meeting: 26-30 April 2009, Bonn, Germany:
Near-term Action Items
  Continue to develop and expand network email list (perhaps set up a server?)
  This report as input to Amsterdam – towards a White Paper (Hibbard/Romero-Lankao,
  Boulder Workshop report for EOS Transactions (Palutikof to lead)

Proposed Mid-Term Activities
  Further develop and formalize an IAV network
  Circulate, revise and finalize White Paper from Boulder/Amsterdam meeting
  Begin inquiries to agencies for scoping and international IAV meetings
  Promote the exchange of ideas/opportunities for IAV
  Education and Training, specifically with regard for cross-WG tool utilities
  Outreach and Capacity Building: pursue links with START, IAI and APN
  Propose a session with IAM consortium to build bridges to IA and the new scenarios
  Enhance linkages among the IPCC Working Groups for the parallel process of scenario
    and storyline development

Proposed Long-Term Goals
This element of self-organization was left purposefully open-ended. Workshop participants
strongly recognized that the small group in Boulder was not sufficiently representative of the

community to make statements on long-term IAV goals. However, workshop participants
envisioned that by 2010 and beyond, an IAV science network, or system of networks, would
be undergoing a rapid phase of development, with a coherent suite of achievements and needs
emerging that could be highlighted through an international Open Meeting at a date to be
determined later.

Boulder Workshop Participants and their Affiliation (USA unless stated)

David Bader                 PCMDI/LLNL
Bethany Bradley             Princeton University
Lawrence Buja*              NCAR
Timothy Carter              Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE), Finland
Lisa Dilling                University of Colorado
David Dodman                International Institute for Environment and Development, UK
Kristie L. Ebi              ESS, LLC
Seita Emori                 National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan
Chris Field                 Carnegie Institute
Mary Hayden                 NCAR
Kathy Hibbard*              NCAR
Yasuaki Hijioka             National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan
Lori Hunter                 University of Colorado at Boulder
Roger Jones                 CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Australia
Marc Levy                   Center for International Earth Science Information Network
Shannon McNeeley            NCAR
Gerald Meehl                NCAR
Kathleen Miller             NCAR
Brian O'Neill               NCAR
Dennis Ojima                Heinz Center for Science, Economics and the Environment
Jean Palutikof       National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility, Australia
Roger Pulwarty              NOAA
Paty Romero-Lankao*         NCAR, US and Mexico
Cynthia Rosenzweig          NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Joel Smith                  Stratus Consulting
Pam Stephens                National Science Foundation
Kiyoshi Takahashi           National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan
Kathleen Tierney            University of Colorado
William R. Travis           University of Colorado
John Tribbia                NCAR
Jean-Pascal van Ypersele    Université catholique de Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
Rachel Warren               University of Cambridge, UK
Richard Warrick             University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia
Thomas Wilbanks*            Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Ilana Wainer                Universidade de Sao Paulo, Brazil
Olga Wilhelmi        NCAR

* Indicates co-organizer of workshop

To top