Table of Contents

Overview

Executive Summary

1. Introduction
2. Regional Breakout Groups: Day 1
   1. The East: Major Metropolitan Areas and Unique and Sensitive Ecosystems.
   2. The Great Plains: Sustaining Farmers and Ranchers under a Changing Climate.
   3. The Heartland: Compromised Water Quality and Quantity Affecting Ecological and Social Systems.
   4. The West: A Limited Water Supply for Multiple Uses and Users.
   5. The Northwest and Western Arctic: Shared Concerns Over Water and Fisheries.
   6. Coastal Regions and Islands: Highly Vulnerable Areas.
3. Sectoral Breakout Groups: Day 2
   1. Water Resources: Addressing Geographic Differences in Water Resource Issues.
   2. Food Availability: From Sustainability of Food Supply to Financial Vulnerability of Producers.
   3. Human Health: Looking Beyond Heat Stress to Complex "Indirect" Effects.
   4. Forests: Forest Products, Biogeochemical Cycling and Preservation of Habitats.
   5. Commerce, Industry and Trade: Improving the Flexibility of Business Partners to Accommodate Variability and Change.
   6. Cities and Communities: The Importance of Second- and Third-Order Impacts.
   7. Energy: Will Regulatory Actions be More Significant than Climate Change on Energy Systems?
4. The Synthesis Panel: Process and Technical Approach
5. Since the U.S. Climate Forum: Six Months Later

Who attended the U.S. Climate Forum?

In total, there were four-hundred and eighty-six participants at the Forum, representing all of the regions of the United States, and providing coverage of many sectors and industries. The list of participants included farmers, ranchers, business leaders, natural resource managers, and Native Americans, researchers, educators, elected officials, and representatives of non-governmental organizations and federal, state and local government. Many of these participants had organized or attended regional workshops, or planned to do so in 1998.

What was the goal of the U.S. Climate Forum?

The U.S. Climate Forum was an opportunity for people throughout the country to address how the U.S. National Assessment on the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change could be made most beneficial to their needs and how they could participate in the process.

What had already been decided before the U.S. Climate Forum?

An August 1997 meeting of regional workshop coordinators and others at the Aspen Global Change Institute developed the framework and philosophy for the assessment. The participants designed a strategy including sectors and a synthesis report. They also defined the philosophy for the assessment, concluding that it must be open, participatory, and responsive to the needs of the information users. In the context of this framework, participants at the U.S. Climate Forum were asked to identify their key questions and information needs.

What has been decided since the U.S. Climate Forum?

Since the U.S. Climate Forum, a Synthesis Team has been formed to provide intellectual leadership of the assessment, and to draft the synthesis report, which will draw from the regional and sectoral analyses. In April 1998, the Synthesis Team selected five sectors to receive special coverage in this first assessment: water, agriculture, forests, human health and coastal areas. It was also decided not to merge the twenty workshop regions into mega-regions for this first assessment. Each of the workshop regions will have an opportunity to participate in the analytical phase, pending funding support from agencies or other sources.

What was the format of the U.S. Climate Forum?

The majority of time was spent in small groups that focused on issues from a regional perspective (six groups the first day) and a sectoral perspective (eight groups the second day). In each case the focus was on identifying key issues, questions, information needs, and strategies for covering that region or sector in the assessment. There were also plenary sessions where national leaders presented invited talks and reported on breakout group conclusions. The Forum concluded with a Synthesis Panel to discuss approaches for the synthesis portion of the assessment.

What products resulted from the U.S. Climate Forum?

Each of the fourteen breakout groups produced (a) a three to five page summary of discussions and (b) a scoping paper providing an overview of key issues for the region or sector. These are available on the web site http://www.nacc.usgcrp.gov/.

How will the products of the U.S. Climate Forum be used?

In the case of those sectors that will be covered in this first phase of the assessment, the scoping papers will serve as initial work plans for the assessment teams, while the summaries will provide insights about information needs and possible methodologies. The transcript of the Synthesis Panel has been made available to the Synthesis Team. General recommendations and insights were used in the formulation of the National Assessment Plan and in the development of the assessment strategy.

1. Introduction

   What consequences does the United States face in the future from changes in climate? How sensitive is the nation to natural variations in climate? What are the current environmental stresses and issues for the United States that will form a backdrop for any additional impacts? What coping options exist that can build resilience to current environmental stresses, and lessen the impacts of climate change? In 1997, a National Assessment on the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change was initiated to address these questions for the United States and to help prepare our nation for facing future climate changes and disruptions.

   On November 12-13, 1997, four-hundred and eighty-six participants from around the country convened at the U.S. Department of Commerce in Washington, D.C. to take part in the U.S. Climate Forum on the Consequences of Global Change for the Nation in order to publicly launch the National Assessment. Participants included farmers, ranchers, business leaders, natural resource managers, Native Americans, researchers, educators, elected officials, and representatives of government and non-governmental organizations. They were asked to consider what questions they would like to see addressed, creative ways for synthesizing information, and how the assessment could achieve broad stakeholder participation. The U.S. Climate Forum was an opportunity for people throughout the country representing different regions and sectors to address how the assesment could be made most beneficial to their needs.

   The majority of time at the Forum was spent in breakout groups in which discussion focused on regions the first day (including The East, The Great Plains, The Heartland, The West, and The Northwest, Coastal Regions and Islands) and sectors the second day (including Food Availability, Water Availability, Forests, Ecosystem Goods and Services, Cities and Communities, Human Health, Energy and Commerce, Industry and Trade). A Synthesis Panel concluded the conference by discussing approaches for the national synthesis portion of the assessment, which will bring together regional and sectoral findings and address overarching questions.

   Before the Forum, preliminary steps had been taken to formulate plans for the National Assessment. Regional scoping workshops were initiated around the country as the first step in identifying issues to be addressed in the regional assessments; at the time of the Forum, eight of twenty planned workshops had taken place. A meeting at the Aspen Global Change Institute in August 1997 developed the proposed framework presented at the Forum by broadening the Assessment to include not only regional components, but also the sectoral components, and the broad synthesis.

   Overall, many participants at the Forum strongly encouraged the effort to start from local and regional perspectives through the involvement of stakeholders working within regional networks. In the words of one participant on the Synthesis Panel: ". . . the richness of the regional involvement is unlike any other domestic activity that I am aware of . . ." Participants emphasized the need for an open, transparent and focused process, with strong communication mechanisms.

2. Regional Breakout Groups: Day 1

   Regional breakout groups were charged with determining the highest priority questions for the assessment to address in each geographic context. The twenty "workshop regions" were merged into six "mega-regions" to allow for increased information sharing, and to examine whether such a consolidation was possible for the next steps in the assessment. Many groups also identified proposed approaches for these regions to follow in conducting the assessment.

   1. The East: Major Metropolitan Areas and Unique and Sensitive Ecosystems.

      This breakout group covered the eastern U.S., from New England to the Southeast. This included approximately five regions where workshops were held or planned: New England, the Mid-Atlantic, the Appalachians, the Metropolitan East Coast, and the inland Southeast. The group identified three priority regional vulnerabilities: existing cumulative stresses (population, pollution, urbanization, water and energy limits, and land use changes), unique and sensitive ecosystems (forests, wetlands, swamps, and marshes, and bays and deltas), and sensitivity to heat stress and other temperature-related health problems.

      The group identified gaps in understanding for different sectoral areas: water resources, forests and wildlife, agriculture and fisheries, and others. Water was identified as a critical issue: supply is increasingly inadequate due to high demand and competition among multiple users (e.g., navigation, flood control, waste assimilation, and ecosystem protection). The region also has unique forest types and associated wildlife that may have difficulties adapting to climate changes. Finally, the group discussed industries in the region vulnerable to changes in climate, including coal, energy, insurance, and real estate.

      In terms of conducting an assessment, the group stressed the importance of considering climate in the context of multiple stresses and suggested that the overall assessment use strong scenarios, with adequate information about precipitation. The group also called for an assessment that is relevant to people, and that adequately addresses the shorter-term prospects (next 50 years), while also giving an understanding of longer term risks.

       

   2. The Great Plains: Sustaining Farmers and Ranchers under a Changing Climate.

      This breakout group covered the northern, central and southern Great Plains of the United States including portions of 10 states (Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming, South Dakota, Nebraska, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas) and occupying the central third of the continental land mass of the United States. Current stresses include scarce water resources and competition between users (drinking water, irrigation of agricultural lands, wetlands wildlife conservation) which are projected to increase even without climate change.

      Climate warming may severely impact the wetland areas of the region, bringing about severe consequences to the migratory and local water fowl and wildlife populations. Climate change may also result in greater crop damages due to increased drought stress resulting from higher growing season temperatures. Ranchers in the region may not be able to support the current number of animals on the existing rangelands due to reduced dryland pasture production and lack of water resources for their animals.

      The people of the Great Plains want to be part of the decision making process, to contribute to the development of solutions and evaluations of the potential vulnerability of different sectors in the region. Many of the participants indicated that a better method of exchanging views will promote a greater awareness of critical issues and reduce the conflict over resource competition now and in the future.

       

   3. The Heartland: Compromised Water Quality and Quantity Affecting Ecological and Social Systems.

      This breakout group covered the upper Great Lakes and the Eastern Midwest, extending south to include the Ohio River Valley. The area is dominated by agricultural lands, and has fairly extensive natural grasslands, forests, and wetlands, including part of the prairie pothole region. Several metropolitan areas associated with major industrial activities are in this region. Agriculture, freshwater fisheries, iron and asbestos mining, and the major manufacturing industries, including the automobile companies in and around Detroit, largely drive the regional economy.

      In these areas, agricultural and industrial run-off are already compromising water quality. In recent years, climate variability has dramatically altered water quantity - particularly through major droughts and floods. Climate change may lead to changes in aquatic life, water quality and quantity, lake level and temperature shifts, affecting agriculture, ecosystems and regional air quality.

      Participants identified a need for better information on climate variability, more detailed regional mesoscale information, and long-term historical records to put current changes in the context of natural variability. Consistent monitoring of water temperature, water intake and terrestrial ecosystems was viewed as a high priority. Finally, participants focused on the need for better communications with not only policymakers, but with individual citizens as well.

       

   4. The West: A Limited Water Supply for Multiple Uses and Users.

      This breakout group covered California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and parts of Colorado, which is characterized by an arid climate. The region's economy is a mixture of ranching, dryland and irrigated agriculture, tourism, retail, manufacturing, services, entertainment, and high-technology industries. It also has the highest rate of population growth in the country.

      Water availability is among the top concerns in the region. Rapid population growth has greatly increased urban water demands and has strengthened impacts on other key resources including air quality. In many parts of the West, land use patterns and the growing population have stressed natural ecosystems and increased the number of threatened and endangered species which often inhabit riparian, wetland, and aquatic ecosystems. Future climate change is expected to bring more extreme hot days, fewer cold days, and a decrease in daily temperature range. This would result in decreased summer precipitation and an increase in winter precipitation and its intensity.

      Participants noted the need for better climate information and climate change scenarios from various user communities. In particular, this region needs scenarios that account for the mountain-basin topographies, and downscaled models that take into account the topography of the region and the annual monsoonal rainfall as well as seasonality of snowfall and melting. Research is also needed to improve our understanding of how climate variability and change interact with economic markets and insurance, and how climate changes in other regions of the country and world affect the agriculture, ranching, industry, energy and other resource sectors.

       

   5. The Northwest and Western Arctic: Shared Concerns Over Water and Fisheries.

      This breakout group covered the Western Arctic, stretching east to west from the Mackenzie to the Lena River, and the Pacific Northwest south to the Columbia River Basin watershed. This included the states of Alaska, Washington, Oregon and Idaho, as well as parts of the Yukon Territory and British Columbia in Canada, and parts of the Russian Arctic. The traditional economic base in the Pacific Northwest has been primary production of forest products and agriculture, but today is dominated by services and trade. The Western Arctic is critical to the national economy because it produces 20 percent of U.S. domestic petroleum consumption. Fisheries in the region are also part of the national economy.

      In the Pacific Northwest, regional growth and changing allocation priorities are stressing the Columbia Basin river system, which is shared by many users for multiple purposes. It has already been determined that there is not enough water for the current demands on the supply. Future changes to the hydrological cycle will affect all sectors and industries that depend upon a consistent supply of water, including coastal and estuarine ecosystems, aquatic ecosystems, agriculture, and energy, In the Western Arctic, observed changes in the climate over the last three decades are larger than in any other region of the United States.

      In the Pacific Northwest, there is a need for a better understanding of how climate change will affect extreme events, population growth and distribution to 2050 and how it will affect water demand and land use, as well as a comprehensive assessment of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem response to climate change. In the Western Arctic, data is needed on the natural variability of biological resources, as well as on future economic projections.

       

   6. Coastal Regions and Islands: Highly Vulnerable Areas.

      This breakout group covered the coastal regions and islands of the United States, including Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Pacific islands where agriculture, recreation and commercial fishing, and tourism are important components of the economy. Coastal regions are already burdened by extensive development and high rates of population influx which make them highly vulnerable to climate changes, such as coastal hazards, tropical storms, and coastal erosion.

      The group identified the highest priority concerns and information needs in terms of meteorological changes, environmental changes, and socio-economic and human dimensions. In particular, ecologists need information on episodic events, better regional-scale projections, and an extended record of past climate change in order to characterize natural variability. More information is needed on ecosystem response to long-term change and episodic events, on effects of the hydrological cycle on ecologically relevant processes, and on the interaction between other human-induced changes and climate change.

      Overall, the group recommended a broad, interdisciplinary initiative for understanding and assessing coastal vulnerability and impacts. In this context, the group recommended a cross-agency planning effort to support: (1) synthesis and integration of data; (2) in-depth assessments of impacts on a sub-regional/local basis; and (3) more effective communication of research findings. The group emphasized an approach that considers how response strategies can be structured to deal with multiple issues.

       

3. Sectoral Breakout Groups: Day 2

   Similar to the guidance provided for the regional breakout groups, on the second day, participants in eight sectoral breakout groups were asked to identify priority questions and information needs to be addressed in the assessment. Some breakout groups also commented on how specific sectors might be approached.

   1. Water Resources: Addressing Geographic Differences in Water Resource Issues.

      This breakout group focused on characteristics of water from both human and ecosystem use perspectives. This included the quantity of water available for withdrawal purposes from both surface-and ground-water systems, the chemical characteristics of those waters, and the hazards posed by hydrologic extremes (floods and droughts) both in terms of water quantity and quality.

      Water systems will be affected by any changes in precipitation. If precipitation increases, especially in the semi-arid and arid west, then many of the demands for water such as municipal supply, irrigation, hydropower, maintenance of flows for aquatic habitat, etc., will be easier to meet. If precipitation decreases, and/or changes its seasonal distribution, then it will become more difficult to meet these same water demands without implementation of adaptive management practices.

      Participants concluded that it is difficult to assess climate stresses at the national level, since there is significant regional context to water issues. For example, in some coastal areas, the primary water resource issue is salt water intrusion. Groundwater contamination, loss of riparian habitat and aquifer subsidence are of concern in interior areas where groundwater is the primary supply for human activities. It is important that the geographic differences in water resource issues, and the complexity of the overlapping institutional jurisdictions be recognized in the context of the National Assessment. The group recommended an assessment approach that uses a small number (3 or 4) of climate scenarios that span the range of plausible future climates for individual regions.

       

   2. Food Availability: From Sustainability of Food Supply to Financial Vulnerability of Producers.

      This breakout group focused on food production (agriculture and fisheries) through processing, delivery, and consumption. This included issues of socioeconomic importance such as affordability and accessibility of food and financial vulnerability of food producers and food producing regions. It also included how climate may affect agricultural production-environment interactions such as soil erosion, changes in wildlife habitat, livestock waste, and agricultural chemicals. In addition, it included economic competitiveness issues and other possible international issues such as the potential for increased likelihood of international transmissions of livestock disease vectors.

      The effects of climate change are likely to be beneficial in some areas and detrimental in others. More intense rain could worsen run-off and water quality problems. Warmer temperature will increase demand for water, perhaps while water supplies are reduced. However, U.S. diets and health probably will not be strongly affected by climate change. In some scenarios, U.S. agriculture gains a competitive advantage internationally while in other scenarios it loses.

      Participants identified key questions for the assessment: Is the food supply sustainable under future climate change scenarios? How do we integrate climate change impacts with other stresses? How will climate change and other stresses affect the availability of inputs? What is the role of government in assisting fishermen and farmers? How will infrastructure change with shifting centers of production and crops/species? and What are the different time scales for adaptation? Participants defined information needs in this sector in terms of thresholds, rates and distribution of change, and surprises.

       

   3. Human Health: Looking Beyond Heat Stress to Complex "Indirect" Effects.

      This breakout group focused on all direct and indirect effects of global change on human health, including the effects of air pollution coupled with heat stress, environmental and occupational exposures related to new technologies and changing patterns of use of old technologies, expanded ranges of infectious diseases, reduced biodiversity, changes in the food supply and the quality and quantity of water, and the effects of changes in weather extremes.

      Indirect effects of global warming on human health include redistribution of the food supply as crop and forest ranges change and animal reproductive performance adjusts, migration of human populations as regional climates respond to warming in various ways, increased range for temperature-sensitive pests from killer bees and fire ants through fungi (aflatoxins), weeds, and the mosquitoes that carry malaria, Dengue fever, yellow fever and encephalitic disease, to the pathogens like cholera, etc. Direct effects include heat stress coupled with increased air pollution and the effects of extreme weather events.

      Participants recognized the need to develop better markers for the biological effects of chronic low-level exposures; evaluate human health and ecological effects of substitutes for CFCs and alternative fuels like methanol; explore ways to preserve biodiversity that is usually lost in ecoshifts of global change; evaluate the human health effects of increasing air pollution accompanying climate changes; develop better prevention (e.g., vaccines) and treatments for infectious diseases; and find more effective yet safe vector/pest control agents. The group emphasized short and long-term coping strategies, and recognized the need for a strong health component in regional scenarios.

       

   4. Forests: The Primary Importance of Monitoring the State of Forest Ecosystems.

      This breakout group examined the forest land in the United States, public and private, and the associated uses, including coverage of the full spectrum of goods and services obtained from forest ecosystems: water quantity and quality, air quality, forest products, recreation, aesthetics, and other aspects of sustainable forest management.

      Climate change will have its greatest effect in impacting the ability of forests to maintain their vegetative composition, structure, and function. Forests will become increasingly susceptible to natural disturbances as well as to exotic disturbances. Forest species will migrate at different rates and it is likely that many will not be able to migrate fast enough or far enough to adjust to changing climates; this problem is particularly critical for many of the smaller organisms (e.g. soil fungi and invertebrates) essential to ecosystem function.

      The group concluded that substantial information is needed to understand the response of forest ecosystems to global change. Models are needed to provide predictive information at the regional level and for "extreme" events which are related to disturbances, such as drought periods, intense fire weather, and windstorms. Analyses are needed of how different forest types and species vary with regards to risks associated with global change effects (both direct and indirect, as through disturbance regimes). Spatially explicit information collected by remote sensing and analyzed using Geographic Information Systems is needed for these analyses. Continued comprehensive information on the state of forest ecosystems is the most important single information need.

       

   5. Commerce, Industry and Trade: Improving the Flexibility of Business Partners to Accommodate Variability and Change.

      This breakout group covered all activities relating to the economic activity of the nation, including the provision and flow of goods and services, patterns and levels of employment, patterns and levels of consumption, evolution of resource-intensive and knowledge-intensive sectors, trade, manufacturing, business, technology development, media and communications, finance and banking, construction, insurance, factories and office buildings, trade, laws and regulations, and other aspects governing the strength of the economy and economic activity.

      Impacts are anticipated on such sectors as transportation (river transport, shipping, dock facilities, winter surface transportation), insurance and banking (coastal facilities, fires), construction (working hours, coastal and levee construction), manufacturing and other industry (water costs due to reduced water availability, changes in demand for oil and electricity, etc.).

      Participants stressed the importance of industry participation in the assessment and suggested that the process be designed and conducted so that it helps industry partners identify and capitalize on opportunities to design trade and business practices which provide the flexibility required to accommodate climate variability and change. An example would be using new scientific insights on seasonal-to-interannual climate variability such as El Niño to build resilience to extremes and capitalize on market opportunities).

       

   6. Cities and Communities: The Importance of Second- and Third-Order Impacts.

      This breakout group focused on the vulnerability of U.S. cities and communities. Rather than the natural environment, it focused on the artificial built environments that are complex combinations of physical and social constructs. It considered direct effects on structures, as well as effects on quality of life and services, such as education, health care, sanitation, and security.

      These areas are unique in their vulnerability to second and third-order impacts, which are difficult to analyze. Second-order implications include changes in the cost and quality of domestic water supplies, changes in disease vectors and other health impacts (including heat stress), changes in air quality, and the possibility that certain segments of the population may be especially impaired. Third-order implications include shifts in regional comparative advantage which could affect jobs and incomes, impacts on consumers and local businesses of climate change abatement policies, and political and social tensions if and as impacts appear.

      Participants concluded that America's cities and communities are in many cases severely stressed by a host of economic, social, political, and environmental problems and that they are vulnerable to seriously disruptive impacts from climate change and variability. Better information is urgently needed to inform discussions of these issues in cities and communities, but the prospects for coping are considerable if good information is effectively communicated to a wide range of participating stakeholders. The group was bullish on coping, if effective information dissemination can be combined with a broadbased enfranchisement of the citizenry through participation in climate change assessments and policy discussions.

       

   7. Energy: Will Regulatory Actions be More Significant than Climate Change on Energy Systems?

      This breakout group considered energy supply systems (extraction through delivery and waste disposal) and energy using activities (primarily building space conditioning and transportation energy use) in the context of other changes in the energy system and society. It was recognized that electric utility systems are already facing business restructuring due to deregulation initiatives that may shift responsibilities for generation, transmission and distribution, shift economic incentives, and possibly shift technologies and fuels used for generation.

      Climate is likely to have its greatest direct effect on hydroelectric power generation to the extent that the quantity and seasonal timing of precipitation and runoff are altered. In addition, climate change potentially could alter demand for other uses of water resources that can compete with hydropower, thermal power generation and biomass energy production. Altered regional climates will affect regional potentials for renewable energy production and need to be understood to foster optimal long-term planning of solar, wind, hydroelectric and biomass energy production.

      The group concluded that the effects of the U.S. energy sector on climate are likely to be greater than the effects of climate change on the U.S. energy sector. The group generally agreed that the energy sector will continue to be affected by economic, regulatory and social factors that may or may not interact strongly with climate change. Some participants suggested that the current transformation of the electric utility industry to a price competitive market system may have a more significant effect than climate change.

4. The Synthesis Panel: Process and Technical Approach

   On the second day of the Forum, a seven member Synthesis Panel discussed creative ways for synthesizing information and for managing the process. The session was chaired by Rosina Bierbaum of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and included Walt Reid, World Resources Institute, Eric Barron, The Pennsylvania State University, Granger Morgan, Carnegie-Mellon University, Blair Henry, Northwest Council on Climate Change, Mike Rodemeyer, U.S. Congress House Science Committee, Molly Olsen, formerly President's Council on Sustainable Development, and Robert Friedman, the Heinz Center. The following captures their main findings:

   • It is essential to define and communicate the purpose and scope of this assessment. Participants stressed the need to define the audience for this assessment, the short and long-term goals, the institutional context, and the time-scales being addressed, and to communicate this information broadly - to the public and other potential users of the information.

   • Communication, education, and information transfer should receive primary consideration. Participants strongly recommended that outreach should not be treated as peripheral and handled "after the fact" but should be built into the process. Every member of the Synthesis Panel stressed the importance of education and communication mechanisms in the broad design of the assessment.

   • There must be strong involvement by the private sector. Participants noted the importance of engaging the private sector to help frame the issues, assess the consequences, develop solutions, and even assist in funding the endeavor. Participants also stressed the significant potential opportunities that might exist for the private sector.

   • There is too much on the table: it is not possible to answer every interesting question. Participants pointed out that there are some interesting research questions that are not possible to answer, or that are not critical to the audiences the assessment is addressing. There is a need to prioritize and focus this assessment effort.

   • Successful assessments look at the policy options from the beginning. As one participant pointed out, in looking at past assessments, the successful ones considered policy options from day one; the least successful assessments spent most of the time "getting the science and technology right and going off on what amounts to many unnecessary tangents".

   • The assessment should present options and emphasize opportunities. The Commerce, Industry and Trade breakout group captured the conclusion echoed by others: ". . . the assessment process could enhance our understanding of individual, corporate and government responsibilities and opportunities; and provide opportunities to evaluate and revise existing policies and regulations that increase vulnerability or hinder capabilities to respond to climate variability and change."

   • This assessment should become part of a long-term process. Many agreed that the value of this activity is not in the presentation of a product, but in the building of networks and partnerships.

   The Synthesis Panel also commented on the technical approach to the assessment:

   • Strong scenarios are crucial to this process. These should include extensive information on climatic and socioeconomic factors. Some suggested that the scientific community should "be brave" and present the scenarios as "the best science we have now"; others suggested that the analysis should employ plausible alternative futures and see how these play out at local and regional levels.

   • The assessment should identify the positive, as well as negative, impacts of climatic change. Overall, participants stressed the need for balance in order to achieve credibility, and "up-front" treatment of controversies.

   • The assessment should consider both natural variability and long-term climate changes. Several breakout group reports emphasized the interest in natural variability, and recommended that the assessment consider both near-term and longer-term effects.

   • The assessment should consider climate change in the context of current stresses. Participants endorsed the approach that considers climate change in the context of other stresses -- both social and environmental -- that affect the systems being examined. This is seen as a way to keep the assessment honest, by assuring that it look at relative risks; in some cases this may indicate that climate change consequences are dwarfed by other concerns.

   • The assessment should consider multiple stresses. In addition to placing climate change in the context of current stresses, participants emphasized that the assessment should consider the consequences associated with multiple stresses affecting a system: when you add different problems together, are the effects dampened or exacerbated? Where will there be non-linear effects and how will these play out?

   The Session Chair, Dr. Bierbaum, defined an assessment as "both the product and process" and pointed out that successful assessments do not begin by understanding all of the processes and impacts, then evaluating the policy options. Rather, successful assessments ask:

   • "What kind of policy decisions do you need or want to make?"
   • "What does society care about?"
   • "What guidance does science offer on each of these?"

   She concluded with the following guidelines, summarizing the presentations by Synthesis Panel members as well as her own experience in conducting assessments:

   1. Policy should be at the front end.
   2. Prioritization is essential. Not all issues and questions are equally relevant.
   3. Anticipate surprises and non-linearity which could "break the bank."
   4. Ongoing research cannot be relabeled and called an assessment.
   5. The partnership between stakeholders and government must be maintained in every way and at every step along the way.
   6. Education is an extraordinarily important aspect of the assessment.
   7. While the process is open, some structure is needed, both from the top down and the bottom up.
   8. The process needs to be transparent and include review by all of the relevant stakeholders.
   9. Consideration of transition costs which might be imposed on some sectors must be taken as well as consideration of affected constituencies.
   10. Timing is all, but that it is always going wrong, so one has to do the best that one can, leading to that an assessment ought to integrative, interpretive.
   11. The products of the assessment should be useful for planning, research and development agenda, and adaptation strategies.

5. Since the U.S. Climate Forum: Six Months Later

   The outcomes, discussions, and recommendations of the U.S. Climate Forum continue to have a significant impact in developing the assessment framework and approach. The following are key decisions and milestones that have taken place in the six months since the Forum took place:

   • USGCRP Mandated to Lead the Assessment

     In January 1998, the Science Advisor to the President, Dr. John Gibbons drafted a letter to the Chair of the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, Dr. Robert Corell, delegating responsibility for the coordination of the assessment to the United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). The National Assessment Working Group, composed of representatives of the federal sponsoring agencies, was mandated with linking the agencies with the regions and sectors on behalf of the USGCRP.

      

   • Synthesis Team Established for Intellectual Leadership

     In January 1998, Terms of Reference were prepared for a U.S. National Assessment Synthesis Team to provide intellectual leadership and to manage the overall synthesis of regional and sectoral information. A Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) Charter for the Synthesis Team was approved by Congress in March 1998. Dr. Jerry Melillo, The Ecosystems Center, Marine Biological Laboratory (Chair of the Climate Forum) and Dr. Anthony C. Janetos, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, were appointed as co-chairs. In April 1998 the preliminary members attended their first official meeting.

      

   • Five Sectors Selected

     The Synthesis Team selected five sectors for special treatment in this first phase of the assessment: Water, Agriculture, Forests, Coasts, and Human Health. Rather than attempting to be comprehensive, the Synthesis Team agreed that it was better to focus on a small number of sectors and to cover them well, and to aim to include additional sectors in the future. The regions will also be providing coverage of many additional sectors and issues.

      

   • Regions Maintained at Workshop Scale

     In February 1998, it was agreed that consolidation of the twenty workshop regions into a smaller number of regions was not feasible at this stage. This was partly based on the desire to maintain the momentum and networks created by the workshops. All regions where workshops took place or were planned were invited to participate in the analytical phase of the National Assessment, pending financial support from sponsoring agencies. It is anticipated that approximately two-thirds will conduct additional analysis, maintaining interaction with stakeholders throughout about information needs, progress, and results.

      

   • Scenario Frameworks Developed for Regions and Sectors

     In April 1998, the Synthesis Team drew up a strategy for using scenarios in the regional and sectoral assessments. This included both climate scenarios (including an historical climatology, general circulation model runs, and flexible "what if" scenarios), and socioeconomic scenarios (organized as a framework examining regions and sectors under different assumptions about the economy and environment). These are meant to assist with synthesis and to provide an explorative tool for the analysis teams.

   The First U.S. National Assessment is scheduled to be completed in January of the year 2000, consisting of regional volumes, sectoral volumes, and a Synthesis Report, which brings together key findings from the underlying materials and addressed overarching questions. This National Assessment process is attempting to be unique in its efforts to involve large networks throughout the country, to answer questions that are relevant to real people, and to scale from local to national levels and back. By devoting attention to the process followed, it is anticipated that both the journey and the result will be more meaningful, credible and informative to those seeking information about the nation's vulnerabilities and opportunities under a changing climate.