USGCRP
Home
 National
Assessment
Background
Organizational Meetings & Policies
Minutes of Organizational Meetings of the National
Assessment Synthesis Team
8-9 February 1998 |
| Search |
|
|
US
National Assessment |
 |
I. OverviewAn organizational meeting of the U.S. National Assessment Synthesis Team (NAST) took place February 8th from 4-7PM and February 9th from 8AM-5PM to introduce members and review the terms of reference for the group. The meeting was chaired by Dr. Jerry Melillo and Dr. Tony Janetos, the co-chairs of the NAST. The ten members of the NAST met as a group on the 8th and the morning of the 9th. The afternoon of the 9th, they were joined by fourteen members of the National Assessment Working Group (NAWG), which includes representatives of federal agencies involved in the assessment. On the morning of the 9th, the Science and Technology Advisor to the President, Dr. Jack Gibbons and the Acting Associate Director for Environment, Dr. Rosina Bierbaum joined the group and discussed their expectations for the assessment. Dr. Robert Corell, Dr. Michael MacCracken and Ms. Melissa Taylor were also present for the full meeting in their capacity as staff and leadership of the United States Global Change Research Program. Dr. Donald Wilhite from the University of Nebraska attended the meeting as an observer and potential NAST member. On the 9th, a representative from the National Science Foundation legal department provided a briefing on the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA); the next meeting of the Synthesis Team will be the first operating under FACA guidelines. II. AttendanceThe following invited members of the Synthesis Team attended the meeting:
The following participants in the United States Global Change Research Program and the National Assessment Working Group attended the meeting:
No members of the general public attended this organizational meeting. III. Terms of Reference for the Synthesis TeamThe Synthesis Team discussed the Terms of Reference, including audience, scope, specific responsibilities, and timing and format of the Synthesis Report. The following were some of the conclusions developed during this discussion:
IV. Climate ScenariosWith respect to climate scenarios, the Synthesis Team determined that it would be most useful to provide the teams with a suite of tools that are consistent, ranging from qualitative to quantitative products. Within this suite, they determined that there was a need for providing some General Circulation Model scenarios, but that it was vital that these were transient runs, and that we must use this assessment to move away from the focus on 2xCO2 (equilibrium) scenarios. The Synthesis Team ultimately decided upon three products:
The Synthesis Team concluded with the following action items:
V. Socioeconomic ScenariosIn addition to the climate scenarios, the Synthesis Team discussed the need to provide some socioeconomic scenarios to the regions and the sectors. The Team recognized the higher uncertainties involved with doing socioeconomic scenarios. There was interest in providing a framework to enable the sectoral teams to do sensitivity analyses, looking at parametric ranges within sectors. The Synthesis Team ultimately decided to attempt to develop a scheme that combined measures of broad system resilience/demand/activity (High/Low) with measures of aggregate economic activity (Weak/Robust). It was determined that the former applied to the sector and the latter to the region:
It was suggested that you ask the regions to select 2-3 sectors and then address the following question:
However, it was determined necessary to give some guidance about what these subjective terms meant, and to give guidance on "plausibility" since some combinations might not be feasible. The Synthesis Team concluded with the following action items:
VI. SectorsThe Synthesis Team began by discussing the criteria that might guide the selection of sectors, including high social multiplier effects, sectors where the ability to do an assessment is mature, areas that would be risky, most vulnerable systems, and areas with constituencies. After listing candidate sectors, the Synthesis Team developed a list which enabled integration of key issues and topics:
The Synthesis Team developed the following action items:
VII. RegionsThe primary input on the regional assessments was provided by the National Assessment Working Group, which has been catalyzing (and funding) the regional activities over the past year. The Synthesis Team agreed with the recommendation of the National Assessment Working Group to preserve the existing workshop regions for this first phase of the assessment (the next 23 months), to establish a Regional Council, and to aim for a competitive process over the longer term, beyond January 1, 2000. However, the Synthesis Team agreed that there should be an effort to work towards mechanisms (even at this stage) to encourage collaboration at a "mega-region" scale. It was suggested that the "product" from the regions for the Synthesis Team would hopefully be synthesisized analyses at the mega-regional scale, based on an integration of reports from all regions. The Synthesis Team recognized that the regional activities would be a principal source of material for the Synthesis Report; however, the interactions between the regions and the Synthesis Team could not be fleshed out until both the agencies and the regional leaders were able to further develop the strategy for how these activities and assessments would proceed. The Synthesis Team deferred to the agencies and regional leaders to further develop the strategy for the regions (based on their understanding that this was the strong interest of these groups to lead these efforts).
VIII. TemplatesThe Synthesis Team discussed templates for the assessments along with the National Assessment Working Group. Some of the conclusions of the discussions were that (a) there should be a focus on visuals; (b) maps should be used as much as possible; (c) do not over-generalize, but use stories and case studies; and (d) develop key indicators, not in scientific language, but in terms that people understand.
IX. OSTP ParticipationDr. John Gibbons (Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy) and Dr. Rosina Bierbaum (Acting Associate Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy) participated in the first hour of the second day of the meeting. Dr. Gibbons noted the importance of the regional workshops in entraining stakeholders, gathering regional information, and raising public awareness of the issue. He characterized the regional activities as the disaggregated looks at the nation and noted the need for the Synthesis Report as a national perspective for Congress. In addition to the questions that were listed in his letter to Dr. Corell, he added some additional questions dealing with levels of concentrations, rates of change, and international couplings:
In terms of audience, he suggested that the group look at Congress as the surrogate for the American people. He noted that the regional work will be a very important input for the national Synthesis Report. Dr. Bierbaum reiterated the importance of examining non-linearities, involving partners, and focusing on the education and communication aspects.She also stressed the importance of leaving adequate time for synthesis, integration, and the development of key visuals. IX. TimetableA draft timetable was developed for consideration by the Synthesis Team, from the present to January 2000:
|
|
