# Presentation: 676321

## Human Contributions & Responses to Environmental Change

- Susanne C. Moser, Ph.D.
- Union of Concerned Scientists

**Notes:**
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Chapter 11 of this Strategic Research Plan. Since the Human Dimensions are – as we’ve heard in yesterday’s presentations – integral to and cross-cutting all the components of the plan, I will focus my comments on several overarching issues, on the integration and fit within the context and larger intent of the plan. 
It occurred to me that this review is much akin to the process of developing a photograph: you hold the negative up against the light and imagine the final picture you will get from the inverse of the light and dark contours – i.e., from what is there and from what is missing. Because, of course, we will get the answers to the questions we ask, and accidental discoveries at best about all the rest that we don’t ask.
So let me begin with the positives.
A lot of work went into preparing this draft and I want to acknowledge its authors, as well as all those who provided input and reviews into the earlier version of the USGCRP strategic research plan, a document that was ready for primetime just about when President Bush took office but then never got released.
I want to praise in particular the emphasis and intention apparent in this plan of pursuing the linkages among program elements, and the attempts to improve the management of these interactions between the research and assessment functions across the research branches of different federal agencies. In extension, I would like to encourage these agencies to be good role models for other decision-makers and information users by involving the resource management branches of these agencies early and often in the implementation of this plan.
Third, I would like to praise the emphasis – throughout the plan – on tangible products and payoffs from the research pursuits. In particular, I would encourage that this be done in Chapter 11 as much as in other chapters. (I will come back to this issue later).

## The Core and Breadth of the Research Agenda

- “The need for research on the ... “human dimensions” of global change ... _motivates research questions throughout this plan_.” (p.121)
- “... includes studies of potential technological, social, economic, and cultural _drivers of global change_, and how these and other aspects of human systems may affect _adaptation_ and the _consequences of change_ for society.” (p.121)

**Notes:**
4. Finally, in this chapter and throughout the plan, there is a strong recognition of the central role of human contributions and impacts of climate and global change. Each chapter recognizes human causation of global changes; each chapter points to the links among the program elements. This creates the impression of a well integrated plan – even if the linkages are not particularly well specified (but that may be forgiven for a strategic plan at this level of specificity). I expect they will be spelled out in greater detail in each of the detailed research implementation plans that will be developed later.
Of course, on each of these points – cross-agency interaction, linkages among program elements, and delivery of products – the proof will be in the pudding, and we look forward to seeing the implementation unfold accordingly.
The first signs of doubt appear, however, in how broad (or not) the Human Dimensions research agenda is cast in this chapter: POINT TO 2nd QUOTE – the foci of this research area are the drivers of change, the impacts, adaptation to these impacts (and the decision-making to support adaptation).
What is strangely absent as a core question is MITIGATION. – To be fair, some aspects of mitigation are touched upon in a few illustrative research questions here and elsewhere in the plan, but if this plan truly intends to provide useful information for the full range of policy- and decision-making options as it claims, then mitigation must rise to the level of a core question in this chapter.

## Basis of Research Agenda

*Global Environmental Change: Research Pathways for the Next Decade* (NRC, 1999)
*Under the Weather: Climate, Ecosystems and Infectious Disease* (NRC, 2001)
*Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions* (NRC, 2001)
- IPCC (2001) – WG II and III volumes???
- Sectoral, Regional and Synthesis Reports from the *First U.S. National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change* (1999-2001)???

**Notes:**
It’s illustrative to look at the basis on which this HD research agenda rests. The reason is, of course, that it might explain what is and is not included in this plan. The ones listed in the draft plan are obviously very important sources to draw upon, and they should be among the core documents. But the ones that are missing are just as informative.
It is entirely unexplained and inexcusable why this particular chapter misses any and all reference to the IPCC, especially Working Group 2’s contributions which focuses explicitly on impacts, vulnerability, adaptation and questions of resilience – the themes of this program element. That WG3 is not included is a logical cause or consequence of the neglect or denigration of mitigation questions to a below-core status. Of course, this has some serious consequences: 1) this chapter does not draw on the best available science to inform the research agenda for the next 10 years, raising the question how the research undertaken under this program element can usefully and adequately contribute to the many other research elements in this plan, e.g., on scenario development or land use/land cover change; 2) that it is impossible to assess then, what the US will really have to contribute to the advancing state of the science internationally.
What raises just as serious questions as the neglect of the most authoritative references on the subject matter of this chapter, is the total and complete disregard of the US’ own National Assessment. That comprehensive, and time-consuming effort is not mentioned ONCE in the entire document. What’s more is that much of the experience, insight, learning and valuable scientific progress made in it – not to speak of the immeasurable relationship building between scientists and stakeholders – is dismissed, undermined and disregarded. Of course, the NA did not provide the pan-ultimate answers to many questions. Most things in science, and certainly such complex ones as global change, aren’t answered once and for all. But they are being built upon, they are recognized, discussed, debated, and improved upon. An unknowing reader of this document would not even know that this process ever took place. But as one of the initiated ones, I find it a) regrettable – to put it mildly - that the self-less, voluntary effort of so many of this country’s best scientists and of thousands of stakeholders is not recognized in any way whatsoever. (cite Nature news article); b) it is bad science to not build on what we know; and as a result a waste of taxpayer money to reinvent the wheel and repeat inquiries as this strategic plan suggests it will do; c) what’s more, because these authoritative and valuable documents have not been solicited, is that the resulting research questions do not capture the cutting edge of HD research and thus what the most pressing research should be.

## Guiding Principles for CCSP

**Policy-relevant but not policy-driven**
- 	*“ ... **process of making policy and resource management decisions should remain entirely separate from the research function”* (p.39)
*	**“... **research must be independent of particular policy agendas in order to remain free of bias”* (p.44)

**Notes:**
Moving beyond these serious limitations, it seems fair to assess whether the plan as currently drafted holds up against its own goals. What I’m referring to here are the research plan’s three guiding principles. The first of which calls for a policy-relevant but not policy-driven research agenda. I pulled out several quotes from the text, which underline that goal. POINT TO QUOTES.
There are several ways in which this plan can be read as asking science to provide post-hoc justification for policy choices already made (details on this will be provided in the detailed written comments). Here, I will focus on only one of the ways in which this research agenda seems to be policy-driven. It is particularly apparent in Chapter 11.
I have already mentioned the overall much stronger emphasis on adaptation than on mitigation given the scope of the chapter and throughout the plan. What is striking though is how – when mitigation issues are considered at all – those options are always examined against their impacts on the economy, in particular, the costs of different mitigation options, and on national security, while there is NOT ONCE a question in this entire plan about the cost of adaptation. So, of course, the answer we must expect from this research agenda is that mitigation will cost something while adaptation is free. Given what we already know about the policy inclinations of this Administration, it is not rocket-science to conclude that the information resulting from this HD research will be, yes, policy-relevant but also policy-driven. Besides simply not producing a balanced picture of the full range of possible response options, we can only conclude that this chapter and the plan more generally will fail to deliver on the first of its guiding principles unless a fairer balance is struck here.

## Guiding Principles for CCSP (cont.)

**Focus on uncertainty**
- 	*“ **Uncertainty need not be a basis for inaction... but should be carefully described”* (p.11)
*	**“**Even if the scientific community were to develop a ‘perfect’ model of the global climate, it would not be possible to predict the level and rate of future changes in climate resulting from human activities. This is because these activities are not pre-determined, but rather depend on human choices, which will, in turn, affect future climate conditions”* (p.7)

**Notes:**
The second guiding principle is the laudable focus on both reducing and improving the assessment and communication of uncertainty. I am pleased to read in this plan that “QUOTE” – which is obviously a welcome divergence from the practice and explicit statement of the Bush Administration. I agree that we need to improve our understanding, account for uncertainty, and as responsible stewards and managers of our life support systems still act decisively to avert the worst of the potential consequences of climate change.
Of course, if you truly wanted to convey an inclination toward action rather than inaction, it would be advisable to use the term “confidence levels” more so than “uncertainty” and some indication when the confidence level will be high enough for action (and I am hard pressed to believe – given the PR-savvyness of our current government – that this subtlety alluded them.) 
SECOND QUOTE. But the plan cements through this statement early on that we will never even get close to knowing enough to act. I highlight it here, because it pins this pan-ultimate unknowability on “the human factor,” which of course is the central theme of Chapter 11.
In and of itself, this statement is of course a gross overstatement, exaggerating the degrees of freedom underlying individual human choices, and dismissing elements of the human context, which are fairly stable and typically changing slowly, predictable, and acting as constraints on individual choices. Moreover, if it were true, we would not only have to question why we should study the human contribution component at all, but actually give up trying to understand and project all climate change in the future – that is, give up much of what the CCRI and USGCRP are trying to develop answers for. For example, on p.107 the research plan asks for “accurate predictions of future CO2 and CH4 emissions.” Given that enormous amounts of these emissions are of human origin, we can already conclude that either the statement on p.7 has to go or be modified, or subsequent research questions have to be weeded out, so that only those remain that do not involve humans. That latter options is, of course, entirely ridiculous.
Meanwhile, research questions regarding adaptation NOT ONCE ask about uncertainties regarding the feasibility, acceptability, or effectiveness. Questions regarding thresholds, the limits of resilience or adaptive capacity, and any consideration of impacts and coping capacity in the face of surprises or major shifts in environmental and climatic conditions are omitted, yet all of these are closely tied to these supposedly unpredictable human choices and actions. In short, if this chapter wants to obey the plan’s second guiding principle, it must apply the uncertainty focus more consistently across all research questions.

## Guiding Principles for CCSP (cont.)

**Twin goals of scientific credibility and public usefulness (relevance, timeliness, accessibility)**
- 	“*CCRI programs will produce deliverables useful to policy-makers in a short time” (**2-4 years**) **(p.15)*
*	**“**The [USGCRP] plan describes important questions and goals for research over the next decade” (**5-10-15 years**) **(p.165)*

**Notes:**
Finally, the third principle calls for the balanced and simultaneous achievement of scientific credibility and public usefulness – by which the authors of this plan mean that the generated information be relevant to specific decisions or policy choices, timely, and accessible and understandable to potential information users.
Again, I am pleased to find such a high level of awareness that both is needed, while I hope they are aware of social scientific research on the science-policy interface done over the past few years, which has shown that there is a subtle trade-off and delicate balance that needs to be struck in every situation to achieve highest effectiveness.
The place where the rubber meets the road here of course, i.e., where the simultaneous achievement of scientific credibility and usefulness can be assessed, is in the deliverables. We are told that the CCRI aims to deliver over the short term, while the USGCRP will bring out its results over a longer time horizon. Several of the deliverables in this plan have timeframes of 5-15 years. At first pass, these timelines are welcome and in some but I don’t believe in all instances realistic and reasonable. But the very fact that expectations for tangible results in the near-term are raised calls into question President Bush’s decision to not revisit climate policy at all until 2012. The question begs whether all these research results – especially those delivering useful information for national policy-making – will simply sit on the shelf until then. A gesture from the White House to the contrary would give credence to the intent of this plan, and, of course, Congress will need to play a more forceful role in demanding and acting on the research results. Short of that, this plan should address how dust-gathering will be avoided given the political context in which it will deliver its findings.

## Research Products & Pay-Offs

**No time horizons**
- 	> timeliness with regard to data needs, method improvements, and integration into other elements of the research plan?
**Modeling, modeling, modeling...**
**	**> need to develop ways to integrate quantitative and qualitative research

**Notes:**
Unfortunately, Chapter 11 is more vague than any of the other chapters with regard to deliverables.
First, nowhere does it provide any indication over what time frame results in this chapter can be expected. It is not only unsatisfying in its own right, but this omission makes it impossible to evaluate whether the activities in this central research element will feed in a timely fashion into other elements dependent on its input. For example, the CCRI aims to produce policy-relevant scenarios within 2-4 years, but of course that requires solid social scientific input. It is unclear to me what will be asked of the social sciences to feed into the scenario development, and whether that can be delivered in time. Such time-dependencies need to be addressed to improve on the integration between the different research elements in the plan.
The second issue with the outputs here is that there is nowhere – not in this chapter nor anywhere else in the plan – a recognition of the challenge a) to integrate information generated by different disciplines and b) to integrate qualitative and quantitative data and research results. The social sciences, obviously, will be big contributors to the research done under this program element; much, but of course not all, of their work is qualitative. While there is only one small, even implicit recognition of qualitative research altogether in this entire plan – a problem in its own right – the plan does not make any attempt to explain how qualitative research will either inform or be integrated into the quantitative modeling that seems to be the big ticket for the next ten years. This short-coming must be resolved if this chapter wants to have any chance to pass muster with the social scientific community.

## Research Products & Pay-Offs (cont.)

**Vague on “decision support resources”**
**	**> build on Natl. Assmt. experience, findings, continue assessment process
**The less tangible, yet most important pay-offs**
**	**> relationship building between scientists and stakeholders

**Notes:**
Finally, the chapter is particularly vague on the type of deliverables it aims to produce, other than integrated assessment models and a long list of information needs of decision-makers. Again, I must reiterate, don’t reinvent the wheel – build on what we have learned and already know from the experience with the first NA. It’s time to deliver on the already-identified information needs, not make another list of them. 
Of course, what the emphasis on deliverables leaves out entirely is a “human dimension” that you won’t find on paper or on the web or in any GIS database: and that is the trust slowly grown and engendered in the relationships built between information providers and users. It is the gel that makes information delivery work; it is the glue between institutions and individuals; it is the ingredient without which the best information will not be used. We know this from experience. We know it from social scientific research. But the plan remains utterly vague about the “new working relationships,” “the new institutional arrangements” between scientists and decision-makers which the CCSP wants to build. So, it remains unclear to me whether anything useful will actually come out of this research component. 

## Key Linkages

- Human
- Contributions
- & Responses

**Notes:**
Finally, let me close with a last comment on the linkages. The chapter concludes with reiterating the multiple linkages to other program elements, but most chapters actually give very little detail on what of these linkages will be examined. This chapter would thus greatly benefit – i.e., reduce some of its policy-driven bias – if it better addressed these key linkages in more detail and filled in the omissions. In particular I would suggest, 
a serious reconsideration of doing open, independent regional and sectoral assessments and build on that previous experience, while spelling out improvements on the timelines and more specifics on deliverables and decision support resources will allow us to assess the usefulness of this program element; 
some sort of counterweight to the quantitative modeling bias in this plan and some acknowledgment of the data integration challenges particularly pertinent to a research area where the social sciences will play a significant role; 
a more explicit discussion of how this plan and research element interfaces with the National Climate Change Technology Initiative so that it becomes apparent whether the full or at least fuller range of policy options is truly being considered would give this research plan greater credibility and help keep the politics outside the research process; and finally,
A discussion of how the findings not only build on the state of the art of the HD science as captured in the last IPCC assessment, but how the research sponsored in the US will feed into the Fourth Assessment Report. As Dr. Pachauri will likely highlight in his talk later this morning, the Fourth Assessment Report will have a strong focus on vulnerability and on regional assessments. Meanwhile, this plan lacks a comparably useful framework and indeed suggests that the US is not planning to have any further independent assessments other than agency reports. If the US is serious about remaining a leading scientific force on global change issues, this plan needs to spell out how it will contribute to the larger global quest for understanding this complex challenge.
Thank you.