National Academies Press: OpenBook

Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned (2007)

Chapter: 4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments

« Previous: 3 Major Challenges to Achieving an Effective Assessment Process
Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×

4
Case Studies of Global Change Assessments

The careful examination of past assessments can provide important lessons to steer future efforts. This committee was asked to look at past assessments that had objectives similar to those of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the selected past assessments, and identify lessons learned that might guide future CCSP assessment activities. The committee could not conduct an exhaustive review of all past assessments, so it limited itself to assessments with objectives similar to the CCSP and where adequate information was available. Because the charge was to provide advice on how to conduct future U.S. assessments, the analysis focuses on issues relevant to the decision-making context in the United States. It is important to acknowledge, however, that the literature shows that assessments of global environmental change are viewed differently in other countries and are less important for decision makers in developing countries than in industrialized countries (Biermann 2006). Also, both global environmental problems and their solutions are perceived and assessed differently by industrialized and developing countries (Gupta 1997).

This chapter summarizes the committee’s review of the eight assessments listed in Table 4.1. For each, the committee describes the science and policy context and stated purpose of the assessment, examines design issues and other elements, and then provides an analysis of strengths and weaknesses. Upon closer examination, the committee found that each of the assessments evaluated has strengths and weaknesses: none is a failure but none is without limits. This provides the variation in form and outcome

Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×

TABLE 4.1 The Eight Assessments Included in the Comparative Analysis

Assessment

Brief Description

Stratospheric Ozone Assessments

Prior to the 1987 Montreal Protocol, there were several national (including NRC) and international assessments analyzing ozone-depleting chemicals and the state of the stratospheric ozone layer (e.g., WMO 1982, 1986a). Following the treaty, a system of expert advisory panels was established to periodically assess the atmospheric science of the ozone layer (WMO 1990a,b, 1992, 1995, 1999, 2003, 2007), the impacts of ozone loss (UNEP 1991a, 1994a, 1998a, 2002a), and the technology and economics of alternatives to ozone-depleting chemicals (UNEP 1991b, 1994b, 1998b, 2002b).

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

IPCC analyzes scientific and socioeconomic information on climate change and its impacts, and assesses options for mitigation and adaptation. It provides scientific, technological, and socioeconomic findings to the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (IPCC 1990a,b,c, 1995a,b,c, 2001a,b,c).

Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA)

GBA provides a synthesis and analysis of available science on biodiversity to support the work of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (GBA 1995).

National Assessment of Climate Change Impacts (NACCI)

Undertaken in response to the Global Change Research Act (1990) to evaluate the impacts of climate change on the United States (NAST 2001).

Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA)

Primary objectives were to evaluate and synthesize knowledge and indicators of climate variability, climate change, and ultraviolet radiation in the region; to assess possible impacts of future changes in climate and radiation; and to provide reliable information to both governments and peoples of the region to support policy-making processes (ACIA 2004).

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA)

MA was designed to answer questions fundamental to various UN conventions dealing with natural resource issues, in particular the consequences of diverse environmental changes on the functioning of ecosystems, including their continuing capacity to deliver services essential to human well-being (MA 2005a,b).

German Enquete Kommission on “Preventive Measures to Protect the Earth’s Atmosphere”

The Enquete Kommission brings scientists and policy makers together to assess the importance and consequences of stratospheric ozone depletion and climate change for Germany among other dimensions of global environmental change (Enquete Kommission, 1988, 1991).

Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×

Assessment

Brief Description

Synthesis and Assessment Products by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP)

The 21 assessment products were designed to address the mandate of the Global Change Research Act, by considering science and policy issues spanning the range of topics addressed by the CCSP. The first product, on temperature trends in the lower atmosphere, was released in April 2006 (CCSP 2006).

that is essential in comparative case analysis. Of the eight assessments examined as case studies, the committee selected two of the examples—the National Assessment of Climate Change Impacts (NACCI) and the CCSP Synthesis and Assessment Products—because they are the assessment efforts of the agencies of the U.S. federal government sponsoring this report. The NACCI is an interesting example of a large-scale assessment based largely on regional and sectoral analyses, as well as an interesting experiment in stakeholder participation and multisponsor coordination. Because most of the CCSP Synthesis and Assessment Products are still under way, that assessment effort is considered last, as a “work in progress.” The the Stratospheric Ozone Assessments, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessments, Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA), and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) were selected because they are the largest and best known global assessment efforts and thus provide the most extensive experiential base from which to learn. The committee also examined the recent Artic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) because it was a regional rather than a global assessment (albeit for a large, international region), and because it attempted to learn from the other cases examined here and deployed some innovative procedures based on that learning. The German Enquete Kommission was included because it provides a different model for linking science and decision makers than any of the other assessments, and thus provides a point of comparison on that critical issue.

STRATOSPHERIC OZONE ASSESSMENTS OZONE ASSESSMENTS

Concerns about anthropogenic destruction of stratospheric ozone first appeared in the 1960s, initially based on emissions of nitrogen oxides and hydrogen oxides from aviation, bombs, and rockets. Subsequently, ozone loss caused by chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) was first proposed by Molina and Rowland (1974). Early research validated the key qualitative points in their hypothesis, but more authoritative and quantitative resolution required large research advances in reaction kinetics, atmospheric trace-gas measure-

Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×

ments, stratospheric modeling, and computational power. In the 1980s the scientific foundation for these concerns was solidified and then amplified by the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole, leading to an intensive two-year effort to explain this observation. Atmospheric observations and laboratory studies eventually confirmed ozone-depleting substances as the cause of the ozone hole and also linked these substances to the global stratospheric ozone loss (WMO 1990a).

After articulation of the CFC risk, multiple assessments were conducted through the 1970s and early 1980s, organized by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the U.K. Department of Environment, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Coordinating Committee on the Ozone Layer, the European Commission, and others. These were all conventional, small-panel assessments. The U.S. (NAS and NASA) and U.K. assessments were populated by scientists from their own nations. However, none of these efforts had the global legitimacy and credibility required to support an international agreement. Eventually, the separate efforts converged, with increasingly broad participation, into a single, authoritative international assessment process.

The first two international ozone assessments (WMO 1982, 1986a) were produced independently of and prior to the Montreal Protocol. Participation in ozone assessments was broadened greatly by the 1985 assessment, which included hundreds of scientists from many countries and secured cosponsorship by WMO, UNEP, the U.K. Department of the Environment, and the German Umweltbundesamt, as well as three U.S. government agencies (WMO 1986a). This document provided the scientific basis for the 1987 Montreal Protocol.

As a result of major changes in international politics and support from U.S. industry for international controls, during 1986-1987, negotiations led to the first Montreal Protocol, which represents an unprecedented international agreement to cut production and consumption of CFCs by half and to freeze the consumption of halons. Early assessments were mostly atmospheric process assessments with a couple of attempts to assess impacts or response options (such as technological alternatives to ozone-depleting chemicals). Under the Montreal Protocol, the following consistent structure of three parallel periodic assessments evolved: (1) an assessment of atmospheric processes (WMO 1990a,b, 1992, 1995, 1999, 2003, 2007); (2) an assessment of the effects (human health, agricultural, ecological, materials, later added air quality) (UNEP 1991a, 1994a, 1998a, 2002a); and (3) an assessment of the technology and economics of reducing the use of ozone-depleting substances by the Technology and Economics Assessment Panel (TEAP) (UNEP 1991b, 1994b, 1998b, 2002b).

Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×

Since the initial negotiation of the Montreal Protocol, there has been a rapid series of reductions of major ozone-depleting substances, led by private industry, with parallel tightening of regulatory restrictions on multiple occasions. Consequently, world emissions of ozone-depleting substances have been reduced significantly, and the only remaining issues are methyl bromide, developing-country phase-out schedule for hydrochlorofluorocarbons, and exemptions.


Establishing Clear Rationales and Appropriate Institutional Structures. Leadership of the three assessment panels has been relatively stable over time, with a core group of experts leading the assessments since 1981 and the impacts process and TEAP assessments since 1989. It is these leaders, particularly for the process assessments and TEAP, who provided the interface between the policy process and the assessment panels. Through dialogue with the Parties to the Protocol, the assessment panels have focused on key policy questions, ensuring the relevance of results. The assessment panels then organized chapter lead authors to develop detailed report outlines and time lines.

Although funding was provided under the Montreal Protocol for travel support for developing-country participants in the assessments, individual governments provided support for the participation of their scientists as well as for publication of the documents. Individual companies provided support for their experts to participate. Except for the inclusion of scientists and technical experts from developing countries, there was no focused effort at capacity building.


Designing and Scheduling Assessment Activities. This assessment used the approach of providing an authoritative summary of the state of scientific research, addressed primarily to scientists working in the field. However, its scale and prominence, as well as its technical authority, comprehensiveness, and detail, brought coherence to the public debates over stratospheric ozone science that had never been attained before. In part because of the widely recognized contribution of the 1985 ozone assessment (WMO 1986a), the Montreal Protocol included authorization to establish similar expert assessment panels. Although, with few exceptions, the prior assessments had been exclusively atmospheric science assessments (process assessments), the Montreal Protocol authorized the establishment of four expert assessment panels addressing: atmospheric science (process assessment), impacts of ozone depletion (impact assessment), technology, and economics. The last two were subsequently merged to a single response assessment.

The protocol mandates the assessments to be repeated in time to be available to the Parties in advance of their meetings. Over the last two decades, these assessments have been conducted every four years. According

Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×

to their original mandate these assessments are only supposed to update the Parties with the latest and newly available information, not provide a comprehensive review. Nevertheless, these assessments continue to be conducted at a large scale despite the fact that the main objective of these assessments, particularly the process assessment, has been fulfilled. The added value of each new assessment seems to be relatively small compared with the effort and resources committed to the process.


Involving the Scientific Community and Other Relevant Experts. The 1985 stratospheric ozone assessment helped develop the approach referred to here and elsewhere as a process assessment. The assessment engaged a critical mass of highly respected scientists worldwide in an intensive process of critically reviewing current advances and later in an intensive scientific peer review. This approach established credibility and legitimacy.

The impact assessment panel followed a model similar to that of the process assessment, but at a smaller scale. This panel lacked the same accumulated experience, and faced more difficult problems in that it had to consider multiple areas of impacts with non-overlapping fields of expertise. It also often worked with information from less mature fields.

The technology assessment panel merged with the economics panel to form the TEAP, which adopted a strikingly different model. Organizers recognized from the start that success depended on private sector technical participation. Therefore, they designed the process to be easy and attractive for private-sector representatives to participate by focusing on solving problems identified by the private-sector and assessment organizers. As a result, confidential working groups of high-level technical experts from firms facing similar problems (e.g., how to reduce the use of CFCs in producing insulating foams) were convened; a rapid, informal, results-oriented process was established; and the process or product was not peer-reviewed. Instead of peer review, organizers trusted that participants with overlapping levels of expertise and a balance of material interests would police each other for self-serving claims. In almost all cases, the working groups were able to reach consensus without a formal process, simply by deliberating with internal norms of evidence-based argument and basic confidence in each other’s good faith. In a very few cases, groups were unable to come to agreement and included dissenting or minority text in their reports. The inclusion of experts from the firms directly affected by the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances, along with academic and government experts, ensured relevance, credibility, and legitimacy for the process. The committee considers the assessment processes conducted under the Montreal Protocol’s TEAP as representing the single area of conspicuous success in this regard.

Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×

Communicating Scientific Knowledge Accurately and Effectively. Communication of the results of the ozone assessments was simpler than was the case for many other global change assessments because the decision makers and key stakeholders were well defined and limited in number. Inclusion of most of the scientists directly involved relevant research in the process and impact assessments and of the technology leaders in the TEAP ensured communication with scientists and companies. Adequate communication of findings to regulators was ensured by distributing the reports to government decision makers and following up with presentations by scientists leading the processes at international meetings and before government bodies. Environmental organizations and the media helped communicate the results to the general public.

The presentation of assessment conclusions has grown increasingly sophisticated over time. The 1985 stratospheric ozone assessment did not even have an executive summary whereas recent assessment reports have carefully prepared summaries, viewgraphs, talking points, and associated nontechnical publications, such as “Common Questions about Ozone,” that summarize current knowledge in commonsense terms and implicitly address any current attempts to mislead or obscure the consensus. These assessments have continued to exercise substantial influence over policy discussions, influencing multiple revisions of the treaty.

One important flaw in the stratospheric ozone assessments is that there has been no consistent treatment of uncertainties across the assessment panels or even within individual panels. Perhaps the most important advance in avoiding the political pitfalls associated with characterizing uncertainties was the development of a measure called “effective equivalent stratospheric chlorine” (EESC, a weighted combination of anthropogenic chlorine and bromine) that can serve as the key metric for monitoring progress in ozone protection. After establishing the links between ozone-depleting substances and ozone depletion and between ozone depletion and health and environmental impacts, the scientific assessment panel used the level of EESC above a designated threshold as a measure of risk. With this metric, they could present policy options in the form of EESC curves illustrating a series of possible regulatory options.


Guiding Plans for Future Activities. The character of the most important questions related to ozone has shifted over time, as the policy regime and the state of knowledge have advanced. First, it was critical to demonstrate authoritatively the seriousness of the issue by projecting the magnitude of future ozone loss under a wide range of emissions scenarios without control (WMO 1986a). Then, the emphasis shifted to presenting more precise quantitative projections of future impacts of specific alternative decisions that policy makers were considering. And recently, the major objective has

Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×

been to track observable environmental consequences of actions taken. This evolution demonstrates that past assessments under the Montreal Protocol have successfully guided the next generation of assessments to address the shift in issues and relevant questions.


Creating Valued Products. The process assessments produced by the first panel have exercised decisive influence over the policy debate and made key contributions to the changes in certain policy actors’ positions. The 1985 assessment of the scientific understanding of stratospheric ozone depletion was essential to breaking ten years of policy deadlock and led to concrete international action in 1986 and 1987 (Benedick 1998; Parson 2006). Although the impact assessment was important for reasons of completeness, there is no evidence that the substance of these products ever mattered in policy debates, either before or after the Montreal Protocol.

The TEAP assessments achieved unprecedented success in providing high-quality technical advice to the Montreal Protocol parties regarding the available technical alternatives. In addition, these assessments also served to promote problem solving in deploying alternatives and to disseminate information among relevant industry sectors. In other words, TEAP has not only provided highly credible assessments of present technical capabilities, but repeatedly helped to advance those capabilities. Like the atmospheric science assessments, the technical judgments of the TEAP have exercised substantial influence over policy decisions.


Key Strengths and Weaknesses of the Stratospheric Ozone Assessment. Compared to many aspects of global change, the stratospheric ozone issue is confined to a relatively small number of stakeholders. This simplifies the process of developing salience, credibility, and legitimacy of the assessments. The stability of the structure and leadership of the panels ensured improvements in efficiency of the process and value of the products. Inclusion of scientists from laboratories around the world who were actually involved in research on the issues developed the necessary credibility and legitimacy. The skill of the leadership in communicating the results ensured relevance and recognition.


Strengths:

  • All panels enjoyed extreme autonomy, with leaders of each panel having unusual authority over the participation, process, and specific mandate covered, while still maintaining a close enough relationship with decision makers to ensure the content would be relevant.

  • The process assessment benefited from excellent leadership, which was effective in forcing often reluctant participants to render synthetic

Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×

scientific judgments, even when going beyond what is already published in the literature.

  • The TEAP addressed key decisions of private-sector actors regarding research, development, and investment.

Weaknesses:

  • The process assessment continues to be conducted in a comprehensive manner despite that its mandate is only to provide an update of new findings after early assessments succeeded in demonstrating the seriousness of the problem. Each new assessment has made a smaller incremental contribution to the decision-making process.

  • In the TEAP process, the interests of key industrial participants gradually diverged from the remaining questions of concern to policy makers. The remarkable early successes of this process were based on the precise alignment of these interests. Now it has become harder to attract critical masses of participation to address the remaining implementation questions.

  • The TEAP process succeeded for so long that it has attracted backlash from those seeking to reimpose political control on the process.

  • Exclusion of economic or cost judgments in considering technical options initially proved to be a strength because it allowed the process to get started. However, it limits the ability to generalize the model, because technical assessments on other issues cannot necessarily ignore costs by assuming that rapid innovation will make them low enough.

INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE

The IPCC was established in 1988 by the WMO and the UNEP to conduct assessments of the scientific basis for human-induced climate change, its likely impacts, and opportunities for adaptation and mitigation. Several international meetings that took place in 1985-1988 (Bulkeley and Betsill 2003; Torrence 2006), along with a series of unusual weather events in the summer of 1988 (Paterson 1996), helped move climate change to the central stage and served as the impetus to initiate the IPCC. The idea behind the IPCC was grounded both in the experience of the Montreal Protocol negotiations and in TEAP. Since its inception, IPCC has initiated four rounds of assessments, the last being completed over the course of the year 2007 (IPCC 1990a,b,c, 1995a,b,c, 2001a,b,c).

The IPCC assessments have been important for informing formal negotiations of an international climate change treaty, a process which started in December 1990. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was adopted at the Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro in May 1992; it was subsequently signed by more than 150 nations

Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×

and entered into force in March 1994. The UNFCCC established a goal of stabilizing greenhouse gases at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system (United Nations 1992). In 1997, despite some opposition, participants established a framework for negotiating the Kyoto Protocol. This protocol was signed at the Conference of the Parties 3 held that year in Kyoto and would enter into force with the ratification of at least 55 countries, in February 2005. The specific rules for its implementation were agreed at Conference of Parties 7 in 2001, and post-Kyoto negotiations have been very contentious.


Establishing Clear Rationales and Appropriate Institutional Structures. The stated goal of the IPCC is to “assess the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.” Within IPCC, however, there is debate about whether its role is to review and assess existing literature, to conduct integrated assessments, or both.

Major decisions of the IPCC are made by a plenary group of government representatives. The plenary elects a chair, three vice-chairs, two co-chairs for each of three working groups and a task force on greenhouse gas emissions inventories, and six vice-chairs for each of the three working groups. These 30 elected chairs and vice-chairs make up the IPCC bureau. The bureau oversees the organization and preparation of IPCC products including assessments, special reports, and technical papers. Each working group is supported administratively by a technical support unit; the overall bureau is supported by a secretariat.


Designing and Scheduling Assessment Activities. IPCC’s work is divided among three working groups. Working Group I assesses scientific information on the climate system and the potential for human-induced climate change. Working Group II assesses scientific, socioeconomic, and technical information on the vulnerability of humans, ecological systems, and socioeconomic sectors to climate change, and evaluates information on their adaptive capacity and adaptation practices and options. Working Group III assesses scientific, technical, and socioeconomic information on options to mitigate climate change. In addition, the Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories provides guidelines for methodologies and practices for preparation of the inventories.

The structure, including chapter outlines, and work plans for each assessment is prepared by the bureau and approved by the plenary. A team of lead authors is assigned to each chapter of each assessment, with one or two coordinating lead authors, usually representing a developed and a developing country. These teams are accountable for organizing the work

Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×

of their team and delivering the chapter to the Working Group Bureau. Ultimately the ownership and responsibility for a chapter lies with its lead author team. For each working group, a team of lead authors, consisting of coordinating lead authors and additional experts, prepares a technical summary based on the underlying chapters. The technical summary of each Working Group then provides the basis for preparation of a draft summary for policy makers. Once all three Working Group reports have been accepted and their summaries for policy makers approved, the IPCC bureau and selected coordinating lead authors prepare a synthesis report with the objective of providing a comprehensive and coherent summary of the three reports.

These assessments are conducted on a regular interval and are expected to produce a report every five years. The next generation of assessments is initiated shortly after the completion of the previous due to the extensive effort and time required to conduct such a comprehensive effort. Thus, it has become almost a continuous process engaging a significant size of the research community and stakeholders placing a considerable strain on the participants’ time.


Involving the Scientific Community and Other Relevant Experts. Governments and other organizations are involved in nominating lead authors. Based on the scientific and technical expertise and credentials of each of those nominated, the bureau selects lead authors for each chapter of the assessments. These authors can be from government, academia, industrial organizations, or environmental organizations and are expected to represent their individual knowledge and expertise, and not a preconceived organizational perspective, in the preparation of the assessments.

When the IPCC was first established, participation was strikingly unbalanced. In the second IPCC assessment report for instance, “the percentage of Southern Hemisphere coordinating lead authors, lead authors, and contributing authors in working groups ranged from 5.1 percent (for Working Group I) to 25 percent (for Working Group III)” (Biermann 2006). The IPCC has taken different actions to increase the participation of scientists from developing countries and to remove obstacles that impair their involvement (e.g., current rules require each working group to be chaired by one developed- and one developing-country scientist). This has been perceived as a successful “learning” of an assessment institution (Biermann 2006). Nevertheless, lack of financing and resources still constrains the research and time that scientists from developing countries can devote to assessment activities (Biermann 2006). Engaging and training the next generation of scientists to participate in these assessments might also become a challenge due to the difficulty for young scientists to justify the opportunity cost to advancing their research. Thus, ensuring a continuity in highly quali-

Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×

fied participants who understand the assessment process might become a challenge.

The IPCC has established norms in regards to what type of information can be included. For the process (Working Group I) and impact (Working Group II) reports only peer-reviewed literature may be included. The response assessment (Working Group III) relies primarily on peer-reviewed literature but may also use some “gray” literature, such as working papers, government reports, theses, and technology-specific information. The gray literature must be accepted by the lead authors and must be available on request by reviewers of the assessment.

IPCC reports are reviewed in a three-step process. A first draft is peer-reviewed by experts in government, academia, industrial organizations, or environmental organizations. In response to the review, a second draft is prepared that is distributed for a second round of expert and government review. The lead authors then prepare a final draft of the full report and a technical summary, as well as an initial draft summary for policy makers that is distributed to governments for final review. The participating governments then meet in plenary session for each Working Group report to accept the full report and technical summary and approve the summary for policy makers. Coordinating lead authors for each chapter participate in this meeting to ensure that the approved version of the summary for policy makers is consistent with the full report and technical summary. The synthesis report—including the technical summaries and summaries for policy makers from all three Working Groups along with an overall summary for policy makers that synthesizes information across the Working Groups—is subsequently approved in a plenary session of all three Working Groups.

The IPCC shows that setting rules and firewalls is crucial to establish clear rationales and clear institutional structures. Yet the political oversight and negotiations that are part of the IPCC process have raised some issues of credibility within the scientific community. It is important that these negotiations honor both the need for ownership by the governments and the need for scientific credibility.


Engaging the Potential Users of Assessment Products. A primary audience for the IPCC assessment are national governments, and government representatives are deeply involved in the process. All major decisions are made by government representatives at the plenary—for example, on IPCC’s principles, procedures, and structure; mandate of working groups and task forces; work plan; and budget. Early in the process, government representatives are involved in selecting the leaders of each Working Group. In addition, government representatives as well as other organizations can nominate lead authors for each chapter. There are opportunities governments and other users of the assessments to participate in the review of the reports. Finally,

Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×

at the end of the process, once again the primary users—governments—step in and have a critical role in reviewing the summary for policy makers.


Communicating Scientific Knowledge Accurately and Effectively. The presentation of IPCC findings has grown increasingly sophisticated over time. The third assessment (IPCC 2001a,b,c), for example, contains well-prepared summaries, viewgraphs, and nontechnical publications for the lay public. To enhance the communication of IPCC scientific findings, major documents are translated into all six United Nations languages (Biermann 2006). The reports and summaries are distributed to participating governments, and are available on the IPCC web site, and paper copies can be ordered.

The IPCC provides clear guidance about how its authors should evaluate and communicate uncertainties and confidence in findings. Defining a common approach and language across all IPCC reports is challenging and has not been fully achieved yet because the nature of the information used in the natural sciences (WG I) and in the social sciences (e.g., WG III) is quite different. The IPCC insists that approaches to uncertainties be considered at an early stage of the process, and that all plausible sources of uncertainties be considered using a systematic typology of uncertainty (unpredictability, structural uncertainty, value uncertainty). In the third assessment report (IPCC 2001a), levels of confidence, which are used to characterize uncertainty that is based on expert judgment as to the correctness of a statement, an analysis, or a model, are stated with reference to the following scale: very high confidence means at least a 9 out of 10 chance to be correct; high confidence: at least 8 out of 10; medium confidence: 5 of 10; low confidence: 2 of 10; very low confidence: less than 1 out of 10. The statement of likelihood, which refers to a probabilistic assessment of some well-defined outcome having occurred or occurring in the future, is based on the following language: “virtually certain” refers to a probability of occurrence greater than 99 percent; “very likely,” to more than 90 percent, “likely,” to more than 66 percent; “about as likely as not,” to 33 to 66 percent; “unlikely,” to less than 33 percent; “very unlikely,” to less than 10 percent; and “exceptionally uncertain,” to less than 1 percent.


Creating Valued Products. It is reasonable to say that IPCC assessments exercise substantial influence over policy debates and discussions, despite the fact that the IPCC does not develop decision-support tools per se. Instead, it evaluates the state of the art and reviews and synthesizes the results of analyses applying such tools. The assessments produced by the IPCC are referenced by many in the public sector and are widely accepted as a credible source of information on climate change. It also seems to be successful at reaching multiple target audiences. Although the IPCC is

Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×

viewed as a credible and legitimate information source on climate change for many regional and local decision makers, it has not been successful yet at providing information at more regional scales. Some experts in the developing world think that the IPCC still neglects southern socioeconomic issues, which restricts the salience of the information offered by the report (Biermann 2006).


Key Strengths and Weaknesses of the IPCC. Building on the experience of the stratospheric ozone assessments, the assessment process of Working Group I is somewhat more developed than that of Working Groups II and III. The Working Group I model is especially effective for conducting assessments in disciplinary fields that are well delimited, that is, in which the key questions are well posed and recognized by both scientists and policy makers. In particular, the reports produced by Working Group I have effectively showed the significance of climate change. However, the magnitude of IPCC assessment activities is growing significantly. Rather than stating scientific progress or identifying new issues, IPCC reports tend to be comprehensive documents demanding a significant time commitment from lead authors. Given that past assessments have been effective and the substantial burden placed on the scientific community with every additional comprehensive assessment, it seems appropriate at this point to consider alternate approaches. For example, the process could be shortened and made more efficient by focusing on how new data support or contradict previous conclusions.

Working Groups II and III have also made important contributions to the discourse on climate change; however, there are both less scholarly understanding and fewer models of effective assessments to build upon in areas such as climate change impacts and vulnerability, where the disciplinary boundaries and key questions are more diffuse. In particular, Working Group II has been successful in reaching international audiences, but less so in local and regional audiences, due to the lack of regional information included (Corell 2006). Indeed, impact assessments often are most effective if they start with the regional scale and then scale up to subregional and global scales (Watson 2006).


Strengths:

  • Well-developed organizational structure.

  • Strong ties to stakeholders.

  • Widely considered a credible source of information.

  • Attempts to present different points of views.

  • Addresses multiple audiences.

  • Well-defined role for scientific community and governments.

  • Excellent multifaceted communication process.

Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×

Weaknesses:

  • Coordination among working groups needs to be strengthened.

  • Scheduling of products is on a predetermined timetable without consideration for the rate at which new knowledge becomes available, which in some cases is slower than the rate at which assessments are produced.

  • Assessment effort places tremendous burden on the scientific community at the cost of conducting new research.

  • Treatment of uncertainty is uneven.

  • Ensuring continuity might become an issue unless younger scientists are recruited and trained in conducting assessments.

GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENT

Negotiations for a convention on biological diversity began in 1988 during a UNEP-led meeting of experts on issues of biological diversity. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) opened for signatures in 1992 and entered into force in 1993. Its mandate is to conserve, sustainably use, and share the benefits of biological diversity. The CBD did not have a formal scientific assessment as an underpinning, but instead the framers worked with ad hoc working groups of legal and technical experts (Bernstein et al. 1993). Although the convention did not call for assessment activities, the GBA was initiated after the convention and was crafted to provide such a scientific foundation; it was completed in 1995 (GBA 1995). Because the GBA was not formally mandated by the Conference of the Parties of the CBD, it had only informal ties to the convention.


Establishing Clear Rationales and Appropriate Institutional Structures. The GBA grew out of a recognized need to provide a scientific foundation for the CBD. Although it was administered by UNEP, it did not have a formal connection to the CBD process; hence it lacked a clear mandate, which proved to be an important flaw in the design (Watson 2006). The project document was characterized by a lack of detail. As the first effort of its kind to assess the global state of the biodiversity and the health of global ecosystems, no model was available to guide this undertaking. Limited funding also played a role in the planning process.


Designing and Scheduling Assessment Activities. The budget for the GBA was limited given the scope of the mandate. The lack of funding restricted the numbers of meetings available for planning, report preparation, and dissemination. In addition, it limited the size of the support staff in Nairobi, which hampered the facilitation of many stages of the process.

Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×

Involving the Scientific Community and Other Relevant Experts. The GBA followed the IPCC procedures for selecting international experts. It underwent an extensive review process, involving 1,100 scientists and experts in the preparation and review. The assessment was restricted to include only peer-reviewed information. Yet, scientists and experts in the developing world claim that this assessment neglected developing countries’ perspectives on issues such as intellectual property rights (e.g., Northern patents on basmati rice and neem-tree products) or the safety of genetically modified organisms transferred into developing countries (Biermann 2006; Gupta 2006).


Engaging the Potential Users of Assessment Products. The principle target audience was the country representatives to the Conference of Parties for the CBD. The potential users of this assessment were not directly engaged during the process. Instead, reports were delivered to them at the end of the process. Two thousand copies of the main report and 4,000 copies of the summary for policy makers were distributed. These publications were sent to all contributors and distributed to participants in the relevant CBD Conference of Parties. The summary for policy makers was also sent to capitals and to UN organizations. The results were not available on the web.


Communicating Scientific Knowledge Accurately and Effectively. The communication effort mainly involved publication and dissemination of a final report. The report is quite lengthy: even the summary for policy makers is 56 pages. The large size of these documents has been cited as an impediment to their use. A planned popular version of the report never materialized, probably due to funding limitations.


Guiding Plans for Future Activities. The GBA was the first comprehensive analysis of the science of biological diversity. In many ways it provided valuable lessons and set the stage for other biodiversity and ecosystem assessments. One review of the GBA said that the process had “a lot of hidden value in … stimulating research, framing questions and in linking experts around the world” (Kaiser 2000). There are now efforts to mount a new biodiversity assessment that would overcome the limitations of this initial effort (Loreau et al. 2006).


Creating Valued Products. The summary volume has been valued by the scientific community as an extensive and comprehensive review of the state of the knowledge but was not formally accepted by the CBD or incorporated into its work. The disconnect stemmed from the lack of authorization of the process by the CBD, as well as tensions caused by an independent international group giving advice to a formal, country-driven process where

Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×

property rights are a major concern. The assessment did not provide any policy analysis or evaluate the information in any decision-making context. Thus, the global approach failed to recognize the need for assessments at the national or regional scale of greatest relevance for most of the actions required to carry out the convention.


Key Strengths and Weaknesses of the GBA. In many ways, the lessons learned from this assessment have contributed to and guided the second effort to assess global biodiversity and ecosystem functions undertaken by the MA.


Strengths:

  • First attempt at a global assessment that covered all of the many dimensions of biological diversity.

  • High scientific credibility due to the involvement of world’s leading scientists.

Weaknesses:

  • No authorizing environment and hence a lack of government acceptance.

  • Limited budget hindered outreach (e.g., no web posting of products) and substantive interaction among working groups.

  • Products not very “accessible” to policy audience.

NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS

The U.S. Global Change Research Act (GCRA) of 1990 calls for a periodic assessment of the state of climate science, including the potential impacts of climate change on natural resources and human well-being in the United States. NACCI was officially requested by Dr. John H. Gibbons, then director of the President’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, and was charged with addressing questions centered around (1) the role of climate change in exacerbating or ameliorating existing environmental stresses, (2) priority research needs to better inform policy makers, (3) coping options, (4) resource planning and management options in the face of uncertainty, and (5) improving our ability to adapt to climate change and variability.

The National Assessment (NAST 2001) began with a series of workshops involving diverse stakeholders. A National Assessment Synthesis Team (NAST), composed of experts from industry, academia, government laboratories, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), provided overall guidance on scope and process. The assessment revolved around the development of a series of regional teams covering the entire United States and sector teams for water, health, forests (ecosystems), and agriculture, as well

Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×

as two focused efforts on coastal regions and native peoples. The regions and sectors bounded the scope of the assessment. The NAST designated common climate datasets for use by the regional and sector teams as the broad context for their more targeted analysis. These common datasets consisted of historical climate data for the nation (1895-1995) and two climate model outputs (1895-2100) representing a range of climate sensitivity to increased greenhouse gases. The results from each region and sector were incorporated into a synthesis report by the NAST.


Establishing Clear Rationales and Appropriate Institutional Structures. The President’s science adviser provided specific, well-articulated questions that framed the National Assessment as specifically mandated by the GCRA. The NAST was established as an independent committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) with substantial authority to guide the assessment process. The NAST was well supported by representatives from each of the agencies participating in the U.S. Global Change Research Program (GCRP). The five sector teams and the teams in 20 regions across the United States each had team leaders. The 20 regional teams were grouped into nine megaregions, which provided the input to the NAST’s synthesis report. The coordination among the various regions, sectors, and the NAST was facilitated by the National Assessment Coordination Office. However, the support for the regional and sector teams was dependent on the willingness of individual agencies to provide funding carved out of existing budgets. As a consequence, some teams were poorly funded, received no funding at all, or were funded very late in the assessment process. The lack of integrated cross-agency support and funding influenced the timing and nature of the regional and sector reports.


Designing and Scheduling Assessment Activities. The National Assessment was designed as a tiered process, extending over a three-year period, with the NAST providing initial guidance on climate scenarios, scope, involvement of stakeholders, and expectations. Communication was facilitated through frequent meetings and through a structure of individual NAST members serving as liaisons to the various teams. The NAST worked to entrain the results from regions and sectors, to develop common formats, and to address gaps and weaknesses. The GCRP was late in complying with the mandate of the 1990 GCRA, which called for an assessment delivered to Congress no less than every four years, whereas the process did not formally start until 1997. Therefore, the NAST and the sector and regional teams worked in tandem. The process would have benefited substantially by a phased or nested approach, in which the climate scenarios were debated with inputs from sectors and regions, and then established first, along with guidelines for the sectors and regions.

Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×

One of the controversial aspects was the use of climate models that were not produced by U.S. scientists (MacCracken et al. 2003). The U.S. models available at the time did not include some of the necessary features: for example, no U.S. model had 200-year-long simulations with the spatial resolution and features required to examine impacts on agriculture, ecosystems, and water. The design of the National Assessment was intended to be an iterative process between the NAST and the regional and sectoral teams. Ideally, the initial phase of establishing protocols and universal datasets for use by the regional and sectoral teams would have been followed by an extended period of work at the regional and sectoral levels. The NAST would have then integrated and synthesized the regional and sectoral efforts after they were completed and vetted. Unfortunately, time constraints forced the synthesis team to work simultaneously with the regional and sectoral teams.


Involving the Scientific Community and Other Relevant Experts. The NACCI worked diligently to involve a wealth of experts, from a variety of institutions, spanning the full range of topics from climate change to regional information to sector knowledge. The NAST was established by the National Science Foundation as an independent committee under FACA and consisted of experts from academia, industry, government laboratories, and NGOs. Each regional and sectoral team involved experts with knowledge relevant to that specific region or sector.


Engaging the Potential Users of Assessment Products. A hallmark of the National Assessment was a concerted effort to include a wide range of stakeholders as appropriate for key issues within regions and sectors throughout the entire process. The process was initiated with a series of workshops held across the country to meet with academics, business representatives, resource managers, rangers, farmers, foresters, and fishers to identify stakeholder issues and concerns. Many of these workshops preceded the formal request to conduct the assessment and shaped the later development of the regional assessments. This effort to engage stakeholders was judged as quite successful (Morgan et al. 2005). All of the workshops had sessions open to the public and were widely announced. The review process included a review of the individual chapters by experts in academia and federal agencies, a review of the full document by a selected panel of experts, a public review and comment period, and a final review by a panel of the President’s Committee of Advisers on Science and Technology.


Communicating Scientific Knowledge Accurately and Effectively. The NACCI yielded a variety of products designed to maximize communication to different audiences. Sector and regional teams produced reports and peer-

Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×

reviewed publications that included extensive supporting documentation. The synthesis overview was written with the expert advice of a communication consultant and included a range of graphics and language designed to ensure that the report was readable at the level of the interested nonexpert. The synthesis foundation report was provided to include the documentation and basis supporting the conclusions of the overview. The overview was also used as a basis for press releases and a wide variety of briefings. To the extent that the report was distributed, members of the public and participants in the assessment viewed it as an effective communication document.


Guiding Plans for Future Activities. A specific chapter was included in the synthesis overview, followed by a published article outlining the research needed to address the most important unanswered scientific questions and to improve the ability to inform decision makers. Many of the elements proposed were adopted when the GCRP evolved into the Climate Change Science Program, although this occurred at a time of limited new funding. As a result, very few integrated regional investigations continued to be supported following the conclusion of the National Assessment.


Creating Valued Products. The NACCI publications represent the current standard for comprehensive regional and sectoral analyses of the potential impacts of climate change for the United States. A number of countries have modeled national assessments on the U.S. effort (e.g., China and South Africa), and the assessment process led to independent investigations in areas such as the intersection of climate and human health.

However, the value and the impact of the NACCI at the federal level were limited because the release of the report coincided with a transition in national leadership, and was viewed as a product of the prior administration. Whereas the assessment initially had a clear mandate with a target audience that considered the assessment as salient, by the time it was released the audience had changed and it was no longer viewed as salient or legitimate among some key audiences at the federal level.


Key Strengths and Weaknesses of the NACCI. The National Assessment represents a major step in U.S. efforts to assess climate impacts on the United States in a comprehensive manner. The strengths of the National Assessment suggest that this process had many of the characteristics necessary to produce an effective assessment with some impact on decision making. The National Assessment was, however, the subject of considerable criticism and had limited impact on U.S. policy or in funding new directions in research. The lack of time to produce a phased effort and the lack of better-balanced funding (as well as the fact that this was the very first such assessment of its kind) introduced many opportunities for criticism, including concerns about

Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×

the credibility of some report elements. Significantly, there was a lingering perception by some members of the political administration that received the document that the National Assessment was politically motivated, introducing questions about its legitimacy.


Strengths:

  • A well-defined mandate stemming from the GCRA and supported by the Office of the President.

  • Well-articulated questions and defined regions and sectors, both of which determined its scope.

  • Extensive involvement of experts from all regions and sectors.

  • Considerable involvement of a broad range of other stakeholders.

  • Broad and extensive review.

  • A deliberate, well-planned communication strategy.

Weaknesses:

  • The assessment effort was late in getting started, which resulted in the near-simultaneous development of climate scenarios, team guidance, actual regional and sector team efforts, and synthesis. A phased or nested approach would have allowed a phased comment and review and improved opportunities to address issues and problems (e.g., the selection of specific climate model scenarios) as they arose. A prompt start of the work and phased approach would have provided a more reasoned path from sector and regional reports to synthesis.

  • The assessment did not have robust funding for regional and sectoral analyses. Lack of funding for some teams and delayed funding for others resulted in unevenness in the team reports, exacerbating the difficulty in creating a coherent and consistent high-quality synthesis of all regions and sectors.

  • A change in political administration coincided with the release of the report. With this change, the process lost legitimacy among the new decision makers because it was considered a politically motivated product of the prior administration.

ARCTIC CLIMATE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The ACIA was undertaken under the auspices of the eight-nation Arctic Council in response to growing concern about how global warming and a host of other environmental impacts (e.g., ultraviolet [UV] radiation increases from ozone depletion, air and water contamination, habitat alteration) affect the sustainability of the Arctic environment with its unique array of ecosystem services, wildlife, and indigenous peoples (ACIA 2004, 2005). The ACIA was conceived when it became clear that assessments by

Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×

the IPCC provided only global perspectives and lacked the in-depth analysis at a regional scale such as the Arctic. The ACIA also followed the Global Environmental Assessment project, which had reflected on lessons learned from global change assessments and provided some guidelines in how to conduct more focused, regional assessments (Farrell et al. 2001). In particular, the importance of treating the assessment as a process instead of a report-producing analysis had become clear.


Establishing Clear Rationales and Appropriate Institutional Structures. The goals for the ACIA were set by its sponsors: the eight Arctic-region national governments, the six indigenous Arctic peoples’ organizations, and the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC). ACIA’s objectives were to:

  • Evaluate and synthesize knowledge and past and present indicators of climate variability, climate change, and UV radiation in the region;

  • Assess possible impacts of future changes in climate and UV;

  • Provide reliable information to both governments and peoples of the Arctic region to support policy-making processes;

  • Recommend policy actions and coping strategies; and

  • Provide data to the IPCC for use in its future work.

To ensure that the ACIA had a clear mandate and goals, approximately two years were spent before initiation of the assessment to properly frame and vet the goals; this included conducting a scoping meeting with the interested parties. To develop a sense of ownership, the formal proposal to establish ACIA was prepared, vetted through the Arctic Council and the ASC, and finally presented to the foreign ministers of the eight Arctic countries, the presidents of the six indigenous peoples’ organizations, and the IASC council. A political declaration to implement ACIA was approved by the eight foreign ministers.


Designing and Scheduling Assessment Activities. The ACIA established a management structure consisting of various steering and implementation committees and local secretariats. The ACIA scientific process was characterized by transparency, inclusiveness, and broad participation and review of products by the various stakeholders, including both governments and the affected indigenous peoples. The process was designed to emphasize the need for scientific integrity and independence, and required acknowledgement of uncertainties in theoretical models. Decision makers provided input at the beginning to frame the questions and scope of the assessment and at the end by reviewing the document. During review, decision makers were able to weigh in on the policy recommendations but not the scientific

Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×

conclusions. Scientists had the final editorial authority with regards to the science but not the policy recommendations.


Involving the Scientific Community and Other Relevant Experts. The assessment process involved more than 300 scientists and other experts from Canada, Denmark, Faroe Islands, Finland, Greenland, Germany, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Russia, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The results were reviewed by an additional 225 scientists and experts from the eight Arctic countries and other nations.


Engaging the Potential Users of Assessment Products. The organizers believed it was essential to conduct the process as a partnership between the three principal stakeholder communities: the indigenous residents of the region, the governments, and the scientific community. This partnership began with the vetting process of the formal proposal and continued throughout the assessment. This approach contributed to the assessment’s legitimacy and salience. It was also fortuitous that, at the time of the assessment’s inception, the indigenous communities and the governments of the Arctic regions were already well organized, all participating in an intergovernmental body called the Arctic Council. In addition, the committee considers it likely that the observed climate changes in the Arctic (e.g., loss of permafrost, coastal inundations) contributed to the perceived salience of this assessment to the indigenous people and regional governments.


Communicating Scientific Knowledge Accurately and Effectively. The ACIA included a particularly well-articulated communications strategy to support the policy-making process. The strategy included postreport outreach to a broad range of audiences, from national governments and multilateral bodies to indigenous councils and the media. A relatively large variety of publications and communications activities were utilized for different audiences; attractive and colorful visual displays complemented the scientific texts. Clear, jargon-free language was employed in reports aimed at both policy makers and the broader public. Journalists and science writers were involved in the assessment process at an early stage. Public forums, workshops, and other educational activities were an important feature of the assessment process.


Guiding Plans for Future Activities. The mandate of the ACIA does not call for repeated assessments, but many people in the assessment community see this as a successful example of a regionally focused assessment. The ACIA leadership has been asked to apply and design such an assessment process for other regions. However, as mentioned above, the ACIA benefited from the fact that the regional governments and indigenous people

Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×

were already well organized, allowing for effective engagement of key stakeholders, which might not be the case in other regions.


Creating Valued Products. The full ACIA scientific report was released in the summer of 2005 (ACIA 2005) and it is still early to make a comprehensive judgment on its overall impact. Yet it seems clear from media reports and other indicators, including references in the U.S. Congress, that the assessment attracted significant attention to emerging climate-related problems in the Arctic. As mentioned above, observed changes on the ground (e.g., summer sea ice extent, decrease in permafrost) are likely to contribute to the timeliness of this assessment and its perceived salience.


Key Strengths and Weaknesses of the ACIA. This assessment was completed fairly recently and many of its effects may manifest in the future; however, the following strengths and weaknesses can be identified.


Strengths:

  • A clear and strong mandate with support from decision makers.

  • A well-planned, coordinated, and executed communication strategy.

  • A transparent model for the science-policy interface during design, implementation, and review.

  • Achieved prominence, in part because it was conducted at the same time as some major changes in the Arctic environment, attributable to climate change, were occurring and covered by the major media outlets.

Weaknesses:

  • Funding was difficult to secure and not uniform across the participating nations; funds were insufficient to support the entire communication plan (e.g., no funds for printing additional copies of the report).

  • Economic impacts were inadequately addressed.

  • There was no cohesive plan for follow-up activities.

MILLENNIUM ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT

The impetus for the MA (2005a,b) came from many sources, and it was supported by a broad private and intergovernmental constituency. A number of UN conventions deal with a variety of natural resource issues: loss of biodiversity, degradation of arid lands and of wetlands, threats to migratory species, and climate change, which affects all of these changes. The MA was designed to serve these conventions with an innovative construct to answer the fundamental question: What are the consequences of environmental

Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×

change on the functioning of ecosystems and their continuing capacity to deliver services that are essential to human well-being?


Establishing Clear Rationales and Appropriate Institutional Structures. The MA took an integrated approach because a process or sectoral assessment approach fails to capture the complex issues related to the disruption of ecosystems and the services they provide to society. An integrated framework of analysis was developed to reveal the benefits and consequences of human use of ecosystems and the trade-offs caused by societal actions. The MA approach called for a multistakeholder design that allowed broad ownership of the process and the findings.


Designing and Scheduling Assessment Activities. The MA was successful in establishing a consultation process; it had the advantage of a well-designed conceptual framework and also a pilot project before designing a full operational template. A framework for the assessment was crafted by a scientific panel, composed of representative experts, totaling 51 persons, before the assessment work began in 2002 (MA 2003). The entire process was governed by a board, which consisted of representatives from UN organizations, governments (through a number of international conventions), NGOs, academia, business, and indigenous peoples. The framework provided an important template to guide the subsequent work and has proven to be an important document and used by many organizations. This framework was subsequently accepted by the large community that engaged in the work.

The design of the operational program for the assessment was done at two large international design meetings in 2001. A scientific panel was appointed between these two meetings. Four working groups were formed to focus on global status and trends, scenarios, policy responses, and smaller-than-global (“subglobal”) assessments. The first three groups were comparable to the work division of the IPCC. The subglobal assessment team was an innovation for such a globally centered assessment. The MA identified 33 regions around the world which varied in focus and scale. One of the subglobal assessments, focused on southern Africa, was targeted to present information at three scales: the village, major watersheds, and large landscape units. All of the working groups interacted through the scientific panel.

The assessment was finished on schedule. A scheduling problem common to all large assessments occurred. The working groups (i.e., trends, scenarios, responses) operated in parallel, rather than sequentially. Although a great effort was made to exchange information among working groups, they did not fully benefit from each other’s work. Another scheduling problem was that all of the subglobal assessments had not been completed by the

Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×

end of the global assessment. This was due to inadequate funding, because most of the subglobal assessments were supported by local resources. Thus, dissemination of the findings from the subglobal assessments could not be included in the dissemination efforts of the global working groups.


Involving the Scientific Community and Other Relevant Experts. The MA followed the IPCC model of using a large pool of leading experts from around the world to conduct the assessment. Selection of these experts was accomplished through wide consultation, including calls to governments and other sponsors. The goal was to get scientists of the highest credentials and at the same time, achieve a balance between social and natural scientists plus among countries and between genders. In addition to engaging internationally recognized leaders, fellowships were offered to young scientists so they could learn and assist in the assessment process. Guidelines restricted the information to be included mainly to the published literature. However, they made provision for the subglobal assessments to incorporate traditional knowledge as long as it was traceable. The review of the work also followed the IPCC model by including two rounds of outside review, with the responses to reviews in turn being reviewed by an independent group of experts.


Engaging the Potential Users of Assessment Products. Having learned from previous assessments, the MA took great care to engage the user community at both the beginning and end of the process. The board of the MA consisted of representatives from the UN environmental conventions, who were the primary target audience of the assessment, as well as representatives from many international environmental, resource, and health organizations (governmental and nongovernmental), foundations, academia, the business community, and indigenous communities. Members of the board were active in scoping the project as well as in transmitting the findings to their constituencies. At the end, targeted summaries of results were directed at many of the major user communities.


Communicating Scientific Knowledge Accurately and Effectively. A series of technical reports and synthesis documents were released, starting with the Framework of Assessment in 2003 (MA 2003), and the remainder in 2005 (MA 2005a,b). The MA secretariat distributed thousands of free copies of the framework document to target audiences and hundreds of free copies of the technical reports. The MA web site (http://www.maweb.org/) has all of these documents as well as slide show presentations and other outreach materials. The results of the MA were announced, with simultaneous press releases and seminars in major cities (London; Washington, D.C.; Tokyo; Beijing; Delhi; Cairo; Nairobi; Rome; Paris; Stockholm; Lisbon;

Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×

Brasilia; and Sao Paulo), resulting in coverage in major newspapers. The briefings were well attended. Each of the five synthesis reports (biodiversity, desertification, business and industry, wetlands, and health), which were targeted to specific audiences, also had separate launch events in which prime target audiences were involved.


Guiding Plans for Future Activities. The MA was not designed to be a continuing activity yet it produced new datasets on trends that will serve as a baseline for measuring change in subsequent similar efforts. It also provided new analytical tools for analyzing environmental change in terms that are of direct interest to society (i.e., ecosystem services), and for doing so in a way that crosses geographic scales. Interest in the findings of the MA has stimulated possible follow-on assessments by various groups (Loreau et al. 2006).


Creating Valued Products. The MA produced a large set of products designed for diverse communities. These communities ranged from decision makers involved in international environmental conventions to those working at the local levels where subglobal assessments were performed. Specific products were also designed for decision makers in the business community and the health community. An entire volume (MA 2005b) is devoted to policy options and decision support, including analyses of the past success of response options and an explicit chapter on “choosing responses.” Technical publications served the science community by providing carefully referenced information as well as information on future research needs. An active web site was established that provided all publications and outreach material. Thousands of copies of the various publications were provided free to focal points of the conventions and other crucial parties.


Key Strengths and Weaknesses of the MA. The MA seems to have incorporated lessons learned from previous assessments such as the GBA and IPCC (Kaiser 2000), contributing to the fact that many design issues have been addressed appropriately.


Strengths:

  • Stakeholders from business, industry, academia, NGOs, UN agencies, and indigenous groups were part of a governing board.

  • Developed and executed using a conceptual model that centered on ecosystem trends that affect human well-being.

  • Focused on global trends but also targeted a sample of subglobal regions and localities. In the latter, traditional knowledge was incorporated.

  • Leadership of all of the major components of the assessment had equal representation between social and natural scientists.

Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×
  • Working groups were interactive.

  • IPCC approaches were utilized throughout the assessment, including evaluation of uncertainty, two rounds of review, and use of an independent review board.

  • Strong communication strategy with specific products designed for a variety of stakeholders; wide distribution of products as well as web availability.

  • Events publicizing program results held simultaneously in a host of major cities around the world.

  • The prime audiences were all of the environmentally based UN conventions, which provided a stimulus for greater interaction among them.

Weaknesses:

  • There was no direct government involvement beyond interaction with the Conference of the Parties.

  • There was no plan for follow-up activities.

THE GERMAN ENQUETE KOMMISSION

The German Parliament (Bundestag) has the opportunity to create parliamentary investigation committees called “Enquete Kommissions” to address specific subjects of societal interest. As a rule, half of the members who serve on these committees are elected members of the Bundestag, while the other half are experts in the field of the study. This model is notably different from other assessment processes, which in the United States normally do not include politicians. The members work jointly to address the questions under deliberation, so that in this institutional arrangement there is no “firewall” between scientists and policy makers. The rationale for composing an Enquete Kommission with both policy makers and scientists is that scientific findings can be integrated much more rapidly and comprehensively into the parliamentary deliberations.

In October 1987, the Bundestag established, for example, an Enquete Kommission to recommend to the executive branch “Preventive Measures to Protect the Earth’s Atmosphere.” It was to assess the importance and consequences to the country of stratospheric ozone depletion and of climate change in a comprehensive manner. It advised both the Eleventh and Twelfth Deutsche Bundestag from 1988 to 1994. As of November 1988, this particular Enquete Kommission included 11 members of the Parliament (five Christian Democrats, three Social Democrats, one from the Free Democratic Party, and one from the Green Party) and nine members from the academic and scientific world. The secretariat, which was providing technical help, included eight members in addition to a study director.

Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×

Establishing Clear Rationales and Appropriate Institutional Structures. The terms of reference for this particular Enquete Kommission were established following a motion presented to the German Parliament by two political groups and approved by the Parliamentary Assembly, hence providing a clear mandate. The task of the committee was to collect evidence on global change in the Earth’s atmosphere, current scientific knowledge of the cause-effect relationships involved in changes taking place, and to propose national and international measures of prevention and control in the interest of protecting both humans and the environment.


Designing and Scheduling Assessment Activities. The Enquete Kommission determines how it conducts its activities. Reports are expected at stated periods and are presented for discussion to the plenary Parliamentary Assembly. Visits of the committee to specialized institutions and participation of committee members in national and international scientific conferences are scheduled. A list of potential experts who will be invited to testify is established. The topics for expert reports and the related schedule for publication are established by the committee.


Involving the Scientific Community and Other Relevant Experts. External experts originating from the academic, scientific, and industrial sectors are invited to testify before the committee. In the case of the Enquete Kommission on “Preventive Measures to Protect the Earth’s Atmosphere,” industry representatives as well delegates from the public sector were invited to provide input.


Engaging the Potential Users of Assessment Products. The primary user of this assessment was involved in the deliberations throughout the process.


Communicating Scientific Knowledge Accurately and Effectively. Each month, the Enquete Kommission organized a press conference to highlight the latest findings of the committee and to communicate the content of the presentations made by external experts. Topics discussed by the committee were often featured in the German press.


Guiding Plans for Future Activities. The reports of the Enquete Kommission provide specific recommendations regarding future observation campaigns, laboratory experiments, and model development.


Creating Valued Products. The Kommission produced a series of comprehensive documents that assessed the scientific knowledge on stratospheric ozone depletion and the protection of the tropical forest, and climate

Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×

change. These reports were prepared by the secretariat on the basis of debates that took place in committee. For certain specific topics, dissenting reports prepared by a fraction of the committee may be included.

In addition to chapters that described the state of the science, the Kommission report included sections that recommended specific actions and strategies to address the problems. For example, a 1987 report provided a list of possible actions to protect the ozone layer at the national and international levels (Enquete Kommission 1988). The report called for a drastic reduction in the production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances. The 1991 report (Enquete Kommission 1991) focused on climate change and provided several recommendations for new energy policy. It proposed a 30 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2005 and called for specific decisions by government bodies, industry, and the public to reach this recommended target.


Key Strengths and Weaknesses of the Enquete Kommission. This assessment provides a strikingly different model for how to provide policy-relevant information to the target audience by directly involving them in the assessment process.


Strengths:

  • Strong engagement of political decision makers because the Parliamentary Committee was composed of equal numbers of representatives of the different political parties and the scientific community.

  • Direct education of elected members of the Parliament who were members of the Committee.

  • Extensive involvement of experts from all regions and different disciplines.

  • Considerable involvement of a broad range of stakeholders.

  • Deliberate, well-planned communication strategy, carried out through periodic press conferences.

Weaknesses:

  • Difficulties in conducting scientific discussions within a Kommission that included some elected parliamentarians with little expertise on the subject.

  • Agreeing on specific resolutions was difficult due to political disagreements between members of different political parties.

  • Experts selected by the factions of Parliament were not nominated by scientific bodies but directly appointed by a political party, which could have some significant ramifications in terms of the credibility and legitimacy of the process.

Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×

SYNTHESIS AND ASSESSMENT PRODUCTS OF THE U.S. CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE PROGRAM

The CCSP oversees and coordinates research on climate and associated global change at 13 federal agencies and is responsible for responding to the GCRA of 1990. The GCRA mandates periodic assessment of global change impacts on the United States (see Appendix B). Therefore, the CCSP proposed in its 2003 strategic plan to conduct the assessment by producing 21 synthesis and assessment reports, each addressing a specific part of the five main goals identified by the program (CCSP 2003; see also Box 1.2). Three objectives of assessments were identified in the strategic plan: (1) to help shape the research agenda in climate change science, (2) to inform efforts for adaptation to climate change, and (3) to support decision making and policy formulation.

Eleven of the reports are intended to address specific unresolved issues related to the understanding and simulation of the climate system. Four reports focus on impacts of climate change on ecosystems and three address direct human impacts (i.e., health, energy, transportation). Three reports deal with decision support (see Appendix C). These reports tend to be narrowly focused on specific issues and thus can be characterized as process and impact assessments. At the time of this writing there is no plan to integrate across the 21 synthesis and assessment products or to produce an integrated assessment of impacts similar to that of the U.S. National Assessment in terms of scope or sectoral and geographic focus.

To date, only the first report, on temperature trends in the lower atmosphere, has been completed (CCSP 2006). A number of others are in review, are available in draft form, and should be officially released in the coming months. The remaining reports are scheduled for release in late 2007 and 2008. Because only one of the products has been completed, the committee has included a description of the approach and some of its strengths and weaknesses, but considers it premature to evaluate its effectiveness. Nevertheless, some valuable lessons can be learned from this approach.

The CCSP developed guidelines for the production of its assessment and synthesis reports (Appendix D). The guidelines call for using an “open and transparent process for soliciting user input, author nomination and selection, expert peer review and public comment, as well as publication and release” (CCSP 2004). Oversight for report preparation, release, and publication rests with the CCSP Interagency Committee.

The initial stage in the process involves the development and approval of a prospectus. The lead agency is responsible for drafting and finalizing the prospectus, which must be approved by the CCSP Interagency Committee. Experts and stakeholders are provided an opportunity to comment on the prospectus in an open process involving an announcement in the Federal Register and posting of the prospectus on the web.

Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×

Preparation of the actual report is carried out by lead and contributing authors selected for their technical expertise appropriate to the assessment topic. The lead authors have ultimate responsibility for the drafts. Although users and stakeholders are not specifically included in the report-writing process, the lead authors have the option of soliciting input from users and stakeholders; this solicitation is required to be open and consistent with the report prospectus.

The review of the report is an iterative process initially involving comments from experts and stakeholders in an open process that includes posting of drafts on the web. The guidelines state that “the scientific judgment of the lead authors will determine responses to the comments.”

Once the authors have responded to the review comments, the report is submitted to the CCSP Interagency Committee for approval, production, and ultimate release. Publication and release of the report by the Interagency Committee cannot occur until it is reviewed and cleared by the National Science and Technology Committee (NSTC). Approval of the NSTC in turn requires the written release of all members of the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (CENR). The CENR is comprised of officials from the Executive Office of the President and the 15 federal agencies that have significant programs focused on the environment and natural resources. After approval by the NSTC, the report is published and disseminated using both printing and posting on the web. In addition to the report itself, the comments received during the review process are also posted.


Establishing Clear Rationales and Appropriate Institutional Structures. The CCSP was intended to address the goals of both President George W. Bush’s 2001 Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI) and the GCRA of 1990. This has created an inherent conflict because the goals of the initiative and the 1990 act differ. The CCRI tends to be more narrowly focused on near-term decisions and resolving specific scientific issues than the GCRA. CCSP assessments essentially deconstruct climate issues into many separate, narrow questions that are addressed in individual assessments without integration. Consequently, the structure and approach are not strong in integrating research across sectors and regions or in interdisciplinary science. For this reason the assessment process adopted by the CCSP has been criticized by the NRC (2004) and the Government Accountability Office (GAO 2005) for not including the kinds of integrated analysis intended by the GCRA. One way of addressing this concern without producing a full-blown integrated assessment would be for the CCSP to produce periodic overview reports that summarize the findings of individual reports, place them in a larger context, and discuss policy implications.

A complex hierarchical institutional structure has been imposed on the CCSP assessment process with approval of the report requiring sign-off by

Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×

multiple agencies and departments as well as the Executive Office of the President. There are two concerns with this structure: (1) the complexity of the approval process may delay release of the reports; (2) the requirement that all reports be approved by all members of the CENR appears to give veto power over the report to diverse components of the executive branch. This raises the possibility that nonexpert government officials could attempt to influence the technical content of the report, which has the potential to reduce the perception of legitimacy and credibility. This concern is ameliorated to some extent by the fact that the initial draft reports and reviewers’ comments are publicly available on the web.


Designing and Scheduling Assessment Activities. The design of the assessment activity is outlined in guidelines for the scoping, preparation, review, and dissemination of the reports. This design incorporates many of the elements that this committee recommends for assessment reports, including appropriate scoping, transparency, both expert and other stakeholder participation, and an open review process.

The strategic plan calls for the completion of the reports over a three-year period. Due to administrative difficulties, related particularly to FACA requirements, some of the products are behind the schedule for completion outlined in the CCSP Strategic Plan (CCSP 2003). More generally, the scheduling of the assessment reports has been criticized by the GAO (2005) for not meeting the requirements of the GCRA for the completion of a scientific assessment every four years.


Involving the Scientific Community and Other Relevant Experts. The guidelines call for appropriate participation of the expert community in the writing and review of the report. Of particular note is the explicit control given the expert authors over the technical content of the report in the drafting phase.


Engaging Potential Users of Assessment Products. The assessment products planned for the CCSP are process and impact assessments, and the actual preparation of the report is essentially led by the expert community with input from government officials. The level of stakeholder engagement is left to the discretion of each assessment leader. Nevertheless the user and other stakeholder communities have the opportunity to comment and provide input on the report prospectus as well as the report itself.


Communicating Scientific Knowledge Accurately and Effectively. The guidelines on the preparation of assessment reports do not specify communication approaches, and most importantly do not seem to provide guidance on how to characterize uncertainty and confidence limits. However,

Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×

the strategic plan sets forth as one of its five principles that uncertainties require explicit treatment. One of the assessment products focuses on this topic. Thus, it would appear that the specifics with regard to these decisions are left to the authors of each report. It remains to be seen how this critical issue will be addressed in each report.


Guiding Plans for Future Activities. These issues are addressed largely in the overall CCSP mandate and strategic plan. How the individual reports will feed into this process remains to be seen. It is relevant to note that the National Research Council (NRC 2004) found that “CCSP should develop a more comprehensive strategy for implementing and sustaining a global climate observing system.” This recommendation was based on its perspective that not only climate observations, but also societal and ecosystem impacts, needed to be monitored more carefully. The lack of integrated assessments in the CCSP plan appears to be consistent with the NRC’s critique.


Creating Valued Products. Only one of the 21 products has been released, so it is not possible to comprehensively assess the degree to which the products will be valued by their target audiences. The first product (Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere, CCSP 2006) addressed a crucial, contentious, long-standing discrepancy in the scientific community between global temperature trends of the past few decades reported by surface thermometer record and those produced by analyses of the Microwave Sounding Unit satellite instrument. This assessment, by supporting detailed critical examination of methods used to produce alternative trends, reduced remaining discrepancies—both among alternative reductions of the satellite record and between them and the surface record—within the errors of the measurements.

Because the assessment reports themselves tend to focus narrowly on specific questions and short-term goals, it is likely that the products will be of use to specific segments of the stakeholder community rather than the entire community. For example, the first product has been of high relevance to those most interested in understanding the physical characteristics of the current warming and its attribution, but of little relevance to those concerned with impacts and adaptation.


Key Strengths and Weaknesses of CCSP’s Assessment Products. The CCSP assessment process is still in its formative phase, making it premature to comment extensively on its strengths and weaknesses. At the time of this writing only one of the 21 planned assessments has been completed and released. This first report appears to have been effective in meeting its objectives, having authoritatively resolved a key policy-relevant scientific question. The report’s conclusions have been disseminated widely and

Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×

well received by the relevant user, stakeholder, and expert communities. Although the individual products have the potential to result in effective assessments and achieve their individual goals, the overall approach differs from the schedule called for in GCRA (which calls for an assessment every four years) and it is not clear that the collection of assessment products will provide an integrated view of climate change impacts and possible response options.

Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×
Page 80
Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×
Page 81
Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×
Page 82
Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×
Page 83
Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×
Page 84
Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×
Page 85
Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×
Page 86
Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×
Page 94
Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×
Page 96
Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×
Page 97
Suggested Citation:"4 Case Studies of Global Change Assessments." National Research Council. 2007. Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11868.
×
Page 98
Next: 5 Advice for Effective Assessments »
Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $60.00 Buy Ebook | $48.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Global change assessments inform decision makers about the scientific underpinnings of a range of environmental issues, such as climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion, and loss of biodiversity. Dozens of assessments have been conducted to date by various U.S. and international groups, many of them influencing public policies, technology development, and research directions. This report analyzes strengths and weaknesses of eight past assessments to inform future efforts. Common elements of effective assessments include strong leadership, extensive engagement with interested and affected parties, a transparent science-policy interface, and well defined communication strategies. The report identifies 11 essential elements of effective assessments and recommends that future assessments include decision support tools that make use of information at the regional and local level where decisions are made.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!