Researchers' Working Meeting on Climate Change Impacts
in the Mid-Atlantic Region
Penn State--June 8-9, 1998

SUMMARY AND ADVICE FOR THE MARA TEAM

(Summary prepared by Bahar Celikkol, Colin Polsky and Kerri Dane)

Ann Fisher summarized why the group had been assembled:

The objectives of this working meeting are to identify inputs including data bases, approaches, existing assessments, and expertise, and to get feedback on assessment approaches, priority issues, and remaining gaps.

There are four basic questions to address in MARA:

1. What are the current environmental stresses on the Mid-Atlantic region?
2. How will these stresses be exacerbated or ameliorated by increases in climate change and climate variability?
3. What missing information is most important so that the region's decision makers (as individual citizens and in their roles within organizations) can make wise choices related to climate change and its impacts?
4. What coping strategies are available to the region now for responding to the challenges and opportunities posed by climate change?

The MARA team invites input on the process and content of its plans for the assessment. The list below summarizes the points raised in this wrap-up session.

THEMES:

Stakeholder Involvement:

• stakeholder input should be solicited early on

• stakeholder input can help identify case studies important to them

• attain stakeholder involvement by linking climate change to locally relevant issues and building on stakeholder relationships

• as the assessment progresses, the focus can be narrowed to identify stories to tell; stakeholder feedback can help frame the stories; wording is important and the stakeholders should be allowed to help select the information that they want and can use

• stakeholder input can and should be important, especially given the tight time constraints for this first assessment; there is not enough time to work deeply with stakeholders, but the initial inquiries can be made

Assessment Strategies

• it is important to have comparability for the national assessment, but unique features of the regions also should be reflected; determining a general framework is a good idea but difficult to do; we must be careful not to infringe on each region’s independence to examine what will be important for their region

• Creating templates by selecting the data, format and approaches for a general framework (e.g., having a coastal template used by all regions having coastal areas) will make it easier for NAST to synthesize separate assessments

• consider defining a common framework that can be used by other regions, and trading/exchanging information with other regions, while noting unique features

• the tight timeframe for the regional assessment drafts suggests the need for a streamlined approach; each group must prioritize and subdivide, yet deliberately select focal points and areas so that there are overlaps to help with the integrated evaluation; depending on the existing research and local interests in these prioritized points, potential case studies can be determined; then each subgroup should choose a small number (say, four) of "hot" topics and develop an in-depth assessment of each, in coordination with the other sectors so that there is overlap and the final product is truly integrated

• integrated assessment of health issues is an example for this suggested approach; high priority issues that are unique to the region should be chosen; a comprehensive baseline is also needed

• it may be easier to divide the problem – water, precipitation and temperature seem to be the driving issues, with health and ecosystem impacts as the major effects; maybe divide the area into three regions – Susquehanna River Basin, Chesapeake Bay Drainage region and the Coastal region; then overlay questions on each area (in order to provide assessment information on time); use water as the main integrating factor

• depending on the focal issues, case studies could be selected and geographically integrated; put dots on a map where a case study is done to make sure that all areas are covered

• a matrix might be constructed including the issues, related data, and the linkages of the issues; an appendix could be added to describe what our region was unable to do

• other projects can be used to identify the current stresses and vulnerability; developing a matrix showing existing information could determine the focus topics; maybe produce report cards; the empty cells show where research is needed for later assessments

• there is an organizing framework, a matrix that shows how water relates to forests and how soil relates to agriculture; quantification of impacts and dollar valuation can be calculated; economic models in general and input-output tables in particular can contribute in a meaningful way for all sectors; this will be a key tool in developing truly integrated assessments

• the matrix will be similar to an I-O matrix, showing interconnections; it will also be an input for economic analysis; there are not only direct impacts, but also indirect effects and multipliers that need to be addressed

Information Needs and Coping Strategies

• baseline linkages to climate change, coping now and under climate change, can be projected from the existing literature on actual coping;

• What are we currently doing to cope with conditions?
• What additional things do we need to do?
• What will climate change do and how can we change how we are coping?

• ask what kind of economic information is needed for the decision makers; the cost of economic information should be calculated

• one coping strategy is to refine predictive models and develop long-term surveillance; a matrix of different databases can be used to identify the outcomes, which then can be used to show linkages across sectors

• shaping the long-term research agenda is interesting, but it might not be realistic for the first assessment

• coping with extreme weather will shift the public awareness; many people are willing to do something about extreme weather impacts, but not climate change, so we need to find a way to connect these for the public

Ann Fisher expressed thanks to all participants and described next steps to be taken by the MARA team. Information from this workshop will be included in a web site, similar to the one for the September 1997 workshop. Next steps for the MARA team will reflect the input from the researchers' meeting to clarify the priorities for the first assessment, and consolidate what we know about information sources and help that might be available. Then the team will establish additional communication with researchers and the people from federal and state agencies. Some of these contacts will have substantive collaborative roles in MARA. Additional appendices and review will be completed over a longer term.