date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 09:17:07 +0300 from: Wilenius Markku subject: RE: Acacia-questions to: 'Mike Hulme' Dear Mike, Thanks for your reflections which sure help me a lot in my orientation. Best regards Markku > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Hulme [SMTP:m.hulme@uea.ac.uk] > Sent: 9. huhtikuuta 1998 13:15 > To: Wilenius Markku > Subject: Re: Acacia-questions > > Markku, > > Here are a few more thoughts about the ACACIA briefing papers. > > The purpose of these papers (I have commissioned four) is to draw upon > the > experience and expertise of people around Europe who have been > involved in > considering the types of information needs organisations have when > considering their response to climate change. The ACACIA group wishes > to > reflect on these experiences before designing their synthesis report > on: > "The impacts of climate change on Europe and options for adaptation." > This > report - to be presented to the Commission in the year 2000 - needs to > include the 'right' type of information, presented in the 'right' way, > and > targeted to meet the needs of the hierarchy of organisations (public > and > private) who may be seen as stakeholders in the climate change issue. > Two > examples of reports covering the same ground are the UK CCIRG report > of > 1996 on potential effects of climate change on the UK and the European > chapter in the recent 1998 IPCC report on regional impacts. We think > both > these reports, although having strengths, can be substantially > improved > upon in the way in which information is synthesised and presented. > > For example, the CCIRG report went through 15 sectoral chapters > structured > as follows: Introduction, Assessment of Impact, Adaptation Potential, > Unknowns and Uncertainties, Implications for Other Sectors, and > Research > and Policy Issues. The IPCC chapter for Europe was structured: > Introduction and Background, Regional Climate Characteristics, Key > Impacts, > Integrated Assessment of Potential Vulnerabilities and Impacts. > > We want the structure of our report to be driven more explicitly by > user > and stakeholder needs. Therefore the sort of considerations we need > to > make (and this is where we are asking for your insights and opinions) > are > these: > > · What time-scales of information are needed? Do stakeholders want > descriptions of future climate and climate impact 50-100 years in the > future or a better description, including extremes, of past and > present > climate variability and near-term future climate? Is 2020 too far > ahead to > worry about or is 2050 or 2080 a necessary horizon? > > · At what space-scales is information needed? At what point down the > hierarchy from global impacts to local/site impacts are stakeholders > interested? Is there any value at all in global or European-wide > studies > that generalise greatly? > > · What mechanisms for information dissemination are preferred? All > knowledge is provisional and one of the key questions is how do > stakeholders gain access to the changing knowledge base. Related to > this > of course is how is uncertainty presented - as a range of > possibilities, as > a best guess plus a range, as a probability distribution, as simply a > best > guess case? And what about scenario extremes (i.e., very low risk, > high > impact outcomes)? How do stakeholders handle these extreme > possibilities? > > · Do different types of organisations (national government, commerce, > local > government, consumer groups and co-operatives, etc.) need different > types > of information (e.g. lists of impacts, probability judgements on scale > of > impacts, time horizons of change, impacts or adaptation options, > etc.)? > > · What is the balance between concern about climate impact versus > opportunity for adaptation to climate? What information is perhaps > uniquely relevant for adaptation considerations that is rarely > considered > in a climate change impact assessment? > > · How does information about climate change relate to information they > may > need/use about other, non-climatic futures - e.g. scenarios of > cultural and > technological change, predictions of economic growth, etc.? It may be > that > climate information is relatively low priority for some. How > contingent on > other non-climatic assumptions should climate change impact scenarios > be? > > · What information is of most use and to whom and delivered in what > way - > formal models, expert synthesis, probabilistic statements or > qualitative > information? > > > And some general points. Examples can be from national, European or > non-European case studies. Our report will focus on the EU, but we > can > learn from experiences in other regions. We are considering the full > array > of social and ecosystem activities in our assessment - thus forests, > commerce, water, energy, culture, etc. The whole array of climate > variables is therefore relevant. Organisations can be public (e.g., > EU > Commission, national ministries, local government, nationalised/public > industries) and private (e.g., insurance, commodity trading, > consultancies, > manufacturing, utilities, consumer groups), but not primarily NGOs. > > Regards, > > Mike > > At 15:06 06/04/98 +0300, you wrote: > >Dear Mike, > > > >As I'm orientating to activities that touch upon the issues to be > raised > >in coming Acacia-paper, I wonder if you'd be able to elaborate a bit > >further types of questions/concerns/variables that should be > introduced > >and discussed in the coming paper/project > > > >Best wishes > > > >Markku > >