date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 09:17:07 +0300
from: Wilenius Markku <Markku.Wilenius@tukkk.fi>
subject: RE: Acacia-questions
to: 'Mike Hulme' <m.hulme@uea.ac.uk>

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
> >
