Another concern regarding the synthesis and assessment products is the magnitude of human resources, both within the scientific community and for CCSP staff, needed to coordinate and prepare them. The CCSP has not yet evaluated the feasibility of producing 21 of these products in the next 2-4 years without unduly impairing the progress of its research. Many of these products are significant scientific assessments and will require input and review by numerous scientists, as was learned during the U.S. National Assessment process of the late 1990s. In addition, the synthesis and assessment products will be generated over the same timeframe as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). The AR4 lead authors (including U.S. scientists) will be writing and revising AR4 chapters during 2005 and 2006, with final government review in early 2007. There is considerable overlap of the CCSP synthesis and assessment products and the AR4 chapters in terms of content. It is therefore important for the CCSP to actively coordinate the timeframe and content of the synthesis and assessment products with the IPCC AR4. For example, a set of peer-reviewed, authoritative CCSP products that appear by mid-2005 would likely contribute substantially to AR4. On the other hand, if the CCSP products are simply progress reports produced without involvement of the scientific community and with no independent review they will add little value to the IPCC process. Effective coordination with the IPCC could avoid possible conflicts with the international climate assessment, improve efficient use of resources, and could raise the image and impact of U.S. climate change science.

Recommendation: The CCSP should ensure that the synthesis and assessment products are produced without unduly affecting the ability to conduct research and in coordination with the IPCC assessment.

The CCSP has appropriately made decision support an integral component of the strategic plan. Chapter 11, “Decision Support Resources Development,” emphasizes development of methods, tools, and processes for effective decision support. Effective implementation of the proposed decision support activities is vital to fulfilling the CCSP’s vision of providing the regional, national, and global communities with capabilities for managing the risks and opportunities of changes in climate and related environmental systems. This chapter has much more depth and specificity than did the comparable chapter in the draft strategic plan (see Box 2-3).

Managing risks and opportunities requires stakeholder support on a range of scales and across multiple sectors, which in turn implies an understanding of the decision context for stakeholders. The revised plan identifies three categories of decision makers by decision type (see Box 2-3). As the decision support elements of the program are implemented, the CCSP will need to do a better job of identifying stakeholders and the types of decisions they need to make. This will improve the matching of decision types with the tools and methods most appropriate to that type of decision.

The strategic plan stresses the value of open communication between scientific and stakeholder communities, mentioning “frequent use of ‘draft for comment’ methods” (CCSP, 2003, p. 7) and “advisory mechanisms . . . including workshops, committees, or NRC activities” (CCSP, 2003, p. 122). The committee lauds this aspect of the plan. However, the program needs to specify more clearly where stakeholder input will enter the process. The current plan should more effectively build upon a growing capability within the U.S. climate and global change research community to interact with potential users of climate and global change science, as was demonstrated in the U.S. National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change (NAST, 2001). The revised plan generally overlooks the insights and relationships that were developed by the National Assessment. For example, the experience developed in assembling and maintaining networks of university researchers and stakeholders in different regions of the country is extraordinarily valuable, as are the networks themselves. These relationships should be supported if the CCSP is going to maintain strong stakeholder involvement. The plan also does not include areas of research relevant to regional-scale assessments identified as a result of the National Assessment. The committee reiterates the recommendation from its first report that the CCSP should “build upon the lessons learned in applied climate studies and stakeholder interaction from prior environmental and climate assessment activities.” This deficiency needs to be remedied quickly so that the program’s decision support activities reflect what the scientific community now knows, what it can accomplish, and what users would like to know.

Effective implementation of the plan’s goals requires focused research to develop decision support resources and methods, as noted in this committee’s review of the draft strategic plan.⁴ The revised plan provides several good illustrations of information and resources that will assist in decision support, but it does not present a strong research plan to bolster the development of assessments, adaptive

Front Matter (R1-R12)

Executive Summary (1-4)

1. Overall Assessment of the Strategic Plan (5-10)

2. Science Focus and Scope (11-20)

3. Implementing and Managing the Program (21-28)

4. Strategic Planning (29-32)

References (33-34)

Appendix A: Excerpts from Planning Climate and Global Change Research: A Review of the Draft U.S. Climate Science Program Strategic Plan (35-77)

Appendix B: Statement of Task (78-80)

Appendix C: Committee and Staff Biographies (81-86)

Appendix D: Global Change Research Act of 1990 (87-94)

Appendix E: Letter from James R. Mahoney (95-96)