Decision Support, NACP and “Usable” Carbon Science

1. Decision Support, NACP and “Usable” Carbon Science Lisa Dilling Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Colorado/CIRES, Boulder, CO USA

2. Motivation • NACP explicitly seeks scientific understanding to “…meet societal concerns and to provide tools to policy makers” (Wofsy and Harriss, 2002); and to provide “decision support” (Denning et al. 2005) • Providing useful knowledge is not a given • NACP offers a fertile test-bed and opportunity • To be successful at providing useful information to decision-makers requires research and a deliberate approach

3. An Opportunity? • Inadvertent carbon management • Existing for millennia • Will continue to dominate C management • Depends on land type, land use, actors, markets, policy • Carbon Governance? • Both deliberate and inadvertent • Rules TBD • Effective across scales • Role of public policy • Role of markets FUTURE ?? • Deliberate carbon management • Increasing interest in past 10 yrs • Small scale • Pilot projects • Voluntary efforts

4. Potential Carbon Decision Makers A wide array of potential users at a variety of scales: • Land users (agriculture, forestry, urban development) • Energy providers (utilities, fuel producers) • Policy makers (local, state, federal) • Specialized sectors (carbon traders, NGOs)

5. So what do we know about providing science that is useful for decision making?

6. Case example: ENSO climate forecasting

7. What have we learned so far? • Miles et al. 2006 (PNAS): “every empirical study conducted to date has shown that climate forecasts are not used to their full potential”

8. True in both wealthy and poor nations… • Developing world cases: Glantz, 1977, Sahel, Western Africa Blench 1999, Southern Africa Eakin 2000, Mexico Agrawala et al. 2001 Agrawala and Broad 2002, Peru Patt and Gwata 2002, Zimbabwe Tarhule and Lamb 2003, Sahel Ingham et al. 2002, Burkina Faso

9. Developed world • Sonka et al. 1992 U.S. agribusiness • Pulwarty and Redmond 1997, U.S. Pacific Northwest • Changnon 2003 U.S. sectors • Rayner et al. 2005 U.S. water managers

10. And can be used, with unintended consequences • Glantz 1982, Yakima Valley • Broad et al. 2002, Peru • Lemos 2003 Photo by Glantz Ceara, Brazil

11. Finally, of course some successes • Jagtap et al. 2002, Florida, U.S. • Power et al. 2005, Western Australia • Lemos and Morehouse 2005, Southwest U.S. • Cash et al. 2006, Pacific Islands • Miles et al. 2006, Pacific NW, U.S. PEAC

12. What does it take for science to be used in decision making? • Relevant to a decision context/Makes a difference to the outcome • There are viable options for the particular decision that are sensitive to the information • Compatible with existing values, norms and practices • Accessible • Credible • Trustworthy • Reliable/accurate/appropriate scale and timing

13. So what does this imply for the process used to create science useful for decision making?

14. Avoid the “loading dock” approach!! Cash et al. 2006

15. Characterizing the need for information: • What can we learn about decision makers’ needs, concerns and interests– what drives their decision-making? • What sources of information do they typically rely on? Why do they trust them? • How do their activities currently affect the carbon balance and why? • How does the scale of information needed match up to the scale of information available?

16. Iterativity Interactions with stakeholders Inter- disciplinarity Usable science Lemos and Morehouse 2005

17. Suggestions for making carbon (and NACP) science more usable (from SOCCR/SAP 2.2): • Identify categories of decision makers (DMs) for whom carbon information is a relevant issue (problem orientation) • Work directly with DMs to understand context of their decisions and evaluate carbon impacts of actions in these contexts (two way, ongoing) • Encourage experimentation with new approaches to make NACP science more credible and relevant to carbon managers • Involve multiple disciplines • Create appropriate feedbacks and accountability so that the NACP program and priorities are responsive to needs • New mechanisms and institutional arrangements may be necessary to facilitate meeting user needs • Co-evolve this component as part of the NACP, not an afterthought

18. The decision context for carbon management • No decision maker has solely a “climate protection” mandate • No-one is managing for carbon exclusively: • Multiple interests and incentives • Multiple goals • Multiple scales • Private sector decisions dominated by “responses to economic opportunities as mediated by institutional factors” (Lambin et al. 2001)

19. Decision support at this meeting: Breakout session: Carbon management and decision support (Potter and Wynne) Poster session Birdsey et al. Chen et al. Liu et al. Conant et al. Doraiswamy et al. Gower and Ahl King and Dilling Potter et al. Walker et al. Wynne et al.

20. Next steps to consider? • Formation of an NACP Decision support working group? • Recommended in NACP Science Implementation Strategy (2005) • Critical mass of interest in topic (posters, discussion interest) • Need to provide focal point, connect existing activities and foster new ones • Experience suggests we cannot wait until the end of NACP to start thinking about decision support…

21. Resources and References • NASA Applied Sciences program (Ed Sheffner) • “Usable Carbon Science” workshop report online at: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/sparc/research/projects/rsd/workshop_report.pdf • NACP Science Implementation Strategy (Question 4, decision support) online at: http://www.carboncyclescience.gov/PDF/NACP-SIS-final-july05.pdf • SOCCR/SAP 2.2 Chapter 5 online at: http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap2-2/public-review-draft/SOCCR_Chapter05.pdf • Dilling 2007 Environmental Science and Policy:1-4; 48-61 • Dilling 2007 Global Environmental Politics: in press

22. Thank you! • For more information: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/sparc/ ldilling@cires.colorado.edu