Managed by UT-Battellefor the Department of Energy

The IAV Community Self-organization Process: Aims and Progress So Far

Thomas J. Wilbanks

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

USA

Workshop on IAV Community Coordination

8 January 2009

2 Managed by UT-Battellefor the Department of Energy Presentation_name 2

First, Some Familiar Background (I):

• The IAV research community is fundamentally different from the CCM/ESM and IAM communities:

�Not grounded in a limited number of centers focused on large computer models, represented by consortia of those centers

�Distributed (fragmented?) by sector, region, scale, and time frame

�Often characterized by individual or small-group research

�Usually starting from system sensitivities rather than scenario projections

�Often preoccupied with the particular rather than the general – and a believer in the value of “local” knowledge

3 Managed by UT-Battellefor the Department of Energy Presentation_name 3

First, Some Familiar Background (II):

• Historically dependent on IPCC WG II to provide a periodic structure and meeting place

• Lack of coherence identified by the IAV breakout group at the Netherlands RCP meeting, September 2007, as a serious constraint on the ability of the IAV community to play an appropriately important role in climate change science, i.e.:

�Who speaks for IAV knowledge and perspectives?

�What does IAV have to say?

�What does IAV want?

4 Managed by UT-Battellefor the Department of Energy Presentation_name 4

That IAV Meeting Defined a Need for the IAV Community to Take Steps to Organize Itself:

• Recognizing that any structure must emerge bottom-up: no single person or entity has legitimacy to assert leadership

• Recognizing that any structure must be sensitive to the wide variety of interests and agendas across the IAV community

• Recognizing that the IAV community is playing “catch-up” compared with the CCM/ESM and IAM communities: lack of progress could very well mean under-representation of IAV knowledge and perspectives in climate change science

5 Managed by UT-Battellefor the Department of Energy Presentation_name 5

Several Steps Have Been Taken Since Then to Get Us to Where We Are Here in Boulder (I):

• The Netherlands meeting was followed by:

�The RCP report, which communicated a view of climate change as a “stool with three legs”

�The workshop in Washington, DC, in March 2008 to consider directions for IAV research following AR 4

�Specific focus on the bottom-up self-organization challenge at the 2008 meeting of the Energy Modeling Forum in Snowmass, July-August, arising from needs of ESM and IAM researchers

6 Managed by UT-Battellefor the Department of Energy Presentation_name 6

Several Steps Have Been Taken Since Then to Get Us to Where We Are Here in Boulder (II):

• To move gently toward bottom-up self-organization:

�Message sent out August 29, 2008, to more than 90 colleagues in the international IAV community, inviting participation in a process of self-organization

�About 40 responded positively with interest, thoughts, and some suggestions of others to contact and other activities for linkages

�Second message sent on September 29, 2008 (resent on October 6), summarizing the messages from the response

�Now have a self-identified list of about 50 IAV experts who want to be involved, including a number of centers

7 Managed by UT-Battellefor the Department of Energy Presentation_name 7

Here Is a Summary of the Summary (I):

About possible foci for the IAV research community:

– Connecting with the IPCC new scenarios process, including connecting climate change scenarios with a risk/vulnerability management perspective

– Playing a leadership role in the development of the proposed new “library” of socioeconomic scenarios and story lines

– Strengthening the representation of adaptation in IPCC and other climate change science arenas

– Increasing attention to relationships between adaptation and mitigation

8 Managed by UT-Battellefor the Department of Energy Presentation_name 8

Here Is a Summary of the Summary (II):

About how to move toward some sort of structure for channeling information, seeking community support, and representing our knowledge and interests:

– Determine who among the IAV community would like to be involved in the RCP/new scenarios process

– Identify who in IAV would like to use the new scenarios and what they would like to get from them

– Identify who would like to be involved in the development of socioeconomic scenarios and story lines

– Identify who would like to be involved in interactions with IPCC and others about climate change adaptation

– This meeting is an early step in these directions

9 Managed by UT-Battellefor the Department of Energy Presentation_name 9

Of Course, Needs for External Coordination Are Not the Only Reason for IAV Self-organization:

Opportunities to address important generic issues, such as:– Interactions between climate change and other drivers of change

– Possible “tipping points” where impacts go non-linear

– Interactions among various categories of impacts – e.g., energy, water, cities, health

Needs to improve IAV science, such as:– Issues about the quality of our data

– Issues about differences in the tools that we use (even for the same questions)

– Issues about how we address uncertainties

But coordination needs are a valuable catalyst for mobilizing us to accomplish a great many things together