Introduction

1. Improve knowledge of the Earth’s past and present climate environment. • Improve quantification of the forces bringing about changes in the Earth’s climate. • Reduce uncertainty in projections of how the Earth’s climate may change. • Understand the sensitivity and adaptability of various systems. • Explore the uses and identify the limits of evolving knowledge • Plan, sponsor and conduct scientific research. • Enhance observations and data management. • Aid decision making with science-based resources. • Communicate results to scientific and stakeholder communities. Research Results EXPLICIT CCSP Vision Synthesis IMPLICIT US Climate Change Science Program Strategic Plan 2003 Better Management Better Climate Policy Better Climate Science Policy Priorities, Goals, Metrics and Reality: How will the USCCSP contribute to policy and decision making? Ryan Meyer; Consortium for Science Policy and Outcomes; Arizona State University Introduction The United States has committed billions of dollars to the improvement of scientific knowledge of climate systems and climate change. The vast and complex nature of the climate system has required that research occur across a broad range of disciplines with funding by many different agencies. However, one unifying theme of climate funding programs, from the Global Change Research Program (GCRP) to the Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI) and now the US Climate Change Science Program (USCCSP), has been the primary goal of contributing to policy and other decision making processes. The USCCSP, announced by President Bush in 2002, represents our country’s current effort to combine a broad portfolio of research into one coherent climate science program aimed at supporting decision making and policy making. The program's strategic plan, published in 2003, outlines an enormous body of work, all integrated within a framework for enabling the effective use of growing scientific knowledge. The purpose of my research, currently in its early stages, is to analyze and compare the goals, priorities, activities and potential outcomes of the CCSP in its strategic plan and subsequent supporting publications. In addition to mapping these elements of the plan, the work will characterize “implicit policy models” that emerge as a combination of stated goals, planned activities and (implicit or explicit) expected outcomes. This poster presents one example of a CCSP implicit policy model, as well as some observations and questions that will guide further work. Basic Structure of the Plan As suggested by its vision (above), the USCCSP is clearly aimed at an outcome in which science positively influences the world we live in. We must look deeper into the strategic plan to see how pathways toward this outcome are laid out. The plan outlines five over-arching goals and four core approaches as a framework for achieving the vision (right). The five goals are primarily associated with the generation of scientific information (though goal five suggests possible connections with decision making and policy processes). The first two core approaches are directly related to scientific work, while the second two address the building of connections between science and those who would use and benefit from results. Example: Communication of Results A major output of the CCSP will be the transmission of information in the form of synthesis and assessment reports. The program currently has plans for more than 20 such reports, which contribute to “Decision Support Resources Development.” The figure on the left shows an implicit policy model that emerges from the specific plans for these reports. The dashed lines represent connections that are not stated explicitly. Rather we are left to assume that these must be expected outcomes of the activities explicitly described. It may seem intuitive that improved scientific knowledge should lead to better policy, but this is not necessarily the case. In fact, there is little evidence that supplying information with no consideration for political context or process can influence policy (e.g. Bimber 1996; Sarewitz 2004; Shulock 1999). It is not clear from the plan whether or not the political context will be a consideration in the provision of information. Thus, in this particular case, the plan falls short of explaining how its activities, goals and overarching vision are connected by leaving out any discussion of the policy processes that are assumed to benefit from its activities. The plan notes in its glossary that policy decisions “usually involve balancing competing value issues” (p. 112) but offers no explanation for what it would mean to “improve” such decisions using scientific knowledge. Conclusions Perhaps the most impressive aspect of the CCSP’s strategic plan is the intricate web of connections drawn among the incredibly diverse scientific activities that it will facilitate. The goal of my work is not to criticize this science in particular; it is clear that our knowledge of climate systems may be greatly enhanced by the program. Instead, I hope to use this analysis as a constructive reminder that in addressing challenges of global change, science (climate or otherwise) can only be one part of a complex political equation. Acknowledgments Thanks to Dan Sarewitz for valuable input to the poster, and to Genevieve Maricle and Bets McNie for collaborating with the project. Thanks to Roger Pielke, Lisa Dilling and others with the Science Policy Assessment and Research on Climate (SPARC) team. Thanks to the Consortium for Science Policy and Outcomes (CSPO) for support in getting me to this conference. • Further work • Additional topics for analysis include: • Modeling: a large portion of the research described in the plan is in support of modeling activities. My work will focus on the balance between regional and global models and between the short and long term with comparisons to the plan’s perceived stakeholder and decision maker needs. • Reduction of uncertainty: as noted in the plan’s glossary, uncertainty can take on many forms. I will investigate which forms seem to have priority, and how reductions, if achieved, are assumed to aid decision making. • Priorities: the plan contains more than 200 “milestones, products and payoffs.” A framework for categorizing these, will be developed to better understand how these items map onto the goals of the program. • Metrics: the National Research Council published a report (NRC 2005) which outlines metrics for evaluating the progress of CCSP. I will examine the metrics put forward in that document for a comparison to the mapping of priorities and goals mentioned above. References Bimber, B. A. (1996). The Politics of Expertise in Congress: The Rise and Fall of the Office of Technology Assessment. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. NRC (2005). Thinking Strategically: The Appropriate Use of Metrics for the Climate Change Science Program. Committee on Metrics for Global Change Research, Climate Research Committee, National Research Council. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11292.html Sarewitz, D. (2004). How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science & Policy, 7, 385-403. Shulock, N. (1999). The Paradox of Policy Analysis: If It Is Not Used, Why Do We Produce So Much of It? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 18:226-244. Strategic Plan for the U.S. Climate Change Science Program. (2003). http://www.climatescience.gov