A group of 13 U.S. agencies are in the process of preparing the Third National Climate Assessment. With the help of 240 notable scientists and other experts as authors, an extensive draft report has been prepared and released for comment.  Like many other national and international collaborative efforts, this assessment serves as an impressive status report on the scientific knowledge related to the impacts of climate change.  Yet, like previous assessments, this draft stops short of making recommendations, which are needed for progress towards meaningful solutions. 

Following is the complete text of my formal comment on the need for including recommendations by the technical experts who best know the science and data, as well as the causes and effects:

To expand the usefulness of the National Climate Assessment, add a list of recommendations for action to each chapter.

______________________

Overall, the draft Third National Climate Assessment is an outstanding report, as far as it goes.  When completed, it promises to be the most authoritative and wide-ranging scientific analysis ever prepared about the impacts of climate change facing the United States.  This comprehensive assessment is valuable, but still falls short of the type of document that is urgently needed today.  The key messages presented in each chapter provide a compelling status summary, but to be truly useful, the report needs to go further to include recommended actions.

Climate change encompasses a collection of important issues in need of immediate attention.  The magnitude and complexity of these issues have made decision-making and implementation extremely difficult at all levels.  To a large degree, the reluctance of the world scientific community to offer anything beyond an assessment of the problems has empowered this inaction.   This report could significantly advance local, regional, national and international decision-making processes by including a list of recommended high-level response actions to the problems that have been identified.  By outlining more detailed response options and providing recommended solutions, this report would better support decision-making while encouraging a propensity for action.

Before completely dismissing this comment because making recommendations is not officially required by the Global Change Research Act of 1990, please consider that the advisory committee has already recognized (especially in Chapter 26) gaps exist in the process between data generation and decision making.  However, the gap is not created by a lack of ‘science translators’ as suggested in Chapter 26.  There are plenty of capable decision makers who understand science and plenty of knowledgeable scientists who comprehend policy making.

Previously, scientific assessments have not gone far enough, so policy makers have not been able to take the conclusions of the technical experts and convert them into meaningful actions for implementation.  Therefore, the ‘translation’ needed is for the climate scientists to go beyond their problem-identifying conclusions, using their technical expertise to delve into potential solutions.  One of the simplest and most effective ways to promote decision-making collaboration is to encourage more overlap among participants throughout the process.  A direct way to bridge this gap is to have the experts who draw the important conclusions (i.e., ‘key messages’) also offer a set of recommendations to address the identified problems.

Assuming decision makers agree that policies should be established based on facts and guided by science, then the technical experts who study and understand the issues should play a prominent role in establishing the strategies needed to respond to climate change.  They are the ones who have the most direct and substantive knowledge of the causes, effects, and potential solutions to the problems the world faces.

The few recommendations that are included in the report are related to research needs presented in Chapter 29.   It is appropriate to include this type of recommendation where uncertainties exist about the climate system and dynamics, as well as potential mitigation and adaptation measures.  However, equally important is to recommend actions for those issues/problems that are well established or for which there is little uncertainty.

There should be no concern that making recommendations might infringe on the territory of policy makers.  The type of recommendations suggested here are only those of a broad nature, based on well-established scientific data and principles.  If the recommendations effectively describe what actions should be taken and why, then policy makers will have the information needed to accept, reject or modify each recommendation during their decision-making processes.  Once policy makers make a decision and choose a general course of action, then they will still need to develop the many details defining how the policies will be implemented.

To prepare the Third National Climate Assessment, the advisory committee has convened an eminent group of scientists, experts and policy specialists as authors.  Collectively, these teams of authors could undoubtedly offer some sound advice in the form of recommendations for action going forward.  Building on the coordinated effort already established among USGCRP agencies and researchers for preparing this assessment, any promising solutions offered would be expected to be high-quality, peer-reviewed and well-grounded in current scientific knowledge.  With the addition of some basic recommendations, this report could be transformed into a strong leadership document designed to help drive solutions rather than just highlight the problems.