Known-Knowns
 Known-Unknowns &
 Unknown-Unknowns Donald H. Rumsfeld & Climate Change Adaptation

Chris Lemieux1,2, Jessica Thompson2, Rudy Schuster3 and Jill Baron3 1University

2Colorado

of Waterloo State University 3USGS April 20, 2011

Overview of Presentation •  “Getting Real” with The Poetry of Donald Rumsfeld –  The Known-Knowns –  The Known-Unknowns –  The Unknown-Unknowns •  Canadian/U.S. Case Studies on Institutional Capacity to Adapt to the (un)Knowns •  “Chinks” •  “Armour”

The Poetry of 
 Donald H. Rumsfeld •  There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. •  There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. •  But there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we do not know we don’t know.

The (un)Knowns About the Availability of CC Information for Decision-Making

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

9"'.#*4)%# 0"(.# 1%"234# !"#$%&"'()*$"%# /#,$**,.#$%&"'()*$"%# .%"234# :#;$5.#<)*.3"'$.8# :#;$5.#<)*.3"'$.8# $%&"'()*$"%# $%&"'()*$"%#*"# )+)$,)-,. )+)$,)-,. $%&"'()*$"%#*"# =!"*#.%"234#$%&"> =1%"234#$%&"> )+)$,)-,. ()5.#)#6.7$8$"% ()5.#)#6.7$8$"% 3 34 56 7 5 ?@: ?A: 5 7 5: 35 ; ?A: BA: 3? 33 53 @ 4 CA: AD: : 3? 54 33 4 ?E: ?@: ; 3: 53 3? 5 B@: ?B: 3; 37 33 : 5 FG: AC: 33

5?

33

:

;

FA:

AD:

;

5?

34

I

@

C@:

?@:

6

55

3:

@

5

GF:

AG:

; ; I 3?

3; 3; 3: 34

5: 54 53 53

6 I @ @

5 4 5 3

BG: BG: CC: CG:

A@: ?A: AG: AC:

Some (Unfounded) Insights on Availability of Information •  Did not ask to rate how confident you were with your evaluation •  Knowledge state may be inadequate despite the increasing investment in research on climate change, or is it that existing knowledge is: –  –  –  – 

Not being communicated/disseminated (science>management)? A reflection of current management priorities? Not useful, or being used unconsciously? Practitioner experience vs. scientific knowledge?

How are We Preparing for & Dealing With the (un)Knowns?

1

Low

Importance

5

High

Management Issue Importance and Performance Concentrate Here “Fix It”

High Importance

Low Performance

top priority/urgent

Keep Up the Good Work “Excel”

High Importance

High Performance

system strengths, maintain

Low Priority

Low Importance

Low Performance

low priority

Overkill “Justin Bieber”

Low Importance

High Performance

insignificant strengths,

candidates for resource re appropriation/diversion

Low 1

Performance

High

5

How are We Preparing for & Dealing With the (un)Knowns? Management Issue Importance and Performance

%"#$

("%$

Importance

("#$

'"%$

'"#$

&"%$

&"#$

Concentrate Here “Fix It”

top priority/urgent

Keep Up the Good Work “Excel”

system strengths, maintain

Low Priority

low priority

Overkill “Justin Bieber”

insignificant strengths,

candidates for resource re appropriation/diversion

!"%$

!"#$ !"#$

!"%$

&"#$

&"%$

'"#$

'"%$

Performance

("#$

("%$

%"#$

Management Issue Importance and Performance My agency has a clear mandate to respond to climate change.

&"%$

Responding to climate change is a management priority in my agency.

Importance

&"#$

My agency has sufficient financial resources to adapt to climate change. !"%$

My agency has adequate staff to effectively respond to climate change impacts. Fix it!

Good Work!

!"#$ '"#$

'"%$

!"#$

Performance

!"%$

Northern Colorado Workshop Results Management Issue Importance and Performance

%"#$

("%$

Importance

("#$

'"%$

'"#$

&"%$

&"#$

Concentrate Here “Fix It”

top priority/urgent

Keep Up the Good Work “Excel”

system strengths, maintain

Low Priority “Roger Ebert”

low priority

Overkill “Brett Favre”

insignificant strengths,

candidates for resource re appropriation/diversion

!"%$

!"#$ !"#$

!"%$

&"#$

&"%$

'"#$

'"%$

Performance

("#$

("%$

%"#$

Management Issue Importance and Performance &"%$

My agency has a clear mandate to respond to climate change.

Importance

&"#$

My agency has sufficient financial resources to adapt to climate change.

!"%$

My agency has appropriate policies to effectively adapt to climate change

Good Work!

Fix it!

!"#$ '"%$

("#$

("%$

!"#$

Performance

!"%$

ADAPTING TO UN(KNOWNS) 
 Ontario Parks Case Study on the Feasibility of Adaptation Options

2010 Hocke Winter Oly y Silve m r Meda pics list La nd

ADAPTING TO (un)Knowns: 
 Ontario Parks & Policy Delphi • 

Iterative survey method to identify and evaluate climate change adaptation options in Ontario Parks’ major policy and management program areas –  Group-oriented IGS that aims to uncover and explore both consensus and disagreement surrounding policy issues (desirability and feasibility) –  Affords the freedom to present and challenge alternative viewpoints, and to think reflectively and independently between iterations –  Anonymous: •  Avoids power of persuasion •  Empowers individuals to take risk without repercussion (e.g., illegal/ incompatible recommendations) –  Stakeholder “buy-in” – gives practitioners opportunity to gain experience with adaptation (which has been omitted to-date)

• 

Put adaptations in a “real world” context

“Ecological Representation” Protected  area  system  design  should  focus  on  the  continued   Ecological  representation  should  no  longer  be  used  as  one  of  the  five   representation  of  species  but  should  more  effectively  incorporate   criteria  (the  others  being  condition,  diversity,  ecological  functions  and   persistence  parameters  to  ensure  perpetual  representation  (i.e.,   special  features)  for  selecting  and  designing  protected  areas.     representation  through  time).     Desirability   Desirability  

Responses   Responses   %  with   %  with   opinion   opinion   %  like   %  like   categories   categories  

VD   VD  

D   D  

U   U  

VU   VU  

1   11  

3   11  

13   2  

9   0  

Not   Not   Sure   Sure   8   10  

3.8   45.8  

11.5   45.8  

50.0   8.3  

34.6   0.0  

23.5   29.4  

15.4   91.7  

CONSENSUS   CONSENSUS  

DESIRABILITY   DESIRABILITY  

HIGH   HIGH  

Undesirable  to   Very   Desirable   to   Very  U ndesirable   Desirable  

84.6   8.3  

“Nice thought, but we have little idea what these are. Planning for non-linear changes is almost impossible.”

“This issue is also greater than protected areas.”

“Status Quo of Flora and Faunal Composition” Management  plans  should  acknowledge  climate  change  as  an  ecological   driver  and  should  no  longer  focus  on  maintaining  the  status  quo  of  flora   and  faunal  composition.     Desirability  

Responses   %  with   opinion   %  like   categories  

VD  

D  

U  

VU  

Not   Sure  

12  

18  

1  

0  

3  

38.7  

58.1  

3.2  

0.0  

8.8  

96.2  

CONSENSUS  

DESIRABILITY  

HIGH  

Very  Desirable  to   Desirable  

3.2  

How rationalize protected areas (to public)?

Inconsistent with retaining “representation”!

“Highly Vulnerable Species/Species at Risk” Highly  vulnerable  systems  should  not  be  protected  –  limited  resources  should  focus   on  areas  with  a  reasonable  chance  of  longer  term  resilience.   Desirability  

Responses   %  with  opinion   %  like   categories  

VD  

D  

U  

VU  

Not   Sure  

2  

8  

14  

4  

6  

7.1  

28.6  

50  

14  

17  

35.7  

CONSENSUS  

DESIRABILITY  

LOW  

UNDESIRABLE  TO   VERY  UNDESIRABLE  

64.3  

Nearly half of panel “Desirable” or “Not Sure”.

“Could become the argument for collapsing the park system.”

“These questions are really about values. While I think that rare/relict species have intrinsic value and deserve attention and funding, I do not believe that a largely disproportionate amount of funding should be directed toward them to the detriment of species which hold more promise for persistence.”

Feasibility  Evaluation  Matrix  

Recommended Adaptation Option (*most options can be found in Baron et al., (2009) publication on U.S. National Park Service) Ontario Parks should anticipate locations that could serve as refugia for certain kinds of ecosystems and work to protect these sites in advance. Ontario Parks should consult with organizations in adjacent provinces and states to help anticipate, plan and synergize cross-jurisdictional objectives to anticipate the “loss and gain” of species.

No Capacity = Adaptation Paralysis

Implementation Evaluation

Definitely Not Implementable

Probably Not Implementable

Species translocation should be considered when species are unable to migrate to suitable habitat naturally.

Probably Not Implementable

It is necessary to develop a more explicit mandate and policies for protected areas system design to enable better connectivity among protected areas through the protection of corridors, linkages, and functional ecology.

Probably Not Implementable

Management plans should acknowledge climate change as an ecological driver and should no longer focus on maintaining the “status quo” of flora and faunal composition.

Probably Implementable

Land use activities adjacent to protected areas should allow for movement of wildlife and plants and help to "feather" protected areas into the working landscape.

Probably Not Implementable

Protected areas system planning should incorporate “redundancy” into representation requirements to offset potential species losses resulting from climatic and ecological change.

Probably Not Implementable

“Clustered” management plans that would provide a generic management prescription for a series of protected areas having similar ecological management objectives should be used to provide the flexibility needed to incorporate climate change considerations at local and regional levels for protected areas having similar environmental conditions.

Probably Implementable

Barriers to Adaptation (Chinks) & 
 Interesting Quotes — “priorities are not focused on climate change… lack of staff and financial

resources for dealing with climate change are the main capacity issues” — “only one person is focusing on climate change in the agency and is self-

appointed!” — “we don’t have the confidence in science’s ability to predict a suitable time

frame what issues will emerge… therefore, issues will likely have to be addressed as they emerge” — “we are barely able to cope with day to day issues regarding our protected

areas… understaffing is a problem… a national strategy we could feed off would be useful”

—  94% of Canada’s PA agencies conceded that they do not have the capacity necessary to move forward; desire for more research on cc issues, especially potential impacts on biological systems and response strategies Lemieux et al., 2010

Opportunities (Armour) •  •  •  •  •  •  •  •  • 

Iconic nature of public lands (should help gain support) Environmental, social, economic importance of public lands (“do nothing” not an option) Large constituency of land manager/biodiversity conservation proponents (agencies, ENGOs, public-at-large) Growing awareness, interest, and concern in natural resource sector Desire to collaborate and pool knowledge and resources Obtaining experience with adaptive management (restoration) Growing sense of urgency/emphasis on accountability (GAO in U.S. and Canada) Scale and design of public lands (already some built-in resilience, persistence, connectivity, etc. especially in SW Dakota) Some exciting casework underway: communication, science and research communication networks (as seen at this workshop)

Acknowledgements