Themed-Group Session Summaries

Page Updated: September 17, 2011

Mountains

Session Brief by Nina Hadley

Although gathered around a “mountain” theme, a truly wide range of systems, habitats and species targets existed among the group were represented. Habitat targets ranged from high altitude cloud forest in Guatemala, to alpine meadows and low latitude glaciers in China, cave and karst systems in the Central Appalachians to grasslands in Utah. And although there were relatively few commonalities between the groups in terms of habitat and species targets, a prominent, ongoing discussion topic arose around changes in precipitation and hydrology, which also led to a discussion about soil moisture over the course of the workshop.

With the exception of the Central Appalachians, which planned at a regional scale, the other projects were examined at the site scale. But because of this diversity among the group, the conversation included good debate over whether its better to develop strategies using a target-by-target analysis versus a systemic analysis (aka a“supertarget” approach) – which begged the question of “what is the right scale to look at climate change.” The groups asserted that scale can pose a challenge when there is a very particular affect of climate change to a small area over avery large landscape. Uncertainty around predictive modeling of the microclimates and extreme weather events (both frequency and intensity) that typically are associated with mountainous areas was also discussed by the teams.

On the final day, there was an even split of “new” versus “adjusted” strategies presented in the mountain group. “New” strategies and objectives involved influencing and developing alternative energy guidelines, establishing monitoring networks, strengthening conservation in parks and reserves, and working with government to scale up appropriate shrub control techniques. “Adjusted” strategies and objectives involved fire management planning, wastewater treatment, amending land use allocations and management prescriptions, reseeding, supporting legislation, and maintaining key species via sustainable grazing and alternative livelihoods.

The teams all expressed interest in gaining additional understanding about how to ascertain the“winners and losers” and especially the positive impacts of climate change on their targets. Thanks to “tough love” by the peer reviewers, all teams were warmly reminded that human factors within each of their systems will be increasingly important in the face of climate change. Team members expressed an appreciation for richness of peer review that came from the mixing of domestic and international teams within the mountains group.

The projects in the Mountains workshop included Lake Atitlan in Guatemala led by Estuardo Secaira; Meili Snow Mountains in China led by Deahi “Wendal” Wang; Dugout Ranch in Utah led by Barry Baker; and the Central Appalachian Mountains led by Tom Minney.

 

Estuaries, Lakes and Wetlands

Session Brief by Rebecca Esselman

In the Estuaries, Lakes and Wetlands session there was a lot of diversity among the four projects, which varied widely in scale, system type and the changes anticipated from a changing climate.

Three of the four projects were salt-water influenced systems and therefore impacted by sea level rise. The Great Lakes project however, is anticipating the lowering of lake levels. The Hudson River is also anticipating more extreme weather events affecting flood characteristics. Whether rising, falling or fluctuating more frequently, teams realized that the influence of climate change over waterlevels posed interesting challenges for shoreline communities including freshwater marshes, floodplain wetlands, mudflats, salt marshes, sandy beach systems. Each group had developed strategies to conserve these systems but in every case it was difficult to leave out the human response when it came to articulating hypotheses of change. For example, more extreme flood events in the Hudson River is expected to cause landowners to engineer banks for flood control increasing the length of the river that is effectively detached from its floodplain.

The teams were able to brainstorm solutions to migrating shorelines and associated systems. Many solutions seem applicable for many, or all, of the projects in the room. Teams talked about concepts like “rolling easements that migrate with changes in shoreline. There was evidence to support strategies that focus on getting local governments, development stakeholders and conservationists in the room together to determine the best and worst places for development to take place given forecasts of future climates as each of these groups stand to lose if poor development decisions are made.

There were also several shared challenges: targets need be placed in a regional context to determine what we want to protect where; determining baselines for changing ecosystems poses a unique challenge to conservation, and; invasives were an often cited threat without evidence that changing water temperatures or water levels would make project areas any more prone to invasions.

The projects in this group included the Shanghai Chongming Dongtan Estuary, China, led by GuoQiaoyu; the Altamaha-Ogeechee, Georgia, USA, led by Sara Gottlieb; Hudson River Valley, New York, USA, led by Katie Dolan; and Great Lakes Huron and Ontario, shared waters of Canada and USA, led by Patrick Doran.

 

Marine and Coastal

Session Brief by Sarah Davidson

The marine and coastal class included teams from four projects and the valuable participation from peer reviewers informed lively conversation. The class discovered that they were facing some surprisingly similar issues and challenges from Palau to the Arctic.

Several themes surfaced repeatedly. One was the issue of connectivity. The central question was: what degree of emphasis do we need to place on the interstitial landscape, or connectivity between portfolio sites? While it has always been true that processes impacting our conservation targets take place outside our portfolio areas, climate change brings increased attention to, and concern about, what is happening around these sites. A related question that was discussed is whether this may lead to greater priority being given to connecting the dots by working in a greater number of small areas instead of maintaining large areas, and whether the benefits of this shift in strategy has been proven.

A second was the important impact human responses to climate change will have in the places we work. One example includes the increasing use of the Arctic for shipping and oil and gas exploration and development as sea ice disappears. In some cases, human responses may even be a greater or more immediate threat to our conservation targets than climate change’s direct impacts. The class agreed that it would be essential to find appropriate ways to include human responses and socioeconomic issues into CAP planning for climate change. Although human responses to climate change may be a threat in some cases, the marine and coastal class also talked about the importance of recognizing the opportunities that exist, as well, as communities’ need to respond to climate change may lead to new chances to work together and to build alliances with new partners.

A third theme was how to make the often painful decisions that will need to be made in the face of climate change. The group agreed that we will need to ask some difficult but essential questions: Where can we make the biggest impact? When and where should we cut our losses? Will we have to consider giving up on entire landscapes and seascapes? They also discussed the value of coming up with contingency plans for strategies that may not be up to the challenges brought by climate change, and the importance of having a plan in place that lays out the process and timeframe for deciding when it’s time to move to the back-up strategies, in order to protect our conservation targets.

The projects in this workshop included the Edge of Ice in Massachusetts, led by Tom Chase; the Gulf of California in Mexico, led by Diana Bermudez; the Northern Reefs in Palau, led by Yimnang Golbuu from partner organization Palau International Coral Reef Center; and the Polar Marine/Mackenzie River Basin in Alaska and Canada, jointly led by Laura Chartier and Evie Witten.

 

Grasslands and Arid lands

Session Brief by Anne W. Thomas

All project teams in the Grasslands group concluded that they needed to alter their strategies, based on analysis of the already existing climate changes, and considering potential future changes. After proceeding through the process and making adjustments based on peer review, most all identified strategies were adjustments to current strategies, and included tools and approaches already in use by conservation practitioners today.  In some cases, it looked like teams might need to adjust conservation objectives as well, but teams were less willing to change objectives at this time.

Challenges with Targets & Priorities

There was much conversation about implications for identifying targets and priorities within project work.  Some direct observations and questions: **We might need to change the criteria by which we identify targets. **It may be more important than ever to look at nested targets. **One target, or one aspect of a target’s life cycle may be improving, one thing decreasing – makes it hard to judge what actions to take.  **It’s more about increasing understanding of vulnerabilities. **Beware of letting go of targets somewhere too early in the process.**It’s not just how the targets are responding to climate change – but also how the threats are responding, and how that impacts the targets. **Shifts in system composition can be characterized as good or bad.  **We may alter our objectives regarding targets – this is a strategy in itself, a refocusing, or reprioritization; It is a way to do implementation.

Grappling with Imperfect Knowledge of the Future

As these project teams worked together, there was also much conversation about uncertainties, and how to proceed with planning and priority setting given those uncertainties. Some observations and questions sounded like this: **These are models, what happens if they are wrong? **We need to be careful; we have an imperfect understanding of the underlying assumptions in the models.  **There are varying projections in the models; it makes it difficult to use them for decision-making. **Do we need contingency plans?  If so, how do we do that?

The projects in this workshop included Moses Coulee, WA, led by Kara Nelson; Mt. Hamilton, CA, led by Kirk Klausmeyer; Nevada & Utah Mts; led by Louis Provencher and Elaine York; Tallgrass Aspen Parkland, MN, led by Phil Gerla.

 

Regional

Session Brief by Olivia Millard

Unlike the other workshops which were grouped around habitat types, the Regional Scale Workshop sought to explore large initiatives, some of which include a number of habitat types.  Projects in this workshop were alllocated along coasts, but otherwise addressed widely varied threats and strategies.  This workshop highlighted the issue that using CAP to address regional-scale projects may require different criteria for target selection and effective strategies, and that teams need guidance on this.  Teams were forced to confront the difficult issue of whether we are protecting the stage (natural processes) or the actors (current biodiversity targets). This workshop also saw the beginnings of discussions about whether we are willing to let go of sites and landscapes that will be irrevocably changed by climate factors.

New connections were made between projects that knew little about each other before the clinic. The Mediterranean Baja team identified with challenges faced by the Atlantic Forest, and Mexico staff realized that the southern states of Mexico have similar ecosystems to the Coastal Cordillera of Ecuador; setting the stage for learning exchanges between these projects.

[Conversations in this session touched on many of the same issues identified in the other groups and are not repeated here.]

The projects in this workshop included the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico, led by Marie-Claire Paiz; the Atlantic Forest in Brazil, led by Anita Diederichsen; the Coastal Cordillera in Ecuador, led by Silvia Benitez; and the Mediterranean Baja in Mexico, led by Isabel Granillo.