WORKSHOP PURPOSE

T

he draft white paper provided insight into the issues and impacts associated with climate change in the

Great Lakes region, the options available to address those impacts, and the challenges associated with

taking action.  To ensure that the Water Quality Board had properly characterized the consequences of

climate change, appreciated the challenges for taking action, and would provide sound advice to address

impacts, the Board convened a two-day workshop, using the draft white paper as the basis for discussion.

The workshop was intended to appeal to members of the Great Lakes community familiar with impacts or

impacted by climate change, as well as those positioned to implement adaptive measures and influence pro-

grams and policy.  Workshop participants were asked to ground-truth the information in the draft white paper

and to provide advice about how to address climate change, specifically to:

•

Confirm that key impacts had been correctly identified.

•

Identify how impacts on ecosystem quality, ecosystem health, human health, and beneficial uses of the

Great Lakes interact and interrelate.

•

Identify and assess adaptation options available to address impacts.

•

Identify knowledge gaps and research needs to inform policy and decision making.

•

Facilitate cross-border communication and cooperation.

Participants were encouraged to draw upon and share their personal real-world experiences:  impacts encoun-

tered, specific response measures taken, the extent to which adaptation was possible, and limitations and

barriers to taking action or further action.

WORKSHOP STRUCTURE

The workshop was designed to provide ample opportunity for dialogue among participants.  The agenda is

presented in Table 1.  Formal presentations were limited to an overview of the white paper by the authors, plus

a presentation by Georges Beauchemin who provided insight into real-

world considerations of risks, opportunities, and responses.  The revised white paper and M. Beauchemin’s

presentation respectively constitute Parts 3 and 5 of this report to the Commission.

Workshop participants were divided into breakout groups.  To provide structure and focus to the breakout

discussions, seven questions were posed (Table 2).  The questions were not, however, intended to be exclusive

nor answered sequentially.  Rather, they were intended as a guide to draw out people’s insight and experiences.

The breakout groups met twice, once on each day.

To provide additional opportunity for discussion, the breakout session facilitators constituted a plenary panel

during which they presented the key points arising from the breakout discussions.  The panelists were also

encouraged to share additional insights, to stimulate people to “think outside the box.”

The workshop concluded with a group discussion to identify key points that would contribute to the Board’s

“bottom line” advice to the Commission.

2