could be highlighted as an important step in the process.  Efforts should also be made to educate people about the

importance of reassessment activities and the negative effects that could result from canceling or delaying

reassessment.

Increased erosion rates have the potential to dump large quantities of nutrients and toxic materials into the Great

Lakes.  This should be emphasized and information added to the white paper about adaptation measures to

minimize erosion during high-intensity rainfall events.  Indeed, runoff will be a bigger problem as the fre-

quency of high-intensity rainfalls increases.  In February 2003, U.S. EPA completed a study into the effectiveness

of different types of riparian buffer zones to reduce sedimentation that may be exacerbated by climate change.

A booklet, Risk Management Guidelines for the Caribbean, was developed to help decision makers there learn

how to cope with uncertainty and risk in a systematic way.  A similar booklet that discusses risk management

guidelines should be considered for the Great Lakes region.  However, it is not enough to simply create and

distribute educational manuals.  Decision makers also need to be equipped with tools that will help them decide

on a course of action and determine how much intervention to advocate.

It is important to develop probabilistic modeling tools that will help decision makers gain a better understanding

of the likelihood of different climate change outcomes.  Canadian and U.S. modelers should work together, share

data, and develop new models for the Great Lakes region.  There is no such emphasis in the United States’

existing Science Plan, and Canada does not even have a science plan.  The director of the U.S. Climate Change

Science Program is championing the effort to incorporate this modeling objective into the U.S. plan.  He hopes to

establish two modeling centers in the United States to perform scenario development activities. Although the topic

is very much in the forefront, securing the needed dollars could prove difficult.

An army of professionals helps communities address land-use management issues, watershed management, water

permitting issues, infrastructure design, and habitat protection issues.  Most of these community-support profes-

sionals are poorly equipped to address climate change considerations or to promote adaptation strategies, because

they have not received training and information about these issues.  Thus, it is important to train the people who

are actually working with communities on a day-to-day level - “train the trainer” as it were.   Workshops and

training sessions would facilitate the effort.   Indeed, a communication strategy is a critical component to any

adaptation strategy.  It is critically important to make people understand that climate change is real and is happen-

ing now, but it can be difficult to convince people that climate change is salient.

The word “adaptation” has a connotation of incrementalism that could give the impression that the effects of

climate change can be easily managed if small incremental steps are taken to adjust to the changes.  Such an

interpretation is false.  Adaptation strategies will not fix everything.  It is important that people understand that

fundamental change, rather than incremental change, is needed to address the effects of climate change.  Further,

it is important to identify the endpoints that are of concern to different sectors.  Once these are determined, a

sensible combination of mitigation and adaptation strategies needs to be developed to protect the systems that

various sectors care about.  One complicating factor is that the effectiveness of regional adaptation policies may

depend on what is done at the national level.

The Board and the Commission are in a unique position to examine and publicize sustainability success stories

and “win-win” adaptation measures.

The IPCC may discuss indicators of the impacts of a changing climate in its next report, but these may only be

relevant to scientists.  What indicators are important to the public?  It will not be easy to convince people to take

immediate action to address and adapt to climate change.  Can key indicators be identified that will prompt

people to care and take action?  A number of indicators might spur the public to action:  deaths, beach closures,

negative economic ramifications, and water shortages. As unfortunate as it may sound, the public may have to be

confronted with such negative impacts before it will rally to support a coordinated adaptation strategy.  Optimisti-

cally, the public may understand the relevance of climate change before dramatic negative impacts are as apparent.

For example, in the United States, the public is becoming more and more knowledgeable about the issue and some

states (e.g. Massachusetts) are suing the federal government in an effort to encourage federal officials to place

high priority on climate change issues.  Public skepticism and the level of emphasis on climate change highlight

the importance to develop communication materials that clearly link negative impacts, such as death and eco-

nomic losses, with climate change in order to grab the public’s attention.  The IPPC plans to write a chapter on

this issue.

13