Climate Change/Resilience Working Group
January 13, 2015
Attendees
Mel Cote, USEPA; Theresa Torrent, Maine Coastal Program; Kathleen Leyden, Maine Coastal Program;
Kathy Mills, GMRI, Suzy Arnold, Island Institute; Malcolm Burson, Conservation Law Foundation; Jed
Wright, USFWS; Kim Erskine, Homeland Security; Peter Slovinsky, MGS; Marina Schauffler, CBEP; Curtis
Bohlen, CBEP; Matt Craig, CBEP
Large Group Discussion
Jed Wright of USFWS provided some background about how resilience is defined and measured. There
are numerous definitions—some related to capacities to respond to disturbances or adverse events.
Ecological definitions tend to view resilience more in terms of alternative stable states (the capacity to
resist change or shift from one dynamic regime and into another). Engineering resilience and community
resilience have still more definitions.
The metrics of resilience are challenging, and can vary greatly whether one is assessing ecosystem
services or social systems. What enhances resilience? Concepts in the literature include:
 Diversity
 Connectivity
 Reserves (e.g., biomass or capital)
[Resilience, in ecological parlance, tends to mean that a system is not near thresholds that would lead to
a different system state. Under these conditions, a system perturbation is unlikely to lead to major
changes]
These concepts apply not only to ecological systems (where the theory was developed) but to economic
and social systems as well. Resilience is in part about protecting alternatives in an unknown future: it’s
not about knowing what is going to happen.
More support is needed with this process for state and local decision-makers (e.g., around critical
infrastructure). There are so many initiatives underway it’s hard to keep track of them all and there’s a
lot of overlap. CBEP should figure out where the gaps are, and help share information about what
partners are doing – particularly in relation to local municipalities.
Homeland Security (HS) is working around Casco Bay on the first Regional Risk Assessment Program
(RRAP) specific to climate change. RRAP is focused on mapping dependencies and interdependencies
among sectors. The challenge is how to predict the impact of climate change if we can’t accurately
predict climate. HS has an infrastructure survey tool that looks at what is critical at different levels—
nation, region, etc. –and meets regularly with operators of critical infrastructure. They assess each
facility using a building resiliency index—and offer operators ideas for how to improve operations. Their
index could be a useful model for local -scale resiliency assessments. They tend to rely on resilience as
defined in the “National Infrastructure Protection Plan” (US Global Change Research Program a good
resource). For regional work, it’s crucial to scale down data from global climate models for better
decision-making.
Maine Coastal Program tends to work directly with municipalities, with a focus on the shoreline and
marsh migration, and also on sea-level rise impacts on state parks and historic sites. They will be
hosting a NOAA coastal fellow in summer 2015 working on a resilience index.
Regional Planning Commissions are potential partners (could help disseminate resilience info/toolkits).
Island Communities have focused primarily to date on warming waters, fisheries concerns. They’re just
beginning to think about sea-level rise.
Aquaculture has been promoted recently as a form of diversification, but it’s worth considering whether
acidification may mean it’s not a reliable form of diversification. Perhaps acidification will mean shellfish
aquaculture is not a good long-term business proposition. There are other multispecies models of
aquaculture to consider – seaweed / shellfish / finfish systems -- that may be more resilient.
For a long time, ground fishers opposed finfish aquaculture, but now there are few alternatives, and at
least some are getting interested. Island institute offered a tour bringing fishermen to an aquaculture
production facility in NH to more. Fishermen tend to listen more to each other.
Much of today’s discussion so far is really more about vulnerability assessment than resilience.
It’s important to focus on coupled social-ecological systems.
Much of GMRI’s work in this area is quantitative (looking, for example, at a community’s flexibility in
terms of existing boats and gear to respond to changing ecological conditions -- by shifting to alternate
harvests or alternative business models. They’ve developed a fisheries support tool to help forecast
timing of lobster migrations. [The early ramp up in 2012 had significant effects on market, as processers
were not geared up to handle the volume of product available, putting significant downward pressure
on prices.]
Resilience (bouncing back from unforeseen changes) versus resistance (capacity to survive in the face of
change). Similar concepts apply with economic/social systems. Need more social scientists working on
these issues.
Key indicators of resilience in fisheries appear to be life history and body size diversity.
New England Fisheries Science Center has developed resilience indexes. They use census data to
evaluate community resilience.
Need to consider messaging with communities: telling stories resilience and resistance that involve
hope—and aren’t all “bad news.” There’s a great need to get more accessible science to managers, and
2
understand how differently these groups look at the issues. For each audience, we need to know what
are their trusted sources of information. The messengers and political affiliation can be more influential
than the science itself. There are good examples out there of successful local communications efforts—
like the “Sandy dialogues” organized by the Wells Reserve (hearing from NJ residents about their
“lessons learned”). Economics also factors in—as people may not have the resources for
mitigation/adaptation, and people tend to assume these steps will be costly.
A recent paper in Nature Climate Change suggested that severe weather events DID influence people’s
willingness to adapt to change, but not necessarily have any effect on willingness to take on actions to
mitigate climate change. It’s important not to lose sight of mitigation/sustainability in the discussions of
resilience and adaptation.
One concept that tends to resonate with people: If you prepare for [today’s] extreme events, you are
also preparing for the long term [climate change]. Research shows there is only a three-year window
after a natural disaster to get things done. [During that period, community attention is still focused on
the recent event, and decisions can be made.]
Small Group Discussion: Building Connections
CBEP should have resilience explicitly in the Plan. Point to existing documents, like the National Climate
Action Plan. Incorporate resilience into the front matter of the Plan and show how it folds into the
actions included in other sections.
There’s a need for INTERNAL EDUCATION about resilience within CBEP’s working groups and
committees so that everyone understands how to integrate climate throughout the Plan.
Important to emphasize CONNECTIONS
Develop TOOLKITS based on national / regional models. They need to be translated to Maine context
with materials tailored to the local setting.
CONNECTIONS AND ECOSYSTEM RESILIENCE. What IS a resilient landscape for Casco Bay? What
connections should we emphasize is building for resilience? Especially, what connections among
terrestrial, marine and social/commercial systems?
Many CBEP priorities will continue in the new Plan: there’s a need to focus on what issues can be
addressed and reduce stressors where possible. Priorities may not change in fundamental ways.
Small Group Discussion: Engaging Communities
Goals:

Change our assumptions (e.g., stop trying to reach an amorphous “general public”); definitions;
conversations (see notes below re peer-to-peer exchanges and NE Climate Adaptation Project);
and decisions (e.g., moving from reactive to pro-active).
3

Engage a broader cross-section of the regional community (acknowledging that it can be hard to
reach people who won’t attend meetings). Present resilience in terms of OPPORTUNITIES—for
greater preparedness, self-sufficiency, quality of life, cost savings, and offer OPTIONS—involving
different levels of effort and time scales
Discussion Points:
The farther out we go on a time horizon, the more uncertainty there is. Part of the challenge is helping
get people used to the idea that change is going to be the norm.
One way to reinforce this is to keep showing different scenarios…
Getting people to take action: in fostering preparedness, it can help to talk about “no regrets” actions
(although that language is problematic, many felt) that will serve people well now as well as in the
future—such as diversifying fisheries or strengthening infrastructure. The emphasis should be on making
communities more fuel-efficient, livable now—and encouraging planning at different time horizons.
Potential role for CBEP: getting more happening at the regional level—broadening the conversation
from individual towns and getting more peer-to-peer exchanges happening within the region. The New
England Climate Adaptation Project that MIT ran in Wells could serve as a model.
A lot of outreach to date has been modeled after “formal schooling” models (PowerPoint presentations,
or lectures/field trips). There’s a need to engage those for whom these educational approaches hold no
appeal…
Are there ways to create new tiers of trusted messengers—such as students or town planners? Science
is not always the best way to engage community members. Rather than having scientists speaking
directly to certain audiences, they could work with the messengers—who then take that information to
a wider set of the community. Engage more schools potentially in service and research projects that
would carry information back to their families?
Outreach efforts need to focus on local benefits—not expecting that people will change practices based
on effects downstream. Need to be explicit about the self-interest and benefits involved—connecting
with the interests and needs of those who are being asked to change. What do they value/care
about/aspire to? It can be really challenging when they opt to disregard the science in favor of shortterm economic concerns (e.g., building a fire station in a flood-prone area because it costs less on tax
bills now).
The Casco Bay Plan should incorporate resiliency and discuss it in the front matter, but should take care
not to alienate people who hold different assumptions.
There needs to be more “internal education” about resilience with all CBEP committees—helping them
understand that climate change is a driver with established focal areas (such as stormwater and habitat
restoration)
4
There’s potential to adapt toolkit resources from elsewhere (e.g., Connecticut’s Climate Adaptation
Resource Toolkit—CART, http://www.ct.gov/deep/cwp/view.asp?a=4423&q=531864), but any toolkits
here must address the diversity of communities (rural/urban, poor/affluent, etc.).
Flip Chart Notes






There are many overlapping climate-related efforts with inadequate communication among
them. Those coordinating the initiatives need better awareness of others’ efforts, and
stakeholders need to be better informed/engaged. It would be helpful if CBEP could help keep
track of all the initiatives underway.
Resilience-related projects of the Maine Coastal Program:
- vulnerability of parks and historic sites to sea-level rise
- marsh migration work with towns
- Coastal Fellow in summer 2015 working on a “Coastal Resiliency Index”
- Bluff stability (in conjunction with CCSWCD)—sea-level rise (SLR) impacts
- Helping create a toolkit for regional planning commissions (collaborating with SMRPC)
There’s often strong support for taking measures at the municipal level
Need to understand resilience in the broadest terms (cultural, ecological, economic)
Island community resilience concerns:
- warming water
- ocean acidification
- aquaculture opportunities (multi-trophic: finfish, shellfish, algal) – potential for trout
generating interest among traditional fishermen
- SLR is just surfacing as a concern
GMRI began concentrating on climate after 2012 Gulf of Maine “heat wave”
Their conceptual framework links fisheries and communities—exploring the ecological
implications on social systems/economics/culture
It’s challenging finding/integrating the social science expertise—economics (they have one very
busy economist on staff), psychology, community dynamics. This facet of the problem is really
complex and there’s inadequate understanding of the dynamics involved.
Finding analogues for ecological concepts in industry (e.g., the need to diversify your fleet)
Key question: how flexible can the industry be in response to species changes?
They have begun forecasting lobster season dates
Trying to look at the species that are change most rapidly
Important to distinguish
RESISTANCE—the capacity to withstand disruption vs.
RESILIENCE—the capacity to bounce back after disruption

Although southern regions have been facing some of these ecosystem disruptions for longer,
there appear to be few efforts in Maine yet to learn lessons from their experience
5

Peer-to-peer sharing/education is key to successful outreach in this arena
Island Institute holds fishermen exchanges (they’re much more likely to listen to one another)
and has organized educational field trips (e.g., visiting a trout aquaculture operation in NH)

Challenge in developing resources like Resiliency Indices: there’s so much information out there,
how do you know what to base it on and where to find the most valuable information?
Another challenge: What’s the message to user groups when you have no definitive
answers/guidance? How does the scientific community work with that uncertainty and convey it
in constructive ways to decision-makers? Linking the science and management is already
challenging, and trying to integrate the social science makes the process even more complex. It’s
important to realize that people’s receptivity depends a lot on the messenger, and that the
scientist is not necessarily a trusted authority anymore with some audiences. Alternately, we
don’t want people putting total faith in the words of the scientist when science can’t provide
concrete “answers”
It would be helpful to look for success stories of local participation, finding the lessons learned
and what’s transferable. For example, the Sandy Dialogues at Wells Reserve were effective at
getting townspeople to discuss climate threats—because peers were there who had already
lived it.
It’s important to tailor the message to align with the key concerns of the audience—e.g., the
State’s marsh migration project talked with towns about infrastructure as much as marshes
because that was a primary concern
Need to understand the psychology involved because not all our assumptions about people’s
motivations/responses are accurate. For example, a recent study published by Aaron McCright
et al. in Nature Climate Change
(http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n12/full/nclimate2443.html ) suggests that
exposure to extreme weather does not convince people that climate change is real or make
them more amenable to mitigation measures (although they do become more willing to learn
about adaptation)
The economics of mitigation are a huge stumbling block
Key message for communities: preparedness for extreme events gives you protection across a
RANGE of climate impacts






Themes identified for small group discussion:


Building Connections
- among organizational initiatives
- across ecology/social science/culture/economics/politics/ideologies
Engaging Communities
- getting preparedness/action despite uncertainty (managing uncertainty)
- understanding and responding to community concerns
- potential for peer-to-peer learning
- need for greater expertise in this arena
6