Suchergebnisse

Climate services' main function has been to provide technical scientific evidence for decision-making in formal institutions. This article makes a case for recognising the diverse functions and meanings of climate services across the spectrum of institutions constituting climate governance. The article reports on research that identified climate services needs for building resilience in Bergen city (Norway) through a collaborative back-casting workshop with actors variously engaged in climate governance. Participants' discussions raised four key observations on climate services. First, they saw the potential for using climate information in a diverse set of formal and informal institutions. Second, they considered how to adapt information to these diverse settings. Third, they looked at how information could enhance existing initiatives, rather than demanding 'new' products. And fourth, participants' proposed climate services highlighted their diverse functions, and led the authors to suggest classifying services according to their principal functions. The article finishes by proposing a field of 'social climate services' that configures relationships between scientists and social actors, built on technologies of humility, for enriching the ongoing culturally and politically charged debates and practices around climatic change in informal institutional settings. Social climate services function can include enabling people to voice their concerns, learn, critically reflect on changes to culture and identity, build social networks, and try out new practices.

Over thirty international participants, mostly academics with different disciplinary backgrounds, climate service providers, government science advisors and consultants, joined four daily 6 hour remote sessions, discussing the ethics of climate services. Following a unanimous vote in favour of creating a code of ethics on the first day, the workshop spent the next three days discussing ethical issues in climate services, debating a code of ethics' structure and content, and considering different methods for its implementation and enforcement. The workshop was organized by an interdisciplinary group of environmental social scientists and philosophers from the University of Leeds as part of the project REACT: Responsible Evidence and Advice for Climate and Technology. Developing a framework for responsible evidence and fair provision of Climate Services.

Little has been documented about the benefits and impacts of the recent growth in climate services, despite a growing call to justify their value and stimulate investment. Regional Climate Outlook Forums (RCOFs), an integral part of the public and private enterprise of climate services, have been implemented over the last 20 years with the objectives of producing and disseminating seasonal climate forecasts to inform improved climate risk management and adaptation. In proposing guidance on how to measure the success of RCOFs, we offer three broad evaluative categories that are based on the primary stated goals of the RCOFs: 1) quality of the climate information used and developed at RCOFs; 2) legitimacy of RCOF processes focused on consensus forecasts, broad user engagement, and capacity building; and 3) usability of the climate information produced at RCOFs. Evaluating the quality of information relies largely on quantitative measures and statistical techniques that are standardized and transferrable, but assessing the RCOF processes and perceived usability of RCOF products will necessitate a combination of quantitative and qualitative social science methods that are sensitive to highly variable regional contexts. As RCOFs have taken up different formats and procedures to adapt to diverse institutional and political settings and varied technical and scientific capacities, objective evaluation methods adopted should align with the goals and intent of the evaluation and be performed in a participatory, coproduction manner where producers and users of climate services together design the evaluation metrics and processes. To fully capture the potential benefits of the RCOFs, it may be necessary to adjust or recalibrate the goals of these forums to better fit the evolving landscape of climate services development, needs, and provision.

The international effort toward climate services, epitomised by the development of the Global Framework for Climate Services and, more recently the launch of Copernicus Climate Change Service has renewed interest in the users and the role they can play in shaping the services they will eventually use. Here we critically analyse the results of the five climate service prototypes that were developed as part of the EU funded project EUPORIAS. Starting from the experience acquired in each of the projects we attempt to distil a few key lessons which, we believe, will be relevant to the wider community of climate service developers. ; The authors wish to acknowledge all of those who contributed indirectly to the development of the EUPORIAS prototypes, through scientific discussion, review, data provision, stakeholder engagement and facilitation: for SPRINT, Adam Scaife, Anca Brookshaw, Alberto Arribas, Emily Wallace, Jeff Knight, Margaret Gordon, Kate Brown, Brent Walker, Mathew Richardson, Jodie Wild, and the DfT-led stakeholder group; for RESILIENCE, Melanie Davis for conceiving the prototype and for her vision on Climate Services. In the LMTool, Clinton Devon Estates, the National Farmers Union, and all the farmers involved in the development of the tool. The UK Government Department for Transport is acknowledged for providing financial support, in parallel to that received from EUPORIAS, for the SPRINT prototype. The visualisation, project UKKO, within RESILIENCE prototype was done by Moritz Stefaner. EUPORIAS was funded by the European Commission through the 7th Framework Programme for Research, grant agreement 308291. ; Peer Reviewed ; Postprint (published version)

The international effort toward climate services, epitomised by the development of the Global Framework for Climate Services and, more recently the launch of Copernicus Climate Change Service has renewed interest in the users and the role they can play in shaping the services they will eventually use. Here we critically analyse the results of the five climate service prototypes that were developed as part of the EU funded project EUPORIAS. Starting from the experience acquired in each of the projects we attempt to distil a few key lessons which, we believe, will be relevant to the wider community of climate service developers. ; The authors wish to acknowledge all of those who contributed indirectly to the development of the EUPORIAS prototypes, through scientific discussion, review, data provision, stakeholder engagement and facilitation: for SPRINT, Adam Scaife, Anca Brookshaw, Alberto Arribas, Emily Wallace, Jeff Knight, Margaret Gordon, Kate Brown, Brent Walker, Mathew Richardson, Jodie Wild, and the DfT-led stakeholder group; for RESILIENCE, Melanie Davis for conceiving the prototype and for her vision on Climate Services. In the LMTool, Clinton Devon Estates, the National Farmers Union, and all the farmers involved in the development of the tool. The UK Government Department for Transport is acknowledged for providing financial support, in parallel to that received from EUPORIAS, for the SPRINT prototype. The visualisation, project UKKO, within RESILIENCE prototype was done by Moritz Stefaner. EUPORIAS was funded by the European Commission through the 7th Framework Programme for Research, grant agreement 308291. ; Peer Reviewed ; Postprint (published version)

The international effort toward climate services, epitomised by the development of the Global Framework for Climate Services and, more recently the launch of Copernicus Climate Change Service has renewed interest in the users and the role they can play in shaping the services they will eventually use. Here we critically analyse the results of the five climate service prototypes that were developed as part of the EU funded project EUPORIAS. Starting from the experience acquired in each of the projects we attempt to distil a few key lessons which, we believe, will be relevant to the wider community of climate service developers. ; The authors wish to acknowledge all of those who contributed indirectly to the development of the EUPORIAS prototypes, through scientific discussion, review, data provision, stakeholder engagement and facilitation: for SPRINT, Adam Scaife, Anca Brookshaw, Alberto Arribas, Emily Wallace, Jeff Knight, Margaret Gordon, Kate Brown, Brent Walker, Mathew Richardson, Jodie Wild, and the DfT-led stakeholder group; for RESILIENCE, Melanie Davis for conceiving the prototype and for her vision on Climate Services. In the LMTool, Clinton Devon Estates, the National Farmers Union, and all the farmers involved in the development of the tool. The UK Government Department for Transport is acknowledged for providing financial support, in parallel to that received from EUPORIAS, for the SPRINT prototype. The visualisation, project UKKO, within RESILIENCE prototype was done by Moritz Stefaner. EUPORIAS was funded by the European Commission through the 7th Framework Programme for Research, grant agreement 308291. ; Peer Reviewed ; Postprint (published version)

The international effort toward climate services, epitomised by the development of the Global Framework for Climate Services and, more recently the launch of Copernicus Climate Change Service has renewed interest in the users and the role they can play in shaping the services they will eventually use. Here we critically analyse the results of the five climate service prototypes that were developed as part of the EU funded project EUPORIAS. Starting from the experience acquired in each of the projects we attempt to distil a few key lessons which, we believe, will be relevant to the wider community of climate service developers. ; The authors wish to acknowledge all of those who contributed indirectly to the development of the EUPORIAS prototypes, through scientific discussion, review, data provision, stakeholder engagement and facilitation: for SPRINT, Adam Scaife, Anca Brookshaw, Alberto Arribas, Emily Wallace, Jeff Knight, Margaret Gordon, Kate Brown, Brent Walker, Mathew Richardson, Jodie Wild, and the DfT-led stakeholder group; for RESILIENCE, Melanie Davis for conceiving the prototype and for her vision on Climate Services. In the LMTool, Clinton Devon Estates, the National Farmers Union, and all the farmers involved in the development of the tool. The UK Government Department for Transport is acknowledged for providing financial support, in parallel to that received from EUPORIAS, for the SPRINT prototype. The visualisation, project UKKO, within RESILIENCE prototype was done by Moritz Stefaner. EUPORIAS was funded by the European Commission through the 7th Framework Programme for Research, grant agreement 308291. ; Peer Reviewed ; Postprint (published version)

Seasonal climate forecasts (SCFs) have significant potential to support shorter-term agricultural decisions and longer-term climate adaptation plans, but uptake in Europe has to date been low. Under the European Union funded project, European Provision Of Regional Impacts Assessments on Seasonal and Decadal Timescales (EUPORIAS) we have developed the Land Management Tool (LMTool), a prototype seasonal climate service for land managers, working closely in collaboration with two stakeholder organizations, Clinton Devon Estates (CDE) and the National Farmers Union (NFU). LMTool was one of several prototype climate services selected for development within EUPORIAS, including those for the UK transport network, food security in Ethiopia, renewable energy production, hydroelectric energy production in Sweden, and river management in two French basins. The LMTool provides SCFs (1?3 months ahead) to farmers in the Southwest UK, alongside 14-day site specific weather forecasts during the winter months when the skill of seasonal forecasts is greatest. We describe the processes through which the LMTool was co-designed and developed with the farmers, its technical development and key features; critically examine the lessons learned and their implications for providing future climate services for land managers; and finally assess the feasibility of delivering an operational winter seasonal climate service for UK land managers. A number of key learning points from developing the prototype may benefit future work in climate services for the land management and agriculture sector; many of these points are also valid for climate services in other sectors. Prototype development strongly benefitted from; working with intermediaries to identify representative, engaged land managers; an iterative and flexible process of co-design with the farmer group; and from an interdisciplinary project team. Further work is needed to develop a better understanding of the role of forecast skill in land management decision making, the potential benefits of downscaling and how seasonal forecasts can help support land managers decision-making processes. The prototype would require considerable work to implement a robust operational forecast system, and a longer period to demonstrate the value of the services provided. Finally, the potential for such services to be applied more widely in Europe is not well understood and would require further stakeholder engagement and forecast development. ; This work was supported by the EUPORIAS project, funded by the European Commission 7th Framework Programme for Research, grant agreement 308291, and the Joint UK BEIS/Defra Met Office Hadley Centre Climate Programme (GA01101).