ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

Climate services have emerged as a research and operational field in recent years. This development has been underpinned and supported by significant research, funding and agenda‐setting efforts such as the Global Framework for Climate Services internationally and the Roadmap for Climate Services and the Copernicus Climate Change Service in Europe. The fast pace at which this field is developing raises a number of key challenges that need to be critically examined and addressed to ensure the future development and sustainability of climate services in Europe. This opinion piece highlights a number of challenges currently threatening the viability of climate services including the complexity of the concept of climate services; the complex landscape of complementary research and development areas relevant to climate services; existing rights to freely access and use climate services; current limitations to funding structures and mechanisms and how that impacts on the development of climate services; the emphasis on co‐production as a precondition to climate services development; and the limited role of the social sciences in the research and operational field of climate services. Effectively addressing these challenges will require a commitment from the scientific and practitioner communities to engage in critical and reflective debates around the future conceptualization and operationalization of climate services in Europe. This paper aims to provide critical input to stimulate a necessary and overdue debate around the sustainability and future of climate services in Europe. This article is categorized under: • Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge > Knowledge and Practice Abstract Illustrative summary of challenges to the sustainability of climate services in Europe.
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
OPINION
Challenges to the sustainability of climate services in Europe
Marta Bruno Soares
1
| Carlo Buontempo
2
1
Sustainability Research Institute & ESRC
Centre for Climate Change Economics and
Policy, School of Earth and Environment,
University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
2
Copernicus Department, Copernicus
Climate Change Service Section at the
European Centre for Medium Range
Weather Forecasts, Reading, UK
Correspondence
Marta Bruno Soares, Sustainability Research
Institute & ESRC Centre for Climate
Change Economics and Policy, School of
Earth and Environment, University of Leeds,
Leeds LS2 9JT, UK.
Email: m.brunosoares@leeds.ac.uk
Edited by Anita Engels, Domain Editor,
and Mike Hulme, Editor-in-Chief
Abstract
Climate services have emerged as a research and operational field in recent years.
This development has been underpinned and supported by significant research,
funding and agenda-setting efforts such as the Global Framework for Climate
Services internationally and the Roadmap for Climate Services and the Copernicus
Climate Change Service in Europe. The fast pace at which this field is developing
raises a number of key challenges that need to be critically examined and addressed
to ensure the future development and sustainability of climate services in Europe.
This opinion piece highlights a number of challenges currently threatening the viabil-
ity of climate services including the complexity of the concept of climate services;
the complex landscape of complementary research and development areas relevant
to climate services; existing rights to freely access and use climate services; current
limitations to funding structures and mechanisms and how that impacts on the devel-
opment of climate services; the emphasis on co-production as a precondition to cli-
mate services development; and the limited role of the social sciences in the research
and operational field of climate services. Effectively addressing these challenges will
require a commitment from the scientific and practitioner communities to engage
in critical and reflective debates around the future conceptualization and
operationalization of climate services in Europe. This paper aims to provide critical
input to stimulate a necessary and overdue debate around the sustainability and future
of climate services in Europe.
This article is categorized under:
Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge > Knowledge and Practice
KEYWORDS
challenges for climate services in Europe, concept of climate services, co-production, governing
rights, social sciences
1|INTRODUCTION
Despite the development of climate science for more than a century (Vaughan & Dessai, 2014), climate services as a research
and operational field has only emerged in recent years (Brasseur & Gallardo, 2016; Hewitt, Mason, & Walland, 2012). The
notion of climate services was only fully operationalized as a result of the World Climate Conference in 2009, which led to
Received: 31 July 2018 Revised: 11 March 2019 Accepted: 22 March 2019
DOI: 10.1002/wcc.587
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original
work is properly cited.
© 2019 The Authors. WIREs Climate Change published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
WIREs Clim Change. 2019;10:e587. wires.wiley.com/climatechange 1of9
https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.587
PERSPECTIVE
the establishment of the Global Framework for Climate Services (Hewitt et al., 2012; Vaughan & Dessai, 2014). The rapid
development of climates services over the last years has been underpinned and supported by significant transnational research
and funding efforts such as the Global Framework for Climate Services at the international level (Hewitt et al., 2012; WMO,
2017) and the Roadmap for Climate Services and the Copernicus Climate Change Service in Europe (European Commission,
2015a; Street, 2016). However, the rate and magnitude at which the field of climate services is expanding raises key chal-
lenges that should be critically problematized, examined, reflected and addressed in order to help further understand and sup-
port the development of effective climate services efforts. This opinion piece aims to highlight some of those key challenges
that, in our view, pose significant threats to the long-term viability and sustainability of this field and raise a number of lines
of enquiry that hopefully will help to stimulate a critical debate about the future development and legacy of climate services in
Europe.
2|THE MULTIPLE (POTENTIAL) MEANINGS OF CLIMATE SERVICES
Since its appearance as an operational concept in 2009 (Vaughan & Dessai, 2014) the concept of climate services has since
expanded into an array of definitions which now permeate the literature (see, e.g., Table 1).
Central aspects common to these definitions are the provision of climate information/data/tools that supports user needs
through engagement with the users of the services. However, despite such commonalities, all of these conceptsclimate infor-
mation, users, needs, provision, engagementcan be interpreted differently depending on the context (Bruno Soares, Alexan-
der, & Dessai, 2018; Vaughan & Dessai, 2014). In addition, the concept of climate services is also often associated with other
ideas and assumptions such as production, use, knowledge, impact, accessibility, customisation, added value, adaptation, etc.
As a result, this is an intricate and complex concept which can easily lead to different (and even conflicting) interpretations
of what we mean and what we can expect when talking about climate services. It is therefore imperative disentangle this
notion in ways that are useful and meaningful to the range of actors involved in the production, translation and use of climate
services.
For example, in weather services it is common to differentiate between public weather services and specialized weather ser-
vices where the former corresponds to those provided (normally by National Hydrological and Meteorological Services) to
benefit society at large; whilst the latter is associated with complementary services developed to meet the needs of specific
users (Zillman, 2005). This type of distinction could also be linked to the idea of climate services as a public good(and
freely available) as opposed to as a private good(with a cost attached) which is commonly used in the literature around eco-
system services (Fisher, Turner, & Morling, 2009). Such approach could also be adapted in order to correspond to different
levels of accessibility, impacts and benefits to those accessing and using these two types of services although there are more
practical implications of doing so in the context of climate services (see section below on governing rights in climate
services).
Another possibility could be to distinguish between climate service as the process of development (of, e.g., a decision-
support tool) versus the climate service as the implementation of the tool developed (cf. O'Brien, Eriksen, Schjolden, &
Nygaard, 2004). This approach would be somewhat akin to the literature on public policy where the stages of policy
TABLE 1 Examples of climate services definitions
A climate service is considered here to be the provision of climate information in such a way as to assist decision-making by individuals and
organizations. The service component involves appropriate engagement, an effective access mechanism and responsiveness to user-needs
(GFCS, 2014).
Climate services aim to make knowledge about climate accessible to a wide range of decision makers. In doing so they have to consider
information supply, competing sources of knowledge, and user demand (Field et al., 2014).
The transformation of climate-related datatogether with other relevant informationinto customized products such as projections, forecasts,
information, trends, economic analysis, assessments (including technology assessment), counseling on best practices, development and
evaluation of solutions and any other service in relation to climate that may be of use for the society at large. As such, these services include
data, information and knowledge that support adaptation, mitigation and disaster risk management (European Commission, 2015a).
Climate services involve the production, translation, transfer, and use of climate knowledge and information in climate-informed decision
making and climate-smart policy and planning. (...) Easily accessible, timely, and decision-relevant scientific information can help society to
cope with current climate variability and limit the economic and social damage caused by climate-related disaster. (Climate Services
Partnership, undated).
2of9 BRUNO SOARES AND BUONTEMPO
formulation/development and implementation/outcomes are differentiated to facilitate the analysis of how policy is developed,
organized and operated as well as its impacts on society (Hill & Varone, 2014).
So how can we effectively address this challenge as a community? How can we define meaningful and useful ways of dif-
ferentiating the disparate (potential) meanings of climate services to avoid conflicting interpretations and help us better man-
age expectations? And what are the best approaches for distilling this complex concept into useful, manageable and practical
interpretations?
3|A CROWDED LANDSCAPE
As previously mentioned, critical elements associated with the notion of climate services are the provision of climate informa-
tion in ways that supports decision-making through engagement with the users of that information. However, the idea of using
climate information to support and better inform decisions is not new. Scholarship on climate change vulnerability, impacts
and adaptation and disaster risk reduction and management, all make use of climate information and tend to engage with the
users as a precondition to pursuing activities aimed at adapting to current and future climate variability and change and/or best
prepare for extreme weather events and related hazards (Field et al., 2014).
The majority of climate services definitions (see Box 1) identify these as processes for (...) bridging science and decision
making (...) in the communication, transfer and development of climate-related knowledge, including translation, engagement,
and knowledge exchange(Field et al., 2014, p. 26). In such conceptual and operational contexts, climate services can be per-
ceived as an area able to encapsulate and provide support for other areas such as adaptation in the sense that, in some cases,
the development of the services aims to address and respond to a specific adaptation issue (or disaster risk management). In
this context, the potential linkage between climate services and adaptation could be schematically represented as in Figure 1a.
Other authors, such as Goosen et al. (2014) perceive climate services as focusing on the provision of climate information
and potential impacts in order to support adaptation without providing the level of detail necessary to inform policy and reach
those who need it the most. In their conceptualization, climate adaptation services encompass the process of generating rele-
vant climate information that fits adaptation and decision-making (as illustrated in Figure 1b; e.g., GFCS, 2016). Another situ-
ation could be one where climate information obtained from public climate services (e.g., through a National Meteorological
and Hydrological ServicesNMHSwebsite) could be used to support the development of a specific adaptation assessment
and/or strategy (Figure 1c). In addition, there is also the potential for climate services to fall outside the remit of adaptation
studies and the two areas not interacting (Figure 1d). For example, when adaptation efforts do not depend on a direct input
from climate services particularly in situations where the climate information required to inform the adaptation process already
exists or where there is a lack of accessibility to more refined and tailored climate services (Figure 1d).
A range of practical expressions of these different conceptual combinations on the relation between climate services and
adaptation as well as others fields (e.g., disaster risk reduction and management) are exemplified in Nicklin, Cornwell,
Witthaus, Rowlands, and Griffiths (2012).
So, what exactly is new about the concept of climate services and how does it differentiate from similar operational and
research areas? How do we conceptualize these different but interlinked areas? And how can we effectively pursue comple-
mentarity between these closely related fields?
4|GOVERNING RIGHTS IN CLIMATE SERVICES
Another critical challenge to the long-term sustainability of climate services is the existing tensions between a climate service
as a public good versus a climate service as a business opportunity. Whilst in the former, the services provided are freely avail-
able but generally less tailored to specific users' needs (given the wider scope of the service) in the latter, the provision is
(a)
Climate
services
Climate
services
Climate
services
Climate
services
Adaptation
Adaptation
Adaptation Adaptation
(b) (c) (d)
FIGURE 1 Tentative conceptual
and/or operational linkages between
climate services and adaptation
BRUNO SOARES AND BUONTEMPO 3of9
tailored specifically to the requirements of one or a few users although the service is often provided at a cost directly covered
by its users via a fee.
However, in climate services, a distinction between public and private provision is not linear (or particularly useful) as differ-
ent business models can be pursued within the same organization (Vaughan & Dessai, 2014). For example, whilst the majority
of NMHS provide (to different extents) publicly accessible climate information as part of their mission (WMO, n.d.) many of
them also pursue commercial opportunities in the provision of climate services as a way of offsetting an, often decreasing, level
of public funding. The challenge therefore is not to differentiate between public and private provision per se but rather to under-
stand the complexity within and across organizations with regard to issues of intellectual property rights (IPR), licensing agree-
ments and accessibility under which climate services, and the underpinning data, is distributed and made accessible to
individuals (e.g., Hubbard, 2014). In other words, the challenge is not about who generates or ownsthe data but rather the
conditions under which a specific dataset or software can be shared and/or linked to proprietary IT solutions. In that sense, open-
ing up the possibility for data and tools to be used commercially, as it has somehow already happened in the Coordinated
Regional Climate Downscaling Experiment (CORDEX
1
) and is happening in the Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S
2
),
has the potential to significantly change the landscape of downstream climate services applications by allowing intermediate
users to develop value added solutions whilst at the same time maintaining an open and free environment. Furthermore, it is fun-
damental to create the necessary conditions by which the climate data can be easily combined with other types of data (and/or
sources) in order to support the development of effective climate services, that is, achieving interoperability and using common
standards to facilitate data accessibility and use (Giuliani, Nativi, Obregon, Beniston, & Lehmann, 2017).
As a result, and particularly given the current emphasis and push for the creation of a climate services market in Europe
underpinned by a logic of economic growth (European Commission, 2015a, 2015b; Street, 2016), the accessibility to climate
information, data and tools generated (particularly by those seeking commercial opportunities) needs to be critically examined
to help better understand not only the complexity of IPR in climate services but also how that reflects in terms of licensing
agreements and accessibility to the services developed.
A particularly important related aspect is the need to understand not only this complex landscape of rights and duties but
also how to effectively regulate and manage accessibility to climate services in relation to wider issues of justice and equity
and the protection of those most vulnerable in dealing with the risks of climate change (cf. Keele, 2019; Webber & Donner,
2017). The challenge of governing the rights in climate services (i.e., the data, tools and products generated through these pro-
cesses) in inclusive ways raises a number of other pertinent questions that also need to be discussed and addressed. For exam-
ple, how can we assure a level of quality, standards and legitimacy in a context of open data and tools? How can we ensure
the necessary level of guidance and training to those who have the right to access the data, tools and information but require
support to be able to effectively use those services?
5|LIMITATIONS OF FUNDING STRUCTURES AND MECHANISMS
Much of the ongoing efforts on climate services in Europe is being pursued through research with European funding programs
(e.g., Framework Program 6 and 7 and currently the Horizon 2020 funding program) or initiatives such as the Joint Program-
ming Initiative for Climate Connecting Climate Knowledge for Europe(JPI Climate) which support a variety of projects
within this field (see, for example, CORDIS, 2018; ERA4CS, 2016). Although these funding frameworks can help secure a
level of adequacy in relation to the European research agenda as well as structural consistency across the various projects, it
can also limit the development of research as the availability of such funding is dependent upon a set of pre-established struc-
tures regarding the scope of the research to be developed, the way in which the research should be structured and organized
and, in some instances, which countries and organizations are allowed to apply for such funding (e.g., JPI Climate).
Furthermore, current research funding largely focuses on the development of climate services applications and the
mainstreaming of such services (European Commission, 2017). Whilst this is a positive direction towards the potential
operationalization of such services on the ground, there is the need to ensure sufficient funding to support the underpinning
science particularly in emerging and expanding scientific areas such as decadal predictions (e.g., Menary & Hermanson, 2018;
Suarez-Gutierrez, Li, Müller, & Marotzke, 2018).
In the development and operational side of climate services, initiatives such as the C3S
3
and Climate-KIC largely fund the
development of applications and operational services. However, such initiatives are also dependent on funding mechanisms.
For example, the C3S platform which aims to provide open access information for monitoring and predicting climate change
and help to support adaptation and mitigation strategies.and whose funding is currently only guaranteed up to 2020
4
(European Commission, 2015b, 2016; Thépaut, Dee, Engelen, & Pinty, 2018). In their study, Georgeson, Maslin, and
4of9 BRUNO SOARES AND BUONTEMPO
Poessinouw (2017) analyzed the commercial supply of weather and climate services globally and highlighted the impact that
open-access data available at the C3S can have not only in Europe but also in less developed countries seeking access to freely
available information. In this case, it is critical to understand the potential impacts of C3S ceasing to exist due to lack of funds
with regard to the development and research of climate services in Europe and beyond.
In addition, whilst stimulating a climate services market by targeting innovation calls and seeding grants to promote SME
activities can be a positive step towards supporting actions these tools are only likely to succeed if enough resources are
devoted to the maintenance of the underpinning technical infrastructure. In that sense, climate services in Europe can only
become sustainable if sufficient resources are made available for the maintenance of the observational network (ground-based
and satellite), for the data infrastructure that make the production (Partnership for Advanced Computing in Europe
5
), the dis-
tribution (Earth System Grid Federation
6
) and the post-processing of the data (Climate Data Store toolbox
7
) so that everything
can be as much a possible free at the point of use.
Existing funding mechanisms - for both research and development of climate services - pose a number of questions includ-
ing how to create funding structures that allow the development of user-led research proposals? How to support the ongoing
development and operationalization of climate services, innovation and user interface? And how to ensure that the underpin-
ning science is adequately funded?
6|A (MIS) EMPHASIS ON CO-PRODUCTION
The concept of co-production (interchangeably used with notions of co-design and co-development) has become somewhat of
a pre-condition in climate services projects and initiatives (see, e.g., Hewitt et al., 2012; Vaughan & Dessai, 2014). Underpin-
ning this need to co-produce climate services with the users are wider theoretical discussions including an awareness of the
need to counteract the conventional loading-dock model of science production in order to increase the usability of the climate
science in decision-making as well as the need to justify expenditure on research and show value for money (Cash, Borck, &
Patt, 2006; McNie, 2007; Feldman & Ingram, 2009).
Although as a theoretical concept co-production can be linked to an array of definitions (see, e.g., Bremer & Meisch,
2017), co-production is often used as a (...) normative framework for engaging non-scientists as active partners in the
funding, making and use of such knowledge(Lövbrand, 2011, p. 227). However, from from a practical implementation point
of view point of view, there are significant disparities by what is meant by co-production and how it is applied methodologi-
cally in this emerging and complex landscape of climate services (cf. Hinkel & Bisaro, 2016). In this context, the limited and
fairly fragmented input from the social sciences in a space largely influenced by the climate sciences perpetuates ongoing
issues regarding the quality, adequacy and effectiveness of both the methodological approaches implemented as well as the
empirical outcomes of such co-production processes (Vaughan, Dessai, & Hewitt, 2018). Adding to this emphasis on co-
production in climate services is also the lack of debate and differentiation regarding the different typologies for engaging with
users and bringing them into such collaborative processes (Hewitt, Stone, & Tait, 2017; Meadow et al., 2015).
As Arnstein so rightly stated back in the late 1960s There is a critical difference between going through the empty ritual
of participation and having the real power needed to affect the outcome of the process.(Arnstein, 1969, p. 216). Her seminal
work, whilst focusing on the different types of citizen participation, is helpful to illustrate the disparate agency and roles that
users can have (or are allowed to have) in the co-production of climate services (Table 2).
TABLE 2 Levels of citizen participation and level of user engagement in climate services
Levels of citizen participation (based on Arnstein, 1969) Levels of user engagement in climate services
Citizen power Individuals have agency and different degrees of
power and decision-making over the process at
hand.
Co-production Individuals (users) have a degree of power in
regard to the process of co-producing climate
services.
Tokenistic
approaches
Individuals are given a voicebut no agency or
power to decide on the course of action.
Active engagement Individuals can be involved in the development
process to different extents and via a range
of mechanisms depending on the objectives
at hand.
No
participation
Individuals are not involved in the process but
such processes are used to educate them.
Passive engagement The users are not involved in the development
of the services but rather informed of what is
available and accessible to them.
BRUNO SOARES AND BUONTEMPO 5of9
Processes of co-production whereby the useras the client”—have a degree of power and an active voice and agency over
the process of climate services production can be expected more in the private provision of services; whilst a more passive
engagement from the (potential) users of the climate services are expected in the context of a services' provision that aims to
reach out a wide range of users (e.g., through a website). This highlights the somewhat negative correlation between effective
processes of co-production and the number of users involved in such processes and vice-versa. In this context, it is critical to
reflect upon the implications and compromises that need to be considered when deciding the type of climate service to be devel-
oped since, in some cases, it can be more productive and effective to positively assume that co-production (as defined in
Table 2) it is not required (or feasible) given the aim and purpose of the service at hand (e.g., general products available through
a NMHS website). In addition, the label of co-productionin climate services initiatives often helps to feed the perception of
being a user led service when, in practice, the input is largely provider led based on the assumptions that climate model outputs
will be useful for decision making (linking back to the conventional loading-dock approach; cf. Cash et al., 2006).
In a context where the need for co-production is often misinterpreted conceptually as well as misapplied methodologically
(e.g., in ways that lack a critical appreciation of power dynamics) thus impacting on the outcomes of such co-production
processes a number of key questions arise including: how can we implement effective and meaningful processes of co-
production in climate services in order to avoid pursuing empty rituals? How can we critically open up this debate in order
to clarify and de-construct what exactly is meant by the concept of co-production and how it is currently implemented? And
how can we implement appropriate, legitimate and feasible forms of co-production into the design of climate services targeting
very different stakeholders and needs?
7|CONFINED ROLE OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES
Last but (definitely) not least in the list of challenges for the future sustainability of climate services in Europe is the key role
of the social sciences (including the humanities and behavioral sciences). Despite recent efforts to include more social sciences
in climate services research this area is still fragmented and needs to be consolidated, connected and implemented.
(Desmond, West, Bruno Soares, Manderscheid, & Malnaca, 2018a, 2018b, p. 12). Although the current landscape shows a
higher contribution from researchers with social sciences backgrounds, in our experience, the onus of the work lies on merely
engaging with the users or focusing on communication aspects. This per se is not a problem in itself. The point here is the
array of themes and areas of expertise that the social sciences could significantly contribute to and that could help address
many of the challenges that climate Services currently face (as described above). Areas such as the governance of climate ser-
vices, modes of co-production, justice and equity, innovation in climate services, accessibility and rights to use the services
produced, and the value and benefits of climate services are just a few examples of research areas where the social
sciencescould could significantly contribute beyond the current research focus which primarily primarily aims to develop cli-
mate services prototypes (and/or aspects of the underpinning science). The European Roadmap for Climate Services for exam-
ple, goes as far as suggesting disciplines within the social sciences which can play a significant role in climate services
including sociology, anthropology, geography, political sciences, history, psychology, cognition, and communication sci-
ences. However, despite the call for further integration of the social sciences in climate services over the past few years
(European Commission, 2015a; Vaughan, Buja, Kruczkiewicz, & Goddard, 2016) in our experience, current research streams
and available funding is still largely oriented to the natural sciences and their scientific interests. It is therefore critical to create
forums that allow this (still fragmented) group of social scientists working on climate services to come together as a commu-
nity of practice in order to contribute to and influence the research agenda at European (and national) level (e.g., the new JPI
action group on Enabling societal transformations in the face of climate change
8
; Desmond et al., 2018a, 2018b). In addi-
tion, there is also a fundamental need to allow the social sciences to pursue areas of research that are critical to help us ade-
quately address the challenges described above (e.g., different meanings of climate services as a concept, crowded landscape,
governance rights, funding mechanism, and the problematization of co-production) and ensure the long-term sustainability of
climate services in Europe.
In this particular context is therefore critical to understand how can we promote and facilitate the integration of communi-
ties of practice focusing on the social sciences of climate services in Europe? How can we support the social sciences to have
a more prominent role in informing the European research agenda? How to create and/or give access to funding streams that
focus on critical aspects of climate services in relation to the social sciences? And how can the social sciences have a more
prominent presence in such debates and climate services efforts?
6of9 BRUNO SOARES AND BUONTEMPO
8|CONCLUSIONS
This opinion article aims to highlight some of the key challenges that, in our view, can hinder the long-term sustainability of
the research and development of climate services in Europe.
Whilst proposing solutions to tackle these complex and interlinked challenges is out of the scope of this paper, we believe
that any effective response to addressing these will require joint efforts from actors involved in the development and imple-
mentation of climate services through open processes that allow critical and reflective debates regarding the future of climate
services.
This will require bringing together the different communities engaged in climate services in order to engage in reflective
dialogues around (a) the conceptualization and operationalization of climate services in general and in relation to areas of com-
plementary research and development; (b) the ethical, governance and legal implications of open versus restricted access and
rights to use climate services; and (c) how to engage social science expertise in order to promote critical perspectives on cli-
mate services design and development and knowledge co-production processes that can enhance the quality and effectiveness
of climate services efforts going forward. An open, critical, and reflective debate around these conceptual and operational
challenges should, in our view, provide the basis for a necessary and overdue discussion around the sustainability and future
of climate services efforts in Europe.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank the editor and the two reviewers for their very useful comments to this paper. We would also
like to thank the participants from the FP7 EUPORIAS Summer School on Climate Services held in 2016 in Bolzano, Italy
and where some of the original ideas presented here emerged leading to follow up discussions and the development of this
paper. A particular thank you to Felicity Liggins for her contribution to earlier versions of the manuscript.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors have declared no conflicts of interest for this article.
ENDNOTES
1
See, for example: https://github.com/ESGF/esg-orp/blob/master/web/licenses/CordexCommercialLicense.xml.
2
See, for example: http://apps.ecmwf.int/datasets/licences/copernicus/.
3
C3S stands for Copernicus Climate Change Service.
4
However, there is a strong signal from the European Commission that the C3S will continue being financed in the future. See, for example: http://
earsc.org/news/the-new-eu-space-programme-regulation-proposal-and-the-future-of-the-eo-downstream-services-sector and http://www.europarl.
europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2018-0405_EN.html#title2.
5
For more see: http://www.prace-ri.eu/.
6
For more see: https://esgf.llnl.gov/.
7
For more see: https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu.
8
This new JPI Climate Action Group aims to promote the Social Sciences and Humanities as key disciplines in the sustainable societal transforma-
tion in the context of climate change (including climate services) (Desmond et al., 2018a, 2018b).
FURTHER READING
Adams, P., Eitland, E., Hewitson, B., Vaughan, C., Wilby, R., & Zebiak, S. (2015). Toward an ethical framework for climate services: A white paper
of the climate services partnership working group on climate services ethics. Climate Services Partnership. Retrieved from http://www.climate-
services.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/CS-Ethics-White-Paper-Oct-2015.pdf
Kirchhoff, C. J., Lemos, M. C., & Dessai, S. (2013). Actionable knowledge for environmental decision-making: Broadening the usability of climate
science. Annual Review Environmental Resources,38(1), 393414.
Lemos, M. C., Kirchhoff, C. J., & Ramprasad, V. (2012). Narrowing the climate information usability gap. Nature Climate Change,2(11), 789794.
Morss, R. E., & Hooke, W. H. (2005). The outlook for US meteorological research in a commercializing world: Fair early, but clouds moving in?
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society,86(7), 921936.
BRUNO SOARES AND BUONTEMPO 7of9
Pettifer, R. E. W. (2015). The development of the commercial weather services market in Europe: 19702012. Meteorological Applications,22(3),
419424.
Swart, R., Biesbroek, R., & Lourenço, T. C. (2014). Science of adaptation to climate change and science for adaptation. Frontiers in Environmental
Science,2, 29.
World Meteorological Organization. (2014). Implementation plan of the global framework for climate services. World Meteorological Organization.
Retrieved from https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=3580
REFERENCES
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners,35(4), 216224. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01944366908977225
Brasseur, G. P., & Gallardo, L. (2016). Climate services: Lessons learned and future prospects. Earth's Future,4(3), 7989.
Bremer, S., & Meisch, S. (2017). Co-production in climate change research: Reviewing different perspectives. WIREs Climate Change,8(6), e482.
Bruno Soares, M., Alexander, M., & Dessai, S. (2018). Sectoral use of climate information in Europe: A synoptic overview. Climate Services,
9,520.
Cash, D. W., Borck, J. C., & Patt, A. G. (2006). Countering the loading-dock approach to linking science and decision making: Comparative
analysis of El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) forecasting systems. Science, Technology, & Human Values,31(4), 465494.
Community Research and Development Information Service (CORDIS). (2018). Results for European projects on climate services. Retrieved from
https://cordis.europa.eu/projects/result_en?q=%27climate%20services%27%20AND%20/result/relations/categories/resultCategory/code%3D%
27report%27
Desmond, M., West, J. J., Bruno Soares, M., Manderscheid, P., & Malnaca, M. (2018a). Expert workshop on social sciences and humanities in cli-
mate services research. Venice, Italy: Report on JPI Climate Workshop. Retrieved from http://www.jpi-climate.eu/media/default.aspx/emma/
org/10895260/AG+EST+Report.pdf
Desmond, M., West, J., Bruno Soares, M., Manderscheid, P., & Malnaca, M. (2018b). Report on JPI climate workshop expert workshop on social
sciences and humanities in climate services research. Venice, Italy: Isola di S. Giorgio Maggiore. Retrieved from http://www.jpi-climate.eu/
media/default.aspx/emma/org/10895260/AG+EST+Report.pdf
European Commission. (2015a). A european research and innovation roadmap for climate services. Luxembourg: European Commission.
European Commission. (2015b). Annex 1 to the commission implementing decision concerning the adoption of a financing decision for 2015 in the
framework of the copernicus programme. Brussels, 17.2.2015 C(2015) 767 final.
European Commission. (2016). Climate change service. Retrieved from http://copernicus.eu/sites/default/files/documents/Copernicus_Factsheets/
Copernicus_ClimateMonitoring_Feb2017.pdf
European Commission. (2017). Work programme 2018-2020. 12. Climate action, environment, resource efficiency and raw materials. Retrieved
from http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2018-2020/main/h2020-wp1820-climate_en.pdf
European Research Area for Climate Services (ERA4CS). (2016). The booklet of funded projects. Retrieved from http://www.jpi-climate.eu/media/
default.aspx/emma/org/10882216/ERA4CS_joint_call_abstracts_funded_projects_30Mar2017.pdf
Feldman, D. L., & Ingram, H. M. (2009). Making science useful to decision makers: Climate forecasts, water management, and knowledge net-
works. Weather, Climate, and Society,1(1), 921.
Field, C. B., Barros, V. R., Dokken, D. J., Mach, K. J., Mastrandrea, M. D., Bilir, T. E., White, L. L. (2014). Intergovernmental panel for climate
change. In Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Summaries, frequently asked questions, and cross-chapter boxes. A
contribution of working group II to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (p. 190). Geneva, Switzerland:
World Meteorological Organization.
Fisher, B., Turner, R. K., & Morling, P. (2009). Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological Economics,68(3),
643653.
Georgeson, L., Maslin, M., & Poessinouw, M. (2017). Global disparity in the supply of commercial weather and climate information services. Sci-
ence Advances,3(5), e1602632.
Giuliani, G., Nativi, S., Obregon, A., Beniston, M., & Lehmann, A. (2017). Spatially enabling the global framework for climate services: Reviewing
geospatial solutions to efficiently share and integrate climate data & information. Climate Services,8,44
58.
Global Framework for Climate Services (GFCS). (2014). Implementation plan of the global framework for climate services (GFCS). World Meteoro-
logical Organization. Retrieved from http://www.wmo.int/gfcs/sites/default/files/implementation-plan//GFCS-IMPLEMENTATION-PLAN-
FINAL-14211_en.pdf
Global Framework for Climate Services (GFCS). (2016). Climate services for supporting climate change adaptation: Supplement to the technical
guidelines for the national adaptation plan process. World Meteorological Organization. Retrieved from https://library.wmo.int/pmb_ged/wmo_
1170_en.pdf.
Goosen, H., de Groot-Reichwein, M. A. M., Masselink, L., Koekoek, A., Swart, R., Bessembinder, J., Immerzeel, W. (2014). Climate adaptation
services for The Netherlands: An operational approach to support spatial adaptation planning. Regional Environmental Change,14, 1035.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-013-0513-8
Hewitt, C., Mason, S., & Walland, D. (2012). The global framework for climate services. Nature Climate Change,2(12), 831832.
Hewitt, C. D., Stone, R. C., & Tait, A. B. (2017). Improving the use of climate information in decision-making. Nature Climate Change,7(9),
614616.
8of9 BRUNO SOARES AND BUONTEMPO
Hill, M., & Varone, F. (2014). The public policy process. Abingdon, England and New York, NY: Routledge.
Hinkel, J., & Bisaro, A. (2016). Methodological choices in solution-oriented adaptation research: A diagnostic framework. Regional Environmental
Change,16(1), 720.
Hubbard, C. (2014). Open data policy. Met office. Retrieved from https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/assets/mohippo/pdf/3/5/
opendatapolicy_metoffice_v1.0.pdf
Keele, S. (2019). Consultants and the business of climate services: Implications of shifting from public to private science. Climatic Change,118.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02385-x
Lövbrand, E. (2011). Co-producing European climate science and policy: A cautionary note on the making of useful knowledge. Science & Public
Policy,38(3), 225236.
McNie, E. C. (2007). Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: An analysis of the problem and review of the literature.
Environmental Science & Policy,10(1), 1738.
Meadow, A. M., Ferguson, D. B., Guido, Z., Horangic, A., Owen, G., & Wall, T. (2015). Moving toward the deliberate coproduction of climate sci-
ence knowledge. Weather, Climate, and Society,7(2), 179191.
Menary, M. B., & Hermanson, L. (2018). Limits on determining the skill of North Atlantic Ocean decadal predictions. Nature Communications,9,
1694.
Nicklin, S., Cornwell, B., Witthaus, M., Rowlands, C., & Griffiths, J. (2012). Climate exchange. Geneva: Tudor Rose Publications and World Mete-
orological Organization. Retrieved from https://library.wmo.int/pmb_ged/climate_exchange.pdf
O'Brien, K., Eriksen, S. E., Schjolden, A., & Nygaard, L. P. (2004). What's in a word? conflicting interpretations of vulnerability in climate change
research. CICERO Working Paper.
Street, R. B. (2016). Towards a leading role on climate services in Europe: A research and innovation roadmap. Climate Services,1,25.
Suarez-Gutierrez, L., Li, C., Müller, W. A., & Marotzke, J. (2018). Internal variability in European summer temperatures at 1.5C and 2Cof
global warming. Environmental Research Letters,13(6), 064026.
Thépaut, J., Dee, D., Engelen, R., & Pinty, B. (2018). The Copernicus Programme and its Climate Change Service (C3S): A European response to
climate change. COSPAR Scientific Assembly,42 A0.4-15-18. Retrieved from http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018cosp...42E3368T
Vaughan, C., Buja, L., Kruczkiewicz, A., & Goddard, L. (2016). Identifying research priorities to advance climate services. Climate Services,4,
6574.
Vaughan, C., & Dessai, S. (2014). Climate services for society: Origins, institutional arrangements, and design elements for an evaluation frame-
work. WIREs Climate Change,5(5), 587603.
Vaughan, C., Dessai, S., & Hewitt, C. (2018). Surveying climate services: What can we learn from a Bird's-eye view? Weather, Climate, and Soci-
ety,10(2), 373395.
Webber, S., & Donner, S. D. (2017). Climate service warnings: Cautions about commercializing climate science for adaptation in the developing
world. WIREs Climate Change,8(1), e424.
World Meteorological Organization. (2017). Priority needs for the operationalization of the global framework for climate services (20162018).
Geneva, Switzerland: World Meteorological Organization.
World Meteorological Organization (n.d.). Role and operation of National Meteorological and hydrological services. A statement by the world mete-
orological organization for directors of NMHSs. Retrieved from https://library.wmo.int/pmb_ged/2015_role-operation-nmhs_en.pdf
Zillman, J. W. (2005). The role of national meteorological services in the provision of public weather services. World Meteorological Organization.
Retrieved from http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/amp/pwsp/downloads/cbs/conference%20presentations/Zillman1.pdf
How to cite this article: Bruno Soares M, Buontempo C. Challenges to the sustainability of climate services in
Europe. WIREs Clim Change. 2019;10:e587. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.587
BRUNO SOARES AND BUONTEMPO 9of9
... For producers, who owns the data, following an open policy or not, and favoring a free or a selling model mean different things. The question of intellectual property rights in CIS, for example, has not yet been examined, but it can influence the accessibility of such services [120]. It also has implications for users, for obvious reasons. ...
... Some issues finally question the perspectives of climate services, or what Bruno Soares and Buontempo call their "sustainability" [120]. ...
Article
Full-text available
This paper explores how climate services are framed in the literature and possible implications for climate services’ policies and projects. By critically exploring the frames around climate services, the wider objective is to encourage more reflexive and responsible research in the field, particularly given the huge challenge that climate change represents. By using a framing analysis based on an extensive literature review, five dominant frames were identified. Climate services are mainly framed (1) as a technological innovation, (2) as a market, (3) as an interface between users and producers, (4) as a risk management tool, and (5) from an ethical angle. The predominant frames influence how we think about climate services, shared assumptions, and the way in which policies and projects are designed. To prevent negative effects of climate services on the ground, such as inequalities, the main recommendations include establishing interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary dialogues between different communities of practice and players, increasing empirical and social science research to improve our understanding of this new field, and finally, re-thinking climate services in terms of adaptation rather than as the mere production of new information products.
... There is robust evidence (high agreement) that climate services aid adaptation decision making and build adaptive capacity, particularly where they are demand-driven and context-specific (Vaughan et al., 2018;Bruno Soares and Buontempo, 2019;Daniels et al., 2020;Hewitt et al., 2020a;Findlater et al., 2021). Climate service interventions are constrained by low capacity, inadequate institutions, difficulties in maintaining systems beyond pilot project stage (Vincent et al., 2017;Tall et al., 2018;Bruno Soares and Buontempo, 2019), and poor mapping between climate services and existing user capacities and demands (Williams et al., 2020) (robust evidence, high agreement). ...
... There is robust evidence (high agreement) that climate services aid adaptation decision making and build adaptive capacity, particularly where they are demand-driven and context-specific (Vaughan et al., 2018;Bruno Soares and Buontempo, 2019;Daniels et al., 2020;Hewitt et al., 2020a;Findlater et al., 2021). Climate service interventions are constrained by low capacity, inadequate institutions, difficulties in maintaining systems beyond pilot project stage (Vincent et al., 2017;Tall et al., 2018;Bruno Soares and Buontempo, 2019), and poor mapping between climate services and existing user capacities and demands (Williams et al., 2020) (robust evidence, high agreement). ...
Chapter
Full-text available
The feasibility assessment (FA) presents a systematic framework to assess adaptation and mitigation options organised by system transitions. This Cross-Chapter Box assessed the feasibility of 23 adaptation options across six dimensions: economic, technological, institutional, socio-cultural, environmental-ecological, and geophysical to identify factors within each dimension that present barriers to the achievement of the option. The results are presented below.
... A related literature characterises the extent to which the development, reach and effectiveness of climate services is affected by factors that can be termed 'climate service governance' (Stegmaier et al., 2020). Elements of this governance include the arrangements by which those parties engage with each other (Vaughan et al., 2016;Daniels et al., 2020) and the financial arrangements, and associated responsibilities, which support the service (Lourenço et al., 2015;Bruno Soares and Buontempo, 2019). Though governance varies by context, evidence suggests that engaging a range of experts and potential users in the co-design and co-production of climate services increases the use and utility of services Pope et al., 2017;Masuda et al., 2018;Harvey et al., 2019b). ...
Chapter
Full-text available
Chapter 17 assesses the options, processes, and enabling conditions for climate risk management, a key component of climate resilient development. This chapter focuses on the ‘how’ of climate risk management and adaptation. It covers: the adaptation and risk management options that are available; the governance and applicability of options in different contexts; residual risk and Loss and Damage; the methods and tools that can be drawn on to support climate risk management planning and implementation; enabling conditions and drivers for adaptation; the role of monitoring and evaluation for integrated risk management and tracking progress, success and the risk of maladaptation; and finally, integration of risk management across sectors, jurisdictions, and time horizons, under dynamic conditions of environmental and societal change.
... Furthermore, other studies, regarding the EU Directive implementation, analyze: how companies can implement the EU Directive and CSR frameworks in group companies (Szabó & Sørensen, 2015); the importance of corporate governance attributes (Primec & Belak, 2018); its effects on sustainability (Bruno Soares & Buontempo, 2019) and enhance accountability (Masiero, Arkhipova, Massaro, & Bagnoli, 2019); and how regulations to be implemented in a specific country (France) (Malecki, 2018). Several studies analyze EU Directive compliance degree (Fiandrino, Busso, & Vrontis, 2019;Aureli et al., 2019;Biondi, Dumay, & Monciardini, 2020) or whether corporations can fulfil with corporate reporting regulations (Biondi et al., 2020). ...
Article
Purpose: This paper presents a longitudinal evaluation of the research about Directive 2014/95/EU regarding Non-Financial Reporting (NFR), identifying the t theoretical approaches, methodological adopteds, and research topics. Research methodology: Data was collected from the Web of Science (WoS) database, between 2016 and 2021. The search criteria resulted in a total of 59 valid articles, after which we performed a quantitative bibliometric analysis using VOSviewer software. Results: Publications on this Directive 2014/95/EU has increased from 2015 to 2021. Findings show that most articles resorted to quantitative and qualitative methodologies, emphasizing content analysis, combined with other research methods. The frameworks based on stakeholders and institutional theories are very popular in the field. Research is focused on (1) Directive 2014/95/EU regulation, implementation, compliance, and investigation, (2) determinants and impacts of NFR, (3) NFR level/evolution and (4) reasons and skills for NFR. Papers published on EU non-financial information are very heterogeneous and lack consensus as to its impact on NFR. Limitations: This study only included the WoS database as a source of data collection, and it would be valuable in future studies to add other quality databases. Contribution: This research contributes to illuminating institutional pressures implication for NFR development. Therefore, this analysis is essential for institutions operating in accounting information standardization, as well as for information preparers given the necessity to acquire skills to ensure this new challenge related to the reporting of corporate social responsibility. Keywords: 1. Non-Financial Reporting 2. Directive 2014/95/EU 3. Institutional Pressures 4. Bibliometric literature review
... Other challenges are related to the multiple meaning of the services, the governing right which raises the tension between climate service as a public good or a business opportunity, funding structures, and mechanisms. Coproduction as a pre-condition in climate services projects and initiatives have also been discussed (Bruno et al., 2019). Therefore, it is imperative to improve the provision of climate information services. ...
Article
Full-text available
Given that climate variability and change present unprecedented challenges to the rail sector, efforts to produce relevant climate data/information for climate risk management and adaptive decision making in the rail sector are gaining traction. However, inadequate understanding of climate change impact and information needs raises several concerns for the sector. This paper addressed the question: What climate risk information services are needed to support the adaptation needs of the rail sector? Data from interviews, literature reviews, and workshops were used. The results show that changes in precipitation, temperature, sea-level rise, and thunderstorms are the top drivers of climate risk in the sector. Additionally, the need for tailor-made climate information to manage these changes is in high demand. Although insufficient, rail organizations use special protocols to manage climate risk. Understudied countries have operational and design standards formulated in metrics and codes related to specific critical weather conditions as part of their Natural Hazard Management process. However, desirable adjustments in the standards are currently based on past events rather than future climate conditions. Future climate change information is relevant for medium- to longer-term decisions, strategy, and policymaking. For operational and design standards, weather and climate information provided by national weather service agencies are used but they also refer to the European standards and databases. National level data/information is preferred for developing thresholds for standards yet pan-European level information is also relevant in filling in missing data gaps. Therefore, rail organizations operate on flexibility and a “use of best available data” policy. Understanding how climate information is used to support decision-making in the rail sector is by no means an easy task given the variety of decisions to be taken at different spatial and temporal scales. However, stakeholder engagement proved to be an important step to better inform tailor-made information that is user relevant.
... A related literature characterises the extent to which the development, reach and effectiveness of climate services is affected by factors that can be termed 'climate service governance' (Stegmaier et al., 2020). Elements of this governance include the arrangements by which those parties engage with each other (Vaughan et al., 2016;Daniels et al., 2020) and the financial arrangements, and associated responsibilities, which support the service (Lourenço et al., 2015;Bruno Soares and Buontempo, 2019). Though governance varies by context, evidence suggests that engaging a range of experts and potential users in the co-design and co-production of climate services increases the use and utility of services Pope et al., 2017;Masuda et al., 2018;Harvey et al., 2019b). ...
Article
In recent years, climate service has emerged as a new field to better connect climate data providers and users of climate change–related information. The aim is to transform climate-related information into customized, user-centered products. This transformation of data is increasingly sought after by decision-makers due to public and regulatory pressure. As one of the first institutions to provide climate services, the Climate Service Center Germany (GERICS) has collected a wide range of different experiences in the field of climate services. Based on this know-how, GERICS has identified three distinct roles—we call them hats —that the institute commonly assumes as a climate service provider: the facilitator, the developer, and the trendsetter. The definition and tasks related to each of these distinct hats is presented alongside examples. The key ingredient for the success of a service product heavily depends on successful user engagement. While wearing any of the three hats and depending on a project’s context as well as the project stage, GERICS makes use of several methods to codevelop services with users. Based on past experiences, four different styles of user engagement, distinguished by the degree of intensity of participation, were established: information, consultation, dialog, and partnership. The connection of the three hats and the four styles of user engagement creates a structure in which climate service providers operate. It may help other climate service providers to reflect upon the general outline of their services and enhance the effectiveness of their engagement with users in transdisciplinary research settings.
Article
In the ice-infested Arctic Ocean environment, the uptake of new sea ice services is an important factor in ensuring safe and efficient marine operations. Producers increasingly turn to co-production for user input, similar to the wider field of climate services. This paper asks how the uptake of sea ice information services can be optimized, by gauging the extent to which producers and users already share an understanding of how trust develops toward new products. By adopting a consensus analysis approach, we gain insights about how to balance further investments in knowledge co-production versus change implementation. We chose cultural consensus analysis, a method that produces valid estimates even in small sample sizes. Our survey presented thirty-two propositions based on seven dimensions of trust in weather, water, ice and climate services. The survey was completed by fifty-seven respondents (n = 29 users, n = 28 producers) and revealed a strong consensus model among the two groups about the necessary improvements needed to increase users’ trust in new services. Our results suggest that forecast producers for the Arctic region, specifically in the field of specialized sea ice predictions and mapping/charting, share a substantial understanding with users about how trust develops toward new products. We discuss the importance of automation, peer endorsement and perceptions of cost-performance ratio for necessary strategic approaches to help experienced forecast users to trust and adapt products to their specific operational context, and reflect on the costs associated with the use of specialized sea ice services in closing the usability gap.
Article
Full-text available
The use of scientific information about future weather and climate offers enormous potential for society to better manage the risks associated with climate variability and change. There has been significant investment in weather and climate services (WCS) over the past years; however, empirically based evidence of the socio-economic benefits of such services is very limited. Understanding and capturing the real benefits of WCS as they unfold on the ground are key to ensure continue investment in WCS as well as to enable adaptive management. In this paper, we conduct a review of the literature of WCS evaluations in South Asia. We systematically document and analyse empirical evidence as reported in the academic and grey literature to highlight (1) the scale and scope of WCS that have been evaluated in the region; (2) the methodological approaches that have been used to monitor and evaluate the benefits of WCS initiatives on the ground and (3) the socio-economic benefits of WCS categorised under a triple bottom line approach that takes into consideration economic, social and environmental benefits. The paper explores these findings and highlights key areas that warrant further discussion and research. These include a limited effort to systematically record and document the benefits of WCS and an over-emphasis on capturing evidence of short-term economic benefits at the expense of long-term economic benefits, as well as social and environmental benefits. We conclude this paper with a call for increased cooperation between meteorologists, economists and social researchers to develop empirical case studies of benefits and trade-offs as they occur on the ground.
Chapter
Full-text available
Indigenous knowledge refers to the understandings, skills and philosophies developed by societies with long histories of interaction with their natural surroundings (UNESCO, 2018; IPCC, 2019a). Local knowledge refers to the understandings and skills developed by individuals and populations, specific to the places where they live (UNESCO, 2018; IPCC, 2019a). Indigenous knowledge and local knowledge are inherently valuable but have only recently begun to be appreciated and in western scientific assessment processes in their own right (Ford et al., 2016). In the past these often endangered ways of knowing have been suppressed or attacked (Mustonen, 2014). Yet these knowledge systems represent a range of cultural practices, wisdom, traditions and ways of knowing the world that provide accurate and useful climate change information, observations and solutions (very high confidence) (Table Cross-Chapter Box INDIG.1). Rooted in their own contextual and relative embedded locations, some of these knowledges represent unbroken engagement with the earth, nature and weather for many tens of thousands of years, with an understanding of the ecosystem and climatic changes over longer-term timescales that is held both as knowledge by Indigenous Peoples and local peoples, as well as in the archaeological record (Barnhardt and Angayuqaq, 2005; UNESCO, 2018).
Article
Full-text available
There has been a global trend away from delivering ‘climate information’ towards producing ‘climate services’ for decision-makers. The rationale for this shift is said to be the demand for timely and actionable climate knowledge, whilst the means of its delivery involves a shift from public good to more privatised forms of climate science. This paper identifies important implications of this shift to climate services by examining the role of consultants, drawing on an in-depth study of adaptation consultants in Australia. The role of consultants is instructive, not just because these private sector experts are engaged in climate services, but also because publicly funded climate science agencies are increasingly encouraged to behave as consulting firms do. Four imperatives of knowledge businesses—to be client-focussed, solutions-oriented, resource-efficient and self-replicating—are described. The paper argues that an emphasis on climate services shifts the incentives for climate science away from the public interest towards the ongoing pursuit of profit. There is a subsequent diversion of effort away from publicly accessible and transparent climate information to private knowledge for discrete clients. Climate services also emphasise knowledge for climate solutions as opposed to the politically charged identification of climate risks. The paper concludes with a warning that the trend towards climate services undermines the knowledge required for societies to adequately respond to the scale, speed and severity of climate change. At the heart of this issue is a climate services paradox: how to achieve customisation without exclusion.
Article
Full-text available
The northern North Atlantic is important globally both through its impact on the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) and through widespread atmospheric teleconnections. The region has been shown to be potentially predictable a decade ahead with the skill of decadal predictions assessed against reanalyses of the ocean state. Here, we show that the prediction skill in this region is strongly dependent on the choice of reanalysis used for validation, and describe the causes. Multiannual skill in key metrics such as Labrador Sea density and the AMOC depends on more than simply the choice of the prediction model. Instead, this skill is related to the similarity between the nature of interannual density variability in the underlying climate model and the chosen reanalysis. The climate models used in these decadal predictions are also used in climate projections, which raises questions about the sensitivity of these projections to the models' innate North Atlantic density variability.
Article
Full-text available
We use the 100-member Grand Ensemble with the climate model MPI-ESM to evaluate the controllability of mean and extreme European summer temperatures with the global mean temperature targets in the Paris Agreement. We find that European summer temperatures at 2 °C of global warming are on average 1 °C higher than at 1.5 °C of global warming with respect to pre-industrial levels. In a 2 °C warmer world, one out of every two European summer months would be warmer than ever observed in our current climate. Daily maximum temperature anomalies for extreme events with return periods of up to 500 years reach return levels of 7 °C at 2 °C of global warming and 5.5 °C at 1.5 °C of global warming. The largest differences in return levels for shorter return periods of 20 years are over southern Europe, where we find the highest mean temperature increase. In contrast, for events with return periods of over 100 years these differences are largest over central Europe, where we find the largest changes in temperature variability. However, due to the large effect of internal variability, only four out of every ten summer months in a 2 °C warmer world present mean temperatures that could be distinguishable from those in a 1.5 °C world. The distinguishability between the two climates is largest over southern Europe, while decreasing to around 10% distinguishable months over eastern Europe. Furthermore, we find that 10% of the most extreme and severe summer maximum temperatures in a 2 °C world could be avoided by limiting global warming to 1.5 °C.
Article
Full-text available
In November 2016, the Paris Agreement entered into force calling Parties to strengthen their cooperation for enhancing adaptation and narrowing the gap between climate science and policy. Moreover, climate change has been identified as a central challenge for sustainable development by the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Data provide the basis for a reliable scientific understanding and knowledge as well as the foundation for services that are required to take informed decisions. In consequence, there is an increasing need for translating the massive amount of climate data and information that already exists into customized tools, products and services to monitor the range of climate change impacts and their evolution. It is crucial that these data and information should be made available not in the way that they are collected, but in the way that they are being used by the largest audience possible. Considering that climate data is part of the broader Earth observation and geospatial data domain, the aim of this paper is to review the state-of-the-art geospatial technologies that can support the delivery of efficient and effective climate services, and enhancing the value chain of climate data in support of the objectives of the Global Framework for Climate Services. The major benefit of spatially-enabling climate services is that it brings interoperability along the entire climate data value chain. It facilitates storing, visualizing, accessing, processing/analyzing, and integrating climate data and information and enables users to create value-added products and services.
Article
Full-text available
Society can benefit from usable climate information to better prepare and adapt to the risks and opportunities posed by climate variability and change. An adequate and effective provision of climate information – from historical observations through to seasonal forecasts, and multi-decadal climate change projections – is critical to inform planning and decision-making in climate-sensitive sectors. Central to this are the end-users of climate information and a growing emphasis on tailored climate information and services shaped by user needs. However, knowledge about the use of climate information across European economic sectors is limited. This paper identifies the spectrum of sectoral information requirements across a number of sectors including agriculture, forestry, energy, water, tourism, insurance, health, emergency services and transport sectors, drawing from an online survey (n = 462) and interviews with (potential) users of climate information (n = 80). This analysis reveals shared opportunities across sectors including the potential application of decadal climate predictions. In addition, common barriers and enablers to the uptake of climate information were also noted including the format of the information provided, the need for compatibility with existing in-house systems, and the perceived credibility and trust of information providers. This analysis also points towards a perceived increasing fragmentation of available information and the desire amongst end-users for a European body able to centralise and coordinate climate data. We highlight some of the current factors that still need to be adequately addressed in order to enhance the uptake and application of climate information in decision-making across European economic sectors.
Article
Full-text available
Information about weather and climate is vital for many areas of decision-making, particularly under conditions of increasing vulnerability and uncertainty related to climate change. We have quantified the global commercial supply of weather and climate information services. Although government data are sometimes freely available, the interpretation and analysis of those data, alongside additional data collection, are required to formulate responses to specific challenges in areas such as health, agriculture, and the built environment. Using transactional data, we analyzed annual spending by private and public organizations on commercial weather and climate information in more than 180 countries by industrial sector, region, per capita, and percentage of GDP (gross domestic product) and against the country’s climate and extreme weather risk. There are major imbalances regarding access to these essential services between different countries based on region and development status. There is also no relationship between the level of climate and weather risks that a country faces and the level of per capita spending on commercial weather and climate information in that country. At the international level, action is being taken to improve access to information services. With a better understanding of the flows of commercial weather and climate information, as explored in this study, it will be possible to tackle these regional and development-related disparities and thus to increase resilience to climate and weather risks.
Article
Billed as the creation and provision of timely, tailored information for decision-making at all levels of society, climate services have garnered a great deal of attention in recent years. Despite this growing attention, strategies to design, diagnose, and evaluate climate services remain relatively ad hoc-and while a general sense of what constitutes "good practice" in climate service provision is developing in some areas, and with respect to certain aspects of service provision, a great deal about the effective implementation of such service remains unknown. This article reviews a sample of more than 100 climate service activities as a means to generate a snapshot of the state of the field in 2012. It is found that a "typical climate service" at this time was provided by a national meteorological service operating on a national scale to provide seasonal climate information to agricultural decision-makers online. The analysis shows that the field of climate services is still emerging-marked by contested definitions, an emphasis on capacity development, uneven progress toward coproduction, uncertain funding streams, and a lack of evaluation activities-and stands as a signpost against which the development of the field can be measured. The article also reflects on the relative contribution of this sort of sampling activity in informing "good practice" and offers suggestions for how both sampling and case study efforts can be better designed to increase the potential for learning. This article concludes with some observations on the relative contribution that broad-based analyses can play in informing this emerging field.
Article
To enable society to better manage the risks and opportunities arising from changes in climate, engagement between the users and the providers of climate information needs to be much more effective and should better link climate information with decision-making.
Article
Notions of ‘co-production’ are growing in popularity in social science and humanities research on climate change, although there is some ambiguity about the meanings of the term and how it is being used. It is time to critically and reflexively take stock of this expanding area of scholarship. A comprehensive review of over 130 scientific publications first mapped the scholars using co-production, relative to characteristics like their discipline, nationality, and research themes. Second, it looked at how this diversity of scientific perspectives has opened up a multiplicity of meanings of co-production. While most discussions of co-production stop at a basic distinction between descriptive and normative uses of the term, this review unpacked eight conceptual lenses on co-production, each discernible by its particular emphases, academic traditions, logic, and criteria of success. There are two important implications of this work. On one hand, it urges self-reflexive transparency when using co-production concepts. The multiple meanings attached to co-production add richness to the concept and open it up to different uses. However, it is important that scholars clearly communicate how they use the term and are mindful of what they ‘buy into’ by using the concept in certain ways. On the other hand, there are tensions between the different perspectives as well as opportunities for combining them into a compound concept of co-production. In this way, co-production is reconceptualized as a prism, where each aspect allows different but complimentary insights on the relationship between science, society, and nature.