Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-17 (section)

===== 17.4.4.2.2 Climate services =====

<div id="h4-16-siblings" class="h4-siblings"></div>

Climate services (refer to CWG Box on Climate Services) can be important enablers of climate risk management, provided they are credible, relevant and usable ( ''high confidence'' ), and will become increasingly important as human influence on weather and climate extremes grows across all regions (Chapter 11; [[#Fischer--2021|Fischer et al., 2021]] ; [[#IPCC--2021|IPCC, 2021]] ). Climate services are more effective and more widely used when they are tailored to specific decisions and decision makers ( ''high confidence'' ). Sustained iterative engagement between climate information users, producers and translators can improve the quality of the information and the decision-making and avoid maladaptation ( ''medium confidence'' ).

Historically, climate services have been organised by climate information providers, based in meteorological, hydrological and agricultural faculties and services, serving to improve through climate risk management, including the use of historical information, monitoring, seasonal forecasts and long-term climate projections ( [[#Hewitt--2012|Hewitt et al., 2012]] ; [[#Blome--2017|Blome, 2017]] ; [[#Bessembinder--2019|Bessembinder et al., 2019]] ; [[#Vaughan--2019b|Vaughan et al., 2019b]] ).

Recent research on climate services shows that transdisciplinary knowledge co-production is a key enabler, starting to shift emphasis from the creation of climate services ''products'' to climate services ''processes'' ( [[#Vincent--2018|Vincent et al., 2018]] ; [[#Carter--2019b|Carter et al., 2019b]] ; [[#Daniels--2020|Daniels et al., 2020]] ), potentially increasing uptake and sustainability ( [[#Norström--2020|Norström et al., 2020]] ). This shift is a result of the recognition of benefits which a co-production approach can offer, in addition to the provision of information; these additional benefits include building confidence, capacities, learning, knowledge, social capital, institutional capacity, stakeholder relationships, social networks, beneficial management practices and strengthened institutions (Bruno [[#Soares--2016|Soares and Dessai, 2016]] ; [[#Djenontin--2018|Djenontin and Meadow, 2018]] ; [[#Bremer--2019|Bremer et al., 2019]] ).

Cross-Chapter Box 12.2 in WGI AR6, ‘Climate information for climate services’, shows that users are widely distributed across civil society. Relevant users of climate services include humanitarian organisations ( [[#Coughlan%20de%20Perez--2014|Coughlan de Perez and Mason, 2014]] ; [[#Harvey--2019b|Harvey et al., 2019b]] ), government offices ( [[#Mahon--2019|Mahon et al., 2019]] ), international agencies ( [[#Perkins--2019|Perkins and Nachmany, 2019]] ) and the private sector ( [[#Beckett--2016|Beckett, 2016]] ; [[#Hudson--2019|Hudson et al., 2019]] ). Climate services currently exist at local, national, regional and international scales, at time scales which range from sub-seasonal to decadal and longer ( [[#White--2017|White et al., 2017]] ; [[#Hewitt--2020|Hewitt et al., 2020]] ) and in a range of different sectors (Bruno [[#Soares--2019|Soares and Buontempo, 2019]] ). Agriculture is the sector with the largest number of examples ( [[#Zebiak--2015|Zebiak et al., 2015]] ; [[#Burke--2016|Burke and Emerick, 2016]] ; [[#Cliffe--2016|Cliffe et al., 2016]] ; [[#Haigh--2018|Haigh et al., 2018]] ; [[#Buontempo--2020|Buontempo et al., 2020]] ); others include health ( [[#Ghebreyesus--2010|Ghebreyesus et al., 2010]] ; [[#Ballester--2016|Ballester et al., 2016]] ), forestry ( [[#Caurla--2020|Caurla and Lobianco, 2020]] ), fisheries ( [[#Busch--2016|Busch et al., 2016]] ), disaster risk reduction ( [[#Street--2019|Street et al., 2019]] ) and water resources management ( [[#van%20Vliet--2015|van Vliet et al., 2015]] ; [[#Golding--2019|Golding et al., 2019]] ). Evaluations of the extent to which climate services are accessed, used and deliver benefits to decision makers remain in an initial stage ( [[#Perrels--2020|Perrels, 2020]] ), though studies suggest that these contributions vary widely depending on context. A review of evaluation of weather and climate agricultural services in Africa, for instance, found that most farmers use climate services when they are available , but that on-farm outcomes varied, with some farmers experiencing yield losses and others gains upward of 60% ( [[#Vaughan--2019a|Vaughan et al., 2019a]] ). Other studies express concern that large climate service projects have run for decades at significant expense, without adequate evaluation ( [[#Gerlak--2020|Gerlak et al., 2020]] ).

Recent reviews ( [[#Carr--2018|Carr and Onzere, 2018]] ; [[#Hewitt--2020|Hewitt et al., 2020]] ) provide evidence that the use of climate services is affected by (a) the quality, reliability and skill of the climate information ( [[#Zebiak--2019|Zebiak, 2019]] ); (b) the fit, tailoring and contextualisation of that information with respect to the specific decision-making needs of particular users ( [[#Clarkson--2019|Clarkson et al., 2019]] ); (c) the mode and method by which the service is communicated ( [[#Golding--2017|Golding et al., 2017]] ); and (d) the characteristics of the users themselves, including the users’ access to resources that would allow them to alter their decisions based on the information provided ( [[#Clarkson--2019|Clarkson et al., 2019]] ).

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--2020|Stegmaier et al., 2020]] ). Elements of this governance include the arrangements by which those parties engage with each other ( [[#Vaughan--2016|Vaughan et al., 2016]] ; [[#Daniels--2020|Daniels et al., 2020]] ) and the financial arrangements, and associated responsibilities, which support the service ( [[#Lourenço--2015|Lourenço et al., 2015]] ; Bruno [[#Soares--2019|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 ( [[#Lemos--2014|Lemos et al., 2014]] ; [[#Pope--2017|Pope et al., 2017]] ; [[#Masuda--2018|Masuda et al., 2018]] ; [[#Harvey--2019b|Harvey et al., 2019b]] ). However, some studies warn that, even with broad and inclusive participation, power differentials can create barriers to co-production, reducing the usefulness of information products ( [[#Alexander--2020|Alexander et al., 2020]] ) and the neglect of non-meteorological sources of information which may also possess useful predictive power ( [[#Coughlan%20de%20Perez--2019|Coughlan de Perez et al., 2019]] ).

A small but growing number of papers consider the business models that support climate services, including, for instance, the role of open data ( [[#Iturbide--2019|Iturbide et al., 2019]] ; [[#Chimani--2020|Chimani et al., 2020]] ), the standards or institutional mandates by which users come to understand the credibility and legitimacy of certain services (Bruno [[#Soares--2019|Soares and Buontempo, 2019]] ), and the role of public–private partnerships ( [[#Cortekar--2020|Cortekar et al., 2020]] ). While the commercialisation of climate services holds significant promise that more and more specifically targeted services will be provided, there is not yet agreement on which business models best support this in different contexts. There is also concern that commercialisation of climate services may disadvantage under-resourced actors at the expense of wealthier or more powerful ones ( [[#Webber--2017|Webber, 2017]] ; [[#Webber--2017|Webber and Donner, 2017]] ; [[#Cortekar--2020|Cortekar et al., 2020]] ). It has been noted that some climate services, such as weather forecasts and early warnings, are an example of a public good, best provided by public agencies ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Sutter--2013|Sutter, 2013]] ; [[#Kitchell--2016|Kitchell, 2016]] ; [[#Hansen--2018|Hansen et al., 2018]] ).

<div id="17.4.4.2.3" class="h4-container"></div>

<span id="capacity-and-motivation-within-knowledge-systems"></span>