D2.1 Preliminary Report: Information on Climate Service Needs and Gaps

[D2.1 – Preliminary Report: Climate Service Needs & Gaps] This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 10103729 Deliverable D2.1 Preliminary Report: Information on Climate Service Needs and Gaps April 2022 [D2.1 – Preliminary Report: Climate Service Needs & Gaps] This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 10103729 Innovating Climate services through Integrating Scientific and local Knowledge Deliverable Title: Preliminary Report: Information on Climate Service Needs and Gaps Author(s): Francesca Moschini (ECMWF), Rebecca Emerton (ECMWF) Contributing Author(s): Christel Prudhomme (ECMWF), Calum Baugh (ECMWF), Ilyas Masih (IHE), Marije Schaafsma (VUA), Nuria Hernández-Mora (UCM), Marthe Wens (VUA), Veronika Fabok (IDEAS), Micha Werner (IHE) Date April 2022 Suggested citation: Moschini, F., Emerton, R., et al., 2022: Preliminary Report: Information on Climate Service Needs and Gaps, I-CISK Deliverable 2.1, Available online at www.icisk.eu/resources Availability: ☒ PU: This report is public ☐ CO: Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) Document Revisions: Author Revision Date Francesca Moschini & Rebecca Emerton First draft 04/04/2022 Contributing Authors Internal review / feedback (WP2) 11/04/2022 Francesca Moschini & Rebecca Emerton Second draft 13/04/2022 Micha Werner & Ilyas Masih PI review / feedback 19/04/2022 Francesca Moschini & Rebecca Emerton Final report 25/04/2022 [D2.1 – Preliminary Report: Climate Service Needs & Gaps] i Executive Summary This report provides a preliminary overview of the current use of existing climate services (CS) in each of the seven Living Labs (LLs) participating in I-CISK (located in The Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Greece, Hungary, Georgia and Namibia), alongside our knowledge so far regarding the decision-making context in each LL, barriers to use of existing CS, and needs for improved and tailored CS. The information summarised here has been obtained through the project scoping process, initial discussion meetings in the first months of the project, the establishing of the LLs, detailed reports on the characteristics of each LL produced for D1.1, and targeted questionnaires and interviews as part of this task and deliverable (T/D2.1). Co-exploring needs surrounding the value of CS, climate data and information is key in the design and development of CS. It is important to understand the decision-making context of CS end-users, the barriers to use of existing CS and how these issues can be addressed in the development of nextgeneration CS to provide CS that are useful, usable and effectively address user needs. This preliminary report is intended to provide an overview of our initial understanding of decisionmaking and CS needs in each LL, for the use of other tasks and work packages within I-CISK, and to provide potentially useful information for CS providers. T2.1 will continue to explore the usability of and needs for CS throughout the process of co-development during the course of the project, and will consider effective forecast design and communication, from product visualisation to terminology used for communication of uncertain information. A final T2.1 report, Deliverable D2.4, will be completed at the end of the project, updating this preliminary report with information and experiences gained and learnt throughout the project, and providing additional discussion of key aspects related to decision-making and the effective design, communication and use of CS. Some of the key challenges identified in the use of existing CS for decision-making include insufficient resolution (spatial and/or temporal), or for example forecasts that are aggregated over a given period in such a way that doesn’t allow for CS users to identify key patterns and distributions, lack of useful variables, and accessibility of information (including several aspects such as data not being openly accessible, information being difficult to download, and challenges in disseminating CS information to the target audiences). In regards to this, the needs for improved CS range from the development of CS at additional timescales (such as extending timescales from medium-range forecasts to seasonal forecasts, or different periods of aggregation in forecasts), CS that are tailored to specific sectors (e.g. expected crop production in addition to rainfall patterns), impact-based and action-based forecasts, additional variables, and improved accessibility. While gaps remain in our understanding of the types of decisions made based on CS by stakeholders in each of the LLs, and how these decisions are made, this report provides a starting point for co-exploring the challenges and needs of stakeholders participating in the I-CISK project, and how we can begin to address the challenges faced and the needs for improved CS in the seven LLs. [D2.1 – Preliminary Report: Climate Service Needs & Gaps] ii Contents 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 2. Task Objectives & Context within I-CISK ............................................................................. 2 3. Method ............................................................................................................................... 5 4. Decision-Making Context .................................................................................................... 7 4.1. The Netherlands ....................................................................................................................10 4.2. Spain ......................................................................................................................................10 4.3. Italy ........................................................................................................................................11 4.4. Hungary ..................................................................................................................................11 4.5. Greece ....................................................................................................................................11 4.6. Georgia ...................................................................................................................................12 4.7. Namibia ..................................................................................................................................13 5. Use of existing climate services ........................................................................................ 13 5.1. The Netherlands ....................................................................................................................14 5.2. Spain ......................................................................................................................................15 5.3. Italy ........................................................................................................................................17 5.4. Hungary ..................................................................................................................................18 5.5. Greece ....................................................................................................................................19 5.6. Georgia ...................................................................................................................................21 5.7. Namibia ..................................................................................................................................22 6. Barriers to use and limitations of existing climate services.............................................. 23 6.1. The Netherlands ....................................................................................................................23 6.2. Spain ......................................................................................................................................23 6.3. Italy ........................................................................................................................................24 6.4. Hungary ..................................................................................................................................24 6.5. Greece ....................................................................................................................................25 6.6. Georgia ...................................................................................................................................25 6.7. Namibia ..................................................................................................................................25 7. Climate service needs ....................................................................................................... 26 7.1. The Netherlands ....................................................................................................................26 7.2. Spain ......................................................................................................................................26 7.3. Italy ........................................................................................................................................27 7.4. Hungary ..................................................................................................................................27 [D2.1 – Preliminary Report: Climate Service Needs & Gaps] iii 7.5. Greece ....................................................................................................................................28 7.6. Georgia ...................................................................................................................................28 7.7. Namibia ..................................................................................................................................29 8. Concise summary of CS use, barriers and needs............................................................... 29 9. Preliminary conclusions and future work ......................................................................... 31 References ................................................................................................................................ 34 Appendix 1: Glossary ................................................................................................................ 35 Appendix 2: Questionnaires / Interview Questions .................................................................. 36 [D2.1 – Preliminary Report: Climate Service Needs & Gaps] iv List of Tables Table 1 Contextual information for each Living Lab ................................................................................ 8 Table 2 Overview of the use of Climate Services in the Dutch Living Lab .............................................14 Table 3 Overview of the use of Climate Services in the Spanish Living Lab ..........................................15 Table 4 Overview of the use of Climate Services in the Italian Living Lab ............................................17 Table 5 Overview of the use of Climate Services in the Hungarian Living Lab ......................................18 Table 6 Overview of the use of Climate Services in the Crete (Greece) Living Lab ...............................20 Table 7 Overview of the use of Climate Services in the Georgian Living Lab ........................................21 Table 8 Overview of the types of CS currently used in each LL, barriers to their use, and CS needs. ..30 [D2.1 – Preliminary Report: Climate Service Needs & Gaps] v List of Figures Figure 1. Planned timeline and context of Task 2.1 and Deliverable 2.1 within the I-CISK project ........ 3 Figure 2. I-CISK PERT diagram showing interaction and collaboration between WPs and tasks. ........... 4 Figure 3. Number of questionnaire responses for each of the two questionnaires, per Living Lab. ...... 6 Figure 4. Number of questionnaire participants per sector / type of organisation, percentage of participants involved in climate adaption and/or disaster risk reduction strategies, and percentage of responses concerned with each type of weather/climate hazard. ......................................................... 6 [D2.1 – Preliminary Report: Climate Service Needs & Gaps] 1 1. Introduction Climate services (CS) 1 are crucial in empowering citizens, stakeholders and decision-makers in defining resilient pathways to prepare for hazards and extreme events and adapt to climate change. Availability of CS has improved significantly in recent years, alongside advances in scientific knowledge and data, with CS such as those from Copernicus or GEOSS (Global Earth Observation System of Systems) providing a range of data, training, access to scientific knowledge and forecasts (e.g. the Copernicus Emergency Management Service (CEMS) and Climate Change Service (C3S), www.copernicus.eu/en/copernicus-services; the GEOSS portal, earthobservations.org/geoss.php). Despite this, there are still challenges for end-users to make the best use of the potential of such CS and data, such as accessibility, local applicability and the translation of scientific data into actionable information, social and behavioural factors and varying needs of decision-makers. The typical approach in the development of CS is the top-down approach and has often been “onesize-fits-all” (Jacobs and Street, 2020; WISER, 2020), but approaches to developing and providing CS are continually evolving and moving towards those that account for a broad range of societal challenges and potential users. A co-creation 2 approach, such as will be used throughout the I-CISK project, including co-design, coproduction, co-implementation and co-evaluation, can help to overcome challenges that lead to a lack of usability of CS, and provides the opportunity to meet climate information needs at relevant spatial and temporal scales across a range of regions and sectors (WISER, 2020; Hirons et al., 2021). I-CISK will involve and engage stakeholders 3 (including CS providers, purveyors, actors and end-users) at each step of the co-creation process, in order to co-produce tailored CS that integrate local knowledge and experiences with large-scale data and information. Co-exploring needs surrounding the value of CS, climate data and information is key in the design and development of CS. It is important to understand the decision-making context of CS end-users, the 1 The I-CISK prototype framework on co-creating end-user centred climate services (MS10, 2022) includes discussion of ‘what do we mean by Climate Services?’, from which the following is adapted: “climate services” is broadly defined as “the transformation of climate-related data — together with other relevant knowledge — into customized products such as projections, forecasts, warnings, trends, economic analysis, and risk assessment, which allows to deliver information on best practices, to develop and evaluate solutions, and to provide any other service in relation to climate that may be of use for the society at large” (Street et al., 2015; MS10, 2022). 2 Co-creation is the interdisciplinary, interactive and iterative approach to developing CS, as a way to overcome the divide between climate science and decision-makers. It is often used interchangeably with co-production or co-design. In the I-CISK project, we use the term co-creation to describe the collaborative process encompassing the co-design, co-production, co-implementation, coevaluation and dissemination of user-centred CS (MS10, 2022). 3 Stakeholders is the general term that encompasses all CS producers, intermediaries and consumers, or others who are affecting/affected by the decisions informed by CS (or absence thereof). Within I-CISK (MS10, 2022), the following stakeholder categories are defined: (1) actors – stakeholders that play an active role in the technology, institutional and investment readiness of CS. These are the stakeholders affecting decisions, by creating either drivers or barriers. They include, for example, the project team, scientists, practitioners, decision-makers, private sector, public authorities, providers, end-users, etc. (2) providers – actors who provide the necessary data, investment, regulatory context for the CS to be sustained; they supply climate information and knowledge, operating on a range of scales and in different sectors. (3) purveyors – act as knowledge brokers providing guidance on ways that CS can address regional problems. They also ensure that products, scientific results and business opportunities are adequately communicated to end-users. (4) end-users – actors who use CS at different levels of the decision chain. They employ climate information and knowledge for decision-making, and may or may not participate in developing the CS itself, or may also pass information on to others, making them both users and providers. They include civilians, companies, developers, private organisations, local communities, governments etc. [D2.1 – Preliminary Report: Climate Service Needs & Gaps] 2 barriers to use of existing CS and how these issues can be addressed in the development of nextgeneration CS to provide CS that are useful, usable and effectively address user needs. The I-CISK project is working with seven so-called ‘Living Labs’ (LLs) in Europe and Africa, located in climate change hotspots with specific geographical and climatic settings. LLs are defined as “places for innovation - multidisciplinary ecosystems in which the I-CISK co-creation process will take place. They are an experimental setting and a safe space for stakeholder involvement (Fuglsang et al., 2019); reallife environments in which multiple heterogeneous stakeholders are connected through publicprivate-people partnerships and in which innovation-development activities can be conducted (Hossain et al., 2019)” (MS10, 2022). These LLs will provide the space where CS will be co-produced with stakeholders from multiple sectors to meet their climate information needs. They are located in The Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Hungary, Greece, Georgia and Namibia. This preliminary report summarises the decision-making context for stakeholders in each of the seven LLs, and provides an overview of the initially identified current use of CS, barriers to effective use of existing CS, and needs for improved and tailored CS. This information is intended to provide an overview of our initial understanding of decision-making and CS needs, for the use of other tasks and work packages within I-CISK. The report is structured as follows: • Section 2 – Task objectives & context within I-CISK: summary of the objectives of Task 2.1 and how this fits with the wider I-CISK project. • Section 3 – Methods: details how the information in this report was collected. • Section 4 – Decision-Making Context: an overview of who is involved in each LL, the types of decisions they are making, and the associated climate hazards. • Section 5 – Use of existing CS: summarises the types of weather and climate information/services that are being used by those involved in each LL. • Section 6 – Barriers to use and limitations of existing CS: an overview of the key challenges those involved in each LL face in using weather and climate information/services. • Section 7 – CS needs: describes the needs for improved and tailored CS in each LL. • Section 8 – Concise summary of CS use, barriers and needs: provides a table summarising the information discussed in sections 5, 6 and 7 • Section 9 – Preliminary conclusions, lessons learnt & future work. • Appendix 1: Glossary • Appendix 2: The interviews/questionnaires used as part of this report. 2. Task Objectives & Context within I-CISK The content of this preliminary report is based on information and experiences of stakeholders within each LL, provided as responses to initial interviews and questionnaires (see section 3 for more information) during the establishing of the LLs at the start of the project. These interviews/questionnaires form the first step of Task 2.1 (T2.1) of the I-CISK project, which focusses on “co-exploring climate information and adaptation information needs and obligations of the stakeholders in the living labs”. T2.1 takes place as an iterative process throughout the 4-year project (see Figure 1, which indicates the planned timeline and concept), using a participatory approach to ensure the centrality of user needs to the development of CS within I-CISK. As discussed in the prototype framework on co-creating end-user centred CS (MS10, 2022), “by evaluating the processes throughout the project cycle, WP1 and WP2 will lead the process of identifying […] best practices and [D2.1 – Preliminary Report: Climate Service Needs & Gaps] 9 Georgia Alazani river basin, Kakheti region Hydropower, Agriculture, Environmental protection, Forestry, Tourism, Water resources management, Environmental protection Drought, Flooding, Landslides Humid subtropical/continental climate Regional governmental bodies, city councils, the National Environmental Agency (NEA), Department of Environment and Climate Change, NGOs, Telavi State University, Hydropower authorities, farmers cooperatives, citizens, environmental conservation groups. Plan economic activities in the Kakheti region (and expand to the other 5 regions of Georgia). Support policy and regulations (especially the new Water Code) Plan measurements to mitigate extreme climate hazard events. Namibia Kunene, Erongo and Kavango West Region Agriculture, Humanitarian aid, Government (various scales), Disaster risk reduction, Forestry Drought Arid desert / steppe climate; high variability Three local communities, National government, humanitarian and development agencies including WFP and Red Cross, research teams including from University of Namibia and the Namibia University of Science and Technology, National Farmers Union, national meteorological service, local actors, herders and farmers. Moving from a reactive to a proactive approach to tackle drought impacts on agriculture and humanitarian sector at all levels (local to regional/national). [D2.1 – Preliminary Report: Climate Service Needs & Gaps] 10 4.1. The Netherlands Rijnland is the area that compromises the Rhine delta where the Rijnland water board is mainly responsible for the water governance of the area. The main climate hazards in this region are floods and drought, with drought being the key focus of this LL. Droughts strongly impact water tourism (by limiting recreational shipping) and agriculture (by affecting irrigation water management). Examples of the decision-making required include whether to inlet water from a neighbouring water board, whether to limit ship-lock operation, and management decisions such as changing drought alert levels and inspecting dikes. The two key sectors impacted by drought are agriculture, in terms of water supply, and water tourism. Additionally, in times of drought, there can be negative impacts on nature conservancy areas and freshwater lakes in the region. CS are used by the water board for monitoring and operating the water system according to current and future forecast state up to 15 days ahead. After the 2018 drought, more stakeholders from the water recreation/tourism sector and the agriculture sector have been invited to participate in the cocreation of CS. The stakeholders that potentially will be involved in I-CISK are: five sail and motor boating clubs, Marinas in and around Spaarndam, tree nurseries “Boskoop”, Horticultural farmers (flower bulbs) from Rijnland and organisation from the agricultural sector representing farmers in the Haarlemmermeer polder. 4.2. Spain In Spain, the focus region of the LL is the Guadalquivir and Guadiana in northern Andalusia. Within this region, Los Pedroches is the primary focus area, where key economic sectors include agriculture, livestock farming, olive groves and agro-industry, all of which are vulnerable to droughts and other climate-related hazards. A second sub-region within the LL is involved, providing a test site for CS developed as part of I-CISK, is the Sierra de Cazorla, Segura and Las Viñas Natural Park. Rainfall patterns are the preliminary interest for CS, as these impact all sectors, and there is intense pressure on water resources due to drought, alongside risks from forest fires. The LL characterisation report (D1.1 NL, 2022) highlights that initial interviews with stakeholders point out broad environmental impacts affecting natural areas, wildlife and agriculture due to “increased temperatures and sustained rainfall pattern disruption”, with the cumulative effect of this disruption reducing resilience. Key stakeholders involved in the LL are the Guadalquivir River Basin Authority, the government service responsible for REDIAM (see section 4.2), the Cardeña and Montoro Natural Park, the Centre for forest management experimentation and training for Cazorla, a local action group for Los Pedroches, two cooperatives, a family farm and WWF Spain. Interview responses from stakeholders provided detailed information on challenges in the region, particularly in regards to olive groves and livestock farming, with climate change greatly impacting the agriculture and livestock sector and challenges exacerbated by depopulation, and competition between those farmers who have been able to mechanise and irrigate their olive groves, and those who have not. As an area where the agriculture and livestock sectors are primarily rainfed, they are vulnerable to periods of drought, and decreased precipitation / water availability due to climate change, in a time when there is a growing need for more water. In regards to the tourism sector, it was highlighted that the number of tourists visiting the Natural Park is influenced by the climate, particularly relating to the flow of water in the rivers, streams and pools. Changes to the tourist season have also been noticed, with activities possible earlier in the year due to reduced presence of snow and ice in the headwater catchments. [D2.1 – Preliminary Report: Climate Service Needs & Gaps] 11 4.3. Italy The focus region of the Italian LL is in the upper part of the Panaro and Secchia rivers, in Modena and Reggio Emilia provinces. The area is vulnerable to droughts and floods, due to a change in precipitation seasonal patterns and increase in temperature. The sectors affected by droughts and the resulting water shortage are the tourism, agriculture, infrastructure, energy, manufactory and production sectors, all competing for water and energy, especially during the warmer season. Stakeholders involved are the regional government, the regional environmental agency (ARPAE) responsible for sectoral planning and water rights assignment, the Land reclamation and irrigation Consortia responsible in water provision, Ireti and HERA multiutilities companies, responsible for water exploitation from surface bodies and managing human and industrial water usage. Finally, the Burana consortium, managing the hydraulic network of the downstream Panaro and Secchia rivers, located outside of the LL focus area but with a consolidated experience in EO and CS research activities for water management strategies. A challenge noted in questionnaire/interview responses is the management of water resources, particularly in relation to managing conflicts of interest around withdrawals from users. This is something that is likely to increase further with impacts of climate change on water availability. 4.4. Hungary The focus of the Hungarian LL is on urban heat islands, in particular in Erzsébetváros, an inner district of Budapest and the most populated. This district has a low percentage of green spaces, with a high density of buildings, and therefore is particularly exposed to heat waves, which are already causing issues for a range of sectors in the city. Key motivations for this LL include the consequences of climate change that are observed and projected, including an increase in the mean annual temperature and sunshine duration, alongside more frequent temperature and precipitation extremes. In Budapest, the urban heat island effect exacerbates the impacts of summer heat waves, with temperatures in inner parts of the city reaching up to 7oC above the greener areas surrounding the city (D1.1 Hungary, 2022; Budapest SECAP, 2021). The district aims to implement adaptation strategies including increasing the percentage of green areas (including green roofs, green walls), shading buildings and adding drinking fountains or other places to provide water during heatwaves, alongside developing a heatwave alarm system and educating the public on adaptation strategies (D1.1 Hungary, 2022; Climate Strategy Erzsébetváros, 2020). In Erzsébetváros, small businesses are a key part of the economy, which is based primarily around tourism, and alongside the impacts on the tourism sector, a significant impact of heatwaves in Budapest is on the health sector. Stakeholders participating in, or collaborating with, the LL include the municipality of the Erzsébetváros district (responsible for maintenance of healthcare institutions and public spaces), the national public health institute, the Clean Air Action Group (an NGO), and local community groups (for example ‘Friends of Compost’). This LL will also, while including the perspectives and experiences of all genders, emphasise in particular the needs and perspectives of women, who have been identified as holding much of the responsibility for care work and concern with green issues. 4.5. Greece The Island of Crete is the focus area of the Greek LL where the main weather/climate hazards are heatwaves, floods, wildfires and droughts. The stakeholders involved are from the tourism, energy, [D2.1 – Preliminary Report: Climate Service Needs & Gaps] 12 agriculture, transportation, and water management sectors. From the public sector The Greek National Tourism Organisation (tourism), the Organisation for the Development of Crete S.A. (transport, hydraulic/agriculture/water supply infrastructure) and The Municipal Port Fund of Rethymno (port management and activities) are involved. The Regional Development Company of Crete SA. (infrastructure, tourism, energy) operates in the private sector and the Greek Tourism Confederation (tourism) operates in the non-governmental sector. The main end users of the Climate Services (CS) include tourism enterprises, tourists, citizens, and users from the water supply and energy sectors. Decisions related to climate hazards are linked to water allocation in periods of droughts, heatwaves and wildfires for the planning of tourist activities and energy demand (due to higher usage of cooling systems), and tourism and transportation disruption related to flash floods. The above-mentioned stakeholders have been part of public consultations concerning climate change adaptation plans but at the moment are generally not directly creating climate related risk reduction plans. At the moment the available climate data are at climate projection timescales, alongside data at daily resolution from weather forecast services. Stakeholders take different decisions on a daily, weekly and seasonal basis in relation to the activities of their sector. 4.6. Georgia Georgia is affected by several climate-related hazards, including floods, flash floods, landslides, avalanches, hailstorms, windstorms and droughts, and according to the National Disaster Risk Reduction Strategy of Georgia (2017; D1.1 Georgia, 2022), the number of natural disasters has increased threefold in recent decades. The LL characterisation report for Georgia (D1.1 Georgia, 2022) provides detailed information on the expected impacts of climate change, such as a reduction of glacier runoff (which is key for the country’s hydropower-dependent electricity generation), increased temperature and precipitation (which may exacerbate water shortages for hydropower and agriculture), and more severe extreme events such as flooding, landslides and glacier lake outburst floods. Stakeholders involved include the Climate Division and National Environment Agency (NEA) of the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Agriculture (MEPA) from the central government, alongside local level government representatives including the Akhmeta Municipality, the Regional Administration of Kakheti and the Information Consultation Centre in the Kakheti Region. Four NGOs are involved, the Kakheti Regional Development Foundation (KRDF), the Civil Society Development Association Spektri, the Akhmeta Innovation Centre and the Association of Women Farmers. Alongside government and NGOs, the Akhmeta WASH council, the Telavi State University, the Administration of Khadori Hydrower Plants, the Telavi Service Centre of Kakheti Regional Branch of the United Water Supply of Georgia, and the Chaduna Farmers Cooperative, are all involved. Responses to the questionnaires highlighted that climate-induced disasters, such as droughts, are the biggest challenge currently faced by decision-makers at an NGO, where the type of decisions made include restoration of forests, protection of river banks, and the use of renewable energy sources. Therefore, the timescale of such decisions tends to be either shorter-term emergency management timescales, and the associated preparation of action plans. They are also involved in climate adaptation measures such as installing renewable energy infrastructure (e.g. solar energy), and the preparation of climate change preparedness and response teams. For their decision-making context, [D2.1 – Preliminary Report: Climate Service Needs & Gaps] 13 climate and weather information is seen as “very important and necessary”. Other stakeholders are not yet involved in climate adaptation strategies, but aim to activate such activities through this project, and two participants noted that decision-making can be challenging due to a lack of awareness of climate change and its impacts. 4.7. Namibia The predominant climate hazard of the Namibian LL is drought, affecting the three communities that are part of the LL: Okombahe in Erongo, Otjivero in Kunene and Sharukwe in Kavango West regions. The communities are located in different agro-ecological zones of Namibia and represent the sociogeographical conditions of the country areas affected by drought. These regions are reliant on dryland crop or livestock subsistence farming and are vulnerable and exposed to drought. The LL characterisation report for Namibia (D1.1 Namibia, 2022) provides detailed information on the impacts of drought on water supply, agriculture and livestock. Stakeholders that will be directly involved in the Living Lab include the Namibia Red Cross Society, the three communities mentioned above, the Department of Disaster Risk Reduction of the Office of the Prime Minister, and the Namibia Meteorological Services. Other stakeholders who will be involved and consulted during the project include the local MEFT (Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Tourism) office, the World Food Program, UNESCO, the University of Namibia, the Namibia University of Science and Technology (NUST), the Namibia Water Corporation Ltd (NamWater), the FAO, the National Farmers Union, the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform (MAWLR), the Southern African Science Service Centre for Climate Change and Adaptive Land Management (SASSCAL), and the National Commission on Research Science and Technology. The end users of the CS identified are social and governance actors involved in, disaster risk management, climate change adaptation and humanitarian response (including early action). 5. Use of existing climate services This subsection summarises the CS used by stakeholders in each of the seven LLs. Where more detailed information was available through the questionnaires and LL characterisation reports (D1.1, 2022), the CS currently used are summarized in a table that focuses on the CS type (e.g. weather forecast), its characteristics (left side of the table) and usage (right side of the table). The characteristics are described in terms of provider, data format, variables available, timescale and uncertainty and reliability information; the usage information summarises who uses the CS, the type of decision that may be made based on the CS, and in relation to which hazards. These tables may not represent the full scope of information available from every CS or provider mentioned, but aim to summarise the CS highlighted by stakeholders in each of the LLs. Additionally, it is often the case that all users of CS are not known, and while this report aims to provide an overview of the current use of CS, some of the information in this section lists the CS currently available with limited information regarding their current use. A summary of the type of CS used in each LL, alongside the barriers to their use and CS needs, is also provided in Table 8. The level of detail and information available so far varies by LL, according to the progress in establishing the LLs and the stakeholders involved so far in the project that were able to provide additional information towards this deliverable. Therefore, the information presented here and in the summary tables has some gaps that we aim to fill during following iterations of Task2.1 and further participatory activities with stakeholders in each of the LLs. [D2.1 – Preliminary Report: Climate Service Needs & Gaps] 14 Some stakeholders provided additional information on evaluation of their decision-making processes, particularly focussing on post-event evaluation of the CS information used. Where this information was available, a section on post-event evaluation performed by stakeholders of the LL is included. This does not include any information on routine evaluation of services by the CS providers, and is only available for a subsample of the stakeholders participating in the I-CISK project. 5.1. The Netherlands The Dutch LL characterisation report (D1.1 NL, 2022) mentions a key CS used by the water board of Rijnland, which consists of an advanced information and decision support system that monitors the water system’s state with an observation network for precipitation, water levels, discharge and salinity. This CS also provides 15-day forecasts based on forecasts from KNMI (the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute), which include predictions from ECMWF (the European Centre for Mediumrange Weather Forecasts) ensemble forecasts, and MeteoGroup. Further details related to this CS are provided in table 2. Table 2 Overview of the use of Climate Services in the Dutch Living Lab characteristics CS usage CS uncertainty and reliability CS time scale CS variables CS provider and format Type of CS Used by To decide what In relation to which hazard Bulletins are produced every week and provide 15-days lead time forecasts Observing Network: Precipitation, Water levels, River discharge, Salinity Water board of Rijnland, using forecasts of KNMI, ECMWF, MeteoGrou p and water balance model of HydroLogic Provided as bulletins assessing drought condition, and drought warnings colourcoded according to water use restrictions for various sectors Drought monitoring system Water board of Rijnland Rijkswaterstaat Water allocation, water supply, drought alert level, ship navigation Drought Forecasts: Spatially distributed rainfall deficit 2-week predictions Streamflow Ministry of Infrastructu re and Water Streamflow Predictions for Rhine at Lobith [D2.1 – Preliminary Report: Climate Service Needs & Gaps] 15 5.2. Spain In the Andalusia region in Spain, the network REDIAM (the Andalusian Environmental Information Network), run by the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries and Sustainable Development of the regional government of Andalucia, is responsible for integrating and disseminating environmental information produced by various centres. They produce and update information regarding a range of environmental issues and climate change. The Ministry also maintain a tool, Subsistema Clima, for the compilation and standardisation of climate and weather information generated in the region, including 3000 meteorological observation stations (of which ~1/3 are currently active). Initial interviews highlighted that the most-used CS in the region, for both forest and agriculture sectors, are AEMET (the State Meteorological Agency of the Spanish Government), TV, press and media channels (elTiempo.es and meteo.es are given as examples of frequently used sites), alongside traditional knowledge based on historical observations and experience. It was also considered that the 14-day forecasts available from AEMET and elTiempo.es are generally reliable, whereas longerrange predictions lack sufficient spatial and temporal resolution and are unreliable. A summary of the information provide related to the use of existing CS is provided in table 3. While we are not currently aware of the specific use of several of these CS, they are included to provide a complete overview of the information we have regarding the CS available for decision-making in the region. Interviews with stakeholders also provided the opportunity to understand their experiences in more detail, with responses noting for example the types of decision made, such as when to prune olive trees based on 15-day forecasts, alongside details of some of the ancestral local knowledge that is used for decisionmaking. As local farmers know their land well, it was noted that they may see that weather forecasts online predict it will rain, but with the air coming from a certain direction, they are aware that based on experience, it won’t rain on their land. Another example of a proverb was provided by one participant, which translated indicates that if the local river is dry at a certain time, you know which decisions to make regarding buying food or selling livestock, for example. A challenge noted here is the impact of changes due to climate change. Table 3 Overview of the use of Climate Services in the Spanish Living Lab characteristics CS usage CS uncertainty and reliability CS time scale CS variables CS provider and format Type of CS Used by To decide what In relation to which hazard 1981-2010 Drought indices, land use, … AEMET Provided as statistics, extreme values, threshold exceedances, event reports and maps. Climatological data AEMET Web viewer Reservoir management support Probabilistic Produced monthly out to 3 months Precipitation Temperature AEMET Seasonal forecasts [D2.1 – Preliminary Report: Climate Service Needs & Gaps] 16 Multimodel Monthly and daily out to 2100 Precipitation Temperature (max and min) AEMET Monthly and daily data, map & graphs of regionalized projections Climate projections The bulletins indicate periods when the risk of fire is considered high. Andalusian Environmental Information Network (REDIAM). Provided as bulletins Forest fire risk management plans and forest use restrictions Forest Training and research centre Forest fire 1961 to 2099 Temperature Precipitation PET Hydric balance Hot days Tropical nights Andalusian Environmental Information Network (REDIAM) Provided as spreadsheets, graphs and maps Andalusian Climate Scenarios Viewer 1961 to present weekly Current drought conditions Higher Council for Scientific Research (CSIC) Provided as maps, csv, netCDF and bulletins Drought monitoring monitordesequi a.csic.es Farming Drought Daily, up two weeks ahead Temperature Precipitation AEMET, meteo.es, eltiempo.es Meteorological Forecasts Farming Forest Drought Historical - present Hourly/ daily/ monthly Reservoirs Flow rates River levels Floods Rainfall Irrigable areas Guadalquivir River Basin Authority Provided as a geoportal, text & graphs Guadalquivir River Basin Monitoring Drought Floods Hydrogeological situation Water quality Ecological status Flood risk assessment Guadiana River Basin Authority Geoportal Guadiana River Basin Monitoring Drought Floods [D2.1 – Preliminary Report: Climate Service Needs & Gaps] 17 5.3. Italy The CS used and available in the Italian LL are those produced by ARPAE, the regional environmental protection agency. ARPAE produces and distributes climatic, meteorological and hydrological data such as: climate projection summary reports and bulletins, historical data and data from monitoring. Questionnaire responses were received from four private local institutions that are primarily involved with water allocation and management in different sectors. In general, based on the sample of responses received, it was perceived that CS information is not considered to be completely reliable, due to the effects of climate change and unexpected events related to this. Further details and some examples of the use of these CS are provided in Table 4. Post event evaluation As expected, the post event evaluation process differs across stakeholders. While we are not currently aware of the evaluation undertaken by each stakeholder or CS provider, it was highlighted that ARPAE evaluates the magnitude of past events, and the regional government and the multi-utility company IRETI evaluate the decisions taken during critical events in order to improve future decision-making. Table 4 Overview of the use of Climate Services in the Italian Living Lab characteristics CS usage CS uncertainty and reliability CS time scale CS variables CS provider and format Type of CS Used by To decide what In relation to which hazard ARPAE Provided as summary reports and bulletins Regional climate projection Daily monthly yearly Temperature Soil moisture Precipitation River discharge ARPAE Provided as maps, tab, graph, charts, text, raw data Historical and current hydrometeorologic al data from monitoring network Emilia Romagna regional government Ecological flow, withdrawal limitations, river water balance maintenance Drought Floods Multi-utility company (water distribution) Water allocation for industries Seasonal forecasts are provided with uncertainty information. Weekly seasonal Water deficit on the first meter of soil Rainfall Crop evapotranspiration Seasonal irrigation demand anomaly Irrigation demand ARPAE Provided as maps, FTP, tabulated values of irrigation demand. Icolt: agriculture water demand forecast Burana water irrigation consortium Water management and allocation for agriculture Drought [D2.1 – Preliminary Report: Climate Service Needs & Gaps] 18 5.4. Hungary The LL characterisation report for the Hungarian LL (D1.1 Hungary, 2022) mentions different services on climate, air quality, urban classification, earth observations, green areas and climate adaptation. At this preliminary stage, we have not been able to receive responses to the questionnaires from stakeholders in the Hungarian LL, and as such it is not yet clear which stakeholders are making use of the various CS described in the LL report (D1.1 Hungary, 2022). We aim to further our understanding of the decision-making based on these CS as the project moves forward. Key information regarding the main CS available to stakeholders in the LL is provided in Table 5. In addition to these, other CS are available and noted, but are not yet included in Table 5 due to a lack of detailed information. For example, eEarth space remote sensing portal https://fir.gov.hu, Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S), the National Adaptation Spatial Information System (NATér) for facilitating climate change adaptation legislation and strategy building, and the National Geospatial Base Map. Table 5 Overview of the use of Climate Services in the Hungarian Living Lab characteristics CS usage CS uncertainty and reliability CS time scale CS variables CS provider and format Type of CS Used by To decide what In relation to which hazard Available years: 2006, 2012, 2018 land use Copernicus Land Monitoring Service (CLMS) Urban Atlas Land cover and land use data for urban areas How to influence urban planning and the increase of green areas green spaces Urban heatwaves MeteoAlarm Alerts for multiple hazards Heat-health Warning System Multihazard (heatwaves, floods, thunderstor ms, winds, forest fire, fog, snow, extreme cold, avalanches, tides…) Trees, Park register, Tree belts, Fatár Provided as maps Green areas monitoring Urban heatwaves Observations of birds, insects, and plants INaturalist Provided as maps Biodiversity monitoring [D2.1 – Preliminary Report: Climate Service Needs & Gaps] 25 6.5. Greece Intersectionality Climate change vulnerability assessments are available at LL level; however, they focus on single sectors and lack information on cross-sectoral-links. Studies were mostly designed for governmental and administrative level. Lack of tailored information While the CC vulnerability assessments mentioned previously are available for specific sectors, in general there is a lack of CS information on different timescales that is tailored to support the needs of different sectors, for example with the most useful variables and indicators, and including a lack of information on the severity of predicted hazards or compound impacts of multiple hazards. Accessibility to non-expert users CS that use climate projections, seasonal and sub-seasonal information would be of great use in this LL to inform local administration, local authorities and local businesses to better plan development and management activities. At the moment, this information is accessible only by researchers and consultancies and therefore does not reach a wider audience of potential users and stakeholders. The main barrier is the lack of expertise/resources needed to extract and convert this data into useful information for the LL. Also related to accessibility and usability of CS by non-expert decision-makers, a lack of information/clarity regarding the reliability and uncertainty of CS was noted. 6.6. Georgia Service discontinuity One of the challenges highlighted is the lack of long-term national strategy for user-driven CS. CS are produced on demand but are not available on a continuous basis. CS were noted as being so scarce that it is difficult to discuss solutions and take decisions. Fragmented information Stakeholder responses indicated that one challenge with the use of CS is that existing information is fragmented – there exists no single complete dataset where a wide range of information is accessible. Language barriers One stakeholder noted that while the language of CS was not an issue for them personally, it can be a serious problem for end users they work with (such as local farmers). 6.7. Namibia Insufficient resolution It was highlighted that in general, the current CS used by stakeholders lack sufficient spatial and temporal resolution. More information is needed to better understand the specific CS used and the spatio-temporal resolutions currently available, and the spatio-temporal resolutions that would be more useful for decision-making. [D2.1 – Preliminary Report: Climate Service Needs & Gaps] 26 Lack of tailored information Stakeholders currently use Early warning services, agricultural CS and regional weather and hydrological forecasts that are not tailored to the region, which can be challenging to use for decisionmaking purposes. 7. Climate service needs This subsection describes the needs expressed by each LL regarding the next generation of CS. Needs range from tailored CS to be developed during the project that meet the needs of specific sectors or stakeholders, to better integration of, or improvements to, existing CS. These are also briefly summarised, alongside the CS currently used/available, and challenges in using these, in table 8. 7.1. The Netherlands Seasonal, sub-seasonal and climate change information The current CS offer 15-day forecasts, but, particularly in the water recreation sector, there is a need for longer lead times including seasonal, subseasonal and climate projection information for the water system. These longer lead times would allow stakeholders to prepare better for upcoming drought events and, by incorporating climate change information, develop climate adaption plans that account for the frequency and severity of droughts anticipated in the future. Stakeholder engagement for co-creating tailored CS Within the I-CISK project, the water board of Rijnland aims to strengthen communication and engagement with other sectors and stakeholders such as those from the agriculture and water tourism/recreation sectors, in order to co-create tailored CS that are informative for their decisionmaking processes. 7.2. Spain Sector-tailored information The climate information currently available are not tailored to stakeholders needs and do not take into consideration the impact of forecasts and projections (e.g. expected acorn production in the coming year, or pasture productivity at various timescales). These tailored CS would help farmers to adjust their plans and estimate productivity, manage water availability and plan management of activities such as those related to wildfire risks. Key variables of interest include rainfall patterns (seasonal distribution, yearly accumulations), and the start and duration of summer and winter seasons. Improved spatio-temporal resolution Existing forecasts are available up to 7-14 days; however, stakeholders noted that the addition of CS covering longer timescales (sub-seasonal, seasonal, annual) would be useful to make informed decisions. For example, longer-range forecasts would allow farmers to adapt (reducing numbers of livestock, when to harvest etc), and would assist in planning tourist activities and forest management activities. In addition, the spatial resolution of existing information from e.g. climate projections is seen as too coarse (e.g. only international information is available) to be informative at the scale of the LL, and would benefit from being downscaled to more local levels / regions. [D2.1 – Preliminary Report: Climate Service Needs & Gaps] 27 Historical data and climatology Easy access to historical data (such as precipitation, temperature, runoff generation, vegetation phenology etc.) would allow stakeholders to identify trends / confirm observations of trends and help them to make decision with or without forecast information. Alongside this, information on climate and hydrological characteristics based on historical data would be useful. Uncertainty and skill information Questionnaire/interview responses from the forestry and agriculture sectors highlighted a need for reducing the uncertainty in the forecast information, and the response from the rural development sector indicated an interest in improved availability of uncertainty and skill information for available CS. 7.3. Italy Higher spatio-temporal resolution The LL would like to use existing climate projections, seasonal and short-term forecasts provided by the Copernicus Climate Data Store (CDS). However, the variables of interest (precipitation, temperature, snow cover and river discharge) are currently available at 1° to 0.1° resolution. Stakeholders highlighted that they would need those variables to be downscaled to catchment (or even station) resolution in order to be useful for decision-making. Temporal resolution was also mentioned as a barrier to use of existing CS, implying that availability of CS at different temporal aggregations (e.g. 3 days compared to the currently availably weekly aggregated variables) would be beneficial and useful. Local data integration The new CS will need to integrate water withdrawals from water users, as the lack of this information is seen by most Stakeholders as a threat for a sustainable water management. River discharge forecasts A crucial missing variable is the river discharge forecast for Secchia river, from which all stakeholders withdraw water for the various sectors. Requirements are for river discharge forecasts at daily, subseasonal and seasonal timescales, for the catchment and at station level. Other stakeholders noted that river discharge predictions would be useful at all times, rather than only during dry periods as is currently available to them. Uncertainty information Questionnaire/interview responses indicated an interest in better provision of uncertainty information that is explained in a way that is effective for local decision-makers. 7.4. Hungary CS for adaptation planning The Hungarian LL identified the need for tailored CS to assist the Budapest municipality in the planning of adaptation strategies considering the increase in frequency and severity of heatwaves. The tool should serve four purposes: • promote the increase of green spaces, and green infrastructure in the city [D2.1 – Preliminary Report: Climate Service Needs & Gaps] 28 • heatwaves warnings • mapping of urban and micro heat island spots and buildings • health impacts and mitigation measures in relation to heatwaves and air pollution 7.5. Greece Sectortailored information While it was noted that climate change vulnerability assessments are available that focus on individual sectors, there is currently a lack of information on other timescales that is tailored to support sector needs. It was highlighted that new sector-specific indicators and variables should be developed for sector-tailored CS. In the case of climate change assessments, it would be useful to identify links between sectors, with information available to support decision-makers outside of the government and administrative level and increase accessibility for non-expert users. Improved spatio-temporal resolution The stakeholders have expressed the desire to have CS of least 10 km spatial resolution covering the Island of Crete, and access to information on monthly, subseasonal and seasonal timescales. Climate Hazard severity The severity of forecasted events is currently not available, resulting in lack of actions that should be taken according to hazard severity. Reliability and Uncertainty Both responses highlighted that there is a lack of information or clarity regarding reliability and uncertainty information related to the CS they currently use, and such information would be useful for decision-making. Multi-hazard CS According to the LL report (D1.1 Greece, 2022), there is a need for CS that “help to assess synergistic effect of multiple climatic threats, water and energy needs (availability of resources) and infrastructure (e.g. resorts, ports, marinas, roads, etc.) physical security due to extreme events (flooding, surging, snow fall, icing etc.). The service should also be able to target a diversity of seasonal and spatial coverage (summer costal activities / winter mountainous activities).” 7.6. Georgia Multi-hazard early warning system The LL expressed the need for an early warning system for floods, landslides, debris flow/mudflow, snow avalanches, drought, hailstorm and windstorm. It is understood that such a system is currently under development for the region. Impact based forecasts In the water resources management and agriculture sectors, there is a need for impact-based forecasts to better inform and alert the public on climate hazards and inform decision-making. [D2.1 – Preliminary Report: Climate Service Needs & Gaps] 29 Observation network maintenance The LL has identified that data from the observing networks are crucial for strengthening CS for the purposes of climate adaptation strategies, and with this, the critical need for regular maintenance of the network of automatic weather stations. This also includes the integration of the data from this network into operational data flows and international data exchange. Sector-tailored information Survey responses indicated a lack of CS in the region, and the clear need for CS that can consistently provide local farmers with information about potential climate hazards and allow agricultural planning. It would be useful to provide information in a relevant language for local decision-makers. 7.7. Namibia Capacity building One of the main needs identified by the Namibia LL concerns the technical capabilities of stakeholders at different levels to analyse hydro-meteorological data and water resources threats. Technical capacity building would allow stakeholders, decision-makers and institutions to improve their shortand long-term management strategies and plans to consider climate hazard impacts, and warnings dissemination to the local population. Awareness In relation to the need for technical capacity building there is a lack of awareness on climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation strategies from national to local levels. During the I-CISK project the LL aims to build the capacity of media, theatre groups, entertainment, and advertising industries” to mobilize their experience in shaping public awareness and increase the active public participation in the climate change adaptation and mitigation debate” (D1.1 Namibia, 2022). Impact-based CS I-CISK partners working with the Namibia LL identified the need for impact-based forecasts and climate projections to better quantify the effects of climate hazards on relevant socio-economic sectors of the LL and Namibia. Improved spatio-temporal resolution While further information is needed to better understand the specific CS used by stakeholders in the Namibia LL and their spatio-temporal resolution, it was identified that this is something that needs to be improved in order to better support decision-making. 8. Concise summary of CS use, barriers and needs Table 8 indicates the types of CS currently available and/or used in each LL (in many cases, we are aware that these CS are available, but at this stage have been unable to ask all stakeholders and user groups whether and how they use these CS in their decision-making), the key challenges or barriers to effective use of these CS, and the associated or highlighted CS needs, in order to provide a concise summary of the information discussed in sections 5, 6 and 7. [D2.1 – Preliminary Report: Climate Service Needs & Gaps] 30 Table 8 Overview of the types of CS currently available / used in each LL, barriers to their use, and CS needs. Living Lab CS currently in use Barriers to effective use CS needs The Netherlands Drought monitoring system (including medium-range forecasts), streamflow predictions Stakeholder engagement with CS and lack of tailored information, limited lead times Longer timescales, including subseasonal, seasonal and climate projections, strengthen stakeholder engagement and communication Spain Climatological data, reservoir management support, seasonal forecasts, climate projections, forest fire risk management plans, climate scenarios viewer, drought monitoring, meteorological forecasts, river basin monitoring Effective dissemination to target audiences, lack of tailored information, forecast uncertainty, insufficient spatiotemporal resolution, lack of access to historical data Sector-tailored information (e.g. forecasts of rainfall patterns, seasonal distribution, start of summer and winter seasons), impact-based forecasts, improved spatiotemporal resolution, longerrange forecasts (sub-seasonal, seasonal and >6 months), historical data access Italy Regional climate projections, historical and current hydrometeorological observations, agriculture water demand forecasts Forecasts aggregated at weekly timescales causes challenges for decision-making, data accessibility, lack of information on uncertainty and skill Improved spatio-temporal resolution, integration of local data, river discharge forecasts, effectively communicated uncertainty information Hungary CLMS Urban Atlas, green areas monitoring, biodiversity monitoring, historical global land surface temperature, meteorological data, air quality monitoring and information module Lack of useful variables, limited information on potential of green infrastructure Tailored CS and wider range of variables related to heatwaves, including health impacts Greece Weather forecasts, climate change impact assessments and vulnerability analysis, hindcasts, short-term forecast service for reservoir water quality and quantity Current CC-scale CS focus on single sectors and lack cross-sectoral links, other CS are not tailored for sectoral use, accessibility for nonexert users Sector-tailored information and sector-specific indicators, improved spatio-temporal resolution, hazard severity indicators, uncertainty and reliability information, compound hazard CS Georgia Meteorological observations, local knowledge, meteorological and hydrological forecasts, extreme event warnings & advice, agrometeorological bulletins, frost early warning service, seasonal outlooks, climate projections Service discontinuity (CS produced on-demand rather than continuously) and lack of long-term national strategy for user-driven CS, language barriers for local decision-makers and end users Multi-hazard early warning system, impact-based forecasts, maintenance and integration of observation network and data, sector-tailored information Namibia Early warning services, seasonal and subseasonal forecasts, agricultural CS, regional meteorological & hydrological forecasts Insufficient spatial and temporal resolution for local-scale decisionmaking Impact-based forecasts, capacity building, increased awareness, improved spatiotemporal resolution [D2.1 – Preliminary Report: Climate Service Needs & Gaps] 31 9. Preliminary conclusions and future work This report provides a preliminary overview of the current availability, use and gaps related to existing climate services in each of the seven Living Lab regions participating in I-CISK. The information summarised here is based on project scoping, initial meetings, establishing of the LLs (including LL characterisation reports prepared through WP1 for D1.1, which provide more detailed information regarding the climate of each LL, the stakeholders involved and a variety of other information) and targeted questionnaires and interviews, regarding barriers to use of existing CS, and needs for improved and tailored CS. At this stage in the project, while the LLs were in the process of being established, with stakeholder relationships being built and expectations for the project clarified, alongside ongoing travel restrictions, the use of questionnaires to be distributed online to stakeholders within the LL was a useful and effective option to begin collecting information and building an understanding of the experiences of a range of stakeholders regarding their use of CS, and the associated challenges and needs. This tool was also easy to modify and provide as a simple word document, to allow project partners leading each LL to conduct interviews with stakeholders during the ongoing process of establishing the LLs, if this was preferable and easier to undertake. The provision of multiple formats also allowed translation of the questions where useful, and responses were received in multiple languages indicating that this provided a more accessible option for some stakeholders. The authors of this report translated responses to English where necessary to include all responses in this report. While the questions were designed to be relatively open-ended, in order to provide space for stakeholders to write about their experiences without being too restricted by very specific questions, in some cases it was apparent that the expectations from certain questions were not clear. It will be important to further improve the wording of such questions for future iterations to ensure that the questions are clear and understood across all LLs, sectors and roles, and also to discuss these aspects further during follow-on discussions and activities in each LL. These interviews/questionnaires formed the first step of Task 2.1, which focusses on “co-exploring climate information and adaptation information needs and obligations of the stakeholders in the living labs”. T2.1 takes place as an iterative process throughout the 4-year project (see Figure 1, which indicates the planned timeline and concept), using a participatory approach to ensure the centrality of user needs to the development of CS within I-CISK. As such, lessons learnt from these initial activities will be carried forward into future activities with T2.1 and the wider project (see Figures 1 and 2), and will also allow us to reflect and understand changes in perceptions of CS needs and gaps as the project and collaborations evolve. While we were able to hear from 21 individual participants across 12 [14] responses for questionnaire 1 [2], a caveat of conducting this activity at an early stage while the LLs were being established, is that we have not yet heard directly from stakeholders in 3 of the LLs: The Netherlands, Hungary and Namibia. This is due to the differing stages of progress in establishing the LLs, and differences in timing of convening the multi-actor platforms. As Task 2.1 is an iterative task, we will continue to collect responses to the questionnaires and provide project partners in all WPs with updates to the information summarised in this document. Further activities will also be conducted throughout the course of the project, in order to continue co-exploring the climate and adaptation information needs of stakeholders in the LLs. Methods, tools and techniques may include participatory documents and surveys/interviews, user stories, collaborative workshops, sector-themed discussion groups to coexplore sector-specific needs or to discuss conflicting terminology across sectors and fields, use case modelling and serious games. [D2.1 – Preliminary Report: Climate Service Needs & Gaps] 32 It is clear from this report that there is a wide range of sectors and stakeholders involved (see Table 1), and therefore a wide range of decision-making contexts and specific decisions that are, or have the potential to be, made based on CS. This ranges from agricultural decision-making in The Netherlands, Spain, Georgia and Namibia, to tourism through water recreation (The Netherlands), tourism enterprises (Greece) and tourists themselves, alongside sectors such as utilities, transport, forestry, environmental protection and humanitarian aid. Stakeholders in many of the living labs are involved in disaster risk reduction and climate adaptation strategies related to their region and sector, and sometimes more broadly, for example at the government and policy-making level. The majority of stakeholders across the LLs are concerned with drought, with 50% of responses indicating that drought was a hazard of concern for their organisation/sector/decision-making context. In addition, there are stakeholders across the LLs who are also concerned with multiple hazards, including forest fire, water availability, flooding, heatwaves and other weather events such as hail and thunderstorms. Motivations for improving CS and their use include the importance of influencing preparedness and adaptation strategies, the increased risk of hazards and extreme events due to climate change, avoidance of conflict due to water demand, impacts of extreme events on many (if not all) sectors, easier exploitation of available information, policy support, and a drive for actors to see directly how CS can help them to move from reactive to proactive decisions and actions. While there remains gaps in our knowledge and understanding of exactly how the various CS are used by different stakeholders in each LL, section 5 of this report starts to summarise our current understanding, such that this can be built upon in the next stages of the I-CISK project. Some examples were provided by stakeholders through responses to the questionnaires / interviews, such as the use of hydro-meteorological data from monitoring networks to make decisions on water allocation for industries and agriculture or limitations to water withdrawals. Other examples include the use of forecasts to issue warnings for extreme events, to influence urban planning, and to plan activities such as construction or tourist activities. Tables 2 to 7 provided information on the CS that are available and / or used by each of the seven LLs. In some cases, it is not yet known whether all of the available CS are utilised by the stakeholders in the LLs. These have been included to provide as complete a picture as possible of the CS that the LLs are aware of with availability in their region, and future activities will aim to further understand whether some of the available CS are not actively used in decision-making, and the reasons for this, which will help to shape the tailored CS co-created through I-CISK. Some of the main challenges that stakeholders are faced with when using CS to make decisions were summarised in section 6, with a summary provided in Table 8. Key barriers to the use of CS for decisionmaking include insufficient resolution (temporal and/or spatial), such as rainfall forecasts aggregated over the period of a week when the application requires knowledge of how the rainfall may be distributed over the week, or information that may be aggregated over a large region and not provide enough spatial information to be used at the local scale. Accessibility of CS was also noted as a concern in more than one LL, such as the potential for the information to each the target audience, or difficulty of stakeholders to download the required data, or information that is only accessible to some sectors. In some cases, the variables provided by the CS were not sufficient for the decisions required. For example, in Hungary CS are important for detecting and predicting heatwaves, but key variables such as wind, sunshine, health impacts etc. are not available in addition to temperature, and these are key in understanding and communicating the potential impacts of heatwaves. The needs of each LL in improving CS and developing the next generation of CS (see section 7 and Table 8) range from the development of CS at additional timescales (e.g. seasonal forecasts for regions where currently only 15-day forecasts are available) and spatial resolutions that are relevant to [D2.1 – Preliminary Report: Climate Service Needs & Gaps] 33 decision-makers, to CS that are tailored to specific sectors and provide impact-based and/or actionbased forecasts (for example, expected crop production in addition to rainfall patterns). For many, additional variables (such as those mentioned previously for heatwaves, or provision of river flow forecasts) are required for effective decision-making, and forecasts of compound events and their impacts could be useful to a range of stakeholders. There is also a need to incorporate local knowledge and information into the co-development of improved CS. One example provided is the potential to integrate information on water withdrawals from water users, as the lack of information on water withdrawals is a threat for sustainable water management and integration would be beneficial for a variety of decision-makers. Overall, this report has summarised the current state of knowledge of the I-CISK project in relation to the availability and use of existing CS and needs for improved CS for a range of stakeholders across seven diverse LLs with different motivations and aims. This information is designed to be used by other WPs and project partners in the I-CISK project to further co-develop their research and development priorities based on an increased understanding of stakeholders’ experiences, challenges and needs. It may also provide a useful insight for other audiences, such as CS providers, into the reflections of stakeholders on needs and gaps of existing CS. Several gaps remain following this report, such as more specific information on the types of decisions that are made, a better understanding of the process of decision-making and the trust in the available CS information. Future activities, in collaboration with other WPs in the I-CISK project, will continue to co-explore the challenges and needs of stakeholders participating in each LL, making use of research and outputs from all WPs during the course of the project, to receive feedback on the process of the research and co-creation of tailored CS through an iterative process that seeks to incorporate feedback regularly in order to provide the most potentially useful research outcomes and CS. This report therefore provides a starting point for co-exploring the challenges and needs of stakeholders participating in the I-CISK project, and how we can begin to address the challenges faced and the needs for improved CS in the seven LLs. [D2.1 – Preliminary Report: Climate Service Needs & Gaps] 34 References D1.1 NL, 2022 (van Andel, S. J. et al.): Characterisation of the I-CISK Living Labs: Rijnland, I-CISK Deliverable 1.1, Available online at www.icisk.eu D1.1 Spain, 2022 (UCM and CREAF): Characterisation of the I-CISK Living Labs: The Guadalquivir and Guadiana Living Lab, Spain, I-CISK Deliverable 1.1, Available online at www.icisk.eu D1.1 Italy, 2022 (Mazzoli, P., Bagli, S. and Renzi, F.): Characterisation of the I-CISK Living Labs: Climate Intelligence for Water Resources, I-CISK Deliverable 1.1, Available online at www.icisk.eu D1.1 Hungary, 2022 (Bela, G., Fabók, V. and Mihalik, B.): Characterisation of the I-CISK Living Labs: Urban Heat Islands in Erzsébetváros, Budapest, I-CISK Deliverable 1.1, Available online at www.icisk.eu D1.1 Greece, 2022 (Ziogas, A. and Tzimas, A.): Characterisation of the I-CISK Living Labs: Crete, Greece, I-CISK Deliverable 1.1, Available online at www.icisk.eu D1.1 Georgia, 2022 (CENN): Characterisation of the I-CISK Living Labs: Georgia, I-CISK Deliverable 1.1, Available online at www.icisk.eu D1.1 Namibia, 2022 (Kalenga, S., Kauatjirue, J., Gabriel, D., UNAM, van den Homberg, M. and Canavan, O.): Characterisation of the I-CISK Living Labs: The Otjivero, Okombahe, Sharukwe Living Lab, Namibia, I-CISK Deliverable 1.1, Available online at www.icisk.eu Fuglsang, L., Hansen, A. V., Gago, D., Mergel, I., Liefooghe, C., Gallouj, F., Røhnebæk, M., Rønning, R., Lepczynski, S., Mureddo, F., & Garbasso, G., 2019: Co-VAL D5.1 Report on cross-country comparison on existing innovation and living labs (Issue Lc). Hirons, L., et al., 2021: Using co-production to improve the appropriate use of sub-seasonal forecasts in Africa, Climate Services, 23, 100246, https://doi.org.10.1016/j.cliser.2021.100246 Hossain, M., Leminen, S., & Westerlund, M., 2019: A systematic review of living lab literature. Journal of Cleaner Production, 213, 976–988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.257 Jacobs, K. L. and Street, R. B., 2020: The next generation of climate services, Climate Services, 20, 100199, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2020.100199 MS10, 2022: A prototype framework on co-creating end-user climate services, I-CISK Milestone Report MS10 Street, R., Parry, M., Scott, J., Jacob, D., Runge, T., & European Commission. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, 2015: A European research and innovation roadmap for climate services. Publications Office. WISER, 2020: Manual for Co-production in African Weather and Climate Services, 2nd Edition, Weather and Climate Information Services for Africa (WISER) and Future Climate for Africa (FCFA), Available online at: https://futureclimateafrica.org/coproduction-manual/downloads/WISER-FCFAcoproduction-manual.pdf (Last accessed 20/04/2022) [D2.1 – Preliminary Report: Climate Service Needs & Gaps] 41 Decision-Making: 1. How are your day-to-day activities / the activities of your organisation affected by or linked to weather / climate? 2. What are the biggest challenges you / your organisation face? These challenges may not be related to weather/climate at all, we are interested to hear about the key challenges you face in your activities in a wider context. 3. What role, if any, does the climate play in these challenges? 4. What are the types of decisions you have to make that are based on climate and weather data / information / services? 5. What is(are) the timescale(s) of this decision-making? emergency management, monitoring, short-term planning, climate adaptation, … and / or 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 1 season, 6 months, years, … 6. How are the climate and weather data / information / services used in making decisions? 7. What makes these decisions difficult to make? 8. Do you undertake any regular or post-event evaluation or reflection of the climate and weather data / information / services and the decisions made? If yes, what does this process involve? 9. Are you or your organisation involved in / carrying out any climate adaptation or disaster risk reduction strategies? If yes, please briefly describe these strategies. 10. Does your role involve summarising or providing climate or weather data / information / services for other people? If yes, please briefly describe this process, including who you are providing this to, and any challenges specific to passing on this information to others. [D2.1 – Preliminary Report: Climate Service Needs & Gaps] 42 Climate Service Use and Needs: 1. Please list the climate and weather data / information / services that you currently use in your decision-making. 2. Please list other climate and weather data / information / services that you have considered using, but have chosen not to, and why. 3. How would you describe the accessibility of existing climate and weather data / information / services? 4. How would you describe the performance (think of usefulness, credibility, comprehensiveness, applicability, accuracy) of existing climate and weather data / information / services? 5. Think about a recent extreme weather / climate event that you were involved in decisionmaking for. During this event: How were climate services and information used? Were they sufficient to avoid big impacts? What information was missing to make effective decisions? 6. Now considering decision-making more generally: What are the main difficulties / challenges you face when using these weather and climate data / information / services? 7. What additional information would you find useful for the types of decisions you need to make? Please be as specific as possible (for example, tell us about the type of hazard / climate risk / variable, region / spatial scale, temporal resolution, spatial resolution, format, supporting information, and any other comments you would like us to know). 8. If you are involved in / carrying out climate adaptation or disaster risk reduction strategies, is there any particular climate service / information / data, or other type of information, that you are currently lacking to implement or develop these strategies? If yes, please explain. 9. Any other general comments regarding weather and climate data / information / services, challenges using them, and needs for improved climate services? [D2.1 – Preliminary Report: Climate Service Needs & Gaps] 43 Interview Section 2 – Climate Service Details Definition of “Climate Services”: “the transformation of climate-related data – together with other relevant information – into customised products such as projections, forecasts, information, trends, economic analysis, assessments (including technology assessment), counselling on best practises, development and evaluation of solutions and any other service in relation to climate that may be of use for society at large” - European Commission, 2015 For each weather or climate data / information / service you are currently using for decision-making (listed previously in interview section 1), please tell us the following: [Please note that you may wish to create a copy of these questions for each data / information / service used to keep the answers separate, or you may prefer to submit the answers using the google form ‘Climate Service Details’, which can be filled in any number of times] 1. Which weather or climate service / information / data are you answering these questions about? 2. Do you or your organisation produce this data / information / service? a. If yes, please tell us about the models and/or input data used, or how it is produced. b. If yes, do you have a process in place to evaluate its use? c. If no, please tell us where, or who, you get the data / information / service from, and how you receive it (internet, radio, mobile phone, …) 3. If multiple different products or types of information are provided, please specify which you are using. 4. What is the format of the information you use? (raw data, maps, charts, text, …) 5. What type of weather / climate hazard / risk does the data / information / service apply to? 6. What variable(s) do you use? For example, are you using data / information on rainfall, temperature, river flow, soil moisture, other, ... 7. What is the available forecast horizon / timescale of the data / information? What forecast horizon / timescale do you use? For example, you may use a forecast that provides information for days 1 – 30, but you may only use days 1-10. [D2.1 – Preliminary Report: Climate Service Needs & Gaps] 44 8. Are there aspects of the data / information / service that make it challenging / difficult to use? (product visualisation, user interface, language, units, documentation / descriptions, variables available, …) 9. Is information provided on the uncertainty in the climate or weather data / information / service? a. If yes, do you find the uncertainty information useful? Why / why not? 10. Is information provided on the accuracy / skill / performance of the climate or weather data / information / service? a. If yes, what kind of accuracy / skill / performance information is provided? b. If yes, is it useful, and why / why not? c. If no, would you be interested in receiving this type of information? What type of information would be useful to you in your decision-making? 11. Do you trust the climate or weather data / information / service, and why / why not? [D2.1 – Preliminary Report: Climate Service Needs & Gaps] This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 10103729 Colophon: This report has been prepared by the H2020 Research Project “Innovating Climate services through Integrating Scientific and local Knowledge (I-CISK)”. This research project is a part of the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Framework Programme call, “Building a low-carbon, climate resilient future: Research and innovation in support of the European Green Deal (H2020-LC-GD-2020)”, and has been developed in response to the call topic “Developing end-user products and services for all stakeholders and citizens supporting climate adaptation and mitigation (LC-GD-9-2-2020)”. This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 101037293. This four-year project started November 1st 2021 and is coordinated by IHE Delft Institute for Water Education. For additional information, please contact: Micha Werner ([email protected]) or visit the project website at www.icisk.eu