Lines of actions
Coherence in Climate Policies – Products Coherence in Climate Policies Coherence in Climate Policies – Success Stories Coherence in Climate Policies – Success Factors Climate Proofing Climate Proofing – Products Climate Proofing – Success Stories Climate Proofing – Success Factors Establishing Climate Services Establishing Climate Services – Products Establishing Climate Services – Success Stories Establishing Climate Services – Success Factors

Coherence in Climate Policies – Products

In Costa Rica, the long-term vision for Climate Services was incorporated into the National Adaptation Policy that was launched in 2018. Now, CSI is supporting its partners in translating this long term vision into reality. A first success in this is a presidential decree on the climate-resilient planning of infrastructure that will make the use of Climate Services obligatory. It also includes provisions aimed at achieving Costa Rica’s of Open Data, obliging institutions collecting data to make it accessible. Depending on how the decree is going to be implemented, this is an opportunity to solve the longstanding problem of access to hydrological data in the country. Costa Rica has taken a step towards climate resilience infrastructure. By launching a presidential decree to ensure that climate change constitutes an integral part in infrastructure planning, it guarantees the continuity of public services and long-term reduction of climate related costs due damages and losses, thus public safety. Costa Rica has taken a step towards climate resilience society. By launching a presidential decree to make climate risk informed infrastructure planning mandatory, it anticipates, prepares for and adapts to climate change.  By launching a presidential decree to ensure that climate change constitutes an integral part in infrastructure planning, Costa Rica has taken a step towards climate resilience infrastructure.

The link to the decree (spanish)

Amongst all countries, the National Adaption Plan (NAP) in line with the Paris Agreement and the NDCS are keen for the transition into a carbon-neutral economy. Having said that, Costa Rica launched in July 2018 an ambitious NAP towards a resilient and decarbonized development with a transformative vision. The fact that 34% of the hydrometeorological losses were related to the infrastructure sector, shed a light on the vulnerability to climate extreme events. Hence, climate risk management (CRM) for infrastructure has been mainstreamed into the NAP Policy throughout two complementary axes. The first axis, knowledge management for climate change impact, climate services and development of local capacities will provide information and abilities and hence is a condition for the second axis, resilient climate services and infrastructure. Within the first axis, the open data policy poses a unique opportunity for the provision of climate services alike the development of a universal and public knowledge platform for streamlining information. In addition, more useful and usable climate studies, report and analysis would allow for more comprehensive and accurate losses and damages evaluations, future climate scenarios and cost-benefit evaluation of adaption measurements. A vulnerability assessment protocol based on the pilot climate risk assessment of the Guardia Bridge will be status-quo for ensuring robustness of infrastructure by which losses and damages to hydrometeorological events shall be reduced. The following presentation developed by the Directorate of Climate Change in Costa Rica (DCC) provides an overview of the guidelines included in the NAP with regard to CRM for infrastructure.

Access the NAP´s here!

In compliance with Viet Nam’s commitment to achieve goal 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure) of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), part of which is making infrastructure sustainable and resilient, and plan to set out and implement its Socio-Economic Development Plan (SEDP), National Adaptation Plan (NAP) and Nationally Determined Contributions (I) NDCs, efforts are being made to increase resilience of infrastructure nationwide. This article summarizes some initial findings of Viet Nam’s efforts and presents an innovative approach with 3 strategic measures: 1) To enhance provision of user-friendly climate services for infrastructure planners; 2) To enhance the use of climate services and consideration of climate risk assessment for infrastructure planning process and 3) To mainstream the approach of climate-proofing for infrastructure into the SEDP, NDC and NAP of Viet Nam. The article provides an insight into Viet Nam’s strategy of enhancing climate services as a basis for mainstreaming climate change adaptation into infrastructure planning. It was translated and adapted from the Vietnamese original, which was published March 2019 in the Journal of Economy Forecast Review, No. 7, Volume 03/2019, pp.10 – 15

Read the article in VN or EN.

For guarantying the provision of current and future water-related services, the well-functioning and climate-resilience of infrastructures attached to the sustainable use of the Nile water resources, such as flood control, irrigation and energy production are needed. In the context of NBI this means that climate proofing of water-use related infrastructure is a condition for attaining the overall outcome and purpose of its mandate, namely establishing governance mechanisms, as well as promoting decision support systems for sustainable and successful water management and development.

Having said that, and in line with the Nile Sustainability Framework and the Nile Basin Strategy, a semi-technical guideline has been developed that facilitates the mainstreaming of climate proofing into all short- or long-term bankable investment decisions at the Nile Basin level, where transboundary projects are handled. It provides a step-by-step guidance to project owners, developers, operators, consultants, decision-makers, policy-makers, financial institutions, technical advisors on how to incorporate climate resilience into all steps of the project development cycle. For each phase in the infrastructure investment cycle (identification, preparation, implementation, resources mobilization, operation), all five stages of climate risk management (Scoping, risk assessment, risk treatment, monitoring and evaluation) shall be applied, though the scope, methodology and approach changes within each step.

A key characteristic of the development process has been the testing of the PIEVC risk assessment methodology using two case studies from the Nile Basin transboundary context. Throughout multi-stakeholder dialogues and multiple loops of feedback-rounds the guideline has created strong ownership amongst process participants. Already today, tenders for infrastructure designs refer to the guideline.

You can access the guidaline under this link

Coherence in Climate Policies

Problem Statement

In the policy field, different topics, all of them very relevant issues of our time, compete over shrinking public budgets. An added challenge, especially for climate change adaptation, is the dispersion of responsibilities across a variety of actors. Adaptation policy is generally under the responsibility of the Ministries of the Environment. Its implementation, on the other hand, depends on actions and funding decisions on the sectoral and sub-national level. This challenge has been recognised. It is reflected by the increased importance of sector ministries in the climate change negotiations. However, this awareness of a need for closer coordination has yet to fully translate into policy coherence between climate-change and infrastructure-related polices. Many countries still struggle to combine their efforts of improving the availability and reliability of public services with their efforts of combating climate change.

Looking at Climate Services, a core ingredient for evidence-based decision-making, the efforts of aligning different interests seems to be even less advanced.  Like it used to be with climate policy for the Ministries of the Environment, the responsibility for enhancing Climate Services, if the need to do so is even recognised, is often solely placed on the shoulders of the National Meteorological and Hydrological Services (NMHS) (also compare chapter 5). While they certainly assume a core role in this, they lack the political clout that would be needed in order to influence national policies and budget allocations. But this would be required to make serious headway on the issue. To ensure that the resources and paradigm shifts necessary for enhancing climate service occur, Climate Services need to become part of the agendas of climate and infrastructure policy. As discussed in chapter 5, to achieve this, more actors along the Climate Service value chain need to be involved in devising a strategy for enhancing Climate Services.

Solution

The climate-resilient transformation of infrastructure requires both horizontal and vertical policy coherence. Horizontal policy coherence refers to the coherence between climate and infrastructure policy. Vertical policy coherence refers to the coherence between national and sub-national policies. This means that infrastructure resilience needs to become part of any adaptation plans and that climate change adaptation needs to be integrated into the infrastructure planning and investment cycle across all government levels (chapter 7 delves deeper into how this is done). If considerations of climate resilient infrastructure stop at the level of national or subnational climate policy, they are not going to be implemented. Horizontal policy coherence also requires that goals in terms of enhancing Climate Services need to become part of both climate and infrastructure policy to ensure that the necessary resources are allocated for making the necessary Climate Services for risk-informed decision-making available.

The notion of the need for policy coherence certainly is not new (Sources/ references). Still, the quest for achieving it has proven elusive. One reason for this is that formal and informal coalitions between actors advocating for more resilience are still at a premature state. What is needed are new alliances and bargaining arenas for negotiating the process of bringing infrastructure and climate policy together, while at the same time building the necessary evidence-base for doing so.

How to get there  

Ideally, policy coherence is created from the onset of elaborating new adaptation and/ or infrastructure policy. However, the process may also start later. The important part is that of identifying an appropriate action track around which an adaptation coalition can be formed. There may be opportunities in terms of new laws and strategies, like National Adaptation Plans or, as in the case of Costa Rica, the official request by the Controller General to act . These actions tracks do not necessarily need to be based on official calls to action, they may also stem from an intrinsic sense of urgency felt by private and public sector institutions due to mounting losses, like in the example of the semi-public electricity provider Electrosul in Brazil.

Based on the identified action track, adaptation coalitions can be formed. These can range from informal working groups to committees with an official mandate. As said, there are a variety of inciting incidents, which may lead to the creation of adaptation coalitions. Experience from the CSI project has shown that identifying change agents that become catalysts of the transformation process plays a crucial role in this. They assume a variety of roles. There are the rule setters with the will and mandate to change the regulatory framework. It may be institutions like the Controller General in Costa Rica or the Ministry of Planning and Investment (MPI) in Vietnam that have the power to create incentives for considering climate change in planning via adapting the regulatory framework (reference to success story). It may be sectoral champions willing to test new approaches and thereby create best practices for other sectors and institutions to follow. In the CSI context, the role sectoral champions was assumed by Electrosul (Energy Sector) and Itajai Port (Transport Sector) in Brazik , the Ministry of Public Works and Transport (MOPT) and National Council for Roads and Bridges (CONAVI) (Transport Sector) in Costa Rica or the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) in Vietnam (Water and Agriculture Sector) (reference to success story). Other important change agents are potential multipliers that have a cross-sectoral or regional function of creating and spreading best practices, like the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) or the Federated College of Engineers and Architects (CFIA) in Costa Rica (reference to success story). In the case of CSI, different types of change agents were vital for creating awareness of the need for evidence-based adaptation and for having the awareness penetrate sectoral and disciplinary boundaries.

As stated in Establishing Climate Services, Climate Services and consequently adaptation solutions are developed along a value chain. Hence, besides having change agents as drivers within an adaptation coalition, it necessary to incorporate all relevant actors along the whole value chain into such networks. An initial step can be the formation of informal working groups, as CSI has done in all its partner countries.

Independently of the cooperation mechanism that is established, it also needs to be clarified which actor is going to steer the process. Generally, though formalised cooperation mechanisms may offer a higher degree of certainty, as their sustainability or durability in terms of resources and stakeholders devoting their time is secured by official mandates. However, this does not mean that informal forms of cooperation may not be as suitable. They provide the advantage of a higher flexibility and are also more easy to establish. Over the time, these types of governance structures have gained recognition under the heading of network governance .

Independently of the degree of formalisation, one key actor with chance of taking up the role as honest broker and process facilitator that provides advisory is the Ministry of the Environment. This is exemplified by the work of CSI in both Brazil and Costa Rica. In both countries, the Ministries of the Environment took on the role of steering the established working groups. This helped in establishing them not only as process facilitator but also as advisors to stakeholders form the infrastructure field that are still new to the topic of climate change adaptation. It also led to a closer cooperation between sector ministries and Ministries for the Environment reflected in more policy coherence. One example for this is the importance of infrastructure in the National Adaptation Plans/ Policies of both countries.

Finally, when all the other necessary framework conditions are in place in terms having an action track, an adaptation coalition and proper governance in place, those intending to make infrastructure more resilient towards climate change need the right tools that allow harmonising the objectives of infrastructure development with those of climate resilience. In many of the countries CSI works with one of the reasons given by the partners for not acting upon adaptation goals was that though there was regulation, they did not possess the tools or the information to act upon it. Chapter 7 delves into how to develop tools that allow to translate the foundations of policy coherence into practice

Coherence in Climate Policies – Success Stories

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Praesent aliquet nunc ut augue pellentesque laoreet. Phasellus ultricies finibus magna sit amet tincidunt. Sed pellentesque ac orci vitae condimentum. Donec posuere velit sed nisi porta imperdiet. Duis in interdum metus, vitae ornare eros. Nullam vehicula urna sed augue mollis iaculis quis ut nisi. Aliquam non odio eget quam tristique facilisis. Vestibulum malesuada turpis sed eros pulvinar, nec consectetur tortor interdum. Morbi non elit libero. Proin imperdiet non massa ut scelerisque.

Coherence in Climate Policies – Success Factors

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Praesent aliquet nunc ut augue pellentesque laoreet. Phasellus ultricies finibus magna sit amet tincidunt. Sed pellentesque ac orci vitae condimentum. Donec posuere velit sed nisi porta imperdiet. Duis in interdum metus, vitae ornare eros. Nullam vehicula urna sed augue mollis iaculis quis ut nisi. Aliquam non odio eget quam tristique facilisis. Vestibulum malesuada turpis sed eros pulvinar, nec consectetur tortor interdum. Morbi non elit libero. Proin imperdiet non massa ut scelerisque.

Climate Proofing

Background

Although there is general agreement that infrastructure needs to become more resilient towards climate change, action in terms of actually considering climate change in the planning and management of infrastructure is lacklustre at best. There are many reasons for this. One is, that in times of a gaping infrastructure gap there is the perception that there are simply more pressing issues to deal with. The challenge of getting and using Climate Services, that is discussed in chapter 5, is another reason often cited. A lack of climate information adds knowledge uncertainty, i.e. uncertainty that could be reduced with having more and better information, to the unavoidable natural uncertainty that comes with climate change projections. Either challenge makes the planning of infrastructure supposed to last for up to 100 years particularly difficult. Another major reason for not considering climate change cited by the partners of the CSI project was missing regulatory incentives to do so. Given the resources necessary both for adaptation planning and for its implementation, decision-makers are only willing to invest in adaptation based on a sound regulatory foundation   (c.f. (OECD, 2009)).

The challenges may be plenty, but there still is no alternative to taking action to climate-proof infrastructure. The earlier in the planning process adaptation measures are considered, the lowest the cost of adaptation can be expected to be (sources: (Hallegatte, Rentschler, & Rozenberg, 2019), UNDP). Generally, climate-proofing retroactively is always more expensive (UNDP/source) and costs are much higher if climate change is not considered at all (c.f. (Hallegatte, Rentschler, & Rozenberg, 2019) other sources?). (Example). In addition to saving money, considering climate change adaptation early-on in the planning process also offers the opportunity to identify and reap co-benefits. This becomes especially apparent when considering Ecosystem Based Adaptation options. For example, if mangroves are rehabilitated in addition to building a dyke, this does not only provide added protection from flooding that would otherwise need to be dearly bought via an even higher dyke, it also provides a habitat to local fauna, reduces sediment loss and can serve as carbon sink.

The realisation that climate proofing is necessary is not new. Many have set themselves upon developing tools for the climate-proofing of infrastructure (sources/ examples: ADB, OECD, World Bank, see ToT manuals). This plethora of tools and approaches, though potentially overwhelming, also provides infrastructure planners with a treasure chest full of tools to mix and match based on their needs. However, infrastructure planners and managers are often left alone with the question of how to adapt these tools to their contexts. Moreover, few approaches provide any guidance on how to get the Climate Services necessary for implementing the climate proofing. Likewise, Climate Services providers are seldom systematically incorporated into climate proofing processes, making it hard for them to know and deliver upon what is needed from them. The CSI project has set out to providing guidance both on how to tailor approaches to different decision-making contexts and on how to develop and use the Climate Services that go along with this.

The Challenge

Throughout the infrastructure planning and investment cycle, the actors involved face different decision-making contexts (reference/ Box/ Link to entry-points). At the beginning are decisions like what the appropriate infrastructure is to reply to a given service demand, where this infrastructure is to be located and so on. Further along the process, feasibility, detailed design and financing of a given project need to be clarified. Analogously, the decisions that need to be made in terms of climate proofing are different for each step of the planning process. This implies that decision-makers need climate information tailored to these different steps.

The Solution

Lines of Action 1 and 2 describe how to create the necessary framework conditions for the climate proofing of infrastructure. Ideally, it is based on as well as an instrument for the implementation of a coherent policy framework that unites infrastructure and climate policy. At the same time, climate proofing is a tool that helps to identify which policies and strategies need to incorporate climate change considerations.

As applying the climate-proofing approach needs time and resources, it is generally not possible to climate-proof the entire infrastructure planning and investment cycle at once. Even though adaptation is generally cheapest the earlier in the planning process it takes place, it will always come at some cost – which is not saying that it is not cost-benefit positive in the majority of times (sources). Nonetheless, a priorisation and the identification of opportunities is necessary. CSI identified such entry-points together with its partners leading to a variety of approaches suited to the contexts of the different partner countries. In Cost Rica, on the other hand, road infrastructure was identified as priority sector due to the high losses that occurred in this sector in the past. At the same time, the official request by the Controller General to make road infrastructure more resilient (reference to success story) created the incentives that pushed the Ministry of Public Works and Transport (MOPT) into action.  [NBI und Vietnam]

Applying the climate proofing approach (reference/ link/ box) requires bringing together a broad spectrum of actors. It needs a multidisciplinary group of people from climate and infrastructure policy as well Climate Services. Similar to the Climate Service value chain change agents, these actors need to fulfil a variety of roles throughout the different steps of the climate proofing process.

Climate Proofing – Products

The first step towards enhancing the provision and use of climate services for infrastructure was to assess and analyse the current state of the National Climate Services in each of the partner countries for the most vulnerable infrastructure sector. Whereas in Costa Rica the road infrastructure sector was analysed, in Vietnam it was the coastal protection sector, in Brazil the focus was on the electricity sector and in the NBI the water sector was prioritized. After the conduction of the baseline assessment, each country became aware of all currently available and usable resources and capacities throughout the climate services inventory based on the five pillars of Global Framework of Climate Services. In addition to those, CSI deems necessary the integration of governance as the sixth pillar for the analysis. As second step in the assessment, key stakeholder and their interaction were identified along the climate-value-chain, thus providing a snap-shot of the current network, demand, use and provision of CS for a specific infrastructure sector, focal point of the climate risk assessment as well. Beyond giving an overview, the reports highlighted the strengths, challenges, opportunities and threats of the provision and use of climate services within an infrastructure sector and thus served as starting point for developing short as well as long-term strategies and measures. For instance, the results in each country set the baseline in the development of Climate Service-Index,  whereby CSI measures the change on the use and provision of climate information in each country in the course of the project and henceforth it proposes indicators on how to look into CS. To guarantee the outreach of the results, the project compiled handouts as well as training materials for circulation.

Examples:

Baseline Assessment for the climate services in Germany. The study provides 6 main recommendations for an enhanced provision and use of Climate Services for adaptation planning in Germany.

Trough the participation of 88 climate services providers in Brazil as part of the baseline assessment, it was possible to map the national supply side; its capacities, available resources and interactions.

This report encompasses the current status of the main climate-services providers and users for the transmission line sector in Brazil, accordingly the identification of opportunities, challenges and threats for this sector.

The report focuses on the assessment of respective capabilities and available resources of National Meteorological and Hydrological Services in Burundi, DR Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, South Sudan, Sudan and Uganda.

The report provides a snap-shot of the current network, demand, use and provision of climate services for the coastal protection sector in Vietnam, vital for the provision of food and the prevention of disaster in Vietnam.

The road infrastructure system in Costa Rica is vulnerable to hydro-meteorological events. To minimize the risk, the provision and use of CS, as well as the challenges and opportunities, within this sector were assessed.

For decision-maker to choose adequate adaptation measures, climate services should support them with the provision of climate information. The problem lies whether climate information is presented in a user-friendly way that assures the understanding and usability of it. In most cases climatologists and non-climatologists do not speak the same language. What do we mean by it? Climate information is usually presented in a very technical and scientific way limiting the comprehension for the non-climatologists users; project owners, engineers or investment planners. This is no-exception in the context of climate risk assessment. The limited understanding usually leads to a lack of questioning the results. Hence, results are taken for granted, even if a lot of uncertainties do exit. Among other activities to address this issue, CSI has developed a guidance which provides a structure on how climate information developed along each step of the climate risk assessment should be presented in user-friendly way. This document should be understood as an accompanying document to the climate risk assessment report itself. It is structured under two parts. The first one provides an overview of the methodology and the suggested structure. For a better understanding, the second part applies it for the Cai Lon- Cai-Be sluice gate climate risk assessment in Vietnam. The climate information developed along each of the PIEVC steps is structured under seven key points, which improve the presentation by highlighting the uncertainties, limitations and major challenges.

You can read the guidance in VN or EN.

Resources, capital and capacities are required for the assessment of climate risk, however the availability, quantity and expenses are beforehand unknown for decision-makers. How many people would need to be hired? What level of expertise is required? How long will it take? How much is it going to cost? The lack of answers to these questions limit or delay the decision by project owners or investment planners whether or not to conduct a climate risk assessment for their infrastructure investments. To facilitate and streamline the replica of the Cai Lon-Cai Be sluice gate climate risk assessment in Vietnam, this document provides a detail description of the kind of services needed during it as well as for two more hypothetical risk assessments in Vietnam. Based on the structure of a typical recipe, the provided services are divided in three components; procedure, quantity and costs. Within the procedure, all activities along the climate risk assessment are described. In the quantity section, a list of tasks, the workload and the time estimation within each activity is displayed, followed by the estimation of the related cost for all tasks. To illustrate the application of the proposed recipe, three different scenarios were showcased whereby a variation of the users (public or private) and the planning stages (feasibility study and after construction) highlighted which were the relevant inputs under the different circumstances. All in all, this document aims to streamline the decision-making process and facilitate the cost-benefits analysis by making available a tool which helps weight alternatives.

Key results/ take away from the climate risk assessment:

  • Under normal conditions a climate risk assessment should last no more than 8 to 9 months
  •  Climate Risk Assessment is not necessary for the stage of pre-feasibility study
  • If the climate risk assessment is conducted for the stage of feasibility rather than for the stage of after construction, the cost associated are much lower for the former than the latter, pointing out the economic benefits of early investment.

Acces the recipe in VN or EN!

Climate Proofing – Success Stories

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Praesent aliquet nunc ut augue pellentesque laoreet. Phasellus ultricies finibus magna sit amet tincidunt. Sed pellentesque ac orci vitae condimentum. Donec posuere velit sed nisi porta imperdiet. Duis in interdum metus, vitae ornare eros. Nullam vehicula urna sed augue mollis iaculis quis ut nisi. Aliquam non odio eget quam tristique facilisis. Vestibulum malesuada turpis sed eros pulvinar, nec consectetur tortor interdum. Morbi non elit libero. Proin imperdiet non massa ut scelerisque.

Climate Proofing – Success Factors

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Praesent aliquet nunc ut augue pellentesque laoreet. Phasellus ultricies finibus magna sit amet tincidunt. Sed pellentesque ac orci vitae condimentum. Donec posuere velit sed nisi porta imperdiet. Duis in interdum metus, vitae ornare eros. Nullam vehicula urna sed augue mollis iaculis quis ut nisi. Aliquam non odio eget quam tristique facilisis. Vestibulum malesuada turpis sed eros pulvinar, nec consectetur tortor interdum. Morbi non elit libero. Proin imperdiet non massa ut scelerisque.

Establishing Climate Services

Background

The relevance of climate information for decision-making is not a new topic. There are scores of weather proverbs that have been used by farmers for centuries to plan seeding and harvest. They use the weather conditions at specific dates throughout the year as indicators for expected weather conditions later on. However, when we go beyond the seasonal scale, long-term projections about climate change in the past have mainly served the purpose of creating awareness for the need to mitigate climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But we already know that mitigation alone will not be enough. We will also need to manage the climate risks expected for a warming of at least two degrees. In order to make this adaptation effective and efficient, we rely on Climate Information and Services (CIS) to inform our decisions.

Need for customised CS

Realising that climate information is needed for effective adaptation is not enough. There also needs to be a shift in how this information is produced and used. Looking at the example of the infrastructure sector, this quickly becomes apparent. Infrastructures are often created for a lifetime of 75 to 100 years. We even still use infrastructure build throughout the time of the roman empire today [source/ picture]. Infrastructure is also highly influenced by local conditions. A heavy local rain can put a whole sewage system out of service. A thunderstorm may cut off the power of a whole village or district [Examples, sources/ picture]. How the infrastructure interacts with different events depends on the thresholds it was designed for. For example, a bridge is build having a specific maximum river discharge in mind. It gets even more complicated taking into account that each component of an infrastructure has different thresholds and vulnerabilities, that then have implications for the structure as a whole. For example, while electricity towers may be quite sturdy, withstanding storms without problem, power lines may be easily disrupted by falling tree branches during a storm above a certain strength.

Keeping all this in mind during the design process has always been a challenge, leading engineers to apply safety margins to ensure the service continuity of their works. It gets even more complicated no w, that the climate of the past can no longer be a guide in designing for the future. For this, infrastructure planners need climate information suited to the different decision-making contexts throughout the infrastructure planning process [link to explanation/ Box for infrastructure planning process]. While a hazard map   may already help to guide the decision where to place an infrastructure, more detailed information on expected trends for extreme events is necessary in making design decisions. Currently, getting such tailored information is a challenge. On the demand side, either the awareness for the need to use such information does not exist or infrastructure planners do not have a sufficient understanding of what exactly they need and how to get it. On the supply side, providers of Climate Services have so far mainly relied on the top-down development of products and services, not taking into account what users actually need. The elaboration of projections, for example, is often rather research than demand-driven. This leads to the products developed not being suitable to using them in the planning of infrastructure.

The Challenge

So far, the development of Climate Services has focused mainly on agriculture. Though all countries face the challenge of needing to develop a new market for Climate Services for infrastructure, each country is at a different step in the process. Efforts to assess capacity gaps in terms of Climate Services have been conducted in the past to inform strategies for enhancing them (examples, links, sources: WMO, Future Climate for Africa, World Bank).

The CSI project has conducted studies as basis for devising its Capacity Development Strategy. These studies are unique insofar as (1) they focus on infrastructure and (2) they combine the user and provider perspective to get a more holistic insight (reference to product, link to studies). A summary of the results is provided in [reference to product box]. As a general observation CSI’s work in Brazil, Costa Rica, the Nile Basin and Vietnam has shown that to develop the necessary capacities for Climate Services, it is necessary to take a holistic view taking into account all different aspects that make a good Climate Service. It also means that all actors involved along the value chain [reference/ link to box on CS value chain] from climate data to adaptation decisions need to take part in this effort if it is to be successful. Only this way it can be guaranteed that (1) the products and services developed are suitable to user needs, (2) that they are understood by users and (3) that users have the capacities to use them appropriately.

Lastly, one of the main challenges is related to the institutional or governance framework for Climate Services that allows for a larger group of actors to co-create and work jointly on the advancement of Climate Services. However, so far instead of formalised relationships of continuous cooperation along the value chain, what we find is a dispersed and confusing landscape of providers and users only cooperation on a contract-to-contract basis.

The Changing Role of NMHS

A crucial question that needs to be resolved in answering the question of how to create lasting structures of cooperation in the field of Climate Services is that of the role of the National Meteorological and Hydrological Services (NMHS). They are looked upon by many as key stakeholder in the provision of Climate Services. This seems to make them the natural leader in the process towards an institutional and governance framework. However, this is far beyond their current role in most countries, where they are mainly in charge of collecting and managing data and providing weather services. The questions is, whether without additional resources and extensive capacity development, NMHS have the ability to take the lead in the development of Climate Services.

Most importantly, as Climate Services are produced in a value chain involving a multitude of actors, focusing on the NMHS in their development is short-sighted. If we think about a Climate-Service-value-chain [link to explanation/ Box] like the value chain for cotton-fabrics, for example, for some Climate Services, the role of the NMHS may be limited to providing the raw cotton. Looking at the value chain approach, it becomes apparent that not only are NMHS incapable of driving the advancement of Climate Services on their own, it also is not desirable for them to do so. There are other stakeholders involved in the development of Climate Services, such as the private sector, line ministries and their subordinated authorities as well as climate science. Accordingly, the enhancement of Climate Services calls for a coordinated effort of dedicated networks and for a that unite all these actors.

The Solution

GFCS

The Global Framework for Climate Services (GFCS) [link to explanation/ Box] was launched in 2009 as a response to the need for user-oriented climate information. Its secretariat is stationed at the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO). Recognising that good Climate Services require the consideration of a variety of aspects, the GFCS breaks down Climate Services into five functional components.

Though one may argue whether these 5 pillars capture the entirety of what makes good Climate Services, the GFCS at least provides a framework around which capacity development efforts can be organised.

One element that is arguably missing from the five pillars of the GFCS is governance. Like capacity development, governance is a cross-cutting topic. New institutional frameworks and governance structures are needed in order to build the necessary foundations for Climate Services to thrive. The GFCS covers this with the concept of a National Framework for Climate Services (NFCS) [link to step-by-step guideline]. The idea is to clearly determine the roles in responsibilities of institutions in providing and enhancing Climate Services along the five pillars of the GFCS. However, for the elaboration of a NFCS, it is first necessary to identify which institution will take the lead in the advancement of Climate Services.

Establishing Climate Services – Products

Around the world, the proper function of infrastructure designs and systems is keen to public and economic safety. In the past, engineers and architects has relied on historical for the development of long-lasting, safe and reliable infrastructure, notwithstanding changing weather conditions inherent to climate change demand new design and operational practices. As such, the Public Infrastructure Engineering Vulnerability Committee (PIEVC) established in 2005 by Engineers Canada and partners, developed a vulnerability assessment (PIEVC Engineering Protocol for Infrastructure Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change) to ensure that climate change constitutes an integral part in all stages of civil infrastructure and thus improves its resilience towards current and future climate.  This methodology enables an interdisciplinary team to identify the infrastructure components with the highest risk or the likeliest threat and henceforward decision-makers shall be better informed when exercising their judgement on adaption measurements.  The identification of risk, defined as the interaction between exposure with probability, results on a risk matrix whereby each climate parameter and infrastructure component is analyzed.  Additionally, project owner and planners gained information about the adaptive capacity of the individuals infrastructure which is dependent on its design, operation and maintenance. Since 2008, the Protocol has been applied on wide range infrastructure including: wastewater systems, roads, bridges, transmission lines, electricity distribution, buildings and water supply and managements systems. Beside the implementation in Canada, CSI has conducted four pilot risk assessment on each of the partner country.  Lastly, since 2020 the ownership and control of the PIEVC Program has been transferred to the cooperation between the Institute of Loss reduction (ICLR) , the Climate Risk Institute (CRI) and the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ).

Explames:

A climate risk assessment based on the PIEVC Protocol was piloted for the Cai Lon -Cai be sluice gate. The recommendations to prevent saltwater intrusion induced by climate change have been mainstreamed in the new design.

A climate risk assessment for the Borenga Multipurpose Dams in the NBI was conducted based on the PIEVC Protocol. The NBI is making the methodology a core element of its new climate proofing guideline.

A participatory risk assessment tool for infrastructure named PIEVC, was used to decide between rebuilding or retrofitting an existing bridge in Costa Rica. The experience has led to develop their own official tool.

To address the vulnerability of transmission lines to climate change, a climate risk assessment based on the PIEVC tool was piloted in Santa Catarina, Brazil. The results highlight the need of climate-risk-informed planning.

After assessing the climate services in all countries; similar gaps and challenges became apparent. Climate information is usually neither useable (lack of access, not understandable) nor useful (not contextualized) for users. Likewise, the user-provider interaction is almost non-existent.

To overcome these challenges; CSI developed a platform solution, which has been piloted in Brazil in collaboration with National Institute for Space Research (INPE). ClinfoMATE is set to be a digital user-interface platform with 3 integrated tools; the marketplace tool, the user-need assessment tool and finally the matchmaker tool. Whereas the former tool develops a place where users and providers can find and relate with each other, the second tool facilitate the articulation of the demand and user´s need throughout the implementation of a guidance which results in a user´s report. Simultaneously, both tools combined provide the conditions for the algorithm to match, one user with the best suitable providers taking into account the user-need-report. All in all, for users it poses the opportunity to gain more transparency and support when searching for providers as well as orientation and consultancy when assessing climate risk. For providers, it builds a bridge for better communication and understanding of the users’ needs as well as it creates more business opportunities.

This dialogue-oriented platform will address in a time-efficient and effective manner a wide range of actors by creating a market and providing an actor´s landscape, speeding thus adaptation measurements for infrastructure. investments. As a matter of fact, 130 climate services providers in Brazil will be connected.

More information under the one-paper in english or german

For any institution the definition of the outcomes is of utmost importance, notwithstanding the way of evaluating the impact is likely not well-though and consequently leads to questioning the attainment of the such. Having said that, CSI developed a composite Climate Service Index for the assessment of the impact on the provision and use of climate services within each partner country. As two sides of the same coin; provision and use are separately assessed. Whereas User-Index establishes important conditions for the use of CS by managers and planners in infrastructure investments, the CS-Index focuses on the quality of the service based on the five pillars of the Global Framework of Climate Services. Throughout the ranking of the all indicators comprised in both sub-index during the baseline assessments for each country, CSI has been able to track the effects of the measurements and henceforth the tracking allows for calculation the impact sphere by comparing baseline, current and target. The Index proposed a transparent way of showcasing the impact of several measurements of CSI on the provision and use of climate services. It should be kept in mind that the User-Index only accounts for effects, where CSI could have an impact on, such as regulatory incentive, awareness and tools and capacities. In other words, other effects responsible for boosting the use of CS are possible but have not been considered under the CS-Index.

You can access the document here.

The conduction of the baseline assessment as well as climate risk assessment underlined some gaps on the provision of climate information. Whereas the lack of skills and capacities threatens the quality of the services, not customized products to the user´s needs hinder the usability of it. Therefore, a compilation of eight climate products address those issues by analyzing not only the current effect of climate parameters such as temperature, wind, precipitation, lighting, sea level but also the predicted climate change effect on the region of Santa Catarina and more concretely for two infrastructures; the transmission lines or port of Itajai. Additionally, future climate scenarios are modeled by using RCM. Finally, the purpose of the products is to support decision-makers in the integration of climate consideration in the planning, implementation, maintenance, operation of both infrastructures

Products:

An analysis of the current frequency of extreme events related to the sea level and its impact on the port of Itajai is foregone. The last chapter simulated the frequency by which those events will happen in the future.

This study analyzes the occurrence and frequency of extreme winds in the state of Santa Catarina based on historical data and future climate projections and the impact of those events on Electrosul´s transmission lines.

The study examines the occurrence and frequency of lighting in the state of Santa Catarina. These information is then used for estimating the vulnerability of Electrosul´s transmission lines to climate change.

 

Based on a climate regional model, the study identifies potential changes in the current as well as the future availability of solar and wind resources in Brazil which helps to understand the related-risk for the energy sector.

The report focus on the meteorological phenomena, such as floods or winds, potentially responsible for damages on transmission line of Electrosul and the port of Itajaí in the state of Santa Catarina.

The study focus on the estimation of climate extreme based on Eta20km MIROC5. Eta models are used for regional climate projections alternating between different climate change scenarios with a focus on South & North America.

The study focus on the estimation of climate extreme based on Eta20km CanESM. Eta models are used for regional climate projections alternating between different climate change scenarios with a focus on South & North America.

The study focus on the estimation of climate extreme based on EtaHadGEM2. Eta models are used for regional climate projections alternating between different climate change scenarios with a focus on South & North America.

Establishing Climate Services – Success Stories

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Praesent aliquet nunc ut augue pellentesque laoreet. Phasellus ultricies finibus magna sit amet tincidunt. Sed pellentesque ac orci vitae condimentum. Donec posuere velit sed nisi porta imperdiet. Duis in interdum metus, vitae ornare eros. Nullam vehicula urna sed augue mollis iaculis quis ut nisi. Aliquam non odio eget quam tristique facilisis. Vestibulum malesuada turpis sed eros pulvinar, nec consectetur tortor interdum. Morbi non elit libero. Proin imperdiet non massa ut scelerisque.

Establishing Climate Services – Success Factors

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Praesent aliquet nunc ut augue pellentesque laoreet. Phasellus ultricies finibus magna sit amet tincidunt. Sed pellentesque ac orci vitae condimentum. Donec posuere velit sed nisi porta imperdiet. Duis in interdum metus, vitae ornare eros. Nullam vehicula urna sed augue mollis iaculis quis ut nisi. Aliquam non odio eget quam tristique facilisis. Vestibulum malesuada turpis sed eros pulvinar, nec consectetur tortor interdum. Morbi non elit libero. Proin imperdiet non massa ut scelerisque.