An assessment based on RCOFs status reports WMO Workshop on Global Review of Regional Climate Outlook Forums Guayaquil, Ecuador 5-7 September 2017

Transcription

1 An assessment based on RCOFs status reports WMO Workshop on Global Review of Regional Climate Outlook Forums Guayaquil, Ecuador 5-7 September 2017 December

2 Report author: Dr Andrew Tait, Principal Scientist Climate, National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA) Ltd., Private Bag 14901, Wellington, New Zealand; Chair of the Pacific Islands Climate Services Panel; Co-chair of the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) Open Panel of CCl Experts on the User Interface for Climate Adaptation and Risk Management (OPACE IV). Client: WMO, 7 biz Avenue de la Paix, Case Postale No.2300, CH-1211, Geneva 2, Switzerland. Copyright: WMO Disclaimer: Whilst the author has used all reasonable endeavours to ensure that the information contained in this document is accurate, neither NIWA nor WMO give any express or implied warranty as to the completeness of the information contained herein. The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of NIWA or WMO concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. 2

3 Contents Executive summary Introduction Global RCOF Review Specific climate features and climate-sensitive sectors The RCOF background The RCOF process Capacity needs User involvement SWOT analysis Sustainability of RCOFs Way forward References Acknowledgement

4 Executive summary This report summarises the responses from representatives of 20 Regional Climate Outlook Forums (RCOFs) from across the world to a survey initiated by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) in 2017 as part of global review of RCOF operations worldwide. The survey questions covered the following topic areas: specific climate features and climate-sensitive sectors of the region, the RCOF background and process, capacity needs, user involvement, SWOT analysis, sustainability of the RCOF, and the way forward. The summary report sits alongside the individual survey responses (also known as RCOF status reports) and a meeting report summarising the presentations and discussions at the WMO International Workshop on Global Review of RCOFs, which was held from 5 7 September 2017, in Guayaquil, Ecuador. Together, these documents form one of the principal outputs of the Global RCOF Review The key findings of this report are as follows: Specific climate features and climate-sensitive sectors The dominant source of seasonal climate predictability around the globe is the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). Drought is the most-cited climate hazard, mentioned in 15 of the 20 status reports, and is linked to such impacts as crop failure, poor water quality, human and animal disease and malnutrition, and famine. Flooding is also highly mentioned (12 regions), and is associated with damage to buildings, infrastructure and land, human and animal disease, and loss of life. The agriculture/food security and health sectors appear to be the most sensitive sectors to seasonal climate variations. The RCOF background Coordination of RCOFs mostly falls to single institutions (15 of the 20 RCOFs), and these institutions are also often associated with the hosting of a WMO Regional Climate Center (RCC). Stakeholders from climate-sensitive sectors are usually invited to RCOFs, either for the whole meeting or for specific sessions. Most regions are limited to holding one physical RCOF meeting per year, usually preceding the most climatologically-important season for the region. The RCOF process The following three elements comprise the core processes of an RCOF: 1. Validation/evaluation of past climate model forecasts, and/or past consensus outlooks; 2. Diagnosis of the climate of the region over the past several months, assessment of climate model forecasts for the coming one to six months, and production of a consensus regional climate outlook; and 3. Discussion with stakeholders on how the information can and should be interpreted and applied for decision-making. Most regions (15) hold a Pre-COF technical training session, which usually goes for onetwo days and is held immediately before the main forum meeting. 4

5 Capacity needs Capacity development of National Meteorological and Hydrological Service (NMHS) climate staff is well-recognised by almost all respondents as an ongoing fundamental requirement across all regions. RCOFs should devote more time to experimenting with different tailoring approaches and co-developing tailored products with national and regional stakeholders. To improve the value of climate outlooks, developing the capacity of stakeholders to work together with NMHS climate staff to co-develop tailored products is the primary need. User involvement The principal users of RCOFs are climate staff from NMHSs in the countries within the region, with most other users coming from national government departments such as agriculture, health, hydrology, tourism, and disaster management. Most of the regional end-users are associated with the agriculture/food security and health sectors (plus humanitarian agencies, which are closely aligned with these sectors). SWOT analysis The most frequently-cited strength of RCOFs is capacity development, networking and relationship building for all participants. Peer-to-peer sharing of experiences and approaches, and expert-guided learning are also key strengths. High staff turnover is the principal weakness listed. This is one of the main reasons why ongoing training and capacity development are so important for most of the regions. While more skilful forecasts are to be continually strived for, the main opportunity for enhancing value is through developing more directly-applicable and understandable products. Funding and technical capacity feature strongly as the principal threats. Sustainability of RCOFs Sixteen of the 20 regions reported that the relationship between the RCOF and their respective RCC was of paramount importance (the remaining four regions do not currently have established RCCs in their region). All 20 survey respondents reported that the countries in their region fully recognise the importance, usefulness and value of the Climate Outlook Forums. The most-cited RCOF coordination mechanism is the RCC. Establishing focal points in each participating country is another well-cited coordination mechanism for RCOFs. Organisers of RCOFs need to continue to seek alternate sources of funding, including cofunding from RCOF participants, to achieve long-term sustainability. Way forward The uniqueness of RCOFs around the world is to be celebrated, as this shows that each forum is responding well to the particular needs of the users (including NMHSs) in their region. Most effort is needed over the next few years on the following elements: 1. Strive for greater seasonal climate predictability and enhanced understanding of the physical climate processes that govern regional climate variability at all time scales; 2. Strengthen links between RCOFs and WMO, RCCs, regional organisations, other RCOFs, and GPCLRFs to ensure good practices for sharing knowledge, data, and information; 5

6 3. Work closely with stakeholders and end-users to co-develop sector-specific tailored climate forecasts and other decision-relevant climate products; and 4. Continue to build capacity within NMHSs, national government departments, and stakeholder organisations whenever possible, through training workshops and online forums. 6

7 1. Introduction The World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) defines the concept of a Regional Climate Outlook Forum (RCOF) as: A platform that brings together national, regional and international climate experts and stakeholders representatives from countries in a climatologically homogeneous area to provide consensus-based climate predictions based on input from National Meteorological and Hydrological Services (NMHSs), regional institutions, WMO Regional Climate Centres (RCCs), Global Producing Centres for Long Range Forecasts (GPCLRFs) and other climate prediction centers. Through interaction with sectoral users, extension agencies and policymakers, RCOFs assess the likely implications of the outlooks on the most pertinent socio-economic sectors in a given region, and explore the ways in which use can be made of them. RCOFs strengthen regional networking of the climate service providers and user-sector representatives. Participating countries recognize the potential of climate prediction and seasonal forecasting as a powerful development tool to help populations and decision-makers face the challenges posed by climatic variability and change. One of the important components of RCOFs is development of existing capacities of NMHSs in seasonal forecasting and communication of climate information to the user community. The RCOF concept (as described above) was conceived in 1996 at a meeting in Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe, and RCOFs gained momentum as a regional response to the major El Niño event. Since then, the RCOF concept has spread worldwide. RCOFs are widely recognized to be key elements in the implementation of the Global Framework for Climate Services (GFCS). Currently, there are 19 RCOFs operational around the world 1. Figure 1 outlines the current RCOF regions (noting that a Polar Arctic Regional Climate Outlook Forum, PARCOF, will soon be established), and Table 1 defines all the COF acronyms. Figure 1: The current RCOF regions around the world. 1 RCOF Factsheets published by WMO are available at: 7

8 Table 1: Definitions of the COF acronyms for the 19 current and 1 soon-to-be established RCOFs. ASEANCOF CA-RCOF CariCOF EASCOF FOCRAII GHACOF MedCOF NEACOF PARCOF PICOF PRESAC PRESAGG PRESANORD PRESASS SARCOF SASCOF SEECOF SSACOF SWIOCOF WCSACOF Association of Southeast Asian Nations Climate Outlook Forum Central America Regional Climate Outlook Forum Caribbean Climate Outlook Forum East Asia winter Climate Outlook Forum Forum on Regional Climate Monitoring, Assessment and Prediction for Regional Association II Greater Horn of Africa Climate Outlook Forum Mediterranean Climate Outlook Forum North Eurasian Climate Outlook Forum Polar Arctic Regional Climate Outlook Forum (not yet established) Pacific Islands Climate Outlook Forum PRÉvisions climatiques Saisonnières en Afrique Centrale PRÉvisions climatiques Saisonnières en Afrique, pays du Golfe de Guinée PRÉvisions climatiques Saisonnières en Afrique du Nord PRÉvisions climatiques Saisonnières en Afrique Soudano-Sahélienne Southern African Regional Climate Outlook Forum South Asian Climate Outlook Forum SouthEast European Climate Outlook Forum Southeast of South America Climate Outlook Forum SouthWest Indian Ocean countries Climate Outlook Forum Western Coast of South America Climate Outlook Forum RCOFs are generally held as annual physical meetings, but for some regions they are held more frequently depending upon the climatologically-important features of the region and the informational needs of the users, as well as funds availability. For example, agriculture is very important to the Central American region, so the Central America Regional Climate Outlook Forum (CA-RCOF) is held up to three times per year associated with the first planting period or La Primera (May-July), the second planting period or La Postrera (August-October), and the winter season or Apante (December-February). While the primary purpose of an RCOF is to review and summarise up-to-date regional climate information and sophisticated climate forecast model output and produce a consensus climate outlook statement, participants (including NMHS climate officers and sector representatives) also significantly benefit by sharing recent experiences and research findings, and by using the meeting as a forum for learning from one another. The RCOFs are therefore as much about relationship-building and education, as they are about producing consensus-based guidance. 8

9 2. Global RCOF Review 2017 Since the establishment of RCOFs in late 1990s, WMO has been actively supporting their operations, conducting periodic expert reviews to identify gaps and challenges, and propose ways to improve and standardize the RCOF process. Upon the RCOF concept completing two decades of successful implementation, WMO initiated a comprehensive review of the RCOF process the Global RCOF Review 2017 to examine all aspects of the interpretation, creation, and dissemination of regional climate outlooks as handled through the RCOFs, to agree on the way forward towards an improved and sustained RCOF processes. The Global RCOF Review 2017 has been guided by the Commission for Climatology Task Team on RCOFs (TT-RCOF) in close collaboration with Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) from international institutions involved in the RCOF process. In preparation for the WMO International Workshop on Global Review of RCOFs, which was held from 5 7 September 2017, in Guayaquil, Ecuador, and hosted by the International Research Center on El Niño (CIIFEN) 2, Technical/Organizational Leads from the 19 existing and one soon-to-be established RCOFs worldwide (see Table 1) were each requested to complete a status report survey, that covered the following topic areas: Specific climate features of concerned region (including sectoral sensitivities to climate) The RCOF background (including who is involved and how frequent the RCOFs are held) The RCOF process (including the meeting structure and the consensus outlook producing process) Capacity needs (including the needs of NMHS staff and stakeholders) User involvement (including how user feedback is received and acted upon) SWOT analysis (including national and regional strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) Sustainability of RCOF (including how RCOFs are funded) Way forward (including research gaps and functional improvements) This Summary Report on Regional Climate Outlook Forums (RCOFs) Worldwide is an assessment of the 20 RCOF status reports 3 prepared for and presented at the WMO workshop in Ecuador in September The following sections of this report are presented in the same order as the survey topic areas listed above, and include summarised information and examples based on the survey responses. No other information sources are used for the purposes of this report, hence the information presented within is dependent upon the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the survey responses. This Summary Report is a companion document to the Workshop Meeting Report and each of individual RCOF Status Reports, which all together form the principal outputs of the Global RCOF Review The meeting report has been produced by WMO and can be downloaded from: 3 The individual RCOF status reports can be downloaded from the same website (see footnote #2) 9

10 3. Specific climate features and climate-sensitive sectors For this topic area, each of the RCOF status report survey respondents provided a summary of the principal climate features of their region, the main sources of seasonal climate predictability, examples of recent research and the current state of scientific knowledge related to seasonal climate prediction in the region, and an indication of the main climate-sensitive sectors and the types of climate-related hazards and impacts they are sensitive to. The most commonly-cited climate features of the regions are, not surprisingly, monsoons (e.g. East Asian Winter Monsoon, Asian Summer Monsoon, African Monsoon, Indian Monsoon), convergence zones (e.g. Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone, South Pacific Convergence Zone, South Atlantic Convergence Zone), and areas of persistent high pressure (e.g. Siberian High, Sub-Tropical Ridge, Botswana Upper High). The dominant source of seasonal climate predictability reported is the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), with 16 of the 20 regions indicating that ENSO indices are used for forecasting the seasonal climate. Table 2 lists all the sources of regional seasonal (plus sub-seasonal) climate predictability that were reported. These have been ranked according to the number of times they were cited. Table 2: Ranked sources of sub-seasonal to seasonal climate predictability, based on the frequency of citations in the 20 status reports. Multiple mentions in the same report equates to a single citation. Sources of regional sub-seasonal to seasonal climate predictability Number of citations El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) 16 Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) 7 North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) 6 Madden Julian Oscillation (MJO) 4 Eurasian snow cover 4 Arctic Oscillation (AO) 3 Quasi Biennial Oscillation (QBO) 2 Arctic sea ice extent / breakup 2 Southern Annular Mode (SAM) 1 Several seasonal climate prediction studies and research papers are cited in the status reports, many of which are very recent (e.g. Owiti et al., 2008; Stephenson et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2015; Taschetto et al., 2016). This indicates that scientific enquiry is still very important as a means of improving regional seasonal (and sub-seasonal) climate prediction skill. Importantly, research papers on climate impacts (e.g. Jiménez-Muñoz et al., 2016) and on climate provider/end-user interaction (e.g. Guido et al., 2016) are also cited, highlighting the importance beyond generating a skilful forecast of producing and delivering effective and useful regional, national and local climate services to stakeholders. Respondents also reported on the main climate-related hazards and impacts in their region, and the sectors that are sensitive to them. Table 3 summarises these responses, again ranked by the frequency of unique citations. 10

11 Table 3: Ranked climate-related hazards and impacts, and the sectors sensitive to them, based on the frequency of citations in the 20 status reports. Multiple mentions in the same report equates to a single citation. Climate-related hazards and impacts Drought crop failure; poor water quality; human and animal disease and malnutrition; famine Flooding damage to buildings, infrastructure and land; human and animal disease and loss of life Rainfall amount and reliability low stream flows; timing of monsoon; agricultural production; poor water quality; vector-borne and water-borne diseases Winter temperatures and snow cold spells; ice and snow hazard; human and animal health; electricity demand Summer heat waves human and animal health; electricity demand Sectors sensitive to the hazard or impact Agriculture/Food Security, Health, Water Resources Built Environment, Transport, Infrastructure, Disaster Risk Management, Businesses, Agriculture/Food Security, Health Water Resources, Agriculture/Food Security, Health Transport, Infrastructure, Health, Agriculture/Food Security, Energy Number of citations 15 Health, Agriculture/Food Security, 3 Energy, Tourism Spring temperatures sea-ice breakup Transport, Resource extraction 1 Sea surface temperatures and height coral bleaching, fish abundance and distribution, fish disease Ecosystem Conservation, Tourism, Fisheries/Food Security, Health Drought is the most-cited climate hazard, mentioned in 15 of the 20 status reports, and is linked to such impacts as crop failure, poor water quality, human and animal disease and malnutrition, and famine. Flooding is also highly mentioned (12), and is associated with damage to buildings, infrastructure and land, human and animal disease and loss of life. The sectors indicated as being most sensitive to drought are agriculture/food security, health, and water resources; and to flooding are the built environment, transport, infrastructure, disaster risk management, businesses, and once again agriculture/food security and health. In fact, agriculture/food security 4 and health are related to all but the singly-mentioned impact of Arctic Ocean sea-ice breakup in spring. This clearly shows how sensitive these two sectors are to seasonal climate variations (and climate change), and how important is seasonal outlook in decision making process for these particular sectors. Lastly, climate-related disasters are mentioned as often being associated with far reaching socioeconomic impacts. A good example of this is elucidated in the Greater Horn of Africa status report: The impacts of a single disaster that can reverse the economic development pattern by several decades can be seen in the 1997/98 El Niño related floods and the 1999/2000 La Niña related drought in the region. Many human and animal lives were lost; millions of people displaced; many roads, railway lines and other infrastructure was destroyed; and losses worth millions of dollars reported. No sustainable development can be achieved in the region without reducing climate-related risks and vulnerability. 4 Including fisheries/food security, mentioned by one respondent 11

12 4. The RCOF background For this topic area of the survey, respondents were asked to provide background details on their RCOF including when the first meeting was held, who co-ordinates the meetings, which countries and institutions are involved, and how often and at what time of year the RCOFs occur. As was mentioned in the introduction, the RCOF concept was conceived in 1996 at a meeting in Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe. Shortly thereafter, in 1997, the first RCOFs were held in the Greater Horn of Africa (GHACOF), Southern Africa (SARCOF), and the Southeast of South America (SSACOF). Figure 2 shows an approximate initiation timeline of these three and the 16 others that have started since then, with the Pacific Islands (PICOF) being the most recent region to initiate RCOFs in late As at 2017, a concept note for a Polar Arctic Regional Climate Outlook Forum (PARCOF) has been developed, and the first session is expected to take place in the first half of Notably, WMO has been involved in the establishment of all the RCOFs and is recognised by all respondents as a key contributor to the ongoing success of the forums. Figure 2: Approximate timeline of the establishment of the 20 RCOFs (see Table 1 for definitions). Coordination of the RCOFs mostly falls to single institutions (the situation in 15 of the 20 RCOFs), and majority of these institutions are also hosting of a WMO Regional Climate Center (RCC). For example, this is the case for the North Eurasian region (NEACOF), where the RCOF is coordinated by the North Eurasia Climate Centre (NEACC) a designated WMO RCC located in Moscow, Russian Federation. Despite the majority of RCOFs falling into this category of single-institution coordination, the location of the physical meetings is often rotated around the participating countries. Five of the RCOFs share both the coordination and hosting responsibilities between two or more institutions and countries. One of RCOFs, the interregional Mediterranean COF is coordinated and guided by the MedCOF Management Team (MT), that comprises representatives from each of the RCCS in the region, i.e. RA VI and RA I RCC Networks Node on Long Range Forecasting and Climate Monitoring, RCC-Africa hosted by ACMAD, a representative from each of the two RCOFs that MedCOF encompasses (SEECOF and PRESANORD), as well as a representative from the Sate Meteorological Agency of Spain (AEMET). 12

13 Stakeholders from climate-sensitive sectors are usually invited to the RCOFs, either for the whole meeting or for specific sessions. Only three of the RCOFs do not explicitly invite stakeholders to their meetings. Some RCOFs have a specific sector-focussed meeting. For example, the three Pacific Islands (PICOF) meetings so far have focussed on water resources (2015), disaster management (2016), and health (2017, see Figure 3), with agriculture to be the sector focus of the 2018 PICOF. Other RCOFs invite stakeholders from multiple sectors to attend all their meetings, for example the South Asian region (SASCOF). Figure 3: Attendees at the third Pacific Islands Climate Outlook Forum (PICOF-3), Apia, Samoa, October 2017 were from NMHSs, regional and international organisations, and national Health Sector government departments and institutions. Physical RCOF meetings are expensive to run (particularly for those meetings where attendees receive a daily subsistence allowance). Thus, most regions are limited to holding one physical RCOF meeting per year, usually preceding the most climatologically-important season for the region. The timing varies depending upon the region, but is often associated with a key season for agriculture, such as the summer monsoon. Only five of the 20 RCOFs (CA-RCOF, CariCOF, GHACOF, SASCOF, and SSACOF) hold more than one physical meeting per year. In addition to a physical meeting, several regions are either regularly operating or trialling online forums at other climatologically-important times of the year. For example, the Southeastern Europe region (SEECOF) holds a physical meeting in November each year (focussing on the summer season), and an online discussion in April/May each year (focusing on the winter season). Similarly, the Southeast Asia region (ASEANCOF) holds a physical meeting in November (ahead of the boreal winter monsoon) and an online discussion in May (ahead of the boreal summer monsoon). Furthermore, some regions are also producing and disseminating 1- and 3-month climate forecast updates/information electronically on a monthly basis (e.g. CariCOF, PICOF). Online forums and the electronic dissemination of seasonal climate forecasts throughout the year are two key mechanisms for reducing costs and enhancing information flow. 13

14 5. The RCOF process Respondents were asked the following series of technical questions when completing this section of the survey: What is the RCOF implementation process and structure, including whether there are: o Capacity development activities; o Joint sessions with user involvement; and o Sessions focussed on specific sector(s)? What is the current methodology for preparing the seasonal predictions and consensus outlook, including whether there are: o Global/regional/national technical inputs for the sessions; and o Real-time products from Global Producing Centres of Long-Range Forecasts (GPCLRFs) are routinely accessed? How are the previous season s forecasts and consensus outlook been evaluated, including whether there are: o Skill measures and verification metrics produced; and o Procedures for communicating forecast skill to end-users? Is there further value addition and dissemination of outlooks to stakeholders at national scales (e.g. via National Climate Outlook Forums, NCOFs)? Are there regular (e.g. monthly) informational updates between RCOF meetings, including through the operations of an RCC? and Is climatological information also provided with the outlooks, for context and information? Based on these questions, survey respondents from all 20 regions reported that the following three elements comprise the core processes of their RCOF: 1. Conduct a process of reviewing past climate model forecasts (e.g. for the previous year and/or preceding season) and sometimes a review of the previous RCOF s consensus outlook. Verification of past climate model forecasts involving the assessment of skill measures (e.g. Hit Rate, Linear Error in Probability Space (LEPS) Score, Ranked Probability Skill (RPS) Score, Relative Operating Characteristics (ROC), and/or Heidke Skill Score) is explicitly reported in about half of the regions (12); while others use qualitative measures including the visual comparison of past forecasts and consensus outlooks to actual rainfall and temperature anomaly maps; 2. Structure the main forum with the following sessions: a. Presentations of maps and diagnostics of the climate of the region over the past several months (often including a discussion of extreme events such as Tropical Cyclones/Hurricanes/Typhoons or severe snow storms); followed by b. Presentations of climate model forecasts (usually a mix of statistical and dynamic models) for the coming one to six months (often presented by representatives from GPCLRFs and/or an RCC); and finally c. A discussion based on the presented material, including the opportunity for further questions and answers, is held leading to the production of a consensus regional climate outlook for the coming season (at least for rainfall and air temperature, but also often for other climate variables [see below]); and 3. Discuss, usually with stakeholders, the relevance of the consensus outlook and how the information can and should be interpreted and applied for sector-based decision-making. This often also includes a discussion on the communication and dissemination of the outlook 14

15 information to multiple end-users (including to the media, who are sometimes explicitly invited to attend the RCOF, are given a briefing, and are encouraged to conduct interviews). Most regions (15 of the survey respondents) also hold a Pre-COF technical training session, which usually goes for one day and is held immediately before the main forum meeting. The training is for NMHS staff, and involves representatives from GPCLRFs, the RCC, and other partner institutions providing updates on recent model developments, research, and data and product access mechanisms. Some of RCOFs conduct proper (3-5-day) training workshops on different aspects of seasonal prediction, subject to funds availability. Figure 4 shows a flow diagram for the Greater Horn of Africa region (GHACOF) process, including the pre-cof training and main forum. Verification of past forecasts is included in the Development of national seasonal outlooks step. Notably, this region also downscales the regional consensus outlook to national and sub-national levels (a process mostly left to the NMHSs in other regions to perform after the RCOF has completed), and includes a step on national dissemination. Figure 4: The pre-cof training and consensus outlook process, including discussion of sectoral impacts and mitigation strategies, at the GHACOF. Verification of past forecasts is included in the Development of national seasonal outlooks step. Five of the regions reported that, in association with their respective Regional Climate Center (RCC) and/or other regional climate information providers, information beyond the RCOF consensus outlook is produced and displayed on a webpage. Such information includes up-to-date climate diagnostics (e.g. ENSO status and recent rainfall and sea-surface temperature anomaly maps) and seasonal climate forecasts produced monthly for the following three- and six-month periods. Furthermore, a few regions are producing outlooks for user-specified climate variables such as drought indices (2 regions), wet days (1), wet spells (1), heatwaves (1), monsoon intensity (2), and sea-ice breakup (1). The Caribbean region, through their RCC hosted by the Caribbean Institute for Meteorology and Hydrology (CIMH), uses such outlooks in the production of sector-specific climate bulletins for agriculture, health, and tourism. Similarly, the Sudano-Sahelian region of Africa generate river discharge outlooks and agrometeorological advisories at their RCOF (PRESASS); while their RCC (hosted by the African Center of Meteorological Applications for Development, ACMAD) prepare and publish a policy and decision-making brief for the disaster management sector which includes the climate outlook, related expected hazards and potential impacts, and suggested measures for contingency planning and mitigation. 15

16 Lastly, while all regions assess recent climate patterns and anomalies during the preparation of their consensus outlooks, only one region (Southeast of South America) explicitly includes long-term climatological information such as climate normals for the region and season (e.g. see Figure 5) in their RCOF meeting summary reports. Such information is useful for setting the context of the outlook (which is usually framed in terms of the chances of above, near, or below normal climatic conditions). However, it should be noted that most of the RCOFs have strong links to their respective RCC, which is the natural host for regional climatological maps and statistics. Furthermore, national climatological information is usually available on NMHS websites. It is therefore assumed that provision of and access to climatological information is generally not considered to be within the purview of the RCOF process. Figure 5: The median spring (primavera) rainfall total for the Southeast of South America (SSACOF) region [source: 4. Capacity needs For this topic area of the survey, respondents were asked to describe the capacity needs of the principal users of the RCOFs, and demonstrate how these needs are being, or could be, addressed through the RCOF process. 16

17 Responses varied significantly depending upon which principal users were being assessed: NMHS climate staff, or stakeholders (also referred to as end-users ). The capacity needs of these two principal users will be summarised in turn. Capacity development of NMHS climate staff is well-recognised by almost all respondents as an ongoing fundamental requirement across all regions. This is primarily due to moderate-to-low resourcing of NMHSs from national governments combined with relatively high turnover of staff. All 20 survey respondents reported that training on most or all of the following topics was their top priority to build NMHS staff capacity and deliver effective climate services: Understanding regional climate patterns and processes; Accessing, understanding, and interpreting GPCLRF climate model output; Downscaling and validating climate outlooks at a national level; Using analysis tools and statistical packages to model the impact of climate variations and changes; and Tailoring of climate outlooks to provide sector-specific guidance to their stakeholders. In particular, tailoring climate outlooks is a major challenge for NMHS climate staff with only a few examples of such products currently being prepared and trialled (see previous section of this report). It is important, therefore, that RCOFs devote more time to experimenting with different tailoring approaches and co-developing tailored products with national and regional stakeholders. Other NMHS staff capacity (and infrastructure 5 ) needs reported by at least two regions were: Training in sub-seasonal climate processes and modelling (7 regions); Access to high speed internet (4); Adequate observational data and data sharing arrangements (4); Climate modellers on staff (4); Training in communication and user engagement (4); Training on accessing, downscaling, and interpreting climate change projections (2); More staff dedicated to climate services (2); and Improvements to monitoring equipment and computing infrastructure (2). Most survey respondents also stated that stakeholders have capacity needs associated with applying climate outlook information in their specific decision-making processes. While the basic nature of a seasonal climate outlook is easily understood (e.g. it presents the odds of above-, near-, or belownormal rainfall for the next three months for different parts of the region), when it comes to applying this information in a practical sense, often at a much different scale than that presented in the outlook and with several other factors needing to be considered, stakeholders can find that the information just doesn t meet their needs and/or is too broad to be effectively utilized. To improve the usefulness and hence value of climate outlooks, developing the capacity of stakeholders to work together with NMHS climate staff to co-develop tailored products is the primary need. The Caribbean (CariCOF), Greater Horn of Africa (GHACOF), Mediterranean (MedCOF), Southern Africa (SARCOF), and Western Coast of South America (WCSACOF) regions are five of the 5 Infrastructure needs were included in the responses for this section, with the implicit understanding that enhancements in infrastructure would require development of capacity to utilize the improvements. Hence, infrastructure needs have been included here. 17

18 most advanced regions in co-developing and trialling tailored outlooks and products. The capacity development and product co-development processes employed in these regions should therefore be examined closely by other regions. The Mediterranean region has begun a new project called MEDSCOPE funded by the European Union (EU) initiative ERA4CS. The project will involve many NMHS and stakeholder users to coproduce a collection of climate-related decision support tools for selected sectors. It will be useful for all regions to monitor the progress and outputs from this significant project. Also, the West Coast of South America region has clearly incorporated feedback from stakeholders in the redesign of outlook products for the region. They state: Many people were confused about how to interpret the value of the scales used for rainfall projections. They weren t sure exactly what relative terms like above average or below average meant, so numbered scales are now included along with more detailed estimates of precipitation quantity. In general, the language in all information products has evolved to use as little jargon as possible in order to make the information more accessible. Additional processes (held at the RCOF or facilitated by the associated RCC) for addressing the capacity needs of both NMHS staff and stakeholders reported by at least two of the survey respondents include: Hold pre-cof training for NMHS staff on the assessment of climate models and tailoring of outlooks (7 regions); Run RCC workshops on specialised subjects (5); Perform in-country training at NMHSs (run by NMHS staff) for key sector focal points on understanding and interpreting national climate outlooks (3); Invite more experts from GPCLRFs and RCCs to attend RCOFs (2); Establish cross-border data sharing agreements (2); Promote the importance of national-scale forums such as NCOFs (2); and Make RCOF material available on the RCC website (2). 18

19 5. User involvement Respondents were asked in this section of the survey to identify the principal regional users at their RCOFs; list the main user feedback mechanisms (and the main user feedback); summarise how users evaluate outlooks; and identify the significant challenges of users that are expressed at RCOFs. Importantly, respondents were almost unanimous in reporting that: The principal users of RCOFs are climate staff from NMHSs within the region, with most other users coming from national government department such as agriculture, health, hydrology, tourism, and disaster management. Acknowledging this, Table 4 is a list of reported principal regional end-users at RCOFs in addition to NMHSs and national government departments, stratified by sector 6. Table 4: Reported principal regional end-users at specified RCOFs, in addition to NMHS climate staff and representatives from national government departments. See Table 1 for definition of RCOF acronyms. Sector Regional organisation RCOF Agriculture / Food Rice Watch and Action Network ASEANCOF Security World Food Program Central America Organisation for Plant and Animal CA-RCOF Health Food Security and Nutrition Working Group GHACOF World Food Program PRESASS Food and Agriculture Organisation Health World Health Organisation PICOF Malaria Control SARCOF Humanitarian United Nations Office for the Coordination of PRESASS Agencies Humanitarian Affairs International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies PICOF SWIOCOF Disaster Management Be Secure Project ASEANCOF Regional Platform for DRR in Central Africa PRESAC PRESAGG PRESASS Economic Agencies Regional Economic Communities PRESAC PRESAGG PRESASS Hydrology Hydrometeorological Research Center NEACOF Ecology Institute of Global Climate and Ecology NEACOF Oceanography Indian Ocean Commission SWIOCOF 6 Note, it is likely that this list is only a small subset of principal regional end-users, as several respondents reported that sector representatives are invited to their RCOF, without stating the specific regional organisation being represented. 19

20 Most of these regional end-users are associated with the agriculture/food security and health sectors (plus humanitarian agencies, which are closely aligned with these sectors). This supports the conclusion made in Section 3 of this report, that these two sectors are extremely sensitive to seasonal climate variations. It further suggests that people who work in agencies associated with these two sectors are keen participants at RCOFs because they know very well the importance of accessing and understanding seasonal climate forecasts. This section of the survey, more than any other, generated a wide range of responses from the survey participants. Possibly the reason for this is that users needs and challenges are quite unique. As a means of distilling some of the keywords and messages, a word cloud has been produced using all the responses (Figure 6) 7. NMHSs, stakeholders, and RCCs feature predominantly, as the main RCOF users. Also, words like discussion, training, impacts, and simplified are frequently used; depicting the preferred mechanisms for feedback and learning, and key feedback that products need to relate to impacts and be simple to understand. Figure 6: A word cloud showing frequently-used words in the user involvement topic area of the RCOF survey responses. Words with larger font size were mentioned more frequently. Several examples of end-user feedback mechanisms were reported, with the dominant mechanism being end-user oriented discussion sessions at RCOFs. For example, in the Pacific Islands region two sessions at the PICOF are led by stakeholders: a feedback session reporting on climate- and weatherrelated impacts over the previous season; and a one-on-one national level discussion session to co- 7 A word cloud is an image composed of words used in a particular text or subject, in which the size of each word indicates its frequency or importance. 20

21 design a plan for improving the utility of the outlooks into the future. Table 5 lists all the feedback mechanisms identified by the respondents. Table 5: Ranked end-user feedback mechanisms, based on the frequency of citations in the 20 status reports 8. Multiple mentions in the same report equates to a single citation. End-user feedback mechanisms Number of citations Discussion sessions at RCOFs 9 Help desks and clearing houses 3 list and/or RCOF webpage 2 Surveys 2 National Climate Outlook Forums (NCOFs) 2 Country-level sector working groups 1 Internet forum 1 Virtual working tables 1 Very few respondents reported on how users evaluate outlooks, indicating that such an activity is quite difficult to do and/or that more attention is needed to elicit this information. The one exception is the Western Coast of South America, where user feedback has led to changes to the presentation of the outlooks. The resultant products are highly specialised and in high demand. The main end-user challenges (unranked) are summarised as: Terciles are difficult to understand and use; The spatial scale of the outlook is not the same as the impacts, so needs to be downscaled to local scale; Need outlooks of specific climate variables or indices, like drought indicators, rather than mean rainfall and temperature; Outlooks need to be sector-specific and simplified so they can be more easily communicated; and Adapting a probabilistic outlook to the daily scale for use in a crop or hydrological model is non-trivial. 8 Note, two regions reported that users were not involved in their RCOF, and a further four regions reported that user interests at RCOFs were represented by NMHS staff. 21

22 6. SWOT analysis In this section, respondents were asked to summarise their RCOFs in terms of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (i.e., a SWOT analysis). In addition, reporting examples of success stories was encouraged. Table 6 shows a summary of the reported strengths of RCOFs across all the regions. The most frequently-cited strength is capacity development and relationship building for all participants. Peerto-peer sharing of experiences and approaches, and expert-guided learning are also key strengths. So too is the opportunity to work closely with stakeholders to co-develop tailored products. Interestingly, relatively few respondents listed technical elements such as enhancements to climate models, use of multi-model ensembles to improve forecast accuracy, or development of objective forecast methods, as strengths of the RCOF. This suggests that while these technical elements are extremely important and GPCLRF-led presentations and discussion should necessarily be devoted to them, the main strengths of the RCOF are about the interpretation, tailoring, and use of the outlook information. Table 6: Ranked Strengths of RCOFs, based on the frequency of citations in the 20 status reports. Multiple mentions in the same report equates to a single citation. Strengths of RCOFs Number of citations Capacity development and relationship building for NMHS staff and users 9 Sharing of experiences across the region 8 Interaction and collaboration with experts 7 Developing tailored products, which are used and valued by stakeholders 7 Coordinated linkages to regional (i.e. RCCs) and national (i.e. NCOF) activities 7 and processes Access to and sharing of GPC data, products and tools 6 Continuity of events over several years builds a community of learning 4 Verification process builds confidence in products 2 Engaging with media good for communication skills 2 Harmonising of products across the region 2 Consensus process is useful to build understanding 1 The main reported weaknesses of RCOFs are listed in Table 7. High staff turnover is the principal weakness listed. This is one of the main reasons why ongoing training and capacity development are so important for most of the regions. Of interest is that five of the regions described a low level of public awareness of seasonal outlooks and inappropriate usage of probabilities as a weakness. This suggests that there is still much to do to improve the communication of climate outlooks, and is also related to the stated needs of stakeholders regarding sector-specific tailoring, impacts-based information, and simplified products. 22

23 Table 7: Ranked Weaknesses of RCOFs, based on the frequency of citations in the 20 status reports. Multiple mentions in the same report equates to a single citation. Weaknesses of RCOFs Number of citations Staff turnover is high, so not same people attending each year 6 Low level of public awareness of seasonal outlooks and inappropriate usage 5 of probabilities Lack of tools, lack of high quality data, and data sharing constraints make 5 forecast verification difficult Need for improved forecasting and downscaling tools 4 Lack of ability to demonstrate the value of forecasts (little feedback and/or 4 impact data) Need for regional consistency of products 2 Need to enhance on-going engagement with users at the national level 2 Subjective nature of consensus forecasts 2 Some areas have low forecast skill 1 Lack of involvement of private sector and politicians 1 Table 8 summarises the potential opportunities for RCOFs, reported by the survey respondents. Most of these suggestions relate to the way climate outlook products are presented to and communicated with stakeholders. This suggests that while more skilful forecasts are to be continually strived for, the main opportunity for enhancing value is through developing more directly-applicable and understandable products. As mentioned previously in this report, to do this effectively products should be co-developed by NMHS staff and their stakeholders working together to tailor the information so that it best meets the needs of the users. While this is often seen as a major challenge (particularly for NMHSs), it also represents the greatest opportunity for significantly enhancing regional and national climate services. Table 8: Ranked Opportunities of RCOFs, based on the frequency of citations in the 20 status reports. Multiple mentions in the same report equates to a single citation. Opportunities of RCOFs Number of citations Develop more sector-specific tailored products 5 Foster linkages to research organisations and capitalise on climate 4 adaptation funding opportunities Ongoing improvements to forecast skill will enhance usefulness of products 4 Make more linkages to policy, strategies and actions 4 Extend forecasts to sub-seasonal and inter-annual 3 Develop a standardised regional product suite 3 Provide more evidence of the value of forecasts 3 Build better linkages with indigenous knowledge data and information 2 Make more use of technology to enhance participation (e.g. video 2 conferencing) Use events more effectively for specific technical training 2 23

24 Lastly, the most-cited threats for RCOFs are summarised in Table 9. Funding and technical capacity feature strongly as the principal threats. All regions have benefited greatly by receiving funding support from WMO, however this funding is unsustainable. Hence, all regions are initiating or investigating alternate funding sources (see next section for more discussion on this topic). Developing and sustaining technical capacity of both participants and NMHSs is challenging and a significant threat to RCOFs. This too is intimately linked to receiving sufficient sustainable funding support. It does suggest, however, that a significant proportion of funding that is secured for RCOFs should be devoted to building technical capacity through well-designed training activities suitable for all participants. Table 9: Ranked Threats of RCOFs, based on the frequency of citations in the 20 status reports. Multiple mentions in the same report equates to a single citation. Threats of RCOFs Number of citations Sustainable funding for RCOFs 9 Low or varied technical capability of participants 8 Low technical capacity of NMHSs (infrastructure, hardware, software) 6 Private sector operators providing non-standard and unproven services 3 Lack of sufficient funding to maintain climate station networks and 2 databases Political perception of low importance of seasonal forecasts 1 Lastly, several respondents reported success stories. For example, the Caribbean region has been very successful in steadily moving towards more sector-specific impact-based forecasts, in response to the needs of their users. The West Coast of South America region has achieved stable and sustainable funding through contributions from their participants. Cooperation between regions is well-demonstrated through the MedCOF (and the State Meteorological Agency of Spain, AEMET) supporting the RCOFs in Southeast Europe (SEECOF) and North Africa (PRESANORD). Finally, a very good example of RCOF products being used to inform policy is the following, from the Central American region: Starting in June 2015, during the last El Niño, the Central America Integration System (SICA) s Regional Council of Ministries of Agriculture (SICA-CAC), with the support of the Interamerican Institute for Agriculture (IICA) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) s Regional Gateway for Technology Transfer and Climate Change Action in Latin America and the Caribbean (REGATTA 9 ), worked the seasonal climate outlooks and risk scenarios produced by CA-RCOF to prepare for the potential impacts of the event. Lists of measures and policies were issued at the regional level and adapted at the national level. Under the leadership and coordination of SICA-CAC, a working group of climate risk in agriculture based on climate outlooks was established as a permanent mechanism for climate risk management in Central America and Dominican Republic. 9 See 24

25 7. Sustainability of RCOFs Four sustainability-related topics were reported on in this section of the status reports. These are: the role of a Regional Climate Center (RCC) in the RCOF process; the recognition of the role of the RCOF by countries in the region; coordination mechanisms for planning and running RCOFs; and identifying sources of sustainable funding. Sixteen of the 20 regions reported that the relationship between the RCOF and their respective RCC was of paramount importance (the remaining four regions do not currently have established RCCs in their region 10 ). For example, the RCOF and auxiliary technical training sessions for the South Asia region are coordinated and run by the WMO Regional Association (RA) II RCC, hosted by the Climate Prediction and Monitoring Group, India Meteorological Department (IMD), in Pune, India (see Figure 7). Similarly, the Southeastern Europe Climate Outlook Forum (SEECOF) relies heavily on the RA VI RCC-Network for long-range forecast (provided by Météo France, France) and climate monitoring bulletins (provided by Deutscher Wetterdienst (DWD), Germany). These close relationships with RCCs are clearly important for the long-term sustainability of RCOFs. Figure 7: Screenshot of the WMO RA II RCC (hosted by IMD, Pune), prominently showing the SASCOF 11 on its homepage. All 20 survey respondents reported that the countries in their region fully recognise the importance, usefulness, and value of the Climate Outlook Forums. The RCOFs are particularly valuable to the 10 These four regions are: Central America, Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Pacific Islands, and Polar Arctic. 11 Clicking on the (read more) link in the SASCOF section reveals text describing the SACOF history and process. 25

26 NMHSs in each region. Climate staff utilise the RCOF as a mechanism for learning from experts, developing or building technical capacity, regional networking, and sharing experiences with peers. For some regions where contact with experts and peers is limited due to resources and distance, physically attending the RCOF is one of the most valuable activities in the annual calendar. This is certainly the situation for the Pacific Islands region, where generally poorly-resourced NMHSs combined with the high cost of travelling large distances (usually involving two or three flights and multiple days) severely limits peer-to-peer interaction and learning opportunities. Recognition of the importance and value of the RCOF in the Western Coast of South America (WCSACOF) by national governments in the region has ultimately led to very stable financial sustainability for the annual forum and technical training sessions. This has been a long-term process (the RCOF is one of the earliest established in the world; see Figure 2), led strongly by the International Center for the Investigation of the El Niño Phenomenon (CIIFEN), in Guayaquil, Ecuador (also an RCC). Listening to the needs of their stakeholders, and adapting systems and products to better match user needs, has been the catalyst for national recognition at multiple levels and the key to a well-attended and sustainable climate forum. A variety of established or suggested coordination mechanisms for planning and running RCOFs are reported. These are listed in Table 10. The most-cited coordination mechanism is the RCC. As mentioned above, the relationship between the RCOF and the corresponding RCC is paramount, and this obviously extends to a functional role with respect to planning and running the RCOF. This is, in fact, a natural extension of the Long-Range Forecasting mandatory function of the RCC. Establishing focal points in each participating country is another well-cited coordination mechanism for RCOFs. Obviously, an RCOF will only be successful if the right people from the countries in the region regularly attend. Focal points are often representatives from the NMHS. Table 10: Ranked coordination mechanisms for RCOFs, based on the frequency of citations in the 20 status reports. Multiple mentions in the same report equates to a single citation. RCOF coordination mechanisms Number of citations Principal function of the RCC 7 Focal points in each country 6 Small management group 3 Rotate responsibility for RCOF around participating countries 3 Dedicated webpage / online forum 3 Teleconference or videoconference facilities 3 Online tutorials and access to guidance material 1 It is well-recognised that WMO has provided, and continues to provide, significant financial support for RCOFs. In addition, WMO personnel from the Climate Prediction and Adaptation Branch, Climate and Water Department, frequently attend RCOFs and provide secretariat support plus insights and updates regarding international programmes such as the Global Framework for Climate Services (GFCS) and the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP). It is also well-known that WMO are not a funding agency, and that organisers of RCOFs need to seek alternate sources of funding to achieve long-term sustainability. 26

27 Respondents were asked to identify sources of sustainable funding for their RCOF. While several sources of funding were listed, most are not long-term. This is why funding is ranked highest as the most significant threat to RCOF sustainability (see Table 9). Table 11 lists examples of funding sources and in-kind support (noting that some regions did not list specific funders), as reported by the survey respondents 12. In addition to these agencies, receiving co-funding from participants was mentioned by several regions as a current or proposed funding source for sustaining RCOFs. Table 11: Reported examples of funding sources and in-kind support for RCOFs. See Table 1 for definition of RCOF acronyms. National/Regional or International organisation WMO, USAID, Various sector organisations USAID NOAA, Government of Canada, IRI, University of Arizona Government of China WMO, USAID, Copernicus Project Government of Russia, various Russian agencies African Development Fund, African Development Bank Governments of Canada, Australia, Russian Federation RCOF ASEANCOF CA-RCOF CariCOF FOCRAII MedCOF NEACOF PRESAC PRESAGG PRESASS PICOF 12 Note, this is unlikely to be a complete list of funding sources for RCOFs. 27

28 8. Way forward In this last section of the RCOF status reports, respondents were asked to suggest where future efforts will need to be focussed regarding science, operations, user engagement, and sustainability. Figure 8 is a summary matrix of the most-cited suggestions for each of these four topics. Greater predictability / more understanding of physical processes (13) Forecast additional variables (8) Objective forecasts and validation (8) Sub-seasonal forecasts (6) Impacts-based forecasts (6) Tools for assessing forecast accuracy (5) Improved downscaling (5) Incorporating uncertainty into forecasts (2) Continued strong links to WMO, RCCs, regional organisations, other RCOFs, and GPCLRFs (10) Increase RCOF product portfolio, e.g. climate monitoring products (7) Standardised forecasts of key climate variables for all RCOFs (4) Online mechanisms for monthly updates (3) Improved sharing of data and model outputs (2) National capacity mapping (1) High-level forum post-rcof for decision-makers (1) Co-production of tailored forecasts (7) Involve more sectors and users from national / regional organisations (6) Better utilise video- and teleconferencing and online forums (4) Encourage NMHS staff to participate in sector-run forums (3) Engage more with high-level decision makers in government (2) Demonstrate value through projects (1) Mechanisms to track benefits of seasonal forecasts (1) User capacity development forums (1) Increase capacity development opportunities (7) Brand RCOFs as a central part of Regional Climate Services, strongly linked to RCC (4) Set global standards for core outlook products (4) Seek co-funding from participants (4) Broaden user community to demonstrate value to wider audience (2) Seek funding from international funding agencies (1) Figure 8: Summary matrix of the most-cited suggestions for future developments in science, operations, user engagement, and sustainability of RCOFs. Numbers in brackets refer to the number of citations. Multiple mentions in the same report equates to a single citation. The most-cited suggestions from each of the four components of the matrix are where most effort is needed over the next few years. These are (not in ranked order): 28