World Meteorological OrganizationWORLD METEOROLOGICAL CONGRESSEighteenth SessionGeneva, 3 to 14 June 2019

Cg-18/INF. 5.2(1)Submitted by:

Secretary-General15.V.2019

CLIMATE INFORMATION AND SERVICES

Report of the Chair of the Intergovernmental Board on Climate Services (IBCS)

Contextual changes since 2009(1) The Implementation Plan of the Global Framework for Climate Services (GFCS) defined

the deliverables and targets over 2-, 6-, and 10-year horizons. The first two years correspond to the period 2013-2014, which focused on establishing the Framework’s infrastructure (governance and management structures and reporting mechanism) and on initiating and facilitating flagship projects that would demonstrate the value of climate services, primarily in climate vulnerable developing countries to develop a Proof of Concept and ensure sustained and expanding interest on the part of donors. The second phase, also called “development phase”, corresponded to the period 2015-2018, which would see expansion and replication of the initial flagship projects initiated in the first phase and extension of projects beyond the initial four priority areas; development of regional capacities to provide the nodes for supporting the development of national provider capabilities; and a mid-term review to provide measurable progress in realizing the Framework’s goals by year 6. During this phase, work would be started at the national level to develop national human, infrastructure and institutional capacities needed to implement climate services in the countries. The High-level Task Force had indicated that during this phase the Framework should have involved at least five United Nations agencies, should have an active communication programme and should have engaged in at least USD 150 million of climate-related development projects. The third phase (2019 and beyond) would facilitate access to improved climate services worldwide and across climate-sensitive sectors.

(2) Significant changes have occurred since 2012, when the GFCS was established, particularly during and in the period post-2015 with the adoption of the Sendai Framework, aimed at substantially reducing disaster risk and losses; the Paris Agreement to limit global temperature rise and enhance adaptive capacity and resilience; the Sustainable Development Goals, which include taking urgent action to combat climate change and enhance many climate-sensitive development outcomes related to agriculture and food security, disaster risk reduction, energy, human health, water resources; and the operationalization of the Green Climate Fund (GCF), the main financial mechanism for supporting climate action under the Paris Agreement, among others. As a result, the global programme portfolio addressing climate adaptation, climate resilience and disaster risk reduction is growing, and an increasing number of actors are engaging in different areas to generate relevant data, information products, methodologies and services required for the success of the frameworks and mechanisms. Such growth requires a parallel increase in coordination to avoid fragmentary, piecemeal implementation without conforming to relevant standards, pointing to the need to reposition the GFCS to take advantage of emerging opportunities.

(3) There is broad consensus that the GFCS as a framework is even more important and relevant today than when it was established in 2012 to provide a credible, integrative and unique platform for guiding and supporting activities implemented across the pillars of the GFCS and within climate-sensitive investment areas in support of climate adaptation and mitigation decision-making. The GFCS has contributed to elevating the awareness of climate services and the role they play in policy and development across global, regional and national scales; has contributed to legitimizing the National Meteorological and Hydrological Services as leaders (NMHSs) of climate services within their countries; and

Cg-18/INF. 5.2(1), p. 2

has engaged in partnership-building across global, regional and national scales that is providing support to climate services implementation.

(4) The role and relevance of the GFCS to policy, adaptation and development efforts was recognized by Decision 11/CMA.1 of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that serves as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement, which invited WMO, through the GFCS, with a view to facilitating the development and application of methodologies for assessing adaptation needs, to regularly inform the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technical Advice (SBSTA) about its activities at improving the availability and accessibility of comprehensive climate information; and the recognition of the GFCS as key to achieving Priority 4 of the Sendai Framework “Enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response and to Build Back Better in recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction”.

(5) In response to Decision 11/CMA.1, the GFCS will start producing a “State of Climate Services Report” targeting the launch of the first issue at COP 25, in Chile. The report is intended to provide Parties to the Paris Agreement with a regular update on the state of climate services capacities of Parties with respect to the components of the climate services value. It will assist Parties, funding agencies and development partners assess the gaps that need to be addressed in the climate services value chain to achieve improved adaptation and development outcomes at country level. Furthermore, the report will provide a systematic analysis of gaps and needs at all levels, serving as a basis for more effective investments.

GFCS review

(6) The deliverables and targets for the second period of GFCS implementation included a mid-term review by year 6. The Management Committee of the Intergovernmental Board on Climate Services (IBCS) at its third session held in October 2015 called for the review and requested the Task Team on Monitoring and Evaluation of the GFCS to develop the Framework for the Mid-term Review based on experiences from other reviews. The purpose of the mid-term review was to assess progress of implementation of the GFCS to help in providing guidance on how to further improve implementation of the GFCS and measure the success of the activities implemented so far. To conduct the mid-term review the University of Arizona (UoA) was selected through a competitive process. UoA produced the Mid-term Review Report, which was considered by the fifth Session of the Management Committee of the IBCS (Reading, UK, 19-20 October 2017).

(7) Some key findings of the mid-term review are summarized below. The full recommendations put forward by the UoA can be found in the mid-term review report:(a) The GFCS has elevated the awareness of climate services and the role they can play

in development across global, regional, and national scales. This achievement should not be understated. The terminology, meanings, and methodologies that define climate services are new and emergent, and the GFCS is helping to create shared understanding. Increased awareness is a building block for funding and priorities, and the GFCS has had some impact on global research agendas, such as the European Commission’s Horizon 2020 efforts, as well as national activities;

(b) Principal stakeholders of the GFCS are the National Meteorological and Hydrological Services (NMHS) that WMO represents. The GFCS is helping to legitimize these NMHSs as leaders of climate services within their countries. Importantly, the GFCS promotes an interdisciplinary approach that is helping to shift the theory and practice of information provision and development. Collectively, people are seeing the efficacy of climate services as based in a user-centric, demand-driven approache to climate services;

(c) The GFCS has engaged in partnership-building across global, regional, and national levels. The PAC reflects an impressive array of organizations. The formalization of a Joint Office and other partnerships has brought in new expertise to WMO and GFCS. And, at regional and national levels, the National Frameworks for Climate Services (NFCS) behave as an impetus for new relationships;

Cg-18/INF. 5.2(1), p. 3

(d) After five years of GFCS activity, and across the diverse groups of people with whom the Review consulted, there is an overwhelming sense that the GFCS is as necessary today as when it was created in 2009. There are, of course, differing opinions about the form the GFCS should adopt. Nonetheless, the GFCS has a built-in ability to adapt and evolve.

(8) Major weaknesses identified include:(a) The framework put forth by the GFCS is widely accepted. It outlines a scope that

extends across geographic, sectoral, and technical scales and that draws on diverse methods, partnerships, and expertise. The GFCS, however, is attempting to be the engine with inadequate human and financial resources, and in ways that do not maximize the advantages of its contributors;

(b) The GFCS has a governance structure that was approved under a set of expectations that have not materialized (in terms of expected funding and broader representation). Additionally, the governance structure is costly and bureaucratic. Therefore, the governance structure in its current form is no longer fit-for-purpose;

(c) Overall, there is a lack of clarity around roles and responsibilities within the GFCS, from issues of governance and project management, to its relationship with WMO and its contributions to major global agendas. Greater clarity is needed to best maximize potential and strengthen partnerships;

(d) The implementation of GFCS projects is perhaps the main source of contention within the GFCS network. Many view project implementation as no longer a strategic niche for the GFCS;

(e) The GFCS is a network of activities and organizations requiring active stewardship and a commensurate financial commitment. However, the human and financial resources dedicated to the GFCS are inadequate for its mandate, and both the resources and scope of work need to be re-assessed.

(9) In response to the key findings and recommendations of the mid-term review, the fifth Session of the Management Committee of the IBCS (Reading, UK, 19-20 October 2017) took a number of decisions which included the establishment of a Task Force to address issues around governance, management and finances of the GFCS. The Task Force was chaired by Mr David Grimes (Canada) with representation from the British Caribbean Territories, Japan, Russian Federation, South Africa, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. It also included members of the Partner Advisory Committee (PAC), namely, the European Commission (EC), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC), and the World Bank. The Task Force was supported by a broader consultative group that included members of the Management Committee, members of the PAC and the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Task Team of the Operational and Resources Plan of the GFCS.

(10) The purpose of the Task Force was to provide recommendations for improving the governance of the GFCS, the management structures in place and funding of the GFCS to the Management Committee of the IBCS, on the basis of which the Management Committee would propose recommendations to WMO Cg-18 on the GFCS. Recommendations were considered by the Executive Council WG on Strategic and Operational Planning; proposed actions for Congress are being submitted as draft Resolution 5.2(1)/2. Details about the GFCS review are provided in the Annex to this document. The full report of the Task Force can be found here.

Expansion and replication of initial flagship projects(11) Key to effective implementation of climate services at the national level is the

implementation of NFCS, which are institutional mechanisms to coordinate, facilitate and strengthen collaboration among national institutions and other key stakeholders such as United Nations and international agencies, to improve the co-production, tailoring, delivery, and use of science-based climate services. They ensure that the entire value chain for the production and application of climate services is addressed systematically with the involvement of all relevant stakeholders in a coordinated manner. A publication

Cg-18/INF. 5.2(1), p. 4

entitled “Step-by-Step Guidelines for Establishing a National Framework for Climate Services” is now available under this link and can be obtained in all WMO official languages. The Step-by-Step Guidelines for establishing a NFCS is an important resource Members use for establishing their NFCS. From the four countries (Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, and Senegal) where NFCS were initiated, various countries have embraced NFCS and are at various stages of development as shown here. Countries such as China, Germany, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom have developed their NFCS independently.

(12) The Economic Community of West Africa (ECOWAS) is partnering with the GFCS to support its member states in establishing their NFCS. Through funding made available by ECOWAS, the Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, and Togo have conducted their national consultation and are formulating their strategic and costed action plans for the NFCS. Cabo Verde, Ghana and are in the process of pursuing the same process, while Nigeria is reviewing aspects of its NGCS. Liberia and Sierra Leone have engaged consultants to support the process. Similarly, the GFCS is partnering with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) to support the establishment of NFCS in Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. A regional workshop is being organized by the GCC at the end of the year to kick-start the project.

(13) NFCS are contributing to raising the visibility of NMHSs and access to financial resources. In Côte d'Ivoire, based on the National Action Plan developed as part of the NFCS, the government mobilized EUR 20 million for the implementation of the activities contained therein. Similarly, in Mali, the government has included funding of activities contained in the Action Plan for the NFCS in the budget of the Met Service.

(14) To facilitate the identification of regional priorities for the implementation of the GFCS, a consultation for the Arab Region was held in Morocco in October 2016. In December 2016, a consultation on climate services for Southern Africa was organized in collaboration with MeteoSwiss, the German Weather Service (DWD) and the Meteorological Department of Zimbabwe. With these consultations Least Developed Countries have been covered with regional consultations.

(15) Following the successful implementation of the GFCS Adaptation Programme in Africa Phase 1 (2015-2018) in Malawi and Tanzania (see http://gfcs.wmo.int/Norway_2), the second phase of the project was launched in Tanzania and Malawi on 17 and 26 September 2018, respectively. The project which is to be implemented during 2019 is aimed at enabling the development of climate services in support of decision-making in agriculture and food security, disaster risk reduction and health priority areas. The second phase, as the first, is being funded by Norway (NOK 36 000 000) and is being implemented by the Department of Climate Change and Meteorological Services (DCCMS) in Malawi and Tanzania Meteorological Agency (TMA) in Tanzania with support from the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), World Food Programme (WFP), World Health Organization (WHO) and WMO.

(16) The project “Climate Services for Increased Resilience in the Sahel”, which was, implemented from June 2016 to August 2018 with funding of USD 1 million provided by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), was completed successfully. The project covered three countries i.e., Burkina Faso, Niger and Senegal and had a specific stream to support the African Centre for Meteorological Applications for Development (ACMAD) as a Regional Climate Centre (RCC) to enable it to support technically the three beneficiary countries. Main achievements of the project included the development of capacities of the NMHSs in data management and rescue; climate diagnostics, monitoring and forecasting; product development, including tailoring of products to specific users. Working groups were established as user interface platforms which have allowed the production of climate and health and climate and water bulletins for the first time in Niger.

(17) The USAID-funded 2-year project “Assessing Sustainability and Effectiveness of Climate Information Services in Africa” (Sustainable CIS) was completed in September 2018. It was co-implemented by Winrock International, WMO/GFCS, International Research Institute for Climate and Society (IRI), Climate System Analysis Group (CSAG), and

Cg-18/INF. 5.2(1), p. 5

AGRHYMET. It sought to answer the question ‘What are sustainable and effective models for Climate Information Services?’ and developed models and options for sustainable delivery of climate information services (CIS) in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), using Côte d'Ivoire, Ethiopia, Malawi, Mali, Niger, Senegal, and Rwanda as examples. The project delivered: baseline survey and metrics that contribute to assessing NMHSs capacity to deliver climate information and services; financial planning tools to support NMHSs in sustainably managing financial aspects of their climate information systems; a number of reports and policy briefs that explore cost-effective technologies and approaches to climate information systems, capacity development, and market and business models (available here).

(18) With funding from the Korea Meteorological Administration (KMA) a project for establishing a climate prediction and analysis system was implemented at the IGAD Climate Prediction and Applications Centre (ICPAC). KMA provided additional funding for the implementation of follow-up projects in ICPAC member countries, namely Djibouti, Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi as initial pilot countries. The project provided computing facilities for better production and provision of climate services at national level in Eastern African countries. KMA also provided funding for a project “Enhancing the capacity in provision and utilization of weather and climate services in Tanzania” (USD 135 000) and to support a training course on “Capacity Building for Climate Services Program” (USD 110 000) held in Korea.

(19) The ‘Programme for Implementing the Global Framework for Climate Services at Regional and National Scales’ (GFCS/ECCC Project) launched in 2013 aimed at enhancing resilience in social, economic and environmental systems to climate variability and change by developing effective and sustainable regional and national climate services was completed successfully. Through its five-year period, the GFCS/ECCC Project developed capacities for climate services in the Caribbean, Pacific Ocean, and the South West Indian Ocean regions, established the climate services in the Arctic Polar region (including the Pan-Arctic Regional Climate Outlook Forum), developed capacity for climate services in South Asia and the Third Pole, and established a free drought management helpdesk. National level activities focused on enhancing capacities and establishing mechanisms to connect climate services to governments and decision-makers to enhance management of both climate opportunities and risks, in order to raise awareness of climate variability and change and to promote preparedness.

(20) Following the adoption of energy as the 5th priority of the GFCS, efforts have resulted in the development of a proposal for climate services for the Water-Energy-Food nexus for the Andean region submitted to the Adaptation Fund.

(21) Since the adoption of Resolution 3 (IBCS-2) “Inclusion of urban activities related to climate in the global framework for climate services” in November 2014, the urban agenda has advanced substantially. The 68th Session of the Executive Council adopted Decision 15 (EC-68) “Implementation of WMO Cross-Cutting Urban Focus” in June 2016 establishing modalities of the urban cross-cutting activities implementation in WMO, stressing that an urban element should be an integral part of all WMO priorities in the 2016-2019 Strategic Plan; and outlining the 2016-2019 implementation framework. This decision called for the development of a Guide to urban integrated hydrometeorological/ climate/environmental services. In response to this call an inter-programme working group on Integrated Urban Hydrometeorological/Climate/ Environment Services was created and it led to the development of the guidance materials. The 70th Session of the Executive Council adopted Decision 7 (EC-70) “Integrated urban services” that endorses the methodology for building integrated urban services developed as Part I of the draft “Guide for Integrated Urban Weather, Environment and Climate Services” and the outline for the “Guidelines for the Development of an Integrated Operational Platform to Meet Urban Service Delivery Needs” being developed as per Decision 41 (EC-69) under the leadership of the Commission of Atmospheric Sciences (CAS) and the Commission for Basic Systems (CBS) by an inter-programme working group. The summary of the implementation in demonstration cities will be presented to EC-71.

Development of regional capacities

Cg-18/INF. 5.2(1), p. 6

(22) When the GFCS was established in 2009, there were an estimated 70 countries that were unable to develop and apply climate services in support of decision-making. Key to addressing this deficiency is the WMO contribution to the GFCS through a mechanism comprised by the presidents of WMO technical commissions and regional associations. This mechanism met in May 2017 to review the status of climate services implementation in all WMO regional associations through overviews of Member surveys (WMO biennial survey conducted in 2015) and other data from the presidents of regional associations. The meeting noted that overall, of the 156 countries that had provided information through the WMO country profile database 94% (146/156) indicated that they were providing at least partly satisfactory climate services, and 59% (92/156) were providing climate services at satisfactory or advanced level. The meeting highlighted that climate services was identified as one of the two areas of WMO services and activities Members valued most, with the GFCS specifically highlighted by 90 respondents to the survey.

(23) The 2015 survey contains information for assessing the status of data, data management, monitoring, and forecasting systems of Members, although not of observing systems. Support for data rescue was the most frequently cited need across all regions, by 73% of respondents. Other areas of frequently occurring identified need include climate data management system implementation, drought early warning systems, sub-seasonal prediction, and climate change projection downscaling for policy and planning applications. Most countries responding to the 2015 survey are operationally issuing basic climate products, climate diagnostic analyses, climate bulletins and watches, and climate predictions. Substantially fewer countries issue specialized products for decision-support by specific stakeholder groups, adaptation and policy oriented products, products for risk assessment, downscaled long term climate projections and other more specialized products. The overall assessment of the quality of the products being issued ranged from 3-4 on a scale of 1 (very low) to 5 (very high). In general a strong need across all regions for greater emphasis on service delivery was noted. Needs for improved marine services (e.g. sea-level risk and megacities) and urban climate services were specifically highlighted for further attention.

(24) The meeting in May 2017 identified a number of cross-cutting issues. In particular: (i) considerable differences among sub-regions within regional association; (ii) lack of mechanisms for articulating operational requirements in a way that stimulates focused research to address them; (iii) need to strengthening human resource capacity through more widely available and accessible climate services training; (iv) better integration of the three levels of the seamless global data processing and forecasting system – between NMHSs, RCCs and Global Producing Centres for Long Range Forecasts (GPCLRFs).

(25) To further assess Members capabilities a check list for climate services capabilities containing 137 questions was developed covering the following areas: governance, basic systems, user interface, capacity development, provision and application of climate services, and monitoring and evaluation. As of May 2018, 109 Members had provided responses to the checklist. From the results, 70% of the respondents indicated basic and essential capabilities for observations, while only 57% and 48% had full and advanced capabilities. For data management 78% indicated basic capability, 58% essential, and 52% full and advanced. With respect to monitoring, 79% indicted basic capability, 65% essential capabilities, 45% full and 40% advanced capability. For forecasting systems 70% indicated basic capability, 62% essential, 53% full and 42% advanced. On user interfaces 75% indicated basic capability, 63% essential, 44% full and 36% advanced. In terms of provision and application of climate services 73% of the respondents indicated basic and essential capability, while 51% and 48% indicated full and advanced capability respectively. Monitoring and evaluation was the weakest of all with 51% in the basic category, 21% in the essential category; 19 % in the full category and 11% in the advanced. These results show that monitoring and evaluation and engagement with users are areas which require increased emphasis.

(26) Key to the operationalization of the GFCS is the implementation of the Climate Services information System (CSIS), which through a cascading process allows the flow of data and products from Global Producing Centres (GPCs) to RCCs to NMHSs and vice-versa. CSIS implementation is the responsibility of WMO facilitated by the Commission of Climatology

Cg-18/INF. 5.2(1), p. 7

that has developed a prototype climate services toolkit. The number of WMO RCC has increased with six additional RCC and three others that have entered a demonstration phase.

(27) With the operationalization of the Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) of the European Commission, a White Paper was developed by WMO and C3S articulating how the WMO GDPFS can link with the C3S and the benefits thereof to WMO Members.

Partnerships(28) Partnerships were key for the success of GFCS implementation towards the deliverables

and targets defined in the Implementation Plan. In this regard, the contributions of WMO Members and partner organizations were invaluable. The GFCS has been working towards promoting opportunities to link and align initiatives in ways that enhance partnerships to increase cost-effectiveness, leverage partners’ initiatives and investments to respond to the increasing user needs across sectors. Membership of the PAC has been increasing as there is a recognition that together partners will achieve more than each member can achieve working individually. The current membership comprises 22 agencies and organizations that bring an impressive array of expertise and resources to support climate services development and application (see http://gfcs.wmo.int/pac_members).

(29) Of the many contributions of the PAC members, the following can be highlighted (i) contributions to the work of Task Forces and Working Groups established by the IBCS; (ii) contributions through the PAC workplan to the development of white papers and country-level mapping of climate services initiatives (iii) promotion of the GFCS by producing audio-visual material, publications and taking part in GFCS events organized at the margins of international events; (iv) involvement in implementation of GFCS-related activities and projects.

(30) Through collaboration under the PAC, to support policy frameworks and development agendas, the GFCS developed (i) an Annex to the Technical Guidelines of the National Adaptation Planning Process (NAP) under UNFCCC articulating the role and contribution of NMHSs, and the value of climate services to support analysis and assessment of climate risk and vulnerabilities; and (ii) a White Paper on the Contribution of the GFCS to Agenda 2030. A training e-module “Integrating Climate Risk Information into NAPs” is being developed in collaboration with the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) to be delivered as part of the regional training activities of the Least Developed Countries Expert Group (LEG) of the UNFCCC. The training is expected to be available in the third quarter of 2019.

(31) Through a specific agreement between WMO and the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) a regional coordination office established at the FAO Office in Dakar in 2014 to support GFCS flagship projects initiated in 2012 in West Africa was provided with deployed experts from NRC starting in 2014. Through the same agreement and to enable RCCs to fulfil mandatory functions, a capacity needs assessment was conducted at IGAD Climate Prediction Centre (ICPAC) and the African Centre for Meteorological Applications for Development (ACMAD), which resulted in NRC deploying two experts at the ICPAC and one expert at ACMAD. To support implementation of GFCS-related activities in the countries where flagship projects were initiated in West Africa, NRC also deployed experts in Burkina Faso, Niger and Senegal. One expert was deployed at ECOWAS to support implementation of the ECOWAS Meteorology Programme.

(32) Partnerships are facilitating resources to support GFCS implementation. Through collaboration with the European Commission, under European Development Fund (EDF) 11 a EUR 85 million grant was approved for an Intra Africa, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Climate Services and Related Application Programme. The specific objective of the programme is to strengthen the climate services value chain through building the capacities of decision-makers at all levels to make effective use of climate information and services. The beneficiary entities are African Union Commission – AUC; Caribbean Institute of Meteorology and Hydrology – CIMH; Pacific Regional Environment Programme - SPREP; Economic Commission of West African Countries – ECOWAS; Economic Commission of Central African States – ECCAS; Southern Africa Development Community – SADC; Indian Ocean Commission – IOC and the Intergovernmental Authority on

Cg-18/INF. 5.2(1), p. 8

Development – IGAD. The beneficiaries will be assisted by supporting partner organizations, namely the ACP Secretariat; Joint Research Centre – JRC; and WMO.

(33) The European Commission also under Horizon 2020 Work Programme 2018-2020, and specifically under the Challenge "Climate Action, Environment, Resource Efficiency & Raw Materials", included a specific action “LC-CLA-05-2019: Human Dynamics of Climate Change (Research and Innovation Action)”, which contains an Action on Climate Services for Africa. The action includes a budget of a maximum EUR 23 million for projects to be implemented over a three-year period. Applications were open from 14 November 2018 to 19 February 2019.

(34) The GFCS has sought to strengthen partnerships with entities such as the Green Climate Fund (GCF) to facilitate through NFCS systematic identification of capacity development needs for climate services, which could be supported through GCF funding mechanisms such as the Readiness Programme. The GFCS has also sought alignment of activities with partners engaged in the implementation of activities such as the Climate Risk & Early Warning System (CREWS) initiative, the Hydromet Programme, the Weather and Climate Information Services for Africa (WISER), among others. In this regard, following the meeting on Implementation Coordination of the GFCS in October 2014 (http://gfcs.wmo.int/node/573) and the partners roundtable organized by WMO and the World Bank Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) in April 2016, the GFCS in collaboration with the African Ministerial Conference on Meteorology (AMCOMET), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the World Bank, the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (ECA/African Climate Policy Center) and the African Development Bank (AfDB) organized the “Regional Stakeholder Coordination Workshop: Defining a Common Roadmap for Scaling Up the Delivery of Weather, Water and Climate Services in Africa” in Saly, Senegal, 1-2 May 2017. At the end of the workshop a roadmap for the coordinated delivery of climate services in Africa was agreed upon. The roadmap consists of the following elements (i) an institutional framework for coordinated delivery of climate services in Africa; (ii) a donor cooperation mechanism; (iii) space for coordination and (iv) the need to establish a regional knowledge management platform (see workshop report here). One direct outcome of the workshop is the production of the report mapping climate information services and climate change institutions in Africa by the Africa Climate Policy Centre, which will feed into a knowledge management platform to be hosted by ACMAD.

(35) To leverage resources, expertise and promote alignment of initiatives by various partners, the PAC agreed to focus efforts in a limited number of countries (Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Dominica, Moldova, Papua New Guinea and Tanzania) and in Colombia and Peru identified as additional countries for support by WMO to develop a Proof of Concept. Activities in these countries were facilitated through specific projects of partners such as CREWS, World Bank projects and GFCS funded projects. Major achievements were the development of the baseline study on the impacts of climate and weather on the health sector in Dominica; alignment and support of the national action plan in Burkina Faso by the CREWS and World Bank projects; support by the World Bank to the implementation of the NFCS in Moldova; implementation of the GFCS Adaptation Programme in Africa in Tanzania through a multi-partner collaboration involving IFRC, WHO, WFP and WMO; development of a Water-Energy-Food nexus for the Andean region proposal covering Colombia submitted to the Adaptation Fund; and support to capacity development in Papua New Guinea through CREWS.

(36) A fast-tracking approach through twinning that allow advanced NMHSs to provide a suit of data, products, the needed technical support services and training to enable their effective utilization by less capable NMHSs was pursued. Through this approach Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger received support under the CREWS project.

(37) To pursue energy, partnerships were established with the International Energy Agency (IEA), the World Energy and Meteorology Council (WEMC) and the Global Energy Interconnection Development and Cooperation Organization (GEIDCO).

(38) The WHO/WMO Joint Office for Climate and Health established in 2014 has provided strategic and technical support for the implementation of GFCS in the health sector.  In

Cg-18/INF. 5.2(1), p. 9

2016, a consortium of GFCS partners led by the IRI at Columbia University convened a Scientific Symposium on Climate Information for Public Health to scope advances and issues for climate services for health. This event led to the publication of an open-access Climate Information for Public Health Action Textbook (2018 Routledge) to enhance future capacity building.  A WHO-WMO Climate Services for Health Fundamentals and Case Studies publication was also launched in 2016, to provide guidance and 40 global examples of co-development and good practice in Climate Services for Health.  A complementary Climate Service for Health Readiness Tool was developed and tested in 2017 through the WHO partnership in the GFCS Adaptation Programme in Africa to improve climate service needs identification and project design. This tool is now being scaled up through WHO Adaptation programmes in 10 countries.

(39) Greater national and regional engagement with the health sector can be observed, for example in the Caribbean, where the Caribbean Institute for Meteorology and Hydrology has developed an integrated research and service approach to support health sector, and project level collaborations are observed worldwide spanning a range of applications. Monitoring climate information availability and use in the health sector is monitored jointly by WMO and WMO, and since 2017 publicly reported annually in the Lancet Countdown: Tracking Progress on Health and Climate Change. A new WHO/WMO climate and health science portal to be launched in 2020 will provide an open access platform to further enhance capacity to develop co-designed and fit-for-purpose science and applications.

(40) The urgent need to accelerate risk management and adaptation to extreme heat risks in the health sector has been identified since 2015. Several technical workshops by WHO/WMO and NOAA (Chicago 2016, Colombo 2017) lead to the formation and launch of the Global Heat Health Information Network in Hong Kong in Dec 2018. The First Global Forum on Heat and Health convened 125 interdisciplinary representatives from 33 countries, including 15 NMHSs to establish the collaborative priorities in research and action.

(41) In 2018 important policy steps were taken to support future mechanisms for coordinating, guiding, and harmonizing health, climate and environmental science and services, including a Framework Collaboration Agreement between WHO and WMO on Health, Climate, and Environment (May 2018);  EC-70 Resolution 3 “Integrated Health Services” decided to strengthen WMO efforts for research and service delivery for global health applications; and the launch of the Health, Environment, and Climate Change Coalition (WHO, WMO, UNEP) to strengthen global and regional policy coordination (May 2018).

(42) A full report on GFCS progress including resources and expenditure is available at https://gfcs.wmo.int/GFCS_Progress_Report

Contributions(43) Implementation of GFCS activities was possible thanks to the contributions made by

Members and partners. In this regard, since the Seventeenth World Meteorological Congress (25 May to 12 June 2015) GFCS has received the following contributions: Bangladesh (CHF 1 930), Burkina Faso (CHF 93 900), Canada (CHF 374 782), China (CHF 150 000), Norway (CHF 271 904 to the GFCS Trust Fund, CHF 8 281 391 for project “GFCS Adaptation Programme in Africa” Phase I and CHF 2 795 208 for Phase II), Republic of Korea (CHF 528 401) Switzerland (CHF 181 100), United Kingdom (CHF 12 000), United States of America (CHF 209 377 as support of the project “Assessing Sustainability and Effectiveness of Climate Information Services in Africa” and CHF 985 775 for the project “Climate Services for Increased Resilience in the Sahel”).

(44) GFCS has also received in-kind contributions through seconded experts from KMA and China Meteorological Administration (CMA) and a Junior Professional Officer position funded by Germany.

____________

Cg-18/INF. 5.2(1), p. 10

Annex: 1

Cg-18/INF. 5.2(1), p. 11

Annex

GLOBAL FRAMEWORK FOR CLIMATE SERVICES (GFCS) REVIEW

(1) BackgroundThe increasing socio-economic and environmental impacts from extreme weather and climate events manifested through floods, droughts, heatwaves, severe storms, etc., have led to the rise of climate on the international agenda and with it, the need for climate-related activities and financing. Under this context, the international community at the World Climate Conference-3 (WCC-3) in 2009 established the Global Framework for Climate Services (GFCS) to strengthen the production, availability, delivery, and application of science-based climate prediction and services in support of decision-making.

The Vision of the GFCS is to enable better management of the risks of climate variability and change, and adaptation to climate change, through the development and incorporation of science-based climate information and prediction into planning, policy and practice on the global, regional and national scales. The GFCS was established to provide a credible, integrative and unique platform for guiding and supporting activities implemented across pillars or components of the GFCS (User Interface Platform; Climate Services Information System; Observations and Monitoring; Research, Modelling and Prediction; and Capacity Development) and within climate-sensitive investment areas, notably agriculture and food security, energy, disaster risk reduction, human health and water resources management in support of both climate adaptation and mitigation. In pursuing its remit, the GFCS is guided by eight principles:

(a) High priority for the needs of climate-vulnerable developing countries;(b) Primary focus is better access and use of climate information by users;(c) The framework will address needs at three spatial scales: global, regional and

national;(d) Climate services must be operational and continuously updated;(e) Climate information is primarily an international public good and governments will

have a central role in the framework;(f) The framework will encourage global, free and open exchange of climate-relevant

data;(g) The framework will facilitate and strengthen, not duplicate;(h) The framework will be built through partnerships

To enable the implementation of the GFCS, in 2012, the Extraordinary Session of the World Meteorological Congress established the Intergovernmental Board on Climate Services (IBCS) and adopted the GFCS Implementation Plan for subsequent consideration by the IBCS. In 2013, at its first session, the IBCS approved the Implementation Plan of the GFCS, which defined deliverables and targets to be realized over 2-, 6- and 10-year horizons, starting in 2013.(2) The need for the GFCS reviewSince the creation of the GFCS in 2009, significant changes have occurred in the climate and policy programme landscape, particularly in the period post-2015. In 2015, three international agreements raised the importance of climate issues in the global agenda: the Sendai Framework, aimed at substantially reducing disaster risk and losses; the Paris Agreement to limit global temperature rise and enhance adaptive capacity and resilience; and the Sustainable Development Goals, which include taking urgent action to combat climate change and enhance many climate-sensitive development outcomes related to agriculture and food security, disaster risk reduction, energy, human health, water resources, among others. The year 2015 also saw the operationalization of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) the main financial mechanism for supporting climate action under the Paris Agreement. Established in 2010, the GCF is to assist developing countries in adaptation and mitigation practices to counter climate change. To succeed, these frameworks and mechanisms require relevant scientific data, information products, methodologies and services to support effective action.

Cg-18/INF. 5.2(1), p. 12

These changes point to the need to reposition elements of the GFCS to take advantage of merging opportunities such as:

(a) High-level global and regional climate and development policy initiatives aligned to climate services delivery;

(b) A large and growing global programme portfolio addressing climate adaptation, climate resilience and disaster risk reduction, all requiring varying levels of climate services;

(c) An increasing number of actors engaged in various areas of the sustainable development discussion who require access to climate skills, products and services;

(d) Lack of effective coordination structures for aligning climate action efforts among stakeholders, leading to fragmentary and piecemeal implementation.

In addition to the above contextual changes, issues surrounding the GFCS of concern to the IBCS led the Management Committee of the IBCS at its third session held in October 2015, to recommend that a review of the GFCS be conducted at the beginning of the second phase of GFCS implementation (i.e., 2015-2018). The Task Team on Monitoring and Evaluation of the GFCS was requested to develop the Framework for the Mid-term Review based on experiences from other reviews. The purpose of the Mid-term Review was to assess progress of implementation of the GFCS to help in providing guidance on how to further improve implementation of the GFCS and measure the success of the activities implemented so far. To conduct the Mid-term Review a team from the University of Arizona (UoA) was selected through a competitive process to conduct the review. The team produced the Mid-term Review Report, which was considered by the fifth Session of the Management Committee of the IBCS (Reading, UK, 19-20 October 2017).

Key findings of the Mid-term Review are summarized below. The full recommendations put forward by the UoA can be found in the Review Report:

(a) The GFCS has elevated the awareness of climate services and the role they can play in development across global, regional, and national scales. This achievement should not be understated. The terminology, meanings, and methodologies that define climate services are new and emergent, and the GFCS is helping to create shared understanding. Increased awareness is a building block for funding and priorities, and the GFCS has had some impact on global research agendas, such as the European Commission’s Horizon 2020 efforts, as well as national activities;

(b) Principal stakeholders of the GFCS are the National Meteorological and Hydrological Services (NMHS) that WMO represents. The GFCS is helping to legitimize these NMHSs as leaders of climate services within their countries. Importantly, the GFCS promotes an interdisciplinary approach that is helping to shift the theory and practice of information provision and development. Collectively, people are seeing the efficacy of climate services as based in a user-centric, demand-driven approaches to climate services;

(c) The GFCS has engaged in partnership-building across global, regional, and national levels. The PAC reflects an impressive array of organizations. The formalization of a Joint Office and other partnerships has brought in new expertise to WMO and GFCS. And, at the regional and national levels, the National Frameworks for Climate Service (NFCS) behave as an impetus for new relationships;

(d) After five years of GFCS activity, and across the diverse groups of people with whom the Review consulted, there is an overwhelming sense that the GFCS is as necessary today as when it was created in 2009. There are, of course, differing opinions about the form the GFCS should adopt. Nonetheless, the GFCS has a built-in ability to adapt and evolve.

Major weaknesses identified, include:(a) The Framework put forth by the GFCS is widely accepted. It outlines a scope that

extends across geographic, sectoral, and technical scales and that draws on diverse methods, partnerships, and expertise. The GFCS, however, is attempting to be the

Cg-18/INF. 5.2(1), p. 13

engine with inadequate human and financial resources, and in ways that do not maximize the advantages of its contributors;

(b) The GFCS has a governance structure that was approved under a set of expectations that have not materialized (in terms of expected funding and broader representation). Additionally, the governance structure is costly and bureaucratic. Therefore, the governance structure in its current form is no longer fit-for-purpose;

(c) Overall, there is a lack of clarity around roles and responsibilities within the GFCS, from issues of governance and project management, to its relationship with WMO and its contributions to major global agendas. Greater clarity is needed to best maximize potential and strengthen partnerships;

(d) The implementation of GFCS projects are perhaps the main source of contention within the GFCS network. Many view project implementation as no longer a strategic niche for the GFCS;

(e) The GFCS is a network of activities and organizations, one that requires active stewardship and a commensurate financial commitment. However, the human and financial resources dedicated to the GFCS are inadequate for its mandate, and both the resources and scope of work need to be re-assessed.

(3) Establishment of the Task Force on Governance, Management and Finances of the GFCS

To respond to the key findings and recommendations contained in the Mid-term Review Report, the fifth Session of the Management Committee of the IBCS (Reading, UK, 19-20 October 2017) reviewed the Report and took a number of decisions that included, among others, the establishment of a Task Force to address issues around governance, management and finances of the GFCS. The Task Force was chaired by Mr David Grimes (Canada) with representation from the British Caribbean Territories, Japan, Russia, South Africa, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. It also included members of the Partner Advisory Committee (PAC), namely, the European Commission (EC), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC), and the World Bank. The Task Force was supported by a broader consultative group that included members of the Management Committee, members of the PAC and the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Task Team of the Operational and Resources Plan of the GFCS.

The purpose of the Task Force was to provide recommendations for improving the governance of the GFCS, the management structures in place and funding of the GFCS to the Management Committee of the IBCS, on the basis of which the Management Committee would propose recommendations to WMO Cg-18 on the GFCS. The full report of the Task Force can be found here. The scope of the work of the Task Force included:

(a) Review of the outcomes of the Mid-term Review and the recommendations of the PAC and Management Committee on the Mid-term Review to develop a proposal for the focus of the GFCS, including the purpose, roles, and scope of the GFCS in ways that strengthen the original identity of the GFCS as a Framework;

(b) Assess strengths, weaknesses and sustainability of the governance structure of the GFCS and propose appropriate governance structure options for delivering the GFCS goals taking into account the WMO reform process;

(c) Assess the adequacy of the GFCS arrangements in place (funding, human resources for the GFCS) for meeting GFCS goals;

(d) Provide strategic guidance on principles, mechanisms and opportunities for enhancing implementation of GFCS priorities given limitation of resources and the unique nature of the GFCS;

(e) Prepare specific recommendations in consultation with PAC for the consideration of the Management Committee of the IBCS. Based on feedback from the Management Committee, prepare recommendations for the consideration of WMO Cg-18.

To conduct its work the Task Force used the Mid-term Review Report as an essential source of information. It also conducted a desktop review of IBCS and WMO documents, particularly those related to the WMO reform. In addition, it reviewed UN and other frameworks to inform the proposals of the options on governance, management, and resources of the GFCS.

Cg-18/INF. 5.2(1), p. 14

In developing its document the Task Force was guided by the following success factors for the GFCS:

(a) Do no harm – the proposed options on governance, management and resourcing of the GFCS should ensure smooth transition and implementation into the new structures;

(b) Ensure future ability to deliver and respond – the proposed options should establish a sustained and dynamic design of administrative and technical structures with the flexibility to respond to emerging issues and user needs;

(c) Greater linkages – should provide for improved operational coordination and strategic alignment, through reducing duplication and increasing efficiency;

(d) Capacity building – should support the building of all WMO Members abilities to develop, have access to and apply climate services;

(e) Optimize resources – the proposed options should attract and use all the best expertise and link initiatives, where appropriate;

(f) Affordability – the proposed options should be affordable, achievable and do-able (will have the appropriate resources available for implementation).

(4) Recommendations of the Task Force on Governance, Management and Finances

4.1 General recommendationsTo facilitate understanding of the GFCS review, the GFCS Secretariat was requested to develop:

(a) a stronger rationale better advocating and communicating the benefits of the GFCS and the proposed changes in governance and management to support the deliberations of Congress; and

(b) a transformation and communication strategy/plan which aligns with the WMO constituent body reform communication; and to define champions that will communicate and lobby for the suggested changes in GFCS governance and management (e.g. at specific meetings like the EC SOP meeting taking place in 2019, etc.).

4.2 GovernanceSeveral areas of potential improvement of the current structure of the GFCS governance were identified by the Mid-Term Review, which included: (i) duplication of IBCS representation with the World Meteorological Congress, as both are mostly fulfilled by the Permanent Representatives of Members with WMO, not reflecting the breath of users interested in climate services; (ii) limited integration of partner organizations in the GFCS decision-making; (iii) linkage of WMO structures with the IBCS; (iv) the costly nature of the GFCS governance structure; and (v) the fact that the governance structure has not been able to guarantee the sustainable, high-level political anchoring of the GFCS that would be required to sustain the implementation of the ambitious GFCS mission.

Considering that implementation of proposed changes will require significant time, the Task Force proposed a two-step approach to effect the changes in governance, management and finances for the GFCS:

“Step 1” to be decided by Cg-18: to address duplication between IBCS and World Meteorological Congress; integration of partner organizations in the decision making of the GFCS; reduction of the financial implications of the governance structure.

To implement this Step, the Task Force on Governance, Management and Finances of the GFCS, recommends to the Cg-18: (i) to abolish the Intergovernmental Board on Climate Services and its Management Committee; (ii) to adopt the Climate Coordination Panel as the oversight and implementation mechanism for the GFCS, including the WMO contribution to the GFCS ; (iii) to maintain the GFCS PAC which will have the primary responsibility of advancing

Cg-18/INF. 5.2(1), p. 15

implementation of the GFCS priority areas. The Executive Council of WMO would in the 18th inter-sessional period establish appropriate arrangements for the effective implementation of the GFCS, including amending the terms of reference of the GFCS PAC in consultation with the PAC, as appropriate;

“Step 2” to be decided by Cg-19 with a possible intermediate discussion at the Extraordinary session of the World Meteorological Congress in 2021: would consist in the Executive Council of WMO further exploring mechanisms to enhance the effectiveness and implementation of the GFCS, including the feasibility of co-sponsorship of the GFCS with such organs as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), among others, with the aim of further strengthening political anchoring, financial support and engagement of partners.

4.3 ManagementThe GFCS Mid-term Review with respect to the management of the GFCS noted that the human and financial resources dedicated to the GFCS were inadequate for its mandate and both resources and scope of work of the GFCS need to be re-assessed. Based on this, the Task Force proposed four priority tasks for the GFCS for the eighteenth financial period as part of implementation of “Step 1” described in the table below:

Partnership and inclusion

Technical coordination support

Monitoring and review

Resource mobilization

Enable coordination of initiatives and communication regarding climate services

Facilitate and coordinate identification of capacity development needs for provision of climate services, applications and climate information

Publish a “State of climate services” evaluation regularly, building on regular assessments and reporting globally, regionally and nationally

Promote, enable, articulate and facilitate countries’ and regions’ access to climate finance

Organize knowledge sharing events with key partners and stakeholders, including private sector

Track support to climate services implementation and promote advisory services to address areas where additional support is needed

Strengthen rationale for climate services-related proposals

Presence in relevant climate events such as sessions of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to coordinate and strengthen climate services worldwide

Identify unmet needs for additional standards and promote development and methods of standards for climate services through the appropriate standard-setting entities

Global/regional platform for climate services

Table 1: Recommended tasks for the GFCS for the eighteenth financial period

During “Step 2” the four priority tasks will remain, but with the GFCS prioritizing technical coordination, and monitoring and evaluation in addition to focus on Partnerships and Inclusion, and Resources Mobilization, which will be priorities in “Step 1”. Pursuing this Step will include exploring the feasibility of co-sponsorship of the GFCS with such organs as the UNFCCC.

4.4 FinancesThe Mid-term Review findings on the financing and resourcing of the GFCS may be summarized as:

(a) The human and financial resources dedicated to the GFCS are inadequate for its mandate and both the resourcing and scope of work need to be re-assessed;

Cg-18/INF. 5.2(1), p. 16

(b) Partnerships and resources envisioned under the GFCS have not materialized as envisaged;

(c) The GFCS has not effectively engaged and accessed the increasing resources being made available for climate based initiatives;

(d) Funding for climate services initiatives at all levels lack coordination leading to significant inefficiencies in the implementation of the GFCS;

(e) Resources required to support the GFCS governance structure have not materialized and as a result, the structure places an inordinate burden on the limited available finances to implement the GFCS.

To address the limitations associated with the finances of the GFCS the Task Force recommended that resources be sought to support the GFCS Trust Fund as well as exploring new approaches to finance and expand implementation of the GFCS at all levels. In this respect, the Task Force made the following specific recommendations:

(a) The GFCS prepares a report for the 18th World Meteorological Congress highlighting the achievements of the GFCS implementation to date demonstrating the contributions made by the GFCS Trust Fund, Members and partner organizations;

(b) The GFCS prepares brochures and a poster highlighting successful achievements of the GFCS implementation to date, for presentation to the 18th World Meteorological Congress;

(c) Starting in 2019, the GFCS shares its work plan, associated budget and risk mitigation strategy for GFCS implementation for the following year along with the status of the GFCS Trust Fund with Members and partners to encourage contributions to the fund;

(d) The GFCS works with the GCF to explore a suite of products/services that the GFCS Office and Members can provide to the GCF to ensure that submitted projects have the requisite climate rationale and, where appropriate, alignment with the GFCS. This would lead to an increase in GFCS branded projects as described earlier (e.g., GFCS projects and GFCS contributing projects). Support for such “products/services” could be derived from the GCF “country readiness funds”.

Other recommendations of the Task Force regarding resources and financing of the GFCS include:

1. New approaches to finance and expand implementation of the GFCS in a sustainable manner be explored at all levels of implementation including: (a) Joint programming of implementation activities at all levels with partners to

leverage resources;(b) Closer alignment of elements of the GFCS programme to appropriate national

and regional climate resilience and climate change mitigation and adaptation programs;

(c) Decentralized models that blend regional and national resources, partnerships and priorities and remove challenges associated with more top down centralized models;

(d) Identify and build new partnerships with regional multilateral development banks, NGOs and Foundations;

(e) Assist regional/national implementation partners with building sustainable business/operating models appropriate to their mandates and functions;

2. Strengthen resource mobilization at all levels of GFCS implementation by building and sharing a searchable database of national, regional and global funding agencies and their priorities;

3. Develop and implement enhance monitoring and reporting of GFCS related activities at global, regional and national levels to avoid duplication of efforts among partners and improving alignment of implementation activities; Resource mobilization effort to enhance the implementation capacity of regional and national implementing partners.

Cg-18/INF. 5.2(1), p. 17

____________