REVIEW OF THE WORLD CLIMATE RESEARCH PROGRAMME (WCRP) - International ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
R E V I EW OF THE W ORLD
C L I MATE RESEARCH
P R O G RAM ME (W CRP)
United Nations Intergovernmental
Educational, Scientific and Oceanographic
Cultural Organization Commission
R E VIEW OF THE W O RLD C LIM ATE RESEARCH P R OGRAMME (W CRP) Report from an ICSU-WMO-IOC Review Panel: Julia Slingo (Chair), Mark New, Alan Thorpe, Steven Zebiak, Fumiko Kasuga, Sergey Gulev, Neville Smith
ISC The International Science Council (ISC) is a non-governmental or- ganization with a unique global membership that brings together 40 international scientific Unions and Associations and over 140 national and regional scientific organisations including Academies and Research Councils. The ISC was created in 2018 as the result of a merger between the International Council for Science (ICSU, founded in 1931) and the International Social Science Council (ISSC, founded in 1952). The ISC brings together the natural and social sciences and is the largest global science organization of its type. The vision of the Council is to advance science as a global public good. WMO The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) is an intergovernmen- tal organization with a membership of 191 Member States and Territo- ries. It originated from the International Meteorological Organization (IMO), which was founded in 1873. Established by the ratification of the WMO Convention on 23 March 1950, WMO became the specialised agency of the United Nations for meteorology (weather and climate), operational hydrology and related geophysical sciences a year later. IOC-UNESCO The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO (IOC-UNESCO), established in 1960 as a body with functional autono- my within UNESCO, is the only competent organization for marine science within the UN system. The purpose of the Commission is to promote international cooperation and to coordinate programmes in research, services and capacity-building, in order to learn more about the nature and resources of the ocean and coastal areas and to apply that knowledge for the improvement of management, sus- tainable development, the protection of the marine environment, and the decision-making processes of its Member States. Suggested citation ISC, WMO, IOC of UNESCO (2018), Review of the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP). 72 pp. Paris, International Science Council. Available at www.council.science DOI: 10.24948/2018.03
05 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
19 1 CONTEXT
20 1.1 CURRENT STRUCTURE AND GOVERNANCE OF WCRP
22 1.2 CURRENT FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS
23 1.3 REVIEW PROCESS AND EVIDENCE COLLECTION APPROACH
27 2 W HAT THE REVIEW PANEL LEARNED
28 2.1 OUTCOME OF THE 2009 REVIEW OF WCRP
29 2.2 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE CURRENT STRUCTURE
36 2.3 ROLE AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE JSC
36 2.4 ROLE AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE JPS
37 2.5 RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SPONSORS
38 2.6 RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER RESEARCH PROGRAMMES
42 2.7 CONTRIBUTING TO MAJOR INTERNATIONAL POLICY PROCESSES AND
ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES, SUCH AS THE IPCC AND UNFCCC
43 2.8 ROLE OF WCRP IN CLIMATE SERVICES AND LINKS TO GFCS
47 3 CONSIDERATIONS FOR
THE FUTURE WCRP
48 3.1 CONTEXT
49 3.2 GOVERNANCE AND THE MOU
51 3.3 FUTURE STRUCTURE
56 3.4 PARTNERSHIPS
57 3.5 OPERATIONAL DELIVERY
61 4 SUMMARY AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
68 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
69 ANNEX 1 LIST OF DOCUMENTS
70
A NNEX 2 LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS TO THE REVIEW
71 REVIEW PANEL MEMBERSHIP
04 REVIEW OF THE WCRP
E X ECUTIVE SUMMARY
06 REVIEW OF THE WCRP
Executive summary 07
The World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) nance, operational structure, management and
was established in 1980 by three sponsors, the resourcing of WCRP. In addition, it received compre-
World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the Inter- hensive, written documents on the programme’s
national Council for Science (ICSU)*, and the activities.
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) After reviewing all the evidence, the Panel’s judge-
of UNESCO**, to facilitate the analysis and prediction ment is that WCRP is at a critical point in its his-
of Earth system variability and change for use in an tory, and that significant changes are required in its
increasing range of practical applications of direct governance, structure and delivery for it to fulfil
relevance, benefit and value to society. Since then the its mission in the context of 21st Century challenges.
WCRP has played a pivotal role in international Moreover, the Panel is adamant that the core,
climate science by initiating and coordinating major underpinning climate science which WCRP delivers is
collaborative activities that could not have been needed more than ever, as society seeks solutions
delivered without the international cooperation which to climate change (Paris Agreement), to resilience to
WCRP facilitates. Over the years there have been disasters (Sendai Agreement), and to sustainable
many notable examples, including WOCE, TOGA-COARE, development for the planet (UN Sustainable Develop-
GEWEX global datasets, and the CMIP archive that ment Goals). Without a strong foundation in cli-
has underpinned successive IPCC reports. mate science and prediction, none of these challenges
WCRP does not fund research directly; it functions by can be addressed in a robust, cost-effective and
engaging with, and gaining the commitment of, durable way. However, the Panel is very clear that it is
the international climate science community to its pro- not the role of WCRP to deliver the end products
gramme of work, and in turn ensuring that par- and services, but that it should provide the bedrock
ticipants derive benefit from engaging in WCRP activi- knowledge, based on which these can be developed.
ties. Community engagement in WCRP continues Since its inception, the key strength of WCRP
to be broad and strong, and WCRP is recognized and has been its focus on cutting-edge physical climate sci-
valued for providing opportunities to work collab- ence where international coordination enables
oratively to the greater benefit of the science. scientific advances that would not happen otherwise.
WCRP is led by the Joint Scientific Committee (JSC), This must continue to be its focus, which means
which formulates the overall scientific goals and prioritizing what it does and recognizing where its
concepts of the programme and organizes the required unique role as a facilitator and integrator of cli-
international coordination and research efforts mate research makes a difference. The Panel stressed
that underpin it. In turn, the work of WCRP is support- that if WCRP does not continue to provide clear
ed by a Joint Planning Staff (JPS), hosted by WMO leadership, there is a danger of losing the engagement
and led by the Director of WCRP whose role is to deliv- of the scientific community and its funders.
er the activities recommended by the JSC. WCRP is a strong brand and as such it needs to play an
This review was instigated by the sponsors to advocacy role, to interact strategically with big
ascertain the effectiveness of WCRP in delivering its funders, and to focus on strategic positioning of WCRP
mandate, how well it works in partnership with in the climate arena. There is need for an impor-
other organizations, and to advise on the future struc- tant, recognized, international and collective voice for
ture, governance and resourcing of the pro- climate science, and WCRP should continue to
gramme. A Panel (see page 71 for Review Panel mem- meet this need.
bership) was appointed that reflects the scien- The Panel was therefore very concerned to learn
tific interests of the three sponsors, as well as cover- that WCRP does not currently operate in the con-
ing the breadth of climate research, and its links text of an up-to-date overarching strategy; as a conse-
to other organizations and to climate services. The quence, it is struggling to set priorities and to
review took place between February and October bring to an end less important activities. This must be
2017, during which time the Panel met twice and took rectified as soon as possible, with the findings
oral evidence from a broad range of participants, of this review being fully addressed in the process.
partners and stakeholders. It also took evidence The current structure of WCRP has become increas-
from the sponsors, the JSC and the JPS on the gover- ingly unwieldy. It has evolved largely by accumulation
* On 4 July 2018, ICSU became the International Science Council (ISC), ** IOC of UNESCO became a co-sponsor in 1993
following the merger with the International Social Science Council.
Given that the review took place in 2017, the previous name ICSU is used
throughout this report. From 4 July 2018, the ISC is the co-sponsor
of WCRP.08 REVIEW OF THE WCRP
of new working and advisory groups, and the initia- continues to be hard work to prioritize and energize,
tion of the Grand Challenges. It continues to be yet is vitally important for WCRP and its partners.
built around its four Core Projects (GEWEX, CLIVAR, With the new agendas of seamlessness, of high-res-
SPARC and CliC), which have been in existence olution Earth system modelling and the advent
for a long time. Consequently, the structure and remit of exascale computing, with all that that implies in
of the various elements of WCRP may not be valid building a new generation of codes, a major push
in an era where more holistic Earth system and seam- is required in climate model development. The Panel
less weather-to-climate science approaches are recommends that a new WCRP Working Group on
needed, and where society requires science and ser- Climate Model Development should be established,
vices from the global to the local scale. which would take the lead in the science for next-
The Panel therefore recommends that WCRP seeks to generation Earth system modelling and provide a fo-
simplify and re-purpose its core activities around rum for engaging with the vendors on the design
a new structure that takes a holistic view of the cli- of exascale machines.
mate system, and brings together the separate The Panel also recommends that WCRP’s approach
components of the climate system currently covered to regional climate issues and the links through
individually by the existing Core Projects. Recall- to applications require further and careful thought.
ing the principal aims of WCRP, which are to deter- Although WCRP should continue to focus on the
mine “to what extent climate can be predicted, fundamental, underpinning science that increasing-
and the extent of man’s influence on climate”, then ly addresses regional and local climate on all
these should be the fundamental cornerstones, timescales, it is essential that it formalizes and im-
here termed the ‘capabilities’, of the future WCRP. proves its links to applications and user needs,
These capabilities need to be underpinned by a third which involves more interdisciplinary approaches,
capability in fundamental research on Earth sys- including linking to the social sciences. These
tem processes across timescales. These three ‘Capabil- increasingly require information at the regional and
ity Themes’ should replace the current Core even local level, and the panel commends WCRP
Projects, and should act to frame WCRP’s long-term for its thrust on providing ‘Climate Information for
research agenda. Regions’ and establishing an International Office
Within and between the Capability Themes should to lead in delivering this. This activity should be for-
be a small set of high-profile, but time-limited malized within a new Working Group that would
(5-10 years maximum), Cross-cutting Research Projects. act as a bridge between WCRP, GFCS and other climate
Over time there should be an increasing emphasis service providers, by promoting applied and trans-
on these projects as a means of attracting a new gene- lational research and facilitating dialogues between
ration of scientists, for showcasing cutting-edge underpinning climate science and customer-rele-
WCRP science, and for demonstrating the policy rele- vant services.
vance of WCRP. The Research Projects should draw The Panel therefore proposes the following as a
on the Capability Themes, and when appropriate, seek possible new structure for WCRP, for consideration
to co-design and implement the plan of work with by the sponsors, the JSC and the climate science com-
other major programmes such as the World Weather munity. This structure also seeks to place WCRP in
Research Programme (WWRP) and Future Earth. the context of other, related activities on which WCRP
At the same time the Modelling Working Groups will depend and also contribute. Based on the evi-
should be consolidated within the Capability Themes, dence that the Panel heard, the Panel proposes some
to ensure that they are fully integrated with the sci- restructuring of these activities for WMO and its
ence. This change recognizes that modelling is now partners to consider, with a view to providing greater
the central plank for delivering science in WCRP, coherence across the whole Earth, climate and
and that therefore the need for separate modelling weather system portfolio, and potentially leading to
working groups has passed, although their specific improved cooperation and more effective use of
activities are still central to delivering WCRP’s mission. resources. WCRP is presented in the enclosed blue ele-
However, the Panel is concerned that there is in- ments, and linkages with the surrounding boxes
sufficient emphasis on model development, which are implicit (see graph 1).WCRP CAPABILITY THEMES
GRAPH 1
EARTH SYSTEM PROCESSES CLIMATE VARIABILITY, CLIMATE CHANGE AND EARTH
ACROSS SCALES PREDICTABILITY SYSTEM FEEDBACKS
JOINTLY WITH WWRP AND PREDICTION JOINTLY WITH AIMES
–Energy, Water & Carbon Cycles –Ocean, Land, Cryosphere, Atmos- –Climate Change Forcing and Sensitivity
–Fundamental Atmospheric Physics phere and Solar Drivers –Climate Change Attribution
(e.g. Convection) –Climate Dynamics, Modes of Varia- –Climate Change Projections
–Land Surface Processes and Land bility and Teleconnections (Global and Regional)
Atmosphere Coupling –Monthly to Decadal Predictability for Mitigation and Adaption
–Ocean Processes and Ocean and Prediction –Abrupt Climate Change
Atmosphere Coupling –Geoengineering Assessment
–Cryosphere Processes
WCRP CROSS-CUTTING RESEARCH PROJECTS (ON OCCASIONS WITH WWRP, FUTURE EARTH ...)
Strawman proposal for a new WCRP structure
Examples: Regional Sea Level Rise // Coastal Impacts and Cities // Weather and Climate Extremes, now and in the future //
Water Cycle and the Food Baskets of the World // Fate of the Antarctic and Greenland Icesheets // Is the Jet Stream
changing its Behavior? // Climate Change and Human Health
WCRP WORKING GROUP ON CLIMATE MODEL DEVELOPMENT
JOINTLY WITH WGNE
Identifying Systematic Errors // Improving Climate Models & Building Next Generation Earth System Models //
WMO/ICSU: GLOBAL ATMOSPHERIC COMPOSITION
Planning for Exascale Computing
WCRP WORKING GROUP ON CLIMATE INFORMATION FOR REGIONS
WMO/IOC: GLOBAL CLIMATE OBSERVATIONS, ANALYSES & MONITORING
LINKING WITH FUTURE EARTH
GHG Monitoring // Air Quality Prediction // Atmospheric Chemistry Processes & Modelling
Regional downscaling methods // Application-inspired Climate Science // Transdisciplinary Engagement
ECVs // Climatologies // (Coupled) Global & Regional Reanalyses // Climate Change Detection
Executive summary
CLIMATE CHANGE ASSESSMENTS AND CLIMATE SERVICES (UNFCCC, IPCC, GFCS, COPERNICUS, VIACS ...)
0910 REVIEW OF THE WCRP
GRAPH 2
Strawman proposal for a new Governance structure
CO-SPONSORS’ MOU ON WCRP
HIGH LEVEL GOALS
1. TO WHAT EXTENT CLIMATE CAN BE PREDICTED?
2. THE EXTENT OF MAN’S INFLUENCE ON CLIMATE
MONITORING HIGH LEVEL GOALS
GOVERNING
BOARD
SETTING SCIENTIFIC AGENDA
COMMUNITY
LEADING AND
JSC AND SCIENTIFIC STEERING OVERALL BUDGETING
COMMITTEES AND RESSOURCING
DELIVERING
TASKING AND ENABLING
DIRECTOR OF WCRP AND JPS
LINE MANAGEMENT
WMO SECRETARY GENERALExecutive summary 11
Alongside the proposed re-structuring, the Panel also WCRP is impressive and can be game-changing, and
recommends stronger governance of WCRP, to yet the community continues to struggle to find
address the weaknesses revealed during the review re- resources and funding from WCRP to support these
lated to governance, management and resourcing, activities.
and the engagement of the co-sponsors and research The Panel therefore urges that the sponsors
funders in sustaining the programme (see graph 2). redouble their efforts to support the JPS financially at
A formal, high-level Governing Board should be estab- a higher level of enabling funding, so that it can
lished by the sponsors, with the overall respon- operate more effectively, support the community in
sibility for WCRP residing with this Board and its Chair- coming together to coordinate science, and con-
person. The Board would oversee the implementa- tinue to deliver the research outputs that society in-
tion of the WCRP MoU and ensure the high-level goals creasingly depends on.
of WCRP are delivered; it would facilitate the in- In summary, the Panel commends WCRP for
teraction with, and engagement of, the sponsors and its long and vital contribution to international climate
other key stakeholders; and it would manage high- research, and intends that this review will help
level risks and change, especially associated with fund- WCRP to plan its future and ensure that fundamental
ing. Its first activity should be the development of climate research continues to thrive and serve
a new MoU to reflect new research agendas, the roles the needs of society as it tackles major 21st Century
and responsibilities of the sponsors, the new gov- challenges.
ernance structure, and the functioning of the JPS. The Panel makes the following recommendations
As outlined below, the overall scientific leadership and looks forward to significant progress in im-
of WCRP and its interactions with the community plementing these in time for the 40th anniversary of
would continue to reside with the JSC. With the Gov- WCRP in 2020:
erning Board in place, the JSC would be freed up
to exercise its intended role, which is to provide sci-
ence leadership, to set the science strategy and 1 SCIENCE STRATEGY
oversee its implementation, and to build a strong com- A new ten-year WCRP science strategy and related five-
munity of international scientists to work on year implementation plan must be developed as
grand challenge problems that require international soon as possible in discussion with the sponsors and
coordination. The JSC tasks the JPS and its Direc- with wide consultation and community buy-in.
tor, whose responsibilities are to support WCRP’s scien- WCRP currently does not appear to operate within
tific activities, to facilitate international engage- the context of an up-to-date, overarching and
ment and partnerships and manage the programme’s clearly focused strategy and this must be rectified as
resources. The sponsors should also consider soon as possible. A consequence of the lack of a
whether the role of Director, and the JPS in general, strong, and strongly implemented, strategy is that
should have more day-to-day discretionary exec- WCRP is struggling to set priorities and so to stop
utive power, enabling the JPS to be agile and respon- less important activities. If WCRP does not continue
sive, but always in line with the guidance and to provide clear leadership, there is a danger of
direction of the JSC and in consultation with the JSC losing the engagement of the scientific community
Chair and Officers as appropriate. and its funders, so a new strategy is badly needed.
WCRP is at a critical point with regard to funding In developing its strategy WCRP needs to reflect
to support its activities. The current situation of how climate science has evolved over recent
a reducing funding base for the JPS is untenable, but decades, with the emergence of holistic Earth system
yet the WCRP is one of the most highly regarded modelling, of seamless weather and climate sci-
and widely recognized of the research efforts support- ence, of the increasing skill and reliability of climate
ed by the sponsors. Many of the projects that it prediction, and the growing agenda for an increas-
delivers could not have been achieved without the ing number of climate predictions and projections to
international coordination and leadership that guide resilience, adaptation and mitigation actions.
WCRP provides. The gearing of national investments The new strategy should respond directly to this re-
that can be achieved from a small investment in view and encapsulate the following recommendations:12 REVIEW OF THE WCRP
It should identify the key societal needs for fun- Panel concluded that there is also a need for more
damental climate research to tackle 21st explicit identification of key partners, and that a
Century problems across climate resilience, Governing Board would provide a means to recognize
adaptation and mitigation; such partnerships. The JSC Chair and Vice-Chair
should be ex-officio members.
It should focus on the scientific priorities where The JPS should provide the secretariat for the
WCRP can make a unique contribution Governing Board. Once fully constituted, the Chair
through its international, coordinated and should be an independent member. The member-
integrative activities; ship should not exceed eight and, other than the spon-
sors, should be rotated on a biannual basis.
It should reflect the recommendations regard- The terms of reference of the Governing Board
ing the structure of WCRP; should include:
It should show where recommendations re- Overseeing the implementation of the terms
garding partnerships will add value to WCRP; of the WCRP MoU;
Although the focus should be on providing Setting the overall aims and managing commu-
the bedrock climate science, the strategy nication and interaction with, and engagement
should demonstrate a clear pathway to applica- of, the sponsors and other key stakeholders;
tions, i.e. climate services;
Approving the high-level science strategy and
A short synthesis of the new WCRP strategy structure of WCRP;
should be produced to enable the WCRP com-
munity to engage with potential new Managing high-level risk and change, especially
sponsors and funders and to act as advocates associated with funding;
for fundamental climate research.
Overseeing resource mobilization and garner-
ing enabling support for administration.
2 GOVERNANCE AND
THE MOU The Governing Board would meet at least once per
A formal high-level Governing Board for WCRP should year, either through video-/tele-conference or in
be established to enable more effective engagement association with the JSC if that were convenient. The
with the sponsors and enable them to fulfil their re- Board would be self-supporting. A first task of the
sponsibilities for the programme. A new MoU should Governing Board would be to update the MoU to in-
be put in place to reflect changes in governance, op- clude the changes to governance and any other
erations and structure. relevant items needed to refresh it.
The 2009 Review of the WCRP recommended (Re- The advice of the JSC would be sought on all agenda
commendation 9) that:“WCRP’s sponsors should items. The primacy of the JSC for scientific advice
meet regularly to review their mutual responsibili- and setting scientific strategy and priorities would re-
ties for the Programme …”. The issues that led to main; the Governing Board would take overall
this recommendation remain in place today. The JSC responsibility for WCRP on behalf of the sponsors and
and JPS are struggling to manage upwards and in so doing it would provide oversight on matters
the sponsors are concerned with the responsiveness such as resource mobilization, administrative support
of the WCRP and its strategic alignment. The terms of and engagement.
the WCRP MoU are not being implemented effectively. The Governing Board should consider appropriate
The core (and initial) membership of the Gov- metrics for assessing the performance of WCRP.
erning Board should include high-level representation
from the sponsors, who would also recommend
other members and elect an interim Chair. The ReviewExecutive summary 13
3 SCIENTIFIC LEADERSHIP His / her role is to lead the staff and be responsible
for the scientific and technical tasks discharged
The JSC should be re-invigorated to focus on providing
by the JPS to the Chair of the JSC, acting on behalf of
science leadership, setting the science strategy and
the sponsors.
overseeing its implementation, including establishing
partnerships, and building a strong community of
As part of the recommended improvements in
international scientists to work on grand challenge re-
governance (Recommendation 2), the MoU
search problems that require international coordination.
should be revised to provide unambiguous guid-
The complexity of the WCRP structure, with its Core
dance for the roles of the WCRP Director
Projects, Working Groups and now Grand Chal-
and the JPS with respect to responsibility and
lenges, means that the JSC meetings tend to be largely
accountability, to the guidance and direc-
taken up by reviewing the activities rather than
tion of the JSC, and in terms of representation
setting the strategy and overall direction. The JSC
of the WCRP. The title of the role in itself
meetings need to be more focused on strategy
can lead to confusion as to where decision-ma-
and vision than has recently been the case. Overall
king and strategic direction is set within
the Panel concluded that morale in the JSC is not
WCRP. The Panel believes the MoU is clear that
strong and that this is having a detrimental impact
those functions lie with the JSC (and in future
on WCRP as a whole.
also with the Governing Board).
With the Governing Board being responsible for
managing the interface between the JSC, the
The sponsors should consider whether the role
sponsors and other external clients, the JSC would be
of the Director of WCRP, and the JPS in gen-
freed up to exercise its intended role, which is
eral, should have more day-to-day discretionary
to provide science leadership, to set the science strat-
executive administrative responsibility,
egy and oversee its implementation, and to build
enabling the JPS to be agile and responsive, but
a strong community of international scientists to work
always in line with the guidance and direc-
on grand challenge problems that require interna-
tion of the JSC and in consultation with the JSC
tional coordination.
Chair and Officers as appropriate. The word
“guide” should be avoided in the ToR of the JPS
The Panel recommends that the sponsors con-
to avoid any confusion with the role of the JSC.
sider the constitution of the JSC and how
members are nominated. The Panel supports
The name World Climate Research Programme
the suggestions for an open call for nomina-
should be used exclusively for the research
tions based on science excellence and leader-
enterprise defined in the MoU. In particular, the
ship, and that the sponsors consider whether
term should be avoided for administrative
the JSC membership could be reduced from
units unless the distinction is made clear (e.g.
18 to facilitate more effective decision-making.
the Joint Planning Staff of WCRP).
Depending upon decisions with respect to gov-
4 OPERATIONS ernance and a Governing Board, the terms of
Additional clarity should be provided in the terms of reference should be updated to include support
reference, structure and functions of the Joint Plan- for the Governing Board and its role.
ning Staff and the Director of WCRP, to ensure that the
JPS works effectively with the JSC to support its sci-
entific activities, to facilitate international engagement
and partnerships, and to manage WCRP’s resources.
The JPS is a vital part of WCRP. Its role is to assist
the JSC in implementing their decisions, and to
facilitate the collaborative actions of the various ele-
ments of WCRP. The JPS is led by the Director of WCRP.14 REVIEW OF THE WCRP
5 STRUCTURE The Research Projects should directly address
the goals of the new WCRP Strategy (and so
The JSC, in consultation with the newly created Govern-
they may not necessarily have a strong link to
ing Board, should work with the science commu-
the existing Grand Challenges) and identify
nity to establish a new structure for the WCRP research
high-priority issues that require international
effort that best serves its new strategy and involves
partnership and coordination; they should
a simplified set of delivery mechanisms.
yield “actionable information” for decision-
The existing structure is not the structure of tomor-
makers.
row. However, in creating a new structure, it will
be important not to destroy the legacy of what has
Regarding the existing structural elements,
been created – a community of engaged scientists;
the Panel concluded that the case for continu-
it will require a willingness from the community to
ing with WMAC and WDAC in any new struc-
change and for the community to be part of the
ture was not strong. They potentially overlap
change process.
with other relevant activities within WMO
The Panel anticipates that the JSC will work with
and elsewhere, such as WGNE and GCOS, and
the community and the newly created Governing
that in the future any such advisory coun-
Board to define a new structure that best serves its
cils should cover the breadth of WMO scientific
new strategy. The following aspects should be con-
activities. Consequently, the Panel recommends
sidered:
they not be a feature of the new structure.
That the new structure comprises a combina-
The Panel strongly recommends that the con-
tion of a small set of top-level scientific prob-
cepts of co-design and co-production be
lems with explicit societal relevance (which
exploited as much as possible. This will involve
could be called Grand Challenges or cross-cut-
the structural elements within WCRP strongly
ting Research Projects that are time-limited
linking across to other proposed activities
(e.g. 5 to 10 years) in their delivery), together
outside of WCRP, such as those within WWRP,
with a small number of enduring Capability
GFCS, Future Earth, etc. This should be borne
Themes that would nurture the long-term ex-
in mind as the new structure is being planned.
pertise needed to advise on, and contribute
to these scientific problems being addressed
effectively. 6 FINANCING
In light of the importance to society of the goals of
The Capability Themes would replace the cur-
WCRP and the precarious level of current financial sup-
rent Core Projects. The existing Core Pro-
port for the programme, the sponsors should re-
jects have been in place for a long time and so
double their efforts to support WCRP financially at a
may not be ideally structured to help de-
higher level of enabling funding so that it can oper-
liver the scientific goals of today and the future,
ate more effectively.
to be articulated in the new WCRP Strategy.
WCRP is one of the most highly regarded and wide-
These Capability Themes should aim to take a
ly recognized of the research efforts supported by
holistic Earth system approach, whilst recog-
the sponsors. There are two distinct elements to the
nizing that research on individual components
funding: that which supports the enabling acti-
of the Earth system remains essential.
vities of the WCRP executive (“enabling funding”) and
that which directly supports the research (“research
The modelling Working Groups should become
funding”). This recommendation relates primarily to
part of the Capability Themes to reflect the
the enabling fund.
importance of modelling as a tool for delivering
WCRP science. The WCRP leadership should
consider how best to reinvigorate climate mod-
el development in any revised structure.Executive summary 15
It should be more fully recognized than it is currently, 7 SCIENCE TO SERVICE
that the different sponsors provide both financial
WCRP should take action to ensure its knowledge is
and in-kind support and that the route for the financ-
brought to the service of society, especially in sup-
ing is sometimes circuitous and therefore not al-
porting the development of climate services.
ways made fully visible or recognized. Elements that
While WCRP should continue to prioritize the ad-
should help to improve the funding situation are
vancement of fundamental science, it can and
as follows:
should seek opportunities to establish connections
to relevant user communities through programme
The sponsors should agree to be clear about the
partnerships. In so doing, WCRP science can serve to
financial and in-kind contributions that
inform quality services, and emerging practitioner
they make to WCRP. This needs to factor in, and
needs can serve to inform further scientific inquiry.
be explicit about, the complex pathways
for this funding to flow to WCRP. The WCRP Gov-
WCRP should pursue, in particular, partnering
erning Board should examine the enabling
with Future Earth and its Knowledge-Action
funding annually and be pro-active in making
Networks. There are positive signs emerging
the case for that funding within the spon-
of opportunities for productive research
soring organizations, in accordance with their
partnerships and these should be pro-actively
capacities.
developed by WCRP.
WCRP should, via its sponsors, encourage coun-
WCRP should build pro-active bridges to the
tries to make appropriate national contri-
WMO’s Global Framework for Climate Services
butions to the enabling funding, such as contin-
and other science-to-service initiatives such
uing to support International Project Of-
as the Copernicus Climate Change Service and
fices and sponsoring Research Projects; a num-
the Climate Services Partnership, by imple-
ber of countries currently appear to be re-
menting a formal activity on Climate Informa-
ducing rather than increasing their contributions.
tion for Regions.
In future, there is a risk that research-funding
A variety of other mechanisms for programme
could be increasingly diverted away from
engagement should be explored. One option
fundamental science. WCRP, through its Gov-
is through representation on the recommended
erning Board and the JSC, should play an
Governing Board of WCRP. A second is to
advocacy role in mobilizing research funding
establish a (cross-cutting) working group that
for fundamental climate science. There is
serves as liaison to the partner programmes.
a need for a more strategic engagement with
the research funding communities, and for
In engaging with climate services, WCRP should
someone who could talk at the higher level
explore, and as appropriate pursue, oppor-
with the funders.
tunities this may offer for obtaining additional
funding for its fundamental science.
Engagement with the Belmont Forum of
research funders should be at a high level, ide-
ally through a WCRP research funding repre-
sentative. The Panel recommends that WCRP
and its sponsors need to partner with others
to influence Belmont Forum research funding.
WCRP needs to be seen as a strong partner
of Future Earth, and to be at the table. Only in
this way can WCRP and its sponsors can con-
tinue to influence the research funding commu-
nity about the need for fundamental science.16 REVIEW OF THE WCRP
8 PARTNERSHIP
WCRP should seek to develop strategic and strong
partnerships with other WMO research programmes
(specifically WWRP and GAW), with GCOS, and
with Future Earth.
WCRP should be pro-active in establishing a process
of full engagement with these partners via the
practice of co-design of projects to exploit the syner-
gies that seamlessness offers. A co-designed Roadmap
for exploitation of such synergies would be an im-
portant first step to draw on a great research constit-
uency. We recommend that:
WCRP urgently explores the option of the co-
design and co-production of projects that
address key scientific challenges of common in-
terest to WCRP, WWRP, GAW and Future Earth.
Future Earth should be brought in as a high-
level partner. The linkage between WCRP
and Future Earth should be strengthened by a
regular and formal set of meetings between
the top-level management of the two initiatives
to share experience and explore common
interests, and also by jointly developing Knowl-
edge-Action Networks, potentially involving
other ICSU programmes. The strategy for collab-
oration, identification of areas of joint inter-
est, and the creation of joint evaluation schemes
for the collaboration, should be considered.
WCRP should be open and dynamic for future
opportunities to develop collaboration with
new partners.Executive summary 17
18 REVIEW OF THE WCRP
1 CONTE XT
20 REVIEW OF THE WCRP
The World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) was The work of the JSC and the rest of WCRP is sup-
established in 1980 under the joint sponsorship of ported by a Joint Planning Staff (JPS), which is hosted
the International Council for Science (ICSU) and the by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
World Meteorological Organization (WMO). In 1993, in Geneva, Switzerland but reports to WMO only on
the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission administrative and budget issues. The personnel
(IOC) of UNESCO also became a sponsor. A joint of JPS are staff members of WMO, or are seconded by
agreement between the three sponsors was signed in other sponsoring organizations.
1993 that provides a definition of WCRP and the The JPS is led by the Director of WCRP, who is se-
financial, governance and institutional arrangements lected by consensus agreement of the sponsors,
for its international planning and co-ordination. who are cognizant of the recommendation made by
The mission of WCRP is to facilitate the analysis and the Officers of the JSC. The Director of WCRP is res-
prediction of Earth system variability and change ponsible to the Chairman of the JSC for the scientific
for use in an increasing range of practical applications and technical tasks discharged by the JPS, and to
of direct relevance, benefit and value to society. the WMO Secretary-General for financial and adminis-
As stated in the original MoU, the WCRP aims to de- trative matters. The Director of WCRP stepped
termine: down during the course of the Review and WMO has
appointed an Acting Director as an interim measure.
to what extent climate can be predicted;
WCRP works through a network of Core Pro-
the extent of Man’s influence on climate. jects, which focus on specific components of the cli-
mate system, and Working Groups which focus
These two principal aims remain valid and continue on specific applications of climate science, particular-
to underpin the work of WCRP. ly involving numerical simulation. The Working
The previous review of WCRP was conducted in late Group on Numerical Experimentation (WGNE) is a
2007-2008 with the review report published in shared activity with the WMO Commission for Atmo-
early 2009; the review was undertaken simultaneously spheric Science (CAS).
with a review of the International Geosphere-Bio- WCRP now also uses two supporting bodies to coor-
sphere Programme (IGBP) a research programme co- dinate its work. These are the WCRP Modelling
sponsored by ICSU and subsequently was absorbed Advisory Council (WMAC), which promotes, coordi-
within Future Earth. In 2016, the three sponsors of nates and integrates modeling activities across
WCRP agreed to undertake another review of the WCRP; and the WCRP Data Advisory Council (WDAC),
programme in order to assess its achievements since which acts as a single point of entry for all WCRP
2009, including an assessment of the implemen- data, information and observation activities.
tation of the recommendations that came out of the Most of these Core Projects and Working Groups
first review, and to provide directions for its strate- have been in existence for many years and have a
gic development in the future. In addition, the review deep legacy of scientific achievement. They typically
would consider how to maxi-mize the future synergies consist of a number of panels and working groups
between the strategic aims of WCRP and three spon- which focus on specific topics or specific regions; these
sors, while ensuring scientific independence of WCRP. have changed over time to reflect emerging sci-
entific priorities or where the community perceives
gaps in capability.
1.1 URRENT STRUCTURE AND
C In the last decade, the Core Projects and Working
GOVERNANCE OF WCRP Groups have been complemented by a number of
WCRP is led by the Joint Scientific Committee (JSC), Grand Challenges aimed at addressing specific topics
comprised of 18 members appointed by the three spon- that cut across the existing structure, so encourag-
sors. The JSC formulates the overall scientific goals ing greater collaboration and cooperation between the
and concepts of WCRP and organizes the required in- Core Projects and Working Groups. The expectation
ternational coordination and research efforts that is that these Grand Challenges will be time-limited.
underpin the programme. The Chair of the JSC reports The current organizational structure of WCRP
annually to the sponsors on the performance of is provided in graph 3. This also shows the recent
the programme.Context 21
GRAPH 3
Current organizational structure of WCRP
JOINT SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE
JSC
WCRP MODELLING WCRP DATA
ADVISORY COUNCIL ADVISORY COUNCIL
WMAC WDAC
WORKING GROUPS ON:
JOINT PLANNING STAFF
Coupled Modelling (WGCM)
Numerical Experimentation (WGNE)
Subseasonal to Interdecadal Predection (WGSIP)
Regional Climate (WGRC)
JPS
Cryosphere Climate Ocean-Atmosphere Land-Atmosphere Troposhere-Stratosphere Regional Climate
Downscaling
GRAND CHALLENGES
Clouds, Circulation and Climate Sensitivity
Regional Sea-Level Change and Coastal Impacts
Carbon Feedbacks in the Climate System
Understanding and Predicting Weather and Climate Extremes
Near-Term Climate Prediction
Melting Ice and Global Consequences
Water for the Food Baskets of the World22 REVIEW OF THE WCRP
addition of the regional climate downscaling project, Budget estimates for the activities of the JSC
CORDEX, in which the WCRP is a major player and and JPS in the biennium to follow are pre-
which contributes regional climate change scenarios pared by the JSC with the support of the JPS, and
to the IPCC assessments. submitted for approval to the executive
bodies of WMO, IOC and ICSU.
1.2 CURRENTFUNDING Should there be any divergence between the
ARRANGEMENTS level of biennial appropriations approved
by the respective executive bodies, then the
Since the Programme’s inception, WCRP activities have
lowest approved level shall prevail.
been supported through funding from its three
sponsors. Under the terms of the MoU funding is pro-
However, if one of these bodies is prepared to
vided as follows:
fund at a greater level without matching
funds from the other organizations, the total
A special account, to be known as the Joint
level of appropriations may exceed that
Climate Research Fund (JCRF), will be established
jointly agreed upon.
by the Secretary-General of WMO, and con-
tributions to the JCRF will normally be made in
Additional contributions or grants to the JCRF
equal amounts by WMO, IOC and ICSU. The
from sources other than WMO, IOC or ICSU
JCRF is used to fund the JPS salaries of staff at
may be accepted by the Secretary-General of
WMO and, through its operations funds, coor-
WMO provided that the purposes of such
dination and meetings of the Core Projects and
contributions or grants are to support activities
Working Groups.
consistent with the aims and interests of
the sponsoring organizations.
GRAPH 4
Annual operation of the Joint Climate Research Fund (JCRF) from 2012 to 2017
3,000
2,500
JCRF Total
2,000
1,500
WMO Contribution
for JPS Salaries
1,000
500
0
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
EXPENSES JPS Salaries Annual operation of the Joint Climate Research Funds (JCRF) from 2012 to 2017. The area
WCRP Coordination chart shows the variation of annual income to JCRF; the “JCRF total” (dark grey area)
is the summation of the WMO contribution for JPS salaries (dark blue area) and the ge-
neral contributions for WCRP coordination (stocked columns), for each year. The sto-
CONTRIBUTIONS Other Contributions cked columns show the contributions to JCRF from the various entities. The line graphs
IOC Contributions show the expenses for JPS salaries and expenses for the WCRP activities (e.g. mee-
NATIONAL Contributions / ICSU tings of all Core Projects, Working Groups and other WCRP groups), respectively. The
WMO Contribution for WCRP coordination values for 2017 are indicative, reflecting the projected/estimated expenses and income.Context 23
In the early years, each sponsor contributed equally a providing recommendations on changes
to the JCRF but over time the contributions from to be made in the existing agreement
WMO increased, a trend which ICSU and IOC were un- signed by three co-sponsors in 1993,
able to match. More recently ICSU and IOC contri- b reviewing the roles and contributions of
butions have declined as their operating models have three co-sponsors,
changed, and pressures on their budgets from c assessing the adequacy of the competence,
other sources have increased. The graph 4 shows the size and terms of reference of the Joint
evolution of the JCRF over the last five years. The Scientific Committee,
WMO contribution to JCRF is currently running at over d assessing roles, effectiveness and comple-
80 % of the total. In addition, national research mentarity of WCRP operational structures
funders have provided resources to support the Pro- (groups, committees, etc.),
ject Offices of the Core Projects, although those e assessing the adequacy of Joint Planning
too have come under pressure in recent years. To sus- Staff structure, its human and financial
tain the JPS both WMO and IOC were able to con- capacities, and modes of work, and
tribute additional funds for the latter half of 2017. f evaluating the adequacy and effectiveness
of WCRP fundraising efforts.
1.3 REVIEW PROCESS Assess the implementation of the recommenda-
AND EVIDENCE COLLECTION tions that came out of the 2009 WCRP Review.
APPROACH
Assess WCRP linkages and relationships within
The Terms of Reference (ToR) for this Review are:
the climate science community (including
rovide strategic directions for future develop-
P with members and other programmes run by
ment of the Programme. the co-sponsors, e.g. Future Earth, SCOR,
SCAR), and also with non-academic stakeholders.
Review scientific achievements and impacts of
WCRP since 2009 and the future plans, with Assess the appropriateness and effectiveness of
specific attention to: WCRP communication efforts for visibility
a setting international scientific agenda of the Programme and its co-sponsors, as well as
on climate prediction and climate change, their positioning in the overall climate arena
b providing opportunities for innovative (including policy fora, e.g. the Paris Agreement).
research, including inter / trans-disciplinary
research of high quality, Assess how the aims and strategy of WCRP com-
c generating high-quality scientific outputs, plements and supports the strategies and
d involving the scientific communities priorities of three co-sponsors, and make recom-
from all parts of the world, including devel- mendations on how synergies can be en-
oping countries, as well as attracting hanced.
a younger generation of scientists,
e generating scientific knowledge for climate The WCRP review took place between February and
services, October 2017. The review process consisted of
two physical meetings and several teleconferences be-
f providing scientific input for major interna-
tional policy processes and assessment tween members of the Review Panel.
activities (e.g. the Paris Agreement of UNFCCC,The first teleconference took place on 13 February
Agenda 2030, IPCC assessments). 2017, during which the WCRP sponsors presented
to the Review Panel the objectives of the Review, its
Review appropriateness and effectiveness work plan, timeline and background information
of the governance, operational structure, man- about WCRP. During this call, the Review Panel also
agement and resourcing of WCRP. Specific began identifying key stakeholders to be inter-
attention should be given to: viewed during the review process.24 REVIEW OF THE WCRP
The Panel held its first meeting in Paris on 3-5 April Met Office. It also met the WCRP Joint Planning Staff
2017 in conjunction with the WCRP JSC meeting, (JPS). The Chair of the Panel also attended the
and this provided an opportunity to collect input from meeting of the WCRP Modelling Advisory Council and
the JSC members. During the meeting, the Panel the modelling Working Groups in Exeter, UK in
reviewed the ToR, analysed the findings and recom- October 2017.
mendations of the previous WCRP review, discussed On the final day of the site visit, the Review Panel
the self-assessment report provided by the Director of analysed the inputs from multiple sources and
WCRP, and key documents submitted by the WCRP drafted the report’s recommendations. Members final-
secretariat and WCRP sponsors (for a full list of docu- ized the draft report through electronic communi-
ments provided to the Review Panel see Annex 1; cation and teleconferences.
these are all available at bit.ly/2BBcKZa). The review findings and recommendations are
Furthermore, the Panel received oral input from based on the evidence collected and analysed through:
the Director of WCRP, the Chair, the Vice-Chair
and ordinary members of JSC, senior representatives of Study of documentation, including the 2009
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change WCRP Review, agreement between sponsors,
(IPCC), the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the WCRP Strategic Framework 2005-2015, the
the International Council for Science (ICSU), the WCRP Implementation Plan 2010-2015,
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) summaries of the JSC meetings, annual budg-
of UNESCO, the Commission for Atmospheric Sci- ets, WCRP structure and reporting lines,
ences (CAS), the World Weather Research Programme website content (see Annex 1 / bit.ly/2BBcKZa);
(WWRP) and the Global Atmosphere Watch Pro-
gramme (GAW). A self-assessment report written by the Di-
The Review Panel also held discussions with the rector of WCRP on the performance of the pro-
senior representatives of WCRP core projects (GEWEX, gramme and future plans;
CliC and SPARC) and the Grand Challenge on Un-
derstanding and Predicting Weather and Climate Ex- Written input on WCRP achievements prepared
tremes. Through a teleconference, the Panel also by the Chair of JSC;
held a discussion with a co-chair of the Belmont Fo-
rum, representing the research funding commu- Written self-assessment reports prepared by
nity (see Annex 2 for the list of people who contrib- the Advisory Councils, Working Groups, Core
uted to the review process). During the meeting, Projects, and Grand Challenges;
the panel identified key issues for follow-up, agreed
on the list of people to be interviewed during the Interviews with key stakeholders during the
site visit and additional information required for meeting in Paris and the site visit in Geneva
that visit. (see Annex 2). The stakeholders were selected
The site visit took place on 31 May – 2 June 2017 in based on their knowledge of, and interac-
Geneva, Switzerland, during which the Panel inter- tions with, WCRP; and their expertise in the
viewed the leadership of WMO, ICSU and IOC of UNESCO. climate change domain.
It also met the representatives of the WMO Climate
and Water Department, and Climate Prediction and
Adaptation Branch, GAW, WWRP, and Atmospheric
Research and Environment Branch, and the Global Cli-
mate Observing System (GCOS).
The Review Panel also held discussions (via telecon-
ference) with the representatives of: the WCRP JSC,
the WCRP core project CLIVAR, the Future Earth Global
Paris Hub, the UNFCCC Secretariat /SBSTA, NOAA Geo-
physical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, the US Na-
tional Center for Atmospheric Research, and the UKContext 25
26 REVIEW OF THE WCRP
2 HAT TH E REVIEW
W
PANEL LEA RNED28 REVIEW OF THE WCRP
The ToRs provided the framework for the Review, 2.1 OUTCOME OF THE 2009
but in gathering its evidence and forming its recom-
REVIEW OF WCRP
mendations the Panel also emphasized the im-
The 2009 Review recognized a number of important
portance of the following elements during the re-
achievements of the WCRP; however, it concluded
view process:
that WCRP lacked the focus, planning and funding to
meet the challenges of global climate change. It
The need to recognize the seamless nature of
made the following recommendations:
climate-weather science. The Panel agreed
to seek to understand how WCRP is addressing
1 immediately focus its 2005 WCRP Strategic
this and furthermore how it interacts with
Framework to better capture the WCRP role in
the weather community (including WWRP).
providing the science that underpins re-
search on climate predictability, adaptation,
Climate science is the bedrock of the Earth sys-
and mitigation, thus strengthening the
tem science; therefore, there is a need to
links with key end-user groups.
ensure that the Earth system science aligns with
the priorities of climate science and vice ver-
2 rapidly implement its focused Strategic
sa. Therefore, the panel agreed that interactions
Framework, paying special attention to soci-
with Future Earth should be examined.
etal needs while maintaining its science-
driven approach.
There is a need to make sure that there is a
strong fusion of models and observations, and
3 introduce clear priorities into WCRP as a whole,
that their strategies and priorities are aligned.
collaborating with other Global Environmen-
Therefore, the panel agreed that relationships
tal Change programmes to take into account
between WCRP, GCOS and the Commission
urgent science required for IPCC and other
for Climatology should be explored.
societal demands.
The relationship between WCRP and the climate
4 lead the initiative on Earth system modelling,
service community should be defined. There
in collaboration with IGBP and other Pro-
is a risk of diluting fundamental science by try-
grammes, utilizing the full richness of relevant
ing to be relevant to the user. Nevertheless,
disciplines, and explicitly addressing scien-
the panel recognized that connections with the
tific problems that lie at the interfaces with
service community are important for iden-
these disciplines.
tifying priorities for climate research and for
establishing relevance and impact.
5 consolidate and strengthen its focus as a user
and promoter of observations as well as its
There is a risk that, in the future, funding
support of the components of the Global Cli-
could be increasingly diverted from fundamen-
mate Observing System.
tal science. WCRP should play an advocacy
role in mobilizing funding for fundamental
6 set specific strategy and goals for building its
climate science. There is a need for a more
scientific capacity in diversity of age and
strategic engagement with the funding com-
gender and for participation of developing
munities.
country scientists in planning and research.
7 build its resource capacity by enhancing sup-
port for coordination and advocacy for re-
search and infrastructure needs. This will neces-
sitate expanding its funding sources outside
traditional targets and working through IGFA.What the Review Panel learned 29
8 expand its strategic outreach activities to Recommendation 5 focused on WCRP as a user and
target greater visibility and better uptake and promoter of observations. The WCRP Data Advisory
utilization of WCRP outputs by the climate Council responds directly to this recommendation,
research community, the policy world and pri- but in doing so WCRP may have inadvertently weak-
vate sector, and more broadly to the general ened the links to GCOS.
public.
WCRP has responded well to Recommendation 6
9 WCRP’s sponsors should meet regularly to re- which related to diversity in age, gender and devel-
view their mutual responsibilities for the opment status in the WCRP Community. The YESS
Programme in light of society’s increasing need (Young Earth System Scientists) initiative is an excel-
for climate understanding, mitigation, and lent initiative which should continue.
adaptation.
Recommendation 7 focused on resource mobiliza-
10 WCRP, in partnership with other global environ- tion and the results have been mixed. Some early
mental change programmes, should develop progress was made in garnering support for the JPS,
a framework for future joint research operation, but the Review Panel finds the JPS support base
with the initial focus on the elements iden- now worse than in 2009. WCRP responded, but seem-
tified in this Review. A sponsor-convened 12- ingly lacks the strategy and the financial where-
month study is proposed to initiate and plan withal to achieve a major change.
the process.
Clearly outreach is now being made a priority (Rec-
Recommendations 1 and 2 were directed at devel- ommendation 8) and the WCRP was prominent
opment and implementation of a WCRP Strategic in the IPCC 5th Assessment Report. However, engage-
Framework. WCRP established a strategy for the peri- ment with the sponsors and key partners seems
od 2005-2015 and added to this guidance through mostly ad hoc and lacking real purpose.
the development of the Grand Challenges for the sub-
sequent period as approved by the JSC. WCRP has Recommendation 9 stated “WCRP’s sponsors
been following this guidance but recognizes that this should meet regularly to review their mutual respon-
strategy needs to be upgraded and formalized now. sibilities for the Programme”; there is no evidence
This lack of an up-to-date Strategic Plan means that this recommendation has been implemented.
priorities are not clear (Recommendation 3). This
recommendation also encouraged collaboration Recommendation 10 addressed the big picture –
with other global environmental change programmes Global Environmental Change research in general.
i.e Future Earth) and although WCRP decided not Arguably, Future Earth has responded directly to
to become part of Future Earth, it has formed part- this challenge, but by deciding to remain separate
nerships in some areas but overall the collaboration from Future Earth, the WCRP has lost the ability
has stalled while Future Earth is still being estab- to lead or co-lead.
lished.
2.2 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE
Recommendation 4 concerned leadership for
Earth system modelling and this continues to be a CURRENT STRUCTURE
WCRP strength, especially in the Working Group In undertaking its review the Panel emphasized the
on Coupled Modelling (WGCM) and the Coupled Mod- importance of recognizing that WCRP is not a
el Intercomparison Project (CMIP), which under- funding agency, and therefore cannot dictate what
pins the IPCC Assessment Reports. Earth system mod- work is done by the participating scientists.
els started to appear in the IPCC 5th Assessment WCRP only functions effectively if it can engage with,
Report and are likely to dominate the 6th Assessment and gain the commitment of, the international
Report in 2022, ahead of the first Global stocktake climate science community to its programme of work,
in 2023. and in turn ensure that participants derive bene-You can also read
