Exploring the science–policy interface on climate change: The role of the IPCC in informing local decision-making in the UK

Abstract

Building on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) review of how to make its Assessment Reports (ARs) more accessible in the future, the research reported here assesses the extent to which the ARs are a useful tool through which scientific advice informs local decision-making on climate change in the United Kingdom. Results from interviews with local policy representatives and three workshops with UK academics, practitioners and local decision makers are presented. Drawing on these data, we outline three key recommendations made by participants on how the IPCC ARs can be better utilized as a form of scientific advice to inform local decision-making on climate change. First, to provide more succinct summaries of the reports paying close attention to the language, content, clarity, context and length of these summaries; second, to better target and frame the reports from a local perspective to maximize engagement with local stakeholders; and third, to work with local decision makers to better understand how scientific advice on climate change is being incorporated in local decision-making. By adopting these, the IPCC would facilitate local decision-making on climate change and provide a systematic review of how its reports are being used locally. We discuss implications of these recommendations and their relevance to the wider debate within and outside the IPCC as to the most effective way the IPCC can more effectively tailor its products to user needs without endangering the robustness of its scientific findings. This article is published as part of a collection on scientific advice to governments.

Decision-Making and Building Resilience to Nexus Shocks Locally: Exploring Flooding and Heatwaves in the UK

“…The resulting implications are that the agenda capitalizes on local expertise and knowledge with a focus on building community resilience to nexus shocks. As stated by Howarth and Painter ( [33], p. 10), "climate change is a local and context-specific issue" and therefore much work in practice on responses to nexus shocks occurs at the local level. Furthermore, with the withdrawal of the state and its funding from the local level, combined with the projected increases in magnitude and frequency of nexus shocks due to climate change in the UK, the need for effective local level responses, collaboration and communication between tiers of society and government as well as research on this area is urgently required [34].…”

“…The UK Climate Projections 2009 (UKCP09), a climate analysis tool which helps decision-makers assess risk exposure to climate, and the UK CCRA, which addresses the urgency of further action to climate change, are useful examples of this. However, these have not led to "tangible adaptation actions" ( [63], p. 1), with the needs of end users, particularly those at the local level, not fully taken into consideration [33]. This section further considers the implications from this, particularly in relation to what local responses to nexus shocks entail and how these could be improved.…”

“…In response to this the UK government established national services that would help address this knowledge gap through the UKCP09, the CCRA, and the Environment Agency's Climate Ready Programme (see Section 3). While it could be argued that this was an example of the 'information deficit approach' in practice, it nonetheless led to increased understanding, awareness and capacity to inform decision-making processes around climate impacts at the local level [33]. In spite of increased production and availability of science and evidence to inform decision making at the local level, demand for this remains low due to existing policy, legal and regulatory frameworks which are misaligned with (1) the needs of decision makers to constructively design processes that facilitate robust solutions to climate change; and (2) the scientific complexities of climate projections produced [76].…”

“…The overview we have provided here demonstrates the potential severe impacts they can have, the resulting processes that have been put in place to respond to them, and the range of stakeholders involved (see Table 2). These have often been the result of a shock event (e.g., the 2013-2014 winter floods or the 2003 European heatwave) and have involved leadership, communication, and collaboration across sectors, scales and stakeholders, with scientific advice underpinning much of this process [33]. However, when these types of shocks occur, due to their 'shock-like' nature, decision-making may not 'follow the norms of rationality' ( [61], p. 14) and information provided to inform that decision making may not necessarily meet the needs of those using it [62].…”

“…Decisions at a national level may fail to consider implications for the local level or in the long-term, and sectorial input in nexus shocks and grassroot participation from local communities is needed to design sustainable and resilient responses to these shocks [4]. Social science literature stresses that practical difficulties in using climate science to inform decision-making in response to nexus shocks at the local level are two-way [30,33]. For example, Howarth and Painter ( [33], p. 10) recommend that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a UN-body which assesses the large evidence base on climate change with respect to (1) the science; (2) adaptation and vulnerability; and (3) mitigation options, ensure "a two-way communication process by which it synthesizes evidence to inform local decision-making on climate change whilst simultaneously drawing on more localized expertise.…”