Search Climate Insights Directory

The paper examines the Global Framework for Climate Services (GFCS), established by the World Meteorological Organization in 2009 to improve interaction between climate knowledge producers and users. Using Social Network Analysis (SNA), the study analyzes the institutional trajectories, contact points, and levels of cooperation among participating organizations to assess the potential for intensifying collaboration in the provision of climate services.

The paper argues for a multi-scale scenario methodology that integrates local livelihood dimensions with global stressors to better understand food insecurity and climate vulnerability. It identifies four key challenges: the need for global scenarios to include socioeconomic vulnerability and adaptive capacity, the requirement for consistent treatment of vulnerability across scales (household to world), the integration of livelihood analysis into long-term food security scenarios, and the necessity of participatory stakeholder processes.

The document argues that existing 'top-down' global food system scenarios often fail to capture the multi-scale nature of vulnerability and the specific dynamics of local livelihoods. To bridge this gap, the authors propose using 'livelihood systems' as an intermediate scale to link global drivers—such as climate change and market forces—to local food security outcomes. The paper demonstrates this approach through case studies in India and South Africa, using data from the Global Scenario Group's PoleStar system and national food security frameworks. It concludes that a 'bottom-up' participatory approach, which maps the exposure of specific livelihood groups (e.g., nomadic pastoralists or smallholder farmers) to various stressors, provides a more realistic basis for adaptation and policy intervention than aggregated global projections.

The document provides guidance on the methodological assumptions required to aggregate the climate mitigation impacts of cities, businesses, and states. It emphasizes that variations in assumptions—such as the scope of included actions and the degree of conservativeness—significantly influence the credibility and comparability of assessment results. The paper aims to enhance transparency in reporting and support users of the ICAT Non-State and Subnational Action (NSA) Guide and the Climate Action Aggregation Tool (CAAT) in making informed design choices for their assessments.