Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Pre-scoping questionnaire’s responses for IPCC special report: Impact of
global warming of 1.5 ºC above pre-industrial levels
Background
The 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC) negotiated the Paris Agreement, a global agreement on the reduction of climate
change, the text of which represents a consensus of the representatives of the 196 parties attending.
The COP21 Paris Agreement seeks to strengthen the global response to climate change’s threat,
limiting the increase of global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and
pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. In addition, a
balance is sought between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks in the second
half of the 21st century. Nationally determined contributions will be evaluated on a 5-year cycle
through a global stocktaking mechanism being established by the UNFCCC, supported by a facilitative
dialogue in 2018, and a first formal review in 2023.
The Paris Agreement issued an invitation to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to
provide a special report in 2018 on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels
and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways. The IPCC accepted the invitation at its 43rd
Session (11-13 April 2016, Nairobi, Kenya), noting the context of strengthening the global response to
the threat of climate change, sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty and scheduled
a scoping meeting for the special report, to be held from 15-18 August 2016 in Geneva, Switzerland.
Ahead of the scoping meeting for the special report, the IPCC invited interested parties to fill a
questionnaire prepared by the scoping meeting Scientific Steering Committee and offer
recommendations on the structure, format and contents of the special report. The questionnaire was
sent by the IPCC Secretariat to all IPCC focal points and observer organisations. The questionnaire
consisted of 12 questions combining multiple-choices, scaled and open-ended questions soliciting the
respondents to address a broad range of issues. The deadline for submission of the contributions was
set the 15th July, 2016. The questionnaire is provided in Appendix A.
Understanding the impact of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and the associated
transformative pathways necessitates a concerted level of multidisciplinary dialogue and integration
of knowledge. This special report poses challenges for the IPCC, requiring a cross-Working Group
oversight.
The current document provides a brief analysis of the questionnaire responses and a synthesis of the
findings. Section 1 discusses features of the respondents’ population. Section 2 narrows down the
analysis by categories of responses including: (i) population of respondents, (ii) priority needs and
areas of expertise, (iii) sectors of interests, (iv) geographic distribution, and (v) emerging key
questions. Section 3 discusses options for the special report format and related recommendations.
1. Methodology
The analysis of questionnaire’s responses is undertaken by triangulating the responses through
clustering and ranking areas of interest, key topics and common patterns, identifying emerging trends,
and measuring the frequency of requests. Wherever feasible, outputs are normalised (by type of
population), and priority interests are contextualised (for instance by representativeness of the
categories). Topics of interest are catalogued and counted using a quasi-objective approach.
The analysis of findings is conducted through splitting the global sample size population into six main
categories including institutional responses, individual responses, focal points, observer organisations,
developing countries, and developed countries. Results from the global sample size population are
also compared against those from the different respondents’ categories.
2. Typology of respondents
A total number of 226 questionnaire responses were received – with more than half of the responses
originating from research institutes, academia and national government representatives (Figure 1.1).
The other half of responses originates from IPCC focal points, observer’s organisations, and NGOs.
Only few contributions reflect views of the industry sector and local authorities.
While 143 responses express an individual opinion, 99 responses reflect the view of affiliated
institutions. In terms of geographical distribution, responses are unbalanced and predominantly
provided by respondents based in developed countries, particularly in Europe and North America
(Figures 1.2 – 1.4).
The global sample size population spans a wide range of expertise, but questionnaire’s responses are
dominated by contributions from experts in the areas of physical science, natural resources, energy,
water management, social sciences, agriculture and food security, and economics (Figure 1.5). The
individuals, institutional and focal points’ responses share a similar trend.
Figure 1.6 provides further insight on the spectrum of available expertise, focusing on the following
four respondent’s top ranked organisations: energy, agriculture and food security, water and health.
The predominant contribution of individuals with expertise in physical and natural sciences persists,
but expertise in policy and law, and coastal issues are important feature of the national governments’
population.
Figure 1.7 depicts the regional distribution of expertise. The expertise tends to be concentrated within
Europe and North America – in line with the regional distribution of respondents’ responses, in
particular the individuals and Academia’s responses. The institutional responses indicate strong
contributions from Africa, Asia and Europe.
3. Report’s content
3.1. “In your vision, which are the main, relevant elements that could be addressed in the
Special Report?”
The responses of the survey’s first question resulted in identification and ranking of 63 key topics
(Appendix B). Figures 2.1-2.4 illustrate the key topics, considering specifically the regional distribution,
global sample population, institutional responses, individual responses, and focal points’ responses.
The topics of interest vary across regions, though there is high level of agreement on the top priority
subjects to be discussed in the special report.
Globally, the questionnaire’s responses are dominated by the following topics:
differential impacts;
emission and mitigation pathways;
improved understanding and knowledge review;
regional aspects;
adaptation;
cost-benefit analysis;
climate extremes;
feasibility of 1.5°C global warming above pre-industrial levels;
sectorial impacts;
sustainable development;
avoided impacts Institutional and focal points’ responses are in particular concerned with:
differential impacts;
emission and mitigation pathways;
regional aspects; Individual responses show a similar trend, but with increased focus on the issue of sustainable
development.
Figure 2.5 compares the interests of developing and developed countries. The two set of countries
converge in that assessing the differential impacts across different levels of warming is a top priority
issue. Developing countries also prioritise regional aspects and improved knowledge, while, developed
countries show strong interest for emission and mitigation pathways, cost-benefit analysis, climate
extremes, and avoided impacts.
2.3 Emerging scientific questions
The top priority scientific of the global population’s responses can be framed as follow:
What local-to-regional, sectorial and socio-economic impacts are avoided with limiting global
temperature warming to 1.5?
What is the adequacy of research attempting to quantify the differential impacts of 1.5C, 2C
and beyond global temperature targets, taking into account the contribution of short-lived
climate pollutants (black carbon, methane, hydrofluorocarbon, and ozone)?
What development and emissions pathways (including with/without negative emissions
and/or overshoots) are consistent with limiting the rise in global mean surface temperature
to no more than 1.5degC?
Feasibility of the 1.5-degree temperature rise limit and implications for adaptation strategies,
emission pathways, mitigation pathways and sustainable development goals (SDGs)?
The academia and research population shows particular interest for the following issues:
Assessing the timescales for dangerous climate change and accounting for areas of
unharnessed mitigation potential for limiting global temperature warming to 1.5°C.
Providing paleoclimate perspectives in assessing the avoided impact under different global
temperature targets
A few contributions from national governments and academia stress the need to discuss options for
geoengineering, especially BECCS (Biomass energy with Carbon dioxide Capture and Storage) that
would be affordable and estimate the feasibility and horizon for availability.
2.4 Question: “Please highlight emerging knowledge (including scientific, technological, policy) that
you consider highly relevant for this Special Report. Are there any potential overlaps with
assessment reports from other bodies?”
The emerging knowledge include:
FAO's data on crop, livestock, fisheries and forestry. FAO is conducting impact assessment
under 1.5° C global temperature target and developing information system on damage and
losses from climate extremes in agriculture. FAO's data could be used and analysed for the
report.
Literature from the HAPPIMIP (Half a degree Additional warming, Prognosis and Projected
Impacts; http://www.happimip.org/) or ISIMIP (Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison
Project; https://www.isimip.org/) projects will be available soon.
Recently published articles with a focus on the issue of 2.0℃ and 1.5℃, as well as
differentiation of climate impacts at different levels of warming – including trend, cost, and
availability of renewable energy (Mitchell et al.,2016; Schleussner et al., 2015); .
The PAGES (PAst Global changES; http://www.pages-igbp.org/ini/wg/floods/intro) Floods
Working Group was launched in autumn 2015 with the aims to gather all scientific
communities working on historical and natural archives and document past floods.
New literature on the integrated assessment model (IAM) emissions pathways that assume
significant negative emissions technologies, such as BECCS (e.g. impacts on food security:
Wiltshire et al., 2016; http://www.avoid.uk.net/publications/).
New literature on estimates of the global economic impacts of climate change, particularly
failure to reflect differential impacts between 1.5 and 2.0oC global temperature targets (Stern,
2016;http://www.nature.com.biblioplanets.gate.inist.fr/polopoly_fs/1.19416!/menu/main/t
opColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/530407a%20%28corrected%29.pdf).
Methodological developments to assess policies and measures that integrates social,
environmental and economic aspects have emerged in the last decade.
New research on regional climate change and future climate projections – focusing on the
specific influence of short and long-lived climate pollutants, spatially and temporally resolved
extreme events
2.5 Question: “In your view, which sectors would you deem relevant to be addressed in the report?
Please prioritize your choices (maximum 300 characters)”
The sectorial interest varies across categories of the population and regions, but globally a strong
demand is directed toward the following sectors (Figure 2.6):
Energy;
Agriculture and food security;
Water;
Transport;
Health;
Forestry;
Urban and cities;
Land use;
Infrastructures;
Education
There is a great deal of convergence between institutional and individual responses, developing and
developed countries – with emphasis put on the energy, agriculture and food security, water,
transport and health sectors (Figure 2.7 – 2.8). Developed countries and academic community are also
concerned with the transport sector.
2.6 Question: “Which stakeholder challenges or decision contexts is this Special Report relevant for?
Please rate (low, lower, medium, high priority) each of the following key words:
The decision making context span a wide range of issues, but high priority is given to sustainable
development, adaptation and mitigation. However, institutional and individuals’ responses place
also some emphasis on disasters and risks, and increasing resilience (Figure 3.1).
2.7 Question: “How do you expect this special report be used and what is its expected impact for
your institution and/or field of expertise? (Maximum 600 characters)”
The main expectations for the special report is to provide the scientific foundation for:
informing climate policies, programs, and services as well as adaptation and mitigation
decision-making;
raising awareness of impacts and ability to assess vulnerability of sectors, regions and
populations;
enhancing adaptive capacity and resilience
3. Format of the special report
3.1. Question: “Please provide your suggestions for the format of the Special Report)?”
A majority of questionnaire responses underline the need for limiting the report size to 5 chapters and
200-300 pages (Figures 3.2 – 3.4). A few observer organisations and NGOs favour instead a report of
larger size with 6 to 8 chapters.
3.2. Appendix and technical summary
Figure 3.5 illustrates the global view on elements to be included in the appendix and technical
summary sections. For the appendix section, the dominant request is for a description of
methodologies and datasets, and a discussion of case studies. The technical summary should be small
in size, written in technical but clear language, and highlight key findings.
Summary for policy makers and frequently asked questions are perceived by the majority of
respondents as critical components of the special report. These should be concise and for example,
follow the format used in the IPCC fifth assessment report.
Conclusions
This document provides an evaluation of the pre-scoping questionnaire responses on the impacts of
global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission
pathways, establishing a basis for understanding the nature of these responses. The respondents’
population span a wide range of geographic regions, areas of expertise, opinions (institutional and
individual), and organisations. Overall, suggestions for key topics to be dealt with in the special report
include differential impacts, emission and mitigation pathways, improved knowledge and
understanding, regional aspects, adaptation, cost-benefit analysis, climate extremes and feasibility of
1.5°C global warming above pre-industrial levels. The respondents’ population by enlarge favour a
small sized report of 5-6 chapters, 200-300 pages, with concise appendices and technical summary.
Figure 1.1: Global respondents’ population
Figure 1.2a: Regional distribution of responses
79
6663
32
26
19
9 3 3
TOTAL
Co
un
t
Type of organisations
Global population
Research institutes
Academia.
National gov.
Focal points
NGOs
InternationalInstitutions.
Observers.
Local authority.
Industry.
11
18
36
15
6 8
2319
56
28
6 8
AFRICA ASIA EUROPE NORTH AMERICA, CENTRAL AMERICA AND THE
CARIBBEAN
SOUTH AMERICA
SOUTH-WEST PACIFIC
Regional distribution
Institutional responses
Individual responses
Figure 1.2b: Countries contributing to the survey
Figure 1.3: Regional distribution of responses per organisations and opinions
Figure 1.4: Global view of responses per country development ranking and opinion
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Africa Asia Europe NorthAmerica,CentralAmericaand the
Caribbean
SouthAmerica
South-WestPacific
Co
un
tRespondents' categories per regions
Institutional.
Industry.
Local authority.
International Institutions.
Observers.
Research institutions
Individual.
Focal points
NGOs.
Academia.
National govt.
39%
61%
Developing vs developed countries
Developing
Developed
59%
41%
Institutional vs individual responses
Individual
institutional
Figure 1.5: Fields of expertise within the global sample size population, institutional and individual
responses
78232930333538384143
5254556064
110
0 50 100 150
TOTAL
Count
Exp
ert
ise
sExpertise/Global
Physical climate science.
Natural resources.
Energy.
Hydrology.
Social sciences.
Agric&food security.
Economics.
Policy & law
Coastal & marine
Technology.
Urban & cities
Conservation.
Engineering.
Health.
Infrastructures.
Transport.
Forestry.
22
1516
1217
2016
2415
2230
1829
2634
46
0 20 40 60
1
Count
Exp
ert
ise
s
Institutional view
4510
152021
2024
1925
2329
3733
3838
72
0 20 40 60 80
1
Count
Exp
ert
ise
s
Individual view
1
24
25
43
86
48
38
611
18
0 5 10 15 20
1
Count
Exp
ert
ise
s
Focal points' view
Figure 1.6: Fields of expertise within research institutions, academia, national governments, NGOs,
observer organisations, and international institutions responses
3361113
8141514
1217
2417
2222
2643
0 20 40 60
1
Count
Exp
ert
ise
sResearch institutions
Physical climate science.
Natural resources.
Energy.
Hydrology.
Social sciences.
Agric&food security.
Economics.
Policy & law
Coastal & marine
Technology.
Urban & cities
Conservation.
Engineering.
Health.
Infrastructures.
Transport.
Forestry.
224
85
78
79
139
162020
1518
31
0 10 20 30 40
1
Count
Exp
ert
ise
s
Academia
1
76
98
99
1412
1114
817
1522
36
0 10 20 30 40
1
Count
Exp
ert
ise
s
National governments
24
27
37
23
47
112
126
11
0 5 10 15
1
Count
Exp
ert
ise
sNGOs
211
21
31
23
133
1
0 1 2 3 4
1
Count
Exp
ert
ise
s
Observers
1333
23
544
37
57
55
10
0 5 10 15
1
Count
Exp
ert
ise
s
International instit.
Figure 1.7: Regional distribution of expertise.
17
7
4 4
1
7
3
5
2
6
8
14
10
6 6
3
9
AFRICA
Expertise - AfricaPhysical climate science.
Social science.
Policyand law.
Urban & cities.
Forestry.
Agriculture & food security
Health.
Economics.
Transport.
Coastal.
Water.
Natural resources.
Energy.
Engineering.
Technology.
Infrastructure.
Conservation.
14
23
7
2
5
3
10
3
78
11
5
7
1 2
ASIA
Asia
45
2217
15
3
19
11
18
5
16
22 2224
11 13 129
EUROPE
Europe
20
13
9
3
8
5 4 6 6 6 73 6 3 6
NORTH AMERICA, CENTRAL AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN
North America
4
3
2
3
1 1
2
7
2 2
1 1 1
SOUTH AMERICA
South America
4 4
5
4
6
2 2
3
5
2
3
1
2
1
3
SOUTH-WEST PACIFIC
South-west Pacific
Figure 2.1: Topics of interest per regions
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Africa Asia Europe NorthAmerica,Central
America andthe
Caribbean
SouthAmerica
South-WestPacific
Co
un
t
Regions vs key topics of interestKnowledge review
Short lived emission.
Mitigation pathways.
Mitigation.
Improved understanding.
Regionalisation.
Technology.
Emission pathways.
Development pathways.
Benefit & cost analysis
Feasibility of 1.5°C.
Adaptation.
Climate extremes.
Avoided impacts.
Agriculture & food security.
Energy.
Loss & damage.
Differential impacts.
NDCs.
Water.
Transformational changes.
Sustainable development.
Figure 2.2: Key topics for the global sample size population, institutional and individual responses, and
focal points’ community (part 1)
151516161721
2728303132
4044454647
59
67
106
TOTAL
Co
un
t
Topics
Global view (part 1)Uncertainty.
Disasters & risks.
Agriculture & food security.
Policy actions.
Development pathways.
Avoided impacts.
Sustainable development.
Sectorial impacts.
Climate extremes.
Feasibility of 1.5°C.
Benefit & cost-analysis.
Adaptation.
Regionalisation.
Knowledge review.
Improved understanding.
Mitigation pathways.
Mitigation.
Emission pathways.
Differential impacts.
68 9
7 6 4
101213
161616
222222
18
26
30
49
1C
ou
nt
Topics
Institutional
8 6 81111
1719
15181716
2425262829
3438
63
1
Co
un
t
Topics
Individuals
32 2 1 2 2
5
3 34
6 6
8 8 8
6
910
14
1
Co
un
t
Topics
Focal points
Figure 2.3: Key topics for global sample size population, institutional and individual responses, and
focal points (part 2)
7 7
8 8 8 8
9 9 9
101010101010
1111
13
1414
TOTAL
Co
un
t
Topics
Global view (part 2)Financing.
Health.
Climate projections.
Restoration & land degradation.
Natural system.
Dangerous climate change.
Vulnerability.
Human system.
Poverty reduction.
Energy.
Ecosystem.
Societal impacts.
Urban & cities
Human impacts.
Short-lived emission.
Sea level rise.
Social impacts.
Negative emission.
NDCs.
Transformational changes.
3
2
33
444
2
5
2
4
1
4
3
2
33
88
4
1
Co
un
t
Topics
Institutional
3
4
5 5
3
4
5
4 4
6
5
6 6
7
6 6
8
4
6
8
1
Co
un
t
Topics
Individuals
2
1
2
1
3
1
3
1
2
1
2 2 2
4
3
1
Co
un
t
Topics
Focal points
Figure 2.4: Key topics for research institutions, academia, national governments, NGOs, observer
organisations, and international institutions responses
542476
8877
13
10
15151618
2121
30
1
Co
un
t
Topics
Research instit. Uncertainty.
Disasters & risks.
Agriculture & food security.
Policy actions.
Development pathways.
Avoided impacts.
Sustainable development.
Sectorial impacts.
Climate extremes.
Feasibility of 1.5°C.
Benefit & cost-analysis.
Adaptation.
Regionalisation.
Knowledge review.
Improved understanding.
Mitigation pathways.
Mitigation.
Emission pathways.
Differential impacts.
4 3 26
3
10
4 3
7 7 76
1113
14
1112
13
27
1
Co
un
tTopics
Academia
4 4 5 2 5 4 8
16
7 9 7
1719
161613
2224
37
1
Co
un
t
Topics
National governments
2 1 2
5
13
45
4 4 43 3
65
910
1
Co
un
t
Topics
NGOs
1 1 1
3 3
1 1 1 1
4
1
5
3
1
Co
un
t
Topics
Observers
3 2 3 2 2 2 1
7
4
2
4
2 2
4
2
8
10
1
Co
un
t
Topics
International instit.
Figure 2.5: Topics of interest for developing and developed countries (part 1&2)
3 68
2 6 3
12 13
7
10 10
14
20 21 21
15
2119
40
0
Co
un
t
Topics
Developing countriesUncertainty.
Disasters & risks.
Agriculture & food security.
Policy actions.
Development pathways.
Avoided impacts.
Sustainable development.
Sectorial impacts.
Climate extremes.
Feasibility of 1.5°C.
Benefit & cost-analysis.
Adaptation.
Regionalisation.
Knowledge review.
Improved understanding.
Mitigation pathways.
Mitigation.
Emission pathways.
Differential impacts.
96 6
12
8
16
11 10
1917
2018 19 20 21
2528
39
54
1
Co
un
t
Topics
Developed countries
Figure 2.6: Regional distribution of sectorial interest
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Africa Asia Europe NorthAmerica,Central
America andthe
Caribbean
SouthAmerica
South-WestPacific
Co
un
t
Regions vs sectors of interest Health.
Agriculture & food security.
Mining.
Water.
Transport.
Urban & cities
Infrastructure.
Research.
Tourism.
Land use
Forestry.
Coastal.
Conservation.
Oil & gas
Industry.
Air quality.
Energy.
Education.
Disasters & Risks.
Technology.
Security.
Figure 2.7: Sectors of interest for global sample size population, institutional and individual responses,
and focal points
87
79
48
41
29
18181717161412105 4 2 2 3 2 2 2
TOTAL
Co
un
t
Sectors
Sectors (Global) Energy.
Agriculture and food security.
Water.
Transport.
Health.
Forestry.
Land use.
Infrastructure.
Urban..
Industry.
Disaters & Risks
Coastal.
Technology.
Tourism.
Air quality.
Oil & gas
Mining.
Education.
Conservation.
Security.
Research.
4243
25
1919
710
6
107
96112
1
Co
un
t
Sectors
Institutional
52
45
27
23
1311
912
8 8 6 5 7 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1
1
Co
un
t
Sectors
Individuals
11
12
5
4
5
6
12
1
3
21 1
1
Co
un
t
Sectors
Focal points
Figure 2.9: Similar to figure 2.7 but for developing and developed countries, academia and national
governments.
35
40
25
9
14
8
5544
9
612111
0
Co
un
t
Sectors
Developing countriesEnergy.
Agriculture and foodsecurity.Water.
Transport.
Health.
Forestry.
Land use.
Infrastructure.
Urban..
Industry.
Disaters & Risks
Coastal.
Technology.
Tourism.
Air quality.
Oil & gas
Mining.
43
30
15
26
11
7
118 9 10
4 37
2 2 2 1 1 1
1C
ou
nt
Sectors
Developed countries
24
18
1416
6 4 4 6 1 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
Co
un
t
Sectors
Academia
2730
20
9
14
4 7 5 4 5 5 3 1 1 1
1
Co
un
t
Sectors
National governments
Figure 3.1: Stakeholder challenges: institutional versus individual responses
0102030405060708090
100
Sustainable development
Institutional.
Individual.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
high priority low priority lowerpriority
mediumpriority
Disaster & Risks
010
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
highpriority
low priority lowerpriority
mediumpriority
Adaptation
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
high priority low priority lowerpriority
mediumpriority
Impact of response measures
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
highpriority
low priority lowerpriority
mediumpriority
Mitigation
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
high priority low priority lowerpriority
mediumpriority
Increasing resilience
Figure 3.2: Number of chapters from key respondents’ topics
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
> 600 pages 200-300 pages 300-400 pages 400-600 pages
Co
un
tPages vs respondents' category
Institutional.
Individual.
Observers..
Focal points.
NGOs.
Academia.
International Institutions
Local authority.
Industry.
Research institutions.
National govt.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
> 600 pages 200-300 pages 300-400 pages 400-600 pages
Co
un
t
Pages vs key topics
Mitigation.
Avoided impacts.
Benefit & cost analysis
Emission pathways.
Regionalisation.
Knowledge review
Feasibility of 1.5°C.
Development pathways.
Adaptation.
Improved understanding.
Differential impacts.
Figure 3.3: Number of chapters per key respondents’ organisation and topics
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
> 12 chapters 5 chapters 6-8 chapters 9-12 chapters
Co
un
tChapters vs respondents' organisations Institutional.
Research institutions.
NGOs.
Focal points.
Industry.
National govt.
Individual.
Observers.
Academia.
International Institutions.
Local authority.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
> 12 chapters 5 chapters 6-8 chapters 9-12 chapters
Co
un
t
Chapter vs key topics Mitigation.
Benefit & cost analysis.
Regionalisation.
Avoided impacts.
Knowledge review
Development pathways.
Feasibility of 1.5°C.
Improved understanding.
Emission pathways.
Adaptation.
Differential impacts.
Figure 3.4: Number of chapters from different category of responses
3%
37%
32%
28%
Chapters: Global view
> 12 chapters
5 chapters
6-8 chapters
9-12 chapters
4%
47%30%
19%
Research institution
2%
43%
38%
17%
Academia
3%
37%
32%
28%
National governments
2%
42%
34%
22%
Focal points
33%
28%
39%
International institutions
Figure 3.5: Components to be included in Appendix and Technical summary.
29
20
28
38
13
7
10
5 5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Total
Co
un
t
Topics
Appendix
Case study.
Atlas.
Data record and measurements.
Methology.
Summary.
Glossary.
Infographics.
Acronyms.
Experts and reviewers.
31
312
21
57
3
26
TOTAL
Co
un
t
Areas of focus
Technical summary
Size.
Boxes.
AR5 format.
Integrated view.
Key findings.
Q&A.
Language.
References
Mitchell, D., James, R., Forster, P., Betts, R., Shiogama, H., Allen, M. "Realizing the impacts of
a 1.5C warmer world". Nature Climate Change 2016. doi:10.1038/nclimate3055;
Schleussner C.-F., T. K. Lissner, E. M. Fischer, J. Wohland, M. Perrette, A. Golly, J. Rogelj, K.
Childers, J. Schewe, K. Frieler, M. Mengel, W. Hare, and M. Schaeer. “Dierential climate
impacts for policy-relevant limits to global warming: the case of 1.5 C and 2 C”. Earth Syst.
Dynam. Discuss., 6, 2447–2505, 2015. doi:10.5194/esdd-6-2447-2015;
Appendix
A) List of the questionnaire questions:
1) In your vision, which are the main, relevant elements that could be addressed in the Special
Report? (clear and specific topics/questions, maximum 600 characters)?
2)
2.a) Please provide your suggestions for the format of the Special Report?
Number of chapters?
Number of pages?
Appendices?
Technical Summary?
Summary for policy makers?
Online material?
Frequently asked questions?
Other recommendations?
2.b) The Special Report will be communicated to non-specialists. In this respect, in your view, how
could this be best served by the report structure, presentation and supporting materials?
3) Please highlight emerging knowledge (including scientific, technological, policy) that you
consider highly relevant for this Special Report. Are there any potential overlaps with
assessment reports from other bodies?
4) In your view, which sectors would you deem relevant to be addressed in the report? Please
prioritize your choices?
5) Which stakeholder challenges or decision contexts is this Special Report relevant for?
6) How do you expect this special report be used and what is its expected impact for your
institution and/or field of expertise?
7) Which field of expertise or sector do you represent?
8) Which type of institution do you represent?
9) Does your response represent your own expert opinion or is this response on behalf of your
institution or affiliation?
10) The responses to the questions will be treated as anonymous. To help evaluate the coverage
of the results, please indicate?
11) In future pre-scoping exercises for IPCC reports, would you be interested in participating in a
more detailed consultation?
12) Any other suggestions?
B) Ranking of key topics
N° Main relevant elements to be addressed in SR
N° Main relevant elements to be addressed in SR
1 Differential impacts 36 Financing
2 Emission pathways 37 Vulnerability
3 Mitigation 38 Natural system
4 Improved understanding 39 Health
5 Review of knowledge 40 Climate projections
6 Mitigation pathways 41 Arctic
7 Regionalisation 42 Cryosphere
8 Adaptation 43 Loss and damage
9 Benefit cost analysis 44 Economic growth
10 Feasibility of 1.5°C 45 Equity
11 Climate extremes 46 Paleoclimate perspective
12 Sectorial impacts 47 Impacts of response measures
13 Sustainable development 48 Carbon budget
14 Avoided impacts 49 Justice
15 Technology 50 Water
16 Policy actions 51 Impacts on trade
17 Agriculture and food security
52 Climate threshold
18 Development pathways 53 Climate resilience
19 Uncertainty 54 Coastal
20 Disaster risks reduction/Risks management
55
Detection and attribution
21 NDCs 56 Climate governance
22 Transformational changes
57 Confidence level
23 Negative emission 58 Impacts on tourism
24 Social impacts 59 Carbon sequestration
25 Human impacts 60 Heat inertia
26 Short live emission 61 Dynamica downscaling
27 Sea level rise 62 Ground water contamination
28 Energy 63 Migration
29 Urban and agglomeration
30 Societal impacts
31 Ecosystem
32 Poverty reduction
33 Human system
34 Restoration and land degradation
35 Dangerous climate change
C) Ranking of key sectors
Rank Sector
1 Energy
2 Agriculture and food security
3 Water
4 Transport
5 Health
6 Land use (LU/LUC)
7 Forestry
8 Industry
9 Infrastructure
10 Urban and agglomeration
11 DRR
12 Coastal
13 Technology
14 Tourism
15 Air quality
16 Education
17 Security
18 Research
19 Conservation
20 mining
21 Oil and gas
D) List and acronyms of contributing organisations
ANU
ATHENA
BAFU
C21st
CAN
CFF
Cities Alliances
CMA
CMCC
COA
Department of Climate Policy
DGAC
DIRMET
DMI
Economic Web Institute
EDF
EMA
EMBRAPA
ETHZ
EU
FAO
FCEA
GIZ
Greenpeace
HKO
IBA
ICLEI
ICMOD
ICTSD
IFRC
IGAC
IGSD
IIED
IMAFLORA
IMGW
IMO
IOC UNESCO
JRF
KMD
KNMI
LES
Luc Hoffmann Institute
MAE
Mary Robinson Fondation
ME
MEGJC
MEIM
MEWR
MFA
MFE
MGM
National Institute of Meteorology of Guinea-Bissau
NCCA
NEA
NIHM
RHMSS
RITE
SAWS
SMHI
TGICA
The University of the South Pacific
TU
UBA
UCL
UM
UNEP
UNFCCC
UNMA
WASCAL
Women and Gender Constituency
WWF