International scientific conference on risk management: Part 1

Monday, April 10, 2017

Dr Galine Yanon from the Walker Institute, participated to the International Scientific Conference on Climate Risk Management in Nairobi from 5th to 7th April 201, organised by the Kenya Red cross in collaboration with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Participants comes from the Government sector, civil society, Research/ academic organisations, private sector, NGOs etc., more than 13 counties was represented.

Resume of the day 1:

Opening and welcome to participants

A series of speaker set the scene for the conference including Idris Ahmed (Kenya Red Cross), Debra Roberts (IPCC WGII co-chair), Hans Otto Poertner (WGII co-chair), and Maarten van Aalst (Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre). This session was focused on the baseline of the IPCC process (Presentation of the evolution of the IPCC from the beginning to date), and where we are today. After this session, discussions with debates and working groups was made (Identify strength and weakness and recommendation), what is working and what is not working in the IPCC process, and at the end of the day it was interesting to see how ideas come on what we would like that IPPCC take into account for the next AR6 report regarding the chapter on Risk Management. The objective of this exercise was to make the IPCC report more impactful. Discussions covered all part of stakeholders, government and how we can take into account the different audiences, knowing that we all have different languages and approaches etc.

Key outputs of the session

  • We are currently facing real problems regarding climate change
  • IPCC is entering in his second phase. There will be closer coordination between the IPCC and UNFCCC including periodic stocktake against the mitigation and adaptation goals of the Paris Agreement.
  • The AR6 WGII report will need to answer the adaptation questions from the ground around areas such as urban development,
  • This meeting will inform the scoping of the AR6 and the research agenda on risk management (there are knowledge gaps that affect the quality of the IPCC assessment report – especially for the most vulnerable), identifying ways to connect climate knowledge to decision-making

The evening of the first day, was dedicated to a Kenya cultural event, including traditional drumming and dancing.

Resume of the day 2:

Opening of day 2 by Olivia - to wrap up the outcome of the remote participation session. 
After the opening, participants were split into different groups in order to work with archetypes. Each group get the description of two people/ archetypes. The task is to discuss on the archetypes and to imagine/ describe their aspirations and the things they would worry about. Then, the groups work on identifying organisations and people that help the archetype in order to deal with the worries and aspirations. We have identified influencers and indicated which organisations and persons would use IPCC information. Furthermore the groups had to identify similarities and differences between the networks of the two archetypes. Many of the groups came to the same conclusions:

  • Some archetypes rely more on informal organisations, others more on state-provided support
  • The IPCC information is not commonly used by organisations in the network. In some cases, the IPCC information was even out of the picture.
  • There is often one main influencer in the network. In some cases, this is even the only supporting organisation that is in touch with a broader network – that makes the archetype very vulnerable

Aid organisations, national and international governments and the media are the organisations that were identified as making use of the IPCC information.

Dr Galine Yanon from the Walker Institute, participated to the international scientific conference on Climate risk management in Nairobi from 5th to 7th April 2017, organised by the Kenya Red cross in collaboration with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Participants comes from the Government sector, civil society, Research/ academic organisations, private sector, NGOs etc., more than 13 counties was represented.

Resume of the day 1:

Opening and welcome to participants

A series of speaker set the scene for the conference including Idris Ahmed (Kenya Red Cross), Debra Roberts (IPCC WGII co-chair), Hans Otto Poertner (WGII co-chair), and Maarten van Aalst (Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre). This session was focused on the baseline of the IPCC process (Presentation of the evolution of the IPCC from the beginning to date), and where we are today. After this session, discussions with debates and working groups was made (Identify strength and weakness and recommendation), what is working and what is not working in the IPCC process, and at the end of the day it was interesting to see how ideas come on what we would like that IPPCC take into account for the next AR6 report regarding the chapter on Risk Management. The objective of this exercise was to make the IPCC report more impactful. Discussions covered all part of stakeholders, government and how we can take into account the different audiences, knowing that we all have different languages and approaches etc.

Key outputs of the session

  • We are currently facing real problems regarding climate change
  • IPCC is entering in his second phase. There will be closer coordination between the IPCC and UNFCCC including periodic stocktake against the mitigation and adaptation goals of the Paris Agreement.
  • The AR6 WGII report will need to answer the adaptation questions from the ground around areas such as urban development,
  • This meeting will inform the scoping of the AR6 and the research agenda on risk management (there are knowledge gaps that affect the quality of the IPCC assessment report – especially for the most vulnerable), identifying ways to connect climate knowledge to decision-making

The evening of the first day, was dedicated to a Kenya cultural event, traditional drumming and dancing coming from Kenya.

Resume of the day 2:

Opening of day 2 by Olivia - to wrap up the outcome of the remote participation session. 
After the opening, participants were split into different groups in order to work with archetypes. Each group get the description of two people/ archetypes. The task is to discuss on the archetypes and to imagine/ describe their aspirations and the things they would worry about. Then, the groups work on identifying organisations and people that help the archetype in order to deal with the worries and aspirations. We have identified influencers and indicated which organisations and persons would use IPCC information. Furthermore the groups had to identify similarities and differences between the networks of the two archetypes. Many of the groups came to the same conclusions:

  • Some archetypes rely more on informal organisations, others more on state-provided support
  • The IPCC information is not commonly used by organisations in the network. In some cases, the IPCC information was even out of the picture.
  • There is often one main influencer in the network. In some cases, this is even the only supporting organisation that is in touch with a broader network – that makes the archetype very vulnerable
  • Aid organisations, national and international governments and the media are the organisations that were identified as making use of the IPCC information.

Then, we had the task to think about what climate risks are directly or indirectly affecting the archetype and what climate information they would need from the IPCC. This has resulted in several recommendations for the IPCC to take further.

Continued in Part 2