pre-scoping questionnaire’s responses for ipcc special ... · the questionnaire consisted of 12...

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

http://www.happimip.org/

http://www.pages-igbp.org/ini/wg/floods/intro

http://www.avoid.uk.net/publications/

http://www.nature.com.biblioplanets.gate.inist.fr/polopoly_fs/1.19416!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/530407a%20%28corrected%29.pdf

http://www.nature.com.biblioplanets.gate.inist.fr/polopoly_fs/1.19416!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/530407a%20%28corrected%29.pdf

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.


Policy actions.


Avoided impacts.


Sectorial impacts.

Climate extremes.


Benefit & cost-analysis.

Adaptation.

Regionalisation.

Knowledge review.



Mitigation.

Emission pathways.


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.


Policy actions.


Avoided impacts.


Sectorial impacts.

Climate extremes.



Adaptation.

Regionalisation.

Knowledge review.



Mitigation.

Emission pathways.


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


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.


Policy actions.


Avoided impacts.


Sectorial impacts.

Climate extremes.



Adaptation.

Regionalisation.

Knowledge review.



Mitigation.

Emission pathways.


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.


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


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


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


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



Adaptation.



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




Emission pathways.

Adaptation.


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%


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

pre-scoping questionnaire’s responses for ipcc special ... · the questionnaire consisted of 12...

Documents