Hansen et al. Earth Perspectives 2014, 1:13http://www.earth-perspectives.com/content/1/1/13

RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access

Shaping global agendas on climate riskmanagement and climate services: an IRIperspectiveJames W Hansen*, Stephen Zebiak and Kevin Coffey

Abstract

This paper provides a historical overview of the development and mainstreaming of global agendas on climate riskmanagement and climate services from the vantage point of the International Research Institute for Climate andSociety (IRI), and present two examples that illustrate how efforts to mainstream these agendas shaped both theinstitute and the broader communities that it sought to engage. In the first example, we trace developments thatled to the emergence of a global agenda on climate services, including creation of the Climate Services Partnership(CSP). The CSP is an informal, open network of interested climate information users, providers, donors andresearchers, serves as a platform for knowledge sharing and collaboration to advance climate service capabilitiesworldwide. The second example is mainstreaming climate risk management within the international agriculturalresearch-for-development community. The CGIAR research program on Climate Change, Agriculture and FoodSecurity (CCAFS) was structured to include a research theme on “Adaptation through Managing Climate Risk,” whichput climate risk management on the same footing within the agenda as adaptation to future climate change. Weconclude with several lessons drawn from IRI’s involvement in the processes that shaped global agendas aroundclimate risk management and climate services.

Keywords: Climate services; Climate risk management; Mainstreaming; Resilience; Agriculture

BackgroundOver the past 15 years, the focus and strategy of theInternational Research Institute for Climate and Society(IRI) evolved – from climate prediction and applications,toward a more holistic approach to climate risk ma-nagement and to climate services – in parallel with theagenda of the broader climate research and applicationscommunity that it has sought to engage (Goddard et al.2014). IRI perspectives on climate risk managementand on climate services grew from the institutionalexperience of working toward its mission “to enhancesociety’s capability to understand, anticipate and managethe impacts of climate in order to improve human wel-fare and the environment”. We highlight here a few keypoints about the IRI’s strategy for research, service andtraining, which are further detailed and illustrated in thecompanion papers of this journal issue.

* Correspondence: jhansen@iri.columbia.eduInternational Research Institute for Climate and Society, Columbia University,Palisades, NY, USA

© 2014 Hansen et al.; licensee Springer. This isAttribution License (http://creativecommons.orin any medium, provided the original work is p

The initial focus of IRI was on advancing seasonal cli-mate prediction and its application. From the beginning,IRI work engaged both research and practical applicationalways in the context of real decision or policy settings.Experience working at the interface between researchand practice quickly revealed that practitioner communi-ties rarely found climate information products developedby climate researchers and operational agencies (includ-ing IRI) to be understandable or useable. Some form oftranslation inevitably was needed to cast informationinto a form that addressed the right questions and in-formed practical decision-making processes. Innovationin the decision process was often also needed in orderto take advantage of new information and knowledgeabout climate. Additionally, policy or institutional con-straints were often found to hinder implementation ofnew climate-informed practices. The opportunity to over-come these challenges required substantial investment inengagement among researchers, information providersand practitioners that, when effective, enabled the “co-

an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commonsg/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproductionroperly credited.

Hansen et al. Earth Perspectives 2014, 1:13 Page 2 of 12http://www.earth-perspectives.com/content/1/1/13

discovery” of approaches and supporting information toeffect climate-informed practice and policy. We foundthat the most effective way to start the collaboration pro-cess was to focus on understanding the problems and de-cisions that new services would address. This learningserved both as inspiration and motivation for IRI articulat-ing its work and its objectives in a different way. Throughon-the-ground experience, the institutional view on ourown work and its potential value shifted from a focuson “applications” of climate forecasts and information,toward enabling better decisions and policies whereclimate-related risks and opportunities could be effectivelyassessed and managed. IRI developed and began to pro-mote its concept and approach to climate risk manage-ment (CRM). Moreover, IRI reformulated its mission andinstitutional objectives, and even its name (from “Interna-tional Research Institute for Climate Prediction” to “Inter-national Research Institute for Climate and Society”), inthe context of CRM.As IRI gained experience, it increased its investment in

key institutional partnerships and engagement in inter-national processes relating to climate-related challenges.These partnerships provided fertile ground for dialogue,debate and further learning that shaped the interest andperspectives that IRI has brought to the more recent inter-national discourse and activities around climate services.

Figure 1 Time line of significant events that shaped the developmenclimate services.

IRI’s participation in the development of global agendason climate services and climate risk management, which sig-nificantly shaped its own agenda, gives the institution aunique historic perspective. This paper provides a historicaloverview of the development and mainstreaming of globalagendas on climate risk management (focused on agricul-ture and food security) and climate services from the vant-age point of the IRI (summarized in Figure 1), and illustrateshow IRI’s approach to research and partnership influencedboth the institute and the broader communities that itsought to engage. Section 2 traces IRI’s contribution in theglobal discourse on climate services and to key events thatled to the UN Global Framework for Climate Services, andthe launch of a global Climate Services Partnership. Section3 describes IRI’s role in the development and leader-ship of the CGIAR research program on ClimateChange, Agriculture and Food Security, which hascontributed to mainstreaming climate risk manage-ment within the international agricultural research com-munity. The paper concludes with some lessons learnedthrough participating in agenda mainstreaming processes.

Rallying a global community around climateservicesA growing appreciation for the importance of climatevariations to societies, the need to better manage the

t global agendas for climate risk management for agriculture, and

Hansen et al. Earth Perspectives 2014, 1:13 Page 3 of 12http://www.earth-perspectives.com/content/1/1/13

associated impacts and potential opportunities, and therelevance of this for development objectives led to thegrowing interest and action around climate services. TheClimate Services Partnership (CSP) draws on this grow-ing interest and engagement across a global community.The CSP – an outcome of the first International Confer-ence on Climate Services (Columbia University, NewYork, October 2011) – is an informal, non-governmentalplatform for promoting and advancing climate servicesthroughout the world. Made up of researchers, pro-viders, users and funders of climate services, the CSPaims to support climate services capabilities throughstrengthening knowledge capture and exchange, foster-ing collaboration and supporting institutional linkagesacross relevant agencies and programs. This initiativeprovides a platform for connecting initiatives and actorswithin the larger climate services agenda that is takingshape today, into a growing community of practice.The concept and vision for climate services have

evolved considerably over recent years, but rest on climateprograms and activities over many decades (Zillman2009). Here we review some aspects of this history, withattention to how and why IRI became increasinglyinvolved.

The roots of climate servicesRecent international dialogue and actions around cli-mate services build on a history of climate activities overseveral decades. Many national meteorological servicesincluded climate offices dating as early as the 1950s. Forthe most part these services focused on the provision,analysis and occasionally interpretation of historical cli-matological data in the context of particular “applica-tions” such as agriculture and transportation. Climateresearch advanced significantly in the 1970s, with thedevelopment and increased use of global climate modelsthat provided a new means to study climate processes,but also enabled researchers to address questions of cli-mate sensitivity and climate change particularly in re-sponse to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.Building on this growing body of research, the first

World Climate Conference (WCC-1) was convened in1979. The findings stated, “Having regard to the all-pervading influence of climate on human society and onmany fields of human activity and endeavor, the Confer-ence finds that it is now urgently necessary for the na-tions of the world: (a) To take full advantage of man’spresent knowledge of climate; (b) To take steps to im-prove significantly that knowledge; (c) To foresee andprevent potential man-made changes in climate thatmight be adverse to the well-being of humanity” (Pro-ceedings of the World Climate Conference. Geneva1979). A principal outcome was the creation of theWorld Climate Programme (WCP), comprised of four

component programs that addressed climate research,data, impacts and applications. Its aim was to promoteand coordinate efforts to better observe, model andunderstand the climate system and its relation to humanwellbeing. The WCP subsequently supported the estab-lishment of the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC), charged with ongoing scientific assess-ment of climate change, its social and economic impactsand potential response strategies.The dimensions of climate research, and eventually cli-

mate services, expanded significantly in the 1980s, aswork on understanding, modeling and predicting aspectsof the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenome-non intensified. Under the auspices of the World Cli-mate Research Program, the Tropical Ocean – GlobalAtmosphere (TOGA) program was launched in 1985.Work under the TOGA program was highly influential,demonstrating not only a theoretical basis for predict-ability of climate on seasonal-to-interannual time scalesassociated with ENSO, but also predictions of this phe-nomenon validated retrospectively, and in real time(Anderson et al. 1998). By 1995, TOGA left in placean operational observing system consisting of mooredbuoys, island tide gauges, surface drifters, a volunteership observing program and a variety of satellite ob-servations, all to support continuing routine seasonalpredictions. The TOGA period represented a new erafor the climate community, leading to a much moreambitious climate agenda. Following closely on the TOGAprogram, the concept of an international institution de-dicated to both the improvement of seasonal predictioncapability and its practical use toward societal benefit cul-minated in the founding of IRI (then the International Re-search Institute for Climate Prediction).The beginnings of this expanded climate agenda were

already in place as the second World Climate Confer-ence (WCC-2) was convened in 1990. WCC-2 resultedin a restructuring of the World Climate Programme,introducing the explicit dimension of climate services byformulating the World Climate Applications and Ser-vices Program (WCASP), with a remit for operationalclimate information, prediction and analysis systems, in-cluding user liaison. WCC-2 reformulated the WCP pro-gram on climate impacts to include consideration ofimpacts and responses. Both moves broadened the em-phasis from the production to the use of the information.Under the new WCASP, initiatives were introduced

that focused on the delivery of climate forecasts and in-formation to user communities. The Climate Informa-tion and Prediction Services (CLIPS) project was aimedat developing capacity for delivering climate informationfor improved decision-making, focusing primarily on de-velopment of training activities and curricula. Regional Cli-mate Outlook Forums were introduced in 1997 (a major El

Hansen et al. Earth Perspectives 2014, 1:13 Page 4 of 12http://www.earth-perspectives.com/content/1/1/13

Niño year with strong climate-related impacts in manyregions), and were designed to bring together research, op-erational and “user” communities around a process to pro-duce a consensus regional climate outlook and considerassociated socio-economic impacts and response strategies(Basher et al. 2001). IRI was invited into, and became veryactive in, both of these initiatives as an institution that hadpioneered seasonal climate and impact prediction method-ologies, products and tools at the global and regional scalea

(Barnston and Tippett 2014).More services and applications activities were envi-

sioned under the World Climate Program, but the pro-cess failed to deliver adequate resources and supportthroughout the decade and a half following WCC-2. TheWorld Climate Research Program was, however, activethroughout the period. Under its Climate Variability andPredictability (CLIVAR) program, the Working Groupon Seasonal to Interannual Prediction was established in1999. IRI scientists have served in the role of Chair ormember of WGSIP since the beginning, as well as inother CLIVAR rolesb.

Building momentum around climate servicesLWCVC conferenceAfter more than a decade hiatus following the secondWorld Climate Conference, the concept emerged for aninternational interdisciplinary conference on decisionprocesses in climate applications. IRI participated in theearly discussions and planning for this conference, voi-cing strong support for using the opportunity to high-light emerging experience in climate risk managementand user engagement processesc. Eventually, IRI proposedand was accepted as a co-sponsor of the conference, withWMO and the Finnish Meteorological Service.The conference, “Living with Climate Variability and

Change: Understanding the Uncertainties and Managingthe Risks” (LWCVC) was convened in 2006 to “reviewthe opportunities and constraints in integrating climaterisks and uncertainties into decision-making in the coresocio-economic sectors” (WMO (World MeteorologicalOrganization) 2009a). It emphasized bringing user com-munity perspectives together with climate scientist per-spectives, drawing participation from multiple sectorgroups (agriculture, water, public health, energy, disas-ters) as well as experts in decision-making. This, to-gether with the focus on decision processes and decisioncontexts distinguished LWCVC clearly from previousclimate conferences. IRI was able to contribute to LWCVCin several ways. Beyond IRI serving as a co-sponsor and co-organizer, IRI scientists were invited presenters or co-chairsof many of the thematic sessions.LWCVC provided an opportunity for presentation,

discussion and debate among a diverse but invested andinterested community of researchers and practitioners.

From this process a number of significant conclusionsemerged. The findings highlighted, for the first time, keyrequirements for establishing climate services that en-able effective climate risk management practices. Theworkshop recommended that climate services should be:(a) driven by the needs and requirements expressed byrelevant decision sectors, (b) developed within real-world decision contexts, (c) enabled through facilitatinginstitutions and policies, (d) based on environmental,sectorial and socioeconomic data, (e) based on tailoredclimate information, (f ) supported by local capacity, (g)included in planning strategies that incorporate incen-tives, and (h) supported by sector-specific services fromNational Meteorological and Hydrological Services andrelated institutions (WMO (World Meteorological Or-ganization) 2009a). These ideas have permeated all sub-sequent discourse on climate services.

World climate conference-3 and the global framework forclimate servicesThe World Climate Conference-3 (WCC-3), convenedby the World Meteorological Organization in 2009, wasthe landmark event on the pathway toward currentinternational initiatives in climate services. The visionstatement, “WCC-3 will establish an international frame-work to guide the development of climate services link-ing science-based climate predictions and informationwith climate risk management and adaptation to climatevariability and change throughout the world,” framed cli-mate services in the context of decision-making. Thiswas a significant conceptual step – perhaps leap – to-ward the prevailing view of services that encompass de-cision makers as well as researchers and informationproviders.An International Organizing Committee (IOC) was

given the task of developing the conference scientificand policy agendas, conducting outreach to key partnerorganizations and sponsors, and developing appropriatecommunications.Through discussion, debate and stakeholder consult-

ation, the IOC’s subcommittee for the High Level Seg-ment defined the vision and action agenda that becamethe conceptual underpinnings for the Global Frameworkfor Climate Services (GFCS). The Concept Note thatwas delivered to WCC-3 participants presented a ration-ale, objectives and a proposed programmatic structurefor the GFCS that clearly built upon existing infrastruc-ture and activities of the World Climate Programme, butalso transcended them through inclusion of a mechan-ism to actively engage the climate services practitionercommunities – the User Interface Platformd. IRI was in-vited to serve on the IOC, and through this mechanismcontributed to the planning of WCC-3 and the visioningfor GFCS. IRI interventions sought to broaden the User

Hansen et al. Earth Perspectives 2014, 1:13 Page 5 of 12http://www.earth-perspectives.com/content/1/1/13

Interface Platform concept to include fostering ins-titutional partnerships, cross-disciplinary research, in-novation, decision-support tools, knowledge capture,evaluation, establishment of good practices, educationand capacity building. This advice was based on IRI’sown experience and that of other organizations alreadyworking in the “boundary space” of climate servicesdevelopment.WCC-3 drew more than 2500 participants, including

numerous heads of state, UN agencies and internationalorganizations (with significant IRI involvemente). Awide-ranging Expert Segment addressed research find-ings on sector-based needs and applications, climate sci-ence and information, climate risk management andclimate adaptation, and various societal perspectives onclimate services. The key outcome of the conference wasthe WCC-3 Declaration, which endorsed the GFCS asproposed through the IOC, and set in motion a processcreating a High Level Task Forcef to undertake consulta-tions and make recommendations for next steps in im-plementation (WMO 2009).Thus, the international climate agenda was trans-

formed and energized around a new vision for climateservices that is still in play today. Progress continues tofurther define and implement the GFCS, and to establishappropriate governance and mobilize resources to sup-port it. While much of the current implementation ac-tivity rests within intergovernmental processes, there arecontinuing opportunities for nongovernmental partnerssuch as IRI to contributeg.

Climate services partnershipEven as international momentum around climate ser-vices has been building, a range of climate services pro-grams and institutions have been introduced at nationaland regional levels in response to growing awarenessand demand across sectors (including agriculture, foodsecurity, water, health, energy and disaster management).Sector-based organizations and development institutionshave invested in building climate information and ser-vices capacities into their programs. At the same time,research organizations have been working on developingnew knowledge to support new and better climateservices. Because these various initiatives have, for themost part, been pursued independently, the experi-ence and knowledge gained has largely resided withineach program.This is the backdrop from which the idea of the CSP

emerged. The initial, informal discussions among a feworganizations were built on the concept of creating aspace for exchange of information and experiences amongactive climate services stakeholder groups across sectorsand regions. An international conference – the first In-ternational Conference on Climate Services (ICCS) – was

proposed as the means to start this process. IRI workedwith an expanded organizing committee to develop ideasfor the conference and its outcomes. The intent was forthe conference to be action-oriented, engaging organiza-tions that were active and in climate services in somemanner, with genuine interest in sharing their experienceand learning from others. From early in the planningprocess, the notion of some sort of continuing processwas held as a means to foster continued exchange and col-laboration expected to emerge from ICCS.The Conference; held at Columbia University, New

York, October 2011; brought together more than 100 par-ticipants, representing meteorological or climate servicecenters, UN agencies, humanitarian organizations, devel-opment institutions, national agencies, non-governmentalorganizations and universities. The Conference producedlively debate and discussion, and achieved consensus onthe proposition that first motivated the conference: thatestablishing a means to effectively share knowledge andbuild collaboration would enable the community to accel-erate learning, develop new capacities and establish goodpractices that would benefit all.In the ICCS Conference Statement, the participants

agreed to establish the Climate Services Partnership as aplatform to pursue precisely this agenda. By consensus,the Climate Services Partnership was proposed as aninformal and open process in order to support broadparticipation, and to enable the CSP to be nimble andresponsive to members’ interests and ideas. A Coor-dinating Group was established to provide review andrecommendations on activities, consider membership,resourcing questions and event planning. In support ofthe initiative, IRI offered to form a Secretariath to co-ordinate communications, develop knowledge resourcesand organize collaborative projects of the Partnership.The initial CSP activities have included: (a) establishing a

mechanism for sharing knowledge and lessons learned,and developing a set of case studies contributed by thePartnership members; (b) initiating collaborative workinggroup activities to expand knowledge in priority areas, in-cluding economic valuation of climate services and goodpractices in climate services development; and (c) identify-ing mechanisms to support the Global Framework for Cli-mate Services and other relevant international processes. Avariety of information resources on climate services acti-vities, programs, institutional arrangements, outputs andexperiences have been developed through CSP activities.i

Ongoing collaborative work on the economic value of cli-mate services includes assessment of the relevant literatureand the development of new resources on valuation meth-odologies appropriate for climate services. CSP maintainsactive contact with the GFCS Project Office, and has facili-tated a process to provide feedback and recommendationson proposed aspects of GFCS implementation.

Hansen et al. Earth Perspectives 2014, 1:13 Page 6 of 12http://www.earth-perspectives.com/content/1/1/13

Following the recommendation of a continuing seriesof ICCS conferences, CSP convened the second Inter-national Conference on Climate Services (ICCS2) in Sep-tember 2012, together with local host (and CSP member),Climate Services Center, Germany. ICCS2 brought to-gether a larger and more diverse attendance than did itspredecessor (including 200 participants from 40 countries,and greater representation of the private sector and usercommunities). It provided opportunity for review, discus-sion and deliberation on initial CSP activities; and pro-posed additional CSP activities including: knowledgecapture on climate services user perspective, institutionaland business models; establishing good practices and mi-nimum standards in science, user engagement and evalu-ation of climate services; capacity development; engagingNGO programs and resources; linking financial serviceswith climate services; and principles for public-privatepartnerships in climate services.CSP plans to continue to convene an annual inter-

national conference in the future, as well as supportother relevant thematic or regional meetings. There hasalso been encouragement for developing additional, low-cost means for discussion, debate and information shar-ing. Toward this end, CSP has established a web-basedfacility – the CSP Knowledge Exchange - providing analternative, accessible means for presenting and discuss-ing programs, concept papers, and opinions relating toclimate services.The CSP represents a novel, grassroots initiative to ad-

vance the climate services enterprise from research, topractice, to impact. Although CSP has established newresources, gained financial support, and engaged consid-erable participation, there remains great deal more thatthis initiative could accomplish. Its informal, nongovern-mental structure makes it easy to engage academia, civilsociety, private sector partners and governmental organi-zations. Based on the interest and participation of itsmembers, and resources they can attract, CSP has thepotential to create a truly rich repository of climate ser-vices knowledge and information, a clearinghouse forcontinually-evolving good practices, and a dynamic col-laboration space for new ideas and innovations. If it issuccessful, it will not only serve as a preferred resourcefor its individual members, but will also contribute toadvancing the scientific underpinnings, implementation,assessment and improvement of climate services glo-bally. With due attention to how such work could mosteffectively link to, and support, formal climate servicesdevelopment, especially the Global Framework for Cli-mate Services, these CSP contributions can assume evengreater significance and impact.The CSP offers IRI a means to build upon and amplify

its own work, engage new partnerships, and contrib-ute to building global capacity in climate services and

climate risk management in new ways. IRI sees its ownmission and objectives reflected in CSP. It is squarely inthe interest of IRI to support and contribute to CSP as aprimary mechanism for contributing to its internationalclimate services agenda.

Shaping a global agenda around CRM foragricultureA CRM approach to adapting agriculture to a changingclimateWithin agriculture, a framework and methodology foranalyzing risk and its implications for decision-makingin the agriculture sector were largely in place by the late1970s (Anderson et al. 1977). Yet climate risk manage-ment (CRM) gained identity as a concept that crossessectors only in the last decade, with IRI prominentamong the institutions that framed and promoted theconcept. A few common features characterize the IRIapproach to CRM (Goddard et al. 2014; Hansen et al.2007; Hellmuth et al. 2007; Baethgen 2010). It recog-nizes climatic uncertainty as a fundamental challenge;and seeks to quantify and, where possible, reduce theuncertainty that decision-makers face. Managing climaterisk often involves a portfolio of interventions including,for example, climate-informed technologies that reducevulnerability to climate variability, and climate-informedpolicy and market-based interventions that transfer riskfrom vulnerable populations. Climate information – in-cluding historical observations, monitoring of currentconditions and prediction at the range of relevant leadtimes – plays a prominent role in IRI’s work on CRM.IRI’s approach to CRM focuses on the full range of vari-ability, seeking to protect against the impacts of adverseextremes, while also capitalizing on opportunities inyears or seasons when climatic conditions are favorable.

Bridging adaptation and developmentLong (30-100 year) climate change scenarios and impactstudies that dominated the first three IPCC assessmentsmay have been useful to frame political discourse towardmitigation policies, but are not relevant to the planninghorizons of vulnerable farmers, or of governments of poo-rer countries grappling with immediate climate-sensitivedevelopment challenges. Few climate-sensitive agriculturaldecisions have planning horizons longer than about twodecades, and most are much more immediate. Early policyunder the UNFCCC compounded this dilemma by defin-ing adaptation narrowly in terms of the anthropogenicchange component of climate, and restricting the mainadaptation funds to the verifiable additional adaptationcosts imposed by anthropogenic climate change, while thecost of development that would target the sources ofclimate vulnerability had to be borne elsewhere (Pielke2005; Khan and Roberts 2013; Ayers and Huq 2009). This

Hansen et al. Earth Perspectives 2014, 1:13 Page 7 of 12http://www.earth-perspectives.com/content/1/1/13

“additionality” policy, which was meant to ensure that in-dustrialized countries provide adaptation funds beyondexisting development assistance commitments, was seenas an obstacle to poor countries securing funds for prom-ising adaptation options that also addressed immediateclimate-related development challenges. For adaptationinterventions with longer planning horizons, the consi-derable uncertainty inherent in projections of local chan-ges in climate (particularly precipitation) complicatesdecision-making, and the challenge of justifying requestsfor adaptation funds. By focusing on immediate actionsthat target vulnerability and build resilience to the impactsof climate across time scales, CRM is increasingly recog-nized as a crucial bridge between immediate developmentchallenges and longer-term adaptation.

Adaptation through a resilience lensApplying a CRM approach to adapting agriculture to achanging climate raises several challenging issues. Con-sider the case of a stressed smallholder farming systemin a risk-prone environment. The same factors – a weakasset base, and dependency on a narrow range of weather-dependent sources of livelihood– tend to make the house-hold vulnerable to both future climate change and currentclimate shocks. The strong likelihood that climate changewill increase the frequency or intensify of damaging ex-tremes, such as droughts, floods or heat waves, increasesthe urgency of transformation toward a livelihood strategythat is less weather-dependent, more stable and moreprosperous. Yet in these settings, extreme events areprone to reverse the gains from agricultural developmentinvestments by eroding farmers’ productive assets. Evi-dence suggests that poverty traps often lock poorer far-mers, in high-risk environments, into highly vulnerablelivelihood strategies. The poverty traps literature high-lights the existence of threshold levels of assets that act astipping points between chronic poverty and the potentialfor asset accumulation (Barrett and Carter 2006). Climatevariability and resulting risk appears to contribute to pov-erty traps in several distinct ways, including acting as abarrier to accessing available production technologies andmarket opportunities (Hansen et al. 2011).The agricultural literature on risk emphasizes the risk

perceptions and preferences of decision-makers, and howthey interact with probability distributions of variablessuch as production and income in response to stochasticdrivers (Anderson et al. 1977; Hardaker et al. 2004). Whilethis framework is useful, it is not sufficient for dealingwith the implications of risk for the climate change adap-tation challenge, and particularly how the dynamic inter-actions between risk, decisions, and household wealth orassets, evolve over time. The possibility that these dy-namic interactions are affected by critical thresholds or“tipping points” presents a particular challenge. For these

reasons, climate risk management in the context of adap-tation to progressive climate change is increasingly ex-pressed in terms of resilience, which offers a conceptualand analytical framework for dealing with the evolution ofnonlinear systems characterized by critical thresholds,subjected to stochastic variability and uncertain trends.Resilience from an ecological perspective was origin-

ally defined as “the persistence of relationships within asystem and is a measure of the ability of these systemsto absorb changes of state variables, driving variables,and parameters, and still persist” (Holling 1973). Whenapplied to human systems, the concept of resilience hadto be extended to include both decision processes thatallow deliberate and anticipatory reconfigurations of thesystem (i.e., adaptation), and the very real possibility thatthe “original state” is undesirable (Engle 2011; Bahaduraet al. 2013).A more recent framing of resilience from a develop-

ment perspective provides a theoretical link betweennear-term risk and climate change impacts for small-holder farmers (Barrett and Constas 2013). In the con-text of poverty traps, the authors discuss resilience interm of a livelihood trajectory that is subject to stochas-tic risk (e.g., from climate variability) that inhibits assetbuilding for smallholder farmers. For rainfed farmingsystems vulnerable to seasonal variability, climate shockscan cause repetitive cycles of asset loss that threaten pro-gress out of poverty traps, leaving households in a chronicstate of food insecurity. In this case, a resilient ruralhousehold does not necessarily return to its initial statefollowing a shock. Rather, a resilient household is one thatis moving toward a more positive state, accumulatingenough assets to escape chronic poverty, while protectedfrom setback by shocks. This interpretation moves beyondresilience as the ability of a system to retain its currentform regardless of climate variability (Berman et al. 2012).Instead, resilience to climate shocks can allow farmers tobuild wealth, which facilitates a transformation towardslivelihoods that do not require asset depleting copingstrategies.Thinking about the adaptation challenge through a re-

silience lens has several practical implications for effortsto support smallholder agriculture. It provides a frame-work for thinking about what combination of develop-ment and safety net interventions should be consideredin a particular context, to move communities onto apositive livelihood trajectory that will be well-adapted tofuture climatic conditions, while protecting them fromfalling back in the face of climate shocks. If a farmingsystem is characterized by a poverty trap, adaptation ef-forts must either increase farmers’ assets above the pov-erty trap threshold, or change the conditions that led tothe poverty trap. Understanding how climate-related riskundermines agricultural development and contributes to

Hansen et al. Earth Perspectives 2014, 1:13 Page 8 of 12http://www.earth-perspectives.com/content/1/1/13

poverty traps may suggest promising new interventionsto improve the success of development efforts. In thepresence of poverty traps, different forms of safety netsmay be needed to protect the poor and vulnerable fromdestitution or abandonment, and to protect the non-poor from falling into chronic poverty.A partnership between the IRI and the international

agricultural research community provided an opportu-nity to develop and apply the IRI’s evolving thinkingabout CRM in the context of a new applied researchprogram on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Se-curity (CCAFS).

The CCAFS storyCCAFS – a program of the CGIAR in partnership withthe global change research community – is the world’slargest research effort to address the challenges that achanging climate imposes on agriculture and food secur-ity across the developing world. The CGIARj is a net-work of 15 International Agricultural Research Centers(IARCS), and the funding and governance bodies thatsupport them. CGIAR research played a major role(Evenson and Gollin 2003) in the Green Revolution,which led to near tripling of global food production be-tween 1961 and 2000 when global population doubledk,and dramatically reduced poverty and hunger particu-larly in Asia and Latin America. The aggregate return oninvestment in CGIAR research, in terms of developmentimpact, has been high throughout its history (Raitzerand Kelley 2008; Renkow and Byerlee 2010). The CGIARevolved significantly since it was established with threeIARCS in 1971. As the number of IARCS increased, itsmission broadened from increasing global food availabil-ity to include first rural poverty reduction and then nat-ural resource sustainability.Since 2000, IRI has viewed the CGIAR as the most

strategic partner for advancing climate risk managementfor agriculture. The opportunity to partner with theCGIAR in the development of CCAFS was a breakthroughfor the IRI’s efforts to advance CRM for agriculture.

The challenge program phaseA set of reforms initiated in 2001 within the CGIAR(CGIAR 2000) set the stage for CCAFS. These includedthe introduction of Challenge Programs as a new modelfor collaborative research that sought to strengthen syn-ergies and collective action among the IARCs; and to ex-pand the CGIAR’s research agenda, partnerships andfunding beyond the core work of the IARCs. ChallengePrograms were designed as “time-bound, independentlygoverned programs of high-impact research that targetCGIAR goals on complex issues of overwhelming globalor regional significance that require partnerships amonga wide range of institutions to deliver their products”.

The Challenge Program goal of moving beyond the tra-ditional mandates of IARCS, on emerging issues of glo-bal concern, was quite relevant in the case of climatechange. While climate is not explicit in the mandate ofany of the IARCs, attention to climate pervades much ofthe CGIAR’s research because agriculture is so weather-dependent. The CGIAR had already formed an Inter-Center Working Group on Climate Change (ICWGCC)in 1998, as a mechanism to address the growing issuesof climate change adaptation and mitigation. An initialcall for proposals led to the creation of four ChallengePrograms; but a proposed Climate Change ChallengeProgram, led by the ICWGCC, was not approved.CCAFS came out of a second call for Challenge Pro-

gram pre-proposals in 2006. The CGIAR Alliance, repre-senting directors of the IARCs, agreed to dissolve theICWGCC and pursue a Challenge Program, in part-nership with the global change research community re-presented at the time by the Earth Systems SciencePartnership (ESSP). The process started with a smallmeeting (Oxford, UK, Feb 2007) of representatives fromthe CGIAR and global change research community thatproposed a strategy and preliminary thematic structure.The pre-proposal that came out of the process was notaccepted. Yet the CGIAR Executive Council consideredthe topic sufficiently important to request a full propo-sal, on a tight original time frame. IRI responded quicklyto the resulting challenge with a set of recommendationsfor moving the process forward, which were well re-ceived and eventually adopted. As a result, IRI was in-vited to participate in a 9-person Leadership Group,representing the CGIAR and the global change researchcommunity, tasked with developing the CCAFS proposal.Objectives of the proposed program (CCAFS 2009)

targeted: (a) critical knowledge gaps about how to enhan-cing food security, livelihood and environmental goals; (b)adaptation options; and (c) supporting decision-making –in response to a changing climate. A research agenda toachieve these objectives was structured within six Themes(Table 1). The Leadership Group concluded that two sep-arate adaptation themes were justified – focused on man-aging current climate risk, and on adapting to progressivechange – to ensure sufficient leadership to cover the rangeof research challenges, options for intervention, and re-quired partnerships. Analysis and stakeholder consultationled to selection of three focus regions: Eastern and WestAfrica, and South Asia. Other features of the proposedprogram included a partnership between the CGIAR andESSP (representing the global change research communityat-large), a focus on food systems in addition to agricul-tural production, and governance that maintained inde-pendence from the IARCs.A competitive process led to IRI hosting the leadership

of Theme 4: Adaptation pathways based on managing

Table 1 Research theme in the CRP and challenge program phases of CCAFS

CGIAR research program phase Challenge program phase

1 Adaptation to progressive climate change 5 Adaptation pathways under progressive climate change

2 Adaptation through managing climate risk 4 Adaptation pathways based on managing current climate risk

3 Pro-poor climate change mitigation 6 Poverty alleviation through climate change mitigation

4 Integration for decision making 1 Diagnosing vulnerability and analyzing opportunities

2 Unlocking the potential of macro-level policies

3 Enhancing engagement and communication for decision-making

Hansen et al. Earth Perspectives 2014, 1:13 Page 9 of 12http://www.earth-perspectives.com/content/1/1/13

climate risk”. Work began late 2009, and CCAFS wasformally launched at a conference in Nairobi in May2010.

The CRP phaseDuring the period between submission of the ChallengeProgram proposal and the official launch of the program,the CGIAR began a major restructuring (Secretariat,CGIAR 2009). The most significant change was the cre-ation of CGIAR Research Programs (CRPs) that wouldbecome the mechanism for organizing, reporting andfunding research. The CRPs would replace all ChallengePrograms. The CCAFS leadership was tasked with for-mulating a CRP to deal with climate change. Climatechange was one of two fast-tracked CRP proposals thatled the reform, and set many of the rules and norms thatthe remaining CRPs would follow.The resulting CRP (CCAFS 2011; Vermeulen et al.

2011) built heavily on the CCAFS Challenge Program.The six Themes of the Challenge Program were consoli-dated into four (Table 1). The new CRP incorporatedthe new climate risk management agenda and othermajor areas of research, intervention and partnershipsfrom the CCAFS Challenge Program; but also incorpo-rated ongoing climate adaptation and mitigation workwithin the IARCs. Since all CGIAR research was to bemapped onto CRPs – most of which hadn’t been yetbeen defined – some initial ambiguity about the bound-aries had to be resolved. For example, while much of theCGIAR’s work on developing genetics and productiontechnology for stressed environments contributes towardclimate adaptation, there was a consensus that thiswould generally fit better within other CRPs; CCAFSwould emphasize targeting and evaluating of portfoliosof production technology in the context of climate vari-ability and change. Other significant changes to CCAFSincluded aspects of governance, source of funding (fromindividual donors to primarily CGIAR funding), and asignificant increase in total funding to cover the largeamount of ongoing research among the IARCS that wasintegrated into the program. The responsibility of ThemeLeaders expanded to include reporting on relevant workacross the IARCs, and ensuring that the work aligned withthe CCAFS agenda and produced outcomes.l Although

CCAFS was dissolved as a Challenge Program, the brand-ing and leadership of CCAFS continued through the tran-sition to CRP with only minor adjustments. This allowedstrategic partnerships and activities initiated in the Chal-lenge Program phase to continue.

Mainstreaming an expanded climate risk managementagendaThe transition of CCAFS from a Challenge Program to aCRP contributed significantly to mainstreaming climaterisk management within the CGIAR. This is because thepurpose of a Challenge Program was to expand theagenda and partnerships of the CGIAR, while CRPs weremainstreamed as the new mechanism organizing and re-sourcing research across the CGIAR. As a ChallengeProgram, CCAFS was explicitly designed to complementrather than replicate the core work of the CGIAR’sIARCs by targeting: (a) emerging adaptation interventionsthat were not yet mainstreamed due to newness or know-ledge gaps; (b) interventions requiring expanded upstreamand downstream partnerships beyond the CGIAR’s trad-itional partners; (c) analytical approaches to support tar-geting and evaluation of adaptation options developed byCGIAR centers; and (d) integrated, cross-scale adaptationapproaches that would depend on the coordination, inte-gration and economy of scale that a Challenge Programcould provide (CCAFS 2009). The new CCAFS agenda,which incorporated elements of IRI’s approach to CRM,became the starting point for an ambitious agenda thatwas mainstreamed across the IARCS. Within this newagenda, synergies between IRI’s climate expertise andCRM experience, and CGIAR’s broad base of agriculturalexpertise and action on the ground across the developingworld, opened opportunities for new areas of research,such as climate information and advisory services forsmallholder farmers, bringing improved crop productionforecasting into food security early warning, and anexpanding range of climate-informed food security safetynets.Expanding on one example, several CGIAR centers

had researched the use of seasonal forecasts for farmersprior to CCAFS, but IRI played a key role in bringingthese experiences together and adding new technicaland applied knowledge. IRI experience enabled the work

Hansen et al. Earth Perspectives 2014, 1:13 Page 10 of 12http://www.earth-perspectives.com/content/1/1/13

to incorporate forecasts that were downscaled and tai-lored to the needs of smallholder farmers, going beyondthe information that was routinely available in targetcountries. Pilot projects with smallholder communitiesin Kenya and Senegal provided insights about how to de-sign and communicate climate information for farmers.A conference in late 2012, that brought together practi-tioners from Africa and Asia, catalyzed efforts to developand mobilize resources for regional efforts to scale upclimate services for farmers (Tall et al. 2013). Morerecent efforts have invested in the capacity of severalAfrican meteorological institutions to provide climateinformation at a scale that is relevant to smallholderfarmers. This line of research has connected the CGIARwith the major climate services initiatives described in thecase study in Section 2, with CCAFS playing a prominentrole in the Climate Services Partnership, and in the firstnational implementation project, targeting Tanzania andMalawi, in the Global Framework for Climate Services.

ConclusionsThe extent to which IRI sought to bridge disciplines,communities and agendas – internally and externally –was groundbreaking within the climate research com-munity. IRI’s efforts to connect climate science anddecision-making led to significant changes in its ownagenda, mission, and even the name of the institution.In time, the same commitment to integrative partner-ships and co-learning opened doors to bring some ofour internal lessons into global dialogs and shape globalagendas. IRI’s evolving agenda had particular influenceon global agendas in the areas of climate risk manage-ment and, more recently, climate services.The IRI’s experience in participating in the develop-

ment and mainstreaming of new global agendas suggestsa few lessons for other institutions working internation-ally at the interface between science and society:

First, engaging in global dialogs and partnering withlarger communities can multiply impact relative towhat is possible through the direct efforts of aninstitution’s own staff. Some of the greatest advancestoward its mission have resulted when the IRI played arelatively minor role in service to a larger community.Through CCAFS, for example, leveraging theconsiderable human capacity and reach of the CGIARhas enabled IRI to advance its work on CRM in an areawhere its own resources are very limited.Second, long-term, persistent investment in relationshipswith strategic partners is necessary to set the stage toinfluence on global agendas. In both examples presentedin this paper, IRI invested in strategic relationships overseveral years (Vaughan et al., 2014), generally longbefore clear avenues for significant impact were

apparent. This required effort to identify whereinterests overlapped, and effort to add value to thework of partners. Those relationships proved to be atleast as important as intellectual leadership on theissues that the IRI sought to influence.Third, breakthroughs are likely to come throughserendipity, and require awareness and responsiveness toopportunity. More often than not, IRI has been able toparticipate effectively when it recognized unanticipatedopportunities and had the flexibility to respond quickly,but only when key relationships had already been builtover time. In the case of CCAFS, a timely and strategicsuggestion by IRI staff opened the door for a longer-term role in program design and implementation. Theimpact that the CGIAR reform process and transitionof CCAFS to a CRP had on mainstreaming anexpanded climate risk management agenda across theCGIAR is another example of a breakthrough throughserendipity.Fourth, the greatest advances in these global agendaswere associated with new connections betweencommunities that previously had little interaction. Byexpanding the CGIAR’s interactions with the climatecommunity and with the food security information andresponse community, CCAFS opened the door to theCGIAR to new avenues for impact. The CSP nowenables sustained interaction between several majordevelopment organizations and funders, and theclimate research community, leading to newopportunities and better-informed investments inclimate services for development. The research agendathat CCAFS defined for the CGIAR could only beimplemented through new partnerships with theclimate research, climate services, and food securityinformation response communities – partnerships thatthe IRI sought to enable.One example that illustrates several of these lessons is apartnership with the Red Cross, jointly framed around“Early Warning, Early Action” (Coughlan de Perez andMason 2014). Through several years of workingtogether, we not only developed a refined sense of whatkinds of information and services could usefully addressoperational needs of the disaster managementcommunity; but also came to mutual understanding ofthe need, and some common approaches to stakeholderengagement in climate services. This enabled bothinstitutions to advocate for these ideas, with a commonvoice and greater impact, in the global dialogue andplanning processes that shaped the Global Frameworkfor Climate Services.Finally, participating effectively in the development ofglobal agendas requires openness to change within aninstitution’s own agenda and culture. Before the IRIcould engage effectively in international discourse, its

Hansen et al. Earth Perspectives 2014, 1:13 Page 11 of 12http://www.earth-perspectives.com/content/1/1/13

own staff had to learn how to work effectively acrossdisciplines, and step out of their comfort zones. As IRIinteracted with an expanding and evolving communityof partners, its own institutional thinking about howscience interacts with other segments of society evolvedsignificantly – away from a top-down “expert” – “user”model, and toward co-production of knowledge andco-ownership of communication processes.

EndnotesaThe probabilistic forecast product format that IRI first

introduced became the standard format for most of theconsensus outlooks of the RCOFs.

bFor example, L. Goddard is currently co-Chair of theCLIVAR Scientific Steering Group.

cThis was made possible through a formal relationshipbetween IRI and WMO, established the preceding year.Building on informal relations over several years, theWMO and IRI signed a Memorandum of Understandingin 2004 expressing intention “to collaborate in the deliv-ery of effective climate services, including research in pro-viding climate information and products, developmentand evaluation of appropriate decision tools, impactsanalysis, communication, institutional and policy ana-lysis, demonstration projects involving stakeholders andend-users, and related capacity-building and educationactivities”.

dThe Framework Structure included 4 components:Observations and Monitoring; Research, Modeling andPrediction; Climate Services Information System; andthe User Interface Program (WMO (World MeteorologicalOrganization) 2009a).

eAssociated with WCC-3, the book “Climate Sense” waspublished (WMO (World Meteorological Organization)2009b). In this volume 3 papers were published with IRIlead authorship.

fDraft Terms of Reference and suggested membershipfor the Task Force were prepared in advance by the IOC.

gIRI scientist S. Mason served on the drafting groupfor the Task Force report and GFCS ImplementationPlan. IRI also contributed case studies, consulted withpartner organizations and provided review and recom-mendations on the GFCS implementation.

hInitially with resources provided by IRI and the EarthInstitute at Columbia University. Subsequently additionalsupport has been provided through USAID, the GermanClimate Services Center, the CGIAR CCAFS program,among others. With endorsement of the Partnership, IRIcontinues to host the Secretariat.

iAn interactive database of information about climateservices activities was created, based on surveys distrib-uted through the membership. CSP, in partnership withGFCS, developed a set of case studies, authored by mem-bers, that provides more information on outputs and

lessons learned. Two climate services programs have alsobeen assessed in greater depth, in terms of cost and bene-fit, gaps and opportunities. These information resourcescan be found on the CSP website http://www.climate-services.org.

jPrior to its recent restructuring, “CGIAR” was anacronym for Consultative Group for International Agri-cultural Research.

jBased on FAOSTAT data (http://faostat3.fao.org/fao-stat-gateway/go/to/home/E).

kThe CGIAR defines an “outcome” as a change in be-havior (e.g., change in policy, investment, programs orpractice) of a stakeholder that results from a researchoutput, and that that is expected to contribute towardimpacting some measure of societal wellbeing or envir-onmental quality.

Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributionsJH developed material on climate risk management for agriculture, framedconcluding lessons, and incorporated input from other authors. SZ developedmaterial on the climate services agenda. KC contributed to climate riskmanagement in the context of the adaptation and resilience literature.

Authors’ informationJH is an IRI Research Scientist, and CCAFS Theme 2 Leader for Adaptationthrough Managing Climate Risk. SZ is an IRI Senior Research Scientist, andHead of the Climate Services Partnership. KC is an IRI Senior Staff Associate,and CCAFS Science Officer for Theme 2: Adaptation through ManagingClimate Risk.

AcknowledgementsThe authors thank the editor Dr. Gerten, guest editor Lisa Goddard, MeaHalperin and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback andsuggestions. The initiatives and partnerships described in this paper weremade possible by NOAA’s long-term investment in IRI. This publicationand the work it describes were supported in part by grant/cooperativeagreement NA10OAR4310210 from the U.S. National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA); by the CGIAR Research Program onClimate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), a strategicpartnership of CGIAR and Future Earth; by the European Union (EU) withtechnical support from the International Fund for Agricultural Development(IFAD); and by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Theviews expressed in this publication cannot be taken to reflect the officialopinions of NOAA, CGIAR or Future Earth, or USAID.

Responsible editor: Lisa Goddard

Received: 1 October 2013 Accepted: 21 April 2014Published: 17 June 2014

ReferencesAnderson JR, Dillon JL, Hardaker JB (1977) Agricultural decision analysis. Iowa

State University Press, Ames, IAAnderson DLT, Sarachik ES, Webster PJ, Rothstein LM (1998) The TOGA Decade.

J Geophys Res 103, C7:14167–14510Ayers JM, Huq S (2009) Supporting Adaptation to Climate Change: What Role for

Official Development Assistance? Dev Policy Rev 27:675–692Baethgen W (2010) Climate risk management for adaptation to climate variability

and change. Crop Sci 50:S70–S76Bahadura AV, Ibrahimb M, Tannera T (2013) Characterising resilience:

unpacking the concept for tackling climate change and development.Clim Dev 5(1):55–65

Hansen et al. Earth Perspectives 2014, 1:13 Page 12 of 12http://www.earth-perspectives.com/content/1/1/13

Barnston T, Tippett M (2014) Climate Information, Outlooks, and Understanding -Where Do We Stand? Earth Perspect 1:20

Barrett CB, Carter MR (2006) The economics of poverty traps and persistentpoverty: An asset-based approach. J Dev Stud 42(2):178–199

Barrett CB, Constas M (2013) Toward A Theory of Resilience for InternationalDevelopment Applications. Working Paper. http://dyson.cornell.edu/faculty_sites/cbb2/Papers/Barrett-Constas-Oct-2013.pdf

Basher R, Clark C, Dilley M, Harrison M (ed) (2001) Coping with Climate: A WayForward. Summary and Proposals for Action. International Research Institutefor Climate Prediction, Palisades, New York

Berman R, Quinn C, Paavola J (2012) The role of institutions in thetransformation of coping capacity to sustainable adaptive capacity.Environ Dev 2:86–100

CCAFS (2009) Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security. A CGIAR ChallengeProgram. CCAFS Report No. 1. The Alliance of the CGIAR Centres and ESSP,Rome and Paris

CCAFS (2011) CCAFS Program Plan. CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change,Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), Copenhagen, Denmark [http://hdl.handle.net/10568/10227]

CGIAR (2000) Charting the CGIAR's future reshaping the CGIAR's organization.Summary of proceedings and decisions. CGIAR 2000 International Centers WeekICW2000. Washington, DC, 23-27 Oct 2000 [http://www.worldbank.org/html/cgiar/publications/icw00/icw00sop.pdf]

Coughlan de Perez E, Mason SJ (2014) Climate Information for HumanitarianAgencies: Some Basic Principles. Earth Perspect 1:11

Engle NL (2011) Adaptive capacity and its assessment. Glob Environ Chang 21(2):647–656

Evenson RE, Gollin D (2003) Crop Variety Improvement and Its Effects onProductivity. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK

Goddard L, Bhojwani H, Robertson AW, Baethgen WE (2014) The InternationalResearch Institute for Climate & Society: Why, What and How. Earth Perspect1:10

Hansen JW, Baethgen W, Osgood D, Ceccato P, Ngugi RK (2007) Innovations inclimate risk management: protecting and building rural livelihoods in avariable and changing climate. J Semi-Arid Trop Agric Res 4(1): [http://www.icrisat.org/Journal/SpecialProject/sp13.pdf]

Hansen JW, Zebiak S, Baethgen W, Ines AVM, Osgood D (2011) Climate Risk,Information and Market Participation for African Farmers. In: Proceedings ofan international conference, Nairobi, Kenya, 13-15 May 2009. AGRA and ILRI,Nairobi, pp 157–175

Hardaker JB, Huirne RBM, Anderson JR, Lien G (2004) Coping with Risk inAgriculture, 2nd edition. Wallingford, CAB International

Hellmuth ME, Moorhead A, Thomson MC, Williams J (ed) (2007) Climate RiskManagement in Africa: Learning from Practice. Climate and Society No.1. International Research Institute for Climate and Society, Palisades,New York

Holling CS (1973) Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Ann Rev EcolSystemat 4:1–23

Khan MR, Roberts JT (2013) Adaptation and international climate policy. WIREsClim Change 4:171–189

Pielke RA, Jr (2005) Misdefining “climate change”: consequences for science andaction. Environ Sci Policy 8:548–561

Proceedings of the World Climate Conference. Geneva (1979) WMO-No. 537,Geneva

Raitzer DA, Kelley TG (2008) Benefit–cost meta-analysis of investment inthe international agricultural research centers of the CGIAR. Agr Syst96:108–123

Renkow M, Byerlee D (2010) The impacts of CGIAR research: A review of recentevidence. Food Policy 35:391–402

Secretariat, CGIAR (2009) Voices for Change: the New CGIAR. CGIAR Fund Office,Washington DC [http://hdl.handle.net/10947/5035]

Tall A, Jay A, Hansen JW (2013) Scaling Up Climate Services for Farmers in Africaand South Asia Workshop Report. CCAFS Working Paper no. 40. CGIARResearch Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security(CCAFS), Copenhagen [http://hdl.handle.net/10568/27833]

Vaughan LF, Furlow J, Higgins W, Nierenberg C, Pulwarty R (2014) USInvestments in International Climate Research and Applications: Reflections

on Contributions to Interdisciplinary Climate Science and Services,Development, and Adaptation. Earth Perspect 1:23

Vermeulen S, Zougmore R, Wollenberg E, Thornton P, Nelson G, Kristjanson P,Kinyangi J, Jarvis A, Hansen J, Challinor A, Campbell B, Aggarwal P (2011)Climate change, agriculture and food security: A global partnership to linkresearch and action for low-income agricultural producers and consumers.Curr Opin Environ Sustain 4(1):128–133

WMO (2009) World Climate Conference-3: Towards a Global Framework forClimate Services. WMO Bull 58(3):162–164

WMO (World Meteorological Organization) (2009a) Report of the WMOConference on Living with Climate Variability and Change: Understandingthe Uncertainties and Managing the Risks. WMO/TD – No. 1512, Geneva,Switzerland

WMO (World Meteorological Organization) (2009b) Climate Sense. Tudor Rose,Leicester, UK

Zillman JW (2009) A history of climate activities. World MeteorologicalOrganization (WMO) Bulletin 58(3):141

doi:10.1186/2194-6434-1-13Cite this article as: Hansen et al.: Shaping global agendas on climate riskmanagement and climate services: an IRI perspective. Earth Perspectives2014 1:13.

Submit your manuscript to a journal and benefi t from:

7 Convenient online submission

7 Rigorous peer review

7 Immediate publication on acceptance

7 Open access: articles freely available online

7 High visibility within the fi eld

7 Retaining the copyright to your article

Submit your next manuscript at 7 springeropen.com