This blog is the first part of a series from the Cabot Institute for the Environment on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s recent Sixth Assessment Report (IPCC AR6). This post is an introduction to the blog series, explaining what we’re aiming to do here and with a glossary of some climate change terms that come up in the later posts. Look out for links to the rest of the series this week.
What is the IPCC?
The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Formed in 1988 by scientists concerned about the state of the global climate, they’ve been publishing assessment reports on the climate to advise policymakers and governments to act. This year they published their 6th assessment report (AR6), which has been described as their ‘starkest warning’ about the dangers of climate change. The report was built up of 3 Working Groups and over 2800 experts representing 105 countries covering different aspects, from the base science to the sociological impacts of a climate crisis. Alongside their assessment reports, the IPCC also publish special reports on key issues to explore them in more detail. These topics have included Land Use, Impact on the Ocean and Cryosphere and further clarifications on the goal of mitigating 1.5°C global warming.
The IPCC are the most trusted climate group worldwide, with their work being used in policy decisions all over the world.
What are the three Working Groups?
Each of the working groups focuses on a different part of the climate story, looking at causes, effects, and solutions.
• Working Group 1: The Physical Science Basis (WGI)
• Working Group 2: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (WGII)
• Working Group 3: Mitigation of Climate Change (WGIII)
What is this blog series covering?
The full reports are well over 1000 pages each, with many chapters, subchapters, and footnotes to wade through. As previously mentioned, the full report is split into the domains of the working groups.
Each report from the Working Groups is then filtered down into its own Summary for Policy Makers, which is still dense and features a lot of explanation of evidence. This is further broken down into the headline statements that get released to the press. Even at this level, it’s hard for ordinary members of the public to take the time to read all the evidence and digest the key points.
The aim of this campaign is to distil the key points in each Working Group report in a short, easily understood, and shareable blog as a tool for public outreach. As well as this, the campaign will feature voices from across the Cabot Institute for the Environment including IPCC authors from each of the working groups.
It’s a nearly impossible job trying to filter down the output of thousands of experts into a digestible snippet, but hopefully readers will come away more informed about the IPCC reports and the climate crisis than before.
This week, we’ll be sharing my report summaries here on the Cabot Institute for the Environment blog as well as on Twitter and LinkedIn, starting this Wednesday [27 July] on the output of Working Group I: The Physical Science basis. Keep an eye out for it!
———————————————-
This blog campaign was written by Cabot Institute Communications Assistant Andy Lyford, an MScR Student studying Paleoclimates and Climate modelling on the Cabot Institutes’ Masters by Research in Global Environmental Challenges program at the University of Bristol.
University of Bristol – Met Office Academic Partnership Meeting
From droughts and floods to water quality and water resource management, researchers at the University of Bristol and the Met Office are world-leaders in climate and hydrological research. Building on the new academic partnership between Bristol and the Met Office, the goal of this meeting was to foster new collaborations and strengthen existing partnerships between Bristol and the Met Office on the topic of weather, climate and hydrology.
In total, we had 29 attendees attend the workshop, with 10 from the Met Office,17 from the University of Bristol and 2 from Fathom including weather and climate scientists, catchment hydrologists and flood modellers at a wide range of career stages.
The meeting explored two key themes, the first half of the meeting focused on ‘Exploiting convection permitting weather and climate models for flood and drought prediction’, while the second half focused on ‘Quantifying uncertainty in hydrological projections’. For each theme, there were twoshort plenary talks that highlightedexisting research across the Met Office and University of Bristoland then a presentation focused on an exciting piece of research covering topics on exploiting convection permitting models for flood and drought prediction (Lizzie Kendon) and towards large ensembles of km-scale precipitation simulations using AI (Peter Watson and Henry Addison). We also had eight lighting talks on topics ranging from tropical cyclones to pan-tropics convection-permitting climate simulations to compound wind and flood risk.
Alongside the talks, there was time for attendees to discuss ideas and opportunities focused around five key discussion topics; uncertainty estimation, compound events and multi-hazard coupling, evaluation of weather and climate driving information for hydrology, exploiting higher resolution capabilities for hydrology and from hydrological predictions to ‘services’.
Overall, the meeting was a success and we appreciated an in person meeting fuelled by coffee, cake and cheese!Tangible outputs from the day included contributions on a NERC proposal, making new connections, ideas for future collaborations, sharing of data and methodologies and the foundations for a collaborative climate and hydrology community.
Further details from the meeting can be requested from Gemma Coxon (gemma.coxon@bristol.ac.uk).
When conjuring up images of when dinosaurs ruled the planet we often think of hot and humid landscapes in a world very different from our own. However, the new TV series Prehistoric Planet, narrated by Sir David Attenborough, shows dinosaurs living and indeed thriving in many types of environments, including colder regions where snowstorms, freezing fog and sea-ice were commonplace.
When the show’s producers first approached us to help understand the kinds of weather and environment that dinosaurs lived in before being wiped out around 66 million years ago, it prompted us to tackle a problem that has existed in palaeoclimate modelling for decades. That was, when scientists like us used computers to simulate, or “model”, the climate of prehistoric Earth, the models tended to make the poles much colder than evidence from fossils and rocks suggested they had actually been.
For the TV series, not only have we improved our models, but we have run the computer programmes for longer than anybody else has ever done to get the models as close to ancient “reality” as possible.
Prehistoric Planet depicts CGI dinosaurs based on the latest research. AppleTV+, CC BY-NC-SA
The producers, the BBC’s Natural History Unit, needed to know about the weather so they could film “real world” locations similar to those that existed in the past where dinosaurs lived. But most of what we know about the climate that long ago comes from indirect “proxy” evidence, such as leaf fossils and traces of certain chemicals in rocks, which can only reconstruct the average climate over decades or centuries. This is where the narrative of a much hotter and more humid Cretaceous world comes from.
This narrative isn’t exactly wrong, but it doesn’t tell the whole story since weather and climate behave differently. For instance, even in today’s warming world a place like Texas, largely hot and humid, recently experienced widespread snowfall. Geologists a million years from now will spot the sudden global warming – but not the freak snowstorm. Nonetheless, modelling the the prehistoric equivalent of these snowstorms is important since we know warmer worlds will experience greater weather extremes. And these extremes will have largely determined which regions were completely inhospitable to dinosaurs.
Surface wind speed and precipitation through a typical year 69m years ago. An index of 1 means no visibility beyond 10 metres.
How do we know what the weather was like?
Unfortunately, although fossils give us many clues as to past climate, most cannot directly tell us what the weather was on a day to day basis.
So, for a given place on Earth, how do we know what the weather was on, say, May 27 some 66 million years ago? To do this we need to employ a computer simulation of the climate, similar to the ones used to look at future climate change today. These models are based on fundamental physical and biological processes which remain constant with time. It is therefore possible to adjust them for ancient worlds, even if we don’t know precise details like where or how high the mountains were, or exactly how much carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere.
We can then check these models using some of the ancient climate proxies, such as fossilised leaves, coral or rocks which contain traces of what conditions were like at the time. If our model matches up with the proxies – and it did – then we can be confident it is simulating typical weather at the time.
So what did we learn from modelling the climate of 66m years ago?
Our model found there would have been intense blizzards in Antarctica, for instance, “category six” hurricanes (something we are likely to see in our lifetimes) buffeting the mid and low latitudes and extensive, ever present, fog banks creating murky winters under polar cloud caps.
In a warmer world the water cycle is intensified over the poles. This meant more water in the air, and large parts of the planet would have been very foggy almost all the time (Source: modelling work by the authors)
This doesn’t immediately sound like a dinosaur-friendly environment. However, the old misconception that dinosaurs were cold blooded, thus requiring a warm climate for survival has for the most part already been dismissed. The new paradigm is that dinosaurs were warm blooded, and could to some extent regulate their internal temperature, like mammals do today.
This would be essential to survive large swings in temperature, driven by varied weather patterns, particularly in the polar regions. Our modelling therefore backs up recent fossil discoveries which show that some dinosaur species were cold-adapted, could see in low light conditions (useful in those huge fog banks), and thrived year-round near the poles.
Pachyrhinosaurus surviving and thriving. AppleTV+, CC BY-NC-SA
The Prehistoric Planet scenes with the chilly Pachyrhinosaurus were set in Alaska, and demonstrate why the show wanted check its accuracy with climate models. We have an idea what the conditions would have been like there 66m years ago thanks to detailed fossils of plants, dinosaurs and other animals, yet the old models would have predicted intensely-cold and lifeless tundra.
Our model instead matches up with the fossil evidence, and predicts forests right up to the margins of the Arctic Ocean at 82°N – much further north than any trees today. In the summer, dinosaur food would have been abundant, but in the long dark winters it would have been more difficult to find, particularly as both fossils and modelling suggests it was so foggy.
Dinosaurs survived for a remarkable 165 million years. Tyrannosaurus Rex lived much closer to present day humans than it did to Stegosauruses, for instance. They managed to survive so long because they were resilient and adaptable to changeable environmental conditions, much like mammals are today. Our work for Prehistoric Planet shows that they were able to survive through greater extremes in temperature, stormier weather, and more extreme droughts than humans have experienced – so far.
On 11th November at 10am around 60 A-level students from schools across Bristol gathered to participate in this year’s Mock COP26, hosted by Jack Nicholls, Emilia Melville, and Camille Straatman from the Cabot Institute for the Environment. After a resounding success from the first Mock COP, which took place online in March 2021, there was real excitement and anticipation building for the in-person event which would be held in the Great Hall of the Wills Memorial Building.
The morning kicked off with an engaging presentation by Jack, Emilia, and Camille, outlining the objectives of the upcoming COP26 in Glasgow. There had been much discussion surrounding the COP in the public sphere in the prior weeks, so it was interesting to see a summary of where things stand in the time since the Paris Agreement and what the potential outcomes of this COP may be.
The negotiations began with preliminary intra-group discussions, facilitated by a group of 12 postgraduate students. Each group defined their stance on each of the COP resolutions, ranging from option A, the most radical response, to C, the most conservative. It was evident from the off that these students were highly knowledgeable and passionate about the environmental, sociological, and economic impacts of each resolution, and as a result, each group wasted no time in prioritising the resolutions that would benefit their actor the most. Brazil factored in its current economic and development situation, as well as the Amazon’s critical role in the ecosystem balance, choosing to prioritise climate finance, natural protection and conservation and protecting climate refugees. For the International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Climate Change (IIFPCC), giving protected status to 50% of Earth’s natural areas by 2050 was defined as the most important resolution, whereas Shell chose to focus on phasing out coal, with the understanding that this would take the onus off the oil industry. Each group presented their ideal resolutions in a clear and concise manner.
The atmosphere really started to build in the hall when the first round of negotiations began. China faced Greenpeace in a heated discussion on coal usage while the IIFPCC negotiated with the USA on protecting indigenous populations. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees found alignment with Brazil on many of the resolutions, namely achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, natural protection and conservation to 30% of Earth’s natural areas and protecting climate refugees. In round two of negotiations, we saw Shell and the International Monetary Fund categorically disagree on the timeline for transition to Zero Emissions Vehicles, eventually compromising on a B resolution to have all new vehicle sales as zero-emission by 2040. Brazil was happy in supporting the IIPFCC in resolution 7a. (All countries must allow people fleeing from natural disasters, environmental degradation, and sea level rise to enter their countries and make their new homes there). Brazil and IIPFCC made an alliance to encourage USA toward resolution 7a, instead of their preferred 7b (Countries at risk of extinction from sea level rise should be provided with new land to settle and move their people to OR be provided with financial help to buy land in other nations). China and the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) clash on coal usage, with AOSIS pushing back with a suggestion of image control, but ultimately China held strong on their decision.
Negotiation rounds 3 & 4, voting, and deputy mayor’s speech
The UK showed their tactical abilities and their knowledge in the negotiations with Greenpeace, but Greenpeace did not cede to their demands and manage to agree to a deal. The IIPFCC was determined to protect indigenous land and communities, but their quest was heavily challenged by Shell. There was no common ground in the negotiation with this petrol giant, so the IIPFCC had to ensure an allyship with Brazil if they wanted to ensure the protection of the indigenous. On round four, Shell tried to sway some votes from China and Sweden, but while agreements were found with the former, the latter country was not going to let Shell influence their values. The tête-à-tête became lively as neither Shell nor Sweden were willing to compromise, resulting in a rather unsuccessful attempt of finding complicity.
After four intense rounds of negotiating, the voting began. Were all parties going to remain faithful to the agreements established during the negotiations? Or would some throw a curve ball, changing their minds at the last minute? The pondered tactics of the IIPFCC were successful, as they managed to lock Brazil’s and the USA’s support on their most valued resolutions. All parties pondered thoroughly on how to best use their votes, and it seemed that this meant that some agreements had been silently retracted, when some astonished reactions followed the raise of hands here and there.
The conference was finally over and many parties, including Brazil and Greenpeace, could celebrate the victory of the resolutions agreed upon. Yet, it was clear that a bittersweet aftertaste was left in the mouths of some parties, who did not manage to persuade enough. The heated debate had ended, and what was done was done, but one more surprise was awaiting our participants. Deputy Mayor Asher Craig had been sitting on the sidelines for a few instances already, assisting in the final yet most heated rounds of the conference. She was there, observing our pupils in awe as they got into character and avidly fought for their beliefs. The Deputy Mayor was impressed by the passion of these young minds and how much they are invested in the cause; she was proud to see that young generations care about the environment and our planet, as they came up with ideas for change that they would like to see more in the Bristol. The innovativeness and creativity of the students was remarkable in her eyes, as she proceeded to give an inspiring and uplifting speech on the efforts currently being made by the City Council to respond to the climate emergency. The mock COP26 was a more than a successful event, and as everyone waited for the results of the conference in Glasgow, we all wished that our simulation had been real.
Watch the students in action in this short video created by Particle Productions and funded by Bristol City Council.
————————————–
This blog is written by Sonia Pighini and Jennifer Malone, who are students on the Cabot Institute for the Environment Master’s by Research.
Jennifer Malone
Currently studying for a Master’s by Research in Global Environmental Challenges from the Cabot Institute for the Environment, Jennifer’s research is centred on food system decarbonisation within the scope of UK food policy and community practice.
Sonia Pigini
Sonia is an international student in the MscR programme Global Environmental Challenges. Their research focuses on people-centred sustainable food system transitions in Bristol. They are particularly interested in exploring the potential for a more decentralised food system in the city, which empowers local producers, engages consumers and that keeps aspects such as justice and inclusion at its heart.
An extreme heatwave in India and Pakistan has left more than a billion people in one of the most densely populated parts of the world facing temperatures well above 40℃. Although this has not broken all-time records for the regions, the hottest part of the year is yet to come.
Together with a few other climate scientists, we recently looked for the most extreme heatwaves globally over the past 60 years – based on the greatest difference from expected temperature variability in that area, rather than by maximum heat alone. India and Pakistan do not feature in our results, now published in the journal Science Advances. Despite regularly having extremely high temperatures and levels of heat stress in absolute terms, when defined in terms of deviation from the local normal, heatwaves in India and Pakistan to date have not been all that extreme.
In fact, we highlighted India as a region with a particularly low greatest historical extreme. In the data we assessed, we didn’t find any heatwaves in India or Pakistan outside three standard deviations from the mean, when statistically such an event would be expected once every 30 or so years. The most severe heatwave we identified, in southeast Asia in 1998, was five standard deviations from the mean. An equivalent outlier heatwave in India today would mean temperatures of over 50℃ across large swaths of the country – such temperatures have only been seen at localised points so far.
Our work therefore suggests India may experience even more extreme heat. Assuming the statistical distribution of daily maximum temperatures is broadly the same across the world, statistically a record-breaking heatwave is likely to occur in India at some point. The region has not yet had reason to adapt to such temperatures, so may be particularly vulnerable.
Harvests and health
Although the current heatwave has not broken any all-time records, it is still exceptional. Many parts of India have experienced their hottest April on record. Such heat this early in the year will have devastating impacts on crops in a region where many rely on the wheat harvest both to eat and to earn a living. Usually, extreme heat in this area is closely followed by cooling monsoons – but these are still months away.
It is not just crop harvests that will bear the brunt, as heatwaves affect infrastructure, ecosystems and human health. The impacts on human health are complex as both meteorological factors (how hot and humid it is) and socioeconomic factors (how people live and how they are able to adapt) come into play. We do know that heat stress can lead to long-term health issues such as cardiovascular diseases, kidney failure, respiratory distress and liver failure, though we will be unable to know exactly how many people will die in this heatwave due to the lack of necessary health data from India and Pakistan.
What the future holds
To consider the impact of extreme heat over the next few decades, we have to look at both climate change and population growth, since it is a combination of the two that will amplify the human-health impacts of heat extremes in the Indian subcontinent.
Hotspots of population increases over the next 50 years (red circles), all coincide with locations where no daily mortality data exists (yellow). Mitchell, Nature Climate Change (2021), CC BY-SA
In our new study, we investigated how extremes are projected to increase in the future. We used a large ensemble of climate model simulations, which gave us many times more data than is available for the real world. We found that the statistical distribution of extremes, relative to a shift in the underlying climate as it generally gets warmer, does not change. In the climate models the daily temperature extremes increase at the same rate as the shift in the mean climate. The IPCC’s latest report stated that heat waves will become more intense and more frequent in south Asia this century. Our results support this.
The current heatwave is affecting over 1.5 billion people and over the next 50 years the population of the Indian subcontinent is projected to increase by a further 30%. That means hundreds of millions more people will be born into a region that is likely to experience more frequent and more severe heatwaves. With even larger numbers of people being affected by even greater heat extremes in the future, measures to adapt to climate change must be accelerated – urgently.
Super cyclones, known as hurricanes or typhoons in different parts of the world, are among the most destructive weather events on our planet.
Although wind speeds within these storms can reach 270 km/h, the largest loss of life comes from the flooding they cause – known as a “storm surge” – when sea water is pushed onto the coast. Climate change is predicted to worsen these floods, swelling cyclone clouds with more water and driving rising sea levels that allow storm surges to be blown further inland.
In May 2020, Super Cyclone Amphan hit the India-Bangladesh border, bringing heavy rainfall and strong winds and affecting more than 13 million citizens. The cyclone also caused storm surges of 2-4 metres, flooding coastal regions in the Bay of Bengal.
While over the ocean, this category five storm – that’s a storm’s highest possible rating – became the strongest cyclone to have formed in the Bay of Bengal since 1999, reaching wind speeds of up to 260 km/h. Although it weakened to a category two storm following landfall, it remained the strongest cyclone to hit the Ganges Delta since 2007.
Amphan had severe consequences for people, agriculture, the local economy and the environment. It tragically resulted in more than 120 deaths, as well as damaging or destroying homes and power grids: leaving millions without electricity or communication in the midst of an ongoing pandemic.
Relief and aid efforts were hampered by flood damage to roads and bridges, as well as by coronavirus restrictions. Large areas of crops including rice, sesame and mangos were damaged, and fertile soils were either washed away or contaminated by saline sea water. Overall, Super Cyclone Amphan was the costliest event ever recorded in the North Indian Ocean, resulting in over $13 billion (£10 billion) of damage.
In Kolkata, India, Super Cyclone Amphan caused widespread damage. Indrajit Das/Wikimedia
In a recent study led by the University of Bristol and drawing on research from Bangladesh and France, we’ve investigated how the effects of storm surges like that caused by Amphan on the populations of India and Bangladesh might change under different future climate and population scenarios.
Amphan: Mark II
Rising sea levels – thanks largely to melting glaciers and ice sheets – appear to be behind the greatest uptick in future risk from cyclone flooding, since they allow storm surges to reach further inland. It’s therefore key to understand and predict how higher sea levels might exacerbate storm-driven flooding, in order to minimise loss and damage in coastal regions.
Our research used climate models from CMIP6, the latest in a series of projects aiming to improve our understanding of climate by comparing simulations produced by different modelling groups around the world. First we modelled future sea-level rise according to different future emissions scenarios, then we added that data to storm surge estimates taken from a model of Super Cyclone Amphan.
We ran three scenarios: a low emission scenario, a business-as-usual scenario and a high emission scenario. And in addition to modelling sea-level rise, we also estimated future populations across India and Bangladesh to assess how many more people storm surges could affect. In most cases, we found that populations are likely to rise: especially in urban areas.
Our findings were clear: exposure to flooding from cyclone storm surges is extremely likely to increase. In India, exposure increase ranged from 50-90% for the lowest emission scenario, to a 250% increase for the highest emission scenario. In Bangladesh, we found a 0-20% exposure increase for the lowest emission scenario and a 60-70% increase for the highest emission scenario. The difference in exposure between the two countries is mostly due to declining coastal populations as a result of urban migration inland.
Imagine we’re now in 2100. Even in a scenario where we’ve managed to keep global emissions relatively low, the local population exposed to storm surge flooding from an event like Amphan will have jumped by ~350,000. Compare this to a high emission scenario, where an extra 1.35 million people will now be exposed to flooding. And for flood depths of over one metre – a depth that poses immediate danger to life – almost half a million more people will be exposed to storm surge flooding in a high emission scenario, compared to a low emission scenario.
A satellite image shows Amphan approaching the coasts of India and Bangladesh. Pierre Markuse/Wikimedia
This research provides yet more support for rapidly and permanently reducing our greenhouse gas emissions to keep global warming at 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
Although we’ve focused on storm surge flooding, other cyclone-related hazards are also projected to worsen, including deadly heatwaves following cyclones hitting land. And in the case of Amphan, interplay between climate change and coronavirus likely made the situation for people on the ground far worse. As the world warms, we mustn’t avoid the reality that pandemics and other climate-related crises are only forecast to increase.
Urgent action on emissions is vital to protect highly climate-vulnerable countries from the fatal effects of extreme weather. Amphan Mark II need not be as destructive as we’ve projected if the world’s governments act now to meet Paris agreement climate goals.
Recent geo-political events have meant that this report has understandably been overlooked in comparison to its predecessor, however, at 3500 pages and being the product of analysis of 34,000 papers since 2014, it is certainly not light reading. This writing aims to pinpoint and amplify the key messages from Daniela’s summary of Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptations and Vulnerability, as the Working Group III: Mitigation of Climate Change report has been released this week.
Solutions
The key take home message, was that the report offers solutions, but they are needed now. Daniela explained that it is not all doom and gloom, and it is important for our survival not to take it that way. From the report itself, the key quote, which you have perhaps seen shared elsewhere, is
The science is clear. Any further delay in concerted global action will miss a brief and rapidly closing window to secure a livable future. This report offers solutions to the world.
Nature
One of the key solutions proposed in the report is nature, both in terms of its conservation and restoration and that it offers promising solutions to many of the threats we face. For example, the potential of natural carbon sinks, coastal protection, water management and urban cooling systems has been repeatedly evidenced, as well as the importance of integrating nature and natural solutions into urban spaces.
The report stresses that humans are part of ecosystems, not separate from them, and nature is crucial to our survival because of the essential and irreplaceable ecosystem services it provides. Fragmented, polluted and overexploited ecosystems are much more vulnerable to climate change, therefore, the report stresses it is therefore important to take a coordinated approach, with their protection and restoration in mind.
Interconnection
As well as the interconnectedness of humans and nature, the report evidences previously unrealised interconnections of climate risks. Risks are becoming more complex and there are compound and cascading risks through systems. For example, in terms of food scarcity, we need to consider that heat stress will not only reduce crop yields, but also the well-being and productivity of farm workers, further exacerbating the situation. There is an increased recognition of the interconnections between people, regions, society, ecosystems, biodiversity. This means that climate change cannot be seen as an individual problem, but as one intrinsically linked with natural resource depletion, ecosystem destruction, and growing urbanisation and inequity across the world.
Equality
Another key focus of the report was the importance of but lack of global equality, which will continue to be exacerbated in the face of climate change. 3.3 – 3.6 billion live in hotspots of high vulnerability to climate change, due to high levels of poverty, limited access to water, sanitation and health services, climate sensitive livelihoods and lack of funding and accountability in government. I would like to point out, that in the vast majority of cases, it is these communities whose carbon contributions are the least, which in my opinion strongly evidences to the fact that climate change is a political problem as well as a scientific one.
Due to inequality being a big problem, the report places an emphasis on the importance of promoting equality in the solutions and with this the need to listen to marginalised voices. Daniela explained that of global climate funding, 80% goes to mitigation, or reduction of emissions, while only 20% goes to adaptation, which is likely to be what is most consequential to more vulnerable communities.
Bristol’s Research Development International (RDI) Team works with our academics and their partners across the globe to help them secure funding for research projects. We support applications to a wide range of external funding calls including those funded as part of the UK’s Aid budget and others focused on collaborations with global South partners.
We also run internal calls to help our researchers initiate, develop and sustain international partnerships. These schemes have sown the ground for partnerships to grow their projects and to successfully secure millions in funding.
A key aspect of our internal funding schemes is the need for projects to demonstrate that the partnership is equitable. This without doubt strengthens funding proposals and ensures outcomes meet the needs of the intended beneficiaries. We have also seen equitable partnerships become more of an expectation for external funders too, especially for calls that aim to tackle global challenges.
Equitable research partnerships that enable co-design and collaboration across sectors to combine diverse sources of knowledge are crucial for enabling transformative adaptation.
The University of Bristol’s principles for global challenges research activity include our commitment to build equitable relationships. We fully support these statements of expectations:
Partnerships should be transparent and based on mutual respect.
Partnerships should aim to have clearly articulated equitable responsibilities, efforts, benefits and distribution of resources.
Partnerships should recognise different inputs, different interests and different desired outcomes and should ensure the ethical sharing and use of data which is responsive to the identified needs of society.
Between 2017-2021 the University directly supported in excess of 120 global challenges projects with partners in over 55 countries located in the global South. These projects demonstrated the importance of investing time and resources into building equitable partnerships which are based on trust and understanding. The funding enabled researchers to gain and develop first-hand knowledge about how to develop inclusive partnerships where cultural differences are considered and understood. It also helped them to recognise that there are power dynamics within partnerships that are sometimes out of their control, for example the particular model of funding or Bristol’s own institutional processes. Others arise due to a lack of awareness of the local contexts in which overseas partners operate.
When we asked some of our award holders what advice they would give to researchers who would like to develop international global challenges research collaborations they commented:
“I think you have to go and visit and sit down and spend time talking, understanding perspectives, priorities, and local constraints. There are constraints that if you are based in the UK, you don’t even know are possible constraints, until you are there. People have got to like you, to feel you ‘hear’ them and are interested and understanding.”
“The basic element of overseas partnerships is to be respectful of your partners and recognise that they come with substantial technical expertise and understand their context far better than an overseas researcher will. It is crucial to listen to the partners and be willing to change you own ideas and plans in light of the inputs, insights and advice from the partners.”
“Communication was often difficult in the early stages of our partnership. If considering new partnerships again, I would ensure that we had more extensive discussions at the start about capacity, capability, and areas of particular interest so we maximise the likelihood that research designs match partner expectations”
“Recognise that the drivers for academics in other countries may not always be the same as those in the UK – your partners may care much more about community interaction or policy engagement than writing papers for instance.”
“Co-development and collaboration creates new possibilities in terms of outcomes and impact that are not possible alone – be patient and flexible with partners and processes that are needed to build these collaborations because the rewards can be significant.”
How to find international research partners
If you are interested developing an international research collaboration, your first question may be how do I find an international partner(s)? Some of our suggestions include:
Seek advice from your School Research Director or Faculty International Director;
Contact your research support colleagues who may be aware of existing projects working in a similar area and can put you in touch with your colleagues.
Speak to your institutions research institutes and centres. These are often closely linked to institutions’ international engagement strategies and can enable interdisciplinary links within the institution that can lead to developing international collaborations.
Like Bristol, your institution may be part of an existing international network, such as the Worldwide Universities Network (WUN). Contact the network’s team to find out what partnerships exist already and whether they can facilitate links with these institutions
The South West International Development Network (SWIDN) is a cross-sector membership organisation of non-profit, academic institutions, businesses, consultants and individuals who are working in international development towards the SDGs. Your institution may have connections to similar organisations. If you are seeking partners for your research, they can share information with their NGO members.
What help does the RDI team provide to University of Bristol researchers and their international partners?
Our activities include discussing potential projects and how these fit with specific call requirements; how to complete applications, the information to be included and who in the University can provide additional support; how to generate impacts and policy; identifying potential future funding streams for sustaining partnerships; reviewing draft applications; assisting or signposting in respect of the associated administrative, financial and contractual requirements. We have also developed a toolkit to help Bristol researchers navigate all these aspects.
Hints and tips for global challenges research
Do
take time to build your partnerships. Successful partnerships are built on trust and understanding. Look out for funding streams which will help you to meet them face to face.
make sure the project is co-designed, it should be informed by the local contexts of the challenges(s) identified by partners and other stakeholders.
consider the potential for mutual learning and knowledge exchange.
recognise and understand that what you may think is a primary issue in a partner country, might not be a burning issue from your partner’s perspective.
think about cultural differences and how you will need to accommodate or address these as the project develops.
think about how time differences and different pressures may impact on how your project develops.
be aware that funding deadlines are often very short for global challenges research and applications can take a considerable time to complete
be aware that these funding streams are competitive.
Don’t
try to shoehorn your research to meet the aims of a particular call. Funding panels can usually spot where this is the case.
assume that professional services teams will be able to prioritise your application. Liaise with them at an early stage in your planning. Take time to become familiar with the University’s research costing systems and the associated procedures in place.
assume that your University’s due diligence and contractual processes will always be straightforward and timely. These can be complex in some instances, especially where your partner(s).
Here are some recent projects on global challenges that University of Bristol academics and their international research partners have been collaborating on:
Towards the latter part of 2021, I was approached by the Perivoli Africa Research Centre (PARC), to support the process of ‘developing an African WASH (Water, Sanitation, Hygiene) Research Agenda’. One could say that I wear a couple of ‘hats’ within the African Higher Education Sector and thematic research networks such as water, sanitation, disaster risk reduction and science, technology and innovation (STI). Primarily, I’m the Director of the Centre for Collaboration in Africa at Stellenbosch University, South Africa where we create an enabling environment for Stellenbosch University to partner and collaborate with other African institutions.
In addition, I’m the Programme manager of the Southern African Network of the African Union Development Agency (AUDA)-NEPAD Networks of Water Centres of Excellence and the Lead-Expert of another AUDA-NEPAD Centre of Excellence in Science, Technology and Innovation (STI). In addition, I am also the Director of the PERIPERI-U Network – a network of 13 universities across Africa focusing research and capacity development in the field of Disaster Risk Reduction. It might seem diverse, but this portfolio gives me broad insight into the African Higher Education Sector and various related thematic research topics such as water, sanitation, and STI which could contribute towards a process in developing an African WASH Research Agenda.
With his writing I would like to highlight key aspects I believe we have to consider in our approach in developing and Africa WASH Research Agenda.
‘Africa is not one country’
In a post-colonial era, Africa is too often referred to as one country where problems are generalized and where solutions are proposed as a ‘one size fits all’ approach without considering that local contextualization is required. At a national level, most African countries do have their developmental priorities clearly defined, but it would be impractical to attempt the development of any African Research agenda at this level considering each of the 54 African countries. Over the years, I have had the good fortune to travel to 33 other African countries, and have I experienced a level of regional homogeneity in, first, diversity in climate, topography, precipitation and furthermore diversity in languages, cultures, believes in different regions of the African continent.
To thus attempt a single African WASH Research Agenda would be futile, and could one, as a starting point, consider the delineation of countries within the five regions of the African Union (North, West, Central, East and Southern Africa). This delineation would however be limited, as one should also consider Regional Economic Communities (RECs) and specifically the 13 major trans-boundary River Basins, as many inter-governmental governance arrangements, strategies and implementation plans are coordinated through the RECs and River Basin Organizations (RBOs) across the continent. One should never forget that for millennia, Africans were connected by waterways and rivers that cut across the continent and transcend national boundaries set during the colonial era.
Indeed, one could argue that there are deficiencies in the functioning of different RECs and RBOs, and the need continue to strengthen and build the capacity of these institutions across the continent. Here, partnerships with institutions in the Global North have played an important role to support RECs and RBOs along with the African Ministers’ Council on Water (AMCOW) – a specialized Committee for Water and Sanitation in the African Union to promote “cooperation, security, social, economic development and poverty eradication among member states through the effective management of the continent’s water resources and provision of water supply services”.
However, it must be said that often inequalities exist in partnerships between African institutions and institutions in the Global North, specifically in relation to research and human capacity development where African institutions often do not reap the full benefits of such partnerships. This debate is nothing new with African institutions often exclaiming how they draw the short straw.
Inequality persists
At a recent webinar hosted by the African Climate Development Initiative (ACDI) at the University of Cape Town (UCT) and the School for Climate Studies (SCS) at Stellenbosch University (SU) the implications for Southern African of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, titled ‘Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability’ were discussed (see https://www.sun.ac.za/english/Lists/news/DispForm.aspx?ID=8959 for detail of the webinar). During the webinar, Dr Chris Trisos, one of the coordinating lead authors on the Africa-chapter, indicated that between 1990 and 2020, “78% of funding for Africa-related climate research flowed to institutions in Europe and the United States – only 14.5% flowed to institutions in Africa”. Moreover, “not only are research agendas shaped by a Global North perspective, but African researchers are positioned primarily as recipients engaged to support these research agendas instead of being equal partners in setting the agenda.” Moreover, an analysis of more than 15 000 climate change publications found that for more that 75% of African countries, 60-100% of the publications did not include a single African author and authorship dominated by researchers from countries beyond Africa.
There are many examples where phrases such as ‘research tourism’ and ‘he who holds the purse is setting the agenda’ are reluctantly whispered in the corridors of African research institutions where partners from the Global North are involved. In addition, local researchers are often left to manage expectations and the associated disappointment of communities in the aftermath of ill-implemented research projects where the promises of a better life did not realize within the communities. Often, research projects land in the lap of many African researchers, knowing that their academic aspiration of promotion and stature lies in the anticipated publications resulting from the research projects, and not necessarily in what benefit the project might have to the societies where they operate in. Moreover, how often do we see how the majority of research funding emanating from institutions in the Global North are allocated to a Principal Investigator at an institution in their backyard, and where the partners in the African countries receive very little of the total funding of projects – often under the guise that the funds will not reach its intended purpose due to corruption and maladministration. Yes, there are improvements where African partners are co-designing research projects and indeed, there are many examples of institutions with challenges, but there are also many African research institutions that have repeatedly shown that they have the capacity to manage large research projects and have the leadership and will to continue improve Research Development Offices and financial controls within their institutions – not to appease partners in the Global North, but out of pure home-grown leadership and good governance.
So, in conclusion, I am of the firm belief that we can create an African WASH Research Agenda, and that we can, through true multi-stakeholder engagements identify, prioritize and create research projects which we can successfully implement that are for the benefit of our societies in which we live. This can only be achieved through true partnerships with the Global North where mutual trust and respect are earned. Personally, I have experienced such partnerships, and do I also realise that we can do so much more.
The School of Education’s, Education in Small States Research Group (ESSRG) in collaboration with the Cabot Institute for the Environment and the Centre for Comparative and International Research in Education (CIRE), have produced a short (15 minute) video as a direct contribution to COP26 in Glasgow. This has been developed from the zoom recording of a joint online event titled ‘Voices from SIDS at the Sharp End of Environmental Uncertainty: Small Island Developing States (SIDS) Speak to COP26’ held on 5 October 2021.
This professionally developed video highlights the ‘voices’, views and climate change priorities held by youth, community members, traditional village elders and national leaders ‘Living at the Sharp End of Environmental Uncertainty’ in all three global regions of SIDS: the Caribbean, the Indian Ocean and the Pacific (see www.smallstates.net).
The video also includes a response from Professor Dann Mitchell from the Cabot Institute, and a commentary from University of Bristol Alumni and long-time Governor-General of St Lucia (1997-2018), Dame Pearlette Louisy.
To maintain our input for COP26 discussions, this Cabot Institute blog reinforces the key messages from the video presentation in the words of the lead participants from Saint Lucia, The Maldives and Tuvalu: messages that we hope others will continue to share and support.
Saint Lucia
COP26 – Can Glasgow deliver?
“One Point Five to Stay Alive”. This was perhaps the most memorable phrase on the minds and lips of delegates when the Conference of Parties (COP 21) ended in Paris a few short years ago. The small island developing states seemed to have punched above their weight when they persuaded the international community to commit in principle to keep world temperatures and sea level rise below the 1.5 degree-level so that they could survive. The euphoria then was palpable and undeniable.
(Artist: Jonathan Gladding)
But, as we engage in Glasgow and COP 26, what was hailed as an infectious rallying cry must not be allowed to lose its lustre and become just another catchy phrase or worn-out platitude. The United Nations Secretary General’s fears that “Glasgow may not be able to deliver” could be seen as salt on an already open wound … but let us hope that it is a timely warning to others worldwide, a plea that helps to keep alive the hopes that SIDS are holding on to.
What then lies in store for small island developing states? Surely, they cannot be faulted for sitting idly by, for they have been very proactive in addressing climate change issues in order to build their resilience against this existential threat. The Caribbean region, for example, has recently released The State of the Caribbean Climate Report which is aimed at strengthening the strategic planning and decision-making processes that will be required to accelerate their resilience building efforts. The projections for the region are not at all encouraging. They point to rising sea levels, hotter temperatures (predicted to reach a rise of 1.76 degrees by the end of the century), more variable rainfall with increased drying (by almost 17%), increased sea surface temperatures and more intense Category 4 and 5 hurricanes. (See: Climate Studies Group Mona (Eds.) 2020, The State of the Caribbean Climate. Produced for the Caribbean Development Bank).
These predictions will undoubtedly adversely affect the core livelihoods of Caribbean people already living in a very vulnerable geographic space, who must learn how to live both now and in the future. The international community meeting in Glasgow must therefore make every effort to facilitate the sustainable development of our small island developing states. Education for resilience and sustainable development must take centre stage now, for time is not at all on our side.
In 1993, one of Saint Lucia’s Nobel Laureates, Sir Derek Walcott (Literature 1992), warned in his Nobel Lecture that “a morning could come when governments might ask what happened not only to our forests and our bays, but to a whole people”.
We appeal therefore to COP 26 to heed these warnings to ensure that such a morning never comes. Living at the sharp end of environmental uncertainty, as small island developing states are, cannot be considered sustainable living.
The time to act decisively is now. Glasgow must deliver. Failing which, we will have nullified the very concept of sustainable development proposed by the Brundtland Report … that is, development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
In referring readers back to the video, we wish to thank Curtis Raphael who helped to put the Saint Lucia section together, and Crispin d’Auvergne, the Programme Director of the Climate Change and Disaster Risk Management of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) who provided access to the two Reports cited in our presentation.
Maldives
The contribution to the video from the Maldives aims to bring multiple and diverse voices from the islands of the Maldives to Glasgow and COP26. It highlights their everyday experiences and anxieties about the environment and climate change. These voices come from a range of contributors from different levels of the society, including school children, fishermen, a grandfather, divers, surfers, environmentalists, farmers, entrepreneurs, policy makers and politicians.
It is clear there is a keen awareness of the fragility of the local biophysical environment and the existential threat posed by climate change on livelihoods and the very survival of the nation and the population. As is evident, climate anxiety is up close and personal for all who live in the country. There is an acute awareness of the importance of protecting the environment to mitigate a potential catastrophe caused by rising sea levels.
While Maldivian authorities continue to develop domestic policies to mitigate the worst effects of climate change, these actions at the local level are woefully insufficient. The larger polluters worldwide also need to commit to real action in their pledges, and act now to reduce harmful emissions at the same time as they assist smaller nations to convert to and adapt to low carbon economies.
Image credit: savefainu
Tuvalu
We hope our video from Tuvalu will speak for itself. We are one of the most vulnerable nations in the world, facing a 2-meter rise in sea levels that will inundate our nation. Our plea to the international community highlights the fact that we are relational beings, what we do today one way or the other will affect people around us, people around the globe and even you and me, someday. Therefore, as global citizens, this is the time that we must work towards building a safe, healthy and resilient world so that one day we can proudly say, Yes ! We were the generation that made it happen – we set aside our differences and as a kaiga (family) we created this fantastic world for our children, our future.
This blog is written by Dame Pearlette Louisy; Dr Merle St Clair-Auguste; Dr Aminath Muna; Dr Aminath Shiyama; Dr Rosiana Lagi; and the ESSRG Leadership Team.
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}