CLIM-RUN Project (2011-2014) aims at developing a protocol for applying new methodologies and improved modeling and downscaling tools for the provision of adequate climate information at regional to local scale that is relevant to and usable by different sectors of society (policymakers, industry, cities, etc.).

THE CLIM-RUN protocol is central to the project, e.g., text on our home page:

• But are we really clear about what it is? • Or what it should be?

The WP1 DOW perspective

Some basic questions about the CLIM-RUN protocol

• Scope• Function• Audience• Format

e.g., How generic can/should it be?Or a mixture – e.g., some general bullet points (check lists?), with more specific details and examples?

In terms of the scope…….and suggestions for which issues the WGs should focus on

• Overall process – the methodological key stages (WG1)• Identification and selection of stakeholders (WG1)• Communication with stakeholders (WG1)• Identification of needs (WG1)• Translation of needs (WG1 and WG2)*• Defining and producing products (WG2)*• Assessing and refining products (WG2 and WG1)*

* It is proposed that the protocol should focus on the mechanisms themselves, whereas the specific needs and products from the case-studies should be discussed somewhat separately. Or provided as accompanying examples.

Specific CLIM-RUN ‘tools’ and ’methods’ that we should review

• Stakeholder mapping etc. (e.g., see D1.1)• Perception questionnaire• Functioning of the CET/SET• Workshops (e.g., see D4.2)• Product information sheets

Some generic questions

• Which ‘tools’/‘methods’ did we say we would use?• Which did we actually use? Why?• Which didn’t we use? Why?

• Are there others that we could/should have used?

• For those that we did use:• Which worked well? And why?• Which didn’t work so well? And why?• How could both groups of ‘tools’/’methods’ be improved?

Some other general questions

• CLIM-RUN is a fixed-term project.• And we were the ones initiating stakeholder contact.• Are there different and/or additional issues that we need to

consider in terms of moving towards operational climate services?

We have made a number of assumptions. Were these borne out in practice? e.g., does knowing the ‘who’ really help with the ‘what’ or does

stakeholder classification and mapping make a difference?