(C) PLOS One
This story was originally published by PLOS One and is unaltered.
 . . . . . . . . . .



Assessing the training needs of climate scientists: The role of the World Climate Research Programme Academy [1]

['Lora Batino', 'World Climate Research Programme', 'World Meteorological Organisation', 'Geneva', 'Manila Observatory', 'Quezon City', 'Christopher Lennard', 'Climate System Analysis Group', 'Department Of Environmental', 'Geographical Science']

Date: 2026-07 

Climate education is vital for developing climate solutions that address the Paris Accord and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. However, climate education amongst scientists from the Global South is generally lower than their Global North counterparts. Training, capacity development, and access to similar opportunities are necessary but currently insufficient to level the playing field for skills and participation in the advancement of climate science. This study presents the results of two global stocktake surveys conducted by the World Climate Research Programme Academy (WCRP Academy) and examines the availability and accessibility of climate training opportunities. Global North respondents felt that training in their region was adequate to allow researchers to work effectively on climate science problems. In contrast, respondents from the Global South felt opportunities in their region were lacking and sought additional training regardless of career stage. Globally, early-career researchers and women were most interested in available climate training but have the least access to opportunities. To address these issues, the WCRP Academy aims to increase the visibility of climate science training opportunities via a web-based platform and provide insights to the global scientific community on the climate training needs of scientists based on specific demographic characteristics and preferences. Our findings identify inequities in opportunities and access to development and training required by the global scientific community to meet global climate challenges.

Funding: Production and publication of the research manuscript is supported by the World Climate Research Programme ( www.wcrp-climate.org ). Study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, and preparation of the manuscript were supported by the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP). LB was supported by a paid internship from the WCRP during the preparation of the manuscript. MH was supported by the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for the Weather of the 21st Century (CE230100012).

The WCRP Academy is the research training advisory and coordination arm of the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP). Established in 2020, its mission is to equip current and future climate scientists with the knowledge, skills, and attributes required to tackle the world’s most pressing and challenging climate research questions. By serving as a hub that connects training providers and users of training, the WCRP Academy aims to increase the availability of and access to climate training to facilitate and expedite global equity in climate science capacity building. One of the WCRP Academy’s objectives also includes improving diversity in climate research (in terms of gender, region, and age/education level) by increasing the capacity and opportunity of scientists to participate in climate research. Ultimately, by increasing the diversity of climate research, the WCRP Academy hopes to contribute to the improvement of actionable science and climate literacy that serve as the basis for broader and holistic climate action.

To the authors’ knowledge, the potential of providing targeted climate training to scientists from historically marginalized communities as a means of increasing diversity in climate research has not yet been explored in-depth. Gay-Antaki quoted African scientists in the IPCC expressing interest in extra training in order to “participate effectively in the space,” [ 11 ] while Tandon highlights the need for training on how to write journal articles among scholars in GS as one way to overcome the lack of diversity in publishing [ 22 ]. Although a number of studies have focused on the training needs of ECRs [ 33 , 39 ], a comprehensive assessment of the training needs of climate scientists in general, and scientists from marginalized communities in particular, is not yet available.

Several approaches have been recognized to increase diversity in climate research, such as enabling transdisciplinary engagement [ 37 ], emphasizing openness to diversity within the climate community [ 28 ], and acknowledging the North-South divide that hinders the development of relevant and appropriate global climate change agreements [ 24 ]. The IPCC’s nomination and selection procedure itself recognizes the need to construct diversified author groups, taking into account criteria such as gender, geographical distribution, and experience, despite issues in the extent of active participation of marginalized groups [ 27 ] and the diversity of the current pool of authors [ 22 ]. Presently, various metrics and targets such as gender, geographical representation, disciplinary diversity, and institutional representation are being used to pursue and track diversity [ 38 ]. While these are a good start, deeper critical analysis and evaluation is required to ensure that participation is also high-quality and meaningful.

Training and development of future scientists and users of climate information is necessary to co-produce useful, actionable climate information [ 36 ], but with limited knowledge of available climate education opportunities, ECRs and GS scientists are unlikely to access these opportunities at all. To achieve actionable science and build climate literacy, climate scientists not only need new skills but also genuine opportunities to participate in the production of climate information.

As indicated above, lack of funding also reduces opportunities for GS climate researchers. For example, between 1990–2020 only 3.8% of global funding for climate research was directed at Africa-related climate research, which, given Africa’s vulnerability to climate change [ 34 ], is inadequate to properly understand the changing climate at regional and local scales, the impacts of climate change on various sectors like agriculture, water, energy and health, and potential adaptation measures and mitigation opportunities. Furthermore, of this funding, only ~0.9% went to African researchers, with most funding being granted to GN researchers to do research on Africa [ 35 ]. This greatly hinders the development and retention of African climate researchers in the continent, marginalizes the existing community, and results in relatively lower climate education in the continent. Furthermore, due to connections in the climate system, a relatively poor understanding of the African climate may also have consequences for understanding climate impacts elsewhere.

A researcher’s career stage may also affect their involvement in climate research. Early career researchers (ECRs), despite being in a position to offer innovative solutions to climate issues, do not always have access to capacity-building and training opportunities to enable them to fully participate in climate research and global policymaking [ 31 , 32 ]. They are also perceived to be either underqualified to provide policy advice or overqualified for intern or entry-level positions that can get them into climate policymaking [ 33 ]. Apart from an observed shortage of educational opportunities in the GS, ECRs from GS also tend to see affiliation with Western institutions as prestigious and advantageous to their career development, further contributing to geographical brain drain [ 31 ]. Most training programs are also located in countries in the GN and while a few countries and institutions in the GS may have the resources to conduct and offer training programs, these are often not sustainable due to changes in leadership or governments [ 32 ].

The lack of diversity in climate science research results in biases in knowledge production and barriers to career progression, especially for researchers in GS, impacting climate action and policy [ 22 ]. Gender, race, and nationality continue to act as barriers to meaningful participation and knowledge co-production, especially for women, non-native English speakers, and GS scientists [ 11 , 22 , 27 ]. For instance, the climate sector in the United States and Europe still pales in racial and ethnic diversity despite diversity in their growing populations [ 28 ]. In the context of the IPCC, women reported that they saw gender as a barrier to success and that they have experienced discrimination based on this [ 27 ], even affecting recruitment and hiring in the early stages of their academic careers [ 29 ]. Indigenous and local knowledge systems of climate science, as a result of imperialism and colonialism, have been devalued or erased and consequently are largely absent in the power dynamics of climate science knowledge production [ 30 ].

Language also remains a barrier to diversifying climate science knowledge. For instance, 87 – 95% of indexed scientific publications on climate change in Africa were in English, while research work such as master’s theses and doctoral dissertations about Africa that are written in Portuguese are not accessible in online databases [ 25 ]. The prevalence of English-only publishing also makes scientific knowledge unavailable in local languages [ 26 ]. If studies providing local context on climate change remain inaccessible due to English-only searches and English-only publications, then assessments will not capture local issues and specific knowledge that will make climate information relevant to local stakeholders [ 25 ].

Biases exist in knowledge about climate change and its impacts (e.g., publications skewed towards the interests of male scientists from GN), which leads to blind spots around the needs of some of the most vulnerable populations [ 22 ]. There are also documented power imbalances within development projects involving North-South cooperation, where limited input and participation of GS scientists and participants in the early stages of a project resulted in knowledge that did not address the participants’ primary concerns [ 23 ]. The domination of GN scientists vis-à-vis the limited research led by GS scientists results in a North-South divide in climate science that can hinder the development and implementation of much-needed climate policy and practice [ 24 ]. Despite the increasing popularity of knowledge co-production in bringing together institutions from GS and GN in conducting climate research projects, funding agencies, typically from GN, often assign a lead institution, positioning other research partners as recipients, the former being from the GN, and the latter from GS [ 10 ]. This results in inequitable funding of climate research in the GS and the marginalization of the GS climate research community.

Since the ratification of the Paris Agreement in 2015 and the establishment of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, climate literacy and action have been at the forefront of environmental policies, with countries developing science-based mitigation and adaptation plans and identifying shared commitments to address climate change [ 19 ]. Global efforts to address the climate crisis are underway, albeit with differing capacities of governments, societies, and individuals to adapt to its impacts [ 20 ], often linked to disparities in local technical and human resources for producing and applying climate information in risk assessments [ 21 ].

Climate literacy entails understanding the relationships between how climate affects society and how society affects climate, including climate change and its anthropogenic causes [ 14 ]. However, climate change as an issue is prioritized differently by governments, social institutions, and even education providers. In the GS, efforts to combat climate change compete with other urgent development priorities such as economic stability and resilience, and poverty eradication [ 15 ], potentially leading to limited progress in climate science capacity-building. Nonetheless, the co-benefits of climate action and capacity building in climate research to meet other development priorities are also better recognized in the global climate regime [ 16 ]. Transdisciplinary climate research facilitates climate literacy, promotes the development of inclusive adaptation policies [ 17 , 18 ], and acknowledges climate change as a social concern.

The paper is structured as follows. We first provide an overview of challenges in climate science capacity-building. We then elaborate on the Academy global survey and the methodology and analysis we adopted. Third, we present the results of the survey, highlighting differences in training needs and opportunities based on demographic differences. Lastly, we provide recommendations to enhance climate science capacity-building, particularly for scientists in the GS.

The World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) coordinates international climate research for climate knowledge that contributes to societal well-being. Its research training advisory and coordination arm, the WCRP Academy, supports this vision by making training accessible to the global climate science community. A climate scientist who has undergone relevant climate science training can understand and explain the essential principles of the Earth’s climate system, critically assess scientific information about climate, provide expert advice to users of climate information, and make informed and responsible decisions with regard to actions that may affect climate [ 13 ]. The WCRP Academy aims to develop, share, and apply climate knowledge by connecting training providers and users of training to contribute to enhancing global climate science capacity development.

The climate emergency requires a highly skilled global scientific community, particularly in the GS, where place-based solutions are required urgently and whose challenges and barriers to mitigation and adaptation need to be better understood by technical and purely quantitative climate science. However, the gap in climate education between GS and GN continues to widen due to unequal access to training opportunities [ 10 ]. Inclusion and diversity in science enables the scientific community to ask different questions and produce different types of knowledge that address a variety of purposes [ 11 ]. Understanding the regional expression and impacts of climate change requires ongoing training and development for those working in the climate science space to ensure they remain equipped and engaged in the pursuit of state-of-the-art research developments and findings. Training is also needed to produce societally engaged climate scientists with competencies that allow for collaboration and engagement with other researchers, communities, and decision-makers [ 12 ].

Despite increasing global action, the climate emergency is accelerating. While impacts are felt across the globe, climate change disproportionately affects the Global South (GS) compared to the Global North (GN), with populations exposed to hazards facing the most severe impacts [ 1 ]. The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report states that without a significant reduction in the level of greenhouse gas emissions within the next decade, limiting warming to close to 1.5 °C is beyond reach and the rise in global temperatures will continue, further affecting populations in vulnerable situations [ 2 ]. Climate change mitigation efforts are in place, yet consequential impacts are already felt. Climate change has led to biodiversity loss [ 3 – 6 ], increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events [ 7 , 8 ], and negative impacts on agriculture, human health, and socio-economic development [ 9 ]. With every degree of warming, a wider range of options and more ambitious solutions are needed. A global scientific workforce that has the highest capabilities and capacities is needed to develop and trial these ideas and solutions to inform decision makers.

The first stocktake survey received favorable ethical opinion for conduct from the University of Reading School Research Ethics Committee (SREC) through the School of Mathematical, Physical and Computational Sciences (SMPCS). Additional interviews and the second stocktake survey have also been approved by the University of Cape Town Faculty of Science Research Ethics Committee (Approval codes FSREC 044 2022 and FSREC 090–2022), respectively.

The Second Climate Training Stocktake Survey was conducted online from 12 January to 5 March 2023. The structured survey was administered online via SurveyMonkey and shared with climate training providers. The survey requested details about the training provider and the climate science training topics offered. A total of 23 responses were collected. All surveys were available in English and interviews were also conducted in English. Informed consent from survey participants were obtained at the beginning of both surveys, while interview participants were asked to complete an Informed Voluntary Consent form prior to the start of the interviews.

The First Climate Training Stocktake Survey was a structured survey administered online from July to November 2021. Structured surveys provide an efficient, consistent, and scalable method for assessing capacity development needs, especially when evaluating trends across large populations. However, they may lack the ability to capture the nuanced, context-specific insights required to fully address the complex and diverse needs of various groups [ 40 ]. Given the broad scope of our target group, we opted for a structured survey to gather data on the availability and accessibility of training opportunities, focusing on factors such as career stage, gender, and geographic region. Participant recruitment for the first stocktake survey was conducted between 26 July to 26 November 2021. A total of 414 responses were collected and analyzed, of which 14 respondents from GS were randomly selected on 12 July 2022 for further in-depth interviews to capture nuances and additional insights. To ensure representation and balance, these 14 interviewees were selected based on sex, location, and educational level. Interviews were conducted in English via Zoom and recorded with participants’ consent. Preliminary transcriptions were generated using an AI notetaker (Fireflies.ai) and manually cleaned and cross-referenced with the original interview audio to ensure fidelity. Participants were provided informed consent forms before the interviews commenced. Interview transcripts were analyzed using an inductive thematic analysis approach [ 41 ], where transcripts were reviewed iteratively to ensure familiarization with the participants’ narratives. Preliminary codes were then generated and subsequently grouped into recurring themes that captured the core experiences of the interviewees. These themes were cross-referenced with the quantitative survey results to assess whether specific interviewee experiences aligned with the broader patterns identified in the quantitative data.

The WCRP Academy designed and implemented a global stocktake of climate science training. It surveyed the global climate science community to determine the availability and accessibility of climate education and training opportunities. The First Climate Training Stocktake Survey in 2021 identified training requirements of current and future climate scientists and examined gaps in availability and access from the perspective of training recipients. In 2022, in-depth interviews with GS respondents from the first stocktake survey were undertaken to further explore their survey responses. To better understand the current landscape of available climate science training opportunities, the WCRP Academy then conducted the Second Climate Training Stocktake Survey in 2023, which was primarily focused on training providers.

Results and discussion

Survey responses from the first stocktake (n = 414) showed gender balance (54% men, 44% women, 2% other) and a fairly even split between respondents living in GN (48%) and GS (52%). Although a WCRP-run survey, 42% of respondents had not heard of the WCRP before, suggesting that the survey was taken up more broadly than the WCRP’s immediate networks. Most respondents worked full-time in universities or research institutions, and roughly half (51%) had obtained a PhD as their highest level of education. GN countries have 127 (64%) respondents whose highest level of education was a PhD, compared to 83 in the GS (39%) (Fig 1), suggesting the availability of more formal education opportunities in GN compared to GS. To further contextualize the survey results, interviews with seven men and seven women (a total of 14 participants) were conducted, with individuals coming from Asia (5), Africa (5), and Latin America (4). Half (7) of the interviewees had master’s degrees, while four had PhDs and three had completed their bachelor’s.

A total of 23 training providers completed the second stocktake survey, six of which can be classified as research institutes, while five fall under universities/educational institutions. Other organizations are classified as nonprofits, research programs, WMO regional training centers, or government offices. More organizations based in GN (57%) than in GS (43%) participated in the survey. These organizations specialize in climate-related services, including but not limited to climate change, climate science, atmospheric science, climate studies and research, and climate finance.

Availability and accessibility of climate training opportunities Through the first climate training stocktake survey, a variety of climate training was found to be available in countries both in GN and GS, to researchers at various stages of their careers. Climate science is transdisciplinary, and training ideally follows an Inter-/Trans-Disciplinary Framework [42]. We categorize the training topics broadly as (1) Climate-process-based, which includes collecting and the analysis of observations, model evaluation and analysis of model output, and process analysis of climate extremes, (2) General topics such as GIS and coding/programming, and (3) Contemporary topics like climate and climate extremes impacts, adaptation, risk, and mitigation (Fig 2). Classification was based on which topics are included in WCRP core projects and activities (climate process-based), which topics are overarching and not exclusive to the WCRP (general topics), and which topics that are emerging and recently included in, or not yet included in most WCRP research and activities (contemporary) as shown in Fig 2. Some topics are not exclusive to a single category, so we sorted them into the nearest suitable category using the best of our available knowledge and analytical judgment. PNG larger image

TIFF original image Download: Fig 2. Ranking of training topics based on importance. Training topics are also classified as Climate-process-based (CPB), General (GEN), and Contemporary (CON). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000853.g002 However, there are gaps between the training opportunities available and those required (Fig 3). For climate-process-based topics, available opportunities aligned reasonably well with the needs of survey respondents, except for theoretical studies which ranked high for availability in most countries, but relatively low in importance. Capacity development/exchange was ranked highly as a general training area needed, but low in terms of training availability. However, it is not clear whether survey respondents felt that more capacity development is needed in general, or whether training in capacity development is needed (i.e., training in the field of climate education). For contemporary topics, available opportunities aligned well with the needs of survey respondents. PNG larger image

TIFF original image Download: Fig 3. Comparison of ranking of climate science training topics based on importance and availability. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000853.g003 The top-ranked training topics for GN and GS, in terms of importance, are similar. Regardless of region, Climate change impacts, Climate risk, Climate change adaptation, Climate extremes, Coding/Programming, and Analysis of model results other than model evaluation are considered to be important training topics for climate scientists to address current and emerging challenges in climate science. Overall, these are also the top-ranked trainings based on importance (Fig 2). Similarly, the top ranked topics of GS and GN based on availability (Analysis of observations, Climate change impacts, Geographic Information Systems (GIS), Analysis of model results other than model evaluation, and Collecting observations), are consistent with the overall top ranked topics. However, some topics, such as Coding/Programming, Model evaluation, Science Communication, and Model development are more easily available to GN scientists than GS scientists. Climate change adaptation, Climate risk, and Climate mitigation, on the other hand, are topics that are more available to GS than GN scientists. Climate process-based and General topics are more available in the GN, while Contemporary topics are more available in the GS. Table 1 summarizes the responses to the survey categorized by gender, educational level, and region to elucidate key similarities and differences between the groups. Results show that across all groups, short courses are the most requested method of training, followed by seasonal schools and webinars by experts. Respondents with PhDs also suggest online lectures, while respondents from the GS suggest blended or hybrid learning on practical skills. In a study conducted in Malawi on capacity-building for climate change adaptation, research participants, both training providers and recipients, highlighted the complementary roles of both long-term education and short-term training. While formal education equips the individual with the cognitive skills necessary to understand and analyze theories, short-term training tends to be efficient in implementing adaptation interventions [43]. Long-term education offers deeper understanding and better learning synthesis opportunities, though the content often becomes overly complex or theoretical. Short-term training is more focused on addressing current and emerging issues as it is usually demand-driven and customized based on the needs of the training recipients; however, time limitations leave a lot of material to be covered. PNG larger image

TIFF original image Download: Table 1. Preferences for climate training delivery. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000853.t001 Interview responses following the online survey provided a more detailed narrative of the specific challenges faced by GS scientists regarding the availability and accessibility of climate training opportunities. Financial barriers were the most reported personal obstacle to accessing adequate science training, followed by limited knowledge of available training opportunities and the lack of local expertise. Due to funding being a serious issue that deters an individual from attending in-person training, online formats were deemed more accessible, especially if they are available for free. However, poor internet connectivity and unreliable electricity were found to be important barriers as well. Similarly, for the study in Malawi discussed earlier, self-driven learning such as reading and learning from internet-based sources have low engagement, owing to a lack of resources such as poor or no internet access, or the lack of awareness on the availability of web-based learning tools [43]. For interviewees, face-to-face training is still preferred, especially when hands-on exercises and intensive courses are involved. An interviewee from Myanmar provided a comparison: “With online training, there are advantages and disadvantages. For the advantages, most of our staff can join online; anyone can apply and submit their application. But online trainings have limited participants and limited time. Some people are okay with online discussions, but some from the new generation sometimes are shy — they close their cameras and mute their mics. They cannot actively participate online, and absorb all the information... For in-person training, we can only send limited participants (maybe 1 or 2) because of the training fees, which also include airfare, accommodation and allowance. Still I think in-person training is more effective. Although we have limited participants, they can absorb more information and have active participation.” A systematic literature review of strategies for effective climate change education highlighted the importance of interacting with scientists and experiencing scientific processes [44]. Interviewees from the GS expressed a desire to include more indigenous knowledge and social science in their climate science and to engage in capacity-building activities for non-scientists and communities most vulnerable to climate change. Open-ended responses within the survey emphasized the need for Indigenous voices and Indigenous-led training, although this request is not high on either available training or on the importance of training (Fig 3), suggesting that its value is not widely understood. While there is an increasing call to integrate Indigenous knowledge into climate science, scientists still struggle to acknowledge the legitimacy and usefulness of Indigenous knowledge, needing to evaluate it first against scientific criteria before being able to recognize it as valid knowledge [11]. Nonetheless, the Kigali Declaration of the World Climate Research Programme calls on the global community from the worlds of science, policy, industry, and civil society to “Pledge to support the development of inclusive, diverse, and equitable global knowledge partnerships between science and all sectors of society – including local and Indigenous knowledge communities – for accelerated and transformative action over a 10- to 20-year horizon” [45]. The second stocktake survey of training providers revealed many conduct training regularly (offered annually or monthly) (60%), with the remainder usually offering training ad hoc alongside projects. Short courses, seasonal schools, and expert webinars are the most common types of training offered, which align well with the type of training requested and preferred by training recipients (Table 1). Training offered by these organizations provides successful participants with certificates of completion and intangible benefits, including practical or hands-on learning, networking opportunities, and mentoring. Other benefits include active involvement in a research project and industry and policy linkages, all of which are beneficial for ECRs. Educational institutions were found to offer more than 20 training opportunities in the last five years, while research institutes offered fewer. Topics covered by providers include climate forecasting, interpreting weather information, climate projections, climate model downscaling, remote sensing, ensemble model data, permafrost, marine heatwaves, risk assessments, data assimilation, and use of specific tools and software (e.g., climate predictability tool, GEOGloWS tool, maprooms). This indicative list of topics shows a heavy inclination towards physical sciences, which may suggest greater expertise in the field among training providers, alongside the fact that physical sciences receive 770% more funding than social sciences for conducting climate-related research [22].

Climate training opportunities in relation to career stage Access to and interest in available climate training opportunities were found to be dependent on one’s career stage. We define early-career scientists as those who have finished their degree within the last 5–7 years. Roughly half of the respondents of the first stocktake had obtained their PhD. Respondents who had not obtained a PhD would like access to additional climate science training (82%) compared to those who had obtained their PhD (62%) (Fig 4). Respondents who had not obtained a PhD wanted further training in data gathering and management, climatology, and climate modeling, while those who had obtained a PhD put more emphasis on communication, engagement, and policy and law. This suggests that since they have already developed their skills for primary research, those who have obtained a PhD may now be more concerned about the impact and uptake of their research. PNG larger image

TIFF original image Download: Fig 4. Interest in accessing additional climate science training based on educational level. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000853.g004 The second stocktake survey found that training providers target students with higher levels of education (Postdoc, PhD, Master’s), alongside practitioners, decision-makers, and policy-makers, who are practical users of climate science and information. Almost half of the training opportunities offered require some prior knowledge of a climate-related field, consistent with the profile of the target audience. ECRs, however, may experience barriers to engaging in science communication and similar capacity-building opportunities due to their perceived lack of knowledge and expertise in their respective fields. An ECR from the Philippines shared their experience in accessing training: “I think from my point of view there are trainings available. But the question is access, for us. First, do we know about it? How do we normally know about it? Second, are we confident enough to know that we are qualified to apply for it? I think our confidence on our abilities and qualifications needs to be improved from a Filipino cultural perspective. I think there is also fear of not having the financial resources to actually attend trainings. Although there are sponsorships, they are also limited. You also have to compete with other countries that are also from the developing world.” Further research is needed to understand the extent to which training providers target the training needs of ECRs, especially as these initial results indicate potential barriers to access, including the need for post-graduate degrees to be able to participate in climate training.

The global divide To understand differences by region, respondents were classified as GN or GS depending on the country they resided at the time of the survey. In this study, we reference GS as countries that are “outside the ‘high-income’, ‘advanced economies’ or ‘very high human development’ strata” [46]. Most respondents from GN (59%) felt that the climate science training and education available in their country was adequate to allow researchers to work effectively on climate change science and associated fields, compared to only 24% in the GS, where most respondents felt that the climate science training and education available was not adequate. All respondents from GS reported that they would like access to additional climate science training or education, compared to GN where 25.7% of respondents said they did not want access to additional training. Participants interviewed noted that climate training opportunities are available locally but to a very limited extent. Oftentimes, they are only offered by top local universities and are only available to enrolled students. An interviewee from Bangladesh noted: “Local webinars or training programs are only done in the institute, I think. So not everyone is available to join there and it is not actually available for others. Or maybe they cannot arrange [the training]. Actually, they hire some professors to visit the institute and then at the same time they made [a] seminar for that. It’s not actually for training purpose”, highlighting the inaccessibility of training programs to non-affiliated individuals. In addition, there are only a few local experts who can offer training (mostly via the universities where they teach), all of which contribute to the general lack of availability of training opportunities to non-academic audiences. The same interviewee also said that: “One of the major gap(s) in training can be the funding problems for arranging [the training] and... the lack of combination with the expertise of different groups. We need some international collaboration as well, for them to arrange some training programs. If the international community will come forward, then it will also be helpful.” Nonetheless, to some extent, collaborating with organizations from within the same region who share similar risks has so far helped overcome the issue of a lack of local experts. An interviewee from Indonesia highlights the importance of strengthening regional cooperation especially in capacity-building: “We strengthen not only our capacity, but also extend our contribution to the wider community in the region and also internationally… As a trainer we come to that particular country and we share our knowledge and skill to empower them so they can do by themselves what we do. We have some close collaboration with others because we can’t do everything alone. It’s not really nice if Indonesia is growing up all alone in the neighborhood, but we also need to respect and need to include also our neighbor.” The lack of local data is also an important issue, as data can be patchy and/or collected by outdated equipment that does not meet necessary standards. One interviewee based in Zambia recounts: “For example, let’s look at the CORDEX data. Now, if I try to download myself, there are so many questions you have to answer. It discourages me. I’ve tried to download but a lot of technical knowledge has to be already there, even before you are really allowed to download that data. All these glitches are also there, so what I did is that when some of the colleagues from Cape Town were coming to Lusaka, I literally gave them a hard disk and they copied the data and send physically back to me. And that is the data I have, and we are using it. These are real challenges about how to access the data, because it’s not a very simple thing.” To facilitate training that involves meaningful application of skills, training exercises often require or prefer the use of local data for analysis. A strong emphasis is placed on the practical usability of information and skills obtained from climate training. However, with the lack of quality data, training recipients themselves have little to no means of applying skills gained from training. Engaging with organizations from GN is often used to help with this deficiency, but in the long term, does not ensure that this gap is addressed. Depending on the current climate-related issues faced by a particular country or region, training topic preferences may differ. There is also a need to make climate training available to non-scientists, covering contemporary topics such as sustainable development, environmental science, geography, agriculture, climate policy, engineering, and science communication. This points to the immense responsibility felt by GS scientists to contribute to society, especially as there are very few of them. Tandon suggests that GS scientists may have a better relationship with policymakers who look for scientific advice and spend considerable time engaging with them (as opposed to focusing entirely on conducting research and producing journal papers) [22]. There is also a prevailing interest in including Indigenous and local knowledge in climate training and in building the capacity of local communities most vulnerable to climate change. One interviewee from Nepal shared: “We need more local experts who are not necessarily academics, especially since local knowledge and local technology have been useful for protecting the environment. That is my perspective. Even though they are not academically trained, they are the people from rural areas involved in protecting the environment using traditional views, traditional skills, and traditional knowledge. These are all useful based on what I have seen.” The lack of funding is a key barrier to accessing climate training opportunities, and obtaining financial support can be very competitive, especially within a big pool of applicants vying for limited funding opportunities. The socio-economic and political situation of a country also directly impacts the availability of funding, as institutions that administer these grants are sensitive to political and economic changes not only within a country but also at the regional level. The Kigali Declaration asks the climate science community to “advocate the principles and practices of open science and open education, and work with global science funders to support their effective adoption around the world, including in the Global South, and to raise the visibility and value of regional knowledge.” In particular, open education focuses on reducing barriers related to access (including financial barriers) through knowledge sharing and collaboration. Climate training opportunities from GN are viewed as more accessible due to funding opportunities and are more economically attractive compared to locally administered training. However, they are not always locally applicable as climate change issues dealt with in GN may differ from those directly experienced by GS regions. Language is also a barrier to accessing training. With most training offered in English, non-English speakers, who usually hail from GS countries, are already excluded from the pool of potential recipients, despite having the required skills and experience to qualify for participation. Offering training in the local language or providing local translation for English-based training can help reach non-English speakers. The training topics requested by recipients also included science communication. As evidenced by challenges faced during writing and publication, Rajput highlights the need to enhance the linguistic capabilities of climate scientists, especially those whose first language is not English [47]. Therefore, language is a two-fold barrier: as a medium of instruction, and as a medium of communication. Through both the surveys and interviews, we conclude that it is much easier for GN researchers to access training opportunities and expertise than GS researchers. This is rooted in better opportunities for funding, accessible local and/or regional expertise, access to data, and proficiency in English. One of the goals of the WCRP Academy is to bring these types of sustained training opportunities to GS climate researchers and in some measure, bridge the gap between GN and GS climate science research capacity.

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000853

Published and (C) by PLOS One
Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons - Attribution BY 4.0.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/plosone/