 Welcome everyone and thank you for joining for today's short course. What is science of policy and how can you get involved? My name is Chloe Hill and I am the EDU's policy officer. I'll be introducing you to the session today and all about fantastic speakers. Okay, so the plan is to start on a small personal scale and then gradually get broader until we have an international focus. These are today's fabulous speakers. So first we have Solmaz, who is a postdoc at the University of Trübingen in Germany. After outlining what science of policy is, she'll be talking about her own personal experiences with some science of policy activities and her motivation for getting involved in these. The second speaker today is Flo, who is the Head of Policing and Engagement at the Geological Society of London. Now Flo will talk about some of the society's science of policy activities and how you can get involved in those. Then we'll jump back to me and that is when I'm going to be talking about the EDU's science of policy activities, which are primarily focused in Europe and on EU governing bodies. And finally, we have Sophie Berger. Sophie is a science officer within the IPCC's Working Group One Technical Support Unit. So Sophie will be explaining a little bit about what the IPCC is, what it does, what she works on and how it really is at the interface of science and policy. Okay, but before we do get started, I am just going to go over a couple of the basic terms because I know for some people watching today, this will be the first time I've actually heard the phrase science of policy. So what is it? The first term we have here is policy. And this is obviously a word that is thrown around a lot, but generally it means a plan of action developed to achieve a desired outcome. Evidence-informed policymaking when policymakers use the best available evidence to help them make decisions. We often think about evidence as scientific research, but it can also be statistical data or an evaluation of the options that are available. Facing policies on evidence might seem very obvious to some of the people watching today, especially if you are a scientist, but it doesn't always happen and there are various reasons for this. One reason might be that the policy decision is just too complex. It can't possibly involve all of the evidence, although it isn't sufficient time to gather the evidence that is needed for the decision has to be made. Another reason might be that the policymaker or policymakers in charge don't see the reason or don't understand the reason for the evidence or for the information that's needed. Another reason might be from the scientist side where they haven't been able to communicate their research or information clearly enough. So in an ideal world, this would always be the case, but it isn't necessarily. And that is why science is a policy. The third term we have there is so important. And that of course is what we are talking about today. It's research that provides decision makers with relevant information and aims to strengthen the policymaking process. And I will dive into more depth in this in my own presentation and so will all the other speakers. And the last term we have there is policy for science. So this is policies relating to science such as public research funding, education, innovation, all of these kind of things that help support scientists and help support research. Okay, so on that note, I'm going to pass over to Silmas. Well, thank you Chloe. So my science policy story begins in northern Pakistan in 2006. So I'd like to take a moment just to take you to northern Pakistan with me. The photograph that you're looking at right now is a photo of some of the very few survivors of the village in northern Pakistan that was almost completely destroyed by the 2005 Casimir earthquake. Now I was there as a geologist to do some field work after the earthquake occurred. But of course, my geologic investigations took place in the backyard of many people who had survived the earthquake. So that brought me very close to the people who had suffered from the earthquake were in the process of mourning, the loss of loved ones and the destruction of their community. And of course, oftentimes we engaged in multiple dialects and those dialects almost always concluded with three questions. So the very first question that I was almost always asked by earthquake survivors in Pakistan was why is this happening to us? Why is this earthquake bringing so much misery to us? And that was almost immediately followed by question two, which is why does this happen? What causes earthquakes? And then the third question was, well, is there something I can do about it? And so what is that thing that I can do to make sure that I am more prepared for future earthquakes? So as you can see, the very first question really reflects the sense of fatalism that many earthquake survivors, not just in northern Pakistan, but in many communities have when they experience an earthquake, especially if they haven't experienced an earthquake for a very long time and are not aware of it. But as soon as they receive a little bit of information about earthquakes and what causes earthquakes, they become very curious about it. And that question becomes about what causes an earthquake. And of course, once they enter this stage of inquiry, then naturally they want to know what they can do to mitigate damage. So they want to know what types of actions they can take. And I think what is really important here is how we can actually help communities move from this sense of fatalism, the sense that they are doomed and they cannot do anything to inspire them to take actions. And sometimes just by providing some really basic information shared in a very effective way with them, we can really make that process happening, going from fatalism to action. Now, when I was engaging in this dialogue with earthquake survivors, I was not really aware that I was doing some kind of a science policy work there. I simply considered it as some kind of a dialogue with them and maybe the information that I give them will help them become a bit more curious, maybe ask more questions of the village authorities and find out some solutions to some of the issues that they have. But the more I thought about this process of going from fatalism to action and how knowledge can enable that process, the more I realized that actually that's really close to what science policy is. And in my own definition of science policy, again, it's about having a dialogue. It's not one way street. All the stakeholders that are involved in science policy have a place to contribute. So for instance, this dialogue in this case is between scientists, between policy makers and also with the society as well. And in my definition, this is always almost focused on a problem solving, problem solving. So there is a problem and we want to find solution to it. And in this case, we want to apply scientific knowledge scientific information to the policy making process to really move from having recognized a problem and wanting to do something about it to actually doing something about it and coming up with a solution that works for those involved in the dialogue. So now I want to take you to a few years after that, when I heard the term science policy, and I wanted to take my very first steps to officially get more involved and learn more about what science policy is, especially in theory, because I have absolutely no theoretical understanding of it. Though I had some hands on experience doing communication and outreach work in Central Asia. So my very first theoretical experience started with an EU session in my own division, which is natural hazards division. And I was attending a session called natural hazards education communication and science policy practice interface. And this is a session that I think almost every year has been offered at the EU general assembly meeting. And first I started as a participant and for the years after that I also, I was also invited to a co convene the sessions with my co authors. So that really brought me into the world of science policy. In terms of the theory and a little bit of a practice. And of course, I started taking policy courses also at the EU. And one of the policy courses that I was really interested in and also keeps being showed up in the programs of the general assembly is how can scientists get involved in the policy making process. And just as recently as last year, one of the great debates talks focus on science policy science policy making was responsible. And last but not least, networking at the EU general assembly meetings was really the cherry on the top meeting the EU policy officer, learning about some of the activities that take place, not just during the meeting but also outside of the meeting and hanging out at the early 90s, drinking lots of coffee with those who are involved in science policy and those who are interested and want to get started with science policy. So as you can see, my past, my personal path to science policy was very much enhanced by the activities that was offered to me by the EU and being able to take advantage of those opportunities really pushing forward on my path to science policy work. But many of these examples that I've listed on the slides are theoretical and I was really hungry for some real hands on science policy work. And thankfully, EU offers a pairing scheme, a science policy pairing scheme that is designed to do that. So I was very lucky to be able to go to the European Parliament last year as part of the EU science policy pairing scheme. And the way the pairing scheme works is that a scientist and a policymaker are paired together for two days in Brussels. And as you can see in this photograph on the right, we have the policymaker from Finland. And the scientists, which is me here in this case, and we've been brought together by this team to talk about some of the issues that affects the coastal communities of the Baltic Sea, especially those related to climate change and the sea level rise. Now this pairing scheme is very beneficial to both the scientists and the policymaker. In this case, the policymaker was able to really tap into my scientific input about the Baltic Sea region and use that information to inform the policymaking process. And me as a scientist, I was able to shadow this policymaker for two days and really get a hands on experience of how policymaking works and really how complex it is. So this was quite beneficial to me as a scientist. Now, there's a lot more that happened in those two days that I was in Brussels and I was asked to write a blog about it and you can go to this EGU blog to receive more information about exactly what this pairing scheme is and some of the activities that I was engaged in during the time that I was in Brussels. But I thought that I would just take a moment to point out three lessons that really stood out the most for me during this week. So the very first lesson was be ready to help. So when you are contacted and you are asked to get engaged with the policymaking process. I think it's really easy to say, oh, you know, I'm not an expert on this particular topic that you're asking me to provide input on, but I encourage you to make that really your last resort. Because after all, you are a scientist and being a scientist means that you also have been trained to think critically and to be able to tap into the vast network of other scientists that you have access to. So by contacting your colleagues and those who have more information on the topic that you've asked to provide some input, you can also put together in a very concise way, some information that could potentially be very useful for policymaker. Now the second lesson was to keep up the pace. The world of policy is complex and very fast. So it's very important to be ready to work with very little information. And in this case, I would really suggest to again tap into your network and see who has what piece of information, ask a lot of questions of the policymaker. And if they don't have very specific questions concerning the topic that you're concerned with, you can also help them formulate those questions. And then last but not least, try to tell a story when you engage with policymakers. And if you don't have a story can't make the issue personal or give it an interesting angle. Talk to other people see if they have a story and use their story as long as you can credit them appropriately. I think there's really nothing wrong with that. So if you are going to learn a new skill, and let's say this is the science policy work, or anything even outside of science policy work. Oftentimes, it's very natural for us to say that, gosh, you know, I will never get good at this or feeling very ignorant. I think it's very important to realize that this is a very emotional statement, and it says nothing about your intellectual capability, you're all intelligent people and you're all capable of learning. So when we make a statement like this, it's oftentimes rooted in the fact that we just don't have enough information we just don't have enough learning and practice of the skill. So the very first thing that I recommend, when it comes to learning a new skill that is a little bit outside of your field of expertise, especially in the context of science policy work is first of all find out if you like it. If you don't have to be passionate about it, but find out if you like it, get a taste of it. And as I mentioned earlier, some of the activities that EGU and other organizations offer, really give you the chance to get your foot in a little bit and test the water and see what it tastes like and see if you like it. My personal view is that if you really don't enjoy science policy work, if you don't care for it, if it makes you very nervous, if you just don't want to do it, it's a little bit pointless to spend time doing it. So first find out if you like it and give yourself multiple chances to experience that and try not to write it off after the first time you try something that's related to science policy. And then of course, once you know that this is something that you're curious about that you like that you want to explore a little bit more. Go ahead and learn it, learn as much as you can about it, tap into your resources, attend conferences, courses, talk to colleagues, talk to those who have more information for you and practice and practice some more. I think with what is clear is when you're learning a new skill, the most important thing is to learn it by doing it and I think that applies to science policy as well. So that's all I've got to say and I'm going to pass the conversation now to Flo. Hello everyone. Thanks very much for tuning into this short course. My name is Flo Bullo and I'm the Head of Policy and Engagement at the Geological Society of London. So a little bit about the society. We are based in London and we're the UK's professional body for earth science and we have a worldwide membership of over 12,000 people. We're founded in 1807. So we are the oldest geological society in the world. We're normally housed in our lovely offices on Piccadilly in London, although we're all in lockdown at the moment so nobody's there. And we do a number of activities on behalf of the community from our building. These include scholarly publishing, education, outreach and policy work, professional chartership. And we also accredited degree courses in the UK and we host a number of member led scientific conferences and careers fairs and exhibitions etc in our building. So how and why or why do we do policy work? Well, I think it's very important. No surprises there. So we do this mainly with the aim of communicating the vital role of Geoscience in meeting a range of current and future challenges. And we offer our members in particular the opportunity to contribute their expertise and evidence to our responses and reports relating to both the UK and sometimes EU policy as well. So in our experience, it's not always immediately obvious how Geoscience relates to a number of areas of public policy or vice versa because of the how much expertise and specialism there is. And we see our role as presenting Geoscience information in an understandable way and in a policy context so it can be better absorbed into the policymaking process. And we divide our policy work into two areas. So the first as Solmaz has been talking about is science for policy so providing and communicating geological evidence as it relates to areas of policy under development. So for example, this might include the importance of carbon capture and storage and geothermal in meeting net zero or Paris decarbonisation targets for example. And we also represent the community in a number of areas of policy for science. So this is where policy or legislation which impact on structures that support Geoscience research and learning and skills. So for example, immigration policy or policy relating to research funding or future investment in research. And we do this mainly by working collaboratively with others across the science sector because so many policy for science areas impact other disciplines in similar ways to do to Geoscience. And we think it's really important that these channels of communication and information between scientists and government are open and effective so that we can have good robust evidence based policymaking and also to help meet the many challenges we face now and in the coming decades. So how do we do this work. Well, in a number of different ways. So we carry out a mixture of reactive and proactive policy activities. On the reactive side, this is quite UK government focused. We respond to consultations and inquiries published by government and parliament and other third sector organizations. This is usually in the form of written evidence on a given topic that they're seeking information on. On the proactive side we identify topics and areas where we think there's a lack of understanding of the awareness of the relevance of Geoscience to this area. So, and these are often selected for the development of statements and briefing notes, which are longer reports, where we seek to frame Geoscience issues in the context of current policy challenges and things. And the briefing notes that we develop, which I'll show you some of later they're used by geologists to understand areas relevant to public policy and our science but also we share them with policy professionals and politicians around the UK to help develop wider understanding of our science and its relevance. And we also hold a number of conferences and activities in the society, which are policy themed, and in particular we have a series called the Brian level conference series, which focus on areas of Geoscience as they relate to major societal challenges. So in the UK recently, there's been quite a clustering of science for policy themes. There's been a lot on energy and climate change and on geotourism, lots on the impact of Brexit on research funding, immigration skills availability, etc. So there's not much. Well, that's not much of a surprise. And we also work a lot on geological disposal of radioactive waste, which is a major policy area at the moment, because we are the UK is developing a geological disposal facility. And where we can we try to work with other organizations where they're across over areas so we work with the Royal Astronomical Society on issues to do with satellite Earth observation and others in the science policy field. When it comes to our strategic work, we have developed a program of critical issues that we focus on. And these include the role of Geoscience in delivering areas of major policy such as the energy transition, sustainable access to minerals and materials and delivering sustainable development goals. And these are areas where we think the understanding of the role of Geoscience and the subsurface are very critical to the excess of these policy areas. So for example, a failure to consider a source or security of lithium in meeting electric vehicle targets would significantly impede success. So we try to map to pull these areas together and explain the relevance of our science and of the subsurface to those who are not as in the know as us. And the key approach for us on doing this has been to map its relevant areas of science information and processes and case studies to specific policy initiatives to help communicate their relevance, because most people working in policy and government have very limited bandwidth to accept to take on new information or cover new areas. So it's really, it's really important that we very clearly match those that information those skills with those policy areas. I'm never going to as much as I'd like to sit down and people working policy and give them a short course on geology that's never going to we're never going to have time to do that. And so recently I've just shown there like a policy report we did recently on geology and sustainable development goals and we've worked with geology for global development on that and that's been shared widely at UN meetings and meetings around the UK as well. So most recently we've been focusing on the links between geoscience and decarbonisation. This was kicked off mainly by a major brand level meeting that we held in early 2019 to bring together geoscientists from a range of backgrounds to examine the role of geoscience in the decarbonisation of power heat transport and industry in the UK but also further afield, all of which are key pillars in the drive to meet the net zero targets that the UK adopted last year. So we had three days of very technical discussions and then we followed this up with a policy briefing session where we opened up invitation to policy and decision makers working in government in parliament, others in third sector organizations dealing with climate and climate policy etc. And we had a really good discussion about the barriers to progress in this area both regulatory and technical and did a good bit of knowledge sharing. And this was followed by the production of a short briefing though I've just concluded there, covering the main points of the meeting and this was shared widely last year, when a year in which the UK government both adopted net zero by 2050 as official policy but also began preparations for the now postponed hosting of COP26, which will happen next year and we'll be involved in that too. And then we've done a number of follow on activities on this theme, including the establishment of decarbonisation working group which are a number of experts that are advising the society on effective activities and the publication of an article in the UK Parliament's Journal Science in Parliament with Mike Stevenson at the British Geological Survey. Beyond decarbonisation this is just a few examples of the statements and briefing notes we've published in recent years. So we developed these with member expert input on a number of other, a number of Geoscience topics with a broader public interest. So examples of these include our climate change statement which presents the evidence from the geological record for climate change and a note on responsible investing in natural resources, which stemmed from a meeting on the same topic last year. And our flagship policy report is Geology of Society which outlines the key ways in which Geoscience links to major areas of public interest, the economy and sustainable development. I should add that all of these documents are available for free on our website, I've included the link there so if you want to have a look at any of those or get a feel for any of them please do go ahead. And this, the Geology of Society report was produced in response to conversations directly with government in the Government Office for Science who were seeking a succinct document that explained the relevance of geology to a number of policy areas. And on this we also collaborated with the European Federation of Geologists to translate it into 12 European languages, which are also available on the website. So you can, that now has a maximum reach across a number of European countries and is used individually by societies across the European Union. And then in addition to the Brian level conferences and meetings that we hold most it almost well every year that's an annual meeting. We do also hold standalone policy briefing sessions at our offices in London on areas such as communication of risk, shale gas, lithium and metals for the energy transition to just name a few and we engage with the governments of the devolved nations of the UK, sitting on standing committees about science and we also have a regular programme of events at the devolved parliaments. So just a quick bit on policy for science. In addition to communicating technical information to government and Parliament and we also work alongside our colleagues in the science sector as I mentioned to represent the Geoscience community. So two major areas that we've done this in the last few years is thinking about education curriculum. How is Geoscience delivered to pre 18 curriculum and also immigration policy which has been a major area, especially since the result of the referendum. And this is about trying to communicate the important role that Geoscience skills have in our economy and making sure that we make provision for them wherever possible. So broader than that across the team and we've been working to try and improve understanding of Geoscience and the different areas that it builds into because there's common misconception that really we just work in oil and gas and resource extraction with some members of the policy community. So we do the education develop the team developed this poster and last year which has now been given out for free to 400 schools and university departments, which links our science to various career opportunities but also a number of developing technologies that will be crucial in the future. If you'd like a copy of one of these you can contact the head of education who I've just added there and she'll get one posted out to you as soon as she's out of lockdown. Lastly, if you want to get involved in science policy work or it's an area that interests you. And we couldn't do any of this work without the willing contribution of Geoscientists and their expertise willing to communicate. And there are a number of organizations EGU AGU the Geological Society of London that do this sort of work. So if you're interested in this area it's worth getting in touch to ask about how you might be able to contribute. The Geological Society we set up a database of expertise where you can enter your details and information about your area of work and we contact you about upcoming consultations inquiries and projects. You can see all that information there. Lastly, thanks very much for tuning in hope this has been interesting and if you want to get in touch with me there's my email address and handle. And now I'll pass on to Chloe. Thank you Flo. So I'm starting my presentation with some information that was collected from potentially some of you. It was collected during a member survey that we conducted late last year. I had almost 1800 respondents so it was a pretty good sample size. And I'm really excited to share this with you because we haven't released this data publicly before. So we are still analyzing the data so we can't give you much more information than this but we will release that towards June, July this year hopefully. So this is a little bit of a teaser. But one of the questions we asked our members was what EGU activities and resources they value most. Now you can see here on the screen, obviously the general assembly came in first I think that is a surprise to exactly no one. And second is our open access scientific journals. So these are the two things I think we all expected to come in first. But if you have a look at the fourth position you'll see policy resources and activities. And this was a surprise to actually a lot of people including myself that our members actually value this so highly it was obviously a very positive surprise for me. And if you're watching this and you haven't heard much about science of policy before and still aren't really sure what it is. This might come as a bit of a surprise to you as well. You might be wondering what motivates people to get involved in science of policy and why why they would appreciate these activities so much. And of course there's a lot of different reasons for this. I think I've actually outlined a few before but some of my top reasons that usually I give to people for getting involved in science of policy is the fact that it can increase the impact of your research. It can help you to expand your professional network. It can create new opportunities for you especially in terms of like if you're networking with a policymaker. You might see where more research is needed or where research funding is. And it can also help minimize misinformation and help increase transparency and policymaking. So there's obviously some altruistic reasons in there as well. Okay so this is where it gets interesting because science of policy especially in Europe can get complicated. I mentioned earlier in the webinar that almost all of the EU's activities are focused in Europe and on the EU governing bodies. But I guess when I say this it is a little bit hard to conceptualize. So here's a diagram to help explain it. Now when I say this I am joking a bit because even though this is a simplified version the diagram is still very complicated because it shows all the different linkages between the key EU institutions. And while science is used by all of the EU governing bodies in some way or another I'm not going to sit here and explain it to you. And that's partly because it needs a webinar of its own. But more because you don't need to know it all. The details can be interesting if that's what you're into. But you don't need to know them to share your own research with policymakers and really engage. So in fact I think some people see how complicated the EU system is and they're a bit overwhelmed by it all. And this prevents them from engaging at all. So if you're just starting out your science policy journey you can look into websites of other institutions or organizations such as the EU and find opportunities to engage. It might be a little bit less intimidating or you can just focus on one of the institutions and really look into the opportunities that they provide. So the takeaway message here is it can be complicated but it doesn't have to be. And this shouldn't stop you from sharing your science. So for an activity you can easily engage with I'm going to go to my next slide. Which is the EU's annual science policy event. So this is held as the name suggests every year in Brussels usually in September or October. And it gives geoscientists and policy makers the space to meet and discuss issues and topics that are important to the geoscience community. It is sometimes difficult to really think of an issue that's relevant for a broad range of geoscientists but we do really try to do that. We also try and pick a topic that's very relevant and topical for policy makers. And as you can see in the picture this is from the event last year. This usually in the form of round table discussions because this really gets people to interact over certain themes and certain discussion points. And we have a moderator for these tables so the session doesn't go completely out of control. It is a lot of fun. It's usually relatively small events so we have between 80 and 100 people or something like that in a mix of scientists and policy makers. This year's event, 2020, fingers crossed it can happen. Of course it still depends a lot on COVID-19, how it progresses, whether we're able to gather in large groups, all of that kind of stuff. But we're hoping to have it on the European Green Deal. So this is a topical event. It's also very relevant for geoscientists. And we're also aiming to have it in the EU Parliament. So actually within the building itself which will make it really easy for policy makers and members of the European Parliament to attend. It will also be open for everyone to access, free of charge. So there will be a limit on the number of people we can have registered. There will probably be about 100 people, I think. But until it's filled up, you can access it. It is a really good opportunity to sort of learn more about the European Parliament, for example, and meet some of the people working there. But I know it is in Brussels and it might not be accessible to you depending on where you're located and also depending on your schedule. EG is aware of this as well. So in conjunction with our annual policy event, we also run an annual early career scientists policy competition which is open to all early career scientists within seven years of their PhD who are based in Europe and EGU members. And this will provide the person who it's awarded to. It will provide them with travel expenses and accommodation being paid for by the EGU. So it makes it a little bit easier. For any more information on the EGU's policy events, how you can get involved and of course the ECS policy competition, you can have a look at our website. I will link it in the description down below so you can just click the link. And there will be more information about the event in 2020 coming up soon. So probably late May, early June, assuming it's able to go ahead. So keep an eye out for that. Okay, and something else we have on our website. It's just bits and pieces of information that could be useful to you if you're interested in science or policy and engaging in science or policy activities. The first thing we have listed there is the EGU policy news page. This includes not only legislation news or news that might be of interest to geoscientists in terms of EU policy, but also opportunities. So this can relate to funding opportunities, questionnaires or consultations open up when the EU Commission really asks for information. It could include internships or fellowships, huge range of things. If I find them and think they will be of interest to geoscientists, I will put them on this page. The second thing is our resources page. This is a little bit different in that it really just links to resources from other institutions and other organizations. It could be something like a fact sheet on how to talk to policymakers or how a particular EU institution works. So it really is quite a range of different articles and bits of information in there. But if you have your own that you would like to share, you think will be of interest to people who are looking at our website. You can always send that through to me and my email is just on the page there. The last thing on this website is the science policy calendar, which unfortunately is looking a little bit bare at the moment just because of the whole COVID-19 crisis. Again, meeting up and hosting events is difficult lately. But hopefully that will fill up again soon. And here you'll find a whole range of science for policy events. It might be events that are being held by the Commission or by the Parliament or by another organization where policymakers will be that is also relevant for geoscientists. And the final thing I want to share with you is the EU's database of expertise. So similar to the one Flo mentioned, it's a way of us being able to share monthly emails with you that include different science for policy opportunities, information, and also some EU activities in there as well. It's also a way for us to see what your areas of expertise is and how you'd like to get involved in science or policy. And if an opportunity arises, if we need some specific information or if a policymaker has requested a specific type of scientist, we can then go into our database and try and find them. So it is really important that if you do join the database of expertise, you fill in your eGU profile. And if you are already a member of a database of expertise, you can still do this. Just log on using your eGU login details and fill that out or update it if you haven't updated it in a while. And that will really help us out when we do need experts. So that is all from me. Thank you very much for listening to my presentation. And I am now going to pass it over to Sophie. All right. So most of you, if you've heard about the APCC or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, you know us for making reports on climate change. But it's actually a little bit more complicated than that. And so the role of the APCC is to assess the scientific knowledge on climate change and that on a global level. It has to be policy relevant, meaning that the end user of those reports are going to be the governments. But if it's policy relevant, it cannot be policy prescriptive in the sense that the report might not still, you must do this or that. But rather, if you do this, that will happen. If you do that, this will happen. And also something that is quite important is the fact that the APCC is not doing any research. When they do the reports, they are just assessing the scientific literature in the sense that they are screening to all the relevant paper on climate change. And then they are trying to compile this information in a report a little bit like a review. But it also goes one step further than a review because in a review, it would be as is this, this is that. And that's pretty much it. Well, in an assessment, it goes one step further in the sense that it gives a confidence level in the general state of knowledge. So this is something also very important. And then an also important part of the APCC report is that the key messages of the report are really condensed in a 20-page summary for a policymaker. And this is really the most important document because this is really the summary of 1000 pages of report and even more pages of scientific papers. And this is really the information on which the government's focus. So really the IPCC is really about you, which is working at the interface between science and policy, because on the policy side, we've got the IPCC plenary and the Colevenman delegated, who are in the end, the end user of the IPCC report and on this knowledge. And then on the science side, we've got the reports, authors, the scientists who are editing and also reviewing. And then in the middle, you've got the technical support unit, so where I'm working and also the brewers, which are acting as a kind of steering committee. And we are making sure that there is some kind of communication between the policy world and the science world. So you might wonder why is the IPCC important? And in a nutshell, all the five assessment reports so far have been linked to a major policy decision when it comes to climate change. One of the most important one is the UNFCCC, which laid the base for climate action, because that's when they decided to try to avoid tenuous human interference with the climate. But then the other reports have synthesized more knowledge about climate change and have really been useful to lay the basis of the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement and also probably what's coming in the future. And so as for how an IPCC report is produced, it's a long process which takes several years. And it's a little bit of a complicated process because the IPCC is at the interface between science and policy, but let's simplify that in three steps. So first of all, we've got the preparation of that where the outline of the report is approved and also the team of people, the authors who will draft the report. This is all upstream of the making of the report and then comes the main phase of the report which is the writing of the report where the team of authors gather, come up with several drafts, there are several rounds of reviews from two from the experts, two from the governments, and then comes the final bit which is where the report is approved and accepted and then published. But you can see that the policy world is involved in many, many steps. It's heavily involved in the preparation of the report in the sense that we want to make sure that it's policy relevant. So this report needs to tackle some issues that are important for policy makers. It's also intervening during the making of the report in the sense that governments need to be able to give some feedback on the report which is being made because they are the end users. So we need to make sure that actually this answer is the question they have. And then the last bit is that governments are really approving the summary for policy makers and accepting the reports and it needs to be done so so that it's really a strong basis that it means that if a report has been accepted by all the hundred and over 190 governments of the of the UN, then it makes the report much, much stronger because it shows that the science that is written in the report is really robust. And then comes the question is that how as a scientist you can get involved and there are different ways. So you can either get involved upstream of the making of the report by writing papers which will then be used for the assessment of the report and in this kind of in the paper, the reviews and the community efforts looking on the global level of particularly useful. You can also be involved in the IPCC process itself as an author and editor or a chapter scientist, but this is a little bit late because we are quite far in the in the process in the current cycle. But what you can do and you can do at the moment is reviewing the report as an expert as a scientist to make sure that it's not missing important literature or that the message is clear enough. And also a last way of being involved with the IPCC process is downstream of the publication of the report. Once the report is published, because it's report also highlighting the gaps in knowledge and what is policy relevant. And so by looking at the report, you can find out what to research next. So that's also a very good way of being involved. And then I just want to finish on the fact that on the fact that there is currently the the review of the second audit draft for the working group one, which is the science pieces that is currently open and up to the fifth of June. And if you want to register as an expert reviewer, then you could take part in the IPCC process and that would be great. Thank you all for your really insightful presentations. I'm sure everyone who's watching this on YouTube has a lot of questions. And actually, I also have my own. So before we finish up the presentation today, I'm going to ask each of you one to two questions that I have and they're really burning. So hopefully people who are watching this have the same questions. If you are watching this and you have different questions, remember you can put them in the comment section below. If you do this during the week of sharing Geoscience online, we will respond to you. So my first question is to SOMADS. SOMADS, you talked a little bit about the EGUs science policy pairing scheme. And firstly, I was wondering what was your favorite thing about this pairing scheme? What was your favorite activity? And secondly, was there something that this science policy pairing scheme enabled you to do afterwards? Yeah, so to be honest with you, my very favorite activity was the fact that I was asked to provide scientific input on a topic that was outside my field of expertise. When I was asked about this climate change and sea level rise and the impact of that on coastal communities in Baltic Sea, a region that I am not very familiar with. And when I was asked to do that, I was actually really nervous and it wasn't really my favorite part of the scheme. But in retrospect, I realized that really that was the best thing that could have happened because it really pushed my boundaries and put me a little bit outside of my comfort zone. And so that I had to really work hard and figure out really how I am able to provide some input that is going to be helpful to the member of parliament. And this challenge was really, by far, I would say the most interesting thing about the pairing scheme that I experienced. In terms of what the pairing scheme enabled me to do afterwards, I became even more motivated to get involved with more hands-on activities related to the science policy, but a little bit more also in my own field. So as I mentioned during my presentation, I'm a natural hazard scientist and specifically focusing on earthquakes and earthquake risk. So I would say it was two or three months after I did the pairing scheme that I applied for a school called Evidence for Policy School and the topic was disaster risk management. And this school was organized by the European Commission's Joint Research Center, which I became aware of and actually got to meet some of its representatives when I was in Brussels as part of the pairing scheme. And so I applied for the school and I was able to actually get into the school and go to Florence in Italy in January earlier this year. And this was really helpful to me because there were a number of master courses that were being offered by both policymakers and scientists as well as practitioners. And it really allowed me to understand how these three different groups can come together and be useful to one another. But most importantly, what I got out of that experience was to get connected with people who are advocating for evidence-informed policymaking and build my network a bit more. Great, great. Okay, next question is a flow. So you did mention Brexit a little bit in your presentation. But I was wondering how Brexit has actually influenced your own activities and also science policy more generally in the UK. Yeah, thanks, Chloe. The answer is a lot. It had a major impact on science policy and also on the focus of many different organizations. So prior to the referendum, we were working pretty hard to input into EU policymaking. Lots of organizations in the UK were engaging with Brussels and thinking about UK science policy in both the EU and the UK context. And that has slipped away quite a lot in the intervening years because of new focuses. And the main areas that it's had an impact on are research funding and research projects and also immigration. So with research funding, we had to work quite hard to represent the views of our community in terms of access to Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe going forward. So lots of people reported losses of access to some funding streams in Horizon 2020 and there's a lot of discussion in the science community about what might work best for the UK in terms of an association agreement. And then there's also been a lot of work on the immigration side. So the UK government has brought a new immigration bill that will come into place after Brexit is finished, or at least in the first part finished. And there's been a lot of work to communicate to government the various skills gaps that we have in the UK, which are quite substantial. And that many of those skills gaps were, you know, in Geoscience as well were previously filled by a more fluid immigration system. So there's been a lot of learning, a lot of communication. And yes, definitely a refocus away from some of the stuff we were doing before. Yeah, I can imagine. Yeah, a bit of a curveball, I guess. But good to hear that you're sort of managing with it, even if your activities have changed somewhat. Yeah, it's been really interesting. But yes, it was quite a sudden shift in focus. Yeah, yeah. Final question is for Sophie. And so this is a bit more of a personal one, but I was actually wondering, as a science officer within the IPC working group one, what does your, what do your activities look like? Like what do you work on on a daily basis? Well, it's a little bit hard to say that there is one typical day because it really depends on at which stage of the process we are, but we are there to make sure that we offer support to the authors. And we're also there to try to get a report that is as good as possible. And so for instance, one of the tasks I'm doing at the moment is that we've got 1000 and 1000 comments from the first round of preview. And I have to go to find a way to go through all those comments and make sure that first of all, there isn't a reply to every comment. And second, that those reply are not just we will do that later or just nothing or is that it's that it's that it's the right reply. But we also have some work that we were doing a lot of putting a lot of effort into trying to coordinate between chapters, because the problem is that I, as I said, one report is like 1000 of pages, and they're organized by chapters. So even within a chapter, it's hard to get a good overview on what's happening within the chapter, but it's even harder to to get a good overview of what's what's happening in another chapter. So we're doing a lot of work to try to make people talk to each other, giving the authors deadlines and trying to to get a forum where we make sure that they're actually talking about the same thing in similar ways. And also sometimes if they are doing their own assessments that they are not coming to completely different conclusions. So those are a few examples of what I'm doing. Right, so we're going to finish on that note. But again, if anyone watching this has any questions, please put them in the comment section below. And thank you so much for joining us today. We hope you enjoyed it.