Abstract: Various attempts have been made to determine the relative importance of uncertainties in climate change impact assessments stemming from climate projections and crop models, respectively, and to analyse yield outputs probabilistically. For example, in the ENSEMBLES project, probabilistic climate projections (Harris et al. 2010) have been applied in conjunction with impact response surfaces (IRS), constructed by using impact models, to estimate the future likelihood (risk) of exceeding critical thresholds of crop yield impact (see, Fronzek et al., 2011, for an explanation of the method). In this task, we aimed to further develop and operationalize these methods and testing them in different case study regions in Europe. The method combines results of a sensitivity analysis of (one or more) impact model(s) with probabilistic projections of future temperature and precipitation (Fronzek et al., 2011). Such an overlay is one way of portraying probabilistic estimates of future impacts. By further accounting for the uncertainties in crop and biophysical parameters (using perturbed parameter approaches), the outcome represents an ensemble of impact risk estimates, encapsulating both climate and crop model uncertainties. No Label

Abstract: The purpose of this document is to define the protocol for a second study (IRS2) based on impact response surfaces (IRSs) in the frame of CropM/WP4. General considerations of IRS construction are described in the protocol developed for Phase I of the IRS analysis (IRS1)Access to the full document is restricted to MACSUR members until 2015-11-01. No Label

Abstract: This report is grounded on the hypotheses, methodologies and approaches for stakeholder mapping designed during the early stages of MACSUR and described in the previous report1. It describes the kind of activities conducted by the WPC6-3-4 MACSUR team and the emerging design of activities for the second phase of MACSUR (2015-2017). The designed process of strategic stakeholder mapping was implemented by some of the teams involved in the task and through hub initiatives. Key actions were the (i) development of suitable intermediary objects to engage with stakeholders, through the regional pilot case studies, (ii) the design and implementation of key events (we report here the case of the Agroscenari event at the case study scale, the national event between the MACSUR Italian partnership with Italian policy makers held in Rome in July 2014, the international stakeholder events at the MACSUR mid term meeting in Sassari (April 2014), and the one held in Bruxelles on 6 May 2015) and (iii) the process of stakeholder and stakeholding mapping at the case study scale. Results indicate that when dealing with high level stakeholders (e.g. institutional or large agro-food enterprises), occasional stakeholder events will only serve as opportunity for showcasing and possibly for a data collection useful for researchers, with almost no impact on the ongoing social learning process sought by the designed activities. At the case study scale, instead, the long term and ongoing activities can generate new spaces for mutual learning and knowledge hybridization, through a variety of mediating objects emerging from the continuous interactions. The lesson learned is that the engagement of high level stakeholders can be effective insofar they are somehow involved in the interactions with stakeholders at the case study scale, as this can provide a key experience leading to a change in understanding about the nature of the issues that can ultimately result into a change in practice. These results will be the basis for the design of new strategies for engaging EU policy makers and large agro-food energy representatives in the second phase of MACSUR. No Label