North Africa is considered a climate change hot spot. Existing studies either focus on the physical aspects of climate change or discuss the social ones. The present article aims to address this divide by assessing and comparing the climate change vulnerability of Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, and Tunisia and linking it to its social implications. The vulnerability assessment focuses on climate change exposure, water resources, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. The results suggest that all countries are exposed to strong temperature increases and a high drought risk under climate change. Algeria is most vulnerable to climate change, mainly due to the country’s high sensitivity. Across North Africa, the combination of climate change and strong population growth is very likely to further aggravate the already scarce water situation. The so-called Arab Spring has shown that social unrest is partly caused by unmet basic needs of the population for food and water. Thus, climate change may become an indirect driver of social instability in North Africa. To mitigate the impact of climate change, it is important to reduce economic and livelihood dependence on rain-fed agriculture, strengthen sustainable land use practices, and increase the adaptive capacity. Further, increased regional cooperation and sub-national vulnerability assessments are needed.

VALUE is an open European collaboration to intercompare downscaling approaches for climate change research, focusing on different validation aspects (marginal, temporal, extremes, spatial, process‐based, etc.). Here we describe the participating methods and first results from the first experiment, using “perfect” reanalysis (and reanalysis‐driven regional climate model (RCM)) predictors to assess the intrinsic performance of the methods for downscaling precipitation and temperatures over a set of 86 stations representative of the main climatic regions in Europe. This study constitutes the largest and most comprehensive to date intercomparison of statistical downscaling methods, covering the three common downscaling approaches (perfect prognosis, model output statistics—including bias correction—and weather generators) with a total of over 50 downscaling methods representative of the most common techniques.Overall, most of the downscaling methods greatly improve (reanalysis or RCM) raw model biases and no approach or technique seems to be superior in general, because there is a large method‐to‐method variability. The main factors most influencing the results are the seasonal calibration of the methods (e.g., using a moving window) and their stochastic nature. The particular predictors used also play an important role in cases where the comparison was possible, both for the validation results and for the strength of the predictor–predictand link, indicating the local variability explained. However, the present study cannot give a conclusive assessment of the skill of the methods to simulate regional future climates, and further experiments will be soon performed in the framework of the EURO‐CORDEX initiative (where VALUE activities have merged and follow on).Finally, research transparency and reproducibility has been a major concern and substantive steps have been taken. In particular, the necessary data to run the experiments are provided at http://www.value‐cost.eu/data and data and validation results are available from the VALUE validation portal for further investigation: http://www.value‐cost.eu/validationportal.

VALUE is an open European network to validate and compare downscaling methods for climate change research. VALUE aims to foster collaboration and knowledge exchange between climatologists, impact modellers, statisticians, and stakeholders to establish an interdisciplinary downscaling community. A key deliverable of VALUE is the development of a systematic validation framework to enable the assessment and comparison of both dynamical and statistical downscaling methods. In this paper, we present the key ingredients of this framework. VALUE's main approach to validation is user‐ focused: starting from a specific user problem, a validation tree guides the selection of relevant validation indices and performance measures. Several experiments have been designed to isolate specific points in the downscaling procedure where problems may occur: what is the isolated downscaling skill? How do statistical and dynamical methods compare? How do methods perform at different spatial scales? Do methods fail in representing regional climate change? How is the overall representation of regional climate, including errors inherited from global climate models? The framework will be the basis for a comprehensive community‐open downscaling intercomparison study, but is intended also to provide general guidance for other validation studies.