2.2.2. Findings from self-assessment survey

Adaptation knowledge to inform policy-making is reported to have increased in the last five years

27 out of 30 responding countries either agree (20) or strongly agree (7) (Austria, Belgium, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Norway, Spain) with the statement that the amount of adaptation-related knowledge to inform policy has increased in their countries during the last five years. Two countries (Czech Republic, Estonia) indicate that there had been no change in the production of adaptation knowledge during this period, one indicates lack of knowledge (Liechtenstein), but none of the responding countries disagrees. For 25 out of 29 countries understanding of the impacts, risks and/or vulnerabilities to climate change forms the basis for developing  adaptation objectives in their countries, with the remaining ones indicating either a neutral opinion (Estonia, Latvia) or lack of knowledge on this topic (Liechtenstein, Norway).

Risk or vulnerability assessments are available for 22 countries across Europe

Risk/vulnerability assessments are already available for 22 of the 30 responding countries. Referring to assessments that have been already undertaken or are currently under development (Cyprus, Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Turkey, Slovakia), 26 of the 30 countries report that these cover a national scale, 16 countries report sub-national assessments, while much fewer countries report transnational assessments (5 out of 30; Belgium, France, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia). With reference to national, sub-national and transnational assessments, one country report that these are not available yet but work has been planned (Romania) and in total only one country indicates lack of knowledge on this topic (Liechtenstein).

Figure 2.7 provides an overview of the sectors that are reported to have been or to be covered in national and sectoral risk and vulnerability assessments. Sectoral assessments are distinguished into those led by the ministries in charge of the relevant sector, hereafter referred to as 'led by ministries', and others led by private sector or industry groups. The great majority of the 26 responding countries considered agriculture (23), water (23), forestry (22) and human health (21) in national risk and vulnerability assessments. In conjunction with biodiversity, these four sectors are reported to be most frequently covered in both national and sector-based assessments led by ministries. Only seven countries report information about sector-based assessments led by the private sector or industry (Germany, Lithuania, Portugal, Sweden, Spain, The Netherlands, United Kingdom). In the latter case although interest is shown in certain sectors such as industry and finance / insurance, agriculture is still the sector reported by the largest number of responding countries (five out of seven; Portugal, Sweden, Spain, The Netherlands, United Kingdom).

Figure 2.7 Sectors covered in national and sectoral assessments of risk and vulnerability in EEA member countries. Based on answers to Q.17 of the self-assessment survey (n_National=26, n_{Sectoral led by ministries}=19, n_{Sectoral led by private sector}=7)

* With reference to the national assessments, the 'Other' category includes the sectors Ecosystems, Landscape, Air quality and Waste, while with reference to the sector-based assessments 'led by ministries' it includes the sectors of Rural development, Ecosystems and Landscape.

With regard to future plans, seven out of 29 countries report that the update of the assessments has already started (Bulgaria, Estonia, Germany, Lithuania, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom). 14 countries report that this update has been planned but the work on this task has not started yet, while eight out of 29 countries either indicate lack of knowledge (Liechtenstein) on this topic or report that this task is not planned (Denmark, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Switzerland). Some countries from the latter group, (e.g. Switzerland), however, report that new knowledge will keep being implemented continuously, which suggests that updating risk or vulnerability assessments is not always necessary for updating a country's knowledge base.

Diverse methods are reported for the conduct of risk or vulnerability assessments

The self-assessment asked countries to describe the methodology used when undertaking risk or vulnerability assessments. Responding countries (27) report the use of a variety of methods (Table 2.5). Looking across different countries, variation is also observed regarding the level of the methodological elaboration. In Austria for example, an extensive literature review was conducted prior to the assessment to collect readily available information on observed impacts, exposure, sensitivity, impacts etc. Qualitative vulnerability assessments were then carried out on the basis of the collected information. In Germany, a multi-method approach was developed, including the use of literature review, climate impact models from different sources, indicators derived from impact models and expert judgment, quantitative and qualitative socioeconomic scenarios and normative decisions made by experts from federal agencies. In Denmark a dialogue based approach was developed, involving the private sector and industry. This ensured a forward-looking input and ownership of the climate change adaptation efforts, which, along with other initiatives undertaken, strengthened the vulnerability assessment. Other countries describe less elaborated approaches employing a single method (e.g. expert appraisal) for the conduct of risk or vulnerability assessments. These countries often tend to be at an earlier stage in the adaptation process. Mix-methods approaches, however, are reported by most of the countries.

* LV: No complete methodology yet available, however, it is already predicted to involve the indicated methods, LT: reported that this will be conducted in 2014.

Note: Country codes (the acronyms follow Eurostat country codes http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Glossary:Country_codes; June 1 2012): Austria (AT), Belgium (BE), Bulgaria (BG), Switzerland (CH), Cyprus (CY), Czech Republic (CZ), Germany (DE), Denmark (DK), Estonia (EE), Spain (ES), Finland (FI), France (FR), Greece (GR), Hungary (HU), Ireland (IE), Iceland (IS), Italy (IT), Liechtenstein (LI), Lithuania (LT), Luxembourg (LU), Latvia (LV), Malta (MT), Netherlands (NL), Norway (NO), Poland (PL), Portugal (PT), Romania (RO), Sweden (SE), Slovenia (SI), Slovakia (SK), Turkey (TR), United Kingdom (UK).

19 countries report that uncertainties in future climate change projections have been explicitly addressed in adaptation policy process      

Uncertainties in future projections related to climate change have been explicitly addressed in the adaptation policy process of 19 of the 30 responding countries (17 agree and two strongly agree; Austria, Norway). About a third of the responding countries, however, (nine out of 29; Finland, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Turkey) indicates that there had been no change in this field, one indicates a lack of knowledge (Liechtenstein) and one disagrees with the relevant statement (Czech Republic).

In relation to national risk or vulnerability assessments, European countries report that more information is still needed about the estimation of costs, benefits and uncertainties

In relation to national risk or vulnerability assessments, 20 of the responding countries (26) indicate that estimation of costs is one of the most important issues about which more information is still needed (Italy included this answer in the 'other' category). This was followed by the estimation of benefits (16 out of 26 countries) and the estimation of uncertainties (15 out of 26 countries) (Figure 2.8). The ranking of these topics is in alignment with the answers reported by participating countries when asked to indicate if the costs of climate change impacts and the costs and benefits of adaptation have been identified in their countries. Only four out of 29 countries (France; referring to the cost of impacts, Greece, Slovakia, United Kingdom) respond positively to indicate that these estimates have been undertaken for their countries. Eleven countries indicate absence of these estimates (Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Ireland, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Romania, Switzerland, Slovenia, Turkey), although some of them report that there is a plan to undertake this task. The remaining countries make reference to studies that have conducted partial estimations, or report that estimations are currently in progress. Finally, one country indicates that there is need for medium/ long-term socio economic scenarios (France) and one country for models which identify possible climate change impacts with the necessary granularity (Malta). Both of these topics are included in the 'Other' category in Figure 2.8.

Figure 2.8 Type of information that is still needed for risk or vulnerability assessments as reported by EEA member countries. Based on answers to Q20 of the self-assessment survey (n=26)