Table of contents
- Acknowledgements
- Executive summary
- Objectives, intended users and context of this report
- Outline of this report
- Methodological approach
- Lessons learned from collaborating with member countries through the self-assessment survey
- 1. Rationale for public intervention on adaptation
- 2.1. Key Topic 1: Public and policy awareness of the need for adaptation
- 2.1.1. Awareness of the need for adaptation: what does this include?
- 2.1.2. Findings from self-assessment survey
- 2.1.3. Examples from countries
- 2.1.4. Discussion of findings
- 2.2. Key Topic 2: Knowledge generation and use
- 2.2.1. Knowledge generation and use: what does this include?
- 2.2.2. Findings from self-assessment survey
- 2.2.3. Examples from countries
- 2.2.4. Discussion of findings
- 2.3. Key Topic 3: Planning adaptation
- 2.3.1. Planning adaptation: what does this include?
- 2.3.2. Findings from self-assessment survey
- 2.3.3. Examples from countries
- 2.3.4. Discussion of findings
- 2.4. Key Topic 4: Coordination of adaptation
- 2.4.1. Coordination of adaptation: what does this include?
- 2.4.2. Findings from self-assessment survey
- 2.4.3. Examples from countries
- 2.4.4. Discussion of findings
- 2.5. Key Topic 5: Stakeholder involvement
- 2.5.1. Stakeholder involvement: what does this include?
- 2.5.2. Findings from self-assessment survey
- 2.5.3. Examples from countries
- 2.5.4. Discussion of findings
- 2.6. Key Topic 6: Implementation of adaptation
- 2.6.1. Implementation of adaptation: what does this include?
- 2.6.2. Findings from self-assessment survey
- 2.6.3. Examples from countries
- 2.6.4. Discussion of findings
- 2.7. Key Topic 7: Transnational cooperation
- 2.7.1. Transnational cooperation: what does this include?
- 2.7.2. Findings from self-assessment survey
- 2.7.3. Examples from countries
- 2.7.4. Discussion of findings
- 2.8. Key Topic 8: Monitoring, reporting and evaluation
- 2.8.1. Monitoring, reporting and evaluation (MRE): what does this include?
- 2.8.2. Findings from the self-assessment survey
- 2.8.3. Examples from countries
- 2.8.4. Discussion of findings
- 3. The evolving agenda for national adaptation in Europe
- 4. Glossary
- 5. Acronyms
- 6. References
2.2.2. Findings from self-assessment survey
In this section, we describe the current status of knowledge generation and use in European countries with a focus on risk and vulnerability assessments and adaptation to climate change. This is based on information compiled from answers to nine questions referring to this topic. All questions but questions 18 and 19 were close-ended, with pre-defined multiple choices. In certain closed questions, respondents were given the chance to provide additional information in a dedicated space provided under the multiple choices ('Other' category).
| Question from self-assessment survey (including the question number) | Number of countries answering this question (including % on total number) |
|---|---|
| In my country, in the past five years, there has been an increase in the amount of adaptation-related knowledge (e.g. in relation to vulnerabilities, adaptation options) generated with the aim of informing policy making? (Q5) | 30/30 (100 %) |
| In my country, uncertainties in future projections (e.g. uncertainties regarding climate change) are explicitly addressed in the adaptation policy process (Q6) | 30/30 (100 %) |
| In my country, adaptation objectives are based on an understanding of the impacts, risks and/or vulnerabilities to climate change (Q7) | 29/30 (97 %) |
| In my country, integration of adaptation into sectoral policies and programmes is increasing (Q8) | 30/30 (100 %) |
| Are risk assessments or vulnerability assessments available for your country? If yes: available at national, sub-national, trans-national, regional, local. (Q16) |
30/30 (100 %) 28/30 (93 %) |
In relation to the risk and vulnerability assessment available which of the following [sectors] have been covered
|
26/30(87 %) 19/30 (63 %) 7/30 (23 %) |
| In relation to the national assessment how is /was the risk or vulnerability assessment process coordinated? What methodological approach has been used? How have uncertainties been addressed? (Q18) | 27/30 (90%) |
| In relation to the national assessment, have you identified the costs of climate change impacts and the costs and benefits of adaptation? (Q19) | 29/30 (97 %) |
| In relation to the national assessment, what kind of information is still needed for risk or vulnerability assessments? Please select the three most important issues. (Q20) | 26/30 (87 %) |
| In relation to the national assessment, do you plan to update the risk or vulnerability assessments? (Q21) | 29/30 (97 %) |
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).
-
Risk/vulnerability assessments are already ...on this topic (Liechtenstein): Germany is not mentioned, it´s difficult to get an overview from this paragraph on the status of vulnerability assessments in the responding MS.
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).
-
The objective of the National climate change risk and vulnerability assessment for the sectors of the Bulgarian economy is to assess the risk of climate change related natural disasters which are most typical for Bulgaria on the basis of climate models and scenarios. The framework document covers the following sectors: agriculture, water, urban environment, energy, transport, construction and infrastructure, ecosystems and biodiversity, human health and tourism. A separate chapter on cross-border cooperation on issues related to the impacts of climate change is included in the document.
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 (nNational=26, nSectoral led by ministries=19, nSectoral 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.
-
For Portugal:
There is no legend for the smaller bars, assumably for sectoral led by private sector
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.
-
in the first line add the Netherlands. The additional assessments are now being undertaken and in full swing.
-
- this task is not planned --> please delete Switzerland
- please mention Switzerland when it says that new knowledge will keep beeing implemented continuously
- we believe that a continous implementation of knowledge asks for an update of risk or vulnerability assessments for updating a country's knowledge base
- please rephrase this last sentence
-
On 7 May 2014 the National Programme for Disaster Protection 2014-2018 was adopted. The main priority of the Programme is to analyse and assess the disaster risks in the Republic of Bulgaria and to conduct their mapping. Therefore we would like to suggest to include Bulgaria in the list of countries that have already updated their risk assessments.
-
The last sentence is not clear: "...updating risk or vulnerability assessments is not always necessary for updating a country's knowledge base..." sounds strange.
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.
-
The National climate change risk and vulnerability assessment for the sectors of the Bulgarian economy is based on a comprehensive review of literature and expert judgement.
Climate models were used in the development of the document and scenarios for Bulgaria were elaborated for the purposes of the analysis.
The decision on the development of the climate change risk and vulnerability assessment as a first step of the preparation of National adaptation strategy was taken at a meeting of the Working Group in charge of coordinating the development of the NAS. After the preparation of the first draft, the document was published on the website of the Ministry of Environment and Water for public consultation. Before its final adoption the analysis was also discussed at a workshop as well as during а meeting of Thematic Working Group on Environmental Management to the Public Council of the Ministry of Environment and Water.
Therefore we would like to suggest to include Bulgaria in Table 2.5 in the following rows: Review of literature/ existing databases; Expert judgement/appraisal; Stakeholder engagement/ Consultation/ Advisory committee; Workshops/ Seminars; Modeling; Scenario analysis.
Table 2.5 Overview of the methods used in risk or vulnerability assessments as reported by the responding countries
| Methodological approach used in risk or vulnerability assessments | Example countries |
|---|---|
| Review of literature/ existing databases | AT, BE, CY, CZ, DE, FI, FR, HU, IT, SI, UK |
| Interviews/Surveys | BE, CY, UK |
| Expert judgement/ appraisal | CH, CY, CZ, DE, FI, FR, HU, IT, LV*, LI, SK, SE, SI, TR, UK |
| Stakeholder engagement/ Consultation/
Advisory committee |
CH, IR, SE, UK |
| Workshops/ Seminars | SE, UK |
| Qualitative assessment | AT, CH |
| Quantitative assessment | CH, NO |
| Modeling | BE, CY, CZ, DE, FR, LV*, LT, UK (sensitivity analysis) |
| Scenario analysis | DE, ES, FR, SE, UK |
| Indicators | CH, DE, LT, SE, SK |
| Monetisation exercise (Market prices,
non-market values, informed judgement) |
UK |
| Mapping exercise | UK |
| Multi-criteria scoring system | UK |
| Application further development of existing
Frameworks |
UK |
* 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.
-
NL should be added in the table at least for the lines: review, interviews, expert judgement, stakeholder consultation, workshops,qual assesment, scenario analysis,
-
Ireland is not mentioned in this table. Perhaps this is a typo as IR is mentioned but Ireland in the legend is IE.
The methods used for the vulnerability assessments in Ireland include:
Stakeholder engagement/consultation/advisory committee;
Sensitivity Analysis;
Expert Judgement;
Modelling.
-
Spain also uses literature review, stakeholders engagement or workshops/seminars in the vulnerability assessments.
-
Please add Switzerland at the following methodological approaches:
- Review of litarture / existing databases
- Interviews/surveys
- Workshops / seminars
- Qualitative assessments
- Modeling (of uncertainties)
- Scenario analysis (socio-economic and climate scenarios)
- Monetisation exercise
Delete Switzerland at the following methodological approach:
- Stakeholder engagement/Consultation/Advisory committee
-
For Portugal;
Portugal is not mentioned in this table. According to our responses to the survey, namely the suplementary information regarding the vulnerability assessment of SIAM I and II projects, PT should appear mentioned on the following:
- Review of literature/ existing databases
- Expert judgement/ appraisal
- Stakeholder engagement/ Consultation/Advisory committee
- Scenario analisys
- modeling
-
For Slovakia:
Qualitative assessment
AT, CH, SK
Modeling
BE, CY, CZ, DE, FR, LV*, LT, UK (sensitivity analysis), SK
Scenario analysis
DE, ES, FR, SE, UK, SK
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.
-
I suggest to move our answer from "other category" to "estimation of costs" (and to delete the sentence "Italy included this answer in the 'other' category") as this was the meaning of the answer. Maybe there has been some misunderstanding. Thanks.
Bulgaria has already adopted National climate change risk and vulnerability assessment for the sectors of the Bulgarian economy as a first step of the preparation of National Adaptation Strategy (NAS). The document was finalised in early June 2014.