2.2.4. Discussion of findings

Enhancement of the adaptation knowledge base can be observed

In Europe, mitigation has been the main institutional and societal response to climate change for a long time. Currently, however, the need for adaptation is considered necessary, both for human societies and natural systems. European countries have responded to this recognition by allocating research funds to programmes focusing on climate change adaptation (e.g. Knowledge for Climate, KLIMZUK, SNAC) and conducting risk or vulnerability assessments to climate change impacts (e.g. CCRA). As a result, climate change adaptation knowledge has advanced considerably in recent years and this will continue further in the future. The EU research program Horizon 2020, for example, will address, among other topics, climate change adaptation.

In many cases knowledge relevant to adaptation has been reflected in policies. The self-assessment survey shows that 20 countries in Europe have already developed a NAS and 17 countries have moved beyond that point by developing a NAP. Furthermore, 26 out of the 30 countries that participated in the self-assessment survey reported an increase in the integration of adaptation into sectoral policies. Such observations frame an encouraging picture of progress on adaptation. Nevertheless, there are still certain areas that require further attention in order to minimise the barriers that might jeopardise adaptation action (see Key Topic 1).

Risk and vulnerability assessments are available for the majority of European countries

Risk and vulnerability assessments can provide important information for climate change adaptation policies, although the results from such assessments are not a prerequisite for the development of national adaptation strategies (a document which articulate a country's strategic vision with regard to climate change adaptation). Their importance, however, is much higher for implementing adaptation through action plans (see the case of the UK National Adaptation Programme).

Currently risk/vulnerability assessments are available for the majority of the countries that participated in the self-assessment survey. Differences exist in the number and type of sectors covered in the assessments of each country. Agriculture, forestry, water and human health are the sectors most frequently covered in national assessments. For the first three sectors, this is probably due to the fact that the relevant ecosystems provide important services and a potential negative effect due to climate change may have serious implications for both natural systems and humans. At the same time, the attention on the human health sector has increased after the high death rate that has been observed during recent extreme weather events (e.g. the heat wave in summer of 2003 in Europe).

Countries reported diversity in the methodologies that were used for conducting such assessments. Diversity refers to the methods used and the level of elaboration of the approach, as well as to whether a methodology was actually developed for this purpose or not. Differences across countries seem to relate to the policy process stage that they were in at the time when the assessment was undertaken. However, the influence of other context specific factors cannot be excluded.

The plurality of approaches has the potential to improve knowledge, as different methods may deal with certain issues more effectively. Nevertheless, certain methodological challenges such as the quantification of adaptive capacities and uncertainties remain (BMU, 2014). The frequent use of literature review and expert appraisals as a substitute of the ore challenging quantitative approaches perhaps suggests that more effort should be placed on the latter. Additionally, although the establishment of a rigid and unchangeable framework would not provide much help, developing   comprehensive and flexible guidelines for undertaking risk or vulnerability assessments can support countries, particularly the ones that are in an early stage in the adaptation policy, (e.g. WHO, 2013).  

Estimation of costs, benefits and uncertainties are the main knowledge gaps for risk and vulnerabilities assessments

In relation to national risk or vulnerability assessments, estimation of costs, benefits and uncertainties were indicated by responding countries as the three most important topics for which more information is needed. Cost and benefit estimates are helpful for assessing climate change impacts and policy outcomes. They may complement information produced by risks and vulnerability assessments, and contribute to having better informed decisions. The need for, but mainly the difficulty of economic assessments related to climate change and climate change policies have been already highlighted and discussed elsewherein the literature (e.g. McKibbin and Wilcoxen, 2003; EEA, 2013; EC, 2013). This is linked to the uncertainties of future changes both in the climate system and societies, which determine, in turn, not only the climate change impacts, but also the need and the options for adaptation (Füssel and Hilden, In press).

Uncertainty is indeed a major challenge in climate change science. Also it is identified as a barrier for all policy cycle stages (Clar et al., 2013), which may sometimes hinder adaptation decisions (Hanger et al., 2013). This appears to be relevant not only to countries which are in an early stage in adaptation policy process, but also to countries that have already made progress. In the self-assessment survey, for example, five countries which stated that uncertainties related to climate change projections have been already included in adaptation policies, reported that additional information is still needed on this topic (Austria, Denmark, Italy, Poland, Portugal).

The aforementioned topics reflect some of the current knowledge gaps and should be considered when formulating the research agenda for the coming years. In addition to identifying the types of scientific information that may improve policies, however, it is important to develop effective ways for the dissemination of adaptation knowledge. In the case of uncertainty, for example, it is often difficult to communicate the relevant information to non-scientific audiences. Development of guidelines on how such information can be used in policy making that do not consider context-specific characteristics are unlikely to improve knowledge use. Instead investment on the development of climate information services that bring together researchers and other actors involved in the adaptation process is expected to have a positive influence (e.g. see Moss et al., 2013).

At the local level risk and vulnerability assessments are still needed

An important characteristic related to risk and vulnerability assessments is the level at which these are conducted. Among the responding countries, the majority of them (26) refer to the national and sub-national assessments (17). As adaptation requirements vary from locality to locality due to the specific contexts, the information provided by the national risk or vulnerability assessments is sometimes not appropriate for adaptation planning (Füssel and Hilden 2014, In press). Hence, adaptation measures will have to be identified through local level assessments, supplementing or in some cases even replacing the more general measures recommended at the regional and national level.

The availability of local level assessments is reported only by one country (Sweden). In other countries, however, there is already action taking place locally. In the UK, for example, some cities have undertaken city level risk or vulnerability assessments (e.g. Birmingham). Other cities have used the LCLIP tool to assess vulnerabilities to current weather conditions. Belgium reported that the use of vulnerability diagnostic tools are beginning to appear at the local level. In Ireland, research-based, local-scale vulnerability assessments have been conducted on an ad-hoc basis for some sectors (i.e. the Office of Public Works, Tourism and Heritage, Forfas; Ireland's policy advisory board for enterprise, trade, science, technology and innovation) bringing together groups of local authorities, civil society expert stakeholders and scientists (Falaleeva et al., 2013; Gray et al., 2013). Such activities aim to communicate local knowledge of the global change impacts on local communities to the higher level adaptation decision makers. Additionally, they aim to develop adaptation capacity by providing adaptation actors at the local level with access to climate knowledge and networks operational at regional and national scale. Nevertheless, the fact that such examples are scarce confirm the finding that more effort should be placed on the generation of adaptation information at the local/community level (this is identified as the fourth most important topic about which more information is needed, see Question 20) and agrees with the knowledge gaps identified in the EU Climate Change Adaptation Strategy (EC, 2013)

Such information is expected to be enhanced in the future. Some countries mentioned, for example, that local level risk and vulnerability assessments are already included in their current activities or that there are plans to do so (e.g. Spain, Denmark, Sweden). Also, the production of such information will be further encouraged through initiatives and projects of the European Commission designed specifically to support cities, such as the Mayors Adapt – the Covenant of Mayors Initiative on Climate Change Adaptation (http://mayors-adapt.eu/ ) (Action 3; EC, 2013). Finally relevant information for actions and initiatives in cities and towns across Europe is provided through the dedicated page of the European Climate Adaptation platform (Climate-ADAPT http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/web/guest/cities) and the ICLEI network.