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
2.3.2. Findings from self-assessment survey
This key topic is based on findings from eight questions with focus on planning adaptation actions. Most questions in the self-assessment survey were closed and included multiple choice options. The table below presents the list of questions and indicates the number of countries having answered them. In total, 30 countries returned the self-assessment survey to the EEA.
| Question from self-assessment survey (including the question number) | Number of countries answering this question (including % on total number) |
|---|---|
| Have you identified and assessed adaptation options on the basis for risk or vulnerability assessments? (Q22) | 30/30 (100 %) |
| If you have identified and assessed adaptation options, please indicate at what level? (Q22a) | 15/30 (50 %) |
| How have you identified and assessed adaptation options? (Q23) | 25/30 (83 %) |
| Please indicate the types of adaptation options identified. (Q24) | 26/30 (87 %) |
| Have you prioritised adaptation options? (Q25) | 29/30 (97 %) |
| If you have prioritised adaptation options, which methodological approach (e.g. expert judgment, multi-criteria analysis) has been used? (Q26) | 11/30 (37 %) |
| Have the adaptation options been included in an action plan? (Q27) | 23/30 (77 %) |
| Please highlight the relevant sector/areas in your country and assess the current state of adaptation at various levels. (Q31) | 26/30 (87 %) |
Efforts in identifying and assessing adaptation options have been or are being made by about half of the countries and nine more will start with this effort in the near future
12 out of 29 countries report to have undertaken an analysis of suitable options (Figure 2.9). Most of these countries have presented their adaptation activities either in the framework of a National Action Plan (i.e. Austria, Denmark, France – presenting only some adaptation options, Lithuania, Malta, Norway, Spain, Switzerland, UK), in overall climate change policies (i.e. in Belgium in sub-national Climate Plans) or in the format of adaptation plans for selected sectors at various administrative levels (i.e. Portugal, Sweden).
-
-
addressed
-
In addition, five other countries report to be in the process of identifying and assessing adaptation options to be presented in a National Action Plan or related climate change policies (i.e. Cyprus, Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy and Slovakia). Nine out of 29 countries have not started to identify adaptation options but will do so in the near future (i.e. Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, The Netherlands, Romania, Slovenia and Turkey).
-
in the last line the Netherlands should be deleted
-
addressed
-
-
Inconsistency Pg 58, bottom. the Netherlands is included in list of countries that have not identified adaptations options. How is this possible when NL has used MCA for identifying & assessing options (pg 59) of NL has prioritized options (pg 60)?
-
addressed
-
-
...in the near future (i.e. Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, Germany....: Please delete Germany here and add Germany above. Germany published the first Adaptation Action Plan in 2011. It contains adaptation actions for all of the sectors mentioned in the Adaptation Strategy. At the moment we are working on a second Adaptation Action Plan, which will be part of the first progress report foreseen for the end of 2015.
-
addressed
-
Figure 2.9 Status of identification and assessment of adaptation options; Source: EEA Self-assessment survey (n= 29)
With regard to administrative levels, six out of 15 countries state that they have identified or will assess adaptation options for the national level only (i.e. Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Malta, Norway and Slovakia). Two countries mention that options have been or will be identified for the national and sub-national level (i.e. Belgium and Sweden) and two countries mention that they work on measures for the national, sub-national and sectoral level (i.e. Poland and Spain). Portugal reported having identified and assessed adaptation options at the national and sectoral level. Austria and the UK have developed measures for the national, sub-national, sectoral and cross-sectoral levels. Lithuania mentioned to have identified and assessed options to be implemented national, trans-national and sectoral. Cyprus reported to have options available for the national level as well as sectoral and cross-sectoral.
Expert judgement has been reported as the most often used method to identify and assess adaptation options
Expert judgement is used to identify and assess adaptation options for 21 out of 25 European countries (Figure 2.10). Czech Republic, Estonia and Turkey report to use a single method which is expert judgment to identify and assess options.
Most countries state to combine expert judgment with other methodological approaches, most often with participatory processes (i.e. Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Malta, Portugal, Switzerland and Romania). Cost and benefit assessments are applied by seven countries (i.e. France, Norway, Poland, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden and UK) and multi-criteria analyses by seven too (i.e. Cyprus, Hungary, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain and UK); again both in combination with other approaches such as expert judgement. Three countries indicate to have used all four methods for identifying and assessing adaptation options, namely Norway, Spain and UK.
-
"cost and benefit assessments are applied by seven countries (i.e. (...) Poland....)"
In Poland Multi-criteria system was used to identify adaptation options (Ministry of Environment)
-
addressed
Figure 2.10 Methodological approaches for designing adaptation options; Source: EEA Self-assessment survey (n= 25)
Countries report to consider most often soft adaptation options, commonly in combination with others such as green, grey or combined options
Four types of adaptation options (based on EEA, 2013)
- 'Soft' adaptation options are managerial, legal and policy approaches that aim at altering human behaviour or styles of governance. Examples include early warning systems or financial infrastructure that can insure against damage from natural disasters.
- 'Grey' adaptation options are “hard” options used to reduce vulnerability to climate change and enhance resilience. Examples include dyke building and beach restoration to prevent coastal erosion.
- 'Green' adaptation options make use of nature. Examples include introducing new crop and tree varieties, allowing room for rivers to naturally flood onto floodplains, and restoring wetlands.
- 'Combined' options are making use of all of these three types. In fact, the best results are often achieved by combining actions. For example, flood risk in a particular area can be addressed by a combination of green and grey actions, or grey and soft actions.
Results from the self-assessment survey show that soft measures are the most often identified type of adaptation option: 21 out of 26 countries report to have identified soft options such as awareness-raising initiatives, information policy approaches, and early warning systems. Two countries report only soft options for adaptation (i.e. Bulgaria, Estonia). 17 countries indicate to consider soft options in combination with green and grey options for adaptation. Combined adaptation options (combining green, soft and hard options) are recognised by 12 countries. In addition, five countries reported only combined options (i.e. Cyprus, Hungary Liechtenstein, Malta and Turkey).
-
Another possible inconsistency is at pg 60. Here it is stated that 17 countries combine soft and green/grey adaptation options. This I found quite logic. But it is a different message than the hkey message 4 (pg 10), stating that adaptation is especially carried out by applying soft measures. To my knowledge the combination of different options makes it (cost) effective.
-
Acknowledged
-
Prioritisation of adaptation options is only carried out by a few countries, but is planned in more European countries
Of 29 countries, seven report to have prioritised adaptation options: Cyprus, Denmark, The Netherlands, Norway, Malta, Poland and the UK. These countries have mostly applied a mix of methods by involving different groups of stakeholders and policy makers. Furthermore, five countries are currently working on prioritisation: Belgium, Italy, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. In addition, 11 countries plan to prioritise adaptation responses in the coming years (i.e. Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Slovakia, Slovenia and Turkey) and five countries have no plans yet (i.e. Austria, France, Lithuania, Ireland and Romania).
-
this given on prioritization should be clearly highlighted and positively framed. It is an indication of the importance of recognizing the iterative character of planning adaptation.
-
addressed
-
-
should be listed in the group of countries which have no plans yet (like , France and others)
-
acknowledged
-
-
to be more precise, please change:
five countries have no plans yet
by
fine countries have no prioritisation plans yet.
-
acknowledged
-
-
...are currently working on prioritisation: Belgium, Italy, Portugal, Spain,...: Please add Germany here, after Spain.
-
addressed
-
-
...plan to prioritise adaptation responses in the coming years (i.e. Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany...: Please delete Germany here and add it to the countries which are currently working on prioritization. Part of the vulnerability analysis is to identify hotspots of vulnerability to have a basis for prioritization of adaptation options. This is foreseen for the progress report.
-
addressed
-
Options still have to be identified, assessed and prioritised in particular for biodiversity, insurance, industry, tourism and marine fisheries
Looking at the adaptation progress in various sectors at the national level, most activities on planning adaptation options (in terms of identifying) have been reported for biodiversity. For financial insurance, industry, tourism and marine fisheries, the self-assessment survey shows that these sectors are in an early stage in planning for adaptation. For the forestry and for the human health sector, in addition to numerous activities focused on planning adaptation activities, a number of countries have at least some adaptation measures implemented. The water sector and agriculture display the highest number of European countries having already implemented concrete adaptation actions and thus have passed the stage of identifying, assessing and prioritizing options.
...of a National Action Plan (i.e. Astria, Denmar, France..: Please add Germany (after "France")