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
2.3.3. Examples from countries
A number of countries have reported in the self-assessment survey examples and experiences in relation to identifying, assessing and prioritising options for adapting to climate change. The following selected cases present a diversity of approaches from various European countries.
Costs of inaction assessed for prioritisation of measures
Austria
The Austrian Action Plan for adaptation has been adopted in October 2012 and suggests more than 130 adaptation measures to be implemented in 14 various fields. In order to identify sectors and areas where adaptation is most needed, a project called „Cost of Inaction: Assessing Costs of Climate Change for Austria“ (COIN) has been launched in 2013.
The aim of COIN is to assess costs of climate change for public and private budgets in Austria (i.e. damage costs with presently agreed mitigation but without adaptation measures), and scope the information where full assessment is not yet possible. Therefore a consistent framework will be developed and applied to all fields of activity/sectors presented in the Austrian national adaptation strategy. Climate scenarios will be interpreted according to each sector’s special needs for certain climate parameters and indices. Instead of delivering a grand total cost sum for all sectors with a top-down assessment from some average climate triggers, this project applies a broad bottom-up approach acknowledging sector specific risks and trends.
The developed framework for assessing costs of climate change will provide valuable insights and lessons learned also for other European countries and help in prioritisation of adaptation measures by focusing on areas which are affected most by climate change impacts.
More information: www.coin.ccca.at
Software tool for Multi-Criteria Analysis
Cyprus
In the case of Cyprus, various adaptation options (grey, green and soft) have been identified and assessed for each one of the eleven priority sectors of economy, within the CYPADAPT project. The methodology applied was the participatory process, by means of a National Adaptation Steering Committee with all the stakeholders and a Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) based on a range of social, environmental and technical criteria. The stakeholders (governmental departments, local authorities, academic and research institutions, no-governmental organizations, thematic associations and consumers groups, which have been involved from the beginning of the project, were requested to evaluate, by means of a questionnaire, the different adaptation measures and options listed , in terms of defined environmental, social, technical and economic criteria. However, the economic criteria couldn’t be evaluated, therefore will be a subject of another project.
The Multi-Criteria Analysis MCA was carried out with the help of a software tool which has been also developed within the CYPADAPT project (CYPADAPT Tool); the first version of this software has a similar structure as the questionnaire as follows: (i) Introduction (general info and instructions); (ii) Input of general data (stakeholder’s details, weights etc.); (iii) Selection and weighting of general evaluation criteria; (iv) Selection and scoring of adaptation measures per sector; (v) Results, scenarios formulation and sensitivity analysis, with the provision of graphs, diagrams and other data-presentation schemes.
The first optimization of the software tool and the prioritization of the most appropriate for Cyprus adaptation measures (existing in certain sectors, or being used successfully in other countries or new ones suggested) was based on the answered questionnaires. Aim of the questionnaires was the selection of adaptation measures and options and their evaluation with the criteria and weights used in the Multi-Criteria Analysis. The outcomes, have being further discussed and analysed during meetings with stakeholders and, with the on line public consultation that is still in progress.
The work has been carried out under the LIFE+ co-financed project CYPADAPT. More information: http://uest.ntua.gr/cypadapt/?page_id=106
Five types of adaptation measures in the
French National Adaptation Plan (NAP)
France
In order to address uncertainties related to climate change the
French NAP suggests the following types of measures in the first instance
for prioritising implementation:
- “no regrets” measures which are of benefit even in the absence of climate change, such as measures to promote water saving across all sectors, or the adaptation of the French shellfish sector to climate change through disease monitoring and an evaluation of the genetic potential for adaptation of oysters and mussels;
- reversible measures, such as mainstreaming climate change in public service contracts;
- measures increasing “safety margins”, such as the measure to review the mapping of areas which are potentially vulnerable to forest fires in order to extend the vigilance area;
- measures requiring long-term implementation, such as integrating climate change into regional forestry guidelines;
- measures which can be adjusted and reviewed periodically for various stakeholders as knowledge advances, such as more stringent requirements for comfortable summer temperature in buildings.
Ultimately, the French NAP suggests a set of 84 actions expressed in 230 measures for the national scale. These actions span the entire duration of the plan from 2011 to 2015. Although adaptation options have not been formally prioritised, grey (i.e. increase of water storage for agriculture that invests in more water efficient irrigation) and soft options (i.e. heat wave management plans) were identified as the main types of adaptation options. These actions have been identified and assessed using participatory processes and cost and benefit assessment.
Link to French National Adaptation Plan: http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/ONERC_PNACC_Eng_part_1.pdf