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
2.3.4. Discussion of findings
Identifying, assessing and prioritising adaptation options is mostly based on qualitative approaches
Findings from the self-assessment survey indicate that when planning options, European countries most often use expert judgment in combination with other qualitative approaches such as participatory processes.
The role of stakeholders in designing adaptation activities is of high importance for several reasons, e.g. they enhance the quality by bringing in different perspectives as well as experiences, and they increase transparency in decision-making as well as the likely acceptability of the responses taken (PROVIA, 2013; Prutsch et al., 2014). Thus, it is positive to see that European countries have recognised the importance of involvement and cooperation with relevant actors (see Key Topic 5).
Many guidelines for adaptation (e.g. EC, 2013; Brown et al., 2011; Lim et al., 2004) mention the use of different sets of criteria for assessing and prioritising adaptation options. For example, based on literature review, Vetter and Schauser (2013) have distinguished the following five key criteria for prioritization: importance, urgency, absence of negative side-effects, no-regret1, and flexibility. It remains unclear whether expert judgments are applying these criteria explicitly or are mainly based on subjective judgement with regard to the related fields of action. For the latter, often detailed information for a more in-depth analysis of adaptation options along these criteria is missing.
Prioritisation is considered as an important step in most guidelines for adaptation but hardly applied by European countries
Based on information from the EEA Adaptation report 2013 and results from the self-assessment survey, the following 17 European countries have adopted National Action Plans for adaptation (NAPs) as of 2014: Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Lithuania, Malta, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey and the UK. Other countries such as Finland, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia and Sweden have NAPs in place for selected sectors. A number of other countries are currently in the process of preparing their national plans (e.g. Belgium, The Netherlands, Romania).
Interestingly, the results from the self-assessment survey report that so far, only the following seven out of 27 countries have prioritised their adaptation options: Cyprus, Denmark, The Netherlands, Norway, Malta, Poland and the UK. These countries either have a NAP in place or are in the process of developing one.
It can be expected that more countries will prioritise adaptation options and a variety of approaches and methods can be applied. An overview on possible approaches is presented in Table 2.6 (based on Watkiss and Hunt, 2013). Nevertheless, not all countries plan to carry out prioritisation at the national level (see results in the self-assessment survey). Some governments might not intend to do so because they aim to keep a broad portfolio of options, depending on specific contextual conditions, and make choices based on political priorities. One could argue that prioritisation of options will mostly be carried out sub-nationally as these are the levels where climate change impacts will materialise and context-specific response is needed.
Guidelines present cost-benefit analyses (Table 2.6) as one of the most important approaches for prioritising adaptation options. Nevertheless, it is very likely that only a few countries will use this method as this approach depends on the availability of information on costs and benefits which is still poor and involves many subjective choices. A general recommendation is to use various methods for cost-benefit based prioritisation (Table 2.6) to stimulate learning: different approaches represent different ways of problem framing, may be applicable in different situations, have different strengths and weakness and can lead to different solutions (Swart et al. in Prutsch et al., 2014). Further work is needed to better understand the added value of prioritisation for countries, taking into account various methodological approaches.
Table 2.6 Overview on available approaches for priorisation in adaptation (MEDIATION project; Watkiss and Hunt, 2013)
| Approach | Short description | Most useful to apply when… | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) | CBA values all relevant costs and benefits to society of all options, and then estimates a net present value or a benefit. It is an absolute measure providing the justification for intervention, though it is often difficult to value all the costs and benefits of a particular project or policy. | Climate probabilities known. Climate sensitivity small compared to costs/benefits. Good data exists for major cost/benefit components. |
||
| Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) | CEA compares alternative options for achieving similar outputs (or objectives). In this regard it is a relative measure, providing comparative information between choices (unlike CBA, which provides an absolute measure). | As for CBA, but for nonmonetary metrics. Agreement on sectoral social objective (e.g. acceptable risks of flooding). |
||
| Multi-criteria analysis (MCA) | MCA is a systematic method for assessing and scoring options against a range of decision criteria, some of which are expressed in physical or monetary units, and some which are qualitative. The various criteria can then be weighted to provide an overall ranking of options. | Mix of qualitative and quantification data. | ||
| Real Options Analysis (ROA) | ROA quantifies the investment risk associated with uncertain future outcomes. It can therefore assess whether it is better to invest now or to wait – or whether it is better to invest in options that offer greater flexibility in the future. | Large irreversible capital decisions. Climate risk probabilities known or good information. Good quality data for major cost/benefit components. |
||
| Robust Decision Making (RDM) | RDM is a decision support tool that is used in situations of deep uncertainty. It uses quantitative models, or scenario generators, with data mining algorithms, to evaluate how different strategies perform under large ensembles of scenarios reflecting different plausible future conditions. | High uncertainty of climate change signal. Mix of quantitative and qualitative information. Non-market sectors (e.g. ecosystems, health). |
||
| Portfolio Analysis (PA) | PA helps in developing portfolios of options, rather than single options. It originated in the context of financial markets to explore the potential for portfolios of financial assets to maximise the financial return on investments, subject to a given level of risk. | Adaptation actions likely to be complementary in reducing climate risks. Climate risk probabilities known or good information |
||
| Adaptive Management / Adaptation Turning Points |
Adaptive Management is a long established and less formalised approach that uses a monitoring, research, evaluation and learning process to improve future management strategies. A variation of the approach is to consider major biophysical, human, social or economic thresholds, and the MEDIATION project has developed such assessments using the term ‘Adaptation Turning Points’ looking at socialpolitical thresholds (i.e. a formal policy objective or societal preference). |
High uncertainty. Clear risk thresholds and indicators. |
||
| Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) | AHP is a form of multi-criteria analysis that undertakes pairwise comparisons using expert judgements to derive priority scales. The method allows the analysis of tangible and intangible elements together, allowing these to be traded off against each other in a decision-making process. | Mix of quantitative and qualitative information. Mix of qualitative and quantification data. Need for consensus building. |
||
EU policy has fostered planning for adaptation in biodiversity
Planning adaptation has been reported to be most advanced in the biodiversity sector. This may be explained by the fact that biodiversity is still in an initial stage, while non-climate policies addressing biodiversity provide the basis for a systematic identification, assessment and prioritisation of options.
Identifying, assessing and prioritising adaptation options for the biodiversity sector have been fostered by various reasons, e.g. new policies at the EU level. The EU biodiversity strategy (EC, 2011) highlights biodiversity loss, alongside climate change, as the most critical global environmental threats. Both are inextricably linked. While biodiversity protection can make a key contribution to climate change mitigation (e.g., towards achieving the target to limit the increase in global temperature to a maximum of 2 ºC above pre-industrial levels) and adaptation (adequate measures to reduce the impacts of unavoidable effects of climate change), those actions are also essential to avert biodiversity loss.
In contrast, implementation of adaptation has been more often reported for the water and agriculture sectors.
[1] Since any decision taken implies opportunity costs, this terminology should be understood as 'low-regret actions (EEA, 2013).