COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Impact Assessment - Part 1

Accompanying the document

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

An EU Strategy on adaptation to climate change

This report commits only the Commission's services involved in its preparation and does not prejudge the final form of any decision to be taken by the Commission.

1........... Procedural issues and results from consultation of interested parties. 4

1.1........ Organisation and timing. 4

1.2........ Consultation and expertise. 4

1.3........ Addressing the Impact Assessment Board's comments. 5

2........... Problem definition, policy context, and subsidiarity. 5

2.1........ Climate change and the need for adaptation. 5

2.2........ Who is affected, in what ways, and to what extent?. 7

2.2.1..... Environmental challenges. 7

2.2.2..... Sectoral challenges. 7

2.2.3..... Social challenges. 8

2.2.4..... Territorial challenges. 9

2.2.5..... Potential vulnerability to climate change in Europe. 10

2.3........ Policy context 11

2.3.1..... EU initiatives. 11

2.3.2..... Adaptation policies at Member State level 11

2.3.3..... Transnational, regional and local adaptation efforts. 12

2.4........ What are the specific problems that require additional action?. 13

2.4.1..... Knowledge and access to information gaps. 13

2.4.2..... Gaps in adaptation action at sub-EU level 15

2.4.3..... Gaps in adaptation uptake in key sectors. 16

2.5........ How would the problems evolve by 2020 without further EU action?. 19

2.5.1..... Knowledge and access to information gaps. 19

2.5.2..... Gaps in adaptation action at sub-EU level 20

2.5.3..... Gaps in adaptation uptake in key sectors. 22

2.6........ Does the EU have the right to act and is EU added-value evident for enhancing climate resilience? 23

3........... Objectives. 24

3.1........ What are the general and more specific/operational objectives?. 24

3.1.1..... General objective. 24

3.1.2..... Specific and operational objectives. 24

3.2........ Consistency with EU policies and horizontal objectives of the European Union. 25

4........... Policy options. 25

4.1........ What are the policy options?. 25

4.2........ Description of each option. 26

4.2.1..... Options aiming at better informed decision making. 26

4.2.2..... Options aiming at increasing the resilience of the EU territory. 27

4.2.3..... Options aiming at increasing the resilience of most vulnerable sectors. 27

4.3........ Which options have been discarded at an early stage and why?. 28

5........... Analysis of impacts. 28

5.1........ Expected impacts of options aiming at better informed decision making. 29

5.1.1..... No policy change. 29

5.1.2..... Options aiming at increasing knowledge generation. 30

5.1.3..... Options aiming at better knowledge dissemination. 31

5.2........ Expected impacts of options aiming at increasing the resilience of the EU territory. 32

5.2.1..... No policy change. 32

5.2.2..... Options aiming at promoting and facilitating adaptation policies at Member State and regional level 33

5.2.3..... Options aiming at promoting and facilitating adaptation action for cities. 35

5.3........ Expected impacts of options aiming at increasing resilience in key sectors. 37

5.3.1..... No policy change. 37

5.3.2..... Options aiming at a more consistent and comprehensive mainstreaming of adaptation. 38

5.3.3..... Options aiming at increasing the resilience of major infrastructure investments. 41

6........... Comparing the policy options. 44

6.1........ Comparing options on promoting better-informed decision making. 44

6.1.1..... Effectiveness, efficiency and coherence. 44

6.1.2..... Summary table. 44

6.2........ Comparing options on promoting adaptation at sub-EU level 45

6.2.1..... Effectiveness, efficiency and coherence. 45

6.2.2..... Summary table. 47

6.3........ Comparing options on promoting adaptation in key sectors. 48

6.3.1..... Effectiveness, efficiency and coherence. 48

6.3.2..... Summary table. 49

7........... Identification of the preferred policy package. 50

8........... Monitoring and evaluation. 52

1. Procedural issues and results from consultation of interested parties

This Impact Assessment (IA) report forms part of the Commission's proposal for an EU Strategy on Adaptation to climate change[1]. This initiative builds upon the White Paper "Adapting to climate change: Towards a European framework for action"[2].

1.1. Organisation and timing

An Impact Assessment steering group (IASG) met 3 times between May 2012 and October 2012. This group was chaired by DG CLIMA and the following services participated: AGRI, BUDG, ECFIN, ECHO, EEA, EMPL, ENTR, ENV, JRC, MARE, MARKT, MOVE, REGIO, R&I, SANCO and SG.

1.2. Consultation and expertise

This IA report has been preceded by wide-ranging consultation and benefits from a broad spectrum of scientific and policy expertise. Both inputs from stakeholder and research results are included in this report.[3] Its preparation included the following steps:

Consultation with the Adaptation Steering Group: This group was created in September 2010 to support the Commission in developing its approach to adaptation. The ASG consists of representatives from EU Member States and a wide range of stakeholders, including business organisations and NGOs. The Group met 7 times between September 2010 and January 2013.

Ad hoc online public consultation: It was launched on 21 May 2012[4] and ran for 13 weeks until 20 August 2012. The Commission received a total of 175 replies from a broad range of stakeholders, including Member States, business organisations, environmental NGOs and citizens.

Thematic seminars: Various events to consult Member States and key stakeholder groups on specific dimensions of the Adaptation Strategy (e.g. standards, forestry) were held in 2012.

Overall, stakeholders were supportive of additional EU-promoted action on adaptation, while acknowledging that many of the climate change impacts are to be addressed at local level. They highlighted that the Strategy will be especially useful for actors that are less advanced on the issue of climate change adaptation. Mainstreaming adaptation into key EU initiatives is seen by all as a priority, as well as providing the right framework, information tools, and EU funds that allow for the effective integration of adaptation issues at all levels of government. Some Member States would oppose an EU legislative instrument for promoting the adoption of national adaptation strategies. Environmental NGOs put a stronger emphasis on environmental issues than government and private organisations. Respondents to the public consultation also felt that the EU should be more involved in funding adaptation projects. Furthermore, stakeholders at all meetings raised the issue of uncertainty and reported that the lack of dedicated research hinders the adaptation process. In addition, communicating relevant information to decision makers was named as a challenging task.

The preparation of this IA report was accompanied by a pool of external experts[5] and additionally used scientific/research results from the EU´s Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP7).

1.3. Addressing the Impact Assessment Board's comments

The IA was discussed at a meeting of the IA Board (IAB) on the 7th of November 2012. The IAB in its first opinion, asked for a revision of the document. Based on this, the report was modified as follows: i/ the intervention logic was clarified, by better linking the identified problems to newly-defined policy objectives. In addition, the policy options were amended so as to focus on problems that need to be addressed in priority at EU level. The specific and operational objectives were also linked to progress indicators, so as to provide a sound base for future assessments of the policy achievements; ii/ the baseline scenario was reinforced, so as to provide as much quantitative evidence as possible on the expected consequences of no additional EU action; iii/ the policy options have been more clearly defined, providing additional detail on the necessary implementation stages. The discussion around the need for a legislative proposal, its potential content and nature has also been reinforced so as to facilitate decision-making; v/ the analysis of the social, environmental and economic impacts is more transparent, clearly presenting the available evidence as well as the areas still subject to uncertainty. In terms of procedure and presentation, additional efforts have been put to clarify the achievements of the 2009 White Paper on adaptation as well as the remaining gaps. The results of the stakeholders' dialogue are now better scattered across the report, which facilitates the understanding of stakeholders' opinion on the identified problems and on the assessed options.

In its second opinion, issued on December 20, the IAB asked first for further strengthening the case for EU action concerning adaptation at sub-EU level and by the private sector. This comment has been addressed by reinforcing the positive impacts to be expected by EU-promoted action in most vulnerable sectors and regions. Second, the IAB asked for further clarifications regarding operational objectives and progress indicators, which have been modified so as to facilitate the assessment of the actions foreseen in the EU Adaptation Strategy during the reviewing phase. Thirdly, as requested by the IAB, the description of options has been separated from its assessment, via the use of a dedicated section. Finally, in line with the IAB's comments, in view of the evidence provided, the revised IA report is more balanced regarding the conclusions on the respective impacts of a legislative proposal requiring adaptation strategies now versus later.

2. Problem definition, policy context, and subsidiarity

2.1. Climate change and the need for adaptation

The increase in global surface temperature is the most obvious aspect of anthropogenic climate change. The average temperature for the European land area for the last decade (2002-2011) is 1.3°C above the preindustrial average, which makes the increase over Europe faster than the global average. Moreover, significant economic losses[6] and human fatalities associated with extreme weather events, such as heat waves, droughts and heavy precipitation, have been registered.

Climate change will continue for decades to come because of the delayed effect of past emissions. Even if all greenhouse-gas emissions were to stop today, we would still see major changes in the climate. Achieving the EU goal of limiting the rise of global mean temperature below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, which was agreed by Parties to the United Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2010 as part of the Cancun Agreements, would reduce the most serious risks of climate change. Yet, although international pledges help in reducing emissions to below a business-as-usual level in 2020, they are insufficient to ensure a “likely” chance of limiting global warming to 2°C[7]. Global mean temperature increases may therefore go beyond 2°C by the end of this century. We therefore have no choice but to deal with the unavoidable climate impacts and their economic, environmental and social costs.

Figure 1: Likely (>66%) temperature increase (T) during 21st century associated with emission pathways. Source (UNEP, 2011)

Managing the risks of climate change implies coupling mitigation efforts with adaptation to climate change, since the success of each is linked to the other. The results of today's mitigation efforts will determine the degree of adaptation required in the future. At the same time, reaching levels of adverse impacts that will be impossible to address through adaptation must be prevented through mitigation. Early action will save on damage costs later. Examples of actions include using scarce water and energy more efficiently, adapting existing building codes to stand future climate conditions and extreme weather events[8] or promoting green infrastructure, for instance in cities.

The recent EEA report on climate change impacts and vulnerability in Europe notably highlights that some studies estimate large economic costs for Europe. The minimum cost of not adapting to climate change is estimated to range from € 100 billion a year in 2020 to € 250 billion in 2050 for the EU as a whole[9]. Moreover, the PAGE09 Integrated Assessment Model[10] reports total damage costs equivalent to almost 4 % of GDP for Europe by 2100 under a 3 to 4°C scenario, with a risk of extremely large costs at the tails of the distribution (in excess of 10 % of GDP equivalent). Under a scenario equivalent to the 2°C target, these fall to under 1 % of GDP equivalent and, more importantly, remove the tail of extreme values. Some other modelling approaches report lower values.[11]

A recent study estimated the annual cost of adapting to global warming of modest level (+2°C compared to pre-industrial times) to between $70 and 100 billion (approximately €55-75 billion) worldwide between 2010 and 2050[12].

2.2. Who is affected, in what ways, and to what extent?

The need for climate change adaptation is a horizontal issue, affecting all economic sectors, environmental systems and citizens, to varying degrees[13].

2.2.1. Environmental challenges

Adaptation is particularly required to address climate impacts on water, soil, biodiversity and ecosystems. Challenges refer both to physical climate impacts and mutual dependencies across environmental systems, and to policy failures and knowledge gaps. On soil, climate change may aggravate erosion, decline in organic matter, salinization, soil biodiversity loss, landslides, and flooding. There is clear evidence to show that biodiversity is already responding to climate change and will continue to do so, though it it is unclear how and whether biological systems will be able to adapt to an unprecedented combination of fast climate change, its associated disturbances and other human-induced negative drivers. Assessments show vulnerability primarily arises where species are constrained in colonising new areas with suitable climate. In the future, climate change is likely to affect water availability and quality and global warming will probably increase both the number and magnitude of hydrological extremes. In river basins under severe water stress, there will be strong competition for scarce water resources between households, industry, agriculture, and nature.

2.2.2. Sectoral challenges

Investments in infrastructure or buildings are increasingly put at risk by changing climatic conditions and extreme weather events. Buildings and infrastructure can be vulnerable to climate change because of their design (low resistance to storms) or location (e.g. in flood-prone areas, landslides, avalanches). Flooding is one of the most costly kinds of disasters and this is mainly due to floods in built-up areas. There is also a growing problem with overheating of the built environment being exposed to rising temperatures and extreme heat, which is not only an issue for the construction material but also affects the occupant's comfort and health.

Experiences of past catastrophes and research results show clearly that extreme weather events today are not sufficiently addressed by transport systems and in particular by risk or emergency management procedures within the transport sector[14]. More intense and frequent heat waves will shift energy supply and demand patterns, often in opposite direction. For instance, in the cas of heat waves, supply will be lower due to decreased efficiency (for thermal plants), and decreased cooling water supply, while demand for air conditioning will increase. Higher magnitude and frequency of extreme weather events will cause threats for physical energy infrastructure (explicitly overhead transmission/distribution, but also other infrastructure – e.g. substations, transformers or fragile supply infrastructure).

Climatic conditions affect agriculture and the water resources needed to maintain stable production levels in many areas of Europe and food security. Impacts of climate change and variability largely depend on farm characteristics (e.g. intensity, size, land use), as they influence management types and adaptation. Effects of climate change include increased risk of biotic (pests and diseases) and abiotic (droughts, storms and fires) disturbances to forest health. However, the exact effects of climate change on forests are complex and not yet well understood.

The frequencey and intensity of most types of extreme event is expected to change significantly as a result of climate change (IPCC, 2012). In the short term, as long as due allowance is made for the underlying trend, premiums would rise gradually and the insurance market would absorb such changes without disruption. However, risk knowledge often advances in ‘steps’, which can lead to jumps in the price over a short period. In the longer term, particularly in sectors or areas where insurance has not been customary, climate change could create or exacerbate issues with correct pricing and availability.

2.2.3. Social challenges

Climate change is a significant threat to health. While the short- to medium-term impacts of climate change on health are mainly exacerbations of existing effects, projections for future impacts include an increase of heat-related mortality and illness as well as a higher burden from vector-, water- or food-borne diseases. Changes in weather/precipitation pattern and increases in extreme events are projected; therefore, more intense and frequent events are expected. Already in the past 20 years, 953 disasters killed nearly 88,671 people in Europe, affected more than 29 million others and caused approximately 250 billion Euros in economic losses[15]. Floods alone resulted in more than 2500 fatalities and affected more than 5.5. million people.

Europe's ageing population, disproportionately affected by reduced mobility or health impediments, will result in a higher share of the population being vulnerable to climate change impacts. Displacement of people due to climate change impacts presents a set of challenges including avoiding trapped populations, urbanisation, and managing free movement. Generally speaking, population groups with lower incomes and assets are more exposed to climate impacts but have less capacity to face them. For instance, women may be placed in a disadvantaged position when expensive adaptation measures are required.

Climate change will affect labour markets through the increase in adverse natural phenomena such as floods, heat waves, and variations in precipitation levels. On the labour market supply side, climate change may affect workforce availability due to a decrease in the health conditions of the population and additional occupational health constraints (higher temperature at work, more frequent and intense natural hazards keeping people from reaching their work place). On the demand side, several economic sectors are highly vulnerable because of their dependence on regular climate conditions. Sectoral production shifts – in agriculture and tourism for instance – are expected as a consequence of climate change[16]. Major investments in adaptation could offer employment and income opportunities in activities such as reinforcing coastal defences, buildings and (green) infrastructure, water management and relocation of exposed settlements[17]. Yet, great uncertainty remains regarding the possible net job creation effects of such investments. Skills upgrading will be necessary to grasp these opportunities.

2.2.4. Territorial challenges

Because of Europe's territorial diversity, climate impacts vary from region to region and are also very specific to the local situations. Some changes could provide time- and territorial-specific benefits (through better crop yields or increased tourism) while others will be detrimental to economic activities and the social fabric. This imbalance also holds on a broader level (see Figure 2).

Moreover, continuous changes in climatic conditions lead to widespread climate impacts, e.g. changes in species composition, damage to ecosystems and their services as well as to infrastructure associated with socio-economic consequences for European society and an increased need for disaster operations in many parts of Europe.

Figure 2: Impacts of climate change across Europe. Source: EEA 2012

Home to more than 70% of our population, cities[18] play a crucial role for Europe's economy. Cities are exposed to a range of social and economic pressures which have the potential to worsen the impacts of climate change and increase the vulnerability of particular groups. For instance, soil sealing affects the vulnerability and resilience of cities and areas to climate change, as it is an important factor in the urban heat island effect. Similarly, climate change can magnify the pre-existing socio-economic challenges that cities face such as social exclusion or demographic change[19].

Climate risks in coastal zones include sea-level rise, changes in sea surface temperature leading to adverse weather anomalies, increased erosion or ocean acidification. In drier areas, drought and desertification are expected to increase. In the mountainous regions, temperatures are increasing at a faster rate than in other bio-geographical regions. Additionally, threats to local communities are expected to increase when avalanches, flash floods, landslides and rock falls become more common. Climatic risks are also likely to exacerbate the socio-economic challenges that rural areas face. Rural areas – which still make most of the EU's land area and represent an important share of employment – are exposed to a wide range of impacts such as those affecting agriculture, forestry, tourism, and infrastructure. The EU's outermost regions are particularly vulnerable to different types of extreme weather events (e.g. floods, drought and cyclones) and to sea-level rise.

2.2.5. Potential vulnerability to climate change in Europe

Exposure[20] to climate change and sensitivity to this exposure jointly determine climate change impacts, and impacts together with the adaptive capacity of a system determine climate change vulnerability. Exposure refers to the nature and degree to which a system is exposed to significant climatic variations, for example, the extent of warming observed. Sensitivity captures the degree to which the system is affected by changes in climate parameters, for example, the share of GDP of climate-sensitive sectors such as agriculture. Adaptive capacity refers to the ability of a system to deal with the potential impacts, for example, the quality of emergency services in a country.

Various methodologies are used to assess climate change vulnerability across the EU. Due to the uncertainty of climate projections and all subsequent analyses one may only speak of ‘potential vulnerability’. As an illustration, the potential vulnerability of Europe’s regions to climate change is depicted in Figure 3. It shows potential negative impacts on the territorial cohesion objectives of the EU. Climate change will trigger a deepening of the existing socio-economic imbalances.

Figure 3: Potential aggregate impact, adaptive capacity and vulnerability to climate change. Source: ESPON Climate (2011), in EEA: climate change impacts and vulnerability in Europe (2012)

2.3. Policy context

2.3.1. EU initiatives

The 2009 White Paper on adaptation to climate change called for a comprehensive EU Adaptation Strategy to be adopted by 2013. The 2009 White Paper included 33 actions to be implemented by end of 2012. Most actions announced in the 2009 White Paper have now been implemented or are in the process of being so. Yet, further action is needed along the main objectives identified in the White Paper. More specifically, on knowledge gaps, further EU-funded and national research is needed to fill gaps on methods, models, data sets and forecasting tools, in order to improve the understanding of current and expected climate impacts, vulnerabilities and adaptation options. On assessing the cost and benefit of adaptation options, some progress has been made at microeconomic level, but important gaps remain on the macroeconomic approach to model adaptation and assess their implications. No detailed assessment is available yet on the impacts of climate change and adaptation policies on employment and on the well-being of vulnerable social groups, though some progress has been made in the context of the recently adopted Employment package, especially through work on green jobs.[21] Mainstreaming adaptation needs to be reinforced into some of the areas already highlighted as of key importance in the 2009 White Paper. This applies to the EU energy policy, for climate-proofing EU-funded infrastructure projects, and on the potential for insurance and other financial products to complement adaptation measures.

The 2011 Commission proposal for the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2014-2020 recognises mainstreaming as the MFF’s favoured approach to facilitate the necessary contribution to a low-carbon economy and building resilience of sectors and policy domains[22]. It also includes a minimum contribution of 20% for climate related expenditure and that all EU funds will need to take climate change into account in their funding allocation decisions.

Contrary to the White Paper, the EU Adaptation Strategy will not consider international issues, that is, climate change adaptation in the rest of the world, as this is covered under the development and cooperation policy and through the UNFCCC negotiations.

2.3.2. Adaptation policies at Member State level

By January 2013, 15 EU Member States have adopted an adaptation policy (strategy and/or plan)[23]:

Figure 4: Member States with (in green) and without (in orange) an adapted adaptation strategy in March 2013. Source: climate-adapt

Some of the adaptation strategies in place have action plans of varying levels of detail. Most adaptation strategies are being implemented (or will be implemented) by government / inter-ministerial committees or working groups. This approach confirms an acceptance of adaptation as something that must be implemented by stakeholders at all levels and in all areas of society, and not something to be pursued in isolation of other policy objectives, programmes and services.

Each of the adaptation strategies has been developed with sectoral focus. Integration and mainstreaming adaptation with existing national programmes and policies is central to all of them. Communication and awareness raising is another key principle of each of the adaptation strategy. Member States acknowledge that without effective communication and awareness raising, the adaptation strategy will not be successful.

Only one of the adaptation strategies in place considers transboundary issues, i.e. those issues affecting neighbouring countries: Belgium. In contrast, nine adaptation strategies consider international issues, that is the need to adapt to changes taking place in other parts of the world.

2.3.3. Transnational, regional and local adaptation efforts

No complete picture of adaptation efforts at regional or local level in the EU exists, though it is known that some regions have adopted regional climate change strategies in some cases dealing both with mitigation and adaptation, in others with adaptation only[24]. There are some examples of joint adaptation projects between several European countries or cities in different countries. These are often partially financed by EU-funds such as the Life+ and programmes co-financed under the 'European Territorial Cooperation 2007-2013' objective. In addition, both transnational cooperation programmes 2007-2013 and macro-regional strategies have started working on transboundary adaptation challenges (e.g. Danube and Baltic Sea strategies[25], transnational cooperation programme 'Alpine Space'[26]).

Cities are important drivers of adaptation activities at local and regional levels. Some cities in Europe have already adopted adaptation strategies or action plans or are in the process of developing them. In several Member States, cities are cooperating with other cities on mitigation and adaptation issues, including sector-specific adaptation strategies and plans.[27]

2.4. What are the specific problems that require additional action?

2.4.1. Knowledge and access to information gaps

What is the problem?

Adaptation to climate change is a relatively new policy area and the level of information is irregular. The uncertainty regarding the future impacts of climate change and related adaptation needs remains one of the most important cross-cutting challenges for policy making in this area. Global, EU and national research projects have improved our understanding of climate change impacts, vulnerabilities and adaptation over the past few years. However, data and knowledge gaps are still a major issue. The following topics represent relevant information barriers and knowledge gaps to adaptation activities:

- Information on projected damage and adaptation costs and benefits;

- Regional and local-level analyses and risk assessments;

- Frameworks, models and tools to support decision making within uncertainty and to assess the effectiveness of adaptation measures;

- Monitoring and evaluation of past adaptation efforts;

- Socio-economic trends that are interrelatedt with climatic changes;

As an example, Table 1 summarises the current knowledge on adaptation costs and benefits across sectors. Obvious gaps have been identified, for instance for business and industry.

Table 1: Coverage of adaptation studies in Europe (Selection). Source: ClimateCost project (www.climatecost.cc/).

Sector || Coverage || Cost estimates || Benefit estimates

Coastal zones || Very high coverage (infrastructure/erosion) for Europe, regions, several Member States as cities/local examples || +++ || +++

Agriculture || High coverage of farm level adaptation benefits, as well as on costs of climate change, but less on adaptation || ++ || ++

Health || Low – medium. Adaptation costs for heat alert and food-borne disease, but less coverage of other health risks || + ||

Water || Low-medium. Limited number of national, river basin, or subnational studies on water supply || + ||

Tourism || Low-medium. Studies on winter tourism (Alps) and some studies of autonomous adaptation from changing summer tourism flows. || ++ || +

Biodiversity / eco-system services || Low- limited number of quantitative studies || + ||

Business and industry || Very low – no quantitative studies found || ||

Generating knowledge is only a first step. Once the information is available, it needs to be properly disseminated. Access to detailed data and reliable information is essential for a correct risk assessment. Knowledge of environmental issues improved over time, but according to a recent Eurobarometer survey, still around 40% of European citizens consider themselves badly-informed on environmental issues, indicating that considerable work is still needed to raise awareness and spread knowledge. To take a concrete sectoral example, a key challenge is to integrate findings from the physical and agronomic sciences with local knowledge from farmers, so as to develop robust and practical adaptation strategies, which, over a range of climate and socio-economic scenarios, can minimize the negative impacts of climate change.[28]

The main tool for dissemination of knowledge on adaptation in the EU, the web portal Climate-ADAPT, already provides information from various sources, including observed and expected climate change in Europe, vulnerability of regions and sectors at present and in the future, disaster risk management, information on national and transnational adaptation strategies, case examples of adaptation and potential future adaptation options, tools that support adaptation planning, an overview of relevant EU policy processes. Further work is however needed, for instance for engaging platform users to upload relevant information. In particular, there is a lack of organised collection of data and information from the local and regional level, as well as of private sectors' initiatives. At national level, comprehensive adaptation portals exist in 6 Member States (AT, DE, DK, FI, SE, UK), while more limited adaptation portals are available in 8 more Member States.

Enabling societies to adapt to climate change will require establishing systems that transfer relevant information both from the national to the local level and vice versa[29]. Science-policy interfaces (SPIs) aim to bridge relations between scientists and other actors in the policy process, which allow for exchanges, co-evolution, and joint construction of knowledge with the aim of enriching decision-making. Experience (e.g. in the Forestry sector) has shown that increased networking between scientists and policy-makers are important for improving communication in the science/policy interface. Given the relatively new nature of adaptation policies and the important knowledge gaps currently faced, the development of science-policy interfaces can contribute to better information dissemination and to increase capacity-building. At the EU level, a number of SPI research projects have been set up, in particular on agriculture, biodiversity, marine and water issues. In addition to the EU funded projects, there are some regional and national level initiatives taking place[30]. However, most SPIs have not yet taken up the issues of climate change adaptation into their work.

What are the drivers?

In order to use synergies and decrease costs, comprehensive and most recent information on climate change impacts and adaptation with relevance for many European countries (e.g. EU-wide vulnerability assessment, compilation of adaptation options) needs to be generated, provided and disseminated centrally. However, an insufficient level of cooperation at EU level as well as with Member States and stakeholders does not allow identifying most pressing issues and avoiding overlaps and inefficiencies in defining and funding research projects. In addition, knowledge on adaptation remains an evolving problem which requires regular interactions to identify new priorities.

Climate-ADAPT, as well as other national portals, are still at an early stage of development. It initially focused on coverage of adaptation at EU level, as well as on relevant policies and good practice examples. Yet, time and political attention will be needed to improve the existing tool. Moreover, national adaptation platforms are costly to develop and financial and administrative barriers may hamper their effective development. One of the reasons for developing Climate-ADAPT was the lack of financial resources in Member States[31]. A lack of institutions and working groups on adaptation also hampers the necessary science policy interfaces to maximise experience transfer.

Stakeholders' views:

Lack of knowledge, especially on the benefits of specific adaptation measures, has been identified as a major barrier by many stakeholders, both via meetings and via the online public consultation. In particular, research was considered as needing to be better integrated into EU policy making, making better use of EU funded research results. Although no formal assessment exists yet of the respective merits of Climate-ADAPT, stakeholders mentioned that the Adaptation Strategy should enhance the sharing of experiences and good practice on climate change adaptation, which can be provided by strengthening the European platform on climate change adaptation, Climate-ADAPT. It experienced a very high web use/traffic during and immediately after the launch, ranking high compared to launches of other EEA products

2.4.2. Gaps in adaptation action at sub-EU level

What is the problem?

Article 4.1 (b) and (e) of the UNFCCC recommend in a broad and non-prescriptive manner the formulation and implementation of programmes containing measures to facilitate adaptation to climate change, a recommendation not even followed by all Member States. Still, the UNFCCC "affirms that enhanced action on adaptation should … follow a country-driven, gender-sensitive, participatory and fully transparent approach, taking into consideration vulnerable groups, communities and ecosystems, and should be based on and guided by the best available science, …, with a view to integrating adaptation into relevant social, economic and environmental policies and actions"[32]. National governments have an important stake in adaptation because climate change directly affects a wide range of services, operations, programmes, or assets (e.g., infrastructure, land). Moreover, climate change impacts will affect different regions differently and it is the role of the national authorities to provide a national response to these questions.

Adaptation strategies are the most effective instrument in preparing Member States to assess impacts, vulnerability and adaptation options and thus to face the projected impacts of climate change across sectors. Unlike mitigation, there is not a one size-fits-all solution for adaptation. Each Member State will experience different effects and impacts of climate change (e.g. precipitation could increase or decrease, depending on locations), vulnerability is also country-specific, derived from particular physical (environmental), social and economic features. And the way of planning and implementing adaptation is also specific to the particular governance system of each Member State. Effective adaptation to climate change requires mainstreaming it along a large number of policies. This needs to be coordinated or allowed by the executive or legislative powers.

Some Member States are active in the adaptation policy field but the following gaps have been identified: i/ almost half of Member States have not yet adopted an adaptation strategy; ii/ the level of efforts and the level of detail provided differs widely among Member States; iii/ almost none of the adaptation strategies in place deal with transboundary issues, or employment or social issues; iv/ the funding of adaptation options remains vague in many cases; v/ only a third of Member States have implemented an impacts, vulnerabilities and adaptation assessment to support policy; and vi/ only two Member States have made substantial progress in developing indicators and monitoring methodologies. The fact that a Member State has developed a strategy or an action plan does not necessarily imply that it is based on solid science and research, nor that the plan contains precise implementation measures or sufficient funding has been planned.

In some Member States, regions have wide management and planning powers. Yet, regional adaptation strategies are not widespread and not very well communicated.

The same is true for adaptation across Europe’s cities. Preliminary findings from the Adaptation Strategies for European Cities[33] show that around a quarter (24%) of the 100 cities or so surveyed so far report that an adaptation strategy has been adopted in their city. While a few cities believe they are well prepared (e.g. Rotterdam, Aalborg and Copenhagen), acting above and beyond their respective national governments, there are also cities that clearly need more support and guidance in order to adapt effectively (just under half the cities surveyed believe they are still in the very early stages of work on adaptation). Adaptation remains a new policy area for many city administrations.

What are the drivers?

Understanding of the concept of climate change adaptation by policy-makers still remains a barrier. Guidelines for developing regional climate change adaptation strategies are available[34], but a special focus on adaptation strategies at Member State level is still lacking. Insufficient human and financial resources at all levels are a major barrier, more so under the current economic climate. Financing is a particular issue for adaptation as specific studies need to be commissioned and budgets do not always allow for this. Even when research results exist, some Member States find it difficult to compile, collect and organize existing information with relevance for adaptation to climate change, notably in the absence of a national climate change adaptation portal.

Additional instruments are required to internalise the cross-border externalities of climate change adaptation. Some adaptation responses provide benefits or costs to other Member States. For example, activities such as defences against sea-level rise, building harbours, beach nourishment, dredging etc. do change coastal dynamics and can have an impact on neighbouring states. Coordinating instruments are therefore needed for a better integration of transboundary issues in national policy-making.

One key barrier for cities and governments trying to address adaptation is a lack of cross-sectoral collaboration within authorities and a prevailing “silo mentality”. Whilst adaptation plans are developed by climate change departments, they do not filter into e.g. land use planning, and are not always mainstreamed in other sectoral policies, which may not see the links between adaptation and their own policy objectives.

Stakeholders' views:

A large majority of stakeholders see the need to enhance awareness of the actual and potential consequences of climate change and the need and possibilities for adaptation to climate change at regional/ local level. There is expectation from some Member States that the European Commission will deliver an external ‘push’ for action.

2.4.3. Gaps in adaptation uptake in key sectors

What is the problem?

To favour synergies and decrease the costs of adaptation, the EU has recognised the need to foster mainstreaming into all EU sectoral policies:

Adaptation has already been mainstreamed in legislation in such sectors as marine waters[35], forestry[36], and transport[37]; and in important policy instruments such as inland water[38], biodiversity[39] and migration and mobility[40].

In addition, the Commission has tabled legal proposals on integrating adaptation in agriculture and forestry[41], maritime spatial planning and integrated coastal management[42], energy[43], disaster risk prevention and management[44], transport[45], research, health[46], and the environment[47].

Forthcoming policy initiatives, in areas such as invasive alien species (2013), green infrastructure (2013), land as a resource (2014-15), and a new Forest Strategy (2013) are also expected to consider adaptation. Guidelines on adaptation and coastal zone management are being formulated (2014), and guidelines on adaptation and the Natura 2000 network are shortly to be issued (2013).

So far, European policies help address some of the transboundary issues associated with climate change. For instance, the Floods Directive and the Water Framework Directive promote transboundary cooperation in the water sector. Also, European and pan-European early warning and detection systems for weather-driven natural disasters exist such as the European Flood Awareness System, the European Forest Fire Information System and the European Drought Observatory.

Despite significant achievements, mainstreaming of climate adaptation is not yet recognised in policies dealing with social and education policies, tourism, fisheries, insurance and trade. In the case of energy, transport, disaster risk reduction or health additional efforts are needed. The 2009 White Paper proposed guidelines on adaptation and coastal zone management, which have not yet been developed.

Due to the long life spans of much of our energy, transport and buildings infrastructure and their great economic value, their preparedness for current and increasing future impacts of climate change is critical. For some EU policy areas, climate resilience has already been taken up as a parameter in cost-benefit analyses during the project development phase[48]. However, there is no general requirement to do so, neither in terms of assessing the costs and benefits of a project, nor when defining the technical characteristics of a project. In 2010, more than 1.5 million housing permits were issued in the EU, and construction started on close to 1 million homes. While some adaptive measures can be retrofitted cost-effectively (e.g. to save water), others are best incorporated into the design of the building. The IPCC identifies the enforcement of building codes as a low-regret measure that can reduce exposure and vulnerability to hazards and change. For municipal governments, adoption of building codes in disaster-prone areas reduces damages by US$ 108 (84€) per square meter for homes built from 1996 to 2004 in Florida[49]. In addition, green infrastructure, or ecosystem based approaches, can often be cost-effective options to increase resilience of a specific area, for instance green roofs in cities. Strengthening the implementation of green infrastructure has just been taken up by the Communication on a Blueprint to Safeguard Europe’s Water.

In addition to the physical risks it brings, climate change will affect areas such as supply chains, logistics and raw materials costs, in turn impacting on companies' profits. The impacts from these risks are systemic (at the whole economy level), sector / industry-wide or company-specific. Climate-resilience of business operations and supply chains is therefore essential. Although there is evidence of on-the-ground adaptation[50] this is mainly from multinational corporations and there is little evidence of adaptation in SMEs outside those sectors most exposed to climate and current weather variability and extremes, e.g. the water sector or agriculture. Companies (and particularly SMEs) are discouraged by the often high initial costs of infrastructure changes as they focus on short-term returns, and ignore environmental risks. At the same time, SMEs are also discouraged to adopt a pro-active stance as autonomous providers of services and products for adaptation because of limited knowledge, information and technical support, expertise, time and resources[51]. A coherent framework of policies and regulations is necessary for effective decisions on adaptation, providing the right incentives and helping address potential barriers.

Climate adaptation is not only an instrument contributing to maintain the EU's macro-economic stability and growth, but it is also a growing market, with expected business opportunities for European firms on the EU and global markets. Thus, adaptation will create new demand and market opportunities and increase need for innovation. For instance, with increased water scarcity envisaged, the need for irrigation will continue. While innovations in irrigation appear to reduce downstream employment opportunities due to more efficient techniques, the European companies can grasp opportunities from selling water-efficient agricultural irrigation technologies worldwide. Approximately 28% of cropland is now under irrigation, with half of this located in Asia[52]. But European companies will need to improve their products and invest in R&D to compete to existing and forthcoming competitors from Asia.

What are the drivers?

First, some of the actions undertaken in the context of the implementation phase of the 2009 White Paper have not yet achieved their initial objectives, because the initial knowledge gaps were too significant. For instance, additional EU-funded projects have allowed a better understanding of adaptation costs and benefits for coastal zones and river floods, but not yet for forestry issues. Second, only a limited number of EU legislative acts are considering climate change, and always following the normal revision cycle of EU legislation. For instance, the EIA Directive is under revision and clearer provisions relevant for climate change have been proposed, but the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive (which arguably also needs to include climate change adaptation considerations) has not been revised yet. Third, there are sometimes inconsistencies between adaptation and some other EU policy objectives, for instance when EU policies provide incentives for additional use of water resources in areas prone to an increase in the frequency of droughts.

There is no common methodology or guidance in place to systematically assess the climate resilience of infrastructure projects and improve their sustainability and liability in changing climate conditions. The work on design standards has remained uneven, in particular due to the coordination resources required to address the issue of climate change adaptation considerations in the thousands of design-standards potentially affected.

A number of barriers prevent the private sector from taking appropriate adaptation actions and future-proofing their business, among which the current economic conditions which are particularly unfavourable to long-term investments, especially for SMEs. The lack of accurate, reliable information, networking and exchange of experience also hinders the uptake of adaptation investment because of a lack of awareness of climate-change related risks. Moreover, almost none of the adaptation strategies currently in place at Member State level consider the explicit role and constraints faced by the private sector. Yet, as reiterated in the concluding remarks of the Informal Environment Council of 7-8 July in Cyprus,[53] Member States stressed the need for a balanced approach, so that adaptation is undertaken by a variety of actors, including individuals, communities, businesses and the private sector, civil society and governments. They also emphasised that reliable funding, both public and private, is a key for implementing any policies, plans or measures, and that the private sector had a key role to play in this context, both through private equity funds and the provision of technical expertise.

Stakeholders' views:

A consistent and comprehensive mainstreaming of adaptation is seen by all stakeholders as a priority. According to respondents, the sector with the highest relevance for improving Europe's resilience to the adverse impacts of climate change is water, followed by agriculture and rural development, nature conservation, energy and transport. Respondents identified the ‘contradictory requirements from different EU policies’ as a barrier. They also ranked improving the climate resilience of infrastructure investments as being very relevant. Financial constraints have been mentioned as barriers to the uptake of adaptation action. The business sectors' respondents to the online consultation rank the "short-term vs. long-term horizon" issue as the most important barrier to the uptake of adaptation action. In that respect, financial institutions and insurance companies are considered to have a key role to play in providing adequate incentives to companies.

2.5. How would the problems evolve by 2020 without further EU action?

2.5.1. Knowledge and access to information gaps

The EEA has just adopted a report on climate change impacts and vulnerability in Europe[54]. At international level, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 5th assessment report will be adopted in 2014 and will provide the state of the art on expected impacts, adaptation and vulnerability at global level. In addition, the Commission proposal for Horizon 2020 includes ambitious research objectives on climate change in general, and climate change adaptation in particular. Moreover, the Commission's proposals for the next MFF allow for Member States to draw on the 2014-2020 Cohesion Policy and CAP to address the knowledge gap and invest in the needed analyses, risk assessment, tools and build up capacities for adaptation.

Yet, without additional efforts to identify knowledge gaps and coordinate research efforts among European and national institutions, some overlaps in research projects are expected, and knowledge gaps would not be addressed in the most effective way. To take one example, between 2009 and 2012, various projects have looked at the costs and benefits of adaptation at EU level, but limited progress has been made, as this information remains still mainly available for river floods and coastal areas. Even if funding is available, a lack of coordination in research activities would have indirect economic social and environmental implications, as not enough information would be made available for decision-making on resilience to climate change in the EU.

The Climate-ADAPT platform makes available information on adaptation to climate change in Europe. Climate-ADAPT already experienced a very high web use/traffic during and immediately after the launch, ranking high compared to launches of other EEA products. Yet, no longer-term programme for the platform has been approved. Without additional action, it is not expected that the coverage of Climate-ADAPT would change fundamentally, which would lead to significant gaps, in particular on local or regional issues. This is particularly problematic for stakeholders, in particular the private sector, in those Member States who have not developed yet a climate adaptation web-portal. Science-policy interfaces will continue addressing climate change adaptation on ad hoc basis and the mainstreaming of adaptation in sectoral SPIs will remain limited. Therefore, any progress on research in adaptation faces the risk of remaining unacessible to decision makers, in particular in those sectors where no science policy interface could be detected, such as energy or transport. It will also be extremely difficult for practitioners to report to researchers on their adaptation expertise on the ground.

2.5.2. Gaps in adaptation action at sub-EU level

Some new developments at national, regional and local level are expected in the years to come. However, without additional action, the barriers currently preventing national, regional or local authorities from developing ambitious adaptation strategies are likely to remain. When there is no adaptation strategy, a lack of resources will prevent the necessary groundwork from being undertaken, potentially delaying the adoption of a strategy. This is in particular the case in Southern and Central European Countries in economic crisis. In most cases, precisely these counties are likely to face significant impacts of climate change earlier than elsewhere in Europe. From among these countries, Cyprus, Greece, Bulgaria, Slovenia and Romania appear to not have started yet the development of a comprehensive adaptation strategy, whereas Italy, Slovakia and Czech Republic are expected to finalise planning processes in 2013 or later in the next year(s).

An unprepared Member State faces higher risks of significant economic, social and environmental losses. To illustrate the above assertion, one can compare France’s response to the 2003 heat wave compared with Greece’s response to the 2007 wildfires. France subsequently set out to improve its ability to respond by developing an early warning system. Greece was much slower in addressing institutional shortcomings, and as a result found itself once again vulnerable when the problem reappeared in 2009.[55]

For those Member States having already adopted an adaptation strategy, the lack of funding would mean that the strategies would not be translated into the necessary action plans. That is, even if an adaptation strategy is in place, the absence of concrete action, inadequate incentives or previous infrastructure investment decisions may leave some regions or Member States in vulnerable situations. For instance, in February 2010, the storm Xynthia hit the French Atlantic coast. In combination with the high tide and large waves, it caused the failure of flood defences, which led to the flooding of more than 50 000 ha. 53 people died because of the storm itself or the flooding and the cost of the damages is estimated around 2.5 billion €, a human and economic cost much higher than the impacts of Xynthia in Spain or Portugal.

Moreover, climate change in one region can have repercussions elsewhere. For instance, the summer 2010 heat-wave in Russia was one of the drivers leading[56] to an increase in the price of staple goods like pasta and bread all over Europe because Russia’s wheat crops failed. It also contributed to inflation differentials across the Euro area, as Member States were diversely affected by an increase in import prices for agricultural products from Russia, the Baltic States being particularly sensitive to this increase.

Although the quantification of loss from a lack of strategy in each Member State is not possible, the risk is that effective adaptation actions would not take place across all Member States at similar pace, or that the approach followed and recommendations given would be inconsistent. An issue explored in the JRC PESETA II project is the extent to which climate impacts affecting part of Europe (because adaptation measures are not taken) could affect the rest of Europe due to trade effects. Two counterfactual situations were simulated, where it was assumed that only one EU region would face the impacts of climate change[57] . In both cases, there appears to be additional welfare loss in the rest of the EU, equivalent to 20-30% of the welfare loss experienced in the region directly affected.

Transboundary issues have a broader scope and create interdependencies between countries (e.g. hydrological, social and economic ones in the case of water). For instance, ecological corridors and ‘stepping stones’ have to be planned and managed across national boundaries. Moreover, food security or global supply chain issues can require cross-border cooperation to diversify import sources.

Yet, under no policy change, transboundary issues will remain a gap in most of the strategies, which can lead to conflicting adaptation responses and would not provide for an effective approach to tackle common risks. Cross-border and transnational coordination will continue under the European Territorial Co-operation, but will remain mostly not linked with national and sub-national adaptation policy developments as having their focus on joint management of programmes and projects.

In addition, an inadequate level of preparedness at national, regional or local level would have implications on the effectiveness and sustainability of EU Funding. Investments made (e.g. in agriculture, infrastructure, biodiversity) in unprepared countries could lead to inefficient expenditure. Cohesion Policy contributed over the period 2007-2013 to more than 10% of public investments in Europe. Yet, out of the ten Member States having the higher share of EU funds to their public investments, only two have adopted an adaptation strategy (Portugal and Malta).[58] The risk is therefore that the EU would fund investments that are vulnerable to climate change.

In addition, national support and funding is necessary to finance adaptation action at local level. The absence of such support will increase existing disparities with respect to the potential vulnerabilities to climate change at regional and local level. Moreover, the impacts of climate change on cities are characterised by their interlinked, and often transboundary nature. Thus even those better prepared cities could be affected by other locations which suffer as a result of being poorly adapted.

2.5.3. Gaps in adaptation uptake in key sectors

Without additional mainstreaming, some of the EU and Member States' policy objectives will become more difficult / costlier to achieve. To take two examples, in addition to the discussion on infrastructure that follows, most of the existing social policies do not explicitly address the climatic change impacts on the social domain, which can be expected in the future, and which could hamper the achievements of the social pillar of the Europe 2020 Strategy. Moreover, recent analytical research shows that there is currently an overall low market penetration rate of disaster insurance in Member States,[59] which can have a negative impact on the sector itself, but also on the economic value of the insured and non-insured assets, and therefore on the competitiveness of European firms. By combining penetration rates with damages associated with extreme weather events, potential vulnerable Member States have been identified, such as BG, AT and SI in terms of flood risks or BG, GR, IT and RO in terms of storm risks.

In addition, in order to meet the objective of a minimum contribution of 20% for climate related expenditure in EU Funds, additional attention must be given to the implementing measures accompanying broad policy objectives, for instance, on how to use the proposed Common Strategic Framework (now referred to as the European Structural and Investment) funds. Whereas some minimum guaranteed share of funding is proposed for cohesion policy to support mitigation measures such as energy efficiency and renewable energy, in particular in more developed and transitional regions, there is no similar earmarking of funds for adaptation, except for the overall objective of having at least 20% climate-related expenditure overall for the future EU budget. Where possible, priority should be given to options that realise important synergies with climate change mitigation or bring about co-benefits for other sectors such as industry, transport, water management and social inclusion. This would help to promote climate adaptation under different thematic objectives.

Without further EU action, considerations about current and future impacts of climate change for new infrastructure investments will remain vague. This is problematic as already now, climate hazards have an impact on buildings and infrastructure. For instance, the ClimateCost project estimates the expected annual damage of river floods at €20 billion annually by 2020. Analysis at the country level shows high climate-related costs in the UK, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands and Belgium. The study also assessed the costs and benefits of adaptation. The benefits of these minimum protection levels are estimated at €9.2 billion/year by the 2020s. Moreover, the construction of new developments in flood-prone areas is likely to continue as room for settlements is limited in many European countries. The non-inclusion of climate change adaptation considerations could imply lower investment costs in the short term, but higher increasing maintenance/reconstruction costs in the medium to long term. To take one example, the FP7 WEATHER project provides estimates of costs associated with extreme weather events on transport (~2.2 billion €/yr.) largely explained by damages to road infrastructure (80%). Such costs are expected to increase by 24 to 47%, depending on the climate scenario, by 2040-2100. Moreover, negative interactions with 2020 climate change mitigation objectives would occur: the absence of retrofitting could mean that old buildings will need to be cooled with some use of fossil fuel, leading to additional emissions, thus further accelerating climate change and enhancing the need for adaptation.

Limited efforts have been made at national level to further climate-proof design standards, as reported in the context of a consultation of national standardisation bodies.[60] Climate change impacts are often local by nature, but the lack of harmonised approach on standards at EU level will create potential technical barriers to trade. Moreover, the IPCC (2012) recalls examples of highly variable enforcement of building codes by municipalities, becoming a limiting factor in disaster risk management and adaptation.

Some of the largest transnational corporations, and those in certain sectors, have begun to appreciate the potential threat and opportunity presented by climate change. However by 2020, in particular many SMEs will be unable to make the necessary adaptation measures making them increasingly vulnerable to the effects of unavoidable climate change. In the absence of measures from the EU to increase adaptive capacity, the gap between large corporations and SMEs will widen – possibly creating market obstacles for those left behind[61]. Without adequate public policy on adaptation, such changes would lead to unnecessary additional frictions on the labour market.

2.6. Does the EU have the right to act and is EU added-value evident for enhancing climate resilience?

The legal basis for adaptation action is Article 192(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Combating climate change is now explicitly referred to in the Lisbon Treaty.

EU intervention in the field of climate change adaptation must respect the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. While a “one-size-fits-all” approach to adaptation is clearly not appropriate, there is a key role for – and significant benefits to be gained from – integrated, coordinated EU adaptation action to complement national, regional and local efforts.

The EU can coordinate efforts to identify knowledge gaps and support specific research programmes on adaptation through focused project calls. EU-wide programmes promote economies of scale in research, data gathering, knowledge transfer and capacity-building. The EU can also facilitate further science-policy interaction to facilitate the adoption of effective measures at national or subnational levels.

The EU can promote adaptation action covering the whole EU territory, since lack of preparedness or inaction in one Member State may have negative consequences for neighbouring countries. It is clear that climate change will impact everywhere, irrespective of administrative boundaries. Many of the adaptation measures required have cross-border dimensions (e.g. for river basins and bio-geographic regions). There is a role for the EU in promoting and coordinating such cross-border adaptation action.

At the same time, the EU has a responsibility to integrate adaptation into its own policies and financial programmes, given its competence in areas such as water, agriculture, biodiversity, health etc. and the implications this has for Member States policies. This includes ensuring that adaptation action is consistent with mitigation and vice versa.

Fundamental rights will also be affected by climate change and climate change adaptation policies. Climate change impacts such as sea-level rise, flooding or storm surges, threaten individuals' safety and security on a large scale and have effects on the right to life and the right to the integrity of the person (Title I, art. 2 and 3 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights), as well as on the right to property (Title II, art. 17). In particular, women are likely to be disproportionately affected by climate change as social exclusion has a strong gender bias that increases their vulnerability to climate change, as they have fewer means on average (Title III, art. 23). Elderly people and children are disadvantaged also in terms of health (greater exposition to injury, death and destitution as a result of extreme weather events) or ability to migrate (restrictions on mobility). In a global perspective, climate change will also jeopardise the fundamental right to an environment capable of supporting human society and the full enjoyment of human rights (Title IV, art. 37 of the Charter).

3. Objectives

3.1. What are the general and more specific/operational objectives?

3.1.1. General objective

The general aim of the EU Adaptation Strategy is to contribute effectively to a more climate resilient Europe. This means enhancing the preparedness and capacity to respond to the impacts of climate change of the EU and its Member States, down to the local level. Particular attention is given to transboundary issues and sectors that are closely integrated at EU level through common policies.

3.1.2. Specific and operational objectives

To meet this general objective, and to address the problems listed above, three specific objectives have been identified, each one broken down into two operational objectives.

Better informed decision making: the EU Adaptation Strategy should further the understanding of adaptation, improve and widen the knowledge base where knowledge gaps have been identified and enhance dissemination of adaptation-related information.

Operational objective 1a: by 2020, priority knowledge gaps identified in 2013 have been closed

Operational objective 1b: by 2020, communication tools allow for available information on climate change adaptation to be more easily accessible for decision-makers, including Member States, local authorities and firms.

Increasing the resilience of the EU territory: the EU Adaptation Strategy should promote adaptation action at sub-EU level, and support and facilitate exchange and coordination. In doing so, the Strategy should address cross-border climate impacts and adaptation measures.

Operational objective 2a: by 2017, all Member States have adopted (an) Adaptation Strateg(y)ies, complemented by regional or local adaptation strategies when appropriate.

Operational objective 2b: by 2020, cities of more than 150,000 inhabitants have adopted an adaptation strategy

Increasing the resilience of key vulnerable sectors: The EU Adaptation Strategy should develop initiatives for a consistent and comprehensive integration of climate change adaptation considerations into sectors that are closely integrated at EU level through common policies.

Operational objective 3a: by 2020, adaptation considerations have been mainstreamed in a consistent and comprehensive way in key EU policies.

Operational objective 3b: by 2020, new major infrastructure investments are climate-proofed.

3.2. Consistency with EU policies and horizontal objectives of the European Union

The EU Adaptation Strategy supports the overarching EU objectives of a smart, sustainable and inclusive growth as stated in the Europe 2020 – Europe’s growth strategy. The strategy falls under the Resource-Efficient Europe flagship initiative.

The EU Adaptation Strategy is part of a broader climate change response strategy, which includes mitigation efforts and adaptation actions. Mitigation aims at reducing GHG emissions, the ultimate cause of climatic change. Mitigation then implies interventions in order to avoid the most serious impacts associated with continuing, longer-term changes in the climate system as well as limiting the risks of large-scale discontinuities in that system. Adaptation aims particularly at reducing unavoidable negative impacts already in the shorter term, reducing vulnerability to present, near and far future climate variability, and exploiting opportunities provided by climate change. Moreover, in several cases, adaptation activities can simultaneously produce mitigation benefits, while sustaining production and growth. This is the case of a number of sustainable agricultural practices or of energy efficiency measures for instance.

Adaptation to climate change is a crosscutting issue and will affect key EU policies such as Cohesion policy, Common agricultural policy, policies related to disaster risk management, or environmental policies. For instance, ecosystem-based approaches both contribute to biodiversity protection and climate change adaptation. Better managing water shortages or biodiversity loss would also contribute to the main objectives of EU Agricultural policy. Synergies exist between energy efficiency and adaptation objectives. Furthermore, adaptation is building on the existing EU risk management approach, including the EU's disaster risk prevention objectives and actions[62] which is also a cross-cutting issue. This requires close coordination and cooperation to maximise synergies and strenghten the links between the two policies and communities.

4. Policy options

4.1. What are the policy options?

Adaptation is such a cross-cutting issue that a wide range of policy initiatives are conceivable to meet the objectives identified above. This IA report assesses the impacts of alternative new policy options per problem identified. The following table summarises the individual policy options considered. Options should be compared horizontally, to the no policy change scenario. They cover a wide array of potential intervention tools, from soft measures to legislation, and including direct intervention. The description of the options will specify whether they should be combined or considered mutually exclusive.

Table 2: List of options considered for this IA report

Problem || Drivers || Specific objective || Operational objective || Options

No policy change || Providing information and guidelines || Direct intervention || Regulatory approach

Knowledge and access to information gaps || Uncoordinated research activities || Better INFORMED decision-making || By 2020, priority KNOWLEDGE GAPS identified in 2013 have been closed || Horizon 2020 developed with no specific approach on adaptation || 1A: Developing a common climate vulnerability assessment in the EU || 1B: Developing a knowledge gap strategy ||

Incomplete instruments for knowledge dissemination || By 2020, COMMUNICATION TOOLS allow for available information on climate change adaptation to be accessible for decision-makers, including Member States, local authorities and firms || Climate-ADAPT follows a business-as-usual development || 1C: Promoting interactions between Climate-ADAPT and other services; || 1D: Supporting exchange between science and policy in the field of adaptation || 1E: Proposing the mandatory setup of national information platforms on adaptation

Gaps in adaptation action at sub-EU level || Knowledge, financial, and political reluctance barriers Absence of internalisation of cross-border considerations || Increasing the resilience of THE EU TERRITORY || By 2017, all MEMBER STATES have adopted (an) Adaptation Strateg(y)ies, complemented by regional or local adaptation strategies when appropriate. || National, regional and local adaptation strategies are developed following a similar trend than in the past || 2A: EU guidelines for adaptation strategies || 2B: Using Life+ funding for supporting the preparation of adaptation strategies and for lighthouse projects on adaptation || 2C: Commission's proposal on the adoption of national adaptation strategies. Three sub-options: i/ non-legal; ii/ legislation later; iii/ legislation now

By 2020, CITIES of more than 150,000 inhabitants have adopted an adaptation strategy || 2D: Supporting UNISDR “Making Cities Resilient” campaign among EU cities || 2E: Inclusion of adaptation into the Covenant of Mayors Framework ||

Gaps in adaptation uptake in key sectors || Incomplete and Inconsistent mainstreaming Financial and information barriers to resilient investment and business decisions || Increasing the resilience of key VULNERABLE SECTORS || By 2020, a comprehensive and consistent MAINSTREAMING of adaptation in EU policies is achieved || Commission's proposals on MFF; Piece-meal approach to mainstreaming || 3A: Guidance on how to mainstream adaptation into Cohesion Policy and the CAP || 3B: Listing mainstreaming priorities in EU policies and engaging with key stakeholders || 3C: Setting new calendar for revision of key EU legislation as part of the mainstreaming exercise;

By 2020, major INFRASTRUCTURE investments are climate-proofed || Revision of EIA and guidelines under TEN-E and TEN-T || 3D: Guidelines for project developers for climate proofing vulnerable investments || 3E: Promote inclusion of climate change adaptation considerations in relevant infrastructure standards || 3F: Proposal on mandatory requirements for climate resilience of infrastructure projects

4.2. Description of each option

4.2.1. Options aiming at better informed decision making

Option || Description

Option 1A: Developing a common climate vulnerability assessment || This option envisages the adoption of a common European-wide approach for climate vulnerability assessments, to be agreed by Member States and the Commission. This approach would be used to assess vulnerabilities across Europe and would serve as a basis for the identification of most vulnerable areas and sectors.

Option 1B: Adopting a knowledge gap strategy || This initiative envisages the creation of a working group, composed of representatives of Member States and key stakeholders, aiming at a systematic collection of knowledge and data gaps. In 2013, the Commission will make a proposal on some preliminary identified knowledge gaps, with in view of achieving a common agreement on a list of priority knowledge gaps with the members of the working group. The knowledge gaps could be clustered into thematic areas and prioritized. The findings will be integrated into Horizon 2020 and other research schemes. This exercise is to be regularly repeated, for instance every three years.

Option 1C: Promoting interactions between Climate-ADAPT and other services || Option 1C envisages that the Commission, in collaboration with the EEA, will boost interactions between Climate-ADAPT and other relevant databases. First it identifies key databases on adaptation to develop a guidance document to explain how to link in practice these databases to Climate-ADAPT. Second, particular efforts would be made by the Commission and the EEA to link and provide additional interfaces with the currently existing platform on adaptation for European cities. Third, additional guidance would be developed by the Commission and the EEA to clarify how the future Copernicus Climate services should be integrated to climate-ADAPT and its results better disseminated.

Option 1D: Supporting exchange between science and policy in the field of adaptation. || under this option, the Commission promotes further interactions between researchers and policy makers about adaptation. The aim is to ensure that the most recent scientific knowledge is brought to policy makers and that the policy needs are expressed to the research community.

Option 1E: Proposal for mandatory set-up of national adaptation platforms || under this option, the Commission proposes to Member States the mandatory set up of national information platforms on climate change adaptation including specifications on minimum requirements (similar to Climate-ADAPT) and how to link these national platforms to Climate-ADAPT.

4.2.2. Options aiming at increasing the resilience of the EU territory

Option || Description

Option 2A: EU Guidelines for adaptation strategies || The guidelines aim to support EU countries in preparing their adaptation strategies. It intends to provide a framework for generating the information needed to prepare, implement and evaluate a national adaptation strategy.

Option 2B: Using Life+ funding for supporting the preparation of adaptation strategies and for lighthouse projects on adaptation || The newly proposed LIFE programme has a budgetary allocation dedicated specifically to climate change adaptation (€363 million). This option is composed of two complementary sub-options: 2Bi/ fostering the development of national and regional adaptation strategies via financial support to experience transfer; 2Bii/ promoting lighthouse projects set to develop, testing and demonstrate policy or management approaches, best practices, and solutions, for climate change adaptation.

Option 2C: Commission's proposal on the adoption of adaptation strategies for all Member States by 2017 || The aim of this option is to provide additional steer towards some minimum requirements across the EU in terms of adaptation policy processes. It focuses on the following elements: - Each Member State should adopt adaptation strategies covering its entire territory. - Such adaptation strategies should include a climate change vulnerability assessment, considerations for transboundary issues, and propose indicators to monitor and evaluate progress. - For those Member States who already have an adaptation strategy, they would need to adapt them in accordance with the requirements mentioned above once those strategies would be up for revision and no later than in 2020. Regarding the nature of the Commission's initiative, three alternative sub-options are considered: - non-legal request: Along the same line as the 2009 White Paper, the Commission would recommend Member States to establish an adaptation strategy by 2017 (time foreseen for the revision of the European Adaptation Strategy); - legislative proposal later: the Strategy would call all Member States to establish an adaptation strategy by a certain date, e.g. 2017, after which, if sufficient progress is not achieved, the Commission would adopt a legislative proposal; - legislative proposal now in the form of a Directive.

Option 2D: promoting the UNISDR cities campaign || This option aims to promote bottom-up action by cities on adaptation. The “Making Cities Resilient” campaign is an initiative of the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR ) to raise awareness of the need for cities, towns and their local governments to become resilient to natural hazards, which include those arising from the changing climate, that result in disasters. Under this policy option, the Commission would increase its efforts to promote engagement by EU cities with the UNISDR campaign. This would initially focus on communication about the campaign both via Member States and existing urban networks and events, and could step up to include hosting campaign events and fora in collaboration with UNISDR.

Option 2E: Inclusion of adaptation into the framework of the Covenant of Mayors || This option aims to incentivise local government commitment to tackle climate change adaptation. This option aims at an extension of the framework of the Covenant of Mayors to include adaptation and a voluntary commitment of the signatories (cities) to adopt local adaptation strategies as well as to inform about their implementation.[63]

4.2.3. Options aiming at increasing the resilience of most vulnerable sectors

Option || Description

Option 3A: Guidance on how to mainstream adaptation into Cohesion Policy and the Common Agricultural Policy || It provides additional guidance to facilitate the integration of climate change adaptation considerations into operational and rural development programmes and projects, in line with the Commission's proposals for the next MFF.

Option 3B: Listing mainstreaming priorities in EU policies and engaging with key stakeholders || Under this option, the Commission provides a list of priority initiatives for mainstreaming adaptation into EU legislation by 2020. In addition to the above, the Commission seeks to engage with key stakeholders to anticipate and prepare the need for potential revision of legislation.

Option 3C: Setting new calendar for revision of key EU legislation as part of the mainstreaming exercise || This option considers a Commission's proposal to amend the calendar of revision of key EU legislations which would need to integrate climate change adaptation.

Option 3D: Guidelines for project developers for climate proofing vulnerable investments || This option considers guidelines developed by the Commission for project promoters of physical assets and infrastructure on how to incorporate resilience to current climate variability and future climate change within their projects. An alternative would be for the guidelines to be made mandatory for all EU-funded infrastructure projects receiving EU funding of €5 million or more and having an operational period of at least 20 years. Both voluntary and mandatory guidelines are discussed below.

Option 3E: Promote inclusion of climate change adaptation considerations in relevant infrastructure standards || Under this option, the Commission formally asks European standardisation organisations to map and prioritise relevant design standards that would need to be modified so as to take account of current and future impacts of climate change. Concretely, this option is two-fold: first, the Commission would issue an official request (Mandate) to map and prioritise relevant standards for transport infrastructure, energy infrastructure and buildings. Second, the Commission would support standardisation organisations in their efforts to update their environmental guide to include climate change adaptation considerations.

Option 3F: Proposal on mandatory requirements for climate resilience of infrastructure projects || Under this option, the Commission proposes the elaboration of legally binding requirements on the resilience to climate change of existing and future infrastructure. That is, Member States would have to set up minimum climate resilience requirements for new infrastructure investments and for large existing ones that undergo major renovation.

4.3. Which options have been discarded at an early stage and why?

Options that would legally require the development of adaptation strategies at regional and local level have been discarded at an early stage for subsidiarity reasons. In fact, the legal basis for imposing at EU level specific adaptation policies at local level would not have allowed discussing prescriptive measures.

Regarding the mainstreaming of adaptation in specific EU legislations, the level of details needed to asssess the expected impacts of a change in each EU legislation can only be provided by a dedicated impact assessment. This was for instance necessary when revising the EIA Directive. The current report does not go into such detail and stays at the level of identifying key priority areas and comparing various approaches for further mainstreaming.

Options that require additional EU financial instruments have also been discarded. In fact, the Commission's proposal for the next MFF already makes available a range of policies and instruments for promoting adaptation actions in various sectors, and this report focuses on a discussion of potential measures aiming at achieving an optimal use of existing instruments. Finally, prescriptive approaches for European companies, such as the obligation to undertake climate risk assessment along their supply chains, have also been ruled out.

5. Analysis of impacts

The impacts of no further EU action have been presented in section 2.5. The expected impacts of each considered option are presented below, in comparison to the baseline scenario. Note that the impacts being assessed are those of EU-promoted actions, which represents only the 'tip of the iceberg' when it comes to adaptation action. The costs of implementing such measures as well as their benefits are necessarily of a different magnitude than the overall costs and benefits of adaptation action across the EU.

5.1. Expected impacts of options aiming at better informed decision making

5.1.1. No policy change

5.1.1.1. No policy change

Major research efforts on climate change have been promoted and financed at the European level within the 7th Framework Programme and its predecessors. Such activities would continue and further expand, in line with the Commission's proposals on research under Horizon 2020. Although all the details have not been clarified yet, Horizon 2020 is expected to improve the coordination of research activities. However as no systematic mechanism of mapping knowledge gaps, screening of on-going research and support activities and prioritising along policy needs is proposed, some limitations in coordination and targeted close of knowledge gaps can be expected.

The Commission developed in the context of the PESETA and the JRC PESETA II projects[64] a multi-sectoral assessment of the impacts of climate change in Europe for the 2011-2040 and 2071-2100 time horizons. However, to get to a harmonized and agreed approach across the EU in modelling climate impacts would require further efforts. An important recent global initiative is ISI-MIP Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project[65]. This is the first global activity aimed at providing cross-sectoral global impact assessments, based on the newly developed climate Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) and socio-economic Shared Socio-Economic Pathways (SSPs).

It is considered that Climate-ADAPT will be further financed and that the EEA (supported by the European Topic Centre on Climate Change adaptation[66]) will ensure regular maintenance and updating of Climate-ADAPT. This includes ensuring inclusion of this work within the EEA annual management plans and in the annual ETC CCA implementation plans. EEA (with ETC CCA) will organise regular training sessions and meetings but also develop information and publicity material such as a newsletter and a tutorial video. Beyond 2014 it remains unclear how Climate-ADAPT will further develop and which dissemination activities will be carried out.

An important additional element which is now being implemented is the obligation for EU-funded projects under the last FP7 Call to report to Climate-ADAPT on any climate change adaptation related findings from the research project. Under the no-policy change scenario, it is expected that these requirements will be included to EU-funded projects under Horizon 2020. This could entail some costs, both on the project side – to prepare reporting – and on the Climate-ADAPT management side – to ensure quality assurance and quality control.

In relation to data sets some progress has been made,[67] which is concurring in creating a wider and more reliable data and information base. Their linkage and an integrated use of the data stored however remains an unsolved issue.

While there are some science-policy interface (SPI) research projects and expert groups that include climate change adaptation as one of the main fields to focus on, many SPIs have not yet taken up the issues of climate change adaptation into their work. It is not expected that the situation would change dramatically without further EU intervention.

Annex 9.3.1. also provides a first assessment of identified knowledge gaps, in particular compared to a previous exercise ran just before the adoption of the 2009 White Paper on adaptation to climate change.

5.1.2. Options aiming at increasing knowledge generation

Options 1A and option 1B, discussed below, could potentially be combined.

5.1.2.1. Option 1A: Developing a common climate vulnerability assessment

Implementing this approach means developing in a centralised manner a climate risk assessment sufficiently robust to provide relevant information at local and sectoral level. At EU level, some projects look at vulnerability assessments in specific sectors (e.g. SCENES, on water, or MOTIVE on forests) or in specific areas (e.g. CECILIA for Central and Eastern Europe). At national level, in particular the UK and Germany have undertaken comprehensive national climate vulnerability assessments. The costs of similar exercises at national level have been estimated by national authorities themselves to be between €40-45 million each.[68] It can be expected that a similar exercise at EU level would cost at least as much.

Such an exercise, which could build on the approach of the JRC PESETA II project, described in Annex 9.6., would close some knowledge gaps on the impacts of climate change and the potential benefits of adaptation at sectoral and local level, for instance in line with those mentioned in Table 1. It could allow identifying, quantifying and prioritizing vulnerabilities across the EU in a consistent way. However, imposing the use of one common climate vulnerability assessment in the EU has some limitations: i/ current activities, such as the recent global initiative ISI-MIP Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project can already help achieve a better understanding of differences between impact model results relevant globally and for Europe; ii/ Both scenarios and models are continuously improved by a dedicated science community. Proposing one standard would lock the state-of-the-art, and might hinder improvements and unconventional solutions. Moreover, different models can be better suited to answer different sets of questions. Accordingly, it would be important to exploit rather than limit this richness.

5.1.2.2. Option 1B: Adopting a knowledge gap strategy

Administrative costs, to be split between the members of the Working Group, would result from the organisation of the Working Group meetings, in 2013, as well as every three years, when the knowledge gaps strategy needs to be updated. This initiative also implies some administrative costs for Member States and stakeholders for collecting the information, as they would need to prepare a questionnaire or dedicated meetings, analysing and assessing the results, so as to complement the initial proposal from the Commission. The administrative costs for Member States and stakeholders would differ depending on the format the information is collected and the fragmentation of information available at Member States level but no detailed estimate could be provided.

There is no need for additional EU funding per se, as this initiative only recommends a method for a better streamlining in EU-funded research projects, under Horizon 2020 and other research schemes, managed by EU institutions, such as the EEA's, the JRC's and service contracts by Commission services. A better coordination of research activities, at EU and Member States level, will result in a more efficient and transparent allocation of resources. It also provides additional political commitment at EU and Member States level, which notably facilitates transnationally coordinated research.

Economic, social and environmental benefits are expected in so far as the identification of priority research areas translates into the closing of knowledge gaps more quickly, among the ones identified in Annex 9.3.1. Priorities could be given in addressing the knowledge gaps identified in the more vulnerable regions or sectors within the EU so as to benefit in particular the private actors facing knowledge when implementing adaptation activities.

5.1.3. Options aiming at better knowledge dissemination

Option 1C and option 1E are seen as alternative options, while option 1D could be combined to one or the other.

5.1.3.1. Option 1C: Promoting interactions between Climate-ADAPT and other services

Identifying relevant databases and developing some guidance on how to link climate-ADAPT to such databases lead to some direct costs for the Commission and the EEA estimated at 50.000 to 100.000 Euros. The wider economic benefits of this initiative is clearly depending on the extent to which the guidance will be applied and therefore a quantification in monetary terms is currently not possible. Still, it will result in avoided costs for the EEA and other database managers for data integration into Climate-ADAPT, reduced costs for end users in compiling and processing data due to increased data availability (“one-stop-shop” principle). Using this guidance would reduce barriers and enhance cooperation between institutions (e.g. EEA and others).

As the section on urban adaptation in Climate-Adapt is currently rather limited, this option considers making additional interlinkages with the cities platform created under the Adaptation Strategies for European Cities project[69]. The cost implications are therefore minimal (linking the two platforms) and the main benefit – although impossible to quantify – relates to additional coverage of adaptation actions at local level within Climate-ADAPT. This would address one of the key issues currently faced by information dissemination at EU level, namely the need to provide downscaled information on climate change and climate change adaptation.

Additional efforts, for the moment impossible to quantify, will also be required to link the results of the Copernicus (formally known as the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security) Climate Service to Climate-ADAPT. The Climate Service will be based on satellite and in-situ monitoring data, modelling of the entire Earth system, including model reanalysis and data assimilation. It will allow a better assessment of local and sectoral vulnerabilities, and therefore providing additional data for proper climate risk assessments. Making available this set of information to decision-makers via Climate-ADAPT would have positive economic, social and environmental impacts. Such impacts remain however impossible to quantify without knowing the detailed structure of the Copernicus Climate Service, currently under discussion.

5.1.3.2. Option 1D: Supporting exchange between science and policy in the field of adaptation.

Climate change adaptation topics can be included in upcoming science-policy interface (SPI) research projects under Horizon 2020. Two approaches could be considered: including specific work packages dedicated to climate change adaptation “climate checking” the results and recommendations ex-ante to identify where climate change adaptation would be needed.

An alternative approach is to set up an expert group with the sole objective of addressing specific climate change adaptation questions. Under this option, climate adaptation experts at national and sub-national level would meet via a conference (e.g. every 18 months) to continue to exchange ideas and experiences on climate change adaptation measures and/or programmes to ensure that across Europe stakeholders are working with the highest level and most up-to-date information. Organising such a conference on climate change adaptation in Europe would be between 50,000 Euro and 200,000 Euro based on past experiences.

This exercise can also be the opportunity to increase awareness raising and business engagement in adaptation policy making and planning. To date, business engagement has been focused on issues related to mitigation rather than on adaptation. A specific strategy for mobilising private sector strengths and assets is needed. There is some untapped data and knowledge potential in the private sector which should be maximised, and which an adequate science policy interface will help unfold.

The benefits this option would bring relate to further stimulating research and development, as well as innovation, in the field of climate change adaptation in a broad spectrum of sectors, thus placing the EU well on the international market. The bringing together of research and translating it in a way that policy makers can understand is essential for them to make the right choices in drawing up policies on adaptation; furthermore, it will make the public better informed on climate change adaptation issues as well, which fosters individual, collective and organisational learning, leading to changes in organisational practices and culture.

5.1.3.3. Option 1E: Proposal for mandatory set-up of national adaptation platforms

Developing national adaptation platforms is costly, in particular if it has to be preceded by research on climate change impacts. In Germany, the research costs were estimated at about €40 million. Another crucial issue is the agreement on common quality standards across Member States and ensuring that the national and EU level information is following them. The request from the EU to develop such