and cultural reasons (preservation of cultural and historical heritage). In contrast, the implementation of more restrictive land-use plans is often synergistic with natural risk reduction. These oppositions or synergies can sometimes be expressed as costs or monetary co-benefits (e.g., for energy consumption), but this is not always the case (e.g., heritage preservation). **As a first step, it is possible to look for "no regret" measures for which the co-benefits alone justify the implementation of the measure.**

- **The analysis must assess the robustness to uncertainty:** first, obviously, in terms of climate uncertainty (is it doable to implement a measure that provides benefits for all possible future climates?), as well as in terms of uncertainty on socio-economic developments (e.g., in relation to the geographic distribution of the population within a national territory or to the existence of new technologies to save water). **We will first look for robust measures (which are beneficiary in all of the cases) or flexible (that can be adjusted in view of new information in the next decades)** (Hallegatte, 2009) **.**

**<u>Step No.4:</u>** The preceding step must identify a relatively reduced set of promising measures. **More in-depth studies – i.e., more time-consuming and work-intensive – could then be carried out.** This is especially the case for cost-benefit analyses.  These analyses should not neglect the points mentioned in Step 3, and particularly the uncertainty about climate change and socio-economic trends and redistribution effects (in terms of time, geography and sociology), as well as the coherence with other objectives or sectorial policies.  This type of analysis is a complement to (but does not replace) the multicriteria studies mentioned above because it provides a much finer analysis of the effects of time and specific arbitrations between different alternative solutions.

**<u>Step No.5:</u> Measures will be selected on the basis of the results of different analyses – particularly multicriteria and cost-benefit – and the resources that are available.** Particular attention must be given to the coherence between different measures of an adaptation strategy and the consistency with other sectorial policies.  For example, responses to climate change in terms of electricity production (cooling of thermal and hydroelectric power plants), irrigated agriculture, and protection of the biodiversity of river ecosystems cannot be designed independently of each other because the volume of water available must be shared between these uses and must allow the implementation of each of these responses.  Therefore, trade-offs between adaptation measures (and, thus, between sectors) will be necessary.  Consistency with other sectorial policies is also crucial.  For example, adaptation of agriculture to climate change must take other policy objectives into account (income support for farmers, reduction of pesticide use, etc.)  It will therefore be necessary to look for synergies and to identify conflicts. Once again, it will be necessary to arbitrate between existing policy objectives and adaptation to climate change.

**<u>Step No.6:</u> For each of the measures selected, an adaptation plan must include indicators of the effectiveness of the measure, as well as a time horizon for which effects must be visible on the indicators.** For example, in the case of a modification of a land-use policy, the number of new buildings built in a flood-prone area can be monitored and its reduction measured and controlled to ensure that the measure achieves its goal.  It should be mentioned that the indicator is not necessarily the level of climate damage itself.  Therefore, for a land-use policy, the number of buildings in a flood-prone area is indicative of the success of a policy before a drop in economic losses linked to flooding can be measured. Considering the time horizons of various measures, an adaptation strategy must include its assessment and adjustment possibilities.

**<u>Step No.7:</u> The effectiveness of the adaptation strategy must be evaluated** and adjusted in relation to: (1) the results of preceding measures, using indicators defined when the measures were implemented; (2) new scientific information about climate change; (3) socio-economic and

27/39