Moraranamaria20@yahoo.com 307 Climate Change Adaptation And Disaster Risk Reduction In Europe Text

ISSN 1977-8449 EEA Report No 15/2017 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe Enhancing coherence of the knowledge base, policies and practices EEA Report No 15/2017 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe Enhancing coherence of the knowledge base, policies and practices Legal notice The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the official opinions of the European Commission or other institutions of the European Union. Neither the European Environment Agency nor any person or company acting on behalf of the Agency is responsible for the use that may be made of the information contained in this report. Copyright notice © European Environment Agency, 2017 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. More information on the European Union is available on the Internet ( http://europa.eu). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017 ISBN 978-92-9213-893-6 ISSN 1977-8449 doi:10.2800/938195 European Environment Agency Kongens Nytorv 6 1050 Copenhagen K Denmark Tel.: +45 33 36 71 00 Web: eea.europa.eu Enquiries: eea.europa.eu/enquiriesCover design: EEA Cover photo: © www.istockphoto.com Left photo: © www.istockphoto.com Right photo: © www.istockphoto.com Layout: EEA 3Contents Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe Contents Acknowledgements …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5 Units, abbreviations and acronyms …………………………………………………………………………….. 7 Executive summary …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 10 1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 16 1.1 Why do we need to enhance the coherence between climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction? …………………………………………………………………………………………. 16 1.2 Scope and outline of the report ……………………………………………………………………………… 18 1.3 Links to other EEA activities ……………………………………………………………………………………. 21 1.4 Concepts and definitions ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 23 2 Policies, methods and practices ……………………………………………………………………………. 27 2.1 Overview of policies relevant to enhance coherence between climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction ………………………………………………………………….. 27 2.2 Methods and tools for risk assessment and policy planning in climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction …………………………………………………………………… 31 2.3 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction practices in Europe 35 3 Weather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe ……………………………………… 46 3.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 47 3.2 Heat waves …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 48 3.3 Heavy precipitation ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 52 3.4 River floods ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 56 3.5 Windstorms ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 61 3.6 Landslides ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 65 3.7 Droughts ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 69 3.8 Forest Fires ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 76 3.9 Avalanches …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 82 3.10 Hail ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 85 3.11 Storm surges and extreme sea levels ……………………………………………………………………… 88 4 Impacts of natural hazards in Europe …………………………………………………………………… 92 4.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 92 4.2 Disaster loss data in the European Union ……………………………………………………………….. 93 Contents 4 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe4.3 Impacts of natural hazards on human health and wellbeing …………………………………… 95 4.4 Impacts of natural hazards on ecosystems and their services ……………………………….. 102 4.5 Economic impacts from natural hazards ……………………………………………………………… 110 5 Selected cases of enhanced coherence between climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction ………………………………………………………………………………………… 116 5.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 116 5.2 Case 1: Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in the Netherlands as an example of a long-term programmatic approach …………………………………………….. 117 5.3 Case 2: Insurance in Spain and additional examples of combining risk transfer and mitigation in public-private cooperation ………………………………………………………………. 121 5.4 Case 3: Local governance in climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Switzerland …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 124 5.5 Case 4: National risk assessments as a joint knowledge base for climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction …………………………………………………………………. 127 5.6 Case 5: City networks promoting urban resilience for climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction …………………………………………………………………………………………. 128 5.7 Case 6: Financing nature-based solutions for CCA and DRR – the European Investment Bank …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 130 6 Opportunities to enhance coherence between climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in policy and practice ……………………………………………………… 132 6.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 132 6.2 Developing consistent and complementary knowledge and coordination platforms at EU, national and regional level …………………………………………………………………………….. 132 6.3 Improved monitoring and risk assessment (outcomes and processes) 135 6.4 Enhancing coherence between climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction climate services ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 136 6.5 Long-term national programmatic approaches …………………………………………………….. 137 6.6 Nature-based solutions (NBSs) to maximise co-benefits ……………………………………….. 137 6.7 Risk and adaptation financing (from risk transfer to risk prevention financing)………140 6.8 Monitoring and evaluation to improve policy implementation and adaptive management ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 140 References ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 143 5Acknowledgements Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe Acknowledgements Coordination Sergio Castellari (European Environment Agency (EEA)) and Blaž Kurnik (EEA) with the support of André Jol (EEA), Paul McAleavey (EEA) and Jaroslav Mysiak (European Topic Centre on Climate Change Impacts, Vulnerability and adaptation (ETC/CCA), Euro-Mediterranean Centre on Climate Change (CMCC), Italy). Executive summary Lead authors: Blaž Kurnik (EEA), Sergio Castellari (EEA), André Jol (EEA) and Jaroslav Mysiak (ETC/CCA, CMCC, Italy). Contributing authors: Rob Swart (ETC/CCA, Wageningen Environmental Research (WER), the Netherlands), Reimund Schwarze (ETC/CCA, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Germany), Patrick Pringle (ETC/CCA, Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford (OU), United Kingdom), Ad Jeuken (European Topic Centre on Inland, Coastal and Marine waters (ETC/ICM), Deltares, the Netherlands) and Henk Wolters (ETC/ICM, Deltares, the Netherlands). Chapter 1 Lead Authors: Sergio Castellari (EEA), Blaž Kurnik (EEA), and Jaroslav Mysiak (ETC/CCA, CMCC, Italy). Contributing authors: Patrick Pringle (ETC/CCA, OU, United Kingdom). Chapter 2: Lead authors: Jaroslav Mysiak (ETC/CCA, CMCC, Italy), Sergio Castellari (EEA), Reimund Schwarze (ETC/CCA, UFZ, Germany) and Rob Swart (ETC/CCA, WER, the Netherlands). Contributing authors: Patrick Pringle (ETC/CCA, OU, United Kingdom), Ad Jeuken (ETC/ICM, Deltares, the Netherlands) and Henk Wolters (ETC/ICM, Deltares, the Netherlands). Chapter 3: Lead author: Blaž Kurnik (EEA). Contributing authors: Paul van der Linden (ETC/CCA, Met Office, United Kingdom), Jaroslav Mysiak (ETC/CCA, CMCC, Italy), Rob Swart (ETC/CCA, WER, the Netherlands), Hans-Martin Füssel (EEA), Trine Christiansen (EEA), Leone Cavicchia (ETC/CCA, CMCC, Italy), Silvio Gualdi (ETC/CCA, CMCC, Italy), Paola Mercogliano (ETC/CCA, CMCC, Italy), Guido Rianna (ETC/CCA, CMCC, Italy), Koen Kramer (ETC/CCA, WER, the Netherlands), Melania Michetti (ETC/CCA, CMCC, Italy), Michele Salis (ETC/CCA, CMCC, Italy), Mart-Jan Schelhaas (ETC/CCA, WER, the Netherlands), Markus Leitner (ETC/CCA, Environment Agency Austria (EAA), Austria), Wouter Vanneuville (EEA), Ian Macadam (ETC/CCA, Met Office, United Kingdom). Chapter 4: Lead authors: Tom De Groeve (Join Research Centre (JRC)), Blaž Kurnik (EEA), Jaroslav Mysiak (ETC/CCA, CMCC, Italy), Rob Swart (ETC/CCA, WER, the Netherlands), Jan C. Semenza (European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control), Vladimir Kendrovski (World Health Organisation, Regional Office for Europe). Contributing authors: Koen Kramer (ETC/CCA, WER, the Netherlands), Eva Ivits (EEA), Wouter Vanneuville (EEA), Lorenzo Carrera (ETC/CCA, CMCC, Italy), Veit Blauhut (University of Freiburg), Markus Erhard (EEA), Trine Christiansen (EEA). Acknowledgements 6 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in EuropeChapter 5: Lead authors: Ad Jeuken (ETC/ICM, Deltares, the Netherlands), Henk Wolters (ETC/ICM, Deltares, the Netherlands). Contributing authors: Jaroslav Mysiak (ETC/CCA, CMCC, Italy), Rob Swart (ETC/CCA, WER, the Netherlands), Sergio Castellari (EEA), Sebastian Hyzyk (European Investment Bank (EIB)), and Stefanie Lindenberg (EIB). Chapter 6: Lead authors: Patrick Pringle (ETC/CCA, OU, United Kingdom), Jaroslav Mysiak (ETC/CCA, CMCC, Italy) Contributing Authors: Rob Swart (ETC/CCA, WER, the Netherlands), Reimund Schwarze (ETC/CCA, UFZ, Germany), Ad Jeuken (ETC/ICM, Deltares), Henk Wolters (ETC/ICM, Deltares), Sergio Castellari (EEA), Blaž Kurnik (EEA). Members of the Advisory Group Maddalena Dalí (DG Climate Action (DG CLIMA)), Laura Schmidt (DG Civil protection and humanitarian aid operations (DG ECHO)), Karmen Poljanšek (Joint Research Centre (JRC)), Luca Rossi (UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR)). Comments from the European Commission and international organisations Maddalena Dalí (DG CLIMA), Claus Kondrup (DG CLIMA), Nicolas Faivre (DG for Research and Innovation (RTD)), Tiago Freitas (DG RTD), Marco Fritz (DG Environment (DG ENV)), Laura Schmidt (DG ECHO), Karmen Pol janšek (JRC), Lorenzo Alfieri (JRC), Catherine Gamper (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)) and Luca Rossi (UNISDR). Comments from Eionet National reference Centres (NRCs) and/or national representatives from EEA member countries Austria, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey. Comments from these countries were provided by NRCs for Climate change impacts, vulnerability and adaptation; and/or, NRCs for Water Quantity; and/or national representatives in the Working Group on Climate Change Adaptation (DG CLIMA); the expert group on Floods (DG ENV); and/or the expert group on disaster risk assessment (DG ECHO). Comments from expert reviewers Carlo Cacciamani (Arpae Emilia-Romagna, Servizio Idro-Meteo-Clima, Italy), Francisco Espejo Gil (Consorcio de Compensación de Seguros, Spain, Clemente Fuggini and Carlo Strazza (D’Appolonia S.p.A., Italy), Jouni Paavola (School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, United Kingdom), Patrícia Pires (National Authority for Civil Protection, Portugal), Virginia Murray (Public Health England, United Kingdom), Nicanor Prendes and Mónica Gomez (Spanish Climate change office of Ministry for Fisheries, Agriculture and Environment, Spain), Ursula Schmedtje (ETC/ICM, UFZ, Germany), Hans Visser (Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, the Netherlands), Marc Zebisch (Eurac Research, Institute for Earth Observation, Italy). 7Units, abbreviations and acronyms Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe Units, abbreviations and acronyms AAAA Addis Ababa Action Agenda ADM Adaptive Delta Management AEMET Spanish State Meteorological Agency AMECO Annual Macro-Economic Database of the European Commission AR5 5th Assessment Report of IPCC BAFU Bundesamt für Umwelt (Federal Office for the Environment) (Switzerland) BISE Biodiversity Information System for Europe CAP Common Agricultural Policy CAPE Convective Available Potential Energy CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CCA Climate Change Adaptation CCS Consorcio de Compensación de Seguros (Extraordinary Risks Insurance Scheme) (Spain) CF Cohesion Fund CFP Common Fisheries Policy Climate-ADAPT European Climate Adaptation Platform CMIP5 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 CR Core Responsibilities CRED Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters CSP Climate Services Partnership CV Coefficient of Variation C3S Copernicus Climate Change Service DFDE Database on Forest Disturbances in Europe DFO Dartmouth Flood Observatory DG Directorate-General DGA General Directorate for Water (Spain) DG CLIMA Directorate-General for Climate Action DG ECHO Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations DG ENV Directorate-General for Environment DRMKC Disaster Risk Management Knowledge Centre DRR Disaster Risk Reduction DRM Disaster Risk Management EAFRD European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development EAGF European Agricultural Guarantee Fund EAWS European Avalanche Warning Services EbA Ecosystem-based Adaptation EC European Commission ECA&D European Climate Assessment and Datasets Eco-DRR Ecosystem-based Disaster Risk Reduction ECMWF European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts EDO European Drought Observatory EEA European Environment Agency EFAS European Flood Awareness System Units, abbreviations and acronyms 8 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in EuropeEFDRR European Forum for Disaster Risk Reduction EFFIS European Forest Fire Information System EFID European Flood Impact Database EIA Environmental Impact Assessment Directive EIB European Investment Bank EIONET European Environment Information and Observation Network EM-DAT Emergency Events Database (from the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters) EMFF European Maritime and Fisheries Fund EPFD European Past Floods Database ERA4CS European Research Area for Climate Services ERDF European Rural Development Fund ES Ecosystem Service ESA – CCI European Space Agency’s Climate Change Initiative ESF European Social Fund ESIF European Structural and Investment Funds ESWD European Severe Weather Database ETC/CCA European Topic Centre on Climate Change impacts, vulnerability and Adaptation ETC/ICM European Topic Centre on Inland, Coastal and Marine water EU European Union EUSF European Union Solidarity Fund FWI Fire Weather Index FOCP Federal Office for Civil Protection (Switzerland) FOEN Federal Office for the Environment (Switzerland) FRMP Flood Risk Management Plan GAR Global Assessment Report GCF Green Climate Fund GCM General Circulation Model GDP Gross Domestic Product GFCS Global Framework for Climate Services GI Green Infrastructure GMES Global Monitoring for Environment and Security HFA Hyogo Framework for Action HWMI Heat Wave Magnitude Index IAM Impact assessment model ICG International Centre for Geo-hazards ICGC Institut Cartogràfic i Geològic de Catalunya (Spain) ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives) IDA Climate Interdepartmental Committee on Climate (Switzerland) IMF International Monetary Fund IMILAST Intercomparison of Mid Latitude Storm Diagnostics IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IRDR Integrated Research on Disaster Risk ISO International Organization for Standardization IWRM Integrated Water Resources Management JRC Joint Research Centre LIFE Financial Instrument for the Environment MHRA Multi-Hazard Risk Assessment MIDAS Met Office Integrated Data Archive System MRE Monitoring, reporting and evaluation MS Member State NatCatSERVICE Munich RE’s natural catastrophe loss database Units, abbreviations and acronyms 9 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe NBS Nature Based Solution NCFF Natural Capital Financing Facility NRA National Risk Assessment NWRM Natural Water Retention Measures ODA Official Development Assistance OECC Spanish Bureau for Climate Change OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OIEWG Open-Ended Intergovernmental Expert Working Group on Indicators and Terminology Relating to disaster Risk Reduction PAPI Prevention Program Against Floods (France) PEDRR Partnership for Environment and Disaster Risk Reduction PHI Potential Hail Index PLANAT Swiss National Platform for Natural Hazards PoM Programme of Measures PPP Public–Private Partnership RBD River Basin Districts RBMP River Basin Management Plan RCP Representative Concentration Pathways RCM Regional Climate Model RDI Reconnaissance Drought Index RIDE Research & Innovation for our Dynamic Environment (RIDE) Forum (United Kingdom) Rx5d Maximum five-day precipitation SA State Aid SDG Sustainable Development Goals SFDRR Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction SIGMA Swiss RE Institute’s catastrophe loss database SPEI Standardised Precipitation-Evapotranspiration Index SPEI-3 Standardised Precipitation-Evapotranspiration Index accumulated over 3-months periods SPI Standardised Precipitation Index SSR Seasonal Severity Rating index TED Total Economy Database TEN-E Trans-European Energy Network TEN-T Trans-European Transport Network UN United Nations UCLG United Cities and Local Governments UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNISDR United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction XWS eXtreme WindStorms WEO World Economic Outlook WFD Water Framework Directive WHO World Health Organization WISE Water Information System for Europe WNV West Nile Virus WSDI Warm Spell Duration Index Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe10Executive summary Scope and introduction The impacts of weather- and climate-related hazards on the economy, human health and ecosystems are amplified by socio-economic changes and environmental changes (e.g. demographic development, land use change and climate change). Efforts to reduce disaster risk and at the same time adapt to a changing climate have become a global and European priority . Climate change adaptation (CCA) and disaster risk reduction (DRR) provide a range of complementary approaches for managing climate risks in order to build resilient societies. Both are cross-cutting and complex development issues with variations, e.g. CCA addresses mainly weather- and climate-related hazards and focuses on the future by addressing uncertainty and new risks, while DRR focuses on the present by addressing existing risks from all hazards. CCA and DRR face similar challenges, such as incomplete and uncertain knowledge bases, interplay of multiple actors and limited resources. Enhancing coherence between CCA and DRR policies and practices requires creating awareness, mobilising resources, and action by public and private stakeholders, preferably in partnership. This report aims to contribute to better informed EU, national and subnational strategies, plans and multi-stakeholder processes for enhancing the coherence between CCA and DRR. It explores how public policies and risk management practices can foster coherence, and to what extent transfer of knowledge and experience from domain-specific methods and tools can drive mutually beneficial learning and capacity building. It builds upon a review of available documents, knowledge elicitation and interaction with a large number of experts and country representatives from both policy domains. A survey sent to the European Environment Agency (EEA) member countries in early 2016 and an expert workshop in April 2016 provided background information for preparing the report. The report also includes a review of past trends and future projections of selected weather- and climate-related hazards, including their economic, social and environmental impacts. The report is structured as follows: Chapter 1 sets the scene, explains the scope and outline, and describes the methodological approach and key terms; Chapter 2 provides an overview of global and EU policies relevant to CCA-DRR linkages, describes key methods and tools, and presents European and national practices; Chapter 3 describes observational trends and projections of 10 selected natural hazards at the European scale, along with analysis of uncertainties, data gaps and information needs, and examples of past natural hazards; Chapter 4 summarises the DRR indicators developed at United Nations (UN) level and the indicators of progress of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR), then describes impacts of natural hazards and disasters on health and wellbeing, ecosystems, and economic wealth and cohesion; Chapter 5 provides an overview of ‘good practices’ for coherence between CCA and DRR practices in Europe; and finally, Chapter 6 presents findings from the previous chapters and identifies specific opportunities for further enhancing coherence between CCA and DRR in policy and practice. Policies, methods and practices CCA and DRR are among the main goals of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The SFDRR identified climate change and variability as a driver of disaster risk, along with uncontrolled urbanisation and poor land management. Tackling these is expected to lead to a sizeable reduction of disaster risk. Consequently, the SFDRR aims for improved coherence between policy instruments for climate change, biodiversity, sustainable development, poverty eradication, environment, agriculture, health, and food and nutrition. The Paris Agreement on Climate Change of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is the first universal, legally binding global deal to combat climate change, mainly by reducing greenhouse gas emissions to keep the global temperature rise well below 2 °C and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C, compared with pre-industrial levels. Of equal importance, the agreement also requires major action to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and to enhance climate resilience, thus contributing to sustainable development.Executive summary Executive summary 11 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe The EU has various policies in place to address DRR and CCA. The EU Civil Protection Mechanism requires countries to conduct comprehensive multi-hazard risk assessments. The EU Action Plan on SFDRR 2015–2030 recognised the SFDRR as an opportunity to reinforce EU resilience to shocks and disruption in the context of sustainable development, and to boost innovation and growth. The EU strategy on adaptation to climate change, which is being evaluated in 2017–2018, aims to help EU Member States adapt to current and future impacts of climate change through enhancing national adaptation strategies, increasing and improving sharing of knowledge and mainstreaming adaptation in other policy areas. Both CCA and DRR are currently mainstreamed into key EU policies and strategies, including those for critical infrastructure protection, environmental protection, financial instruments of the Cohesion Policy and the EU Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF), agriculture, food and nutrition security, and integrated coastal management. Comprehensive, multi-hazard risk and vulnerability assessment frameworks can support evidence-based and robust decision-making, and guide policies in DRR and CCA. The risks from current and future climate can cause immense impacts on societies and ecosystems. Climate risk assessments have improved as a result of high-performance computing, new generations of climate and disaster loss models, and increased availability of high-resolution exposure datasets, as well as through improved stakeholder engagement and knowledge synthesis processes. Quantitative impact assessment models are important tools to support decision-making on climate risks. A selective review, conducted for this report, of the current practices in Europe revealed many innovative examples but also highlighted a need to foster coherence between DRR and CCA policies, practices and knowledge. This can be achieved by closer vertical and horizontal, cross-border and transnational coordination and cooperation. In some European countries policies for CCA and DRR are well connected. In some cases new institutions have been established to develop joint actions benefiting both policy areas. Responding to extreme events is the prime responsibility of local governments, but higher level governments have a role in supporting municipalities at the various stages of DRR. This entails effective coordination and collaboration between the national, provincial and municipal administrations (multi-level governance). EU Member States have found different solutions according to their national context. In those countries in which CCA and DRR are well coordinated, this coordination effort is not always made explicit. For example, flood risk prevention strategies often make use of assessments of long-term changes in flood intensity and frequency based on climate projections. Weather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe Over the past decades, Europe has experienced many summer heat waves, droughts and forest fires characterised by lasting conditions of high temperatures and low precipitation, in particular in southern Europe. Since 2003, Europe has experienced extreme summer heat waves. Such extreme heat waves are projected to occur as often as every 2 years in the second half of the 21st century under the high-emission (RCP8.5) scenario (1). The most severe health risks are projected for urban areas in southern Europe and for Mediterranean coasts. The severity and frequency of droughts have increased in parts of Europe, in particular in southern and south-eastern Europe. Droughts are projected to increase in frequency, duration and severity in most of Europe, with the strongest increase projected for southern Europe. Forest fire risk depends on many factors, including climatic conditions, vegetation, forest management practices and other socio-economic factors. The burnt area in the Mediterranean region has varied since 1980. It is expected that, in a warmer climate, the fire-prone areas will expand northwards and longer fire seasons are projected in southern Europe. Impacts related to changes in precipitation, notably heavy precipitation events leading to floods and landslides, have increased in Europe and are projected to increase further in the future. Heavy precipitation events have increased in northern and north-eastern Europe since the 1960s, whereas different indices show diverging trends for south-western and southern Europe. Heavy precipitation events are projected to become more frequent in most parts of Europe. The number of flood events causing large economic losses in Europe have increased since 1980, but with large interannual variability. The mountain environment is the most affected by landslides, and projected increases in temperature and heavy precipitation will affect rock slope stability conditions and favour increases in the frequency of shallow landslides in the future. Increased temperatures are expected to lead to decreases in Alpine snow amounts and duration, and hence to decreasing avalanche risks below (1) In Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) scenario the total radiative forcing reaches approximately 8.5 watts per square metre (W/m2) in 2100 and continues to increase afterwards. Executive summary 12 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe1 500-2 000 m elevation, but increases in avalanche activities above 2 000 m elevation are expected. Although studies suggest increasing risks of winter and autumn windstorms, uncertainties about the location, frequency and intensity of such storms, and related natural hazards such as hailstorms and storm surges, remain significant. Observations of windstorm location, frequency and intensity showed considerable variability across Europe during the 20th century. However, most studies agree that the risk of severe winter storms, and possibly of severe autumn storms, will increase in the future for the North Atlantic, as well as for northern, north-western and central Europe. For medicanes (Mediterranean tropical-like cyclones), decreased frequency but increased intensity is projected. Hailstorms damage crops, vehicles, buildings and other infrastructure, and despite improvements in data availability, trends and projections of hail events are still subject to significant uncertainties owing to a lack of direct observation and inadequate microphysical schemes in numerical weather prediction and climate models. Extreme high coastal water levels have increased at most locations along the European coastline. This increase appears to be predominantly due to increases in mean local sea level rather than to changes in storm activity. Projected changes in the frequency and intensity of storm surges are expected to cause significant ecological damage, economic loss and other societal problems along low-lying coastal areas across Europe, unless additional adaptation measures are implemented. Impacts of natural hazards in Europe The data on impacts of past disasters (economic, human and ecological) are fragmented and incomplete. The importance of a systematic collection of such data has been recognised as of key importance for better public policies on DRR and CCA. Under the SFDRR the signatory countries committed to reduce the impacts of disasters on economy and human health by 2030, and recognised the importance of monitoring in order to assess progress towards this goal, in line with the EU Civil Protection Mechanism. Spatially explicit, event-based, official disaster impact databases serve various purposes, including economic loss accounting, forensic analysis, risk modelling and risk financing. Economic loss accounting documents the evolution and helps to detect trends. Climate change has caused noticeable effects on human health in Europe, mainly as a result of extreme events, an increase in climate-sensitive diseases, and deterioration of environmental and social conditions. Weather- and climate-related natural hazards threaten human health and affect social care services. The deadliest among the extreme weather- and climate-related events in Europe are heat waves. Health impacts of heat are manifested through fatigue, dehydration and stress, and can lead to worsening of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, electrolyte disorders and kidney problems. These symptoms are aggravated by air pollution (in particular by fine particulates and ozone). Heavy precipitation events can result in flooding and run-off which can introduce faecal contamination into rivers and lakes. It can also potentially adversely affect water treatment and distribution systems, and overload the capacity of sewerage systems, causing discharge of untreated water. Increase in frequency and intensity of extreme weather- and climate-related events may lead to greater impacts on ecosystems and their services. Natural hazards can affect and shape ecosystems and thus have an impact on the services that they provide. Weather- and climate-related natural hazards may affect an ecosystem to the point from which recovery is not possible, resulting in a loss of ecosystem services (e.g. water retention, food production, cooling, energy production, recreation and carbon sequestration). The intensity and spatial extent of such impacts of natural hazards depends both on the intensity and frequency of the events and on the state of the ecosystems affected. The vulnerabilities of ecosystems may already have been affected by other factors such as ecosystem fragmentation. Similar ecosystems in different bioclimatic zones in Europe may respond differently to climate change. An appropriate management of ecosystems can help to avoid or significantly reduce these, and provide additional benefits. The total reported economic losses caused by weather- and climate-related extremes in the EEA member countries over the 1980–2015 period amounted to over EUR 433 billion. Weather- and climate-related, hydrological, and geophysical natural hazards cause sizeable and growing financial and economic losses. The financial losses consist of the value of capital lost and recovery and opportunity costs. Direct financial losses may set off supply and demand shocks that affect regional economies in and beyond the disaster-affected areas. The largest share of the economic impacts are caused by floods (38 %) followed by storms (25 %), droughts (9 %) and heat waves (6 %). The insurance coverage is largest for hailstorm-related loss which, however, represents only 4 % of the total loss, followed by windstorms. A large share of the total losses (70 %) has been caused by a small number of events (3 %). Executive summary 13 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe Selected cases of enhanced coherence between climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction A better coherence between CCA and DRR can be fostered by development of a high-level strategic vision and local-level engagement of key actors, supported by adequate funding. The report presents selected cases from various European countries in which effective coherence between CCA and DRR has been achieved, in various ways and to various degrees. The selection is based on criteria that define ‘good practice’: coherence is deliberately planned rather than an accidental outcome; improved coherence pays off in both policy areas; and uncertainty and multiple possible futures are explicitly accounted for in risk prevention efforts, from both short- and long-term perspectives. Six examples are explored in terms of governance, financing, policies and measures, data and knowledge, methods and tools, and monitoring and evaluation. The six cases are (1) development of a long-term planning vision in the Netherlands; (2) insurance and risk financing based on public–private partnerships in Spain, France and the United Kingdom; (3) local risk governance in Switzerland; (4) national risk assessments serving both CCA and DRR purposes; (5) city networking for improved urban resilience; and (6) financing nature-based solutions for CCA and DRR. In the Netherlands, the central government, water boards, provinces and municipalities work closely together to climate proof water management in the Delta Programme. The programme led to a new risk-based flood protection policy and standards based on three types of risk: individual, economic and societal. The Delta Programme promotes multi-layer safety policies and measures in which an optimal mix is proposed between prevention, sustainable spatial planning and crisis management. The shared risk knowledge base is used by both CCA and DRR communities, and is supported by open public data. The Delta Programme developed a new adaptive planning approach termed Adaptive Delta Management as ‘a smart way of taking account of uncertainties and dependencies in decision-making on Delta Management with a view to reducing the risk of overspending or underinvestment’. This approach starts from short-term measures that are linked to long-term perspectives and it takes account of long-term uncertain impacts of climate change through the use of a range of scenarios, specification of critical thresholds and planning-ahead strategies as a series of subsequent measures, as well as economic evaluation frameworks assessing societal costs and benefits. Insurers can contribute to enhancing societal resilience and coherence between CCA and DRR through incentivising risk prevention, helping to improve risk understanding and knowledge, and stimulating active engagement and investment. Economic costs of climate hazard risks can be reduced by well-designed ex ante financial management and protection instruments. Public–Private Partnerships (PPPs) provide services with joint bearing of responsibilities and efficient risk sharing. A number of PPPs exist in Europe, aiming at increasing insurance coverage and market penetration, and also ensuring strong financial backing for low-probability/high-impact risks. Examples of longstanding insurance-related PPPs include the risks insurance scheme of the Consorcio de Compensación de Seguros (Spanish Insurance Compensation Consortium) (CCS), the French Catastrophes Naturelles (CatNat) and more recently the Flood Reinsurance Scheme (Flood Re) in the United Kingdom. The combination of national agenda setting and local implementation and integration can lead to effective CCA and DRR strategies. As a result of the decentralised system in Switzerland, operational responsibility for dealing with natural hazards and for civil protection lies, by law, first and foremost with the cantons and municipalities. The federal authorities define the strategy and principles, advise the cantons on sustainable protection measures, provide subsidies and adopt an overall control function. Formal arrangements have been put into place to secure cooperation between these actors, horizontally and vertically, and between federal organisations, the private sector and academic organisations. CCA has benefited from improved modelling of climate change, identification and modelling of known and emerging impacts of climate change, shared knowledge development, and formulating long-term visions and policy goals. DRR has benefited from improved risk maps, risk assessments and assessments of emerging risks, and from putting a monitoring system of ‘threshold’ phenomena in place. Exploitation of common ground between CCA and DRR is fostered, e.g. by sharing databases, models and information on hazards. National risk assessments (NRAs) can serve as an effective base for CCA and DRR, as they contribute a broader understanding of risk and give hints on tolerance thresholds. This case is of a different nature than the three preceding ones, as it focuses on one specific arrangement. The added value of NRAs for CCA depends on the time horizon chosen in the NRAs. A short time horizon limits the value for CCA. The added value of NRAs for DRR is more obvious, as it provides the basis for DRR planning. The common ground that NRAs may help to exploit are understanding and use of risk metrics, tipping points and the timing of reaching these. Executive summary 14 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in EuropeCity networks are important mechanisms for motivating cities and for supporting capacity building for CCA and DRR policies and action in a sustained manner. Many networks of cities addressing CCA and DRR exist. Key networks are the Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy, C40 Cities, Making cities resilient campaign (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, UNISDR), Resilient Cities annual conference (Local Governments for Sustainability, ICLEI), and 100 Resilient Cities (Rockefeller Foundation). A common feature of these networks is an absence of hierarchical authority and power (such as regulation and sanction). Instead their authority relies on strategies such as information and communication, project funding and co-operation, recognition, and benchmarking and certification. In a broader sense the role of city networks, and in particular their function in motivating cities and supporting capacity building in the area of climate change and disaster risk policy and action, is crucial. Ensuring and enhancing reliable funding of these networks will facilitate and strengthen continuation of their work. Financing nature-based solutions (NBSs) is an effective approach to adapt to climate change and to reduce disaster risks. An instrument set up by European investment bank (EIB) finance projects which apply nature-based solutions such as re-naturalization of rivers to reduce the downstream flooding risk, agro-forestry projects and agricultural projects reducing soil erosion, green and blue infrastructure solutions in urban areas reducing climate change impacts such as heavy precipitation events or urban heat islands to mention only some. Opportunities to enhance coherence between climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in policy and practice Both CCA and DDR communities use the concept of ‘resilience’ and this provides common ground upon which more coherent policies and actions might be built. At a strategic level, CCA and DRR can be better integrated through the development of long-term national programmes and could be supported by more innovative risk financing instruments. For CCA as of 2017, 28 European countries (25 EU Member States and three EEA member countries) have adopted a national adaptation strategy (NAS) and 17 (15 EU Member States and two EEA member countries) have developed a national adaptation plan. For DRR, national and local multi- stakeholder platforms for DRR have been established in many countries in Europe. As with CCA, the DRR communities are seeking to build actions using an ‘all-society’ engagement process informed by multiple perspectives from both public and private sectors.Policy instruments that incentivise more efficient use of natural resources contribute to reducing the impacts of climate change. A sound financial strategy that brings together different financial instruments to fund disaster response can lessen the impacts of climate change and variability, speed up recovery and reconstruction, and harness knowledge and incentives for reducing risk. A comprehensive financial strategy is conducive to better framed and better informed risk management and governance. There are opportunities to communicate and share more consistent and complementary knowledge for CCA and DRR through web-based knowledge portals and multi-stakeholder coordination platforms. Improved and harmonised knowledge sharing and closely coordinated multi- stakeholder engagement can enhance coherence between CCA and DRR. Knowledge portals provide a platform for sharing information and thus can increase the understanding of vulnerabilities and risks, and risk mitigation and climate adaptation measures. The information and knowledge incorporated on knowledge portals typically includes guidance and decision support tools; the results of adaptation research; data and information; policies at transnational, national and subnational levels; and experiences and case studies from practice. Multi-stakeholder disaster risk management (DRM) coordination platforms have enhanced horizontal cooperation and partnerships across public and private spheres. The SFDRR encouraged development of similar platforms at local level, and these could be harnessed for the purpose of climate adaptation. Monitoring, reporting and evaluation activities (MRE) are increasing in both policy areas but learning can be enhanced across both areas to improve coherence and quality. An increasing number of European countries are taking action on MRE for adaptation at the national level. This emphasis on MRE in CCA and DRR is partially driven by increased levels of investment in these areas, and thus a need to provide accountability, but also by a desire to understand ‘what works well (or not)’ and how to improve future practice. Thus MRE can help learning across cities, regions and countries. CCA and DRR share a number of characteristics that can make MRE challenging, such as long timescales, uncertainty and common baselines. MRE approaches that are specifically designed to address both CCA and DRR currently exist in only a few cases, but these are expected to increase in future. Improved risk assessment methods and mutually beneficial approaches present opportunities to enhance coherence between the two policy areas. Executive summary 15 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe Hazard mapping and risk assessment represent an area where integration of CCA and DRR is well advanced and recognised as a priority. There is an opportunity for mutual learning and advancing knowledge that will benefit both communities. Comprehensive climate change vulnerability and risk assessments have been performed by an increasing number of European countries. Furthermore, NRAs completed by EU Member States identify, assess and prioritise a number of security threats, of which climate change is only one. The experiences of some countries, such as France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, show that climate vulnerability and risk assessments need to build on strong institutional frameworks, clearly assigned responsibilities and authority, and close stakeholder engagement. A thorough understanding of risks including their cascade and spillover effects is therefore vital. Improved knowledge of the economic costs of natural hazards is also important for a better understanding of implicit and explicit government liabilities, and designing comprehensive risk financing strategies. A well-functioning system of public and private, user-driven climate services can help catalyse economic and societal action, and transformation that reduces risks and improves societal resilience. The European Research and Innovation Roadmap for Climate Services gives primacy to a service perspective on climate services (i.e. away from supply to user-driven and science-informed) and is also underpinned by an approach to research and innovation based on co-design, co-development and co-evaluation of climate services. Improved alignment of demand-led CCA and DRR climate service products would require decision-makers from both communities to have stronger linkages with each other as well as with the providers of climate information and knowledge. Nature-based solutions (NBSs) are a prime example of means to mitigate natural hazard risks and boost societal resilience that address both CCA and DRR. NBS approaches are often cost-effective, have multiple benefits, and can become increasingly valuable in the face of more frequent and/or severe extreme events. Adding CCA and DRR to the considerations used to motivate and design nature-/ecosystem-based solutions would add to the multipurpose nature of these solutions, help to leverage funding, and help to connect communities working on joint solutions. Usage or restoration of floodplains and upland areas to decrease flood risk in downstream areas, green infrastructure in urban areas to reduce run-off during high-intensity precipitation events and forest management aiming to reduce wild fires or landslides are just three of many examples. Such solutions can be promoted by better translating available scientific expertise and political support into practice. Initiatives such as the Biodiversity Information System for Europe (BISE) and Oppla (a new knowledge ‘marketplace’) can support learning and knowledge exchange on green infrastructural solutions. The European Climate Adaptation Platform (Climate-ADAPT) also contains a range of cases of nature-/ecosystem-based adaptation actions that have been implemented and that can provide inspiring examples for others to learn from. Various funding and financing options for CCA and DRR are available at EU level. The EU agreed to spend 20 % of the resources under the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014–2020 on climate change-related action. Adaptation to likely impacts of climate change is integrated (mainstreamed) in major EU sectoral policies by means of the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF). Disaster resilience and risk prevention and management are also promoted under other priorities. Additional funds include Horizon 2020, LIFE and the European Solidarity Fund. Two urban adaptation-related reports (published in 2016 and 2017) describe a wide range of additional well-established and innovative financing instruments for nature-/ecosystem-based and other adaptation actions, such as crowd-funding and green bonds. Improving the coordination of national-level indicators There are growing demands for the establishment of national-level indicator sets for monitoring CCA and DRR actions in Europe. Progress in implementing the SFDRR will be monitored through an agreed set of indicators, while the UNFCCC is considering how best to track adaptation efforts at national level. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) will also require countries to report on progress. The European Commission will prepare adaptation preparedness scoreboards for each EU Member State in 2017 as part of its evaluation of the EU adaptation strategy, to be finalised in 2018. There are opportunities to improve connectivity and coherence between these indicator requirements at EU level, to improve the efficiency of data collection at national level and to build up a more complete picture of CCA and DRR progress and priorities at national level. Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe16Introduction 1.1 Why do we need to enhance the coherence between climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction? Disaster risks and losses are of great concern for policymakers and citizens, since they have increased in recent decades and are expected to further increase as a result of a combination of projected demographic development and land use change, along with expansion of residential and economic activities in disaster-prone areas and projected climate change. There is evidence that climate change has increased the frequency and severity of certain extreme weather- and climate-related events, such as droughts, heat waves and heavy precipitation events, in some regions across Europe, and these trends are projected to continue, without climate change mitigation and adaptation (IPCC, 2012, 2014b; EEA, 2017). At global and European levels it is becoming a high priority to implement a comprehensive, integrated risk approach by considering the full disaster management cycle (2) (prevention/mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery), which also takes account of the importance of climate change as a driver of risk (see Chapter 2). Climate change adaptation (CCA) and disaster risk reduction (DRR) provide a range of complementary approaches for managing the risks of extreme weather- and climate-related events (weather- and climate-related natural hazards) and disasters, and both are cross-cutting and complex development issues (see Box 1.1). Scientific and policy attention on the issue of linking CCA and DRR has been recognised at international level (e.g. the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) of the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) (UN, 2015), the Paris • At global, European and national level there is an emerging need to enhance coherence between climate change adaptation (CCA) and disaster risk reduction (DRR) by taking account of their similar objectives and differences. • Successful coherence in knowledge base, policies and measures of CCA and DRR reduces both duplication of efforts and lack of coordination at the various levels of governance, contributing to better preparedness and response to disasters, and also to sustainable development. Box 1.1 Key definitions of CCA and DRR used in this report In this report we use the following key definitions for CCA and DRR: • Climate change adaptation is the process of adjustment to actual or expected climate and its effects. In human systems, adaptation seeks to moderate or avoid harm, or to exploit beneficial opportunities. In some natural systems, human intervention may facilitate adjustment to expected climate and its effects (IPCC, 2014b). • Disaster risk reduction is aimed at preventing new and reducing existing disaster risk (exposure, hazard or vulnerability), and managing residual risk, all of which contributes to strengthening resilience and therefore to the achievement of sustainable development (IPCC, 2014a; UNISDR, 2017)1 Introduction (2) The ‘traditional full disaster risk management cycle’ includes the following elements: prevention/mitigation (minimising the effects of a disaster), preparedness (planning how to respond), response (efforts to minimise the hazards caused by a disaster) and recovery (returning to normal). In some studies response is merged with recovery and a new element (risk assessment) is included before prevention (see Section 2.2). Introduction 17 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe Agreement on Climate Change of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (UNFCCC, 2015)), European level (e.g. the EU Action Plan on SFDRR 2015-2030 (EC, 2016), the European Forum for Disaster Risk Reduction (EFDRR) Roadmap for the implementation of the Sendai Framework and the EU strategy on adaptation to climate change (EC, 2013)), and also at national level, with various initiatives already started in some European countries (see Chapters 2 and 5). Two publications published in 2017, namely the book ‘The Routledge handbook of disaster risk reduction including climate change adaptation’ (Kelman et al., 2017) and the report ‘Science for disaster risk management 2017: knowing better and losing less’ (Poljanšek et al., 2017) confirm the enhanced attention to DRR and the links to CCA. This attention at European scale is mainly due to the increasing frequency and intensity of certain extreme weather- and climate-related events, and to their significant socio-economic and human impacts (see Chapters 3 and 4). These extremes may be amplified in intensity and frequency due to further climate change, and can show strong regional differences across Europe (EEA, 2017). Bringing together policy and science experts and practitioners of CCA and DRR is needed at the European level (see Table 1.1). Potential key benefits of enhancing coherence between CCA and DRR are, at both EU and national level: • enhanced knowledge base, benefiting both policy areas; • more effective and efficient policies and practises in both areas, due to exploitation of synergies; • stronger collaboration between scientific and policy communities and networks; • more efficient use of human and financial resources; • better preparedness and response to disasters. Table 1.1 Objective and main differences between climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction CCA DRR Common objective Both CCA and DRR address prevention and reduction of risks of disasters by reducing vulnerability and increasing resilience of societies. Main differences Focus mainly on future and addressing uncertainty and new risks — CCA addresses climate change and climate variability, including changes in climate extremes, and focuses on reducing risks of present and future climate change.Focus on present and addressing existing risks — DRR focuses on reducing risks based on previous experience and knowledge of the past, considers as stationary the probability of occurrence of extremes, and does not systematically consider climate change as a driver of risk. Addressing mainly weather- and climate-related hazards — CCA addresses weather-related hazards (e.g. storm, heavy precipitation), climate-related hazards (e.g. heat wave, drought), and hydrological hazards (e.g. flood), which are sub-sets of the hazards covered by DRR. In addition: Longer time scale — CCA also addresses impacts of slow onset changes (e.g. average temperature rise, sea level rise, drought, ice melting and loss of biodiversity).Addressing all hazard types — DRR covers all hazard types including geophysical (e.g. earthquake, mass movement, volcanic activity, landslide, avalanche), hydro-meteorological (e.g. storm, extreme temperature, flood, wave action), climatological (e.g. drought, wildfire), biological (e.g. disease, insect infestation), and technological (e.g. oil and toxic spills, and industrial accidents). Origin and culture in scientific theory — CCA has been developed as the progress of understanding the threat of climate change has increased.Origin and culture in humanitarian assistance and civil protection — in general DRR has a longer history and originated from civil protection and humanitarian action following disaster events. Mainly actors in environment ministries and agencies — CCA is developed and managed mainly from governmental departments, ministries, and scientific institutions responsible for environment and climate.Mainly actors in civil protection ministries and agencies — DRR is developed and managed mainly from governmental departments, ministries and agencies responsible for civil protection, national security, emergency management and humanitarian assistance. Introduction 18 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in EuropeFor example, an increased coherence between CCA and DRR can be relevant to better identification and assessment of risks of natural hazards, more coherent planning of risk reduction investments and improved elaboration of financing instruments. Furthermore, closer collaboration on these CCA and DRR issues is particularly relevant as most governments have ratified the UNFCCC Paris Agreement on Climate Change, in which climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction are key components (see Chapters 2 and 5). In conclusion, efficient and effective CCA policies and measures must build on and expand existing DRR efforts, and sustainable DRR approaches must account for the impacts of climate change (see Chapter 6). 1.2 Scope and outline of the report This report aims to contribute to a better awareness and further exchange of knowledge base, policy developments and implementation among decision-makers, policy and science experts, and practitioners in the CCA and DRR communities. The report also describes trends and projections of 10 selected weather- and climate-related natural hazards (including hydro-meteorological and geophysical natural hazards), and their related economic losses, in the past five decades. The geographical coverage of the report includes mainly the 33 European Environment Agency (EEA) member countries and the six cooperating countries (3). The report was prepared by a team of experts from the EEA, the Directorate-General Joint Research Centre (DG JRC) of the European Commission, the European Topic Centre on Climate Change Impacts, Vulnerability and Adaptation (ETC/CCA), the European Topic Centre on Inland, Coastal and Marine waters (ETC/ICM) and other institutions. An advisory group provided views on the scoping of the report. The advisory group included members of the EEA Scientific Committee; the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Climate Action (DG CLIMA), Directorate-General for Environment (DG ENV) and Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (DG ECHO); the UNISDR Regional Office for Europe; and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The report is based on a range of information sources (see Box 1.2). In addition, this report is also based on the information collected through a recent EEA survey. On 23 February 2016, the EEA sent a brief questionnaire (4) to all 33 member countries and the six cooperating countries. Responses were received from 22 countries (see Map 1.1). Furthermore the EEA organised the expert workshop ‘Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction (3) The 33 EEA member countries are the 28 EU Member States together with Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey. The six West Balkan countries are cooperating countries: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Kosovo under UN Security Council Resolution 1244/99. (4) ‘Information on the planned EEA 2017 report on CCA/DRR and a request for updated country information regarding national integration of CCA/DRR’. (5) Regulation (EU) No 525/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on a mechanism for monitoring and reporting greenhouse gas emissions and for reporting other information at national and Union level relevant to climate change and repealing Decision No 280/2004/EC, OJ L 165, 18.6.2013, p. 13. (6) http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/countries-regions/countries (7) http://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/progress/reports/index.php?o=pol_year&o2=DESC&ps=50&hid=2015&cid=rid3&x=9&y=5 (8) http://www.preventionweb.net/publications/view/35277 (9) http://www.preventionweb.net/files/27513_12efdrr3oct2012croatiawg1andreassen.pdfBox 1.2 Country information on CCA and DRR used as input to the report • 2015: according to the regulation on a mechanism for monitoring and reporting greenhouse gas emissions and for reporting other information relevant to climate change at national and EU level (5), the EU Member States reported to the European Commission information on their national adaptation planning and strategies, outlining their implemented or planned actions to facilitate adaptation to climate change. The information is accessible on the European Climate Adaptation Platform (Climate-ADAPT) country pages (6). • 2015: according to the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA, now SFDRR 2015–2030 — see Section 2.1), the relevant countries provided DRR progress reports including assessment of strategic priorities in the implementation of DRR actions and establishing baselines on levels of progress achieved in implementing the HFA’s five priorities for action (7). • 2012: the European Forum for Disaster Risk Reduction (EFDRR) working group on CCA and DRR carried out a survey (8) among European countries (HFA focal points and national platform coordinators) to obtain an overview of which member countries of the EFDRR link CCA and DRR, and how they do it (9). Introduction 19 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe — policies and practice at European and national level’ (11–13 April 2016), inviting experts from various EEA member countries, the European Commission (DG ECHO, DG CLIMA and DG JRC) and UNISDR to discuss the links between CCA and DRR policies and practices in Europe, and to explore lessons learned from national experiences. The target audience of this report includes scientific/technical experts, policy advisers, and policymakers in EU institutions and EEA member countries who are involved in the development and implementation of CCA and/or DRR policies and measures. Moreover, the report may also provide useful input to the European Commission’s evaluation of the EU strategy on adaptation to climate change in 2017–2018. The report is structured as follows (see Figure 1.1). Chapter 1 explains the need to enhance coherence between the CCA and DRR communities (Section 1.1), the scope and outline of the report (Section 1.2) and the links to other EEA reports and activities (Section 1.3). Section 1.4 describes the methodological approach used. Chapter 2 starts with a detailed overview of policies relevant to linkages between CCA and DRR at global, European and national levels (Section 2.1). It describes key methods and tools for planning CCA and DRR policies (Section 2.2) and presents how European policies on CCA and DRR are being put into practice at national and subnational level in various countries (Section 2.3).Map 1.1 Participation of EEA member countries in the 2016 EEA survey Note: The EEA survey was launched in early 2016 to gather updated information from countries regarding the status of integration of CCA/DRR at national or subnational levels. Countries that responded to the survey: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Sweden (EU Member States), together with Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey. Countries that did not respond to the survey: Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Greece, Iceland, Latvia, Luxembourg, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and the United Kingdom. Source: EEA.70° 60° 50° 40°40° 30°30° 20°20° 10°10° 0°0° -10° -20° -30° 60° 50°50° 40°40° 05 00 1000 1500kmOutside coverageNo response Response receive dParticipation of the EEA member countries in th e 2016 EEA survey Introduction 20 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in EuropeChapter 3 describes observational trends in the past five decades and projections until the end of the current century, for 10 selected weather- and climate-related natural hazards at the European scale. These include heat waves, heavy precipitation events, river floods, windstorms (including medicanes), landslides, droughts (meteorological, soil moisture and hydrological droughts), forest fires, avalanches, hail and storm surges/extreme sea levels. This chapter also includes an analysis of uncertainties, data gaps and information needs for each natural hazard, and examples of past natural hazards. The chapter provides a useful summary of scientific knowledge on past and projected trends for key weather- and climate-related natural hazards. These hazards have been selected because of their relevancy for Europe: they already occur with regularity and/or intensity, causing significant socio-economic damage. Furthermore, most of them are projected to increase in severity, duration and/or extent under future climate change, and to show strong regional variations across Europe. Chapter 4 summarises the indicators developed by the UN Open-Ended Intergovernmental Expert Working Group on Indicators and Terminology Relating to Disaster Risk Reduction (OIEWG), and the SFDRR indicators of progress (Section 4.1). Chapter 4 also complements analysis of the selected natural hazards presented in Chapter 3 by describing their impacts on health and wellbeing (Section 4.2), ecosystems (Section 4.3) and economic wealth and cohesion (Section 4.4). Chapter 5 reviews the extent to which coherence between CCA and DRR practices in Europe can be effectively enhanced in areas where this would be beneficial, and in which cases. In comparison with the examples presented in Section 2.3 the cases in this chapter demonstrate a higher level of coherence and can be considered as ‘good practices’. Here a good practice implies the following: (1) potentially duplicative and/or conflicting actions are avoided; (2) CCA is integrated into DRR practices and vice versa, with the aim of enhancing the knowledge base to the benefit of both policy areas; (3) more effective and efficient policies are conducted in both areas due to exploitation of synergies; (4) a stronger collaboration is achieved between scientific and policy communities and networks (see Chapter 6). Finally Chapter 6 summarises findings from the previous chapters and identifies specific opportunities Figure 1.1 Framework of the report Note: Guidance to the user on how to read the report. Source: EEA.Opportunities to enhance coherence between CCA and DRR in policy and practice Selected cases of enhanced coherence between CCA and DRRIntroduction: • Setting the scene • Scope and outline of the report • Links to other EEA activities• Concepts and definitions • International and EU policies • Methods and tools • Practices in EuropePolicies, methods and practices: • Observations and projections of selected natural hazards in EuropeWeather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe: Impacts of natural hazards in Europe: • Disaster loss data in EU• Human health and wellbeing • Ecosystems and their services • Economic impacts Introduction 21 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe for further enhancing coherence between CCA and DRR in policy and practice. The opportunities identified and analysed in this chapter are the following: • developing consistent and complementary knowledge and coordination platforms at EU, national and regional level; • improved monitoring and risk assessment (outcomes and processes); • enhancing coherence between CCA and DRR climate services; • long-term national programmes; • nature-based solutions to maximise co-benefits; • risk and adaptation financing/from risk transfer to risk prevention financing; • monitoring and evaluation to improve policy implementation and adaptive management. 1.3 Links to other EEA activities During past years the EEA has published reports on themes related to impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to natural hazards. The following EEA reports, published in the period 2014–2016, focus specifically on adaptation policies: • National adaptation policy processes in European countries — 2014 (EEA, 2014b) builds on the results of a self-assessment survey conducted on national adaptation policy processes in Europe, and provides the most comprehensive overview of national adaptation policy processes in Europe to date. • Adaptation of transport to climate change in Europe — Challenges and options across transport modes and stakeholders (EEA, 2014a) explores current climate change adaptation practices concerning transport across European countries. • National monitoring, reporting and evaluation of climate change adaptation in Europe (EEA, 2015b) provides new insights into adaptation monitoring, reporting and evaluation systems at the national level in Europe and constitutes the first attempt to consolidate emerging information across European countries. • Urban adaptation to climate change in Europe 2016 — Transforming cities in a changing climate (EEA, 2016c) presents the state and progress of adaptation in urban areas in Europe over the past decade and gives examples of practices and solutions for adapting to climate change. So far two EEA reports have directly addressed impacts of a selected range of natural hazards in Europe: • Mapping the impacts of recent natural disasters and technological accidents in Europe, published in 2004 (EEA, 2004); • Mapping the impacts of natural hazards and technological accidents in Europe — An overview of the last decade, published in 2010 (EEA, 2011). In particular, the latter (EEA, 2011) analyses the occurrence and impacts of disasters and underlying hazards in Europe for the period 1998–2009. It addresses the following hazards: storms, extreme temperature events, forest fires, water scarcity and droughts, floods, avalanches, landslides, earthquakes, volcanoes and technological accidents. The report highlights that comparable national data were not available for all EEA member countries. This issue still remains, although various initiatives have been put in place in recent years to address the problem. The main source of data for this report are global disaster databases such as the EM-DAT database of the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), the NatCatSERVICE of Munich RE and the European Forest Fire Information System (EFFIS) maintained by the JRC. This report shows the main issues relating to the selected hazards and, in some cases, reviews the impacts in different sectors, but it does not provide an assessment of how climate change affects the intensity and frequency of disasters. In 2012, focusing specifically on droughts and water scarcity, the EEA published the report Water resources in Europe in the context of vulnerability (EEA, 2012b). At the beginning of 2016, the EEA published the report Flood risks and environmental vulnerability — Exploring the synergies between floodplain restoration, water policies and thematic policies (EEA, 2016a). This report presents the role of floodplains in flood prevention, including the impact of hydromorphological alterations on ecosystem services, and supports the implementation of the EU Floods Directive (EU, 2007), in particular with regard to environmental impacts and how these can be linked to CCA and DRR. Furthermore, this report looks at synergies between water management, nature conservation and economic developments, both in the field and at the policy level. At the end of 2015 the EEA published a technical report, Exploring nature-based solutions — The role of green Introduction 22 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europeinfrastructure in mitigating the impacts of weather- and climate change-related natural hazards (EEA, 2015a). This draws attention to certain types of extreme events and natural hazards at European scale that are very likely to be amplified by ongoing climate change, and to the role of ‘green infrastructure’ (GI) and ecosystem services in mitigating these related impacts. Progress and challenges in European ecosystems have been addressed in an EEA reported entitled Mapping and assessing the conditions of Europe’s ecosystems (EEA, 2016b). The report is an EEA contribution to the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 (10). The EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 uses mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services to meet the Aichi targets of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The concept of the ‘ecosystem-based approach’ addresses the multi-functionality of ecosystems, with each providing a multitude of services. This allows a link to be established between the biodiversity-related targets and other policy lines, such as the Floods Directive, the common agricultural policy (CAP), the Forest Strategy, the Water Framework Directive, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, territorial cohesion policies, etc., and to develop more integrated approaches. It necessitates exploring how changes in ecosystem management towards maintaining biodiversity can create mutual benefits, including flood and landslide protection, erosion risk reduction, climate change mitigation and adaptation, etc. To further develop the topic, in 2017 the EEA published a report entitled Green infrastructure and flood management — Promoting cost-efficient flood risk reduction via green infrastructure solutions (EEA, 2017b), which focuses on the possibility of implementing GI on European floodplains. This report will demonstrate the scope of GI and its potential for mitigating river floods in a cost-efficient way. It will further contribute to building the knowledge and evidence base on the benefits of applying GI, which can help awareness raising and serving strategic or policy directions in the future. Furthermore, the EEA and ETC/CCA published a technical paper on extreme weather- and climate-related events in Europe, which includes the latest scientific knowledge available for the following categories of extreme events: temperature extremes (heat), heavy precipitation, drought and hail. The results of this work have been expanded and included in Chapter 3 of the current report (ETC/CCA and EEA, 2015). Finally, in January 2017 the EEA published a comprehensive report, Climate change, impacts and vulnerability (EEA, 2017a). This is an update and revision of a report published in 2012 (EEA, 2012a). The new report presents trends and projections with 43 climate impact indicators and the vulnerability, risks and impacts of climate change in various socio-economic sectors, such as human health and ecosystems. The EEA also regularly updates and publishes indicators online, including temperature extremes (CLIM 001) (11), heavy precipitation (CLIM 004) (12), windstorms (CLIM 005) (13), river floods (CLIM 017) (14), meteorological and hydrological droughts (CLIM 018) (15), forest fires (CLIM 035) (16) and economic losses from climate-related extremes (CLIM 039) (17). The EEA also contributes to two European platforms related to impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to natural hazards. One is Climate-ADAPT (18), a partnership between the EEA and the European Commission (DG CLIMA, DG JRC and other DGs) launched in 2012, which is a web-portal entry to access and share data and information on CCA, in transnational regions, countries and urban areas, and on EU sector policies. Furthermore Climate-ADAPT provides some specific tools that support adaptation planning. The second platform relevant here is the Water Information System for Europe (WISE) (19), a partnership between the EEA, the European Commission (DG ENV, DG JRC and Eurostat) launched (10) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/strategy/index_en.htm (11) http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/global-and-european-temperature-3/assessment (12) http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/precipitation-extremes-in-europe-3/assessment (13) http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/storms-2/assessment (14) http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/river-floods-2/assessment (15) http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/river-flow-drought-2/assessment (16) http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/forest-fire-danger-2/assessment (17) http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/direct-losses-from-weather-disasters-3/assessment (18) http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/ (19) http://water.europa.eu/ Introduction 23 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe in 2007, which provides a web-portal for water-related information ranging from inland waters to marine. In particular, WISE provides easy links to the European Flood Awareness System (EFAS) and the European Drought Observatory (EDO), which are managed by the JRC. 1.4 Concepts and definitions The concepts and definitions presented in this report take into account a number of recent consolidated existing sources (IPCC, 2012, 2014b; UNISDR, 2017), but also reflect the fact that concepts and definitions evolve as knowledge, needs, perception and contexts change. CCA and DRR are dynamic fields, and will continue to evolve (see Box 1.3). In past years the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) community pursued extensive efforts to establish a common terminology for dealing with climate change through CCA. The IPCC Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX) (IPCC, 2012) identified links between climate change and extreme weather- and climate-related events, and considered DRR and CCA in the context of sustainable development. This approach was expanded further in the glossary of the IPCC Working Group II Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) (IPCC, 2014a). In 2015, furthermore, the SFDRR requested UNISDR, in close cooperation with its member countries and other stakeholders, to revise and update the terminology on DRR. This process was started by the OIEWG, and resulted at the beginning of 2017 in an updated DRR terminology (UNISDR, 2017) that was endorsed by the UN General Assembly on 2 February 2017. This revised terminology includes evolving practices and concepts related to DRR that have emerged in recent years, and has been translated into all official UN languages for dissemination. In this section the core concepts used throughout the report are presented. Among the various climate change adaptation sub-terms, we consider the following concepts key: incremental adaptation, transformative adaptation, adaptation constraint, adaptation deficit and adaptation limit. Incremental adaptation includes adaptation actions that predominantly aim to maintain the essence and integrity of a system or process at a given scale. Transformative adaptation includes adaption actions that may change the fundamental attributes of a system in response to climate and its effects, and find different solutions (IPCC, 2014a). The aim of transformative adaptation is broader and systemic, Box 1.3 The evolution of the concept of vulnerability in CCA and DRR The concept of vulnerability has consistently changed over time. A recent study (Giupponi and Biscaro, 2015) reconstructs the evolution of the concept of vulnerability within the CCA and DRR research streams through an extensive bibliometric analysis and literature review. This study highlights the key role of UN institutions (UNISDR, IPCC) in providing contributions to the definition of vulnerability in CCA and DRR. The recent IPCC reports (IPCC, 2012, 2014b) have been key in proposing solutions for converging on common definitions of vulnerability and related concepts for CCA and DRR. On the DRR side, in 2009 UNISDR published a terminology booklet (UNISDR, 2009) in which vulnerability is defined with no specific focus on climate change (20) and in 2017 an updated terminology (UNISDR, 2017). On the CCA side, IPCC efforts to converge on a unifying vulnerability concept started with the development of the SREX report (IPCC, 2012), which involved authors from both communities and aimed at a coordinated approach for CCA and DRR. This effort finalised a concise definition of vulnerability (21). The glossary provided in AR5 (IPCC, 2014a) built on the SREX effort and adopted a similar vulnerability concept (22) to that used in DRR, including two additional definitions ( contextual vulnerability/starting-point vulnerability (23) and outcome vulnerability/end-point vulnerability (24). In the SREX report and in AR5, vulnerability was clearly established as one of the elements of the notion of risk. (20) ‘The characteristics and circumstances of a community, system or asset that make it susceptible to the damaging effects of a hazard.’ (21) ‘The propensity or predisposition to be adversely affected.’ (22) ‘The propensity or predisposition to be adversely affected. Vulnerability encompasses a variety of concepts and elements including sensitivity or susceptibility to harm and lack of capacity to cope and adapt. See also contextual vulnerability and outcome vulnerability.’ (23) ‘A present inability to cope with external pressures or changes, such as changing climate conditions. Contextual vulnerability is a characteristic of social and ecological systems generated by multiple factors and processes (O’Brien et al., 2007).’ (24) ‘Vulnerability as the end point of a sequence of analyses beginning with projections of future emission trends, moving on to the development of climate scenarios, and concluding with biophysical impact studies and the identification of adaptive options. Any residual consequences that remain after adaptation has taken place define the levels of vulnerability (Kelly and Adger, 2000; O’Brien et al., 2007).’ Introduction 24 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europesince it tries to address the root causes of climate change vulnerability. This integrative and long-term approach to addressing climate change impacts has the potential to transform cities into attractive, climate-resilient and sustainable places (EEA, 2016c). Adaptation constraint includes factors that make it more difficult to plan and implement adaptation actions, or that restrict options. Adaptation deficit is the gap between the current state of a system and a state that minimises adverse impacts from existing climate conditions and variability. Adaptation limit is the point at which an actor’s objectives (or system needs) cannot be protected from intolerable risks through adaptive actions. Two kinds of adaptation limits can be identified: (1) hard adaptation limits where no adaptive actions to avoid intolerable risks are possible; (2) soft adaptation limits where options to avoid intolerable risks through adaptive action are currently unavailable (IPCC, 2014a). In general, impacts represent the effects on natural systems (e.g. ecosystems, biodiversity) and human systems (e.g. lives, livelihoods, health, societies, services and infrastructures). In this report, the term impacts is used primarily to refer to the effects of extreme weather- and climate-related events, i.e. effects caused by the interaction of climate change or hazardous climate events occurring within a specific time period, and the vulnerability of an exposed society or system (IPCC, 2014a). Vulnerability is defined in this report as the propensity or predisposition of an individual, a community, assets or systems to be adversely affected by the impacts of hazards. It includes a variety of concepts and elements such as sensitivity or susceptibility to harm, and lack of capacity to cope and adapt. Vulnerability is a result of diverse historical, social, economic, political, cultural, institutional, natural resource, and environmental conditions and processes (IPCC, 2014a; UNISDR, 2017). Sensitivity is the degree to which a system or species is affected, either adversely or beneficially, by climate variability or change (IPCC, 2014a). On the other hand, coping capacity is the ability of people, organisations and systems, using available skills and resources, to manage adverse conditions, risk or disasters. The capacity to cope requires continuing awareness, resources and good management, in normal times and during times of crisis or adverse conditions. Coping capacities contribute to the reduction of disaster risks and strengthen resilience (UNISDR, 2017). Exposure includes the people, infrastructure, housing, production capacities and other tangible human assets located in hazard-prone areas (UNISDR, 2017). Exposure and vulnerability are distinct concepts, which are often confused by the general public. As clearly stated at page 69 in Chapter 2 of the SREX report (IPCC, 2012): ‘Exposure is a necessary, but not sufficient, determinant of risk. It is possible to be exposed but not vulnerable (for example by living in a floodplain but having sufficient means to modify building structure and behaviour to mitigate potential loss). However, to be vulnerable to an extreme event, it is necessary to also be exposed.’ Hazard is defined as a process, phenomenon or human activity that may cause loss of life, injury or other health impacts, property damage, social and economic disruption or environmental degradation. Natural hazards are predominantly associated with natural processes and phenomena. Hazards may be single, sequential or combined in their origin and effects. Each hazard is characterised by its location, intensity, frequency and probability (UNISDR, 2017). Multi-hazard refers to (1) the range of multiple major hazards that a country faces, and (2) specific contexts where hazardous events may occur simultaneously, cascading or cumulatively over time, and taking into account the potential interrelated effects of these (UNISDR, 2017). Natural hazards are normally classified into various categories (see Box 1.4). Hazardous event is defined as the manifestation of a hazard in a particular place during a particular period of time. Not every hazardous event may cause a disaster, but severe hazardous events may cause a disaster, as a result of the combination of hazard occurrence and other risk factors (UNISDR, 2017). Disaster is a serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society, at any scale, due to hazardous events interacting with conditions of exposure, vulnerability and capacity, and leading to one or more of the following: human, material, economic and environmental losses and impacts. The effect of the disaster can be immediate and localised, but is often widespread and could last for a long time. The effect may test or exceed the capacity of a community or society to cope using its own resources, and therefore may require assistance from external sources, which could include neighbouring jurisdictions, or national or international involvement (UNISDR, 2017). In general, disasters occur when hazards coincide with vulnerability, and the potential for a hazard to become a disaster depends mainly on a society’s capacity to address the underlying risk factors, reduce the vulnerability of a community and to be ready to respond in case of emergency (EEA, 2011). Risk is defined in this report as the potential for consequences where something of value is at stake and Introduction 25 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe Box 1.4 The selected natural hazards analysed in this report The natural hazards analysed in this report are from the following broad categories (see Table 1.2): • hydrological hazards caused by the occurrence, movement and distribution of surface and subsurface freshwater and saltwater; • meteorological hazards caused by microscale (25) (e.g. tornadoes) to mesoscale (26) (e.g. storms) extreme weather and atmospheric conditions that last from minutes to days; • climatological hazards caused by long-lived mesoscale to macroscale (27) atmospheric processes, ranging from intra-seasonal to multi-decadal climate variability. Table 1.2 Classification of the 10 natural hazards selected for this report, taking into consideration that some natural hazards can be allocated to more than one category (e.g. heat waves are both meteorological and climatological) Category of hazards Specific natural hazard HydrologicalRiver flood Landslide Avalanche Meteorological Heat wave Heavy precipitation Windstorm Storm surge Hail Climatological Drought Forest fire Source: Based on Integrated Research on Disaster Risk classifications (IRDR, 2014). where the outcome is uncertain, recognising the diversity of values. Risk is often represented as the combination of the probability of a hazardous event and its negative consequences (probability of occurrence of events or trends multiplied by the impacts if these events or trends occur). In this report, the term risk is used primarily to refer to the risks of impacts due to natural hazards from selected extreme hydrological, meteorological, climatological and geophysical events (IPCC, 2014a; UNISDR, 2017). Disaster risk is the potential loss of life, injury, or destroyed or damaged assets to a system, society or community in a specific period of time, determined probabilistically as a function of hazard, exposure, vulnerability and capacity. Among the sub-terms of risk the most important are acceptable risk and residual risk. Acceptable risk, or tolerable risk, is the extent to which a risk is deemed acceptable or tolerable, and it depends on existing social, economic, political, cultural, technical and environmental conditions. Residual risk is the disaster risk that remains even when effective measures are in place, and for which emergency response and recovery capacities must be maintained. The presence of residual risk implies a continuing need to develop and support effective capacities for emergency services, preparedness, response and recovery, together with socio-economic policies such as safety nets and risk transfer mechanisms, as part of a holistic approach (UNISDR, 2017). (25) Microscale: short-lived atmospheric phenomena with horizontal scales of 1 km or less. (26) Mesoscale: atmospheric phenomena with horizontal scales ranging from a few kilometres to several hundred kilometres (e.g. sea breezes, thunderstorms). (27) Macroscale: atmospheric phenomena with horizontal scales ranging from several hundred kilometres to several thousand kilometres (e.g. extratropical cyclones, weather fronts). Introduction 26 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in EuropeDisaster risk management (DRM) is the application of DRR policies and strategies to prevent new disaster risk, reduce existing disaster risk and manage residual risk, contributing to the strengthening of resilience and reduction of disaster losses (UNISDR, 2017). DRM and DRR are interlinked: DRR is the policy objective of DRM, and the goals and objectives of the latter are defined in DRR strategies and plans. Disaster risk assessment is defined as a qualitative or quantitative approach to determining the nature and extent of disaster risk by analysing potential hazards and evaluating existing conditions of exposure and vulnerability that together could harm people, property, services, livelihoods and the environment on which they depend (UNISDR, 2017). Resilience is defined as the ability of a system, community or society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate, adapt to, transform and recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efficient manner, including through the preservation and restoration of essential basic structures and functions through risk management (UNISDR, 2017). Generally speaking, the resilience of a community with respect to any hazard or event is determined by the degree to which the community has the necessary resources and is capable of organising itself both prior to and during times of need. The uncertainties still inherent in the prediction of extreme events, amplified or driven by climate change, and in the estimation of related impacts, could require a change of paradigm in risk analysis and risk management. A new ‘resilience management’ is emerging as a better solution (Cutter et al., 2013; Linkov et al., 2014). Building resilience in society networks and infrastructures entails more focus on the first two elements (prevention and preparedness) of the DRM cycle, in order to prepare for and prevent the effects of extreme events and to build resilience, which will be needed to quickly cope and recover when these events occur (see Chapter 2). Resilience management requires new methods to define and measure resilience, new modelling and simulation techniques, and correct approaches to communicating with stakeholders. Resilience management may also require fundamental changes (transformative changes) in the social–ecological systems exposed to hazards (Lonsdale et al., 2015), which can make new systems more manageable under future hazards (Folke et al., 2010). The concept of resilience needs to complement the concepts of CCA and DRR (see Chapter 6). Finally, an extreme weather- and climate-related event is defined as an event that is rare in time at a particular location. It would normally be as rare as or rarer than the 10th or 90th percentile of a probability density function estimated from observations. The rarity of extreme weather- and climate-related events makes them more difficult to understand scientifically, or to analyse and project, compared with ‘average’ weather. However, such events often have the highest impacts on and cause the greatest damages to human wellbeing, and to both natural and managed systems. By definition, the characteristics of what is called extreme weather may vary from place to place in an absolute sense. When a pattern of extreme weather persists for some time, such as for a whole season, it may be classified as an extreme climate event, especially if it yields an average or total that is itself extreme (e.g. drought or heavy rainfall over a season) (IPCC, 2014a). The terms extreme weather- and climate-related event or extreme natural event, natural hazard and disaster can be mistakenly misused among the general public; in simple terms, an extreme natural event is an abnormally severe natural event, a natural hazard is an extreme natural event that could threaten people and a disaster is an extreme natural event that does affect people. This report presents 10 natural hazards (see Box 1.4). They were selected because they are of particular interest because of the impacts of recent European events and perceptions of their changing magnitude and frequency. The report does not address natural hazards such as earthquakes or tsunamis, since their frequency and magnitudes are largely independent of the changing climate. This report examines trends in time based on available observational data (i.e. physically measured with ground-based sensors or sensed remotely by radar or satellite instruments) and model reanalysis (the analysis of model data run historically in time). The report presents future projections of these natural hazards by using variables of proxies from climate models, data gaps, data needs and uncertainties, and describes selected recorded events with high socio-economic impacts. 27Policies, methods and practices Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe 2.1 Overview of policies relevant to enhance coherence between climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction 2.1.1 International policies In 2015 the UN agreed on a renewed global partnership for sustainable development, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, building upon several complementary multilateral frameworks: the SFDRR, the Paris Agreement on Climate Change and the Addis Ababa Action Agenda on Financing for Development (AAAA). In 2016, the Agenda for Humanity and the New Urban Agenda extended the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda (see Table 2.1). CCA and DDR are among the main goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, galvanised through these major UN conferences and summits held in 2015 and 2016. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (UN, 2015b) embraces 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with 169 policy targets and more than 300 indicators. The goals and targets are the core component of the new and ambitious global framework to achieve sustainable development and poverty eradication (EC, 2016b). It paves the way for a transition towards greener, fairer and more inclusive development, building upon international collaboration and partnership between states, non-state actors and civil society (EEB, 2015). The SDGs recognise DRR and CCA as a way of achieving progress in other areas, in particular eradication of poverty, ending hunger and ensuring healthy lives (UNISDR, 2015). The SFDRR (UN, 2015a) advocates multi-hazard, inclusive, science-based and risk-informed decision-making. It laid down priorities for action and policy targets, progress towards achieving which will be monitored by indicators that were developed by OIEWG and endorsed by the UN General Assembly on 2 February 2017. Understanding the hazards and risks, and measuring progress towards accomplishing the DRR targets, will only be possible if substantial efforts are put in to improving adequate risk assessments and comprehensive disaster impact records. The SFDRR identified climate change and variability as a driver of disaster risk, in conjunction with poverty and inequalities, uncontrolled urbanisation, and poor land management. Tackling these and other factors that contribute to intensification of risk is expected to lead to sizeable reduction of disaster risk. Consequently, the SFDRR pleaded for improved coherence between policy instruments for climate change, biodiversity, sustainable development, poverty eradication, environment, agriculture, health, and food and nutrition. Among others, this coherence will be promoted by adopting harmonised and nested sets of indicators capable of monitoring the progress made in different policy areas. The AAAA defined a financial framework conducive to inclusive economic prosperity, and lined up financing 2 Policies, methods and practices • CCA and DRR are central to the sustainable development agenda in Europe and globally. Both policy areas pursue common objectives that include management of climate (variability and change) risks and building of climate-resilient societies. • Comprehensive, multi-hazard risk and vulnerability assessment frameworks are needed to inform evidence-based and robust decision-making, and guide transformational changes in DRR and CCA. • A review of the current practices suggests that, although innovative examples exist, the full potential of a better integration of DRR and CCA has yet to be exploited. Policies, methods and practices 28 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europeresources with the priorities of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The AAAA goes beyond Official Development Assistance (ODA), even though developed countries recommitted to meet the previously agreed targets on global solidarity and justice. It embraces trade, investments, cooperation, science and technology, capacity building, illicit financial flows, tax reform (including harmful tax practices and subsidies), role of the private sector and other areas, essentially redesigning global economic governance. The Paris Agreement on Climate Change (UNFCCC, 2015) is the first universal, legally binding global deal to combat climate change and adapt to its effects. Having met the ratification threshold, it entered into force on 4 November 2016 and will be operative from 2020. The Paris Agreement embraced bold actions set to curb the global temperature rise well below 2 °C and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C, compared with pre-industrial levels. Put on equal footing, the adaptation goal focuses on ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and on climate resilience, so contributing to sustainable development (Articles 2 and 7). The Paris Agreement also comprises commitments on finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development. Beyond that, emphasis is placed on ‘averting, minimising and addressing loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change’ (Article 8) and on the need to cooperate and enhance understanding, action and support in various areas such as early warning systems, emergency preparedness, comprehensive risk assessment and management, and risk insurance. The 2016 Conference of Parties held in Marrakech confirmed the commitment of countries and non-state actors to implement the Paris Agreement (UNFCCC, 2016). Procedures for its implementation will be finalised in 2017–2018. The UN Secretary General’s Agenda for Humanity (UN, 2016) includes five core responsibilities (CRs): CR1 prevent and end conflicts; CR2 respect rules of war; CR3 leave no one behind; CR4 change people’s lives; CR5 invest in humanity. Of these at least three are related to natural hazard and climate risk: (1) CR3 Table 2.1 Major UN global agreements with focus on climate change adaptation (CCA) and disaster risk reduction (DRR) Major recent UN-led agreements Contributions to harmonising the DRR and CCA agendas Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR)• Formulates priorities for actions and targets for DRR, coordinated with climate adaptation efforts where relevant • Acknowledges climate change as a driver of disaster risk • Addresses disaster preparedness for effective response and to ‘build back better’ Addis Ababa Action Agenda (AAAA) • Specifies financial means for reaching the SDGs and reiterates targets for solidarity financial flows 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development• Provides an overarching framework connecting the DRR and CCA targets and commitments with poverty reduction, economic growth, social inclusion and environmental protection • Explicitly addresses the challenge to combat climate change (SDG13), and directly and indirectly addresses DRR and adaptation in several other SDGs Paris Agreement on Climate Change • Limits human-induced global temperature rise to 2 °C (1.5 °C ) compared with pre- industrial levels. • Addresses climate adaptation as a part of climate change policies (Article 7), and confirms Loss and Damage initiative as cornerstone of global policy architecture (Article 8) World Humanitarian Summit • Commits the UN Member countries to core responsibilities of humanitarian aid and disaster risk preparedness Urban Habitat • Focuses on urban environment as the major hotspots of vulnerabilities • Formulates New Urban Agenda as a vehicle for better integration of various policies contributing to sustainable development Note: Agreements concluded in 2015–2016 that promote, directly or indirectly, climate and disaster resilience, and coherence between the CCA and DRR actions. Sources: EEA, ETC/CCA. Policies, methods and practices 29 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe addresses displacement and movements of refugees due to disasters; (2) CR4 entails emphasis on risk analysis and data investments; and (3) CR5 recalls the Sendai Framework’s and the Paris Agreement’s pledges for investment in risk (reduction) and adaptation. The 2016 Humanitarian Summit served as a backstage for launching a Global Partnership for Preparedness (28) to help most vulnerable countries to prepare for disasters. The New Urban Agenda (UN, 2017), adopted at the UN Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development (Habitat III), contains three transformative commitments: leaving no one behind and fighting against poverty; urban prosperity and opportunities for all; and ecological and resilient cities and human settlements. The latter places emphasis on a rapid and efficient recovery from natural hazard strikes. A resilient city is one whose population cares about the safety of individuals and the cohesion of communities, while actively transforming their habitat and taking advantage of reduced risk exposure to improve its essential functions. The fifth session of the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction was held in in Mexico (Cancún) from 22 till 27 May 2017. The Cancun High-Level Communiqué (UNISDR 2017a) reiterated the commitments made under the 2015/2016 UN conferences and summits. By emphasizing the close nexus between climate change and water-related hazards and disasters, the Communiqué pointed out to the Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) as an effective instrument for enhancing resilience and serving both, DRR and CCA goals. Moreover, the Communiqué restated the importance of outcome-oriented partnership between public and private sectors and civil society, and formulated 11 specific commitments among others ‘building back better’ and ‘building better from the start’; conduct risk assessment for existing critical infrastructure (by 2019); and support the development of multi-stakeholder and socially-inclusive partnership initiatives. 2.1.2 EU policies The EU framework on DRR was formed by a number of thematic legislations, central to which is the EU Civil Protection Mechanism. Concerted European action on adapting to climate change followed in the late 2000s (29). Both DRR and CCA are integrated in key EU policies and strategies, including civil and critical infrastructure protection, environmental protection, financial instruments of cohesion policy, ESIF, cross-border health concerns, agriculture, food and nutrition security, and integrated coastal management. The EU has played an important role in devising the multilateral global frameworks, and lined up the European policies to their goals or even elaborated more ambitious ones (EC, 2014a, 2014c, 2014b). The EU and its Member States are among the largest contributors of public climate finance to developing countries, and firmly committed to scale up the support to developing countries to tackle climate change. In 2015, the total contributions for financing climate action in developing countries amounted to EUR 17.6 billion, which includes EUR 1.5 billion from the EU budget and EUR 2.2 billion from the European Investment Bank (30). In November 2016 the European Commission published an action plan for sustainability (EC, 2016b). This outlines how the SDGs will be integrated into the European policy framework and made to conform with the priorities of the Commission. The EU Action Plan on SFDRR 2015–2030 (EC, 2016a) recognised the SFDRR as an opportunity not only to advance the DRM agenda in Europe and to reinforce resilience to shocks and stresses, but also to boost innovation, growth and job creation. Annex 1 of the Action Plan (31) sums up the contribution of EU policies to fulfilling the SFDRR priorities and targets, especially in the fields of CCA, critical infrastructure protection, flood risk management, water and biodiversity protection, research and innovation, global health security, and food and nutrition security. The European Union Civil Protection Mechanism (EU, 2013b) compels conducting comprehensive multi-hazard risk assessments at national or appropriate subnational level. Starting in 2015 and every three years subsequently, the key elements of the national risk assessments (NRAs) are to be reported to the European Commission. In May 2017, the EC published a summary report and review of the collected NRAs (EC 2017). The report focusses on 11 main disaster risks among (28) The Global Partnership for Preparedness will strengthen preparedness capacities initially in 20 developing countries, helping them to attain a minimum level of readiness by 2020 for future disaster risks mainly caused by climate change. (29) The Green Paper ‘Adaptation to climate change in Europe — Options for EU action’ was the first milestone (2007), followed in 2009 by the EU White Paper on adaptation to climate change and in 2013 by the EU Climate Adaptation Strategy. (30) Council of the European Union http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/10/25-climate-change-finance (31) Annex 1: Achieving the priorities of the Sendai Framework: a contribution of all EU existing policies and practices. Policies, methods and practices 30 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europewhich floods, extreme weather, and forest fire. In the subsequent report, more emphasis will be placed on making the NRAs (more) comparable and uniform, and on conducting the risk assessment on regional level, within and across EU Member States. For the former purpose, the report identified good practices in NRA methodologies and processes. A still more comprehensive assessment and mapping of risk is mandated by the Floods Directive (EU, 2007), in which the likely impacts of climate change on flood frequency and intensity are to be taken into account, starting at the latest from the second planning cycle (2016–2021). Recently, the EEA published a report exploring the synergies between floodplain restoration and EU water and other thematic policies (EEA, 2016a). The European Council’s Directive on European critical infrastructures (EU, 2008) imposed assessment of risk for critical infrastructure (32) ‘located in Member States the disruption or destruction of which would have a significant impact on at least two Member States’. Initially addressing only energy and transport sectors, the Commission anticipated a detailed review of additional assets and networks with a significant European dimension (Eurocontrol, Galileo, electricity transmission grids, and gas transmission networks) with respect to prevention, preparedness and response measures, interdependencies and potential cascading effects (EC, 2013a). The Decision on serious cross-border threats to health (EU, 2013a) covers all threats, including hazards related to climate change, to guarantee a coordinated approach to health security at the EU level. The Disaster Risk Management Knowledge Centre (DRMKC) is the new European Commission initiative to improve and deepen communication between policymakers and scientists in the field of DRM, and is founded on three pillars: partnership, knowledge and innovation. The DRMKC has developed EU guidance for recording and sharing disaster damage and loss data (De Groeve et al., 2013, 2014; JRC, 2015). The DRMKC produced first flagship science report ‘Science for disaster risk management 2017: knowing better and losing less’ (Poljanšek, et al., 2017) as an effort of more than two hundred academics and experts. The report was conceived to assist integration of science into evidence-based decision making, and to back-up science-policy and science-operation interface in both, DRR and CCA fields. The three main parts of the report attend to understanding, communicating and managing disaster risk, forming what has been labelled as a ‘bridge concept’ of the report (Poljanšek, et al., 2017). Respecting the three main action areas of the DRMKC, the report recaps the future challenges in terms of innovation, knowledge and partnership from three different perspectives: scientific experts, policy makers and practitioners. In doing so, the report contributes to the Science and Technology Roadmap to Support the Implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 from a European perspective (UNISDR 2016). The EU Climate Adaptation Strategy (EC, 2013b) emphasised close coordination between national adaptation strategies and risk management plans, as well as synergies with DRR in cross-cutting areas such as sharing of data and knowledge, and assessment of risks and vulnerabilities. The Strategy called for ‘climate-proofing’ of non-climate policies, such as the CAP, the Cohesion Policy and the common fisheries policy (CFP). For example, technical guidance was published on integrating CCA in Cohesion Policy programmes and investments, and a set of principles and recommendations addresses the integration of CCA considerations under the 2014–2020 rural development programmes. Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) projects are expected to contribute to promoting transition to climate- and disaster-resilient infrastructure. The new guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure — Trans-European Energy Network (TEN-E) — include ‘climate resilience’ as a parameter for energy system-wide cost–benefit analysis for projects of common interest in electricity transmission and storage, and in gas. The decades-old Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (EIA), having been amended a few times, was revised in 2014 and now more explicitly addresses climate change and disaster risks throughout the whole EIA process. Released as a part of the EU Climate Adaptation package, the Green Paper on the insurance of natural and man-made disasters (EC, 2013b, 2013d) instigated a debate on what the role of the EU should be in the context of disaster insurance in Europe. The Green Paper raised concerns about the availability and affordability of insurance and explored various options, including mandatory insurance, product bundling, public reinsurance and disaster pools. Furthermore this Green Paper included a set of 21 questions, which was the basis for a consultation with stakeholders of public and private sectors launched to raise awareness and to assess the possibility of EU actions to improve the (32) Facilities, networks, services and assets which, if disrupted or destroyed, would have a serious impact on the health, safety, security or economic wellbeing of citizens, or the effective functioning of governments in the Member States (EC, 2004, 2006). Policies, methods and practices 31 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe market for disaster insurance in the EU. The majority of respondents highlighted: • that the penetration rate of disaster insurance varies across the EU Member States, due to the diversity of risks and differences in the regulatory environment; • that mandatory product bundling is not an appropriate way to increase insurance penetration against disaster risks; • more drawbacks than advantages for long-term disaster insurance contracts; • a need for more adequate data for disaster mapping; • that sharing data and cooperation across sectors can lead to improvements in data quality. The OECD invited member countries to better prepare for catastrophic and critical risks (OECD, 2010, 2014a), including through better designed disaster insurance schemes. In 2014, the OECD Council adopted recommendations for dealing with critical risks (OECD, 2014b), which include collection and analysis of damage and losses from disasters, and development of ‘location-based inventories of exposed populations, assets, and infrastructures’ as a part of better appreciation of disaster risk. The recommendations also addressed the transparency of risk-related information that includes ‘honest and realistic dialog’ on risk among stakeholders, and public access to risk information (OECD, 2014b). The 2013 Commission Communication defines Green Infrastructure (GI) as ‘a strategically planned network of natural and semi-natural areas with other environmental features designed and managed to deliver a wide range of ecosystem services’ (EC, 2013c). Attention paid to GI is a part of the Biodiversity Strategy (EC, 2011a) and the Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe (EC, 2011b). Target 2 of the Biodiversity Strategy established that by 2020, ‘ecosystems and their services are maintained and enhanced by establishing green infrastructure and restoring at least 15 % of degraded ecosystems’. The EEA has also analysed GI in a series of assessment reports (EEA, 2011, 2014b), including a recent report on the role of GI for DRR, in particular flood, storm surge, landslide and wind protection (EEA, 2016a). This EEA report confirmed that well-functioning GI (e.g. floodplains, riparian woodland, barrier beaches and coastal wetlands) can support DRR and CCA in such a way to lessen the impacts of natural hazards (e.g. floods and landslides). Furthermore, combining functional GI with disaster reduction infrastructure (e.g. flood protection works) can provide many benefits for innovative risk management approaches, adapting to climate change-related risks, maintaining sustainable livelihoods and fostering green growth. Climate services (33) (Brooks, 2013; Lourenco et al., 2015; Brasseur and Gallardo, 2016) provide information that can help to reduce risks from extreme weather- and climate-related events, and improve societal resilience. Climate services have grown in numbers, quality and sophistication, stimulated by efforts under the World Meteorological Organisation’s Global Framework for Climate Services (GFCS) and the Climate Services Partnership (CSP). The EU made large investments in systems enabling modern meteorological services under the Copernicus Earth observation programme (previously Global Monitoring for Environment and Security, GMES) (EC, 2014d), as a contribution to the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth (EC, 2010b). Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) is one of six Copernicus service components, designed to deliver knowledge to support adaptation and mitigation policies. C3S is managed by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) (34). 2.2 Methods and tools for risk assessment and policy planning in climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction DRM is a complex process that requires a range of methods and tools aligned with all possible components of the DRM cycle (including risk assessment): risk assessment, prevention, preparedness, response and recovery (see Figure 2.1). This section addresses methods and tools for risk assessment and policy planning in CCA and (33) The EU Roadmap (EC, 2015a) portrays climate services as ‘transformation of climate-related data — together with other relevant information — into customised products such as projections, forecasts, information, trends, economic analysis, assessments (including technology assessment), counselling on best practices, development and evaluation of solutions and any other service in relation to climate that may be of use for the society at large’ (p. 10). (34) http://www.ecmwf.int/ Policies, methods and practices 32 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in EuropeDRR. It draws on the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard risk management (35). Risk assessment consists of three steps: risk identification (‘finding, recognizing and describing risk’), risk analysis (‘estimation of the probability of its occurrence and the severity of the potential impacts’) and risk evaluation (‘comparing the level of risk with risk criteria to determine whether the risk and/or its magnitude is tolerable’). In the context of climate risk assessment these steps need to consider all relevant climate and non-climate factors that generate a particular climate risk (Fenton and Neil, 2012). Risk assessment inherently relates to the available risk reduction options in terms of risk mitigation and adaptation planning (also termed ‘prevention’ in this report). Similar to the assessment of risk, the prevention options need to undergo an assessment procedure, consisting of identification, analysis and evaluation (of bundles) of risk mitigation, and adaptation options to effectively support policy planning and implementation of DRR. Risk assessment and risk prevention are both systematically embedded into communication with, and consultation of, stakeholders. They are also iterative in nature, i.e. based on the monitoring and review of each and every component of DRM. 2.2.1 From risk assessment to integrated risk and vulnerability assessment In the CCA community, vulnerability is more broadly defined as the relationship between all these components, i.e. hazard, susceptibility and exposure, taking account of the capacity of human and natural Figure 2.1 Disaster risk management (DRM) cycle Note: Based on ISO 31000, climate risk can be defined as the product of the likelihood of a climate-related event or trend and its consequences. In the climate adaptation community, the IPCC definition (IPCC, 2012) is more widely used and sees risk as the product of hazard (‘potential occurrence of a climate-related physical event’), vulnerability/susceptibility (‘propensity or predisposition to be adversely affected’). Sources: EEA, ETC/CCA (based on ISO 31000). (35) The risk management standard ISO 31000 of the ISO provides principles, framework and a process for managing risk in organisations of corporate governance. See http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/iso31000.htmConsultation and Communication Consultation and CommunicationMonitoring and Review Monitoring and ReviewRisk Assessment • Risk identification • Risk analysis • Risk evaluation • Identification, analysis and evaluation• Policy planning• Implementation• Early warning• Emergency planning• Education and trainingResponse and Recovery Prevention Preparedness• Rescue• Reconstruction and rehabilitation • Risk transfer Event Policies, methods and practices 33 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe systems to cope with and adapt to this risk (Figure 2.2). In its glossary, AR5, (IPCC, 2014) defines vulnerability as the propensity or predisposition of an individual, a community, assets or systems to be adversely affected by the impacts of hazards. Vulnerability encompasses a variety of concepts and elements, including sensitivity or susceptibility to harm and lack of capacity to cope and adapt (36) (see Box 1.3). Systems’ vulnerability and adaptive capacity assessment has become the leading tool in adaptation planning in practice (37). A risk and systems’ vulnerability framework for CCA was developed in the United Kingdom (‘Adaptation Wizard’) and has since been applied in PROVIA (2013) and many other international frameworks, such as the Urban Adaptation Support Tool of the Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy, and the Adaptation Support Tool, both included in Climate-ADAPT. The concept is also included in the EU guidelines on developing national adaptation strategies (EC, 2013e). 2.2.2 Quantitative and qualitative risk assessment models In practice, the assessment of climate change-related risks or climate risk assessment is often conducted by means of science-based models (38), which aim to represent the causal relationships between the various climate and non-climate factors that generate risk. In the face of the complexity of these causal chains, and given the poor availability and/or accessibility of data, it is often impossible, however, to apply quantitative (36) The IPCC (IPCC, 2001) had defined vulnerability as ‘the degree to which a system is susceptible to, or unable to cope with adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes’. In this old concept, ‘vulnerability’ was the final outcome, essentially what we now call ‘risk’. The new AR5 definition (IPCC, 2014) is in line with that of UNISDR (UNISDR, 2017c). (37) For an overview of national vulnerability and impact assessments to climate change in Europe, see for example http://climate-adapt.eea. europa.eu/countries-regions/countries , (SYKE, 2011) and (UBA 2015). Developing countries’ national vulnerability and impact activities are summarised in (UNFCCC, 2014, 2015). (38) For an overview see the PROVIA/MEDIATION toolbox, available at: http://www.mediation-project.eu/platform/toolbox/toolbox.htmlFigure 2.2 The concepts of risk, hazard and vulnerability in the integrated risk hazard framework Note: The exposure of various elements is shown here as part of the vulnerability of the group of elements, but exposure assessment may also be regarded as separate from vulnerability assessment. Source: IPCC, 2012.HazardQualified by intensity and probability Hazard potential RiskVulnerability Exposed elements Susceptibility Coping capacity Policies, methods and practices 34 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europenumerical models of climate impacts. Qualitative — sometimes called descriptive — models, which are grounded in expert judgement and local people’s knowledge, thus play a crucial role in climate risk assessment. This is not to be seen as a ‘deficit’ but as a necessary methodological ingredient when uncertainty and conflicting values and beliefs (‘normative ambiguity’) are involved (Klinke and Renn, 2002; Renn et al., 2011). Climate change is a problem in relation to both future climate developments and changing socio-economic systems (Groves and Lempert, 2007; Hallegatte et al., 2012). This requires systematic involvement of stakeholders, effective bi-directional discourse and iterative learning. Nevertheless, quantitative numerical Impact Assessment Models (IAMs) are an important tool to support decision-making on climate risks. Their main advantage lies in the fact that they can be based on large ensembles of different climate models and risk scenarios and can thus identify model inputs that cause significant uncertainty in the output (perform ‘sensitivity analyses’) and help quantify uncertainty (39). In principle they can also be applied to choose robust risk treatment options (Lempert and Groves, 2010). To be ‘useful and used’, however, they have to leave their academic silos (Lemos and Rood, 2010). A decade of climate services experiences show that applied IAMs have to be salient (perceived to be relevant), credible (perceived to be of high technical quality) and legitimate (perceived to be based on non-discriminatory process) (Bowyer et al., 2014). Therefore, effective quantitative models need to be rooted in structural and sustained stakeholder dialogues. After all, ‘if the local community is not involved in the development process, it will not trust (or use) the end product’ (OECD, 2012). Policy planning between optimisation and adaptation pathways The assessment of climate risks is not only sequentially but also logically followed by a choice on risk reduction options. Whether conducted in economic terms or by any other societal evaluation criteria, they need to undergo a similar process of identification, analysis and evaluation, sometimes summarised as ‘optimisation’. The methods and tools available to assess risk mitigation and climate adaptation strategies are similar to the ones applied in climate impact modelling, but are also to some extent specific to this task. They include cost–benefit analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, multi-criteria analysis, robust decision-making, real options analysis and adaptive management (40). Along the continuum from cost–benefit analysis to adaptive management, these methods allow for a deeper consideration of normative ambiguity (conflicting values and beliefs) and uncertainty. Robust decision-making, for example, aims to support decisions in the absence of any probabilistic information on scenarios and outcomes, i.e. ‘deep uncertainty’ (41), while adaptive management allows for the updating of actions on the basis of incoming new information and therefore closely relates to risk management principles of monitoring and evaluation, and learning. The benefits of moving from traditional frameworks involving economic/engineering methods of assessment (such as cost–benefit analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis) are, firstly, to be able to consider pluralistic views on risk, and secondly to identify robust (42) (rather than economically optimal) strategies and measures of risk reduction. The further consideration of uncertainties in CCA policy planning has led to the development of the adaptation pathways concept (Haasnoot et al., 2013), which turns from mostly incremental risk mitigation policies for addressing proximate causes of risk to ‘enabling environments’ for a more radical societal transformation to address deeply uncertain future risk scenarios (43) (Walker et al., 2013; Wise et al., 2014). From single-hazard to multi-hazard/multi-risk assessment The European Commission has adopted an EU guideline ‘Risk assessment and mapping for disaster management’ (EC, 2010a) which, for the first time, assumes a multi-hazard and multi-risk perspective. It aims to assist Member States to further develop their NRAs, taking into account regions or classes of objects exposed to multiple hazards (e.g. storms and floods), with or without temporal coincidence. It also aims to consider ‘cascading effects’, in which one hazard triggers another in a cascading fashion (e.g. a flash (39) For more information see https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/samo (40) For an overview see the MEDIATION/PROVIA tool box, available at: http://www.mediation-project.eu/platform/toolbox/toolbox.html (41) Walker et al. (2013) have defined ‘deep uncertainty’ as the condition in which analysts do not know, or the parties to a decision cannot agree upon, (1) the appropriate models to describe interactions among a system’s variables, (2) the probability distributions to represent uncertainty about key parameters in the models, and/or (3) how to value the desirability of alternative outcomes. (42) Robustness is defined as a decision-making attribute that gives a positive value to flexibility (in the sense of keeping options open) and allows a tradeoff of optimal performance for less sensitivity over a wide range of equally plausible scenarios (43) The recently concluded Know-4-DRR-project of the EU’s 7th Framework Programme of Research goes even further in openness through its call for immediate, open-outcome social experiments, or ‘living labs of DRR and CCA’ (http://cordis.europa.eu/result/rcn/176819_en.html). Policies, methods and practices 35 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe flood causing a breakdown of electricity supply and, as a result, leading to an industrial accident involving a hazardous materials spill). It is important to note that cascading effects may occur along the hazard chain (as in the case just mentioned) or along the vulnerability chain (e.g. the resilience of a street infrastructure exposed to an inundation event in summer is weakened during a subsequent winter frost). Sometimes those are called ‘secondary effects’ or, as in the case of a flash flood causing an industrial accident, ‘secondary disasters’ (Pescaroli and Alexander, 2015). The methodological challenges of a multi-hazard risk assessment (MHRA) are numerous, especially when it comes to accounting for cascading effects (Kappes et al., 2012; Gallina et al., 2016). Quantifying the interactions of risks is also particularly difficult in the case of climate change, where probabilities of events are changing on different time paths (Liu et al., 2016). MHRA is very case sensitive (i.e. dependent on the set of hazards selected), even in less challenging settings (such as independent hazards), and demanding in terms of understanding inter-hazard physical relationships as well as input data (high-resolution data in space and time are needed), when it comes to cascading effects, as the following example (Box 2.1) demonstrates. The OECD concludes in a major review of practices that multi-hazard and multi-risk assessments ‘are still in their infancy’ (OECD, 2012). It calls for greater attention to MRHA among scientists, research funders and policymakers. The Global Earthquake Modeling Initiative is given as a good example of how MHRA could be developed in the future, but it needs to be supported by policy frameworks of DRM (44). The recent series of EU-funded multi-projects (ESPON-HAZARD, ARMONIA and MATRIX) (45) and the above-mentioned EU guideline on MRHA represent good first steps in this direction. 2.3 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction practices in Europe 2.3.1 Introduction This section discusses how the various European policies described in Section 2.1 are being put into practice at national and subnational levels. Examples are drawn from a survey among EEA member countries between February and April 2016, and a workshop held at the EEA in Copenhagen on 11–13 April 2016. We distinguish between ‘coordination and collaboration’ (Section 2.3.2) and ‘on-the-ground’ examples of CCA and DRR practices (Section 2.3.3). In the context of this report, ‘good practice’ implies that at least potentially duplicative and/or conflicting actions are avoided. As noted in Chapter 1, a good practice enhances coherence with, or integrates CCA concerns into, DRR practices and vice versa, with the aim of enhancing the knowledge base and benefiting both policy areas. Good practice also realises more effective and efficient policies in both areas due to exploitation of synergies, and achieves a stronger collaboration between scientific and policy communities and networks. Successful examples of integrated adaptation and risk-mitigating measures have been explicitly designed to help both in coping with extreme events and in taking into account possible long-term climate-related Box 2.1 ‘Natural disaster hotspots’ in Europe under climate change In a unique collaborative effort between various European modelling institutions, an assessment was attempted on how ‘natural disaster hotspots’, as defined by Forzieri et al. (2015), will evolve due to climate change in Europe. They find that regions in southern Europe (the Iberian Peninsula, southern France, northern Italy and the Balkan countries along the Danube) will see a ‘progressive and strong increase in overall climate hazards’ (Forzieri et al., 2016). The frequency of riverine floods will triple (with current 100-year events occurring roughly every 30 years in the 2080s in southern France and northern Italy, and perhaps subannually in the Danube region); and the frequency of heat waves, droughts and wildfires will increase more than 10-fold in the same period (mainly in southern Europe). The greatest accumulation of future risks, however, will occur in coastal regions bordering the North Sea such as the British Isles and the Netherlands, which are densely populated and economically pivotal for Europe. The overall exposure to multiple (independent) hazards shows a positive gradient that is ‘even more pronounced than in single-hazard scenarios’ (Forzieri et al., 2016). Hazard interactions and their ‘secondary effects’ could not be assessed in this study because of a lack of ‘knowledge of the inter-hazard physical interactions’ and a lack of hazards metrics with finer time resolution, where monthly data would be needed across hazards (Forzieri et al., 2016). (44) Overview of natural and man-made disaster risks in the EU: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52014SC0134&fr om=en (45) Natural and technological hazards and risks in European regions (ESPON-HAZARD); Applied multi Risk Mapping of Natural Hazards for Impact Assessment (ARMONIA); New Multi-Hazard and Multi-Risk Assessment Methods for Europe (MATRIX). Policies, methods and practices 36 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europestrategies and the EU sustainability agenda. As noted in Chapter 1, enhancing resilience is one concept that integrates DRR and CCA objectives. A complicating factor in providing good practice cases of CCA and DRR is that many integrative good solutions are often described using other terms, or that integration may be implicit rather than explicit. Chapter 5 reviews the extent to which CCA and DRR practices in Europe are effectively integrated in areas where this would be beneficial, and how practices in both areas could be improved by taking into account CCA concerns in DRR practices and vice versa. 2.3.2 Coordination and collaboration This section provides various examples of policies in the areas of CCA and DRR in EEA member countries. How are these implemented at the national and subnational level, and to what extent and how are they connected? Coordination and collaboration can be formal, i.e. with mandated roles and responsibilities, or it can be informal, e.g. information exchange or personal ties. Successful collaboration between CCA and DRR actors can be arranged between existing institutions, or new institutions can be established for this specific purpose. Below we discuss collaboration between various sectoral actors (‘horizontal’ coordination) and between different administrative levels (‘vertical’ coordination).Horizontal coordination and collaboration At the national level, in many European countries policy development for CCA and DRM are usually well connected. In some countries specific new institutions have been established to develop joint actions, such as the Climate Change Adaptation in Disaster Risk Management Working Group in the context of the Strategic Agency Cooperation on Risk Assessment and Management in Germany (see Box 2.2), which explores impacts of climate change on and adaptation needs for the population and the organisations themselves. Information on horizontal coordination and collaboration at state, provincial and municipal level is not easily available. Box 2.3 includes the example of the London Climate Change partnership. Integrating CCA and DRR for small organisations, such as municipalities with small populations, may be easier than for large organisations because of proximity of staff or shared responsibilities between CCA and DRR, but may also be hampered because of more limited human and financial resources at the local level. While most practice cases in this report relate to floods, heat waves can also have disastrous consequences and collaboration between DRR and CCA institutions can be beneficial in this context, as illustrated by the Austrian case in Box 2.4. At yet another scale, various regional collaborations demonstrate coordination between stakeholders in different sectors in different countries. One example is in the Baltic region, where the Baltadapt Strategy for adaptation to climate Box 2.2 Strategic Agency Cooperation on Risk Assessment and Management in Germany The working group ‘Climate Change Adaptation in Disaster Risk Management’, comprising the federal level of aid organisations, fire services, the Technical Relief Agency and the Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance, was formed in 2008 in order to discuss possible impacts of climate change and resulting adaptation needs. One insight of their work is that not only the population, but also the organisations themselves, can be affected by climate change. Against this background, the working group identified needs for improvements in, for example, warning, operation coordination, human and material resources, and to strengthen the individual’s capacity for self-help in the light of climate change. Continuous exchange within the group ensures that both further impacts and needs can be detected. Since 2007, the Strategic Government Climate Change Adaptation Alliance has led cooperation between the German Meteorological Service, the Federal Office of Civil and Disaster Assistance, the Technical Relief Agency, the Federal Office for Building and Regional Planning and the Federal Environment Agency, to deal with topics of disaster management in terms of CCA. Besides general information exchange between the authorities involved, the work concentrates on joint research projects focusing on extreme events, especially heavy precipitation, under changing climate conditions. The cooperation thereby aims to expand the knowledge base on extreme weather events as a major cause of damage to people and goods, in order to improve coping with climate change from short-term, operational actions to long-term planning measures. Sources: EEA expert workshop/survey; http://www.bbk.bund.de/DE/AufgabenundAusstattung/KritischeInfrastrukturen/Projekte/Klimawandel/ klimawandel_node.html; http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/die-strategische-behoerdenallianz-anpassung-an-den. Policies, methods and practices 37 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe change also pays attention to DRR. A large number of collaborative public and private networks are to implement this strategy. The adaptation strategies of transnational river basins like the Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change for the Danube (ICPDR, 2013) or the Strategy for International River Basin District Rhine for adapting to climate change (ICPR, 2015) are other examples of horizontal collaboration. Vertical coordination and collaboration Responding to extreme events is the responsibility primarily of local governments, but higher level governments have a role to support municipalities in the various stages of DRR (prevention, preparedness, response and recover; see Box 2.5). An extreme event can turn into a disaster if it exceeds the ability of the affected community to cope using its own resources (UNISDR, 2017b). This requires effective coordination and collaboration between the national, state, provincial and municipal administrations, and different EU Member States have different solutions according to national context. From the perspective of national policy development, the EEA (2014a) stresses the importance of vertical coordination for CCA and provides examples from 18 out of 29 countries in a survey, but does not specifically consider integration or coherence with DRR. Another report (EEA, 2016b) confirms this importance and provides some examples from an urban point of view, but again does not explicitly address integration or coherence between CCA and DRR.Box 2.3 Horizontal coordination of climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in the United Kingdom — adaptation and resilience In 2011, the UK National Hazard Partnership was established at the national level as a consortium of 17 public bodies (mainly government departments and agencies, trading funds and public sector research establishments). This aims to build on partners’ existing natural hazard science, expertise and services to deliver fully coordinated impact-based natural hazard advice for civil contingencies, and responder communities and governments, across the UK. This partnership provides input for an NRA which is performed every year. This is a confidential assessment that draws on expertise from a wide range of departments and agencies of government, and is accompanied by the National Risk Register, the public version of the assessment. The government aims to ensure that all organisations have clear and effective risk assessment processes in place. Working at all levels, the risk from emergencies facing the country as a whole is assessed and mitigated. The assessment focuses on single events, but longer term vulnerabilities such climate change are considered as part of the assessment of existing risks. At the local level, the London Climate Change Partnership is the centre for expertise on CCA and resilience to extreme weather. The partnership comprises public, private and community sector organisations that have a role to play in preparing London for extreme weather today, and climate change in the future. The London Climate Change Partnership is part of the Climate UK network, which consists of a number of organisations and individuals throughout England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland that work to support local action on climate change. Box 2.4 A comprehensive heat protection plan for Styria, Austria Heat waves are a major threat for large parts of Styria at present, and will be even more so in the future. A province of Austria, Styria has approximately 1.2 million inhabitants, and its capital Graz is home to about 280 000 people. In 2011 the first version of the heat protection plan was presented, and this was updated in 2015. The Public Health Department of the Provincial Government of Styria is responsible for the plan, which contains all relevant information about the scientific background of climate change and more specifically heat waves. The impacts of environmental pollution on humans and threats posed to vulnerable groups are described in detail. Additionally the plan contains information about measures to reduce the short- and long-term negative impacts of heat. Cooperation between the Government of Styria and the Austrian Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics is an important element of the plan. Based on meteorological models, the institute issues an alert to responsible stakeholders in the event of a forecast predicting three consecutive days of heat. As a consequence the heat protection plan is activated. Source: Cabinet Office, 2015. Source: Feenstra, 2016. Policies, methods and practices 38 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in EuropeIn Norway, this link is explicitly made and clear roles have been assigned to the national, county and local administrations, with the national administration providing guidance and financial support (see Box 2.5). In Austria, the provincial and municipal levels have specific legislative and implementation authority, while protection is funded jointly by the various governmental levels (see Box 2.6). The Italian National Civil Protection Service has a well-functioning vertical coordination mechanism in which volunteers play a significant role (Box 2.7). Other countries could learn from Italy regarding its highly mobile force of volunteer organisations. Tens of thousands of volunteers could Box 2.5 Coordination between national government and municipalities, Norway Norway has organised cooperation across levels, from the national level (laws and regulations) to county governors (audits and supervision) and municipalities (implementation). In 2015, a government-appointed commission presented a Green Paper on management of urban flooding, suggesting changes in the legislation to enhance ‘blue–green’ solutions for management of surface water. In 2016, the government issued a White Paper on societal safety, which highlights the SFDRR as an instrument for preventing disasters, including natural hazards and impacts of climate change. It emphasises a holistic approach that includes various risk drivers and interdependencies at all levels of planning, and the cross-sectoral coordinating role of the municipalities and the county governors in the management of disaster risks. The Natural Hazard Forum is a cooperative forum for the relevant national authorities for preventive work relating to natural hazards. The 2015 national survey of municipalities by the Directorate for Civil Protection (answered by 90 % of the municipalities) shows that 85 % have carried out comprehensive risk and vulnerability assessments, and that 93 % have an emergency plan. Even if some assessments do not meet the requirements of the Civil Protection Act, there is a positive trend. In general, larger municipalities (cities, towns) are well on track. Their risk and vulnerability assessments are cross-sectoral, and cover both existing and future risks, as 86 % of them have included climate change impacts. These assessments provide a knowledge base for societal planning at local level — the aim is that societal planning should enhance disaster prevention. Furthermore, several authorities are responsible for various regulations regarding urban flooding and the municipal management of such issues. The Norwegian Environment Agency is responsible for having an overview of the regulations regarding urban flooding, and makes this information publicly available on its website. In addition, the Environment Agency is responsible for administration of a climate adaptation grant scheme, to which municipalities may apply. One important task for the Environment Agency is, together with the Directorate for Civil Protection and the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate, and in dialogue with many other relevant directorates, to draft a version of central planning guidelines. These guidelines will describe how the municipalities and counties can incorporate CCA into their planning activities according to the Planning and Building Act. Box 2.6 Legislative competence of municipalities in Austria Regarding natural hazard management, the provincial governments have legislation competence in (1) development planning, (2) building affairs and (3) catastrophe/disaster measures and execution competence in flood control and supra-local disaster management. On community/municipality level they have execution competence in (1) land-use planning and building (also by considering hazard and risk maps), (2) local disaster management and (3) avalanche commission (where appropriate). Both levels (province, community) contribute financially to protection measures, together with the federal state. The communities have — in most cases — responsibility to maintain protection structures. Adaptation activities at the local level (regions, municipalities) were initiated mainly through research projects, where collaboration with local authorities took place.be mobilised, within just a few days, to support professionals in emergency response, relief and recovery activities. The OECD review also points to a number of challenges, such as the need to increase damage reduction efforts and better implement prevention policies, enhance public awareness and the capacity for emergency management in some municipalities, improve insurance coverage for natural disaster losses and reinforce incentives to invest in mitigation measures. While vertical coordination may be well established, integration of CCA concerns may help address some of these challenges.Source: EEA expert workshop/survey; http://www.dsb.no/; www.miljøkommune.no Source: EEA expert workshop/survey; http://www.klimawandelanpassung.at/ Policies, methods and practices 39 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe 2.3.3 Implementation of climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in practice The previous section discussed how EEA member countries coordinate the development of CCA and DRR practices through various governance arrangements. This section addresses examples of how this is turned into practice ‘on the ground’ through measures to address both problems. As noted in the introduction, in many cases CCA and DRR are dealt with jointly but are not labelled as such. For example, in many countries flood risk prevention policies have started to take into account long-term changes in flood intensity and frequency because of climate change, but do not explicitly call this CCA. Examples are programmes such as Room for the River in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, the Noordwaard Polder in the Netherlands, and the Calle 30 and Madrid Rio projects which are noted in Towards an EU research and innovation policy agenda for nature-based solutions & re-naturing cities , the final report of the Horizon 2020 expert group on nature-based solutions and re-naturing cities (EC, 2015b). Practices to increase drought resilience also sometimes take into account climate change (see Box 2.8), but the EEA survey in Box 2.7 National Civil Protection Service in Italy The Italian national civil protection system was evaluated by the OECD as having effective governance mechanisms, with a clear line of command and control, including at the operational level. Public safety and security services from central, regional, provincial and municipal levels of government are well coordinated, along with critical infrastructure operators, the military, volunteer organisations and scientific research institutes. Furthermore, the civil protection system is able to scale-up operations to a level appropriate to the event in question, as it integrates human resources and equipment from different organisations into coherent and concerted emergency management operations. The civil protection system quickly and accurately evaluates the severity of events as they transpire, thanks to strong situation awareness and collaborations with the scientific community. Central and regional authorities have developed a network of real-time information sharing between monitoring stations, which provides capacity to anticipate and model events. Box 2.8 Drought planning in water resource systems, Júcar river basin district, Spain The Júcar river basin is one of the most vulnerable areas of the western Mediterranean region, due to high water exploitation indices, and to environmental and water quality problems when droughts occur. In the future the situation will worsen if human pressures increase and variability of precipitation and air temperatures are also higher. In the Júcar river basin, water scarcity and hydrological variability produce frequent and long hydrological droughts. Preparation for droughts is achieved through (1) integrated river basin planning, including proactive measures that minimise the risk of operative droughts (i.e. failure of the system to provide water services); (2) special drought plans, including continuous monitoring of drought indices in order to detect the risk in medium- to short-term management, and sets of proactive and reactive measures for different scenarios (i.e. normal, pre-alert, alert and emergency); and (3) participatory drought management by means of a special drought committee, to mitigate the impact of droughts and find suitable compromise solutions to provide an equilibrium between economic needs and environmental protection. Up-to-date integrative decision support systems are used to enhance and facilitate the ability to address drought. The emphasis of the plans is on enhancing the resilience to drought of the water resources systems.support of the current report suggests that droughts are seldom addressed as ‘disasters’ in the context of the SFDRR, which usually focuses on short-term high-impact extreme weather events like floods or storms. Below some examples of practices are presented according to the disaster response cycle (see Figure 2.1). It can be noted that in many cases measures relate to more than one of the steps. Capacity building, for example, can cover prevention or preparedness, and a typical preparedness measure such as emergency planning can also include preventive aspects. The extent to which current practices already effectively integrate CCA and DRR will be discussed in the lessons learned in Chapter 5, where opportunities for adapting current practices, to more effectively apply the knowledge developed in one of these areas to the other, will also be presented. While some level of integration between CCA and DRR may be relevant in all phases of this cycle, the relevance, level and characteristics of integration vary Source: OECD, 2010. Sources: Andreu et al., 2013; Andreu, 2015. Policies, methods and practices 40 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europebetween phases. For example, CCA is not relevant for the stage of immediate emergency response to an extreme event (defined by UNISDR as ‘the provision of emergency services and public assistance during or immediately after a disaster in order to save lives, reduce health impacts, ensure public safety and meet the basic subsistence needs of the people affected’), although it may be relevant in the subsequent recovery stage. Three categories of preventive or preparedness practices can be considered (EEA, 2013): ‘grey’ measures (physical infrastructure), ‘green’ measures (nature- or ecosystem-based solutions) and ‘soft’ measures (enhancing adaptive capacity, information platforms, climate adaptation and risk services, and insurance schemes). Below, examples are discussed of practices for those phases of the DRR cycle for which integration with CCA is most relevant: prevention, preparedness, and response and recovery. Prevention Risk reduction, or prevention, is the ‘outright avoidance of adverse impacts of hazards and related disasters’ (UNISDR) (46). This DRR phase may offer most opportunities for integration of CCA and DRR in two directions. First, climate change considerations should take into account a longer time perspective and where relevant a larger spatial scale than traditionally is the case for DRM. Conversely, CCA action can benefit from considering short-term issues related to extreme weather events (future weather rather than future climate). The sector for which integration between CCA and DRR appears to have advanced most is water management, mostly in flood management but also in addressing drought and water scarcity. An example of ‘grey’ measures to reduce vulnerability to floods is the building of upstream reservoirs to protect downstream population and economic assets, such as in the case of the Tisza basin in Hungary (see Box 2.9) or the Isar basin protecting the city of Munich in Germany. The impacts of extreme weather- and climate-related events on human society and the environment can often be reduced using GI solutions, and often have higher benefits than ‘grey’ solutions (EEA, 2015). In the EU, green and nature- or ecosystem-based solutions are increasingly encouraged, mainly because they often serve multiple purposes (e.g. CCA, DRM, promotion of human wellbeing and biodiversity conservation) which broadens support and facilitates funding. They provide a multitude of ecosystem services, including DRR and CCA, and can be integrated into various sectoral policies (EEA, 2011). The role of spatial planning should be emphasised in facilitating and delivering GI (EEA, 2014b). Nature-based solutions can be developed in larger rural areas, such as the Danube Delta (see Box 2.10), but are also relevant in an urban context (EEA, 2016b). Many ‘soft’ measures are possible to increase resilience to climate change and extreme weather events. Enhancing adaptive capacity through awareness raising and capacity building is discussed below under ‘preparedness’. Sometimes, practices that have been conceived primarily from a DRR perspective can be adapted to take into account longer term climate change concerns. For droughts and water scarcity, examples are incentives for water saving and increased water efficiency. The various types of grey, green and soft measures can also be combined into integrated Box 2.9 Temporary floodwater storage in agricultural areas in the middle Tisza river basin. Hungary Increasing exposure to floods is a consequence of river regulation and land reclamation works that have shaped the landscape of the Tisza floodplain. During the past 150 years, an extensive flood defence and water management infrastructure has been constructed. Climate and land use change in the basin are increasing the frequency and magnitude of floods. The Hungarian Government has been pursuing a new flood defence strategy for the Tisza, based on temporary reservoirs where peak floodwater can be released. A plan to build six reservoirs was adopted, with the option of building an additional five. This case study is based on the analysis of operational scenarios of the reservoir schemes, while some of the detailed assessment took place specifically in one of the polders, the Hanyi-Tiszasülyi reservoir. (46) https://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminologySource: Climate-ADAPT; http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/metadata/case-studies/temporary-flood-water-storage-in-agricultural-areas- in-the-middle-tisza-river-basin-hungary Policies, methods and practices 41 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe measures. Examples are the infrastructure and economic incentives to reduce vulnerability to drought in the Segura and Tagus basins in Spain (see Box 2.11). Preparedness Preparedness is defined as ‘the knowledge and capacities developed by governments, professional response and recovery organizations, communities and individuals to effectively anticipate, respond to, and recover from, the impacts of likely, imminent or current hazard events or conditions’ (UNISDR, 2017c). Enhancing resilience is a common objective of preparedness measures, which integrate DRR and CCA. Important categories are the early warning systems and emergency plans, developed in Europe and many Member States at national, regional and local levels for various types of hazard, in particular floods, but also avalanches, storm surges and landslides (e.g. the Multi-Hazard Approach to Early Warning System in Norway; see Box 2.12). Such early warning systems and emergency plans are not necessarily good practice examples of integration between CCA and DRR, but can provide such examples if they are used to raise awareness and build capacity, emphasising the increases of risks with climatic change. Box 2.12 Multi-Hazard Approach to Early Warning System in Sogn og Fjordane, Norway The county of Sogn og Fjordane frequently experiences avalanches and landslides, storm surges and flooding. Due to climate change and related impacts on extreme weather events, these hazards are expected to be exacerbated; more extensive adaptation strategies and measures are therefore needed. This demonstration project (part of the EU-funded Clim-ATIC project) explored the potential for an effective, reliable and cost-efficient early warning system that has a multi-hazard approach and makes use of location and population-based communication technologies, such as mobile phones, as well as social media such as Facebook and Twitter. The system was tested with a sample warning followed by a survey and data analysis to judge its efficacy. Early warning systems as an example of CCA and DRR make sense only if they are also used to increase awareness on climate change.Box 2.11 Infrastructure and economic incentives to reduce vulnerability to drought in the Segura and Tagus basins, Spain The Segura river basin in the south-east of Spain suffers from a structural condition of water scarcity and drought occurrence. For decades, the focus for dealing with this condition has been placed on instrumental objectives such as increasing water transfer facilities (i.e. the Tagus–Segura Water Transfer, a major diversion project), developing alternative sources (i.e. desalination and reuse), or making use of water in a more technically efficient way (i.e. irrigation modernisation). So far, the highly disputed water resources transferred from the Tagus basin have mainly satisfied demand. The changing climate is increasing drought frequency in both basins, requiring the implementation of additional strategies to adapt. A recent strategy, currently under implementation, is introducing a set of economic policy instruments aimed at addressing structural modifications of long-term water demand in the Segura basin to achieve efficient use of the limited water resources available. Source: Climate-ADAPT; http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/metadata/case-studies/infrastructure-and-economic- incentives-to-reduce-vulnerability-to-drought-in-segura-and-tagus-basins Source: Climate-ADAPT; http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/metadata/case-studies/multi-hazard-approach-to-early-warning-system-in- sogn-og-fjordane-norwayBox 2.10 Ecosystem-based floodplain restoration in the Danube Delta for flood reduction Over the past century, the floodplains of the Danube and its tributaries have been subject to major human interventions which caused significant changes in the hydromorphology of the river–floodplain ecosystem, and losses of natural values and processes. During this time, an estimated 68 % of floodplains were lost. However, political changes in central and eastern Europe, and respective EU policies, as well as the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, are fostering efforts to re-establish the lateral connectivity of floodplains along the Danube and its major tributaries through restoration projects. In the past two decades, thousands of floodplain restoration projects have been planned and implemented, of various sizes and with different purposes and levels of success. WWF International has recently inventoried existing projects and prioritised remaining areas for restoration. Source: Sudmeier-Rieux, 2013. Policies, methods and practices 42 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in EuropeExamples of such capacity-building programmes can be found in Portugal (Box 2.13) and Poland (Box 2.14). Because they are relatively low cost and have the potential to reach many people, web-based information systems are a popular way to attempt to increase awareness and preparedness among vulnerable actors in society. Such portals are developed both by the CCA community (see EEA, 2016a for an overview of climate change information portals) and the disaster risk community (e.g. UNISDR’s Preventionweb or the European Commission’s DRMKC, operated by the JRC). In many cases the integration between them is limited to mutual links, but in some cases, they are integrated more fully, as in Norway (see Box 2.15). Going beyond preparedness, in Malmö, Sweden, resilience is being improved through a systematic, holistic approach with stakeholder participation that addresses DRR and Box 2.14 Poland — Education and training for dealing with natural hazards In Poland the attitude towards hazard problems has changed in recent years. Now it is characterised by an integrated and unanimous approach towards natural disaster problems: • The integrated approach means that research, legislation, control and measurement of economic, technical, educational, social and insurance problems relating to hazards are developed in parallel and treated equally. • The unanimous approach to natural disasters takes account of the inextricable links between the causes of extreme events, which may be both natural and anthropogenic. For the people affected or environment degraded by extreme events, it makes no difference whether it was formally classified as an extreme event caused by natural powers, or the result of a technical catastrophe. In both cases assistance is essential. Floods, which are considered the main hazard, need special and comprehensive measures to be taken. Over recent years floods have occurred every year and in increasing strength. The Institute of Meteorology and Water Management — National Research Institute systematically tries to improve knowledge about extreme events, and their mechanisms (origins), protection and recovery (relief) methods. Various initiatives and many activities are undertaken.CCA in a much wider context, aiming at maintaining business continuity and improving quality of urban life (Box 2.16). Response and recovery Recovery is defined by UNISDR (48) as ‘the restoration, and improvement where appropriate, of facilities, livelihoods and living conditions of disaster-affected communities, including efforts to reduce disaster risk factors’. CCA considerations are raised when considering improvements that in a developing-country context are often called ‘building back better’. In that context, the practices mentioned under ‘prevention’ and ‘preparedness’ can be taken into account, with the main difference being that they are motivated by an actual disaster. A good example is the Prevention Program Against Floods (PAPI, see Box 2.17) in Source: EFDRR; https://www.unisdr.org/files/35277_ddrccafinal.pdfBox 2.13 Portugal — Awareness raising at municipal level and training programmes to improve resilience Portugal has emergency plans at national, district and local levels. Exercises and drills have been done regularly at these three levels and include items related to DRR and CAA. Municipalities are very active in public education campaigns to enhance awareness of risk and protective measures, developing campaigns to improve resilience. Major risks considered are forest fires, floods and heat waves. Tools include sessions for children and schools, leaflets, and social media, to provide information on weather forecasts, warnings and self-protection measures. Mobilisation of several stakeholders is important, including civil protection agents, municipality services, parish councils and citizen groups. The Autoridade Nacional Proteção Civil developed a nationwide educational programme for children which is implemented in more than 300 schools, and which includes CCA examples. The ClimAdaPT.Local project, under the European Economic Area (14) AdaPT grants programme, was responsible for a significant increase of the municipalities’ capacity to assess and reduce vulnerability to climate change. It provided training and guidance for 26 municipalities to elaborate their own local adaptation strategies and for the creation of a network for sharing knowledge and best practices on implementing adaptation measures. This pilot project is presently being replicated on a larger scale for other municipalities under the Cohesion Fund National Programme (POSEUR) Source: EEA expert workshop/survey; http://www.prociv.pt/clube/ (48) http://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/terminology/ Policies, methods and practices 43 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe Box 2.15 Troms, Northern Norway: Use of climate services — what data at which level? A pilot project in Troms County (2015) aimed to guide municipalities in how to integrate CCA efforts in social and spatial planning. The project partners were the County Governor in Troms, the Directorate for Civil Protection, the Norwegian Meteorological Office, the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate and four municipalities in Troms. The objective of the project was to obtain an overview of the existing knowledge base for Troms county — i.e. existing knowledge, the legal basis (relevant legal acts and sections), existing guidelines and directives, and tools and resources useful and relevant to the municipalities in their CCA efforts. This resulted in guidance called Klimahjelperen (‘Climate Helper’) which can be used for other counties. The project was also a pilot for the Norwegian Climate Service Centre, providing input to what kind of data the municipalities need and how to present the data in a way that is useful to them. As a result the Troms project developed a climate change county profile. The Norwegian Climate Service Centre is making similar profiles for every county in Norway. Box 2.16 Nationally promoted municipality work with CCA and DRR in Sweden The Swedish Civil Contingency Agency promotes UNISDR’s Making Cities Resilient Campaign and cooperation between municipalities for CCA and DRR. The Swedish cities that participate in this DRR campaign have started a national network where they can discuss their CCA and DRR challenges with colleagues from the other cities. Two network meetings are held per year. During these meetings the host demonstrates various prevention and mitigation measures in the field so that all can learn from the relevant city’s experiences and solutions. Interviews with municipalities and other stakeholders, and publication of ‘good examples’ of CCA and DRR, are an inspiring way of sharing good practices. This has resulted in the publication of Making cities resilient in Sweden: Six inspiring examples of disaster risk reduction action (MSB, 2015). The cities of Arvika, Gothenburg, Jokkmokk, Karlstad, Vellinge and Ängelholm contributed to this publication, which was published for the World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction held in Sendai, Japan, in 2015. The Swedish city of Malmö has been selected as a role model of the ICLEI Resilient Cities programme. In its Environment Programme of 2009, Malmö declared an ambition to become ‘the Best City in the World for Sustainable Urban Development by 2020’. One component of this is that the city must prepare for risks such as changes in temperature, sea level rise and increased precipitation to avoid unacceptable ecological, economic and social consequences of natural events such as floods, storms and heat waves. The plans are recorded in an action plan for climate change adaptation and the comprehensive plan for city development. Integrating DRR and CCA and combining them with an ambition to improve quality of urban life, Malmö plans to build resilience through holistic sustainable development as well as continuity planning for risk reduction. Malmö believes that a resilient city can be achieved through the development of holistic sustainability where ecological, economic and social perspectives are combined. Malmö’s goal is to further develop the city’s adaptive organisational ability to react to unforeseen events. Malmö’s approach to DRR is that by achieving a resilient city in general, resilience against natural disasters is also anticipated. This will be achieved and maintained by consolidating and raising the level of education, strengthened integration and cooperation between city departments, enterprises, universities and organisations. This kind of comprehensive view also permeates the ongoing work on climate adaptation and well-organised planning. The aim is to use the ecological development as a driving force for economic growth and social innovation. Malmö has chosen to realise its sustainability ambitions (including CCA) by focussing on co-creation with private developers through the organisation of ‘stakeholder partnership processes’. This allows for an effective mix of private and public funding. The approach entails the initiation of dialogues with private developers from the very start of an urban development process. Source: EEA expert workshop/survey Resilient Cities campaign: https://www.unisdr.org/campaign/resilientcities/home/cityprofile/City%20Profile%20Of%20 Malm%C3%B6/?id=293 Climate-ADAPT case study ‘Optimization of the mix of private and public funding to realise climate adaptation measures in Malmö’; http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/metadata/case-studies/optimization-of-the-mix-of-private-and-public-funding-to- realise-climate-adaptation-measures-in-malmoSource: EEA expert workshop/survey and EFDRR; https://klimaservicesenter.no/faces/desktop/article.xhtml?uri=klimaservicesenteret/ klimaprofiler , http://www.klimatilpasning.no/veiledere/klimahjelperen/ Policies, methods and practices 44 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in EuropeFrance, for coastal flooding, which was developed as a response to the violent windstorm Xynthia which hit parts of western Europe in general and France in particular in 2010. PAPI includes both preventive and preparedness aspects (e.g. seawalls and improved emergency warning systems, respectively). In Germany, after serious flooding in the Elbe basin in 2002, a study identified lessons learned and formulated recommendations on future risk prevention that already at that time referred to climate protection (see Box 2.18). A final example are the Italian funds to reduce hydro-geological risks that were present at an earlier date but after being dormant for a number of years were stepped up recently in response to a number of serious flood and landslide events (see Box 2.19). These recent natural hazards in Italy drove the government to create a specific centralised structure under the Italian Prime Minister’s Office, which is in charge of managing these funds, and monitoring and evaluating their expenditure. Insurance is a typical example of an option for the recovery phase. A link with CCA can be made if longer-term prevention is considered in developing the insurance scheme, such as in the Extraordinary Risks Insurance Scheme in Spain (see Chapter 5). Box 2.17 France — PAPI: A prevention programme against floods, taking climate change into account Between 27 February and 1 March 2010, the violent windstorm Xynthia crossed western Europe and hit the Atlantic coast of France, mostly the coasts of Vendée and Charente Maritime, including La Rochelle and its vicinity. The area around the city of La Rochelle is subject to storm surges that may cause coastal flooding. The most recent and still remembered events are those of 1953 in the North Sea, 1999 (Storm Martin) and 2010 (Storm Xynthia) on the Atlantic coast. While the 1953 event remains the most grave in Europe, historical studies show that the French Atlantic coast has suffered more events of that type than the shores of the North Sea. In the most recent, four people died close to La Rochelle and 750 ha were flooded, including the historic harbour of the city. This led to the identification of three particularly vulnerable areas in which houses had to be relocated. Following this tragic event and given the economic importance of the territory, a Prevention Program Against Floods (PAPI) for coastal flooding was set up by the local authorities, and was recently approved by the National Commission responsible for evaluating these plans. PAPI is part of a national plan formulated after Xynthia and dedicated to preventing the consequences of rapid submersions due to storm surges and flash floods. The main challenge of PAPI was to develop a new strategy of flood management, involving all relevant stakeholders in the territory. This strategy is built on a holistic approach and consists of the delimitation of a risk area, the design of protection measures and the functioning of early warning systems, etc. All stakeholders were involved at the various stages of the process, through a governance structure, and all the measures adopted within the prevention plan were evaluated through a cost–benefit analysis. PAPI is expected to last from 2013 until 2017, and takes as its starting assumption a sea level 20 cm higher than the one observed during the Xynthia flooding, also taking into account the sea level rise due to climate change. This higher level would triple the surface of the flooded area and would increase dramatically the number of people and goods affected. The new strategy was developed on two main axes. The first is the risk culture and its integration into the planning and development of back-up plans based on early warning systems. The second is the protection of human, economic and urban-related issues, with a particular focus on tourism (the region is highly touristic in summer). PAPI includes population resettlement and reinforcement of physical protection on the coast (seawalls). The various protection measures are adapted according to the exposure and the strategic challenge of the sector’s activities. Typically, the sizing of the protection works has been the main element debated and finally resolved by the cost–benefit analysis. Source: EFDRR, 2013. Policies, methods and practices 45 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe Box 2.18 Risk reduction after the event: Lessons learned from the Elbe floods in 2002 In the summer of 2002, heavy rainfall lead to strong flood waves, e.g. on the Müglitz, Weißeritz and Mulde rivers in the Erz Mountains, and also to large flooded areas along the Elbe river. This flood ruined lives and destroyed substantial parts of the infrastructure in Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, Brandenburg and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. The estimated loss amounted to about EUR 12 billion in Germany alone. Particularly unfortunate were the 36 fatalities (21 in Germany, 15 in the Czech Republic). The German Committee for Disaster Reduction initiated an interdisciplinary study to identify lessons learned that could be applied everywhere in Germany to reduce flood risks. A key recommendation was that the previously prevalent separate view of precaution and response must be overcome, and that flood risk management should include all aspects of flood risk reduction and disaster response. Recommendations included: (1) risk reduction through spatial planning has to be strengthened; (2) measures for evaluating effectiveness must be worked out and weighted in accordance with their importance for flood risk management; (3) limits to natural retention must be recognised and accepted, addressing demands for ‘climate protection’ in connection with flood risk reduction; (4) technical flood protection equipment is essential for reducing extreme flooding, making limitations and risks transparent; (5) warning systems for specific dangers and regions, ranging from gathering data and forecasts right through to the reaction of affected persons, should be expanded; (6) for successfully implementing protection concepts, a discussion process must be introduced that involves the whole of society and involves the whole population; (7) flood risk reduction and flood response are cross-sectoral tasks and require a great deal of communication, cooperation and management; (8) private precautions, and constructional, behavioural and insurance-aided risk reduction, should be systematically developed and stimulated; (9) the interests of a broad range of political areas must be integrated in the drawing up of flood risk reduction concepts at an early stage; (10) action covering whole river catchment areas and extending across borders is essential for ‘preventative flood protection’ and for preventative flood risk reduction; and (11) solidarity with subsequent generations requires decisions on flood risk reduction concepts despite great uncertainties. The notion that ‘everything should get better, but nothing should change’ does not achieve the objective in the case of flood protection. Box 2.19 Effective management of old and new funds to reduce hydro-geological risks in Italy Italy is notoriously prone to natural hazards and disaster risk. Among the 28 EU Member States, Italy has experienced the largest economic damage from natural hazards over the period 1980–2015, according to a recent analysis by the EEA via the CLIM 39 indicator. The flood hazard and risk mapping conducted in the context of the Floods Directive (EU, 2007) has shown that around 4.0 %, 8.1 % and 10.6 % of Italian territory was prone to high (return period 1: 20–50 years), medium (return period 1: 100–200 years) and low risk (return period 1: 300–500 years), respectively (Trigila et al., 2015). In May 2014 the Italian Government established a coordination unit (‘Struttura di missione contro il dissesto Idrogeologico e per lo sviluppo delle infrastrutture idriche – Italia Sicura’), under the Prime Minister’s Office and working in a close collaboration with the Minister for Environment, Land and Sea and the Minister for Infrastructures and Transport. The Italia Sicura initiated and monitors progress in implementing the national plan to prevent and combat hydrological risk and the Metropolitan Flood Protection Plan. The former entails some 7 120 structural protection projects, with total costs amounting to approximately EUR 9 billion. The Metropolitan Cities Plan involves 157 structural interventions worth EUR 1.2 billion. The progress of implementation can be monitored via a user-friendly web interface.Source: German Committee for Disaster Reduction, 2004. Source: http://italiasicura.governo.it/site/home/italiasicura.html; Trigila et al., 2015; https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/direct-losses-from-weather-disasters-3/assessment Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe46Weather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe 3 Weather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe • Since 2003, Europe has experienced several extreme summer heat waves. Such heat waves are projected to occur as often as every 2 years in the second half of the 21st century, under a high emissions scenario (RCP8.5). The impacts will be particularly strong in southern Europe. • Heavy precipitation events have increased in northern and north-eastern Europe since the 1960s, whereas different indices show diverging trends for south-western and southern Europe. Heavy precipitation events are projected to become more frequent in most parts of Europe. • The number of very severe flood events in Europe has varied since 1980, but the economic losses have increased. It is not currently possible to quantify the contribution due to increased heavy precipitation in parts of Europe compared with better reporting and land use changes. • Observations of windstorm location, frequency and intensity have showed considerable variability across Europe during the 20th century. Models project an eastward extension of the North Atlantic storm track towards central Europe, with an increase in the number of cyclones in central Europe and a decreased number in the Norwegian and Mediterranean Seas. For medicanes (also termed Mediterranean Sea hurricanes), a decreased frequency but increased intensity of medicanes is projected in the Mediterranean area. • Landslides are a natural hazard that cause fatalities and significant economic losses in various parts of Europe. Projected increases in temperature and changes in precipitation patterns will affect rock slope stability conditions and favour increases in the frequency of shallow landslides, especially in European mountains. • The severity and frequency of droughts appear to have increased in parts of Europe, in particular in southern and south-eastern Europe. Droughts are projected to increase in frequency, duration, and severity in most of Europe, with the strongest increase projected for southern Europe. • Forest fire risk depends on many factors, including climatic conditions, vegetation, forest management practices and other socio-economic factors. The burnt area in the Mediterranean region increased from 1980 to 2000; it has decreased thereafter. Projected increases in heat waves together with an expansion of the fire-prone area will increase the duration of fire seasons across Europe, in particular in southern Europe. • Observational data between 1970 and 2015 show that alpine avalanches cause on average 100 fatalities every winter in the Alps. Increased temperatures are expected to lead to decreases in alpine snow cover and duration, and in turn to decreased avalanche activity below about 1 500-2 000 m elevation in spring, but increased avalanche activity above 2 000 m elevation, especially in winter. • Hail is responsible for significant damage to crops, vehicles, buildings and other infrastructure. Despite improvements in data availability, trends and projections of hail events are still subject to large uncertainties owing to a lack of direct observation and inadequate microphysical schemes in numerical weather prediction and climate models. • Extreme high coastal water levels have increased at most locations along the European coastline. This increase appears to be predominantly due to increases in mean local sea level rather than to changes in storm activity. Projected changes in the frequency and intensity of storm surges are expected to cause significant ecological damage, economic loss and other societal problems along low-lying coastal areas in northern and western Europe, unless additional adaptation measures are implemented. Weather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe 47 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe 3.1 Introduction Weather- and climate-related natural hazards such as heat waves and heavy precipitation have become more frequent and/or intense in Europe and, along with socio-economic changes and hazard exposure, an increase in damage and economic losses has also taken place (IPCC, 2012; Donat et al., 2013a; EEA, 2017). It is therefore considered important by European society and policymakers to understand the role of climate change in driving extreme weather, and also the interactions and interdependencies of extreme weather and climate events with other natural phenomena and human activities (Donat et al., 2013b; EEA, 2017). Climate change is expected to lead to changes in the frequency and strength of many types of extreme weather- and climate-related events (IPCC, 2012). Extreme events are rare by definition, which means that there are fewer data available to analyse past changes in their frequency or intensity. This makes extreme weather more difficult to analyse, understand, project and verify. Rare extreme events tend to have the highest impact and cause the greatest damage to natural and managed systems, and to human wellbeing (see Chapter 4). The natural hazards included in this section of the report (i.e. heat waves, heavy precipitation, river floods, windstorms (including medicanes) (49), landslides, droughts, forest fires, avalanches, hail and storm surges) were selected on the basis that they occur in Europe with sufficient regularity and/or intensity to cause substantial economic damage, and loss of life at a significant level. A further reason for selection is that research indicates that, under future climate change in Europe, these events are nearly all projected to increase in severity, duration and/or extent, e.g. heat waves are projected to become more intense and to last longer, and extreme precipitation events will increase in both frequency and intensity. Another reason behind the interest in these events is that their future projected changes are not distributed equally across Europe — for example, patterns of projected changes to river flooding and heat waves both show strong regional differences between northern and southern Europe (e.g. Russo et al., 2014; Alfieri et al., 2015b). Selected natural hazards are features of the Earth system (including components such as the water cycle, sedimentary cycle, and the weather and climate systems) and are frequently linked to, or dependent on, each other. Examples include: • Meteorological drought (rain deficiency) can cause soil moisture (agricultural) drought affecting plant growth, which may then deepen into hydrological drought affecting watercourses, water resources and natural ecosystems. • Soil moisture droughts can act as a precursor for forest fires and also landslides. • Saturated soil (high soil moisture) may lead to flooding when subject to heavy or persistent precipitation. • Heavy or persistent rainfall is a major trigger for landslides, either through facilitating soil movement or by surface water run-off initiating soil erosion. • A rapid increase in mean temperature can lead to snow melt and surface thawing, resulting in landslides, rock falls and debris flows. • Heat waves can be amplified by low levels of soil moisture that restrict cooling from evapotranspiration. Natural variability in the climate system still plays a key role in extreme weather, as climate change makes some extremes more frequent and/or intense. Long- term climate change, or trends, will also affect some natural hazards, for example projected changes in air temperature and snowfall in mountain areas will lead to reduced snow cover in lower altitudes, reducing avalanche activities below about 1 500-2 000 m elevation. To assess past changes in variability of natural hazards a dense network of stations providing regular monitoring of key atmospheric climate variables, using standardised measurements, quality control and homogeneity procedures at European level, is essential. However, even where sufficient data are available, several problems can limit their use for analysis. These problems are mainly connected with (1) limitations of distributing data in high spatial and temporal resolution in many countries, (2) unavailability of data in easy-to-use digital format, and (3) lack of data homogeneity. Projected extreme weather- and climate-related events are based on a range of studies published in (49) Also termed Mediterranean Sea hurricanes. See Cavicchia et al., 2013, 2014 for more details. Weather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe 48 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europepeer-reviewed academic papers and reports and using different global emissions scenarios (SRES) (Nakicenovic and Swart, 2000) or representative concentration pathways (RCPs) (van Vuuren et al., 2011). The projections presented in this report do not show the effects of limiting global temperature increase to well below 2 °C on the changes in frequency and magnitude of the extremes in Europe, partly due to the lack of available scientific literature. 3.2 Heat waves 3.2.1 Relevance The increase in the global surface temperature is expected to affect the frequency and intensity of extreme events, such as heat extremes (Fischer and Schär, 2010; Donat et al., 2013b; Russo et al., 2014). The severity of a heat wave depends on a number of factors, including duration, relative intensity (how much hotter than normal — e.g. in the period 1961–1990) and absolute intensity. Heat extremes have been shown to be induced by soil moisture droughts, because dry soil reduces evaporative cooling and increases the severity of heat waves (Mueller and Seneviratne, 2012). On the other hand, heat extremes can increase the frequency and intensity of heavy precipitation events (including hailstorms), because warmer air can hold a greater quantity of water (Berg et al., 2013; Kendon et al., 2014; Groenemeijer et al., 2016) and therefore increases the probability of development of convective (hail) storms (see Section 3.10). Heat extremes also have strong direct impacts on human health and wellbeing, and society (e.g. through decreased labour productivity), ecosystems (e.g. through forest fires), and agriculture (through decreased crop and livestock productivity). In particular, heat waves exacerbated by the urban heat island effect and air pollution can have devastating impacts on human health in urban areas, including impacts such as heat stress (see Section 4.2). 3.2.2 Past trends Observational data show a continued increase in heat extremes over land in the period 1997-2012 (Seneviratne et al., 2014), but this increase also depends on how heat extremes are defined. At the global scale, warm days and nights, as well as heat waves, have become more frequent in recent decades (Zwiers et al., 2013; Seneviratne et al., 2014). The increase in maximum daily temperatures has generally been faster than the increase in annual average temperature (IPCC, 2013). In Europe, since the 1950s, large areas have experienced intense and long heat waves, with notable impacts on human health and socio-economic systems (García-Herrera et al., 2010; Russo et al., 2015). As a result, 500-year-old temperature records were broken over 65 % of Europe in the period 2003-2010 alone (Barriopedro et al., 2011). Indices for extreme temperatures, including the annual maximum value of daily maximum temperature, have shown significant upwards trends across Europe since the 1950s (Donat et al., 2013a). The number of unusually warm days has increased by up to 10 days per decade between 1960 and 2016 in most of southern Europe and Scandinavia (Map 3.1). Based on the daily heat wave magnitude index (HWMI), Europe experienced 11 intense and long heat waves between 1950 and 2016, most of which occurred after 2000 (in 2003, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2014 and 2015) (Russo et al., 2015). The most severe heat waves have been characterised by the persistence of extremely high night-time temperatures (Russo et al., 2015). A substantial fraction of the probability of recent extreme events can be attributed to human-induced climate change, and it is likely that, for temperature extremes occurring over previous decades, a fraction of their probability was attributable to anthropogenic influences (King et al., 2016). 3.2.3 Projections Periods with extreme high temperatures are projected to become more frequent and to last longer across Europe during this century. Different projections based on different sets of multi-model ensembles agree on increases in heat wave frequency and severity for most European regions during the 21st century under all RCP scenarios (e.g. Fischer and Schär, 2010; Schoetter et al., 2014; Russo et al., 2014, 2015). Extreme summer heat waves such as the ones experienced in parts of Europe in 2003 and 2010 will become much more common in the future. Under the RCP8.5 high emission scenario, very extreme heat waves (50) (which are much stronger (50) To assess changes in heat waves the heat wave magnitude index (HWMI) has been used. The HWMI is defined based on the magnitude and length of heat waves in a year, where heat waves are periods of at least 3 consecutive days with maximum temperature above the threshold for the reference period 1981-2010. For details, including the definition of very extreme heat waves, see Russo et al., 2014. Weather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe 49 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe Map 3.1 Observed trends in warm days across Europe between 1960 and 2016 than those of either 2003 or 2010), are projected to occur as often as every 2 years in the second half of the 21st century (Map 3.2). The projected frequency of heat waves is strongest in southern and south-eastern Europe (Russo et al., 2014). According to a different analysis, at the end of the 21st century 90 % of the summers in southern, central and north-western Europe will be warmer than any summer in the period 1920-2014 under the RCP8.5 high emission scenario (Lehner et al., 2016). The most severe health risks are projected for low-altitude river basins in southern Europe and for the Mediterranean coasts, where many densely populated urban centres are located (Lehner et al., 2016).3.2.4 Uncertainties, data gaps and information needs To capture the severity of a heat wave there are a number of factors that can be accounted for, including duration, intensity (how much hotter than during the reference period — e.g.1961–1990) and when the event occurred during the year. A variety of heat wave metrics could be determined from temperature measurements alone. The most common indices use the threshold of the 90th or 95th percentile of the maximum and/or minimum temperature respectively to find the onset of the heat wave, which must last at least 3 consecutive days. Using heat wave indices one can derive yearly number of heat waves, the length 70° 60° 50° 40°40° 30°30° 20°20° 10°10° 0°0° -10° -20° -30° 60° 50°50° 40°40° 05 00 1000 1500kmDays/decadeObserved trends in warm days across Europe between 1960 and 201 6 No data Outside coverage< 5 5-6 6-7 8-97-8 9-10 > 10 Note: Warm days are defined as being above the 90th percentile of the daily maximum temperature centred on a 5-day window for a reference period. Grid boxes outlined with solid black lines contain at least three stations and thus trends are more robust. High confidence in the long-term trend (at the 5 % level) is shown by a black dot (which is the case for all grid boxes in this map). The reference period is 1971-2000. Sources: EEA and UK Met Office, based on HadEX2 (updated from Donat et al., 2013b). Weather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe 50 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in EuropeNote: Very extreme heat waves are defined as having a heat wave magnitude index (HWMI) above 8. For comparison, the 2003 western European heat wave had an average HWMI of around 3, and the 2010 eastern European heat wave had an average HWMI of around 5. The top maps show the median of the number of very extreme heat waves in a multi-model ensemble of general circulation models (GCMs) of the near future (2020-2052) and the latter half of the century (2068-2100) under a mitigation emissions scenario (RCP4.5). The lower maps are for the same time periods but under a high emissions scenario (RCP8.5). Source: Adapted from Russo et al., 2014.Map 3.2 Number of very extreme heat waves in future climates under two different emissions scenarios 70° 60° 50° 40°40° 30°30° 20°20° 10°10° 0°0° -10° -20° -30° 60° 50°50° 40°40° 0 500 1000 1500 km 70° 60° 50° 40°40° 30°30° 20°20° 10°10° 0°0° -10° -20° -30° 60° 50°50° 40°40° 0 500 1000 1500 km 70° 60° 50° 40°40° 30°30° 20°20° 10°10° 0°0° -10° -20° -30° 60° 50°50° 40°40° 0 500 1000 1500 km 70° 60° 50° 40°40° 30°30° 20°20° 10°10° 0°0° -10° -20° -30° 60° 50°50° 40°40° 0 500 10001 500k m Heat wave frequency2020–2052 RCP4. 5 2020–2052 RCP8. 52068–2100 RCP4. 5 2068–2100 RCP8. 5 No data Outside coverag eNumber in 33 years 0–11 –2 2–33 –6 6–12 12–15 15–33 Weather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe 51 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe of the longest heat wave event, the yearly sum of heat wave days, the hottest day of the hottest event and the average magnitude of all the heat waves within a given year in order to study the multiple elements of a heat wave. However, other indices have also been developed that could be used for analysing heat wave studies (Zwiers et al., 2013; Perkins, 2015). The most commonly used are: • number of days with maximum temperature above 25 °C — summer days (SU); • number of days with minimum temperature above 20 °C — tropical nights (TR); • numbers of days with maximum (TX90p) and minimum temperatures over the 90th percentile (TN90p); • highest maximum (TXx) and minimum temperatures (TNx); • warm spell duration index (WSDI).To calculate heat wave indices over Europe, long-term records of standardised and quality-controlled meteorological data are needed. Raw data are usually archived with no or limited quality controls applied. National meteorological or climate services then perform various quality assurance techniques, but the final data products are not always shared. There are areas in Europe that have no or very sparse measurements, and also some regions that have much shorter data records than others, which limits what can be inferred regarding any long-term trends (Map 3.3). Also, although some station data are shared freely, not all countries provide or share data from similar numbers of stations. In Germany, where many stations with long records are provided and made available to all users, more detailed analysis would be possible than in other countries within Europe. This problem increases when attempting to study climatological extreme events across the globe, with large data gaps even in interpolated products (Donat et al., 2013a; Zwiers et al., 2013). Regional reanalysis and satellite-based observations can improve the coverage and homogeneity of temperature data. Map 3.3 Length of station record available in the E-OBS dataset for daily maximum and daily minimum temperatures Note: Stations available in the European Climate Assessment and Datasets (ECA&D) (with different lengths of records) for daily maximum and minimum temperatures. Source: van der Schrier et al., 2013. 90° 80° 70° 60°50° 40° 30°30° 20° 10°10° 0° -10°-10° -30° -50° -60° -70° 60° 50°50° 40°40° 30° 30° 0 500 1 000 1 500 kmYearsLength of station record available in the E-OBS dataset for daily max and daily min temperatures Outside coverage< 10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100 > 100 Weather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe 52 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe3.2.5 Selected event An extreme summer heat wave occurred across Europe in June and July 2015. On 1 July, in London the temperature record was 36.7 °C and Paris recorded its second hottest day ever on 2 July, with a high temperature of 39.7 °C. On 4 July Berlin’s highest temperature on record, 37.9 °C, was measured and on 5 July a weather station in Kitzingen recorded 40.3 °C, breaking the previous record for the hottest temperature ever recorded in Germany (Dong et al., 2016). Averaged over central Europe the seasonal mean (June-August) surface air temperature anomaly was 2.40 °C above the 1961–1990 mean and it reached up to 7 °C in some parts during the period between 28 June and 4 July 2015 (Map 3.4). The magnitude of warming is comparable with previous hot summers in Europe, such as 2003 (e.g. Christidis et al., 2015) and 2010 (Barriopedro et al., 2011; Otto et al., 2012). The summer of 2015 was also the driest and the second hottest summer in recent decades. These temperature anomalies are associated with an anomalous anticyclonic circulation, reduced precipitation over central Europe and a weak increase over northern Europe (Dong et al., 2016).3.3 Heavy precipitation 3.3.1 Relevance Changes in the frequency and magnitude of heavy precipitation events can have considerable impacts on society, including agriculture, industry and ecosystem services. An assessment of past trends and future projections of heavy precipitation is therefore essential for advising policy decisions on mitigation, and on CCA and DRR. The risks posed by heavy precipitation hazards, such as flooding events (including cloud burst and flash floods) are also influenced by non-climatic factors, such as population density, floodplain development and land use changes. Hence, estimates of future changes in such risks need to consider changes in both climatic and non-climatic factors. Heavy precipitation events comprise high-intensity short-duration events and extended-duration low-intensity events (wet spells), which may lead to flooding with related impacts (see Section 3.4). Extreme precipitation on short observational timescales Map 3.4 Extent of the heat wave in 2015 in Europe Note: Average temperature anomalies (°C) for Europe between 28 June and 4 July 2015. Baseline period is 1961-1990. Source: EEA based on the E-OBS dataset (updated from Haylock et al., 2008).< – 3Difference from average temperature (șC) – 3 to – 1 1 to 3– 1 to 1 5 to 7 7 to 9 > 93 to 5Extent of the heat wave in 2015 in Europ e No data Outside coverage 70° 60° 50° 40°40° 30°30° 20°20° 10°10° 0°0° -10° -20° -30° 60° 50°50° 40°40° 05 00 1 0001 500km Weather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe 53 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe generally increases with temperature (Utsumi et al., 2011; Berg et al., 2013). 3.3.2 Past trends On average, heavy precipitation events have become more intense and more frequent in Europe but there are important variations across regions and indices used (Berg et al., 2013; Gallant et al., 2013; Trenberth et al., 2014; Scherrer et al., 2015). Clear trends for large-scale heavy precipitation events are difficult to detect because the number of events is small and they take place at irregular intervals and with irregular intensity. However, in the absence of internal variability, climate models agree that heavy precipitation is becoming more intense and more frequent in Europe, especially in central and eastern Europe in winter (Fischer et al., 2014). There are now more areas in Europe seeing increasing extreme precipitation than those seeing a decrease, with increases in heavy precipitation over northern Europe and decreases over southern Europe seen in the 20th century (Hov et al., 2013a). There is also evidence of longer wet spells at the expense of dry spells in some areas (in the north of Europe in winter) and an increasing proportion of total rainfall occurs on heavy rainfall days (Zolina et al., 2009). In Europe the number of most extreme precipitation events is increasing at a faster rate compared with the mean than more moderate events (Berg et al., 2013; Hov et al., 2013a). The length of wet spells and the intensity of heavy precipitation events have decreased in south-western Europe but increased in northern and north-eastern Europe (van den Besselaar et al., 2011). The latter increase is a consequence of the observed poleward shift of the North Atlantic storm track and the weakening of Mediterranean storms (Hov et al., 2013a). The majority of observation-based studies that investigate trends in extreme rainfall intensity are based on data recorded at the daily timescale. An index for maximum 5-day precipitation (Rx5d) shows significant increases up to 4 mm per decade over northern and north-western Europe, and decreases of 4 to 5 mm per decade in south-western Europe in winter (Map 3.5, left), while summer trends are smaller, decreasing between 1 and 3 mm per decade (Map 3.5, Map 3.5 Trends in maximum 5-day consecutive precipitation for winter (left) and summer (right) Note: Maps show observed trends in 5-day consecutive precipitation in millimetres per decade. Grid boxes outlined with solid black lines contain at least three stations and thus trends are more robust. High confidence in the long-term trend (at the 5 % level) is shown by a black dot (which is the case for all grid boxes in this map). The reference period is 1971-2000. Sources: EEA. UK Met Office.Trends in maximum of five–day consecutive precipitation for winter (left) and summer (right) No data – 5 to – 4 – 4 to – 3 – 3 to – 2 – 2 to – 1 – 1 to 0 0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 > 5 < – 5 Outside coverage0 500 1 000 1 500 kmRx5d (mm/decade)70° 60° 50° 40°40° 30°30° 20°20° 10°10° 0°0° -10° -20° -30° 60° 50°50° 40°40°70° 60° 50° 40°40° 30°30° 20°20° 10°10° 0°0° -10° -20° -30° 60° 50°50° 40°40°Summer Winter Weather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe 54 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europeright). The smaller trends in central and south-eastern Europe for both seasons are not statistically significant. Records of daily mean precipitation are often insufficient to study trends and changes in heavy precipitation. Damage associated with heavy precipitation often originates from subdaily localised heavy precipitation events, which can lead to costly flash floods. Due to limited data availability only a limited number of studies have focused on large regional-scale assessments of subdaily precipitation (Hartmann et al., 2013). A recent review study concludes that extreme subdaily precipitation events have generally increased in Europe, even in regions with decreases in mean rainfall, but there is large variability across regions, seasons, and in event duration (Westra et al., 2014). 3.3.3 Projections Global warming is projected to lead to higher intensity of precipitation as well as longer dry periods in Europe (Seneviratne et al., 2012; Hov et al., 2013a). Modelling studies show that globally a warming atmosphere has an intensifying effect, with dry regions getting drier and wet regions getting wetter, and extremes of precipitation increasing in both the wettest and driest regions. Modelled projections of extreme precipitation events indicate an increase in the frequency, intensity and/or amount under future climate in Europe, and events currently considered extreme are expected to occur more frequently in the future. Globally, a 1-in-20-year annual maximum daily precipitation amount is likely to become a 1-in-5- to 1-in-15-year event by the end of the 21st century (IPCC, 2013). Projections show an increase in heavy daily precipitation (here defined as the intensity of the heavy precipitation events defined as the 95th percentile of daily precipitation) in most parts of Europe in winter, by up to 35 % during the 21st century (Map 3.6 left). In summer the increase is also projected in most parts of Europe but decreases are projected for some regions in southern and south-western Europe (Map 3.6, right) (Jacob et al., 2014). Similar patterns were found for other heavy precipitation indices (Rajczak et al., 2013; Sillmann et al., 2013; Giorgi et al., 2014). Map 3.6 Projected changes in heavy precipitation in winter (left) and summer (right) Note: Projected changes in heavy daily precipitation (%) in winter and summer 2071-2100, compared with the baseline period 1971–2000 for the RCP8.5 scenario based on the ensemble mean of different regional climate models (RCMs) nested in different general circulation models (GCMs). Heavy precipitation is defined as the intensity of the heavy precipitation events defined as the 95th percentile of daily precipitation (only days with precipitation > 1 mm/day are considered). Source: EURO-CORDEX (Jacob et al., 2014). 70° 70 60°60°60°0°°000° 40°40° 44 20° 0 0° 0 -10° 1 -10° -20° – 70° 70 60°00°0°00°60°60°60° 40°40° 44 44 20° 0 20° 0 10° 0 0° 0 -10° 1 -10 -20° – 0 500 1 000 1500 km 05 00 1 000 1 500 km Heavy winter and summer precipitation change (%) < – 25 – 25 to – 15– 15 to – 5 – 5 to 5 5 to 1515 to 25 25 to 35 35 to 45> 45 Outside coverageSummer Winter Weather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe 55 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe 3.3.4 Uncertainties, data gaps and information needs In order to accurately assess trends in heavy precipitation at local scales, high-resolution datasets are required. Globally and within Europe, some regions have shorter data records than others, and even within Europe, not all data from weather stations are shared freely. As a result, there are large data gaps even in interpolated products (Donat et al., 2013a; Zwiers et al., 2013). In regions where many stations with long records are available to all users, more detailed assessments are possible than in regions with a small number of stations or with short records. Limited data availability is particularly detrimental for the detection of long-term climate trends in extreme events. Increased data sharing by meteorological services would improve the accuracy of regional climate change assessments, including understanding of past and future climate and weather extremes. Rain gauge data are available over land only, and availability is low in southern and eastern Europe. Gauge records are of variable length and quality, and there may be discontinuities at country borders. Satellite and radar data provide greater coverage and resolution in certain areas but are subject to uncertainties in measurement and processing, and have shorter records. Merged rain gauge, radar and satellite data combine their sources of uncertainty. For historic trend analysis, data are required at a resolution sufficient to quantify the intensity and location of heavy and extreme precipitation, which can have limited temporal and spatial extent. Uncertainties in trends are overall larger in southern Europe and the Mediterranean region, where there is also low confidence in trends (Seneviratne et al., 2012). Models generally underestimate extreme precipitation intensity, and are better at locating extreme rainfall than estimating its intensity, but model accuracy improves with resolution. RCMs capture the basic features of European climate, including spatial and temporal variability, but do not represent features such as a cold/wet bias, or isolated convection. The increase in model spatial resolution from 50 km to 12.5 km captures more detailed features, but can be limited in the representation of seasonal means over large subdomain regions. One deficiency in the EURO-CORDEX ensemble is that the ‘very wet’ general circulation models (GCMs) from Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) are have not yet been downscaled, although the temperature spread is well covered (Jacob et al., 2014). Precipitation statistics are dominated by interannual to interdecadal variability and are less spatially coherent compared with temperature change. Finally, there is a lack of a clear large-scale pattern associated with extremes because the number of events is small and they take place at irregular intervals and with varying intensity. The increase in the spatial and temporal resolutions of global and regional climate models has generally improved the representation of heavy precipitation and increased confidence in model-based projections (Kopparla et al., 2013; Giorgi et al., 2014; Montesarchio et al., 2014). However, regional climate models with spatial resolutions of between 10 and 30 km typically used in climate change studies are still too coarse to explicitly represent subdaily localised heavy precipitation events (Chan et al., 2014; Ban et al., 2015). Evidence from high-resolution climate models suggests that the intensity of subdaily extreme rainfall is likely to increase in the future, whereby an increase of (theoretically estimated) ~ 7 % per degree Celsius appears most likely in many regions (Westra et al., 2014). A very high-resolution model (typically 1–5 km) used for weather forecasts with explicit convection has recently been used for a climate change experiment for a region in the United Kingdom. This study projects intensification of short-duration heavy rain in summer, with significantly more events exceeding the high thresholds indicative of serious flash flooding (Kendon et al., 2014; Ban et al., 2015; Lehmann et al., 2015). 3.3.5 Selected event Heavy precipitation can cause different types of flooding; the most common are fluvial (river floods) and pluvial (surface floods). A heavy precipitation event occurred in central Europe from 30 May to 2 June 2013, and caused large-scale river floods (Map 3.7) (EURO4M-CIB, 2013). Parts of central Europe received more than 100 mm in a 72-hour period in June 2013, while precipitation exceeded 100 mm in total during this event over a large area of, Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany and Switzerland. Some stations recorded over 200 mm, close to the average monthly precipitation level based on historic datasets for 1951–2012 (van Engelen et al., 2008). The resultant flooding affected south and east Germany, Austria and western parts of the Czech Republic, with severe flooding in the Elbe and Danube catchments. Belarus, Poland, Hungary, Serbia, Slovakia and Switzerland were affected but to a lesser extent. Weather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe 56 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe3.4 River floods 3.4.1 Relevance There are many different types of floods. They can be distinguished based on the source of flooding (e.g. rivers and lakes, urban storm water and combined sewage overflow, or seawater), the mechanism of flooding (e.g. natural exceedance, defence or infrastructure failure, or blockage) and other characteristics (e.g. flash flooding, snowmelt flooding or debris flow) (EC, 2013). River floods are a naturally occurring phenomenon that have contributed to shaping the riparian zone and floodplains over time. Prolonged precipitation, heavy precipitation, and snowmelt events can on their own or in combination generate river floods where water level rises many metres above the normal level to inundate adjoining areas. Today, river systems in Europe, as in many other parts of the world, are heavily altered from their natural state. Over the past thousand years, and most significantly in the 20th century, riparian zones and floodplains have been increasingly developed by human activity. River channels have been excavated and straightened to ease navigation, altering the river’s natural hydromorphology, riparian zones have been drained and floodplains built over. Such development increases the risk of economic damage and floods are becoming one of the most costly natural disasters in Europe (Chorynski et al., 2012; Donat et al., 2013a; EEA, 2016a). Water from river floods damages infrastructure, industrial plants, property and agricultural land, and may indirectly generate production losses caused by damaged transport or energy infrastructure. Floods can also lead to loss of life, displacement of people and damage to cultural heritage. Pollution levels are often high during floods and can have adverse effects on human health, e.g. through contamination of agricultural products and bathing waters, or pollution of drinking water supply. Map 3.7 Total observed precipitation for the events of 30 May to 2 June 2013 Note: Map shows cumulative precipitation amount over the period between 30 May and 2 June 2013 Source: ECA&D (van Engelen et al., 2008; EURO4M-CIB, 2013). .mmTotal observed precipitation for the events of 30 May-2 June 2013 No data Outside coverage0-10 10-20 30-4020-30 50-60 60-70 70-8040-50 80-90 90-100 110-120100-110 > 120 70° 60° 50° 40°40° 30°30° 20°20° 10°10° 0°0° -10° -20° -30° 60° 50°50° 40°40° 05 00 1 0001 500km Weather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe 57 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe 3.4.2 Past trends Trends in river floods can be assessed either by analysing number of river floods or by analysing economic losses. Detections of significant trends in number of river floods in Europe is often difficult because of natural large variability of river floods (Lugeri et al., 2010; Donat et al., 2013a; Kundzewicz et al., 2017). Reliable determination of changing flood frequency requires long-term observations of river flows. Often, time series are not long enough to detect trends and hydrological networks have typically been shrinking, for budget reasons. Based on information from the Dartmouth Flood Observatory (DFO) archive, the number of large flood events increased during the period 1985-2009. Also the timing of the European floods has changed. Warmer temperatures have led to earlier spring snowmelt floods throughout northeastern Europe and earlier soil moisture maxima have led to earlier winter floods in western Europe (Blöschl, et al., 2017). Less extreme events or events with small spatial extent can influence trends due to reporting biases; the selection of ‘larger’ floods is expected to reduce the reporting bias (Kundzewicz et al., 2013). On the other hand, however, data on economic losses can be another source for analysing trends in the impact of floods, but trends can be strongly influenced by reporting biases. Such information, for example, is available from NatCatSERVICE maintained by the Munich RE loss database. The database contains almost 1 500 recorded flood events in the period 1980–2015 in 33 EEA member countries; however, only 120 can be classified as severe flood events (here defined with a threshold of economic loss exceeding EUR 100 million) (Figure 3.1). Economic losses from flooding in Europe have increased substantially since the 1970s (Barredo, 2009). The increasing trend in economic damages from river floods is primarily attributable to socio-economic factors, such as increasing wealth located in flood zones, but river channel management and changes in climate also play a role. In terms of regional gross domestic product (GDP), flood risks are highest in large parts of eastern Europe, Scandinavia, Austria, the United Kingdom and parts of France and Italy (Lugeri et al., 2010). 3.4.3 Projections Atmospheric warming and associated hydrological changes have significant implications for regional flood intensity and frequency. To investigate climate change impacts on the hydrological cycle, research employed a combination of climate and hydrological models that Note: Light blue bars show all recorded river floods and dark blue bars show only flood events exceeding EUR 100 million in economic losses. Source: Munich RE, 2016, provided to EEA under institutional agreement.Figure 3.1 Number of river flood events between 1980 and 2015 in EEA member countries river floods river floods > EUR 100 million0510152025303540 198019811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015 Weather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe 58 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europehave the ability to integrate various contributing factors and assess potential changes to hydrology at global to local scales through the century (Andersen and Marshall Shepherd, 2013). Future changes in the risk of river floods in Europe have been simulated using a hydrological model driven by an ensemble of climate simulations (Rojas et al., 2012; Alfieri et al., 2015a, 2015b; Kundzewicz et al., 2017). Of particular interest is the frequency analysis of flood peaks above the 100-year flood level, which is the average protection level of the European river network, albeit with significant regional differences (Rojas et al., 2013; Jongman et al., 2014) and simulated flood risk assessment in Europe based on high-level greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere (RCP8.5) (Alfieri et al., 2015a). Using three different future periods based on the hydrological model LISFLOOD and an ensemble of seven climate models the level of change in 100-year (Q100) floods shows large regional differences in Europe (Map 3.8). Blue rivers indicate an increase in flood level and red rivers indicate a decrease (Alfieri et al., 2015a). For the end of the 21st century, the greatest increase in Q100 floods is projected for the British Isles, north-west and south-east France, northern Italy and some regions in south-east Spain, the Balkans and the Carpathians. Mild increases are projected for central Europe, the upper section of the Danube and its main tributaries. In contrast, decreased Q100 floods are projected in large parts of north-eastern Europe owing to a reduction in snow accumulation, and hence melt-associated floods, under milder winter temperatures. These results are consistent with earlier studies (Dankers and Feyen, 2009; Ciscar et al., 2011; Rojas et al., 2012). Map 3.8 shows an average of several models which provides the best assessment of the seven model simulations. However, individual model results can vary substantially and all results are subject to uncertainty, stemming from several factors. There are uncertainties linked to the climate scenarios that are used as a basis for the projections. The LISFLOOD analysis is restricted to the larger rivers in Europe, which may not be representative of a whole country or region. For example, in northern Europe, rainfall-dominated floods in smaller rivers may increase because of projected increases in precipitation amounts, even where snowmelt-dominated floods in large rivers are projected to decrease (Vormoor et al., 2016). Scarcity of ground data of adequate quality and quantity is also a reason for uncertainty in projections, because the material for calibration and validation is not satisfactory (Kundzewicz et al., 2017). Changes in flood frequencies below the protection level are expected to have less significant economic effects and affect fewer people than small changes in frequencies in the largest events (e.g. with a return period of 500 years) (Alfieri et al., 2015a). A follow-up study combined the results of a flood hazard assessment with detailed exposure maps to estimate the economic and health risks from river floods in Europe (Alfieri et al., 2016). The results suggest that a high climate change scenario could increase the socio-economic impact of floods in Europe more than three-fold by the end of the 21st century. The strongest increase in flood risk based on expected annual population affected is projected for Austria, Hungary, Slovakia and Slovenia (Alfieri et al., 2015b). Adaptation measures have been estimated to reduce economic damage from (fluvial and coastal) floods substantially (Mokrech et al., 2014; Alfieri et al., 2016). 3.4.4 Uncertainties, data gaps and information needs Trends in river flood frequency and intensity are uncertain due to low temporal and spatial occurrence of floods and inconsistencies in the historical record, and also because of changes in river morphology, stemming from straightening of rivers, dams, diversions, natural changes in channel volume as well as changes in land use and climate change. Civil authorities, infrastructure managers and private companies are able to use the available information and apply it in a risk context. Floods impact data can be obtained from databases such as the DFO (51) of the University of Colorado, the Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT) (52) of the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters and the NatCatSERVICE by Munich RE (53). Information on river flood hazard and risk maps for Europe has been available under the European Floods Directive (EU, 2007) since 2013 and is revised every six years. As many rivers cross borders, the directive supports international collaboration, requiring the development of flood risk management plans within each of the approximately 180 river basin districts in Europe. (51) http://floodobservatory.colorado.edu/ (52) http://www.emdat.be (53) http://www.munichre.com/natcatservice Weather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe 59 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe Map 3.8 Projected change in river floods (peak flow events) with a return period of 100 years, in the early (left), mid (centre) and late (right) 21st century Note: Projected change in the level of a 100-year daily peak river flow (Q100). Relative change for the time slices 2006–2035 (2020), 2036–2065 (2050) and 2066–2095 (2080) compared with the ensemble mean of the baseline (1976-2005). Based on an ensemble of seven EURO-CORDEX simulations forced by the RCP8.5 scenario and the LISFLOOD hydrological model. The consistency of the model projections is evaluated through the use of the coefficient of variation (CV) of the relative change. Smaller CVs indicate better model agreement on the projected mean change. Rivers with larger CVs (greater than 1) are shown in grey. Source: Adapted from Alfieri et al., 2015a. Projected change in the magnitude of river floods with a return period of 100 years Percentage – 40 40 01 02 03 0 – 10 – 20 – 30 © European Union 2016 Source: Joint Research Centre2020 vs. 1990 2050 vs. 1990 2080 vs. 1990 Weather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe 60 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in EuropeInformation that can reduce disasters due to river flooding in Europe is focused on clarifying flood hazard and flood risk, and developing early warning systems and knowledge on prevention and protection measures. Flood hazard is mapped as the area impacted by, for example, a 100-year flood, and flood risk mapping combines the hazard area with assets at risk of adverse impacts. An early warning system is a model that, based on inputs of flood hazard and risk maps, conditions in the river and its surrounding catchment, rainfall duration and intensity, can predict water level height along the river corridor at short notice and issue risk warnings. This is for emergency operations. Although flood extent is identified by most EU Member States, different countries use different approaches and a European flood hazard map is not currently available. Consequently, an assessment of flood risk based on a uniform methodology is also unavailable on a European scale. A European assessment of flood hazard and flood risk is, however, a highly relevant tool needed to obtain a holistic perspective on management needs. As flood risk reduction measures, such as building new dikes or dams, are costly and may both exacerbate flood risk and be environmentally unfriendly, there is an increased interest in addition to technical solutions in using so-called nature-based solutions (NBSs) to manage flood risks. These are solutions based on re-establishing the natural water retention properties of parts of a river. For example, this can be achieved by allowing flooding along certain parts of a river with the objective of reducing overall flood height, or by moving dikes away from the direct vicinity of the river channel to allow more space for water during floods. At present, there is limited information available about the use of such measures at European level, for example an overview of green measures related to the policy objective ‘to take adequate and coordinated measures to reduce flood risk’ (54). 3.4.5 Selected event In May 2014, the heaviest rain in over 100 years was recorded in the Balkans, especially across, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia. As a result the River Bosnia in Maglaj experienced a 1-in-500-year flood event, and in other parts of the river the measured discharge reached levels of almost a 1-in-1 000-year Map 3.9 River floods on Sava and Bosnia rivers in Bosnia and Herzegovina Note: Left figure shows normal situation in the region and right figure shows extent of river flooding on 22 May 2014. Source: TC Vode (www.tcvode.si) and data © Landsat. (54) Natural Water Retention Measures — http://nwrm.eu/River floods on rivers Sava and Bosnia in Bosnia and Herzegovina River flooding on 22 May 2014 Normal situation 05 01 00 25 Kilometers Weather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe 61 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe event (Kastelic et al., 2014; Vidmar et al., 2016) (Map 3.9). The resulting river floods affected 2 million people, including the loss of 82 lives, and over 3 000 landsides were recorded across the Balkan region (Kastelic et al., 2014; Blunden and Arndt, 2015). Economic losses were estimated at EUR 1.55 billion, and it took a year for the coal mines at Tamnava and Veliki Crljeni in Serbia to be recommissioned. Many valley towns in Serbia were also hit by the floods and subsequent land- and mudslides, including the heavily affected and damaged small town of Krupanj in western Serbia. In Krupanj, at least 20 houses were fully destroyed, and infrastructure and more than 500 houses were seriously damaged. The town was without electricity and cut off from its surroundings for 3 days (Figure 3.2). 3.5 Windstorms 3.5.1 Relevance Windstorms are atmospheric disturbances that are defined by strong sustained wind. They can range from relatively small and localised events to large features covering a substantial part of the continent. Large storms in Europe are extratropical cyclones; from wave disturbances over the Atlantic Ocean, they develop as low-pressure weather systems that capture their energy from the temperature contrast between the subtropical and polar air masses that meet in the Atlantic Ocean. In northern and north-western Europe, severe cyclones can occur all year. In central Europe, severe cyclones occur mainly between November and February, but they can also occur in other seasons. In the southernmost part of the European continent, tropical-like cyclones are known to occur over the Mediterranean Sea. These cyclones are called medicanes (55) and they share several features with tropical cyclones, including a spiral cloud structure with a cloud-free eye, winds up to hurricane force and heavy precipitation. Due to the topography of the Mediterranean basin, surrounded by land, these storms usually do not reach the intensity of the strongest extratropical cyclones. Windstorms can lead to structural damage, flooding and storm surges, which may be caused either by the wind itself, in particular short gusts, or by accompanying heavy precipitation. These events can have large impacts on human health and on vulnerable systems, such as forests, as well as transport and energy infrastructures. According to Munich RE’s natural catastrophe loss database (55) Sometimes also termed Mediterranean Sea hurricanes. See Cavicchia et al., 2013, 2014 for more details.Figure 3.2 Flood and mudslide damage to houses in the town of Krupanj, Serbia, 2014 Photo: © By Zoran Dobrin – Permission by email, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=32886545 Weather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe 62 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe(NatCatSERVICE), storms were the costliest natural hazard (in terms of insured losses) in Europe between 1980 and 2015; they ranked second for overall losses and fourth in terms of the number of human casualties. The European regions most strongly affected were north-western, western and northern Europe, in particular regions close to the coast (Outten and Esau, 2013; Osinski et al., 2015). 3.5.2 Past trends Studies of past changes in extratropical storms have used a variety of methods, making it difficult to compare the results of different studies or to assess if there is any underlying climate change signal (Stott, 2015). Storm location and intensity in Europe have shown considerable variation over the past century, but tracks of intense windstorms in the Northern Hemisphere have likely shifted northwards since at least 1970 (Ulbrich et al., 2009; Hov et al., 2013a). Wind data at the local or regional levels can show a series of decreases and increases continuing over several decades. Available studies of storm activities (i.e. storminess) in north-western Europe indicate relatively high levels during the 1880s, followed by below average conditions between the 1930s and 1960s, a pronounced increase in storminess until the mid-1990s, and average or below average activity afterwards. Somewhat similar patterns were observed in other parts of Europe (Matulla et al., 2007; Feser et al., 2014; Dawkins et al., 2016). There is low confidence in the robustness of reanalysis results for extreme wind speeds before the middle of the 20th century (Hartmann et al., 2013; Feser et al., 2014). A single study for the period 1871 to 2008 using global reanalysis data suggests an increasing trend in storminess (defined as above 95th annual percentiles of daily maximum wind speeds) across western, central and northern Europe, with storminess in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea region reaching its highest values towards the end of the 20th century (Donat et al., 2011b). Other available studies have produced evidence that both conflicts and agrees with this result (Wang et al., 2011, 2014; Brönnimann et al., 2012; Krueger et al., 2013). In the period 1979–2014, based on 6 103 high-resolution model-generated historical footprints, a decline of windstorm damage has been found (Roberts et al., 2014; Dawkins et al., 2016). Such a decrease, however, could be linked to climate variations on interannual and decadal scales (Dawkins et al., 2016). Much of the change in windstorms is explained by the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) (Scaife et al., 2014; Dawkins et al., 2016). Analysis of longer time series is needed in order to draw robust conclusions. Studies on medicanes using global climate models or reanalysis data agree that medicanes are a rare event, with an average occurrence of 1 to 2 events per year (e.g. Cavicchia et al., 2013). The low frequency is related to various concurrent factors, such as a lower than average wind shear and large vertical temperature gradients in the atmosphere, which are favourable for the formation and intensification of medicanes. No significant past trend in medicanes has been detected in the analysed period (Cavicchia et al., 2013, 2014). 3.5.3 Projections The simulation of extratropical cyclones in climate models remains a scientific challenge in spite of significant recent progress in modelling techniques. Earlier model studies showed both poleward (Gastineau and Soden, 2009) and equatorward (McDonald, 2011; Scaife et al., 2011) shifts in the Atlantic storm track. Recent simulations based on CMIP5 data project an eastward extension of the North Atlantic storm track towards central Europe, with an increase in the number of cyclones in central Europe and a decreased number in the Norwegian and Mediterranean Seas. During summer a reduction in the number of North Atlantic cyclones along the southern flank of the storm track was projected (Zappa et al., 2013). A study using two multi-model ensembles (one based on 9 GCMs and another based on 11 RCMs) projects a small increase in the wind speed of the strongest winter storms over northern parts of central and western Europe, and a decrease in southern Europe (Map 3.10) (Donat et al., 2011a). The associated projected change in mean potential economic loss varied between – 7 % in the Iberian Peninsula and + 25 % in Germany for the last three decades of the 21st century, considering the A1B emissions scenario (Nakicenovic and Swart, 2000). A comprehensive review study covering the North Atlantic as well as northern, north-western and central Europe shows large agreement among models that the intensity of winter storms will increase in all these regions over the 21st century (Feser et al., 2014). Intensity of storms is here defined with the proxy (e.g. when mean sea level pressure measured in a single station is 35 hPa below the mean annual sea-level pressure) derived from the models. Another recent study, focusing on central Europe, concluded that models consistently projected an increased Weather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe 63 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe frequency and intensity of severe storms over central Europe. Under A1B conditions, changes in frequency towards the end of the 21st century range between – 11 % and + 44 %, with an ensemble mean change of 21 % (Pardowitz, 2015). The intensity of storms affecting central Europe once a year was found to increase by about + 30 %, with individual models projecting changes between – 28 % and up to + 96 %. These results are largely consistent with those of a recent study based on the GCM projections underlying the IPCC’s AR5 (Zappa et al., 2013). One recent study with a single very-high resolution (~ 25 km) GCM indicates that the frequency, intensity and area affected in Europe by severe autumn storms originating in the tropical Atlantic will increase in a warmer future climate (Baatsen et al., 2015). However, this result cannot be considered robust, as it has not yet been confirmed by other studies. For medicanes, a decreased frequency but a tendency to an increased intensity of the most violent storms is projected. This result is likely to be robust due to the agreement between studies employing different techniques, such as dynamical downscaling, analysis of high-resolution GCMs or generation of synthetic storm tracks (Romero and Emanuel, 2013; Tous and Romero, 2013; Cavicchia et al., 2014). 3.5.4 Uncertainties, data gaps and information needs Various factors affect the ability to robustly assess European windstorm activity. In spite of recent progress, there is still a lack of long-term homogeneous observational data in some parts of the continent. On the other hand, the horizontal resolution of reanalysis and model data might not be yet high enough to fully represent the physical processes responsible for regional storm activity. The use of high-resolution downscaling and increasing resolution of the next generation of global models are expected to improve the representation of small-scale storms in the coming years. The XWS (eXtreme WindStorms) (Roberts et al., 2014) catalogue is aimed at filling the gap in the availability of data for past European windstorms, by providing open-access datasets of the most intense storms from the period 1979–2014. This dataset combines the use of high-resolution modelling data and station observations Map 3.10 Multi-model ensemble projections of winter storms Note: Ensemble mean of changes in extreme wind speed (defined as the 98th percentile of daily maximum wind speed) for A1B (2071-2100) relative to 1961-2000. Left: based on 9 GCM runs. Right: based on 11 RCM runs. Coloured areas indicate the magnitude of change (unit: m/s), statistical significance above 0.95 is shown by black dots. Source: Donat et al., 2011a. 0 500 1 000 1 500 km– 1.0 – 0.75 – 0.5 – 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.75 1.0Projected changes in extreme wind speed based on GCM (left) and RCM (right) ensembles Magnitude of change (m/s) Statistical significance above 0.95RCM ensemble GCM ensemble Weather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe 64 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europeto provide recalibrated information on storm intensity in a format directly usable to assess windstorm impact. Concerning the other source of uncertainty, i.e. differences arising from different analysis techniques, efforts are under way to quantify the uncertainties and find a consensus, including the Intercomparison of Mid Latitude Storm Diagnostics (IMILAST) initiative (Roberts et al., 2014). The IMILAST initiative is aimed at assessing what aspects of cyclone climatology are robust and what aspects are still affected by uncertainties related to the detection method. 3.5.5 Selected events Storm Xaver, hitting northern Europe in December 2013 and causing EUR 800 million of insured loss, was one Map 3.11 Footprint of Storm Xaver in December 2013 Note: The storm footprint is defined by considering the highest 3-second wind gust during a 72-hour period. Data are obtained from the Met Office Integrated Data Archive System (MIDAS). Source: XWS database (Roberts et al., 2014).of the most damaging windstorms of the recent years, and ranks as the 13th most intense storm (based on wind speed data) of the past 25 years (Roberts et al., 2014). The storm footprint, based on the analysis of 3-second wind gusts, shows values of up to 55 m/s (Map 3.11). Among the most recent cases of medicanes, an event occurring in January 2014 has been extensively studied using available observations and high-resolution models (e.g. Cioni et al., 2016). The storm crossed the whole Tyrrhenian Sea, crossed the Italian peninsula, and then increased again its intensity in the Adriatic Sea (Map 3.12). Two distinct tropical phases were detected, over the Tyrrhenian Sea and Adriatic Sea respectively (red circles in Map 3.12). During the first tropical-like phase, the storm reached hurricane strength with wind speeds of 33 m/s. 70° 60° 50° 40°40° 30°30° 20°20° 10°10° 0°0° -10° -20° -30° 60° 50°50° 40°40° 0 500 1 000 1 500 km< 10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-40 40-45 > 45 Outside scope3-second gusts wind speed, Xaver December 2013 m/s Weather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe 65 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe Map 3.12 Recorded track of medicane occurring in January 2014 Note: Medicane track from a high-resolution simulation of January 2014. Red circles indicate tropical-like dynamic structure. Source: Adapted from Cioni et al., 2016. 3.6 Landslides 3.6.1 Relevance Landslides are natural hazards which in Europe cause fatalities and significant economic losses (Haque et al., 2016). Landslides occur as a combination of meteorological, geological, morphological, physical and human factors. Extreme weather- and climate-related events (such as heat waves, droughts and heavy precipitation) are the most common trigger of landslides in Europe. Shallow landslides are mostly triggered by heavy and/or persistent precipitation events, while deep-seated landslides are only weakly related to extreme weather or climate events. Surface water run-off caused by heavy precipitation can induce some types of landslide, such as hyper-concentrated, debris flows or mudslides. An abrupt increase in the mean temperature can lead to more evident changes in mountain environment (i.e. evapotranspiration, snow melting, oscillations in snow-line elevation and snowfall/rainfall rates, etc.), with significant effects on landslides, mainly rock falls and debris flows. The IPPC’s AR5 (IPCC, 2013) only assessed the likelihood of changes in the main climate drivers which can cause landslides. Beyond efforts within the scientific community to improve knowledge on landslides and their sensitivity to climate change, the SFDRR 2015–2030 (UNISDR, 2015) focuses on reducing risk and losses by promoting specific actions that aim to encourage a science–policy interface for effective decision-making, within the context of landslide risk management. Nevertheless, significant past trends and robust signals for future projections in landslides occurrence and magnitude are not easy to detect, partly due to the poor availability (and often reliability) of the historical record (both for landslide events and the triggering weather patterns), and partly due to the complexity of the local physical processes involved: climate anomalies, weather patterns that trigger landslides, non-linear slope hydrological response and related geomechanics. 3.6.2 Past trends Comprehensive assessments of changes in frequency and magnitude of landslides at the European scale must also account for changes in demography, spatial planning, land use and land cover. It is therefore difficult to reanalyse events based on climate data only (Petley, 2012). Studies of landslide activities in Europe therefore assess changes in the susceptibility of an area to landslides rather than changes in landslide frequency and magnitude. This susceptibility represents, in a given area, the degree of proneness to landslides, defined with reference to geological properties, morphology, soil types, vegetation and land 05 00 1 000km984–98 6Pressure (hPa) 986–98 8 988–99 0 990–99 2 992–99 4 994–99 6 996–99 8 998–1 000 EEA member countries Outside coverag eRecorded track of the medicane occurring in January 2014 Weather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe 66 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europeuse. These factors statically define susceptibility, but do not provide any estimate of the intensity and frequency of an event (i.e. hazard). Two European landslide susceptibility maps were separately developed at the International Centre for Geo-hazards (ICG) (Nadim et al., 2006) and at the JRC using the same available datasets (Van Den Eeckhaut and Hervás, 2012). The ICG model considered all landslide types, while the JRC model considered only slide- and flow-type landslides. The resulting maps represent the situation in Europe well overall, identifying the main susceptibility/hazard hotspots (e.g. the Pyrenees, the Alps and their foothills, the Apennines, and coastal areas of the United Kingdom and Scandinavian Peninsula) (Map 3.13). Several studies have focused on identifying the relationship between frequency in landslides and heavy precipitation (Polemio and Petrucci, 2010; Polemio and Lonigro, 2014; Gariano et al., 2015). For the Italian Alps of the Piedmont region, change in landslide activity and in the seasonal distribution of precipitation in the period 1960–2011 has been analysed by Stoffel et al. (2014), who found that landslide activities increased during spring, which is related to increased winter precipitation, and in summer, related mainly to dry conditions in spring and summer. Most of the assessments based on past-events analysis draw attention to a broad range of possible impacts of climate change on landslide activity, but relationships are still weak and links uncertain (Flageollet et al., 1999; Stoffel and Beniston, 2006; Stoffel and Huggel, 2012; Jomelli et al., 2016). 3.6.3 Projections The projected increase in surface temperature is expected to result in more intense and frequent rainfall events. In particular, ‘extreme precipitation events over most of the mid-latitude land masses and over wet tropical regions will very likely become more intense and more frequent’ (IPCC, 2013). In addition, there is a ‘high confidence that changes in heavy precipitation will affect landslides in some regions’ (IPCC, 2012). Where the frequency and/or the intensity Map 3.13 Landslide susceptibility for weather-induced landslides: International Centre for Geo-hazards (ICG) (left) and Joint Research Centre (JRC) (right) models Note: A distinct difference can be observed between the two models, where the JRC model has larger areas classified as being exposed to landslides than the ICG model. This shows that classification of landslide zonation maps is subjective and depends on decisions made by the experts. The classified hazard map of the JRC is more conservative, although it does incorporate hotspots of known hazard such as north-west Scotland, which the ICG model does not. Red circles show possible hotspots. White represents regions without landslide hazard. Source: Adapted from Jaedicke et al., 2014.Landslide susceptibility for weather induced landslides: ICG (left) and JRC models (right ) No data Outside coverage LowM edium High 110° 110° 130° -100° -90° -30° 40° -20° 30° -10° 20° 0° 10°50° 50° 40° 40° 30° 30°110° 110° 130° -100° -90° -30° 40° -20° 30° -10° 20° 0° 10°50° 50° 40° 40° 30° 30° 05 001 0001 500km Weather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe 67 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe of rainstorms will increase, shallow landslides, including rock falls, debris flows and debris avalanches, and also ice falls and snow avalanches in high mountain areas, are also expected to increase (Stoffel et al., 2014) Mountain environments, especially those in northern Europe, will be the most affected by projected increases in heat waves and changes in precipitation patterns (Donat et al., 2013a; IPCC, 2014; Jacob et al., 2014). An expected increase in temperature and changes in precipitation patterns will affect rock slope stability conditions and favour higher infiltration amounts within fine/coarse terrains and likely to favour the inception of debris flows or, more generally, shallow landslides. Most of the assessments of global climate change impact on landslides have been carried out at local scales. One study, focused on a region in the United Kingdom, applied climate change projections to a statistics-based model in order to investigate future slope stability. It showed that the return period of winter land movements is projected to decrease from 4.0 to 3.5 years by the 2080s, based on the medium and high-end scenarios (Dixon and Brook, 2007). Map 3.14 shows variations in frequency or activity of four landslide types based on an ensemble of GCMs driven by different climate scenarios (see Gariano and Guzzetti, 2016 for an overview). The greatest evidence consists of a general decrease in abundance/activity of deep-seated landslides and of an increase in rock falls, debris flows and more generally in shallow landslides. It should not be overlooked that in the past decade there has been increasing wildfire-induced change on the natural surface, especially in Mediterranean areas, making the topsoil more prone to erosion; this has reduced the amount of rainfall required to initiate shallow landslides (such as debris flows and mudslides) and associated surface erosion processes (Moody et al., 2013; Santi et al., 2013). Map 3.14 Expected variations in abundance or activity of four landslide types, driven by projected climate change Note: Dark colours are projections from the literature based on different climate scenarios and light colours are projections from a study for the end of the 21st century, based on the RCP8.5 scenario (Gariano and Guzzetti, 2016). Source: Adapted from Gariano and Guzzetti, 2016.70°0° 60° 40°40°° 60°° 50°5 05 00 1 0001 500kmRock fall / Avalanch eChange Based on Gariano an d Guzzetti (2016)Based on Gariano an d Guzzetti (2016) Outside EEA33Landslide typeIncrease Decrease No change Debris flow Shallow landslide Deep-seated landslid e EEA33Other studiesExpected variations in abundance or activity of landslide types Other studies Based on Gariano an d Guzzetti (2016) Other studies Based on Gariano an d Guzzetti (2016) Other studies Weather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe 68 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe3.6.4 Data gaps, information needs and uncertainties In order to identify European hotspots of landslide occurrences, two tools can be used: (1) data catalogues and (2) susceptibility maps. Detailed databases/inventories of observed data (e.g. weather forcing and landslide events) would constitute the most useful source/tool for quantifying changes in past landslide occurrence and for defining relationships for the future. Unfortunately, detailed historical records are often unavailable, or the information stored can be unreliable and often inconsistent with other catalogues (Map 3.15). Detailed databases of observed characteristics of past landslides should constitute the most useful source/tool for quantifying susceptibility, hazard and landslide risk. Many European countries have been creating national and/or regional landslide databases (Van Den Eeckhaut and Hervás, 2012), but the scarcity of detailed information can distort trends. Several scientific papers (Günther et al., 2012) have identified significant variations in the level of detail provided, the completeness of the databases and the accuracy of the language used in national/regional landslides inventories. In Europe, although a marked improvement in climate models has been recognised, the modelling chain of landslides still suffers limitations in the predictability of heavy precipitation at the local scale. Coarse time resolution data may fail to represent peak rainfall intensities, so that significant variations in pore water pressure and water content may drastically affect mechanical terrain behaviour under the influence of precipitation lasting a span of hours (Ciervo et al., 2016). Map 3.15 Overview of national datasets at European level Note: The figure shows an overview of data availability on historical landslides in Europe. Data are available for most European countries, either from national databases (green) or regional databases (blue). Source: Adapted from Van Den Eeckhaut and Hervás, 2012.70° 60° 50° 40°40° 30°30° 20°20° 10°10° 0°0° -10° -20° -30° 60° 50°50° 40°40° 30°30° -20° 30°Canary Is .-30° 40°Azores Is . Madeir a Is. 0 500 1 000 1 500 kmOverview of data availability on historical landslides in Europe Regional database No database availableNational database Outside coverageContacted without response Weather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe 69 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe 3.6.5 Selected events A large landslide formed at Maierato (Vibo Valentia District), southern Italy, on 15 February 2010, at 14.30 local time, when rapid failure occurred after several days of preliminary movements. The landslide had an area of 0.3 km2, a runout distance of 1.2 km and an estimated volume of about 10 million m3. The landslide caused nearly 2 300 inhabitants to be evacuated, with high economic losses. The most probable trigger of the landslide was cumulative precipitation over the preceding 20 days (with a return period of more than 100 years), which followed a long period of 4-5 months of heavy rainfall (about 150 % of the average rainfall of that period) (Gattinoni et al., 2012). 3.7 Droughts 3.7.1 Relevance Droughts have severe consequences for Europe’s citizens and most economic sectors, including agriculture, energy production, industry and public water supply (Blauhut et al., 2015). However, the term ‘drought’ is used in various contexts, which may cause confusion when terminology is not carefully used. A persistent meteorological drought (rain deficiency) can turn into to a soil moisture (agricultural) drought, affecting plant and crop growth, which in turn may deepen into a hydrological drought affecting watercourses, water resources and groundwater-influenced natural ecosystems. Furthermore, hydrological droughts detrimentally affect freshwater ecosystems including vegetation, fish, invertebrates and riparian bird life (EEA, 2012, 2015, 2016b, 2016a). Hydrological droughts also strongly affect navigation on rivers, cooling of power plants and water quality, by reducing the ability of a river to dilute pollution (Figure 3.3). 3.7.2 Past trends Drought has been a recurrent feature of the European climate in recent times. From 2006 to 2010, on average Figure 3.3 Droughts types and causes Source: Adapted from Van Loon, 2015.Meteorological situationAnomalies in precipitationAnomalies in evapotranspiration Meteorological drought Soil moisture drought Hydrological drought Socio-economic droughtPrecipitation deficiency Low soil moisture ImpactsLow dischargeLow ground water level Weather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe 70 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe15 % of the EU territory and 17 % of the EU population have been affected by meteorological droughts each year. In the 1990s and 2000s the drought hotspots were the Mediterranean area and the Carpathian region (Sepulcre-Canto et al., 2012; Spinoni et al., 2016). Significant European droughts occurred in 2010, 2011 and 2015. The 2011 drought was especially severe and affected many countries in Europe. Meteorological droughts Meteorological droughts are usually characterised using statistical indices, such as the standardised precipitation index (SPI) (McKee et al., 1995), standardised precipitation evapotranspiration index (SPEI) (Vicente-Serrano et al., 2009) and reconnaissance drought index (RDI) (Tsakiris et al., 2007). Since 1950, the frequency of meteorological droughts in Europe has increased, mostly in southern and central Europe, but droughts have become less frequent in northern Europe and parts of eastern Europe (Map 3.16, left). Trends in drought severity (based on a combination of three drought indices — SPI, SPEI and RDI) also show significant increases in the Mediterranean region (in particular the Iberian Peninsula, France, Italy and Albania), as well as in parts of central and south-eastern Europe; and decreases in northern Europe and parts of eastern Europe (Map 3.16, right) (Gudmundsson and Seneviratne, 2015; Spinoni et al., 2015). Soil moisture droughts As a spatially and temporally comprehensive set of harmonised soil moisture data over a sufficient soil depth is not available, assessments of past trends in soil moisture rely on hydrological models driven by data on climate, soil characteristics, land cover and phenological phases. These simulations take account of changes in available energy, humidity and wind speed, but disregard artificial drainage and irrigation practices. Modelling of soil moisture content over the past 60 years suggests that there has been little change at the Map 3.16 Observed trends in frequency (left) and severity (right) of meteorological droughts Note: This map shows the trends in drought frequency (number of events per decade; left) and severity (score per decade; right) of meteorological droughts between 1950 and 2012. The severity score is the sum of absolute values of three drought indices (SPI, SPEI and RDI) accumulated over 12-month periods. Dots show trends significant at the 5 % level. Source: Adapted from Spinoni et al., 2015. Observed trends in frequency and severity of meteorological droughts + 30 – 300 500 1 00 01 500 kmOutside coverageDrought frequency (events/decade) + 0.7 – 0.7Total drought severity(score/decade) 0 0 Significance of trends 70° 0° 60°6060660°0°0°00 0°° 40° 0 70° ° 7 66660°60°0°060°6666 000°0° 40° 40 10°1 0°Drought frequency Total drought severity Weather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe 71 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe global and pan-European levels (Sheffield et al., 2012; Kurnik et al., 2015). At the subcontinental scale, however, significant trends in summer soil moisture content can be observed. Soil moisture content has increased in parts of northern Europe, probably because of increases in precipitation amounts. In contrast, soil moisture has decreased in most of the Mediterranean region, particularly in south-eastern Europe, south-western Europe and southern France. Apparent substantial increases in soil moisture content modelled over western Turkey should be treated with caution because of the limited availability of climate and soil data in the region, which affects the accuracy of the modelled trends (Kurnik et al., 2015) (Map 3.17). Map 3.17 Past trends in summer soil moisture content 70° 60° 50° 40°40° 30°30° 20°20° 10°10° 0°0° -10° -20° -30° 60° 50°50° 40°40° 30°0 500 1 0001 500km Trends in summer soil moisture in Europe (litres/m3/10 years) Outside coverageNo dataSignificance < – 8 – 8 to – 5 – 5 to – 2.5 – 2.5 to – 1.5 – 1.5 to 1.5 1.5 to 2.5 2.5 to 5 5 to 8> 8 Note: Trends refer to the period 1951-2012; soil moisture content was modelled using a soil water balance model in the upper soil horizons; summer means June to August. Source: Adapted from Kurnik et al., 2015. Weather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe 72 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in EuropeMap 3.18 Model-based estimate of past change in summer low flows Note: This map shows the ensemble mean trend in summer low flow from 1963 to 2000. ‘×’ denotes grid cells where less than three quarters of the hydrological models agree on the direction of the trend. Source: Adapted from Stahl et al., 2012. Model-based estimate of past change in summer low flow Percentage< 75 % of models agreeon sign of trend 100 80 60 40 20 0 – 20 – 40 – 60 – 80 – 100 Outside model coverag e Outside coverage70° 60° 50° 40°40° 30°30° 20°20° 10°10° 0°0° -10° -20° -30° 60° 50°50° 40°40° 05 00 1 000 1 500 kmHydrological droughts Most stream gauges in Europe show a decrease in summer low flows over the second half of the 20th century (Map 3.18). However, the current data availability is insufficient for attributing this trend to global climate change (Stahl et al., 2010, 2012). 3.7.3 Projections An assessment of European meteorological droughts based on different drought indices and an ensemble of RCMs has projected drier conditions for southern Europe for the mid-21st century, with increases in the length, magnitude and area of drought events (van der Linden and Mitchell, 2009b). In contrast, drought occurrence was projected to decrease in northern Europe (Henrich and Gobiet, 2012). Similar results were obtained in later studies based on different indices and climate projections (Orlowsky and Seneviratne, 2013; Giorgi et al., 2014; Touma et al., 2015; Spinoni et al., 2015). Meteorological droughts A models ensemble from the EURO-CORDEX (Jacob et al., 2014) community projects that the frequency and duration of extreme meteorological droughts (defined as having a value below – 2 on the standardised precipitation index, SPI-6) will significantly increase in the future (Stagge et al., 2015). These projections showed the largest increases in frequency for extreme droughts in parts of the Iberian Peninsula, southern Weather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe 73 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe Map 3.19 Projected change in frequency of meteorological droughts Note: This map shows the projected change in the frequency of extreme meteorological droughts (number of months in a 30-year period where the SPI accumulated over 6-month periods (the SPI-6) is below – 2) between the baseline period 1971-2000 and future periods 2041-2070 (left) and 2071-2100 (right) for the RCP4.5 (top row) and RCP8.5 (bottom row) scenarios. Source: Adapted from Stagge et al., 2015.No data< – 2 – 2 to – 1 – 1 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 4 4 to 7 7 to 1111 to 15> 15Changes in meteorogical drought frequency for different periods and scenarios Outside coverage0 500 1 000 1 500 km Months/30-year period 70° 60° 50° 40°40° 30°30° 20°20° 10°10° 0°0° -10° -20° -30° 60° 50°50° 40°40° 70° 60° 50° 40°40° 30°30° 20°20° 10°10° 0°0° -10° -20° -30° 60° 50°50° 40°40° 70° 60° 50° 40°40° 30°30° 20°20° 10°10° 0°0° -10° -20° -30° 60° 50°50° 40°40° 0 500 1000 1500 km 0 500 1000 1500 km 70° 60° 50° 40°40° 30°30° 20°20° 10°10° 0°0° -10° -20° -30° 60° 50°50° 40°40°2071-210 0 2041-207 02 071-210 02041-207 0 RCP4.5 RCP8.5 RCP8.5RCP4.5Italy and the eastern Mediterranean, especially at the end of the century, with respect to the baseline period 1971–2000 (Map 3.19). The changes are most pronounced for the RCP8.5 high emissions scenario and slightly less extreme for the moderate (RCP4.5) scenario. Drought projections that also consider potential evapotranspiration (e.g. SPEI) showed substantially more severe increases in the areas affected by drought than those based on the precipitation-based SPI alone. For example, the fraction of the Mediterranean region under drought was projected to increase by 10 % by Weather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe 74 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europethe end of the 21st century based on RCP8.5 using the SPI, whereas an increase of 60 % was projected using the SPEI (Touma et al., 2015). Soil moisture droughts Based on the results of 12 RCMs, projected changes in soil moisture anomaly (Palmer drought severity index) show a strong latitudinal gradient, from pronounced drier conditions in southern Europe to wetter conditions in northern European regions in all seasons (Map 3.20). The largest changes in the soil moisture index between 2021–2050 and the baseline period Map 3.20 Projected changes in summer soil moisture Note: Changes are based on the self-calibrated Palmer drought severity index and presented as mean multi-model change between 1961-1990 and 2021-2050, using the SRES A1B emissions scenario and 12 RCMs; red indicates drier and blue indicates wetter conditions. Source: Adapted from Henrich and Gobiet, 2012.1 000 50070°0° 60° 40°410°0 0°0 10°0°0°-11 60°° 0 1 500 kmChange in Palmer Drought Severity Index – 2.0 No data Outside coverage 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 – 0.5 – 1.0 – 1.5 Wetter Drier0 (1961–1990) are projected for the summer period in the Mediterranean, especially in north-eastern Spain, and in south-eastern Europe (Henrich and Gobiet, 2012). Hydrological droughts The top row of Map 3.21 depicts the projected impact of climate change on the 20-year return level minimum river flow (left) and deficit volumes (right). Increasing severity of river flow droughts is projected for most European regions, except for northern and north-eastern Europe. The strongest increase in drought risk is projected for southern Europe, but Weather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe 75 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe mean increases are also projected for large parts of central and north-western Europe. However, these increases show large seasonal variations and also depend on how the models represent the evapotranspiration and soil moisture (Wong et al., 2011). The bottom row of Map 3.21 shows the combined impact of climate change and changes in water consumption (based on the ‘Economy First’ water Note: Differences between the end of the 21st century (SRES A1B scenario) and the control period (1961–1990) for minimum discharges (left) and change in deficit volume (right), for climate change only (top row) and a combination of climate change and water use (bottom row). Source: Adapted from Forzieri et al., 2014.70° 60° 50° 40°40° 30°30° 20°20° 10°10° 0°0° -10° -20° -30° 60° 50°50° 40°40°70° 60° 50° 40°40° 30°30° 20°20° 10°10° 0°0° -10° -20° -30° 60° 50°50° 40°40° 70° 60° 50° 40°40° 30°30° 20°20° 10°10° 0°0° -10° -20° -30° 60° 50°50° 40°40°70° 60° 50° 40°40° 30°30° 20°20° 10°10° 0°0° -10° -20° -30° 60° 50°50° 40°40° %Projected change in 20-year return level minimum flow and deficit volumes due to climate change and changes in water use Outside coverage – 80 – 60 – 40 – 20 – 10 – 55 10 20 40 60 80 qmindeficits 80 60 40 20 10 5 – 5– 10– 20 – 40 – 60 – 80 0 500 1 000 1 500 kmMinimum discharge (climate change only)Deficit volum e (climate change only) Minimum discharge (climate change and water use)Deficit volum e (climate change and water use) Map 3.21 Projected change in 20-year return level minimum flow and deficit volumes due to climate change and changes in water useuse scenario) on the same drought indices. In most regions, projected increases in water consumption further aggravate river flow droughts (Forzieri et al., 2014, 2016). Water use and abstraction will exacerbate minimum low flows in many parts of the Mediterranean region, leading to increased probabilities of water deficits when maximum water demand overlaps with minimum or low availability (EEA, 2012). Weather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe 76 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe3.7.4 Uncertainties, data gaps and information needs Meteorological, hydrological and soil moisture droughts are subject to uncertainty related to the number, accuracy and spatial and temporal distribution of observations. Direct drought metrics such as soil moisture can be quantified by measurements taken in situ, and also by satellite remote sensing. In situ measurements represent mostly local conditions, while satellite measurements only assess top layers of the soil. Drought studies therefore rely on reanalysis of model data to establish trends, which introduces a level of uncertainty. Another source of uncertainty is the choice of drought index, although this is less significant than the choice of threshold for impact assessment (Parry et al., 2012). Sources of uncertainty in modelled projections include the representation of interrelated physical processes, but the use of multi-models (both climate and hydrological) helps to reduce uncertainty and improve robustness of outputs (van Huijgevoort et al., 2014). However, some aspects of the climate/ hydrological system such as streamflow trend analysis may not be representative over long timescales due to interdecadal variability (Hannaford et al., 2013). In the near future, internal climate variability is the dominant source of uncertainty in meteorological and soil moisture drought projections (Orlowsky and Seneviratne, 2011, 2013), and for the distant future (end of the 21st century) the difference between emissions scenarios becomes dominant. The move to probability-based ensemble modelling methods helps to better characterise uncertainty. 3.7.5 Selected event The European drought of 2011 affected most of Europe. The Czech Republic, Germany, the Netherlands and Slovakia reported their lowest winter rainfall. River levels were below average in large parts of central and eastern Europe, affecting navigability on the Rivers Rhine and Danube. Low reservoir levels affected electricity production in Serbia, drinking water supply in Bosnia and winter crop production in Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Ukraine, where winter grain yields were estimated to be 30 % below average. Unusually dry conditions also gave rise to forest fires in several countries including Germany, Moldova, Slovakia and Ukraine (Map 3.22).An analysis of European drought using ECA&D station data (van Engelen et al., 2008) showed that November 2011 was the driest November since 1920 (Spinoni et al., 2015). The year 2011 was the mid-point of a significant multi-year drought in regions of western Europe. The winter drought between 2010 and 2012 was one of the 10 most significant drought events of the past 100 years in the south-eastern United Kingdom (Kendon et al., 2013). During the drought, reduced spring rainfall severely affected water resources, stream flows and agriculture, before ending abruptly with a change in the jet stream in April 2012 (Marsh et al., 2013). 3.8 Forest Fires 3.8.1 Relevance Forest fires are an integral part of forest dynamics in many ecosystems, where they are an essential element of forest renewal. They help control insect and disease damage, and eliminate litter accumulated on forest floors. At the same time, forest fires also disturb forest landscapes. Fire regime and risk are the result of complex interrelationships between several factors, including climate and weather conditions, vegetation (e.g. fuel load), topography, land, forest and fire management, and cultural and socio-economic context (Moreira et al., 2011; Moreno, 2014; Rego and Silva, 2014; Salis et al., 2014). Although over 95 % of fire ignitions are caused by humans (either accidently or intentionally), it is well documented that the major determinants of fire spread and intensity are weather and fuel accumulation (Pereira et al., 2005; Koutsias et al., 2012; Pausas and Fernández-Muñoz, 2012; Pausas and Paula, 2012). The risk posed by forest fires typically involves a combination of extreme weather conditions (e.g. prolonged drought, high temperatures, low relative humidity, strong winds), and fire suppression capabilities (Camia and Amatulli, 2009). Climate change is expected to influence forest fire regimes and risk in Europe, and elsewhere. Indeed, there is evidence that, in a warmer climate, more severe fire weather conditions, expansion of the fire-prone areas, and longer fire seasons are likely to occur in Europe, even if relevant spatial variations are projected. Moreover, the impacts of forest fires are expected to be more significant in southern European countries and fire-prone ecosystems (Kovats et al., 2014). However, forest fires may become problematic in other regions of Europe as well. Weather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe 77 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe 3.8.2 Past trends The past trends of fire frequencies and area burned are difficult to analyse because fire data are strongly affected by significant changes in past years in the statistical reporting systems of the EU Member States. According to the JRC’s European Forest Fire Information System (EFFIS) (56) fire data, the number and extent of forest fires vary considerably from one year to another depending on seasonal meteorological conditions. Some multiannual periodicity in the burned area trend can also be partially attributed to the dead biomass burning/accumulation cycle, typical of fire-prone regions. The average area burned per year between 1980 and 2014, in the five southern European countries, varied considerably both spatially and temporally (Figure 3.4). Fire occurrence in Europe is commonly high in three periods (i.e. winter fires in mountainous areas, spring fires in northern and central Europe, and summer fires Note: The drought situation is described with Standardised Precipitation-Evapotranspiration Index accumulated over 3-months periods (SPEI-3). The baseline period is 1971-2000. Source: EEA. Data from Vicente-Serrano et al., 2009.Map 3.22 Onset of the 2011 European drought: situation for May 2011 (56) http://forest.jrc.ec.europa.eu/effis/< – 2 – 2 to – 1. 5 – 1.5 to – 1 – 1 to – 0. 5 – 0.5 to 0 0 to 0. 5 0.5 to 1 1 to 1. 5 1.5 to 2 > 2 No data Outside coverageOnset of the 2011 Europea n drought, May 201 1 Drier Wetter 70° 60° 50° 40°40° 30°30° 20°20° 10°10° 0°0° -10° -20° -30° 60° 50°50° 40°40° 0 500 1 000 1 500 km Weather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe 78 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europeassociated with summer droughts). The majority of forest fires occur in the summer, and the areas most affected are concentrated in Mediterranean Europe (San-Miguel-Ayanz et al., 2013; Schmuck et al., 2015) Past trends of fire danger have also been analysed by processing time series of meteorological fire danger indices, which are routinely used to rate the fire potential due to weather conditions. The Canadian fire weather index (FWI) is used in EFFIS to rate daily fire danger conditions in Europe (Van Wagner, 1987). Daily severity values can be averaged over the fire season to obtain a seasonal severity rating (SSR) index. The index is dimensionless and allows objective comparison of fire danger across regions and years; SSR values above 6 are considered in the extreme range. Map 3.23, left shows annual SSR values averaged over the fire season in the period 1981–2010. SSR was computed based on daily weather data including air temperature, relative humidity, wind and precipitation from ECMWF. Other factors driving the fire regime, such as land use changes or fuel dynamics, are not taken into account by the SSR. The SSR trends from 1981 to 2010 indicate significant increase in forest fire danger in several regions in Europe (Map 3.23, right). Figure 3.4 Area burned (thousand hectares) in the five southern European countries Note: Total burned area per year based on recorded events. Sources: Adapted from San-Miguel-Ayanz et al., 2013 and Schmuck et al., 2015.01002003004005006007008009001 000 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014Area Burned (1 000 ha) Greece Italy France Spain Portugal Weather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe 79 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe 3.8.3 Projections Climate change projections suggest substantial warming and increases in the number of droughts, heat waves and dry spells across most of the Mediterranean area and more generally in southern Europe (Kovats et al., 2014). These projected changes would increase the length and severity of the fire season, the area at risk and the probability of large fires, possibly enhancing desertification, particularly in southern Europe (Lindner et al., 2010; Carvalho et al., 2011; Dury et al., 2011; Vilén and Fernandes, 2011; Arca et al., 2012; Moreno, 2014). As a result, the annual area burned, the probability of large fire events and the greenhouse gas emissions from forest fires are projected to grow with respect to the actual conditions. In central and northern latitudes, the increase in temperatures and fire danger conditions could favour fire occurrence and spread, thus expanding northward the areas prone to forest fires. Based on a set of regional climate models driven by the A1B scenario (Nakicenovic and Swart, 2000) the potential forest fire risk will increase in several European areas, notably in Mediterranean and central Europe, in the period 2041–2070 compared with the baseline period (Lung et al., 2013; Bedia et al., 2014) (Map 3.24). Map 3.23 State and trend of fire danger for the period 1981-2010 Note: Fire danger is expressed by the seasonal severity rating (SSR). Daily severity values can be averaged over the fire season using the SSR index, which allows objective comparison of fire danger across time and space. The coarse scale of the map does not allow accounting for specific conditions of given sites, as for example in the Alpine region, where the complex topography may strongly affect local fire danger. The left panel shows the average SSR values during the period 1981 to 2010, whereas the right panel shows the linear trend in the same period. Source: Camia, 2012 (personal communication, based on Camia et al., 2008). 70° 60° 50° 40°40° 30°30° 20°20° 10°10° 0°0° -10° -20° -30° 60° 50°50° 40°40°70° 60° 50° 40°40° 30°30° 20°20° 10°10° 0°0° -10° -20° -30° 60° 50°50° 40°40° Average forest fire danger (1981-2010) Seasonal Severity Rating (SSR) 0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 6 6 to 7 7 to 1010 to 15> 15 Outside coverageNo data 0 500 1 000 1 500 km© European Union 2016, source: Joint Research CentreObserved trend in forest fire danger (1981-2010) Percentage change in SSR per year < – 1 – 1 to – 0.5 – 0.5 to 0 0 to 0.5 0.5 to 1 1 to 1.5 1.5 to 2> 2 Highly significant (p > 0.01)Significant (p < 0.05)Statistical significanc e of fire danger trend1981-2010 (average) 1981-2010 (trend) Weather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe 80 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe(57) Projection of Economic impacts of climate change in Sectors of the European Union based on bottom-up Analysis, see https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/ (58) http://www.efi.int/portal/virtual_library/databases/en/pesetaThe PESETA II study (57) has estimated that the burnt area in southern Europe would more than double during the 21st century for a reference climate scenario and increase by nearly 50 % for a 2 °C rise scenario (Ciscar et al., 2014). Another study has estimated a potential increase in burnt areas in Europe of about 200 % during the 21st century under a high emissions scenario (A2) (Nakicenovic and Swart, 2000), assuming no adaptation. The forest fire risk could be substantially reduced by additional adaptation measures, such as prescribed burning, fire breaks and behavioural changes (Khabarov et al., 2016). The forest fire projection based on the Earth system models (ESMs) and radiative concentration pathways (RCP8.5 and RCP2.6 (van Vuuren et al., 2011)) show that eastern Europe is projected to become a new fire-prone area in future years. However, changes in future burned area for Mediterranean and northern Europe are less robust due to the uncertainty in fire–vegetation interaction (Wu et al., 2015).3.8.4 Uncertainties, data gaps and information needs The JRC's EFFIS collects fire data for the European region based on reports from EU Member States. Data availability differs across countries, and time series longer than 25 years are available for only a few countries. Other data sources, such as the Database on Forest Disturbances in Europe (DFDE) (58), are less harmonised and standardised, and suffer from inconsistencies among data sources. The availability of accurate data on fire ignition locations, size and causes represents a key point for fire monitoring and management, and is crucial to design prevention and adaptation strategies and post-fire and restoration interventions. A better understanding of forest fire drivers would be also supported by an enhancement of current spatial and temporal details of data. Additional information needs relate to the socio-economic impact of forest fires and the improvement of fire emissions estimates, Map 3.24 Forest fire risk in Europe Note: Forest fire risk calculated for baseline period (1961–1990) and 2041–2070 (A1B emission scenario). Source: Lung et al., 2013.70° 60° 50° 40°40° 30°30° 20°20° 10°10° 0°0° -10° -20° -30° 60° 50°50° 40°40° 30°70° 60° 50° 40°40° 30°30° 20°20° 10°10° 0°0° -10° -20° -30° 60° 50°50° 40°40° 30°Baseline climate (1961-1990) Climate scenario 2041-2070 (A1B emission scenario) Forest fire risk in Europe Very high High Medium Low Very low Not assessed Outside coverage 0 500 1 000 1 500 km Weather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe 81 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe given the important interlinkages between climate, land, ecosystems, and human behaviours (Michetti and Zampieri, 2014; Moreno, 2014). For instance, since forest fires are mostly human ignited, it is crucial to understand the future anthropogenic influences on spatio-temporal fire regime, as well as on forest and land management, and urban/rural planning. Climate models have proven to be important tools for simulating and understanding climate, and there is considerable confidence that they provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at larger scales (Kovats et al., 2014). However, models continue to have significant limitations (e.g. on the representation of clouds), which lead to uncertainties in the magnitude and timing, as well as regional details, of predicted climate change. For this reason, fire danger estimates are affected by uncertainties in future climate projections, and this can be particularly relevant when assessing extreme events (Bedia et al., 2014). In addition, future fire danger can be properly approached by using an adequate set of proxies, which are often available in databases. Furthermore, dynamical and statistical downscaling techniques should be regarded as complementary rather than alternative approaches. Although empirical models and field-based studies support the relationships between climate change and fire activity, the potential pathways through which climate change may modify fire regime need to be further investigated. Indeed, pathways and mechanisms largely vary depending on regions, climate and vegetation types. As a result, adaptation strategies and firefighting and management activities should be adjusted to local needs. 3.8.5 Selected event Forest fires in southern Europe are common, but in northern Europe they are unusual. In 2014 the worst forest fire in the history of Sweden occurred. The highest fire danger conditions were observed at the end of July, in correspondence with a period of very warm weather, strong winds and low precipitation. As a consequence, some areas were affected by several forest fires, one of which (the Västmanland fire) burned about 12 800 ha (the total area burned in Sweden in 2014 was 14 700 ha) (Map 3.25). This forest fire was the largest ever recorded in Sweden, and the largest forest fire event in Europe during the whole of 2014. The fire started on 31 July and was caused by sparks created by a vehicle during forestry work. The most significant growth in fire area was observed on 4 August, with about 9 000 ha burned in the afternoon and maximum spread rates of 5 km/hour. The fire Map 3.25 Forest fire in Sweden in 2014 Note: Burnt area scars in Sweden in the 2014 fire season, and perimeter of the Västmanland fire. Source: Adapted from Schmuck et al., 2015. © OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY -SA Forest fire in Sweden in 2014 Västmanland fire location area Outside coverage Västmanland fire approximate perimeter50° 40° 30°30° 20°20° 10°10° 0°0° -10° 70° 60°60° 0 500 1 000 1 500 km 08 16kmLocation map Detailed map Weather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe 82 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europewas officially declared extinguished on 11 September, 6 weeks after the fire ignition. 3.9 Avalanches 3.9.1 Relevance According to the multi-language glossary developed by the Group of European Avalanche Warning Services (EAWS, 2016) an avalanche is 'a rapidly moving snow mass with typically a volume greater than 100 m3 and a minimum length of 50 meters'. Avalanches range from small slides barely harming skiers, up to catastrophic events endangering mountain settlements or traffic routes (EAWS, 2016). According to the INSPIRE registry (59) definition, snow avalanches usually incorporate materials swept along the path of the avalanche, such as trees, rocks, etc. Avalanche formation is the result of a complex interaction between terrain, snowpack and meteorological conditions. The connection between frequency and magnitude of avalanches and climate change is uncertain. In general, it is assumed that possible changes in avalanche frequency and magnitude are related to changes in snow cover, with a decrease in avalanche hazards likely at low and medium altitudes (due to increasing temperatures during winters), although more frequent heavy precipitation events may counteract this trend (PLANALP, 2016).3.92 Past trends Dry and wet snow avalanche activity increased between 1952 and 2013, especially during the mid-winter season and at high altitude (Pielmeier et al., 2013; Steinkogler et al., 2014; Einhorn et al., 2015). Historical observation data and long-term statistics on avalanche fatalities are available from the 1930s onwards in Switzerland (Snow and Avalanche Research, 2016) and all other countries of the Alps monitor avalanche fatalities. Observational data between 1970 and 2015 show that avalanches kill on average 100 people every winter in the Alps, but there is considerable interannual variation (Table 3.1) (STRADA, 2013). The number of fatalities in controlled terrain (settlements and transport corridors) has decreased significantly since the 1970s. In contrast to this development, the number of fatalities in uncontrolled terrain (mostly recreational accidents) almost doubled between the 1960s and 1980s and has remained relatively stable since then, despite a strong increase in the number of winter backcountry recreationists (Techel et al., 2016). Other mountainous countries and regions in Europe outside the Alps also monitor avalanche fatalities and have long-term observations in place. In Norway there were on average five to six avalanche fatalities per year between 1972 and 2015 (Table 3.1). The data from Spanish Catalonia show on average one to two avalanche fatalities per year during the period 1986-2016 (Table 3.1). (59) http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/codelist/NaturalHazardCategoryValue/snowAvalancheYear Alps Norway (total) Catalonia (Spain) (total) Controlled Uncontrolled 1970 106 69 N/A N/A 1971 36 69 N/A N/A 1972 36 48 N/A N/A 1973 33 92 1 N/A 1974 9 45 1 N/A 1975 75 31 4 N/A 1976 9 77 3 N/A 1977 21 98 12 N/A 1978 41 105 7 N/ATable 3.1 Avalanche fatalities in each year in three mountain regions (Alps, Norway and Spanish Catalonia) in Europe Weather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe 83 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe Note: For the Alps, fatalities are presented for controlled and uncontrolled terrain, while for Norway and Catalonia total number of fatalities are indicated. For the Alps, data from Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Liechtenstein, Slovenia and Switzerland were provided. N/A, not applicable. Sources: Based on Techel et al., 2016; Institut Cartogràfic i Geològic de Catalunya (ICGC); Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI).Year Alps Norway (total) Catalonia (Spain) (total) Controlled Uncontrolled 1979 12 82 11 N/A 1980 28 66 7 N/A 1981 25 83 11 N/A 1982 8 86 3 N/A 1983 9 93 2 N/A 1984 31 101 0 N/A 1985 21 158 4 N/A 1986 34 113 22 N/A 1987 6 83 12 1 1988 18 104 4 1 1989 7 48 6 1 1990 12 62 3 0 1991 34 114 1 4 1992 9 47 3 2 1993 7 90 1 1 1994 6 86 5 1 1995 3 75 3 0 1996 9 99 4 2 1997 4 85 4 1 1998 2 64 6 0 1999 72 70 1 1 2000 3 94 6 0 2001 7 103 9 4 2002 2 80 4 4 2003 0 103 2 1 2004 2 65 4 3 2005 1 110 3 1 2006 6 124 2 2 2007 0 65 3 0 2008 3 78 3 2 2009 1 125 4 1 2010 1 153 9 3 2011 3 67 13 0 2012 4 63 7 1 2013 2 108 8 2 2014 3 72 9 0 2015 2 134 6 0 2016 N/A N/A N/A 0 Weather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe 84 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe3.9.3 Projections Projected increased temperatures in the Alpine region are expected to lead to large decreases in snow amount and duration below about 1 500-2 000 m elevation (Gobiet et al., 2014). In the western Alps in particular, avalanche activity will most likely decrease at low altitudes in spring, due to increasing temperatures, and will increase above 2 500 m in winters due to possible increases in the frequency of heavy precipitation (Castebrunet et al., 2014). Projected changes in snow conditions show a reduction of dry snowpack and an increase of wet snowpack for the French Alps in the periods 2020–2050 and 2070–2100. Conditions with wet snow are projected to appear at high elevations earlier in the season. Regarding avalanche activity, a general decrease in mean (20-30 %) and interannual variability is projected (Castebrunet et al., 2014). As a consequence, the frequency of winters with high avalanche activity is projected to decrease, but the decreasing trend may be less strong and smooth than that suggested by statistical analysis, which is based on changes in snowpack characteristics and their links to avalanche observations in the past. There are only small variations in predicted avalanche activity between different climate change scenarios (Castebrunet et al., 2014). 3.9.4 Uncertainties, data gaps and information needs There is no common European database with information on human non-fatal injuries and economic losses. Data are collected at national or regional scales and are usually not easily accessible. Thus it is difficult to prepare high-quality statistics on non-fatal accidents, or a good overview of economic losses due to impacts from avalanches in Europe. Today, snow avalanches of return periods of 30 years or less can be simulated and predicted with high confidence based on statistical–dynamical modelling. If dealing with longer return periods (more than 30 years), uncertainties increase and other validation procedures are needed to corroborate model predictions, such as the dendrogeomorphic records of trees (Schläppy et al., 2014). Results show that dendrogeomorphic time series of snow avalanches can yield valuable information to anticipate future extreme events (classic intervals used in hazard zoning, i.e. 10–300 years) and that the employed statistical–dynamical model can be used with reasonable confidence to predict runout distances of avalanches with high return periods (Schläppy et al., 2014).Models are helpful tools to predict avalanche motion and impact, but uncertainties remain despite major advances, and also in view of the uncertain consequences of climate change. Even after applying mitigation measures, a residual risk remains because completely reducing the risk is not cost efficient. Therefore, combining permanent and temporary protection measures is most promising, but requires that the risk is actively managed. By doing so the risk to people — living, traveling or pursuing recreation in the mountains — can effectively be reduced to an acceptable level (Schweizer et al., 2015). 3.9.5 Selected events In Europe, two large-scale avalanches with significant economic losses and human fatalities occurred in the period between 2015 and 2017. The Longyearbyen avalanche in Norway occurred in December 2015 and the Rigopiano avalanche in central Italy occurred after an earthquake in January 2017. Longyearbyen is the world's most northerly town, situated about halfway between continental Norway and the North Pole, on the island of Spitzbergen. Weather conditions had been harsh since Friday 18 December 2015, with authorities warning people to take care in high winds. An avalanche destroyed 11 wooden houses, and two persons were killed on the slopes of Mount Sukkertoppen, which overlooks Longyearbyen. A further eight people were injured and 40 homes in the area were evacuated in case another avalanche hit. On the afternoon of 18 January 2017, a major avalanche occurred on Gran Sasso d'Italia, a mountain in Rigopiano, a tourist destination in the province of Pescara, in southern Italy's Abruzzo region. The avalanche struck the luxury Hotel Rigopiano, killing 29 people and injuring 11 others (Ahmed, 2017). A period of exceptional cold and large amounts of snow occurred in central, eastern and southern Europe in January 2017 (Severe Weather Europe, 2017). In the Italian Apennines snow reached up to 3 m deep, avalanche danger was high and the avalanche was triggered by an earthquake that struck the region earlier in the day (Geggel, 2017). After the impact, the avalanche caused part of the roof of the hotel to collapse, and moved it 10 m. The estimated mass was between 40 000 and 60 000 t when it hit the hotel, and the mass of the snow increased to 120 000 t as the snow and ice pressing down on the building became heavier. Weather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe 85 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe 3.10 Hail 3.10.1 Relevance Hailstorms are most common in mid-latitudes in the warm seasons, in which the tropospheric conditions allow strong convection and precipitation formation via the ice phase. Especially high surface temperature and humidity, as well as low temperature in the upper troposphere, promote the required atmospheric instability and support ice formation. The occurrence of hail over Europe is not uniform over space and time (Groenemeijer et al., 2016; Punge and Kunz, 2016). Most hail events occur where convective energy and trigger mechanisms for convection are highest, e.g. near mountains, or in connection with air mass front areas as well as convergence lines (Punge et al., 2014). Hail is responsible for significant damage. For example, three hailstorm events in Germany in July and August 2013 caused around EUR 4.2 billion of combined damage to buildings, crops, vehicles, solar panels, greenhouses and other infrastructure (Munich RE, 2014). 3.10.2 Past trends Trends in days with hail have been calculated using surface-based observations, but are unreliable owing to the limited number of stations and the stochastic nature of hailstorms (Punge and Kunz, 2016). Trends in hail observations are sometimes analysed using reports of damage as a proxy (e.g. insurance claims), although damage is also a function of the vulnerability of the impacted area to damage. Several European regions show an increase in the convective conditions that can potentially form hail. In some areas (such as south-west Germany), an increase in damage days is observed (Kunz et al., 2009). However, these changes are not uniform across Europe, with large regional differences related mostly to topography. A study of hailstorm frequencies over the period 1978–2009 in Germany and eastern Europe shows general increases in Convective Available Potential Energy (CAPE) and increases in evaporation, which have been attributed to rising temperatures, but the changes in these weather variables do not necessary modify the numbers and intensities of severe convective storms (Mohr and Kunz, 2013; Punge and Kunz, 2016). The atmosphere has become more unstable, and thus more suitable for hail, especially in southern and central Europe where the temperature increase in summer has been particularly large (Mohr et al., 2015). Recently, European hail climatology for the period 1951–2010 was analysed using a combination of various meteorological parameters relevant for thunderstorms and hail (Mohr et al., 2015). This has been expressed as the potential hail index (PHI), which quantifies the atmospheric potential for hailstorms. The climatology shows highest values for mean PHI north and south of the Alps, on the eastern Adriatic coast, and in parts of eastern Europe (Map 3.26, left). Increasing hail trends (above 3 PHI in the period 1951–2010) are found in southern France and Spain, and decreasing trends (below – 5 PHI in the period 1951–2010) in eastern Europe (Map 3.26, right). However, trends are not significant (at 5 % significance level) in most grid boxes. 3.10.3 Projections Much of the published work relevant to future hail projections is based upon developing relationships between large-scale atmospheric environments and small-scale severe weather events, such as severe thunderstorms, hailstorms and tornadoes. Available projections suggest increases in CAPE, which results in conditions that favour severe thunderstorms becoming more frequent, and decreases in wind shear, which reduces the likelihood of hailstorms (Brooks, 2013). Different RCMs have been used for assessing changes in hailstorms at the national or subnational scales. A statistically significant downward trend for hailstones with diameters between 21 and 50 mm was projected for the United Kingdom (Sanderson et al., 2015). An increase in hailstorm frequency between 7 and 15 % for the period 2031–2045 compared with 1971–2000 was projected for south-west Germany, based on large-scale weather patterns (Kapsch et al., 2012). Using the PHI and an ensemble of seven RCMs, an increase in hail probability over most areas of Germany was projected for the period 2021–2050 compared with 1971–2000 (Mohr et al., 2015). The projected changes are greatest in southern Germany (values of almost 7 PHI). However, the results are subject to large uncertainties, due mainly to low spatial resolution and convective parameterisation schemes in RCMs (Fischer et al., 2014). Improving the convective parameterisation schemes and increasing the spatial resolution of Weather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe 86 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europemodels would improve the accuracy of future hail projections. 3.10.4 Uncertainties, data gaps and information needs Hail observation and research is carried out across Europe (at regional and national levels) using data from weather stations and hailpads. Quantitative information about hail events is also derived from satellite temperature imagery and radar reflectivity. Proxy hail observations are sometimes derived from hailstone damage (e.g. Kunz et al., 2009), although damage is also a function of hail type, hailstorm conditions and vulnerability of the impacted area to damage. Insurance companies (such as Munich RE and Swiss Re) and government agencies also keep data on hailstorm damage. These datasets are supplemented with eyewitness and media reports that are collected by organisations such as the Tornado and Storm Research Organisation (TORRO) (60), the European Severe Storm Laboratory (61), which maintains the European Severe Weather Database (ESWD) (62), and Schweizer Hagel (63) (a Swiss agricultural cooperative). However, these observational databases are often limited in spatial or temporal extent and are biased towards population centres. Satellite data show the highest incidence of hail-forming storms in summer over central Europe, when surface temperatures and air moisture content are high enough to create instability and thunderstorms. A dataset of hail events in Europe was developed based on nearly 40 000 overshooting top thunderstorm signatures derived from European Meteosat observations and hail reports from the ESWD for the period 2004 to 2011 (Punge et al., 2014; Punge and Kunz, 2016).Map 3.26 Observed median annual (left) and trend (right) of the mean potential hail index (PHI) over the period 1951-2010 Note: Trends that are not significant at the 5 % level are cross-hatched. Significant trends are only found for values below a PHI of – 5 over the period. Sources: Based on the logistic hail model (Mohr et al., 2015) and reanalysis data from NCEP-NCAR (Kalnay et al., 1996).Observed annual median (left) and trend (right) of the mean Potential Hail Index (PHI) over the period 1951-2010 Outsid e coverage Not statistically significan t at the 5 % leve l– 13 – 11 – 9– 7– 5– 3– 1 1 357 02.5 57.51 012.5 1517.5 2022.5 25 2527.5 3032.5 3537.5 4042.5 4547.5 50PHI PHI70° 60° 50° 40°40° 30°30° 20°20° 10°10° 0°0° -10° -20° -30° 60° 50° 40°70° 60° 50° 40°40° 30°30° 20°20° 10°10° 0°0° -10° -20° -30° 60° 50° 40° 500 1 00 01 500km 0Median Trend (60) http://www.torro.org.uk (61) http://www.essl.org/ (62) http://www.eswd.eu/ (63) http://hagel.ch/ Weather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe 87 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe Observed hail data using the hailpad network or a network of observers is limited both spatially and temporally (e.g. Baldi et al., 2014), and observer reports have low spatial resolution and variable accuracy. The use of remote sensing data from satellite and radar adds coverage but includes uncertainty in the processing of radar reflectivity and precision of cloud temperatures needed for identifying hail. Trend analysis is affected by the high annual variability of potential hail days (Mohr et al., 2015). Weather radar data holds great potential for climatological applications, but the extant time series are still short. However, investigations of multiannual periods have been presented by several authors and for several European countries, e.g. Skripniková and Řezáčová (2014) for the Czech Republic, Saltikoff et al. (2010) for Finland, Kunz and Kugel (2015) and Junghänel et al. (2016) for Germany, Maier and Haidu (2017) for Romania, Stržinar and Skok (2016) for Slovenia or Nisi et al. (2016) for Switzerland. Much of the published work on climate projections for hail is based upon developing the relationships between large-scale atmospheric environments and small-scale severe weather events such as severe thunderstorms, although some work explicitly considers hailstorms. Only a few studies are available for European countries. It has been shown that climate models can produce reasonable spatial patterns of severe thunderstorms in Europe, though with less certainty over the reproduction of the magnitude of events (Marsh et al., 2007, 2009). There is little knowledge of hail risk across Europe beyond local historical damage reports, because of the relative rarity of severe hail events and the lack of uniform detection methods (Punge et al., 2014). The limited number of studies that have investigated projections of hailstorms appear to be inconsistent and demonstrate changes that are not very large and often lacking statistical significance. Therefore, future projections of hailstorms feature a high level of uncertainty. Furthermore, several scientific questions are still unanswered, for example how weather systems will change in the future, the conditions for the most severe hailstorms, and the relationship between changes in the meteorological parameters and cloud microphysics or changes in aerosol distributions. 3.10.5 Selected event Significant hail events occurred in southern Germany in July 1984, June 2006 and July 2013; in south-west France in 2013 (Berthet et al., 2013); in Spain in 2013 (Merino et al., 2014); and in Bulgaria in 2013 (Papagiannaki et al., 2013). These events arose from summer supercells and caused significant economic damage. Following a heat wave in late July 2013, with temperatures in excess of 35 °C, a cold weather front affected large parts of central Europe. Severe hailstorms occurred in two regions in Germany, the first around Hannover and Wolfsburg on 27 July; the second was in the Baden-Württemberg region of southern Germany, where golf-ball-sized hailstones caused major damage to cars, roofs, windows, solar panels and other installations in the cities of Rotenberg, Tübingen and Reutlingen. At EUR 2.8 billion, this hailstone damage made it the most expensive hailstorm in Germany's history, and the world's most expensive event for the insurance industry in 2013 (Munich RE, 2014). 3.11 Storm surges and extreme sea levels 3.11.1 Relevance The level of the surface of the sea changes with time and varies on different timescales under a range of influences. Waves cause sea surface movement across seconds to minutes, while climate change causes sea level changes that are most evident on a century scale or even longer. Between these two timescales, the level of the sea can vary because of naturally occurring tides, currents and changes in temperatures. These effects are independent of any changes in the height of coastal land from geological effects (e.g. subsidence, tectonic movements). Extreme sea levels occur when the height of the sea surface is temporarily elevated above a mean sea level over a number of hours or days. They are often described in terms of 'return levels'. For example, an extreme sea level that occurs, on average, only once every 50 years is the 50-year return level. Sea levels that exceed the 100-year return level are, by definition, even more extreme (i.e. higher and less common). Weather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe 88 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in EuropeIn most of Europe, extreme sea levels are usually caused by the action of storms tracking towards the continent across the North Atlantic, although they can be caused by unusually high tides. North Atlantic storms generate winds that can push seawater up a coast, and also reduce the pressure that the atmosphere exerts on the surface of the sea, both creating a 'storm surge'. Since storm surges elevate the sea level above the level determined by the tide, extreme sea levels caused by a storm surge can be further raised if the surge coincides with a high tide. In addition, the storms associated with storm surges often generate waves that can further raise sea levels on the coast, due to processes known as 'wave setup' and 'wave runup', which are in part dependent on shoreline profile. Hence the size of an extreme sea level event will be determined by a range of processes and factors. 3.11.2 Past trends Producing a clear picture of either past changes or future projections of extreme high water levels for the entire European coastline is a challenging task because of the impact of local topographical features on surge events. While there are numerous studies for the North Sea coastline, fewer are available for the Mediterranean Sea and the Baltic Sea, although this situation is starting to improve. Long-term trends in extreme sea levels along European coasts are mostly associated with corresponding mean sea level changes, while changes in wave and storm surge climate mostly contribute to interannual and interdecadal variability, but do not show substantial long-term trends (Weisse et al., 2014). However, changes in coastal defences and the construction of tidal barriers in recent decades have meant less damage and fewer observed impacts from storm surges, while the construction of infrastructure and the more intense use of coastal land vulnerable to storm surges has had the opposite effect. Both of these are factors in risk management. When the contribution from local mean sea level changes and variations in tide are removed from the recent trends, the remaining effects of changes in storminess on extreme sea level are much smaller or even no longer detectable (Menéndez and Woodworth, 2010; Weisse et al., 2014). Additional studies are available for some European coastal locations, but these typically focus on more limited spatial scales (Araújo and Pugh, 2008; Haigh et al., 2010; Marcos et al., 2011; Dangendorf et al., 2014). The only region where significant increases in storm surge height were found during the 20th century is the Estonian coast of the Baltic Sea (Suursaar et al., 2009). 3.11.3 Projections Mean sea levels are projected to continue to rise during the 21st century and beyond, and it is very likely that this will result in continued increases in extreme sea levels (Church et al., 2013; IPCC, 2013). It has generally been expected that projected increases in extreme sea levels along the European coasts during the upcoming decades will mostly be the result of mean sea level changes rather than changes in wave and storm surge climate (Weisse et al., 2014). However, several recent studies suggest that changes in wave and storm surge climate may also play a substantial role in sea level changes during the 21st century in some regions. One recent study in storm surge level, based on a multi-model ensemble, projects an increase for most scenarios, most prominently for RCP8.5 where a rise in excess of 30 % of the relative sea level is projected (Vousdoukas et al., 2016). Similar results were obtained by another study, which found that increases in storm surges can contribute significantly to the projected increases of the 50-year flood height in north-western Europe, particularly along the European mainland coast (Howard et al., 2014). Sea level rise may also change extreme water levels by altering the tidal range. Tidal behaviour is particularly responsive in relevant areas of the Bristol Channel and the Gulf of Saint-Malo (with large amplitude decreases) and in the south-eastern German Bight and Dutch Wadden Sea (with large amplitude increases) (Pickering et al., 2012). The frequency of flooding events is estimated to increase by a factor of more than 10 in many European locations, and by a factor of more than 100 in some locations (Map 3.27) for the RCP4.5 scenario (Hunter, 2012; Church et al., 2013; Hunter et al., 2013). Large changes in flood frequency mean that what is an extreme event today may become the norm by the end of the century in some locations. A 10 cm rise in sea level typically causes an increase by about a factor of three in the frequency of flooding to a given height. However, for any particular location, it is important to look in detail at the change in the height of flood defences that might be required. Where the flood frequency curve is very flat, modest increases in flood Weather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe 89 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe defences may be sufficient. Where the flood frequency curve is steeper, larger increases in protection height or alternative adaptation, including managed retreat, might be needed. 3.11.4 Uncertainties, data gaps and information needs Much of the observational information on sea levels is from tide gauges which provide records of historical extreme sea levels at many European locations (Map 3.28). Even though Europe has a wealth of tide gauge observations relative to many other parts of the world, detecting long-term trends in extreme sea levels in tide gauge records is challenging. This is because long-term signals in extreme sea levels tend to be masked by considerable year-to-year and decade-to-decade variability due to natural variability in the climate (Weisse et al., 2014). Since the early 1990s, tide gauge measurements of sea levels have been complemented by measurements from satellite-based altimeters. Although the altimeter record is short relative to many tide gauge records, it provides a spatially complete dataset. Satellite altimeters cannot provide a direct record of extreme sea level behaviour as they typically pass over a given location once every 10 days. However, analysis of the Map 3.27 Projected change in the frequency of flooding events in Europe Change in the frequency of flooding events under projected sea level rise Multiplication factor 0-1 1-5 5-1010-2 5 25-5 0 50-100 > 10 070° 60° 50° 40°40° 30°30° 20°20° 10°10° 0°0° -10° -20° -30° 60° 50°50° 40°40° 05 00 1 000 1 500 km Note: This map shows the multiplication factor (shown at tide gauge locations by coloured dots) by which the frequency of flooding events of a given height is projected to increase between 2010 and 2100, as a result of regional relative sea-level rise under the RCP4.5 scenario. Values larger than 1 depict an increase; values smaller than 1 depict a decrease (with decreases occurring in the northern parts of the Baltic Sea owing to glacial isostatic adjustment). Source: Adapted from IPCC, 2013. Weather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe 90 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in EuropeMap 3.28 Locations of European tide gauges with length of records Note: Colours represent different lengths of the datasets, ranging from less than 30 years to more than 100 years. Source: Adapted from PSMSL, 2016.70° 60° 50° 40°40° 30°30° 20°20° 10°10° 0°0° -10° -20° -30° 60° 50°50° 40°40° 30°30° -20° 30°Canary Is .-30° 40°Azores Is . Madeir a Is. 0 500 1 000 1 500 kmYearsLocations of tide gauges with length of record s < 30 Outside coverageEU member and cooperating countries30-5 0 50-7 5 75-100 > 100altimeter record, such as that of the European Space Agency’s Climate Change Initiative (ESA-CCI), are able to provide information on the contributions of recent changes in mean sea level and year-to-year climate variability to changes in extreme sea levels (ESA-CCI, 2017). It has therefore been proposed that it may be possible to use satellite altimetry to obtain more spatially complete information about extreme sea levels. Uncertainty in climate projections means that there is a range of projections of future changes in extreme sea level in Europe. Different climate models project different patterns of ocean warming and changes in ocean currents, leading to uncertainty in regional mean sea level change projections, storminess and storm surges. Reliable storm surge modelling requires detailed simulations based on accurate datasets of the sea floor and coastline. The high computational cost of running storm surge simulations has meant that, to date, they have generally covered only limited geographical areas. The lack of a coordinated approach between the many studies focussing on various small regions has contributed to a lack of confidence in storm surge projections. However, it has been proposed that larger scale modelling studies could assist in assessing future changes in the contributions of storm surges to extreme sea levels (McInnes and Hemer, 2015) 3.11.5 Selected events Storm surges are a recurrent feature of the seas around north-western Europe. One of the most famous and most damaging occurred in January 1953 (64) (e.g. Jung (64) http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/learn-about-the-weather/weather-phenomena/case-studies/floods; http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/ in-depth/1953-east-coast-flood Weather- and climate-related natural hazards in Europe 91 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe (65) http://www.deltawerken.com/The-flood-of-1953/89.html and http://www.storm-surge.info/north-sea-flood-1953et al., 2004, 2005; Gerritsen, 2005). In this case, a deep low-pressure system travelled over the North Sea from north to south. At the same time, a strong ridge of high pressure built up to the west. The steep pressure gradient between the two systems created northerly gales that propelled a storm surge down the North Sea. Extreme sea levels due to the surge were enhanced by a high spring tide and, in some locations, the action of waves created by the storm. This led to breaches and overtopping of sea walls, resulting in flooding with considerable loss of life and damage. In the Netherlands, 1 800 people drowned and 200 000 ha of low-lying land were flooded (65). In eastern England, 307 people were killed and 160 000 ha of land were flooded. The surge and accompanying waves overtopped and caused extensive damage to coastal defences in some areas, eroded beaches and sand dunes, and flooded several towns. In the Thames Estuary, key facilities such as oil refineries, factories, cement works, gasworks and power stations were flooded and rendered inoperative for weeks or months. Agriculture was also disrupted as farmland was contaminated by salt water. Recent notable extreme sea level events include those arising from a series of storms that tracked eastwards across the Atlantic towards southern England and France between December 2013 and February 2014. The storms were unusually energetic and generated waves that, because of the position of the storms in the Atlantic, travelled unimpeded up the English Channel causing significant damage along parts of the coastline of south-west England. This coastline usually experiences much smaller storm surges than North Sea coastlines. In this case, high spring tides were a critical factor in determining the impact of the storms because, in combination with some contribution from storm surge and wave setup and runup, they resulted in extreme sea levels that increased the ‘vertical reach’ of incoming waves at the coast (Masselink et al., 2016). The impact of these waves varied along the coastline. For example, some beaches and dune systems suffered severe erosion, while other beaches underwent ‘rotation’, being eroded at the western end and built up by transported sediment at the eastern end. There was extensive coastal flooding and damage to coastal structures, including buildings, harbours and seawalls. The most costly damage was to the main railway line to the south-west of England, a section of which was washed away. The repair cost for this was EUR 25 million, but the indirect economic cost arising from the closure of this section of the railway has been estimated at EUR 65 million to EUR 1.4 billion (Devon Maritime Forum, 2015). Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe92Impacts of natural hazards in Europe 4.1 Introduction This chapter complements the review of the selected natural hazards presented in Chapter 3, by focusing on their discernible past and projected impacts. In Section 4.1 we review the existing loss data systems in Europe and elsewhere, and briefly summarise the work developed by the UN’s OIEWG on the indicators of progress of the SFDRR (see also Section 2.1). The next sections are dedicated to a synthesis of knowledge extracted from the various existing loss data systems on impacts of natural hazards on health and wellbeing (Section 4.2), ecosystems and their services (Section 4.3), and economic wealth (Section 4.4). The impact assessments are based on multiple data sources. There are substantial differences across the data sources with regard to what information is recorded and how, from what primary sources, for what purposes and according to what standards. All existing loss data are incomplete in some way. The recorded economic losses capture only financial value of damaged or destroyed tangible assets. The economic losses arising from business interruption in the absence of any structural damage are captured only occasionally and using different, and often incomparable, methods. Ecosystem impacts are not monitored routinely and related information is very scarce. The economic value of environmental damage is recorded by none of the sources discussed below. This is why the existing estimates of economic impacts should be considered only as a lower bound of full social costs of natural hazard strikes. The assessment of natural hazards and their impacts in this chapter rely on global and European databases. The EM-DAT database (66) is a comprehensive and fully publicly accessible data source, and hence the most frequently used or referred to. The insurance and reinsurance databases such as NatCatSERVICE and SIGMA are among the most complete and extensive records of economic losses, but neither of them is fully publicly available. Section 4.4 is primarily based on NatCatSERVICE data (67), but throughout that section we also analyse evidence contained in the pay-outs from the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF), the database of notified State Aid (68). Another source of information is the EEA’s European past floods database (69) (EPFD) (ETC/ICM, 2015), which combines the data reported by Member States under the Floods Directive (see Section 2.1) with additional sources.4 Impacts of natural hazards in Europe (66) http://www.emdat.be/database (67) https://www.munichre.com/touch/naturalhazards/en/natcatservice/natcatservice/index.html (obtained from Munich RE under an institutional agreement). (68) Article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). (69) http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/european-past-floods• Climate change has caused noticeable effects on human health in Europe, mainly as a result of extreme events, an increase in climate-sensitive diseases, and a deterioration in environmental and social conditions. Heat waves were the deadliest extreme weather event in the period 1991–2015 in Europe. • Increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather- and climate-related events may lead to more disastrous impacts on ecosystems and their services. Management of ecosystems can help to avoid or significantly reduce these impacts. • The total reported economic losses caused by extreme weather- and climate-related events in the EEA member countries over the period 1980-2015 amount to around EUR 433 billion (in 2015 values). A large share of the total losses (70 %) has been caused by a small number of events (3 %). Impacts of natural hazards in Europe 93 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe 4.2 Disaster loss data in the European Union The primary goal of DRM is to minimise future disaster losses and create resilient societies and economies. For weather- and climate-related hazards, this is also a goal of CCA. This is achieved through a variety of measures including anticipating losses in current and future climate (risk assessment), avoiding some of those losses (prevention), mitigating losses (preparedness and response) and absorbing the remaining losses (risk transfer and compensation). To make informed decisions on cost and benefit for such measures, advanced science and effective risk-aware policy need to go hand in hand. Both science and policy need accurate loss and damage information as an evidence base. Loss and damage data are relevant not only at national level (for monitoring aggregate national risk), but also at local government level (for implementing measures). However, such data are currently only partially available in the EU (De Groeve et al., 2014; EEA, 2011). Estimates for past losses in the EU vary by a factor of two or more, with average yearly losses ranging from EUR 11 billion to EUR 13.7 billion in the past 10 years. Estimates for future losses range from 2- to 20-fold increases (Forzieri et al., 2015; Hallegatte et al., 2013). Trends derived from existing historical datasets are disputed (Barthel and Neumayer, 2012; Gall, 2015) and considered to have low confidence (IPCC, 2012). While it is currently still not possible to give accurate loss data statistics for the EU, much progress has been made in the past few years to establish national processes to build better loss databases, not least because of the SFDRR. Under the scientific remit, the drive for better risk and loss models has led to the development of loss records. Seismology records and earthquake losses are an attempt to relate shaking intensity to a specific degree of damage (Allen et al., 2009; So et al., 2012). Volcanology, meteorology, geology, hydrology, each within their own discipline, have equally attempted to associate hazardous event intensity with the degree of damage by producing intensity damage functions from which vulnerabilities are derived (e.g. Meyer et al., 2013). It is within these disciplines that loss databases were first established to provide empirical evidence for (economic) loss models. The insurance sector has built its business on accurate probabilistic loss modelling to price risk competitively. More recently, the importance of systematic loss data was also recognised for policy-related objectives (Gall et al., 2009; UNDP, 2009). The lack of quantitative data to monitor progress in DRR was a weakness of the Hyogo Framework for Action (UNISDR, 2011). In the SFDRR, governments have committed to reduce disaster losses by 2030, and have recognised the key role of measuring disaster losses in achieving this (UNISDR, 2015), much in line with the European Civil Protection Mechanism (EU, 2013). The countries have agreed to establish national loss databases according to a global standard. This will allow the national data to be aggregated in a global record of disaster losses. The success of the SFDRR, to reduce losses, can then be demonstrated. 4.2.1 Multiple uses of disaster loss databases The value of spatially explicit, event-based, official disaster loss databases goes beyond global policy needs. De Groeve et al. (2013, 2014) outlined a conceptual model with four main uses of disaster loss databases for DRR: loss accounting, forensic analysis, risk modelling and compensation (Figure 4.1). Loss accounting aims at documenting trends and, along with probabilistic risk models, at understanding the potential exposure of society to disasters. Aggregated statistics (e.g. average annual losses) over the national territory as well as trends in losses can partially help measure and evaluate DRR policies. An example at global level is the UNISDR global assessment report (GAR) series (UNISDR, 2015). Loss accounting is the main purpose of the global indicators of the SFDRR. It is also a requirement under the Floods Directive (EU, 2007) and is likely to be part of climate change indicators in the future. When implemented well, the process of disaster loss data recording generates crucial and unique evidence for disaster forensics to identify loss drivers by measuring the relative contribution of exposure, vulnerability, coping capacity, mitigation and response to disaster, with the aim to improve disaster management from lessons learnt. Local actors, such as municipalities or the private sector, are interested in this level of detail to better plan mitigation actions and contingency plans. Disaster compensation funds and insurance companies pay out based on claims. Most disaster loss databases in Europe are based on a collection of claims used in these compensation mechanisms, and have a commercial value as a means of risk pricing. The European Union Solidarity Fund (EU, 2014) requires the submission of comprehensive loss estimates. Finally, losses of future disasters — or ex ante loss assessments — are estimated through risk and loss Impacts of natural hazards in Europe 94 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europemodels. These require accurate loss data for calibrating and validating model results and, in particular, to infer vulnerabilities, loss exceedence curves and fragility (or damage) curves. Risk models are used both in the DRR community and in the CCA community, respectively with current climate and future climate assumptions. Arguably, this is the most important area for building economies that are resilient to climate change. Although historical loss data are critical, economic loss models also depend on data on exposure and models of interlinked economic sectors. Increasingly, such data are becoming available. For instance, the G-ECON project (70) is devoted to developing a geophysically based dataset on economic activity for the world.The information on losses required in these four applications is overlapping but differing in terms of its drivers, end users, time-frame and granularity. As collecting loss data is a costly process, the challenge is to record loss data once, share it and make it useful for all applications and stakeholders. Since 2014, the European Commission has brought together experts (71) from the various communities — including climate adaptation — and from various Member States to jointly work towards an integrated loss data record that can meet the requirements of all communities. Several EU Member States have developed similar processes at national level to engage with regional and local actors across sectors.Figure 4.1 Overview of four applications for loss data recording and examples of initiatives Note: Four blocks present loss accounting, disaster forensics, risk and loss modelling and disaster risk reduction. DALA, damage and loss assessment; GAR, global assessment report; GEM, global earthquake model. Source: Adapted from De Groeve et al., 2013.National hazard and risk mapping Modelling and assessment (building codes, experiments) Loss estimation models (e.g. HAZUS)SeismicFloodGEMGAR EU hazard and risk map Structural vulnerabilityAccounting Global Nation Region Munic Asset Asset Munic Region NationRe-insurerNation policySolidaritry fundEUGAR GlobalInsurerDALA Local policy Risk modelling ScopeScaleScale ScopeGlobal Nation Region Munic Asset Asset Munic Region Nation GlobalDisaster risk reduction Global Nation Region Munic Asset Asset Munic Region Nation GlobalForensic Global Nation Region Munic Asset Asset Munic Region NationNational experts GlobalOwner RetrofitLocal DRRRegion DRRNation DRR EU-MS Re-InsurerGlobal DRREUGARPDNA Local experts (70) http://gecon.yale.edu/ (71) http://drmkc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/partnership/Disaster-Loss-and-Damage-Working-Group Impacts of natural hazards in Europe 95 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe 4.2.2 Loss data collection and recording Collection of disaster loss data is challenging for several reasons. Typically, data must be collected during or just after a disaster, which is by definition a situation in which regular structures break down. Data collection is complicated by the need to coordinate several actors from different public ministries (e.g. civil protection, health, and agriculture) and private sectors (e.g. insurance, critical and infrastructure). It must take into account local legislation, context and practices. Proper data collection should be based on sound principles (De Groeve et al., 2014): data should be precise (clear terminology and definitions), comprehensive (cover all loss/damage in terms of spatial, sectoral and loss ownership), comparable (standard methodologies for each hazard) and transparent (metadata and uncertainty assessment). It may not be possible to standardise the process completely (due to local legislative contexts), but common guidelines across the EU are desirable. A first version was developed in 2015 (De Groeve et al., 2015) and will be adapted in 2017 to the global guidelines provided under the SFDRR. Technical challenges for loss data can be broken down in three parts: loss data collection, loss data recording and loss data sharing. The first part concerns the actual collection of data during or just after individual events. A wide variety of techniques exist, including the use of remote sensing imagery (satellite- or aircraft-based sensor technologies), in situ collection campaigns (e.g. insurance claim adjusters, civil protection personnel, structural engineer assessments), traditional and social media reports, etc. Each technique has advantages and disadvantages, and its inherent uncertainty. Most experts agree that recording physical damage is essential, rather than only the economic losses they represent. EU programmes such as the Copernicus Emergency Management Service (72) can provide such data to Member States for major events. A second part concerns recording of collected data in a database, fitting it to an agreed data model and establishing a process for quality assurance. Adequate IT systems are essential to support this process. A mandated data curator is recommended. A third part concerns the sharing of data for a particular user group or application. Data are then aggregated and transformed into the required indicators. Distributed IT systems, with different roles for the many stakeholders, government levels and other users, are recommended.More important for establishing sustainable loss databases are the institutional challenges to be overcome (UNDP, 2013; De Groeve et al., 2014). While useful for many stakeholders, few countries have a single institution mandated to collect loss data. Disaster losses span several ministries, sectors and government levels. Coordination among stakeholders and sustainable institutional arrangements are necessary to collect all data. In Europe, countries have made significant progress in establishing institutional arrangements, including public–private partnerships (France, Norway), empowerment of national platforms for DRR (Germany, Portugal), development of national loss databases across government levels (Italy, Slovenia, Spain), involvement of national statistical offices (Italy) or public–public partnerships (United Kingdom). Further development of such arrangements is supported by the European Commission, e.g. through the DRKMC (73). 4.2.3 Status and outlook In 2015, 191 states agreed in the SFDRR on the critical importance of collecting high-quality disaster loss and damage data. In 2016, specific indicators and terminology were agreed (see Section 2.1), which set the minimum requirements for disaster loss databases in each country. Countries can now start building official disaster loss databases and make human and economic losses comparable at global level. National loss databases should go beyond these minimum requirements to exploit the potential of loss data beyond global accounting. In a 2016 workshop (74) organised by the EU, the OECD and PLACARD (75), Member State experts expressed interest in developing guidance for more complex issues such as local data collection, addressing requirements for climate change and risk modelling, assessment of indirect economic losses and ex ante loss modelling. This would require increased dialogues between scientists of different disciplines and experts of different policy areas. Fruitful collaboration between scientists, experts and government officials should be encouraged to continue. 4.3 Impacts of natural hazards on human health and wellbeing Natural hazards can have adverse social and health effects on society (Confalonieri et al., 2007; IPCC, 2012, 2014a; EEA, 2017). Natural hazards have always had (72) http://emergency.copernicus.eu/ (73) The DRMKC support service brokers available expertise and good practice within the EU with the specific needs of other Member States. http://drmkc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/laboratory/SupportSystem (74) http://drmkc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview/Events#event-detail/1110/joint-expert-meeting-on-disaster-loss-data (75) http://www.placard-network.eu/, PLAtform for Climate Adaptation and Risk reDuction. Impacts of natural hazards in Europe 96 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europeand will continue to have significant consequences for society, such as premature mortality, several communicable and non-communicable diseases, mental health issues, and effects on occupational health, nutrition and social function (IPCC, 2014a; Wolf et al., 2015; UNISDR, 2015). Extreme weather- and climate-related events (e.g. heat waves, heavy precipitation, droughts, etc.) can also disrupt health and social care service delivery, and can damage healthcare infrastructure. For example, modern built facilities are designed to support contemporary care models and to be thermally efficient in cold weather, but the patients still can suffer from thermal discomfort during heat waves (Kovats et al. 2016). According to EM-DAT, heat waves were the deadliest extreme climate event in the period 1991-2015 in Europe, particularly in southern and western Europe. Cold spells were the deadliest weather extremes in eastern Europe. Among different European regions floods and wet mass movements, such as landslides, were linked to the highest death rates in southern and also eastern Europe, while wildfires (forest fires) were linked to the highest death rates in southern Europe. The deadliest storms were reported in northern and western Europe (Table 4.1). However, the availability and comparability of the data over time is very limited, since there is currently no official reporting of loss and damage at the European level. Furthermore, interpretation of the time series can be dominated by a single extreme event, such as the 2003 summer heat wave (June-September 2003), with over 70 000 excess deaths in southern and western Europe (Robine et al., 2008). In addition, in the case of flood-related fatalities, where the total number of fatalities is much lower, the overall number of deaths depends strongly on single events. Extreme climate events threaten human health, but may also be considered an argument for a transition to more sustainable and healthy societies with ‘climate-resilient’ health systems. A rise in air and water temperature, extreme precipitation events, seasonal changes, storms, droughts and flooding, associated with climate change, can have implications for food- and waterborne diseases in Europe (Semenza et al., 2012a, 2012b) (Table 4.2). These extreme weather- and climate-related events can alter growth rates of pathogens and replication rates of viruses and parasites inside vector and human hosts, as well as contaminate drinking, recreational and irrigation water, and disrupt water treatment and sanitation systems. Conversely, potential impacts will be modulated by the quality of food safety measures, the capacity and quality of water treatment systems, human behaviour and a range of other conditions. Heat waves have also been associated with vector-borne diseases, such as the West Nile fever outbreak in 2010 in south-eastern Europe (Paz et al., 2013). Estimates of the projected health impacts of coastal and river floods, extreme temperatures (cold and heat extremes) and droughts are presented in the next sections. They have been produced by EU research projects and through research by EU and UN agencies (e.g. Feyen and Watkiss, 2011; Kovats et al., 2011; Watkiss and Hunt, 2012; Watts et al., 2015). 4.3.1 Heavy precipitation events and health Heavy precipitation events can introduce faecal contamination into rivers and lakes and in turn decrease the quality of drinking water (Semenza et al., 2012a; Guzman Herrador et al., 2015). They can also potentially adversely affect ageing water treatment and distribution systems, and overload the capacity of sewage systems, causing discharge of untreated water. Pathogens can then infiltrate the drinking water supply and lead to waterborne outbreaks (Semenza and Menne, 2009; Nichols et al., 2009; Larsson et al., 2014; Guzman Herrador et al., 2015; Semenza et al., 2016). Infiltration of pathogenic Cryptosporidium oocysts into drinking water reservoirs poses a technical challenge since the oocysts are resistant to chlorination. Heavy precipitation events can also cause flooding, which in turn affects human health (see next section). 4.3.2 Floods and health Floods affect people immediately (e.g. through drowning and injuries) and after the event (e.g. through displacement, destruction of homes, water shortages, disruption of essential services, infectious diseases and financial loss). The risk from infectious diseases due to flooding is relatively small in Europe, in part due to a functioning public health infrastructure, including water treatment and sanitation. A few cases of leptospirosis Impacts of natural hazards in Europe 97 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe Flood and wet mass movement (a)Cold event Heat wave Storm Wildfire Eastern Europe 8.57 28.27 11.39 1.73 0.54 Northern Europe 0.99 1.67 11.17 2.48 0.01 Southern Europe 6.75 0.92 177.98 1.19 0.97 Western Europe 2.09 0.89 191.58 2.79 0.04 Europe 4.64 5.31 128.98 1.99 0.46Table 4.1 Number of people killed per million due to four types of natural hazards, by European regions, for the period 1991-2015 Note: The rate given in each cell is the cumulative numbers of deaths per 1 000 000 people over the whole time period (1991-2015). The country groupings, as reported to EM-DAT, are as follows: eastern Europe is Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovakia; northern Europe is Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom; southern Europe, including western Asia, is Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, Italy, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Portugal, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain and Turkey; and western Europe is Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Switzerland. Population rates calculated using population data from 2013. Sources: EM-DAT, Eurostat (76) and WHO (77). (76) http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/population-demography-migration-projections/population-data (database accessed May 2016). (77) http://www.euro.who.int/en/data-and-evidence following a flooding event have been reported (Pellizzer et al., 2006). Flooding has also been associated with waterborne outbreaks due to groundwater contamination during flooding in Finland and Austria (Schmid et al., 2005). Moreover, flooding along the lower courses of the Dyje river, at the border between the Czech Republic and Austria, has been linked to seasonal peaks of floodwater mosquitoes (Aedes vexans and Aedes sticticus) (Berec et al., 2014). These mosquitoes are (a) Includes landslides. Table 4.2 Links between selected natural hazards and selected pathogens Note: + = impact; 0 = no impact; ? = impact unknown. Source: Adapted from Semenza et al., 2012a. Campylobacter Salmonella Listeria Vibrio Cryptosporidium Norovirus Extreme temperature+ ? ? + + ? Extreme precipitation+ ? ? + + + Floods + + ? + + + Drought + ? ? 0 + ? Storms ? ? ? + ? ? capable of harbouring tularaemia and arboviruses, but no human cases have been reported to date. The stress that flood victims are exposed to can also affect their mental health, and effects can persist a long time after the event. Two thirds of flood-related deaths worldwide are from drowning and one third are from physical trauma, heart attacks, electrocution, carbon monoxide poisoning, fire and infectious diseases (e.g. leptospirosis). The health system infrastructure (e.g. hospitals) is vulnerable to natural hazards, in particular to flooding. Disruption Impacts of natural hazards in Europe 98 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europeof services, including health services, safe water, sanitation, transport routes and power supply, plays a major role in vulnerability (Radovic et al., 2012; Stanke et al., 2012; Brown and Murray, 2013; WHO and PHE, 2013). Estimates for the World Health Organization (WHO) European Region, based on a combination of data from EM-DAT and the DFO (78), indicate that coastal and inland floods killed more than 2 000 people and affected 8.7 million in the period 1991-2015. Map 4.1 shows the rate of deaths (number per 1 000 000 inhabitants) related to flooding in each EEA member and cooperating country for the period 1991–2015. The largest numbers are found in south-eastern Europe, eastern Europe and central Europe. Note that, because of the relatively short period of 25 years, the value of the indicator can be significantly affected by a single catastrophic event. For example, at least 80 people were killed in massive floods in the Balkan countries in May 2014 (Kastelic et al., 2014; Vidmar et al., 2016) (see Section 3.3). The EM-DAT database also includes data on people injured or (otherwise) affected by floods. This information is not presented here owing to concerns regarding the consistency with which these data are assessed and reported across countries, and even for different flood events in the same country. Moreover, databases are regularly updated with historical numbers and enhanced methodology. For a medium emissions scenario SRES A1B (Nakicenovic and Swart, 2000) and in the absence of adaptation, river flooding is estimated to affect about 300 000 people per year in the EU by the 2050s and 390 000 people by the 2080s; the latter figure corresponds to more than double with respect to the baseline period (1961-1990). The British Isles, western Europe and northern Italy show a robust increase in future flood hazards; these regions also show the greatest increase in the population affected by river floods (Rojas et al., 2012, 2013; Ciscar et al., 2014). If no additional adaptation measures were taken, the number of people affected by coastal flooding in the EU at the end of the 21st century would range from 775 000 to 5.5 million people annually, depending on the emissions scenario. The number of deaths in the EU due to coastal flooding in the 2080s would increase Map 4.1 Deaths related to flooding in Europe for the period 1991-2015 Note: This map shows the number of deaths per million inhabitants related to flooding in Europe (cumulative over the period 1991-2015). Source: EM-DAT, adapted from WHO and PHE, 2013. © 2016 WHO. 70°0° 60°0° 40°40 30°3 20°020°0 10°0 0° 10°0000°-11 -20°-2 60°° 50°5 05 00 1 000 1 500 km© WHO 20160 or not reporte d 0.1-1 1-2 2-5 5-10 > 10 The designations employed and the presentation of this material do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secreatriat of the World Health Organization concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers and boundaries. Dotted and dashed lines on maps represent approximate borders for which there may not be full agreement.Outside coverageRate per 1 000 000 inhabitan tDeaths per million inhabitants related to flooding in Europe for the period 1991-2015 (78) http://floodobservatory.colorado.edu/ Impacts of natural hazards in Europe 99 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe by 3 000, 620 and 150 per year under a high emissions scenario (assuming 88 cm sea level rise), the SRES A1B ‘business as usual’ scenario and the E1 mitigation scenario (Nakicenovic and Swart, 2000), respectively. Two thirds of these deaths would occur in western Europe. Coastal adaptation measures (dikes and beach nourishment) could significantly reduce risks to less than 10 deaths per year in 2080 (Ciscar et al., 2011; Kovats et al., 2011). Somewhat different estimates were provided by (Wolf et al., 2015). Flooding is also associated with mental health impacts. Coastal flooding in the EU could potentially cause 5 million additional cases of mild depression annually by the end of the 21st century under a high sea level rise scenario in the absence of adaptation (Bosello et al., 2011; Watkiss and Hunt, 2012). 4.3.3 Extreme temperatures and health Extreme temperatures affect human wellbeing and contribute to mortality. The most direct way in which climate change is expected to affect public health relates to changes in mortality rates associated with exposure to ambient temperature (Hajat et al., 2014). Both cold and heat extremes have public health impacts in Europe. The effects of heat occur mostly on the same day and in the following 3 days, whereas cold effects were greatest 2 to 3 weeks after the event (WHO, 2011; Ye et al., 2011). A multi-country global observational study found that moderate temperatures, rather than extreme temperatures, represented most of the total health burden (Gasparrini et al., 2015). The development of adaptation strategies according to local conditions should treat heat and cold extremes separately (Dear and Wang, 2015). Prolonged cold spells affect physiological and pathological health, especially among people with cardiovascular and respiratory diseases and the elderly, who are potentially more susceptible to the effects of cold spells (Ryti et al., 2015). Excess winter mortality in Mediterranean countries is higher than in northern European countries, and deaths often occur several days or weeks after the coldest day of a cold period (Healy, 2003; Analitis et al., 2008). The capacity to adapt to the effects of cold in Europe is high compared with other world regions, but there are important variations in the impacts of cold and in the capacity to respond between and within the European regions. Heat waves have a significant impact on society, including a rise in mortality and morbidity. Heat waves have caused far more fatalities in Europe in recent decades than any other extreme weather event. In Europe, heat waves occurring in June result in relatively high mortality compared with those occurring later in the summer (WHO and WMO, 2015). The effects of exposure can be directly related to heat (heat stroke, heat fatigue and dehydration, or heat stress) or can be the result of a worsening of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, electrolyte disorders and kidney problems (Aström et al., 2013; Analitis et al., 2014; Breitner et al., 2014). Heat-related problems are greatest in cities; among many interrelated factors, the urban heat island effect plays an important role. During hot weather, synergistic effects between high temperature and air pollution (particulate matter with a diameter ≤ 10 μm (PM10) and ozone) were observed (Katsouyanni and Analitis, 2009; Burkart et al., 2013; De Sario et al., 2013). Long warm and dry periods, in combination with other factors, can also lead to forest fires, which have been shown to have severe health impacts (Analitis et al., 2012). High temperature anomalies can contribute to the recurrent outbreaks of vector-borne diseases in Europe. High temperature anomalies in summer 2010 were the most important determinant of the 2010 West Nile virus (WNV) outbreak in Europe, in particular in south-eastern Europe (Paz et al., 2013). WNV infections in humans occur through mosquito (Culex species) bites and can be quite severe, particularly among the elderly (Paz and Semenza 2013). However, many other cases can go unnoticed (more than 60 % are asymptomatic), which poses an ongoing regional threat to blood supply safety (Semenza and Damanovic, 2013). Indeed, globalisation and climate change has created conducive conditions favourable for the import and transmission of exotic infectious diseases, traditionally associated with warmer climates, that now threaten blood supply (Semenza and Damanovic, 2013). Of concern are not only WNV, but also Dengue, Leishmaniasis, and Chikungunya (Semenza et al., 2016). The largest effect of heat has been observed among the elderly, but in some cities younger adults have also been affected (D’Ippoliti et al., 2010; Baccini et al., 2011). Elderly people are more vulnerable to the effects of heat waves, owing in part to poorer physical health and the effects of cognitive impairment on the perception of heat-related health risk; this is the population considered most at risk of heat-related mortality (Josseran et al., 2009). In addition to the elderly, those with chronic diseases and persons of lower socio-economic status also have a heightened risk of heat-related mortality (Wolf et al., 2015). Furthermore, health risks during heat extremes are greater in people who are physically very active. This is important for outdoor recreational activities, and it is especially relevant for the impacts of climate change on Impacts of natural hazards in Europe 100 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europeoccupational health (e.g. for manual labourers) (Lucas et al., 2014). The multi-country global observational study found that (moderate) cold was responsible for a higher proportion of deaths than (moderate) heat. The study collected data for daily mortality, temperature and other confounding variables from Italy (11 cities, 1987-2010), Spain (51 cities, 1990-2010), Sweden (one county, 1990-2002), the United Kingdom (10 regions, 1993-2006) and other areas outside Europe (Gasparrini et al., 2015). The results should be interpreted with caution when applied to other regions that were not included in the database.Figure 4.2 shows the overall cumulative exposure–response curves for four European cities with the corresponding minimum mortality temperature and the cut-offs used to define extreme temperatures. Risk increases slowly and linearly for cold temperatures below the minimum mortality temperature, although some locations (e.g. London and Madrid) showed a higher increase for extreme cold than others. Risk generally escalated quickly and non-linearly at high temperatures. Deaths attributable to extreme heat are roughly as frequent as those attributable to moderate heat, while those attributable to extreme cold are negligible compared with those caused by moderate cold (Gasparrini et al., 2015). Other studies have Figure 4.2 Overall cumulative exposure–response associations in four European cities Note: This figure shows exposure–response associations as best linear unbiased predictions (with the 95 % empirical confidence interval shaded grey) in representative cities of four countries, with related distributions of temperature and number of deaths. Solid grey lines show the minimum mortality temperatures and dashed grey lines show the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles. RR, relative risk. Source: Adapted from Gasparrini et al., 2015 © Gasparrini et al. Open access article distributed under the terms of a CC BY licence.London United Kingdom Rome ItalyStockholm Sweden Madrid Spain2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 3001002003004002.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 300200400600Relative riskTemperature (șC) Temperature (șC) Temperature (șC) Temperature (șC)0 5 10 15 20 25 3002004006000100200300400Number of deathsNumberof deaths Numberof deathsNumberof deaths–15 –10 –5 0 5 10 15 20 25 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 02.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0Relative riskRelative risk Relative risk Impacts of natural hazards in Europe 101 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe estimated that 1.6-2.0 % of total mortality in the warm season is attributable to heat; about 40 % of these deaths occur on isolated hot days in periods that would not be classified as heat waves (Baccini et al., 2011; Basagaña et al., 2011). Projected increases in frequency and severity of heat waves will lead to an increase in heat-attributable deaths, unless adaptation measures are taken. Highly urbanised areas are projected to be at an increased risk of heat stress compared with surrounding areas. Projections of future heat effects on human health need to consider that the European population is projected to age, because elderly populations are especially vulnerable (Lung et al., 2013; Watts et al., 2015). Heat waves will also influence work productivity, and adaptations to buildings or work practices are likely to be needed to maintain labour productivity during hot weather (IPCC, 2014b). Several studies, namely PESETA, ClimateCost and PESETA II, have estimated future heat-related mortality in Europe using similar methods and have arrived at largely comparable results (Ciscar et al., 2011; Kovats et al., 2011; Watkiss and Hunt, 2012; Paci, 2014). The PESETA study estimates that, without adaptation and physiological acclimatisation, heat-related mortality in Europe would increase by between 60 000 and 165 000 deaths per year by the 2080s compared with the present baseline, with the highest impacts in southern Europe. The results vary across climate models and emission scenarios, with high emission scenarios leading to much higher heat-related mortality than low emission scenarios. Heat-related mortality would be significantly lower under full acclimatisation if, for example, currently cool regions were able to achieve the temperature–mortality relationship of currently warm regions (Ciscar et al., 2011; Huang et al., 2011). The results from the PESETA II study confirm, to a large extent, the results of earlier assessments (in particular, those from the PESETA and ClimateCost projects), although with slightly higher impacts (in both physical and economic terms) (Ciscar et al., 2014). Comparable estimates were made by WHO for the WHO European Region (Hales et al., 2014; Honda et al., 2014). However, the PESETA II study does not consider a potential reduction in cold-related mortality in its climate impact estimates (Paci, 2014), mainly because of recent evidence of lower cold-related mortality (Aström et al., 2013; Kinney et al., 2015). However, the risk from moderate cold is expected to continue to account for most of the temperature-related risk throughout this century (Vardoulakis et al., 2014; Arbuthnott et al., 2016). Temperature extremes will influence the number of hospital admissions. The total number of hospital admissions is projected to be largest in southern Europe, with the proportion of heat-related admissions for respiratory conditions expected to approximately triple in this region over this time period (Aström et al., 2013). At the regional scale, significantly raised risk of heat-related and cold-related mortality was projected for the United Kingdom. In the absence of any adaptation of the population, heat-related deaths would be expected to rise. The mean estimate of heat-related mortality increases by approximately 66 %, 257 % and 535 % in the 2020s, 2050s and 2080s, respectively, from a current annual baseline of around 2 000 deaths (averaged over the period 1993–2006). The mean estimate of cold-related mortality will increase by approximately 3 % in the 2020s, and then decrease by 2 % in the 2050s and by 12 % in the 2080s, from the baseline period 1993–2006 (Hajat et al., 2014). These predicted changes also reflect the increasing population size expected in most regions in this century. The population is projected to increase at a higher rate in the first three decades of this century compared with later decades. This increase and the ageing effect offset the expected reduction in cold-related mortality associated with climate change in the 2020s. 4.3.4 Droughts and human health Impacts of drought occur as a direct response to the hazard or a secondary effect (indirect impact) with the potential to linger for years (Wilhite, et al., 2007). Despite few positive effects of drought (e.g. increased grape quality), negative impacts are much more prominent. While the majority of drought impact research and public recognition focuses on impacts on human health (e.g. Dilley, et al., 2005) and the agricultural sector (e.g. Simelton, et al., 2009), drought affects all parts of the environmental and socio-economic systems and thus influences human health from a multifaceted background. Depending on the location of occurrence, impact characteristics differ significantly (e.g. Dilley, et al., 2005; Eriyagama, 2009), but principally arise from a complete or partial failure of the water system to deliver water (Lloyd-Hughes, 2014). Most severe drought impacts (in terms of human life, malnutrition, famine conflicts) primarily occur in developing countries (UNISDR, 2009) while developed countries are more prone to suffer economic losses (Eriyagama, 2009). Drought-related health effects include water-related diseases, reduction in food safety and security, mental health effects, vector-borne diseases, and injuries due to lower than usual water levels in lakes and rivers Impacts of natural hazards in Europe 102 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europethat are used for recreation (Stanke et al., 2012). The long lasting impacts of drought on health are more complex and thus complicated to monitor or predict (CDC 2016). Droughts can trigger local food crises, disrupt trade infrastructure and have cascading systemic consequences, e.g. crop failure can precipitate international food price spikes (WEF 2016). Changes in energy and water policy can potentially facilitate increased water conservation and greater use of renewable energy sources (Zimmerman, et al., 2016). In Europe, the most obvious impacts of drought on humans are periodic temporary restrictions on the use of drinking water, which can compromise sanitation and hygiene. Drought can augment infection risk from exposure to slowly inactivating pathogens such as Cryptosporidium and norovirus, due to reduced dilution of wastewater discharge (Schijven et al. 2013). Less frequently there are restrictions on the industrial and agricultural use of water, which can influence food production and temporarily affect employment (Kovats et al., 2016). In the case of the operation of water supply systems under drought conditions, the risk assessment has to take into account the initial state/condition of the system. In this case the main problem is deciding when and how to activate adequate mitigation measures (i.e. rationing policies and/or the use of additional water resources) in order to prevent future severe shortages (Cancelliere et al., 2009). The analysis of drought risk in Europe for 15 sectors, including human health and public safety, has been analysed (Blauhut et al., 2016). The developed approach empirically combines a selection of best performing drought hazard indices and 69 different vulnerability factors to predict the likelihood of drought impact occurrence for different hazard severity levels. Map 4.2 shows two hazards severity levels based on Standardised Precipitation-evapotranspiration Index (SPEI) (Vicente-Serrano, et al., 2014) and the likelihood of drought impact occurrence on public water supply and water quality in Europe. With consideration of different biases of the underlying drought impact data (Stahl et al. 2016), the predicted likelihood of drought impact occurrence increases with drought severity. Under the most severe drought condition impacts on public water supply and water quality are most likely in most populated regions in Europe, like central France, Belgium, central Germany and southern Italy (Blauhut, et al., 2016). 4.4 Impacts of natural hazards on ecosystems and their services Natural hazards can affect and shape ecosystems, and in turn affect ecosystem services (Kramer and Verkaar, 1998; Turner and Dale, 1998; Pickett and White, 2013). The intensity and spatial extent of the impacts of natural hazards depends on both the intensity and the frequency of the events and on the state of the ecosystems affected. Disturbance regimes are incorporated in ecosystems through the interactions between natural hazards and ecosystem characteristics, maintaining the characteristic biodiversity and functioning of those ecosystems and their services across spatial and temporal scales, including their ability to recover from a natural hazard. When a disturbance regime drastically changes, e.g. due to climate change, the ecosystem may lose its ability to recover and another ecosystem will develop instead. The combination of increased ecosystem vulnerability due to rescaling of the landscape by human land use, and a change in disturbance regime by climate change, enhances the likelihood that natural hazards become natural disasters. The vulnerability of an ecosystem to natural hazards exceeding the disturbance regime it has incorporated may increase due to rescaling of a landscape in smaller and fragmented ecosystems by human operations, i.e. a smaller natural hazard may have the same or even a larger impact on fragmented ecosystems than a larger natural hazard on well-connected ecosystems (Urban et al., 1987). Natural hazards influence ecosystems directly or indirectly, and have different effects on different ecosystem types. For this section, we focus on the most important combinations for which evidence is available (Table 4.3). Similar ecosystems in different bioclimatic zones in Europe may respond differently to climate change, e.g. drought-adapted forests or grasslands in the Mediterranean area would in principle be less vulnerable to a particular drought event than similar ecosystems in the temperate zone that are not adapted to drought. However, due to current and historic intensive land use (wood harvest for fuel and construction material; grazing by sheep and goats), Impacts of natural hazards in Europe 103 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe Map 4.2 Drought impact maps of public water supply (left) and water quality (right) for two drought severity levels Note: Drought severity is presented with a standardised precipitation evapotranspiration index (SPEI). The two drought severity levels are defined with the SPEI below – 1.5 severely dry (upper maps), and − 2.5 extremely dry (lower maps). Vulnerability data are available at regional level. Source: Blauhut et al., 2016.Likelihood of impact occurrence (LIO) No data Outside coverageDrought impacts maps on public water supply (left) and water quality (right) for two drought severity levels 0-0.1 0.1-0.2 0.2-0.3 0.6-0.7 0.7-0.8 0.8-0.9 0.9-1 0.3-0.4 0.4-0.5 0.5-0.670° 60° 50° 40°40° 30°30° 20°20° 10°10° 0°0° -10° -20° -30° 60° 50°50° 40°40°70° 60° 50° 40°40° 30°30° 20°20° 10°10° 0°0° -10° -20° -30° 60° 50°50° 40°40° 70° 60° 50° 40°40° 30°30° 20°20° 10°10° 0°0° -10° -20° -30° 60° 50°50° 40°40°70° 60° 50° 40°40° 30°30° 20°20° 10°10° 0°0° -10° -20° -30° 60° 50°50° 40°40°Water supply – 1.5 severely dr y Water quality Water quality Water supply– 1.5 severely dr y – 2.5 extremely dr y – 2.5 extremely dr y 05 00 1 0001 500km Impacts of natural hazards in Europe 104 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europelandscape fragmentation, deterioration of the soil by depletion of the nutrient resource base, and high ozone levels, the resilience of these ecosystems to drought is likely to be much lower than their continental and Atlantic temperate zone equivalents. Ecosystem responses to natural hazards will thus be specific for each bioclimatic zone. However, within the context of this report we will not expand on this zonal differentiation of impacts from natural hazards on ecosystems. The text below is structured following the natural hazards presented in Chapter 3. The ecosystem classification largely follows EEA methodology as described in the EEA report Mapping and assessing the conditions of Europe’s ecosystems (EEA, 2016b), combining grass- and heathlands and focusing on natural ecosystems, thus excluding urban ecosystems and croplands. Not all hazards are relevant for all ecosystem types (e.g. avalanches are relevant mostly in mountain ecosystems and storm surges in coastal ecosystems). We consider the impacts of natural hazards on forest most significant, as, due to the longevity of trees, their recovery will take much longer than the same impact on other ecosystems. With respect to the natural hazards identified in this report, we consider the impacts of droughts and heat waves as most significant, across all ecosystems. This judgement is based on the vast spatial extent of droughts and heat waves compared with the other natural hazards considered here. We therefore pay particular attention to forests, as particularly vulnerable ecosystems, and to droughts and heat waves as natural hazards threatening all ecosystems. 4.4.1 River floods and heavy precipitation The impact of river floods and heavy precipitation is largely independent of the state of these ecosystems, although the ecosystem resilience may depend on the species composition and spatial configuration of the ecosystem concerned, as outlined below. The push for preservation of economic capital and public safety during floods has been a key driver of changes in Europe’s river systems throughout the past 150 years. Today, in Europe, and in many other parts of the world, river systems are heavily managed, mainly to force river channels to maintain their course and to prevent flooding (EEA, 2016a). This has led to reduction of floodplain size, meaning that most floodplains no longer function as natural, dynamic floodplains. Estimates suggest that today only 10 % of Europe’s potential floodplains are natural. Natural, active floodplains and their riparian zones are high-quality, dynamic habitats where many of the Habitats Directive Annexes I and II (EU, 1992) habitats and species are found (along with many others), especially those that depend on dynamic, wet environments. In addition, they provide natural protection against floods. Table 4.3 Qualitative assessment of relative impacts from natural hazards on ecosystems considered in this study Forests and woodlandsGrass- and heathlandsInland wetlandsAquatic ecosystemsCoastal ecosystems Floods and heavy precipitation +++/++ +/0 +/+ ++/+ N/A Windstorms and hail +++/++ 0/0 +/0 0/0 N/A Heat waves and droughts +++/++ ++/+ ++/+ ++/+ N/A Wild fires +++/++ ++/+ +/0 0/0 N/A Avalanches and landslides +/+ +/0 +/0 0/0 N/A Storm surges N/A N/A N/A N/A ++/+ Note: Potential significance of impact/amount of evidence (0, none; +, little; ++, moderate; +++, much; N/A, not applicable). Only the red and orange cells are elaborated in this section. Sources: ETC/CCA, EEA. Impacts of natural hazards in Europe 105 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe Meanwhile, it is also increasingly recognised that changes to Europe’s rivers have over the years increased flood risk because river channels adjust their morphology. Continued construction of dikes is costly and increases the danger on the protected side, in case of a breach. New solutions aim at reducing flood risks by allowing floods to occur in appointed areas that simultaneously are allowed to remain as natural floodplains. Such solutions are referred to as natural retention measures or GI. Forests and woodlands Within floodplain areas, the tree species composition of forests is largely adapted to extensive periods and/or high frequency of flooding. This means that the trees have developed strategies to survive anoxia in the soil and are not vulnerable to secondary effects of flooding such as increased sensitivity to pests and diseases caused by fungi, insects and bacteria. Negative impacts of floods on forest ecosystems are most important in forests not adapted to periodic flooding, where the tree species composition has been altered by humans. Large-scale flooding for an extensive period in non-adapted forests can result in direct mortality due to anoxia in the soil. However, secondary impacts can be much more severe. Roots and bark are damaged due to the water and anoxia, which makes these plant organs vulnerable to attacks of pests and diseases. Mortality of trees and even of large tracts of forests may occur in the following years. Impacts may also arise from several consecutive years of flooding rather than from a single event. In the case of floodplains, the floods themselves, as well as the availability of water, are important natural drivers of ecosystem development. Ecosystems in these zones are adapted to the stress provided by natural flood cycles; it is this stress that supports their high diversity. During floods physical changes occur as sediment is eroded and deposited in new places, driving the development of ecological niches (EEA, 2016a). Wetlands and aquatic ecosystems Within the boundaries of floodplains, the species composition and spatial configuration of wetlands and aquatic ecosystems is such that impacts of extensive flooding are minor. These ecosystems have incorporated this type of disturbance, and are only vulnerable if the extent of the event largely exceeds that of the ecosystem as a whole (i.e. catchment), such that recovery of the system is hampered. Flood water and sediments can also carry pollutants into flooded areas, e.g. when storm water overflows carry additional contaminants into the river or when waste disposal sites near rivers are flooded. This input can disrupt and prevent the recovery of aquatic ecosystems and its removal may take a long time. 4.4.2 Windstorms and thunder/hailstorms High wind speeds can occur with low pressure systems or thunder/hailstorms. The former occur mostly in winter time and can affect large areas. The latter occur mostly in warm parts of the year and are localised phenomena. They can be accompanied by heavy rain and sometimes also by hail, aggravating impacts. The most affected ecosystems are forests. Forests High wind speeds in forests can cause damage to foliage and loss of branches, and can lead to the breakage of stems and uprooting of trees (wind throw). Storms are the most important disturbance for forests in Europe outside the Mediterranean, e.g. in terms of timber loss (Seidl et al., 2014). Impacts and risks of wind storms on forests depend on the species composition and spatial configuration of the ecosystem. Coniferous species are generally more vulnerable than broadleaved trees, partly because of rooting characteristics, but mostly because they carry foliage in winter when storms usually occur. Summer thunderstorms can cause great damage to broadleaves as well. Heavy precipitation, including hail during high-wind-speed events, can greatly aggravate damage to trees. During winters, (wet) snow and ice captured by tree crowns can increase the gravitational forces acting on trees considerably. Furthermore, heavy precipitation preceding the event might lead to complete saturation of the soil, which reduces the anchorage of the root system. Conversely, frozen soil will increase resistance to uprooting. High-wind-speed events are incorporated into forest ecosystem dynamics. Tree species have developed strategies to cope with such events, such as shedding foliage in winter, shedding foliage and branches to reduce wind loading during events, and enforcement of roots and stems in reaction to wind loading. Forests are generally well able to regenerate after such events over the longer term, either from regeneration material present at the site (seeds, advanced regeneration, sprouting of stumps) or from seed inflow from neighbouring stands. However, in the shorter term for forest managers, such events may severely disrupt planning and economic perspectives. Forest management can play a significant role in influencing vulnerability to these events. Selection of tree species is important, especially on exposed sites. Recently thinned stands and recently created edges Impacts of natural hazards in Europe 106 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europeare known to be vulnerable, although vulnerability decreases several years after thinning, as trees adapt to increased wind exposure. Management strategies that aim to reduce vulnerability include, for example, no-thin regimes and early final harvest to limit tree height (see Chapters 5 and 6 for more information about solutions). Damage due to high-wind-speed events can lead to follow-up damage events such as insect pest outbreaks and fires due to increased fuel load. However, such events also create niches that are favourable for biodiversity, such as pit-and-mound topography after wind throw, and large amounts of standing and lying deadwood. Coastal wetlands Coastal wetlands are established in areas with low coastal slope, large sediment supply, and tides, waves and currents that redistribute sediments. In their natural state, coastal wetlands are frequently highly dynamic, changing their size and location during major storms where water levels are also above normal (see Section 3.11). In Europe, examples of coastal wetlands are the Wadden Sea, the Rhine Delta, the Danube Delta and large parts of the east coast of the United Kingdom. In the Wadden Sea and in the United Kingdom, tidal wetlands have developed along the coast; barrier islands, intertidal sand flats, saltmarshes and dunes contribute to protecting the coast from impacts of major storms. These wetlands are also important habitats (listed in EU Habitats Directive Annex II (EU, 1992) and provide important ecosystem services by providing a nursery ground for fish and feeding grounds for sea birds. 4.4.3 Heat waves and droughts Water scarcity and drought phenomena are becoming increasingly frequent and severe, and occur over larger areas in Europe (IPCC, 2014b; EEA, 2017). The relationship between vegetation vigour and drought is complex; the severity of impacts will depend on the timing, frequency, duration and intensity of drought events. It will also depend on whether or not the drought occurs within the part of the growing season when vegetation is most vulnerable, on soil moisture conditions prior to drought occurrence, high temperatures and ecosystem adaptation levels (Ji and Peters, 2003; Ivits et al., 2016). A shift in the disturbance regime towards a higher frequency of more severe heat waves and droughts, or towards events with a larger spatial scale, will have a stronger impact on ecosystems. On the continental scale, ecosystems in the period 1982–2011 in diverse bioclimatic zones show different degrees of resilience (79) to drought, with northern and Mediterranean ecosystems in Europe being more resilient to drought than the Atlantic and continental regions (Ivits et al., 2014, 2016). Forests Drought can directly impact trees. If the available water in the soil is depleted, individual trees have no physiological mechanisms to cope with drought. Even though a primary dry spell might not directly lead to damage, it makes trees more vulnerable to secondary damage and disturbances such as windfall, pest outbreaks (Battisti et al., 2006), or fungus, parasite and pathogen infestations (Rigling et al., 2013). A pan-continental study on tree-ring width showed that radial growth rates decreased before death in approximately 84 % of the actual mortality events, with clear differences between functional groups (Cailleret et al., 2016). The succession of the 2003 and 2004-2005 drought events might be one of the causes for increased tree mortality in southern France during 2004 (Bréda et al., 2006). Besides site-specific conditions and drought characteristics, drought impact on trees also depends on inter- and intra-species differences (Lévesque et al., 2014). Most vulnerable are those forests that are not adapted to extensive heat waves and drought, notably forests in moist conditions that have no history of severe drought. Northern ecosystems are subject to temperature variation rather than to water availability as the main constraint for vegetation growth (Peñuelas et al., 2007). This may explain why, despite recurrent drought events, increased productivity and longer growing seasons were observed in northern European forests as a response to elevated temperatures, more than counteracting the negative effects of drought (Ivits et al., 2014). In temperate forests, a particularly large decrease in productivity of temperate deciduous beech forests was found in 2003, indicative of decreased productivity and shorter growing seasons (Ciais et al., 2005). Many highly productive forest plantations in Europe have a species composition and structure that makes them vulnerable to droughts. In particular, Norwegian spruce is sensitive to drought and is one of the main species for economic wood production. Moreover, the structure of these plantations, and their frequently large spatial extent, often at sub-optimal sites, makes Norwegian spruce plantations particularly vulnerable to insect attacks at very large spatial scales. Grass- and heathlands There are many different types of dry grasslands throughout Europe. Highly productive types are (79) Ecosystem resilience is defined as the speed of recovery to the equilibrium state (engineering resilience), or the amount of disturbance that is needed for a system to switch equilibrium state (ecological resilience) (Walker et al., 1999). Impacts of natural hazards in Europe 107 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe more vulnerable to heat waves and droughts than low-productivity dry grasslands. The main effect of heat waves and drought is a reduction in productivity because recurrent droughts often result in declining soil moisture and associated decline in nutrient availability (Rustad et al., 2001), affecting productivity. Much biodiversity may be lost due to heat waves and droughts, even though the ecological functioning of the grasslands may remain largely intact. Central European heathlands are seminatural ecosystems that are generally well adapted to severe heat waves and prolonged drought periods. Heathlands along the Atlantic coast are adapted to moist conditions and droughts are likely to have a negative impact on these systems. Heathlands are particularly vulnerable to high loads of nitrogen deposition, which makes them vulnerable to large-scale insect attacks (e.g. heather beetle) (Langan, 2011). The interactions of these factors may consequently make heathlands more vulnerable to drought in the future. Wetlands and aquatic ecosystems If water availability of wetlands and aquatic ecosystems decreases or disappears due to intensive heat waves and droughts, then these ecosystems are extremely vulnerable. The impacts may also be largely irrevocable when the soils of these systems start to decompose and nutrients are added to the ecosystem. Key plant and animal species may also become locally extinct, with little opportunity to recover if this type of ecosystem is fragmented within a particular landscape (Perring et al., 2015). 4.4.4 Wildfires All European ecosystems can be affected by wildfires, except aquatic ecosystems. Fires can occur if there is an ignition source and sufficient fuel that is also sufficiently dry. The vast majority of fire ignitions are human related, either intentionally or accidentally. Actual weather conditions, terrain conditions and fuel characteristics influence how intensely the fire burns and how fast it can spread. Usually there are two peaks in fire activity throughout the year: one in early spring, when the vegetation is still dry and weather conditions can be favourable (sunny and windy). The other peak occurs in summer and is related to periods of hot and dry conditions. Forests Forest fire is an integral part of natural forest ecosystems, especially in boreal and Mediterranean regions. Due to efficient fire suppression policies, fires are nowadays almost absent from the boreal parts of Europe, but the projected increase in summer temperatures in northern Europe suggest that their frequency might increase in the future, without adaptation measures (Khabarov et al., 2016). The impact of fire on the forest depends on the type of fire, and on the forest itself. Ground fires generally only consume the litter layer, killing plants, saplings and smaller trees. Trees with a thick bark can survive such fires due to the insulation provided by the bark. Species with a thin bark will suffer damage because the cambium will be killed by the heat. If the fire is more intense, and if low branches and shrubs are available (ladder fuels), the fire may develop into a crown fire. Crown fires may kill most of the trees. Moreover, they are very dangerous and difficult to fight. Under natural circumstances, forests are normally able to regenerate after a fire. However, current forest composition and land use is different from natural conditions, and fires may burn more frequently and/or severely than under natural conditions, especially in the Mediterranean basin. The number and extension of forest fires also Box 4.1 Heat waves, wildfires and ecosystems During the heat wave of 2003, more than 25 000 fires were recorded in Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Ireland, Portugal and Spain. The forest area destroyed was estimated at 647 069 ha. Portugal was the worst hit, with 390 146 ha burned, destroying around 5.6 % of its forest area. Spain followed with 127 525 ha burned. The area of agricultural land burned was 44 123 ha, and an additional 8 973 ha of unoccupied land, and 1 700 ha of inhabited areas was also damaged. This was by far the worst forest fire season that Portugal had encountered in 23 years. In October 2003, Portugal estimated that the financial impact exceeded EUR 1 billion. Source: UNEP, 2003. Impacts of natural hazards in Europe 108 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europedepends on forest management practices. Higher fire return intervals, erosion and changed soil composition may inhibit regeneration. Desertification may occur, or fire-dependent vegetation types may take the place of the forest. Box 4.1 summarises the damage caused by forest fires during the 2003 heat wave. Grass- and heathlands Grass- and heathland ecosystems may be impacted by fire on a more or less frequent basis. Fires will occur when the vegetation is dry, either in early spring or in hot summer conditions. Fires move quickly, killing the parts of the vegetation above ground but leaving the parts below ground intact. The vegetation will resprout from the roots and vegetation cover will be restored relatively quickly. Increased fire frequency may alter the species composition towards more fire-resistant species. 4.4.5 Avalanches and landslides The ecosystems that will be most impacted by avalanches and landslides are forests and woodlands, grasslands, wetlands and aquatic ecosystems in hilly and mountainous areas. Avalanches and landslides may occur when large amounts of rain saturate the soil, with the result that gravitational pull comes to exceed shear stress. The difference between an avalanche and a landslide is that avalanches forcefully bring matter (i.e. snow or ice) down mostly on steep terrain in higher altitudes, whereas landslides bring matter (i.e. mud, debris and rocks) down the full slope of the hill or mountain. These natural hazards thus affect local ecosystems in different ways: uphill, by the removal of vegetation and soil, and downhill, by the deposition of all that material on a different ecosystem. Recovery of ecosystems after destruction by an avalanche or landslide is very slow, and for practical ecosystem management, irreversible. Avalanches and landslides are locally very destructive, but do not have the large spatial extent of the other natural hazards considered in this report. The impact of avalanches and landslides depends on ecosystem properties such as soil depth, soil texture and type of vegetation, as well as on the slope of the terrain and the length of the slope. This ecosystem-state dependence allows to some extent to reduce the risk of the occurrence of avalanches and landslides by selecting and managing vegetation cover. 4.4.6 Storm surges Storm surges can cause flooding of coastal habitats and erode dune ecosystems, with biodiversity loss as a result. Coastal ecosystems can fulfil an important role in protecting coastal systems (see Chapter 5) but storm surges can damage this natural protection, allowing seawater to penetrate further inland, leading to erosion and increased salinisation, which in turn affects natural and agricultural systems. Storm surges can also affect inland water bodies, as habitats for freshwater organisms and sources of drinking water for towns and cities. Impacts can be exacerbated by strong winds. There is relatively little information about the impacts of storm surges on ecosystems in Europe compared with other regions, and much of the available literature focuses on frequency of storm surges (see Section 3.11) and their socio-economic consequences (see Section 4.4) rather than their ecosystem impacts. 4.4.7 Impacts of natural hazards on ecosystems services Ecosystem services are the benefits people obtain from ecosystems. Four categories of ecosystem services can be distinguished: supporting, provisioning (production), regulating and cultural. A climate change-induced shift in disturbance regime towards more extreme events occurring at larger spatial scales than currently experienced may cause events to have more serious, and possibly disastrous, effects on ecosystem functioning, and thus on the services they provide to society. The degree to which ecosystems have incorporated a disturbance regime, characterised by frequency and spatial scale of natural hazards, determines to a large extent the impacts and risks from natural hazards. From a disaster risk response point of view, ecosystem impacts become disastrous if they lead to widespread losses of ecosystem services that exceed local coping capacity. These effects include: • Direct effects: The direct effects of the event are typically a decline in productivity and loss of biodiversity, in particular of rare species with small spatially separated populations fragmented over a landscape. Disturbances also provide opportunities for species that depend on recurring disturbance events. • Secondary effects: The vulnerability of the existing vegetation to pests and diseases, or to air pollution, can increase and result in increased mortality in the years following the extreme event. A sequence of extreme events is thus likely to have much more severe impacts than a single event on all ecosystem services provided. Irreversible processes may occur in the soil, and in the chemical composition of aquatic ecosystems. • Compounded effects: The combination of increased ecosystem vulnerability, due to rescaling Impacts of natural hazards in Europe 109 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe Box 4.2 Impacts of heat wave and extreme drought on carbon sequestration — past trends and future outlook Future climate warming is expected to enhance plant growth in temperate ecosystems and to increase carbon sequestration. Severe regional heat waves and droughts may become more frequent in a changing climate, and are likely to have a negative impact on terrestrial carbon sequestration. How large these impacts are is still unclear. A study by Rennenberg et al. (2006) reports measurements of ecosystem carbon dioxide fluxes, remotely sensed radiation absorbed by plants, and country-level crop yields taken during the European heat wave in 2003. They estimate a 30 % reduction in gross primary productivity across Europe, which resulted in a net source of carbon dioxide (0.5 picograms of carbon per year) to the atmosphere, unprecedented during the last century and reversing the effect of 4 years of net ecosystem carbon sequestration. The results suggest that productivity reduction in eastern and western Europe can be explained by rainfall deficit and extreme summer heat, respectively. Ecosystem respiration decreased together with gross primary productivity, rather than accelerating with temperature rise. An increase in future drought events could turn temperate ecosystems into carbon sources, contributing to positive carbon–climate feedbacks already anticipated in the tropics and at high latitudes. Mainly because of greater drought probability and to a lesser extent because of increasing ecosystem vulnerability, drought risks for net primary productivity in the Mediterranean area will increase. Model projections suggest reductions in carbon sequestration of 20 % to 80 %, predominantly in southern Europe, in the last decades of the 21st century (Van Oijen et al., 2014).and fragmentation of the landscape by human land use, and a change in disturbance regime by climate change enhances the likelihood that natural hazards become natural disasters. • Decreased provisioning, regulatory and supporting functions: Extreme events with high physical power to destroy ecosystems, such as fire, storm, torrential floods and avalanches, destroy not only the provisioning function (disrupting forest managers’ planning and economic perspectives), but also any regulatory and supporting functions the ecosystem may have had. Even where it is possible, recovery of the latter two ecosystem services takes much more time than the recovery of products obtained from ecosystems (the provisioning function). • Decreased carbon sequestration: Extreme events that remove both vegetation and soil have strong impacts on stocks of nutrients and carbon (a regulating ecosystem service). It may lead to the emission of large amounts of carbon from the system to the atmosphere. The recovery of this carbon sequestration capacity may take a long time, or may not be possible at all if nutrients are depleted (see also Box 4.2). Although only a few forward-looking studies have been undertaken, current scientific understanding of the relevant processes suggests that impacts on ecosystems and their services are likely to increase in the future, exacerbated by reduced recovery times because of more frequent extreme events and acting in combination with non-climatic factors. If the increase is gradual, with sufficient time in between events to allow for recovery, ecosystems may be able to adapt, for example through migration and changes in species composition, where species are able to reach new ecosystems, either in a natural way or assisted by human action. Otherwise ecosystems will become poorer in terms of species composition, and impacts of subsequent events may be increased. If the change in disturbance regime is more sudden, large-scale changes will occur in short periods of time, and the level of ecosystem provisioning services will greatly diminish. In the Mediterranean region, events such as fires and droughts can trigger desertification. Disturbance damage in forests is projected to increase significantly through a combination of climate change impacts, increased forest resources in terms of area and timber stock, and more vulnerable species composition (Seidl et al., 2014). Storm damage will increase, because forest area and timber stocks are still increasing, and climate change plays both a direct role (storminess) and an indirect one (wetter soils, less frozen soils, taller trees in warmer climates). The combined future negative impact of fire, storms and insect damage on carbon storage can be as large as the intended positive effect of forest management. Management of ecosystems can help to avoid or significantly reduce impacts on ecosystem services. Sources: Rennenberg et al., 2006 and Van Oijen et al., 2014. Impacts of natural hazards in Europe 110 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in EuropeThe vulnerability of social and economic systems to future natural disasters can be increased by the expected negative impacts of future extreme weather and climatic events on climate services. Appropriate development and management of ecosystems can address these negative effects. For example, a more diverse species composition decreases the risk of the loss of a specific species to an unforeseen event, while it also increases the chance that at least one of the species will be adapted to future growing conditions. Species composition is, for example, important with regard to vulnerability to both fire and high winds. In forestry, risks can be mediated by limiting top height, but also by limiting the amount of timber in the forest. Designing NBSs (as discussed in Section 2.3) should therefore take the vulnerability of these solutions themselves into account to maintain their various ecosystem services functions. For example, with respect to forests, selection of suitable provenances and maintenance of sufficient genetic diversity within a tree species will strengthen a forest’s resilience to extreme events and allow adaptation to climate change (Kramer, 2015). The potential importance of impacts of natural hazards on ecosystem services suggests that improving ecosystem impact monitoring and more detailed analysis of past, current and future ecosystem impacts can help protect or enhance ecosystem services in a future under climate change. Rather than setting up a new monitoring system, impacts of natural hazards on ecosystems may be integrated into existing monitoring systems which have been set up in the context of other issues, such as biodiversity conservation (Biodiversity Information System for Europe (BISE), supporting Natura 2000 in the context of the Habitats Directive). Currently no monitoring systems exist to track the impacts of natural hazards on ecosystems in a systematic, comprehensive way, at either the national or the European scale. Such impacts are rather accidentally picked up by existing observation systems, such as the monitoring of red-listed species or national forest inventories. Monitoring systems or databases that track impacts of natural hazards focus on economic and not ecosystem impacts (see Section 4.4). Thus, no overview of ecosystem damage is available for Europe. Even fewer projections are available. As a consequence, there is a lack of knowledge about the potential future impacts of climate change on disturbance regimes of Europe’s ecosystems and the services they deliver. Establishing a new monitoring system with the purpose of registering impacts of natural hazards on ecosystems is unfeasible, as those impacts may not occur. Therefore, adjusting existing monitoring systems could mean that, were a natural hazard to occur, protocols and financial resources would be available to quickly assess the direct impacts and to monitor the subsequent consequences. This monitoring approach would fit an adaptive management strategy that allows learning from events and adjusting management accordingly (Linser and Wolfslehner, 2015). 4.5 Economic impacts from natural hazards Over the period 1980–2015, the reported economic losses caused by climate-related hazards in the EEA member countries amounted to EUR 433 billion (in 2015 prices). This equals 83 % of economic losses caused by all natural hazards, including geophysical hazards such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions Mostly, the loss estimates comprise the financial value of damage to structural assets and recovery costs. The ripple, spillover losses propagated through supply-and-demand shocks that affect regional economies in and beyond the disaster-affected areas are for the most part not accounted for in the reported losses. The EEA report, Climate change, impacts and vulnerability in Europe 2016 ‘ (EEA, 2017) and the EEA indicator ‘Economic losses from climate-related extremes’ (80) provide additional detail. In this section we examine the economic impacts of selected natural hazard categories based on Munich RE’s NatCatSERVICE, data adjusted to 2015 euro prices. The analysis took into account different price levels in the EEA member countries and changed exposure (wealth) throughout the period 1980–2015. The applied normalisation builds upon an extensive body of literature (Pielke and Landsea, 1998; Collins and Lowe, 2001; Crompton and McAneney, 2008; Pielke et al., 2008; Barredo, 2009a; Schmidt et al., 2009; Barredo, 2010; Crompton et al., 2010; Nordhaus, 2010; Barthel and Neumayer, 2012; Neumayer and Barthel, 2011; Simmons et al., 2013). We have used the Eurostat collection of economic indicators. Data from earlier years for which no data are available from Eurostat were completed from the Annual Macro-Economic Database of the European Commission (AMECO), the International Monetary Fund’s World Economic Outlook (WEO), the Total Economy Database (TED) and the World Bank’s database (81). Hydrological hazards (especially floods) and meteorological hazards (in particular storms) each (80) CLIM039 indicator available from http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/direct-losses-from-weather-disasters-2/assessment (81) See http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/db_indicators/ameco/index_en.htm (AMECO), https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2015/02/ weodata/index.aspx (WEO), https://www.conference-board.org/data/economydatabase/ (TED) and http://data.worldbank.org/ (World Bank database). Impacts of natural hazards in Europe 111 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe Figure 4.3 Total economic losses (left), insured losses (middle) and fatalities (right) Note: Diagrams show total economic losses (expressed in 2015 values), insured losses and fatalities in EEA member countries over the period 1980–2015. Hazard categories: meteorological events, hydrological events and climatological events. Source: EEA, based on NatCatSERVICE data received under institutional agreements. 38.9 % 38.6 %22.6 % Total losses 433 094 million EUR Meteorological Hydrological Climatological64.6 %27.7 %7.7 % Insured 35 % 4.4 % 4.7 % 90.9 %Fatalities 89 873 account each for around 39 % of recorded damage (Figure 4.3, left), followed by climatological hazards (mainly droughts), with a low share of 23 % of total registered losses. Meteorological hazard losses are better insured (65 %) then hydrological (28 %) and climatological (8 %) hazard losses (Figure 4.3, middle). Climatological hazards, mainly heat waves, are by far the deadliest hazard category in Europe, accounting for 91 % of the reported deaths (Figure 4.3, right). In addition to categories of hazards shown in Figure 4.3, the NatCatSERVICE database records the individual hazard perils that make it possible to disaggregate the losses according to the type of extreme climate and weather events described in Chapter 3. For some perils matching is not unambiguous. For example, intense precipitation (Section 3.3) is not reported separately in the NatCatSERVICE. On the other hand, storm- and flood-related hazards comprise a number of individual perils (Table 4.4) that are grouped to the categories that match Chapter 3. Table 4.4 shows the match between the NatCatSERVICE’s recorded perils (column A) and Chapter 3’s climate extremes (columns B and C). Table 4.4 and Figure 4.4 make it possible to identify Figure 4.4 Break-up of economic (left) and insured losses by perils (right) in 2015 values Note: The individual perils are coloured to correspond to the colouring of the hazard categories in Figure 4.3. The right panel shows the share of insured losses by hazard perils out of the total registered insured losses. This is different from Table 4.4, where we show the share of insured out of total losses for each hazard peril. Source: EEA, based on NatCatSERVICE data received under institutional agreements.General Flood 34.3 %Winter storm 27.5 %Drought 9.4 %Tempest/ Severe storm 6.3 % Others 22.6 %Winter damage Flash Flood Hailstorm Wildfire OthersHeat wave Winter storm 46.2 %General Flood 23.3 %Tempest/ Severe storm 9.8 % Hailstorm 6.9 % Winter damage Flash Flood Blizzard/Snowstorm Heat wave Local Windstorm OthersOthers 13.8 % Impacts of natural hazards in Europe 112 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europethe most important perils within and across the hazard categories. From among the hydrological perils, the costliest peril is general (fluvial) flooding, accounting for 34 % (EUR 148 billion) of total economic losses, of which only 24 % are insured. Flash floods represent a smaller share (4 %) of losses but this is generally better covered by insurance (40 %). Winter storms are both the costliest (EUR 70 billion) and the most insured (59 %) among meteorological hazard peril, followed by severe storms (EUR 27 billion and 54 % insurance cover). Droughts stand out among the climatological Table 4.4 Synthesis of the economic impacts inflicted by climate extremes reviewed in Chapter 3 Perils Chapter 3 sections Economic impacts A B C D E E/D F G G/F Name Section NameLoss EUR millions (2015 prices)Insured EUR millions (2015 prices)Insured %Loss EUR millions (2015 prices)Insured EUR millions (2015 prices)Insured % Heat wave 3.2 Heat waves 25 626 1 180 5 25 626 1 180 5 Flash flood 3.4 Floods 16 318 6 555 40 164 633 41 693 25 General flood 3.4 Floods 148 315 35 138 24 Blizzard/snowstorm 3.5/3.11 Windstorms2 074 1 237 60 152 139 87 039 57Local windstorm 2 258 900 40 Sandstorm 1 0 0 Storm surge 50 2 4 Tropical cyclone 356 10 3 Tempest/severe storm 27 396 14 739 54 Tornado 1 042 387 37 Winter storm 118 962 69 764 59 Landslide 3.6 Landslides2 268 189 8 2 277 189 8 Rockfall 9 0 0 Drought 3.7 Droughts 40 569 187 0 40 569 187 0 Wildfire 3.8 Forest fires 9 583 34 0 9 583 34 0 Avalanche 3.9 Avalanches 301 48 16 301 48 16 Hailstorm 3.10 Hail 16 028 10 357 65 16 028 10 357 65 Cold wave/frostRisks not covered by Chapter 322 4 18 21 937 10 153 46Lightning 22 3 12 Winter damage 21 893 10 146 46 Total 433 094 150 880 35 433 094 150 880 35 Note: Column A shows the breakdown of the natural hazard categories as recorded in the NatCatSERVICE database. Columns B and C show the matching climate extremes as described in Chapter 3. Columns D and E list the registered economic impacts (in EUR millions) in 2015 prices. Column F and G summarise the economic impacts according to the relevant sections in Chapter 3. Columns E/D and G/F are shares of insured out of registered losses, by hazard perils and category of climate extremes. Source: EEA, based on NatCatSERVICE data received under institutional agreements.hazards (9 % of losses) and are characterised by very low insurance cover. Altogether, insurance coverage is most extensive for hailstorm-related loss which, however, represents only 4 % of the total loss. The second most insured natural hazard is represented by storms, especially blizzards and snowstorms, winter storms, and tempests, local windstorms and tornados (both landspout and waterspout). Figure 4.5 shows the evolution of total and insured losses over time. The average annual economic Impacts of natural hazards in Europe 113 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe Figure 4.5 Annual economic losses from all hazards (left) and insured losses (right) Note: The figure shows recorded economic losses in EEA member countries over the period 1980-2015 by hazard category and adjusted for inflation (2015 values) (left), and the share between insured and uninsured losses for all hazards in the same period (right). Source: EEA, based on NatCatSERVICE data received under institutional agreements.0510152025303540Billion EURO (2015 prices)Billion EURO (2015 prices) Climatological Hydrological Meteorological0510152025303540 Insured loss Uninsured losseslosses varied between EUR 8 billion in the late 1980s (1985–1989), EUR 10.8 billion and EUR 10.4 billion in the 1990s, and EUR 17.8 billion and 14.7 billion in the periods 2000–2004 and 2005–2009 respectively. Between 2010 and 2015, the average economic loss was around EUR 12 billion. Figure 4.6 shows the distribution of economic losses across countries and in relation to the average population and land size. Whereas Germany recorded the largest absolute economic loss, in relative terms — both as economic loss per unit of land and per capita — Switzerland is the most hazard-exposed country. Growing population, economic wealth and urbanisation are driving the upward trend in disaster losses. Observed changes in extreme weather and climate events, and possibly the deteriorated status of natural ecosystems (environmental degradation), may have also played a role. The stochastic nature of disaster risk with uncertain tail distributions, along with rather partial observations of disaster damage and impacts, make it difficult to estimate the extent to which observed climate change has already contributed to growing disaster losses. One important basis on which to improve our knowledge on the extent to which the increasing losses caused by natural hazards is weather- and climate-related or due to socio-economic factors is the creation of regional event databases. Comprehensive, regional knowledge-based event statistics in Europe would also make it easier to distinguish between climate-related claims trends and those caused by socio-economic factors. The SFDRR (see Section 2.1) attempts to abandon evidence-negligent practice. Empirical and evidence-based risk analysis and assessment are a vital part of DRR efforts. A better understanding of natural hazard risk and ensuing economic losses is important for preventing excessive macroeconomic imbalances, and for coordinating responses to shocks and crises within the European Economic and Monetary Union (Aizenman et al., 2013; Ureche-Rangau and Burietz, 2013). Analysis of notified State Aid, according to the European Commission’s database, revealed 84 cases over the period 2006–2015, for a total of EUR 13.5 billion in 2015 prices (Map 4.3). These cases refer mostly to extreme climate events, and less than 10 % of them concern geophysical hazards. The years 2010 and 2013 stand out for the highest number of notified aid schemes (22 in each year), followed by the years 2011 and 2012. Germany, Italy and Spain feature among the countries that initiated most schemes. Direct grants are the most frequent form of aid, followed by soft loans and interest subsidies, while debt write-off, tax deferment, reduction of social security contributions and guarantee represent relatively less preferred ways of aid provision. Two events triggered the largest aid, the 2013 flood in central Europe which prompted the German government to make available around EUR 8 billion in the form of compensation and aid, and the 2012 earthquake in Emilia Romagna which resulted in aid amounting to EUR 2.7 billion. Impacts of natural hazards in Europe 114 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in EuropeFigure 4.6 Distribution of economic losses across the EEA member countries over the period 1980–2015 Note: The figure shows total economic losses by hazard category (left), per capita (middle) and per square kilometre (right) for each EEA member country (in 2015 prices). Source: EEA, based on NatCatSERVICE data received under institutional agreements.120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Billion euro (2015 prices) Meteorological Hydrological Climatological0 1 000 2 000 3 000LIISMTEECYLVLULTSISKFIBGHRNOBETRIESEHUPTNLELDKCZROATPLCHESFRUKITDE Euro/capita (2015 prices)0 200 400LIISMTEECYLVLULTSISKFIBGHRNOBETRIESEHUPTNLELDKCZROATPLCHESFRUKITDE ‘000 Euro/km2 (2015 prices)The EUSF was established in 2002 to provide immediate financial assistance to the EU Member States and other eligible countries. Between 2006 and March 2015, the aid was mobilised in 63 cases for a total amount of around EUR 4 billion (in 2014 values). The total damage caused by these events was around EUR 100 billion, hence the EUSF average aid intensity (the ratio of aid provided to damage experienced) is around 4 %. Average annual damage equates to more than EUR 7.7 billion and aid equates to around EUR 300 million. Around 85 % of the total damage, and 91 % of the aid mobilised, was triggered by major disaster events. Regional disasters accounted for 13 % and 8 % respectively of damage and aid. Neighbouring country entitlement for aid is, at 1 %, rather marginal. Italy is the largest beneficiary of solidarity aid, both in total and for regional disasters, followed by Germany and France for total solidarity aid, and by France and Spain for regional disasters. Around 60 % of the average annual mobilisation of the EUSF went to Italy and Germany. Five other countries (Austria, the Czech Republic, France, Romania and the United Kingdom) share another 23 % almost equally, while the remaining 18 % is split among a further 17 countries that have so far benefited from the EUSF. Overall aid intensity ranged from 2.3 % (Spain) to 5.4 % (Serbia). The largest aid payment in both nominal and real value was in 2002, when the EUSF was instituted (23 % of the aid provided so far). The second and third largest payments were made in 2012 (17 %) and 2009 (16 %). The EEA has made efforts to gather and harmonise flood impact records (EEA et al., 2013; EEA and ETC/CCA, 2013). In 2015, the EEA released the European Flood Impact Database (EFID) (), (ETC/ICM, 2015), which combines data reported by the Member States under the Floods Directive, complemented with data from EM-DAT and the DFO, along with additional data provided by the 2015 consultation (see Section 3.4 on river floods). The Copernicus Emergency Management Service (83) is not structured as a database, but for an event for which the service (83) http://emergency.copernicus.eu/ Impacts of natural hazards in Europe 115 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe has been activated it makes available geospatial information (e.g. flood extent) derived from satellite remote sensing and complemented by available in situ or open data sources. EFAS (84) (Bartholmes et al., 2009; Thielen et al., 2009) is a part of the Emergency Management Service. EFAS is a fully operational European system monitoring and forecasting floods, and provides complementary early warning information up to 10 days in advance. Growing population and economic wealth are driving the upward trend in disaster losses. Observed changes in extreme weather- and climate-related events, and possibly also the deteriorated status of natural ecosystems, may also have played a role. The stochastic nature of disaster risk with uncertain tail distributions, along with rather partial observations of disaster damage and impacts, make it difficult to estimate the extent to which observed climate change has already contributed to growing disaster losses. Although detecting climate signals in disaster loss records has attracted significant attention in the recent past (Crompton and McAneney, 2008; Barredo, 2010; Arghius et al., 2011; Barthel and Neumayer, 2011), this is arguably neither the sole nor the most notable purpose for which disaster impacts should be analysed. A better understanding of natural hazard risk and ensuing economic losses is important for preventing excessive macroeconomic imbalances, and for coordinating responses to shocks and crises within the European Economic and Monetary Union (Aizenman et al., 2013; Ureche-Rangau and Burietz, 2013). This is important in countries that have suffered most and that have not yet fully recovered from the recent economic, financial and sovereign debt crises. It is also important for disaster post recovery, and within the context of internal market regulation on State Aid conferred to business enterprises (Mysiak and Perez-Blanco, 2015). State Aid on a selective basis that distorts (or threatens to distort) free-market competition is incompatible with the EU internal (single) market, except for cases in which the aid is to make good the damage caused by natural disasters. Further, exposure to natural hazards exemplifies natural handicaps that hamper economic, social and territorial cohesion (Calliari and Mysiak, 2014). As an expression of solidarity that is articulated in the Treaty of the European Union, the ESUF (EU, 2002, 2014) was set up as a way to respond with financial assistance in an efficient and flexible manner in the event of a major natural disaster in a Member State or in a country negotiating membership. (84) https://www.efas.eu/Map 4.3 Overview of the notified State Aid programmes over the period 2006-2015 for all hazards covered (left); and for floods only (right) Note: State Aid for the 10-year period between 2006 and 2015. Source: EEA, based on http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/register70° 60° 50° 40°40° 30°30° 20°20° 10°10° 0°0° -10° -20° -30° 60° 50°50° 40°40°70° 60° 50° 40°40° 30°30° 20°20° 10°10° 0°0° -10° -20° -30° 60° 50°50° 40°40° Number of State Aid programmes over the period 2006-2015 for all hazards covered (left) and floods only (right) All hazard Floods only > 50 50-100> 100 > 50 50-100100-500 > 500 Outside coverageNo data05 00 1 000 1 500 kmAll hazard Floods only Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe116Selected cases of enhanced coherence 5.1 Introduction Chapter 5 reviews, in six selected cases, the extent to which coherence between CCA and DRR practices is effectively enhanced in several countries across Europe. In comparison with the examples presented in Section 2.3, the cases in this chapter demonstrate a higher level of coherence, and a more systematic overview of good practices is given to increase the potential for transferring lessons to other areas. We have selected the six cases from the literature and from examples that were gathered from a survey among a large number of EEA member countries and from the cases presented at a workshop held at the EEA on 11–13 April 2016. The selection is based on a number of criteria, which collectively define ‘good practice’ for enhancing coherence between CCA and DRR (see Chapter 1). More explicitly, this implies that: • enhanced coherence was stimulated deliberately and was not obtained by coincidence (this implies that its organisation is structural rather than incidental, and institutionalised rather than non-committal); • there should be added value for both CCA and DRR in the activities undertaken; • the enhanced coherence finds and exploits common ground between: −uncertainty and long-term perspective, as the main focus points of CCA; −risk management cycle, as the main focus point of DRR. Successful enhancement of the coherence between CCA and DRR means the following for: Governance: Organisations are integrated and coordinated, and have a mandate for this. Roles and responsibilities are clearly defined. Gaps have been identified and addressed. Financing: Available financing mechanisms can support coherent solutions for CCA and DRR. Strategies, policies and measures: Proposed adaptation, risk mitigation and transfer measures help in both coping with extreme events and taking into account possible long-term strategies. These are explicit choices supported by policies. Data and knowledge use: Knowledge and data such as hazard and risk data are available and used in combination with climate projections and scenarios in a similar fashion across both communities. Methods and tools: Methods and tools for risk assessment, planning and evaluation/monitoring include consideration of uncertainty of climate 5 Selected cases of enhanced coherence between climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction • A programmatic approach, initiated from the top down, executed from the bottom up, and supported by adequate funding and a long-term strategy, can deliver effective CCA and DRR integration. • Insurers are key players in CCA and DRR in three ways: (1) providing traditional risk mitigation; (2) providing knowledge and data; and (3) stimulating prevention through active participation and investment. • The combination of national agenda setting and local implementation and integration results in an effective execution of CCA and DRR strategies. • National Risk Assessments (NRAs) can serve as an effective base for CCA and DRR, since they provide a broader risk picture and give indications for tolerance thresholds. • Networks are key in motivating cities and in supporting capacity building for climate change policy. Existing differences in institutional, cultural and economic settings must not be ignored. Selected cases of enhanced coherence 117 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe change and are being shared, mainstreamed or co-developed. Monitoring and evaluation: Monitoring systems contribute to signalling of long-term trends in drivers, the evidence base on impacts (loss and damages), and assessment of success of implemented measures, with respect to both CCA and DRR objectives. The first three of the six cases describe programmes that are implemented at a national scale, while the remaining three have a more limited scope, addressing what could be considered as a tool: (1) The Netherlands: CCA and DRR as an example of a long-term programmatic approach (Section 5.2). (2) France, Spain and the United Kingdom: Insurance as an example of combining risk transfer and mitigation in public–private cooperation (Section 5.3). (3) Switzerland: CCA and DRR in Switzerland as an example of good local governance (Section 5.4). (4) The United Kingdom and the EU: Risk assessment as an example of a joint knowledge base for CCA and DRR (Section 5.5). (5) City networks: Promoting urban resilience for CCA and DRR (Section 5.6). (6) European Investment Bank: financing nature-based solutions for CCA and DRR (Section 5.7) 5.2 Case 1: Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in the Netherlands as an example of a long-term programmatic approach 5.2.1 Governance, strategy and financing In the Netherlands, the central government, water boards, provinces and municipalities are working together on climate proofing water risk management under a national programme that is referred to as the Delta Programme. Its primary aim and its long-term perspective, is to keep the Netherlands a good, safe and attractive place to live and work for present and future generations. It has three main goals: (1) keeping the Netherlands safe against floods; (2) guaranteeing, to a feasible degree, fresh water supply during dry periods; and (3) changing spatial planning to make urban areas and vital infrastructure climate proof and water resilient. The Delta Programme explicitly links CCA and DRR (Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, 2016). This is expressed in terms of common risk-based targets and in an organisational structure that guarantees horizontal integration between the responsible ministries and vertical integration with lower level authorities such as water boards, provinces and municipalities, and the ‘safety regions’ (85). Key success factors are that the Delta Programme is led by an independent high-level coordinator, it considers the financing of both planning and implementation, and it has a firm legal basis for this purpose (the Delta Act anchors the functioning of the coordinator, the programme and its funding of EUR 1 billion a year from 2020 onwards). The OECD described the governance of Dutch water management as a good practice. However, the OECD also pointed out that some improvements should be made in raising awareness with the public and in filling the gaps between science, policy and the operational level (OECD, 2014). 5.2.1 Policies and measures The Delta Programme has led to a new risk-based flood protection policy and standards based on three risk indicators: (1) Individual risk: A basic security for everyone living behind dikes (the probability of mortality as a result of a flood may not be more than 1 in 100 000 per year). This standard was introduced to be aligned with other disasters (e.g. chemical or nuclear accidents). (2) Economic risk: Prevent (as much as possible) large groups of casualties and major economic damage, up to a level for which total societal costs are minimised (Kind, 2014). (3) Societal risk: Prevent failure of vulnerable functions with national-scale consequences (e.g. nuclear power plants, major power interruptions). This new policy feeds directly into existing and future management practices. These are the continuous activities (prevention and preparedness) in DRM and asset management (e.g. dredging, maintenance, sand nourishment). Every year, the regional water authorities inspect their water protection infrastructure (dikes, dunes, barrier dams, sluices, etc.). As required by law, every 12 years the infrastructure is extensively assessed to find out if the protection standards are still met and where improvements are necessary. The (85) Denotes regions in which emergency organisations cooperate; see https://english.nctv.nl/ Selected cases of enhanced coherence 118 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europeprocedure takes climate change into account by adding margins to the design of new infrastructure that take into account 50 years’ worth of future climate change. The cyclical nature of this assessment makes it ideally suited to gradually adapting to changing river flows and sea levels. Reconstruction or new construction is considered every 50 to 100 years, due to ageing infrastructure. In its flood protection strategy the Delta Programme promotes multilayer safety policies and measures in which an optimal mix is proposed between: (1) Prevention to limit the risk of a flood disaster, using flood protection infrastructure such as dikes, dunes and barriers. More NBSs also lead to better flood prevention by giving more room to rivers and by reducing wave heights (Box 5.1). (2) Sustainable spatial planning, which aims at limiting the effects of flooding by establishing zoning measures, (evacuation) infrastructure planning and building codes (flood-proof building). 3) Crisis management to improve coping with residual risk and to reduce the consequences of a flood through emergency plans, shelters, evacuation and relief funds. In terms of the DRM cycle these layers relate mainly to protection, prevention, preparedness and response. The Delta Programme comprises a coherent set of measures for the short term, but also looks ahead to the medium and long term (until 2050). This phased approach to investment decision-making is driven by major uncertainties around future developments and the desirability of responsible financial investment. This should favour short-term low-regret measures that leave options open for the future. 5.2.3 Data and knowledge use The basis of water and damage models for impact and risk assessment and for evaluation of new flood risk management plans are shared by DRR and CCA communities. For instance, there is a public database (Lizard) (86) with risk assessment data and inundation model results that provides valuable input for crisis managers making evacuation plans, and for water managers planning for long-term investments.5.2.4 Methods and tools The Delta Programme has developed a new adaptive planning approach termed Adaptive Delta Management (ADM) (87). This approach is defined as ‘a smart way of taking account of uncertainties and dependencies in decision-making on Delta Management with a view to reducing the risk of overspending or underinvestment’. It enables the programme to speed up or slow down investments, and it enhances flexibility by facilitating possible shifts from one strategy to another. ADM starts out from short-term measures, which are linked to long-term perspectives. Short-term measures must be logical in the long term: they are useful, do not obstruct long-term measures, or are even necessary to keep long-term options open. Similar to the adaptation support tool from the Climate-ADAPT (88) portal, a stepwise planning cycle procedure is proposed consisting of vulnerability assessment, identification, evaluation and selection of measures, implementation, and monitoring. Key elements in ADM to incorporate climate change in the resulting flood risk management plans, and in this way integrating CCA in DRR plans, are: • The use of a range of scenarios. In the drought plan, the main uncertainties (i.e. the external trends that are both uncertain and have a high impact) were identified and described in the four so-called Delta Scenarios. These scenarios are used in all studies performed in the Delta Programme. The main uncertainties identified are the rate of climate change and the rate of economic growth or contraction. Scenarios can be used to assess future risk levels (there will be as many probability distributions as scenarios). There is a shift from optimal choices to robust solutions. • The specification of critical thresholds (at what level the system fails), to guide the order and timing of new measures to be implemented. • The envisioning of strategies as series of measures in pathways or route maps (Reeder and Ranger, 2011; Haasnoot et al., 2013). These pathways can serve to link short-term DRR measures to long-term CCA options (see also Figure 5.2) • Economic valuation methods that can value future options. (86) www.lizard.net (87) https://english.deltacommissaris.nl/delta-programme/contents/what-is-the-delta-programme/adaptive-deltamanagement (88) http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/knowledge/tools/adaptation-support-tool Selected cases of enhanced coherence 119 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe Box 5.1 Nature-based flood protection in the Noordwaard, south-western Netherlands For a new section of dike in the Noordwaard, south-western Netherlands, a first design was made following traditional design practice. This resulted in a large dike and a required crest height that would have a large negative impact on the landscape. In order to reduce the required crest height, a new design was made, based on a green measure. By planting a 60 to 80 m wide strip of willows on the outside foreland of the dike, wave height and wave run-up can be reduced, leading to a reduction of required crest height by 0.7 m and of the base width of the dike by 11 m (see Figure 5.1). Furthermore, the protection provided by the willows allows the dike to have a grass cover rather than stones or asphalt. The effectiveness of this measure was investigated and confirmed by a group of experts. The measure is currently being implemented. Figure 5.1 Schematics of Nature- based flood protection in the Noordwaard (The Netherlands) Source: Adapted from Deltares, see https://publicwiki.deltares.nl/display/BWN1/Case+-+Wave+reducing+Eco+DikeWillowsDike 100 m 5.2.5 Concluding remarks on Case 1 In Section 5.1 we introduced three criteria for the identification of good practice of coherence between CCA and DRR. Judging the Delta Programme against these criteria, we conclude the following.• Criterion 1: ‘The arrangements are structural and institutionalised rather than coincidental and non-committal’. • The case study makes clear that the institutional arrangements of the Delta Programme are Design water level 3,5 m +MSL Free flowing area Wave height reducing willows Path Outer slope Inner slope Ditch Trees1:3 1.50 + 1:5 4.30+ + 60-80 m_ 65 m+_ 2 m1.0 m+Polder water level 0,7 m +MSLSecond year willows Height ca 4 mFirst year willowsHeight ca 2,5 m Selected cases of enhanced coherence 120 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europeunderpinned by law and can rely on a long-term commitment of national and regional authorities. • Criterion 2: ‘Added value can be identified for both CCA and DRR’. For CCA the added value of the Delta Programme is found in the large amount of knowledge (both formal and informal, via improved calculation models and other knowledge-sharing tools, extensive stakeholder involvement, and structural incorporation of uncertainties by a scenario approach) that was developed in the Programme on the impacts of climate change on hydrology, economy, society and environment. Furthermore, low-regret management decisions are identified that fit well with long-term potential changes. For DRR the added value is found mainly in the field of flood risk management. The Delta Programme has increased awareness of potential flood disasters with both authorities and the wider public, e.g. by supporting the television series ‘If the dikes break’. It has increased resilience by targeting the dike improvement scheme on the most vulnerable sections, by evacuation drills and by renewed institutional arrangements between water and disaster management communities. For drought management, however, the added value of the Delta Programme in DRR is less prominent. Although the societal impact of droughts can be large, true disasters are not anticipated in the Dutch context. • Criterion 3: ‘Common ground between focus of DRR (on preparedness, response and prevention) and of CCA (on uncertainty and longer term) is found and exploited’. Common ground between CCA and DRR is found in sharing models, data and information. This can be considered established practice. The interplay between CCA and DRR is made visible in the adaptation pathways, to which both contribute. CCA provides a long-term view on hazards and tipping points, and DRR provides short-term measures. By checking these against the long-term pathways, they can be designed in such a way that they do not cause lock-ins or misinvestments. Common risk-based indicators and targets have been identified and made operational. Figure 5.2 Adaptation pathway map for the River Waal Note: The figure shows the capacity of different flood risk management actions to cope with increasing design discharges. An adaptation tipping point indicates when standards are no longer met. Also shown are possibilities to transfer from one measure (policy action) to another, to further increase robustness against increasing discharges. Source: Haasnoot, 2013. Flood proof urban areasAdapt river distribution or large green rivers Room for the river actions Unbreachable dikesDike raisingSecond layer of Safety co ncept First layer of Safety conce pt Current situation incl. planned actions 17000 18000 19000 16000 20000Design discharge m3/s 21002100 Time in a scenario with a small climate change (G) Time in a scenario with a large climate change (W p) 2050 2050 Transfer station to new p olicy actions Adaptation Tipping Point of a policy action (Termi nal) Adaptation Pathway Selected cases of enhanced coherence 121 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe An additional observation for this case is that, in the Netherlands, climate change is commonly considered as a matter of national priority. The sense of urgency is widely felt. As the Delta Commission put it in 2008, ‘the threat is not acute, but the task (of being prepared) is urgent’ (Deltacommissie, 2008). Transfer of the approach to other countries is likely to benefit from a similar sense of urgency, whether it is caused by flood risks, drought risks (e.g. in the Mediterranean) or other climate-related risks (see, for example, the Swiss case below). Further considerations on the transferability of the Delta Programme approach to other countries in Europe are discussed in Chapter 6. 5.3 Case 2: Insurance in Spain and additional examples of combining risk transfer and mitigation in public-private cooperation 5.3.1 Governance Most climate-related natural catastrophes in Spain are covered by the Consorcio de Compensación de Seguros (CCS) (Extraordinary Risks Insurance Scheme) (89). CCS is a public entity with its own legal nature and resources, and was established in 1941. It covers both natural and man-made hazards (e.g. terrorism). It provides a good example of public–private partnership: the CCS board consists of seven members from private insurance companies and seven members from public administration. Among other duties in the service of the Spanish insurance sector, it offers obligatory and affordable insurance to extraordinary risks on top of private insurance among Spanish households, companies and individuals. The hydrometeorological risks of riverine and coastal floods, and storms (wind over 120 km/h) are covered. Other natural hazards such as hail, avalanches or the direct effects of rainfall are covered by private companies. The CCS provides this coverage through the insurance policies issued by private companies, and receives its premiums through a proportional surcharge included in the invoices of these private insurance policies. This surcharge does not depend on local risk level. This arrangement is based on the intuition that the wide coverage of different uncorrelated risks and locations leads to internal compensation. This means that the surcharges are calculated based on the overall risk level of all the types of exposure, for all the risks considered. The Extraordinary Risk Insurance Scheme in Spain is not the only such public–private sponsored scheme in Europe. Another mature example, with more than 50 years of experience, is the French CatNat scheme. In the United Kingdom, the Flood Re (90) was recently launched to provide affordable flood coverage for British households. Instead of direct and compulsory insurance for households, it provides subsidised reinsurance to private companies with the aim of increasing availability and choice of affordable policies. 5.3.2 Policies and measures In general, insurance helps to increase resilience to natural disasters by compensating damages after an event and in this way leading to faster and better recovery. If climate change leads to more extreme events in the future, insurers may have to adapt their insurance policies (e.g. by raising prices, lowering compensation, etc.). Efforts to include the increase in damages into insurance risk models are, however, hampered by the lack of data and prevailing uncertainties around the degree to which climate change is occurring, as well as the change in frequency and severity of extreme events. Despite this, it is generally believed that there will be a trade-off between the principle of affordability (low premiums) and sufficient risk coverage under future climate change (Surminski and Eldridge, 2015). In the Spanish case, due to the large pool of risks covered by the high number of insurance policies (approximately EUR 115 million), CCS expects to keep the current insurance scheme affordable in the coming decades. At the same time, the insurance scheme can be relatively easily adapted to changing circumstances, as has been done on several occasions in the past. The insurance sector should not only improve its own resilience but should also contribute to the capacity of society to tackle the underlying problems of rising greenhouse gas emissions and increasing disaster risks. It could do so, for example, by fostering a better understanding of the underlying issues or by encouraging and incentivising behavioural change, and supporting new technologies and risk transfer needs (89) www.consorseguros.es (90) www.floodre.co.uk Selected cases of enhanced coherence 122 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe(Surminski, 2016). During a workshop on insurance and climate-related natural disasters (91), an insurance sector representative stressed the importance of implementing more prevention measures, and adaptation strategies and plans, to close the gap between insured and economic losses. This gap could also be stimulated by risk-based pricing. The involvement of the insurance sector in this risk reduction effort is generally in the role of a major disaster data provider through cooperation with decision-makers, and in the role of a leading investor in mitigating climate change risks (Figure 5.3) (Espejo Gil, 2016). Therefore, CCS closely cooperates with national and international institutes such as the Spanish Bureau for Climate Change (OECC), the Spanish State Meteorological Agency (AEMET), the General Directorate for Water (DGA), the Directorate General of Civil Protection and Emergency (attached to the Ministry of the Interior), and several universities and research institutions, on improving awareness and understanding of risks, e.g. by providing guidelines on flood proofing for the Spanish building sector. In theory, risk-based pricing should help prevent moral hazard (i.e. where insurance becomes a disincentive to take risk reducing action for those who take out cover) and promote risk reduction behaviour among the insured, but evidence about how this works in practice is limited (Surminski, 2016). We provide examples from France, Spain and the United Kingdom. CCS has seen a four-fold reduction in the mean costs of claims related to hydrometeorological hazards from 1980 until present, despite the fact that there has been no significant change in hazard occurrence during this period. The main reason for this is that improved awareness and better alert systems and protection Figure 5.3 Insurance coverage of climate-related hazards in Spain covered by CCS Note: Prepared and presented by F. Espejo Gil at the EEA Workshop on CCA and DRR on April 11 2016. Source: Adapted from Espejo Gil, 2016. (91) www.enhanceproject.eu/news/articles/135Insurance coverage of climate-related hazards in Spain Hazards covered by the current coverage schemes HAZARDS INSURANCE COVER Natural hazards potentially harmful to properties and individuals Ordinary insurance cover CCS extraordinary risk insurance Coverage system based on public-private partnership: Consorco de Compensación de Segurosand the Spanish insurance industryPrivate insurance companies cover these hazards, on a free tariff-risk based principleWildfire rain, snow, hail avalanche and landslide strong wind (<120Km/h) Flood Coastal flood Strong wind (>120 Km/h) and Tornado • Coverage system based in a co-insurance pool of private insurance companies (AGROSEGURO) with CSS as reinsurer. • Insured (farmers and cattle-breeders) benefit from public subsidies (from national and regional budgets) to help them pay premiums.Natural hazards potentially harmfulto agriculture and livestock Flood Drought Heat wave Frost Strong windCover through combinedagricultural insurance Selected cases of enhanced coherence 123 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe measures have been implemented and proven effective. The fact that insurance premiums are not risk based, and that the lack of this incentive in Spain did not prevent risk reduction from occurring, confirm that risk transfer measures such as insurance can and should go together with other risk reduction measures. In any case, CCS applies some measures to further encourage risk reduction measures among the insured: deductibles are applied to commercial policyholders, and a principle of proportionality is enforced in the event of compensation for underinsurance. Additionally, in case of recurrent claims, compensation may depend on the level of implementation of the resilience enhancement measures suggested after the previous claim. Likewise, an important part of the Flood Re scheme in the United Kingdom is to provide information to consumers about how to increase understanding of their level of flood risk, and about how they can take action to reduce that risk (92). In December 2015, the new French insurance association AFA released a white paper on the impacts of natural catastrophes and made proposals to adapt the current insurance pool, since costs of natural hazards may more than double in the next 25 years. Much emphasis is placed on boosting the risk management capabilities of the state, and on promoting a culture of prevention among local governments and companies in order to mitigate the effects of floods, droughts and other weather-related hazards (Amaral, 2016). 5.3.3 Data and knowledge use Through strong cooperation with research institutes, national and regional water management authorities and an open-data policy, CCS always uses the latest science on climate change and always has optimal insight in damage history. In addition, by sharing its insights and data, it aids other institutes to plan and design better for future climate risks in Spain. The long and detailed records of impacts across Spain are a good base for risk knowledge and mitigation studies. 5.3.4 Concluding remarks on Case 2 In Section 5.1 we introduced three criteria for the identification of good practice of coherence between CCA and DRR. Judging the insurance programmes of this case against these criteria, we conclude the following. −Criterion 1: ‘The arrangements are structural and institutionalised rather than coincidental and non-committal’. The institutional arrangements of the insurance schemes have a long history, are underpinned by legal and financial arrangements, and can rely on the long-term commitment of national authorities and the private sector. The interests of the main stakeholders are secured by their roles and influence. The CCS has its own legal status and resources, much like the Delta Programme discussed in Case 1. −Criterion 2: ‘Added value can be identified for both CCA and DRR’. For CCA the added value of insurance is found in the measures taken to change preventive behaviour and adopt new technologies. For DRR the added value is found mainly in the increased resilience of society after events covered by the insurance schemes (extraordinary floods, coastal floods, windstorms and tornados). −Criterion 3: ‘Common ground between focus of DRR (on preparedness, response and prevention) and of CCA (on uncertainty and longer term) is found and exploited’. Common ground between CCA and DRR is found in sharing models and disaster data, and in discerning trends. This can be considered established practice. It has led to cooperation between the actors involved, both public and private. Furthermore, the insurance sector is considered one of the major investors in climate change risk mitigation (Espejo Gil, 2016). This has been successful, given the decrease in the size of the average claim from 1980 until present. The Spanish example suggests that insurance, coupled with stimulation of adaptation measures, may provide an effective remedy. An observation relevant for this case is that the role of insurance in CCA and DRR differs widely across Europe. The differences are rooted both in physical circumstances defining the amount of (simultaneous) risk at local to national scale, thereby co-defining the potential role of national authorities, and in political and cultural tradition. These characteristics cannot be ignored when considering the transfer of insurance strategies. This requires careful analysis of all relevant factors. (92) http://www.floodre.co.uk Selected cases of enhanced coherence 124 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe5.4 Case 3: Local governance in climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Switzerland 5.4.1 Climate change in Switzerland In the course of the 21st century, Switzerland’s climate, as an Alpine country, is projected to depart significantly from present and past conditions. Climate change has increasingly entered into the awareness of society and politics, because climate data show distinct trends and glacier reduction in the Alps is now obvious. Slow changes with possible abrupt effects are expected, but also changes in extreme events (Appenzeller, 2011). An update of the climate scenarios is planned for 2018. This leads to a need for reassessment of known natural hazards and partly also for a recognition of new threats. These emerging issues are followed up in the formulation of a national strategy for natural hazards (PLANAT, 2014), currently being updated, and in a national strategy for CCA. These two strategies, along with the measures stemming from them, are strongly interconnected and the potential synergies are to a large degree being exploited. 5.4.2 Governance Horizontal governance practice The Swiss climate adaptation strategy is coordinated by the Interdepartmental Committee on Climate (IDA Climate). Ten federal agencies are involved, among them the Federal Office for Civil Protection and the Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN). The latter has the overall responsibility for developing the strategy. The Swiss National Platform for Natural Hazards (PLANAT) is an extra-parliamentary commission of the Swiss Federal Council, and is mainly responsible for coordinating concepts in the field of prevention against natural hazards. Its members represent the Confederation, the cantons, research, professional associations, the private sector and insurance firms. For the implementation of DRR on the national level, the Hazard Prevention Division of FOEN is responsible for dealing with risks to human life, the environment and major assets arising from avalanches, floods, debris flows, landslides, rockfall processes, earthquakes and major accidents. For disaster management, an integrated system for management, protection, rescue and assistance is in place, which is coordinated by the Federal Office for Civil Protection. This supports the cantons and municipalities, and coordinates the national disaster risk analysis and the warning system for natural hazards. Finally, it is also responsible for the national alerting system. As a result of these arrangements, cooperation at federal level between climate adaptation, protection against natural hazards and civil protection is an institutionalised, accepted element in working practice. Vertical governance practice As a result of the decentralised system in Switzerland, operational responsibility for dealing with natural hazards and for civil protection lies, by law, first and foremost with the cantons and municipalities. The federal authorities define strategy and principles, advise the cantons on sustainable protection measures, provide subsidies and adopt an overall control function. 5.4.3 Strategies The ‘Strategy natural hazards Switzerland’ was formulated by PLANAT in 2004 and will be updated in 2017 (PLANAT, 2004). It describes the present state of dealing with these hazards in Switzerland, and identifies current and future areas of action. Insights and requirements from CCA and disaster management are integrated in the recommendations. The adaptation strategy is divided into two parts. The first part (FOEN, 2012) describes the goals, challenges and fields of action in adaption to climate change. The action plan for 2014–2019, the second part of the strategy (BAFU, 2014a) (93), contains 63 adaptation measures that aim to take advantage of the opportunities provided by climate change, minimise risks and increase the adaptive capacity of natural and socio-economic systems. Among others, the strategy defined the following principle that applies when adapting to climate change (FOEN, 2012): ‘Adapting to climate change is based on a risk approach. The opportunities and risks which arise for Switzerland as a result of climate change are analysed, evaluated and compared.’ This is a sound basis for synergy between risk management and CCA. (93) BAFU (Bundesamt für Umwelt) and FOEN (Federal Office for the Environment) are the abbreviations in German and English of the same institute. As the 2012 publication is available in English its author is named FOEN, while the 2014 publication, in German only, is included under the name of BAFU. Selected cases of enhanced coherence 125 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe FOEN states that the principles of sustainability, in relation to the environment, are (FOEN, 2012): −Adaptation measures with a positive effect on the environment and ecosystem services should be promoted, and those with a negative effect on the environment and ecosystem services avoided. −Emphasis should be placed on adaptation measures, which encourage and benefit natural regulating processes. 5.4.4 Measures The 63 adaptation measures in the action plan for 2014-2019 were developed by the responsible departments and are implemented mainly within various sectoral policies. Focus is on nine sectors that are particularly affected by climate change, and where the federal government has possibilities for action: water management, natural hazards management, agriculture, forestry, energy, biodiversity management, health, spatial development and tourism (see selected examples in Box 5.2). Focus areas for action in DRR and CCA Implementing integrated risk management already presents a major challenge. Climate change puts additional burden on the existing disaster risk situation. Changes are expected in the geographical extent and yearly distribution of natural hazards. Therefore additional efforts are needed, primarily in the following areas, and ongoing activities in these areas must be intensified and accelerated: 1. Continuously monitor all relevant developments in relation to hazard processes and hazard events, risks, and the effectiveness of measures (e.g. periodical examination of the protective effect of existing installations, optimising existing measurement and observation networks). Continue to develop and improve methodology for identifying new natural hazard processes, including changes in known hazardous areas caused by climate change, in coordination with neighbouring countries (e.g. new potential bed sill processes, early detection and monitoring of glacial lakes). 2. Know your hazards and risks, including observation of ‘extraordinary’ scenarios (national and regional/local risk overviews (hazard maps, risk assessments, development of damage potential, etc.). 3. Implement adaptable and robust protection measures (considering the overload case, with dimensions that take adequate account of existing uncertainties such as flow rate, total discharge, amount of bedload and transport rate of bedload and maintenance of ‘protection forest’). 4. Continuously update and implement hazard maps in spatial planning (avoid hazards, use space according to risk and taking climate scenarios into account). 5. Improve emergency management (including emergency plans, training of emergency teams and early warning on the climate change situation). 6. Expand research activities to improve the basis for assessing hazard processes and specifically evaluate the effectiveness of CCA measures in conjunction with countries in the Alpine region (harmonise data and terminology, and exchange experiences). Raise awareness and educate the public on the impact of climate change in relation to natural hazards (people know what the hazards are and what they can do, and therefore can take action themselves); involve all stakeholders in risk dialogue. 5.4.5 Methods and tools To support the cantons, regions and municipalities in dealing with new challenges, FOEN has launched the pilot programme ‘Adaptation to climate change’. The pilot projects of this programme have a maximum duration of 3 years (2014–2016). They are grouped in five thematic clusters, one of which is ‘natural hazards’. The six pilot projects of this cluster are presented on the FOEN pilot website (94). 5.4.6 Data and knowledge use Both the federal and cantonal level provide a large amount of information on natural hazards and risks, which is publicly available through websites and publications, and applicable for both adaptation and risk reduction measures. The information provided extends from professional know-how to practical advice for the population. Some examples are the following: • Since early 2012, PLANAT has provided a comprehensive online database that compiles information and good practice examples. (94) http://www.bafu.admin.ch/klimaanpassung-pilotprogramm Selected cases of enhanced coherence 126 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in EuropeBox 5.2 Switzerland — Green measures Forests as protection against landslides and avalanches Forests as protection measures Forests can provide effective protection against rockfalls, landslides and avalanches. The newly developed Protect Bio method (BAFU, 2014b) enables the evaluation of this ecosystem service, by assessing nine aspects: (1) effects, (2) uncertainties, (3) scenarios, (4) system delineation, (5) permanence of availability, (6) monitoring and maintenance, (7) temporary measures, (8) planned works, and (9) time. These aspects are examined following defined protocols with regard to their applicability to and relevance for the protection forest. The method was implemented for the first time in a protection forest on the Fuorn Pass road in the Engadin region. Around half of Switzerland’s forest area is classified as protection forest. Protection forests were neglected for decades until an approach based on a new assessment was introduced in the 1990s. Since then the federal authorities, cantons and communes have provided annual funding of around EUR 145 million for the maintenance of protection forests. This represents a good investment, since the economic value of the protection forest is put at EUR 3.8 billion per year. It is imperative that over-aged and uniform stands be regenerated. The protective effect of the forest must sometimes be boosted through targeted structural measures. However, Protect Bio shows that such measures are not always necessary. The consistent use of Protect Bio throughout Switzerland could enable savings of many millions of euros on technical protective structures — this increases the value of the protection forest still further. However, this stage has not yet been reached. The data necessary for the role of protection forest services, which are more difficult to quantify for natural hazard processes such as avalanches, landslides and debris flows, are not yet available. In the context of these natural hazards, there are plans to use Protect Bio in other locations in the years to come, as well as to improve its validation. Source: BAFU, 2014b; http://www.bafu.admin.ch/naturgefahren/14144/15299/15326/index.html?lang=en Maintenance of protection forests Compared with the slow processes in the forest (growth, seed distribution, genetic adaptability, etc.), climate change threatens to occur at a rate that overwhelms natural adaptation processes. Important forest products and services such as protection against natural hazards could be reduced or disappear. The first adaptation measures should reduce existing risks, increase adaptability through carefully planned regeneration and reduce future risks. The fields of action identified include the critical protection of forests with a protective function in which there is a combination of insufficient regeneration and reduced stability. These forests are particularly vulnerable to extreme events. As an example, major outbreaks of bark beetles were observed in protection forests, resulting from the Lothar winter storm in 1999 and the dry summer in 2003. Such outbreaks had never occurred at this altitude before. Actions taken include forest regeneration, technical measures to increase slope stability and measures to prevent outbreaks of bark beetles (FOEN, 2012). Green measure: room for the river Up until a few years ago, the River Aire near Geneva flowed through a straight concrete channel. Following periods of heavy rain it repeatedly breached its banks and posed a flood risk to some of the city’s neighbourhoods. A flood protection project, which is being combined with the ecological upgrading of the watercourse, was initiated in 2002. A long stretch of the stream bed was widened, the discharge slowed down as a result and the flood peaks in the lower reaches were dissipated. Since 2011, the Waters Protection Act (95) has prescribed a minimum space for streams and rivers. The buffer strips along banks that already exist today must be extended, particularly along major watercourses. Around 20 000 ha of land is required for this throughout Switzerland, mainly in agricultural areas. The land will not be lost to agriculture, as extensive grassland use for cattle raising and hay production is still possible. Source: BAFU, 2014b; http://www.bafu.admin.ch/naturgefahren/14144/15299/15324/index.html?lang=en (95) https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified-compilation/19983281/201401010000/814.201.pdf Selected cases of enhanced coherence 127 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe • Geo7, commissioned by BAFU, has developed a methodology to assess the spatial sensitivity of natural risks to climate change (geo7, 2015). • MeteoSwiss operates its meteorological RADAR network, allowing better precipitation estimates by providing downscaled climate data to all stakeholders. • The latest data can also be used for DRR long-term planning and the computation of new precipitation statistics (used to model rainfall). • The FOEN project Climate Change and Hydrology in Switzerland (CCHydro), which: assesses the effects of climate change on the water balance in Switzerland up to the year 2100; provides hazard maps (available for the majority of Swiss municipalities), accessible to the public. Furthermore, private companies specialised in meteorological forecasting, insurance and reinsurance companies, and individual cantons have developed websites, flyers, handbooks and electronic tools. 5.4.7 Concluding remarks on Case 3 Judging the Swiss case against the three criteria introduced in Section 5.1, we conclude the following: −Criterion 1: The arrangements are structural and institutionalised, rather than coincidental and non-committal. Formal arrangements have been put into place to secure cooperation between CCA, disaster management and civil protection; between federal organisations, the private sector and research; and vertically between the federal, cantonal and local authorities. −Criterion 2: Added value can be identified for both CCA and DRR. The approach followed in Switzerland has benefited CCA by improved modelling of climate change, by identification and modelling of known and emerging impacts of climate change, by shared knowledge development and by formulating long-term visions and policy goals. The approach has benefited DRR by developing improved risk maps, risk assessments and assessments of emerging risks, and by putting a monitoring system of ‘threshold’ phenomena in place. −Criterion 3: Common ground between the focus of DRR (on preparedness, response and prevention) and of CCA (on uncertainty and longer term) is found and exploited. Shared databases, shared models and shared information on hazards are operational. Measures for DRR are put in a long-term framework provided by CCA. Rebuilding after an event is guided by design principles that are based, among other things, on climate change projections. Gaining experience in pilot projects is expected to contribute to knowledge sharing between CCA and DRR. There seem to be no major constraints on the transferability of the Swiss approach to other countries. The underlying principles of convening the key stakeholders in the process of defining strategies and guiding their implementation can be applied everywhere. As in the Dutch case, a commonly felt sense of urgency is key. 5.5 Case 4: National risk assessments as a joint knowledge base for climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction 5.5.1 National risk assessments National risk assessments (NRAs) are basic instruments to inform DRR. At the same time these very same assessments can play a role in developing CCA plans. This enhanced CCA/DRR coherence requires as a minimum a common understanding and use of relevant risk metrics but can be further enhanced by explicitly dealing with climate change in the risk assessment. The OECD has recently presented a state-of-play report regarding NRAs in 16 countries, including European countries and Australia, Korea, New Zealand and the United States (OECD, 2016). A second report presents the results of a comparison of the approaches followed (OECD, 2016). The time horizon applied in most countries is 5 years, thus excluding the long-term impacts of climate change and slow socio-economic developments. In a few countries only are longer horizons, of up to a 100 years, used for at least some of the risks. ‘Over-the horizon’ risk scanning may have different time-frames, depending on whether or not the objective is to provide strategic early warning of future developments in the risk profile of the country, to help the government decide on its priorities for Selected cases of enhanced coherence 128 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europelonger term investment (the United Kingdom and, in future, the Netherlands). This helps governments hedge their bets in building national resilience (United States), or to assess the need to build additional (or less) resilience in national infrastructure assets with a lengthy life expectancy. NRAs are a necessary but not sufficient basis for this kind of risk trend analysis (OECD, 2016). The conclusion therefore is that the time horizon used for most of the NRAs is still too short to directly inform long-term investments with respect to climate risks. Some of the NRAs (6 out of 20) have been developed to define risk tolerance levels and to undertake hazard mapping. In those cases, a joint knowledge base for CCA and DRR can help to identify tipping points where climate change can lead to exceeding such levels. The NRA processes have provided useful background information for broader planning to improve the resilience of all sectors. This includes the longer term assessment of the potential effects of climate change, which is beginning to feed into national adaptation planning and building regulations (OECD, 2016). One of the key messages of these reports is that, while in many countries the focus is on natural disasters, an all-hazards approach is useful to identify interlinkages between natural phenomena and man-made events. This relates to the topic of ‘cascading effects’, and may call for increased understanding of interlinkages such as those between floods and health, or between prolonged droughts and terrorism. For flood hazards the EU Floods Directive is a common tool for river basin vulnerability and risk assessments. Climate change is receiving increasing attention in the flood risk management plans that are made and reported under the Floods Directive. Around 50 % of the current flood risk management plans, reported in 2015, already take the effects of climate change into account, while this will be a common requirement for the next reporting cycle, due by 2022 (WRC, 2015). 5.5.2 Concluding remarks on Case 4 Case 4 is of a different nature to the preceding cases in this chapter, as it focuses on one specific arrangement. The added value of NRAs for CCA depends on the time horizon chosen in the NRAs. A short time horizon limits the value for CCA. The added value of NRAs for DRR is more obvious, as it provides the basis for DRR planning. The common ground that NRAs may help to exploit are the understanding and use of risk metrics, tipping points and the timing of reaching these. 5.6 Case 5: City networks promoting urban resilience for climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction Urban adaptation to climate change has already taken off in Europe (EEA, 2016). Not only frontrunner cities, such as Copenhagen, Hamburg, London and Rotterdam, but also a vast group of other cities are planning and implementing adaptation measures. Many cities are also implementing measures to directly reduce the risk of disasters, managing water and creating green urban spaces. Many national adaptation policies include urban adaptation explicitly. These measures contribute directly to improved resilience although they are not labelled as CCA. Furthermore, the frontrunners have now started to implement adaptation measures and to develop first ideas for monitoring and reporting. The EEA report Urban adaptation to climate change in Europe 2016 — Transforming cities in a changing climate also mentions that such ongoing activities may be insufficient and lead to lock-in: ‘The challenge is to find ways to close the gap between the few frontrunner cities and the many cities that have just — or not yet — begun’ (EEA, 2016). City networks can play a role in spreading knowledge and tools, and in inspiring and stimulating cities that yet have to start. 5.6.1 Existing city networks on climate change and resilience There are many networks of cities addressing climate change and risk reduction. They may aim at national, regional or global levels. Some focus explicitly on climate change, others consider climate change as one of the elements of a wider scope such as sustainability, innovation or resilience. The initiators of these networks vary from the European Commission (e.g. in the case of Mayors Adapt) to Commission-funded programmes (e.g. Climate-KIC for Eurbanlab) and projects such as Interreg, or to funding bodies such as the Rockefeller Foundation (e.g. 100 Resilient Cities). Selected cases of enhanced coherence 129 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe Some illustrative examples of international city networks addressing climate change and resilience (non-exhaustive) are: The Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy — http://www.covenantofmayors.eu/ — brings together local and regional authorities voluntarily committing to implementing the EU’s mitigation, adaptation and sustainable energy objectives on their territory. It was formed at the end of 2015 by merging Mayors Adapt and the former Covenant of Mayors. Mayors Adapt was set up by the European Commission when the EU Climate Adaptation Strategy was launched in 2013, aiming to engage cities in taking action to adapt to climate change. Mayors Adapt facilitated these activities by providing technical support, by providing a platform for greater engagement and networking between cities, and by raising public awareness about adaptation and the measures needed for it (EC, 2013). In 2016 a mid-term review was published for the period 2012–2014 (O’Brien et al., 2016). • The Compact of Mayors — https://www. compactofmayors.org/ — was launched under the UN with the leadership of global city networks (C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, ICLEI, and United Cities and Local Governments), along with the support of UN-Habitat. This is a common platform for cities around the world to highlight the impact of their collective climate actions. • The Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy — http://www.globalcovenantofmayors. org/ — was launched in 2016 as a merged initiative of the Compact of Mayors and the Covenant of Mayors, and aims to become the broadest global coalition committed to climate leadership in cities. This global initiative can allow comparisons between cities and regions all around the world, to combat climate change by moving to a low-carbon society and fostering local climate resilience. • The European Urban Agenda — https://ec.europa. eu/futurium/en/node/1829 — is a joint effort between the European Commission, EU Member States and cities to strengthen recognition of the urban dimension by EU and national policy actors. It represents a new working method to stimulate growth, liveability and innovation in the cities of Europe. • C40 — http://www.c40.org/ — is a group of now over 80 cities worldwide, committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and climate risks. It helps cities identify, develop, and implement local policies and programmes that have collective global impact. It provides direct technical assistance, facilitation of peer-to-peer exchange, and research and communications. • UNISDR’s Making Cities Resilient Campaign — https://www.unisdr.org/we/campaign/cities — works towards sustainable urbanisation by taking meaningful action. The campaign, launched in May 2010, addresses issues of local governance and urban risk. The campaign is led by the UNISDR but is self-motivating and partnership and city driven, with an aim to raise the profile of resilience and DRR among local governments and urban communities worldwide. • 100 Resilient Cities — http://www.100resilientcities. org — has been pioneered by the Rockefeller Foundation and is dedicated to helping cities around the world to become more resilient to the physical, social and economic challenges that are a growing part of the 21st century. • ICLEI Resilient Cities — http://resilient-cities.iclei.org/ — is an annual global forum on urban resilience and adaptation, also including an Open European Day on adaptation (http://resilientcities2017.iclei.org/ open-european-day/). 5.6.2 Strategies and measures for learning and exchange A common feature of these networks is the absence of a hierarchical form of authority and power (such as regulation, sanction and force). Instead their authority relies on strategies such as (1) information and communication, (2) project funding and cooperation, and (3) recognition, benchmarking and certification. Each of these three strategies have their positives and negatives. Information and communication exchange is appealing, as it demands few resources and little intervention but offers less certainty on what is achieved and for whom. On the other hand, more active strategies such as recognition, benchmarking and certification can lead to a focus on the most active partners, alienating the rest (Kern and Bulkeley, 2009). Indeed, most of the city networks active in Europe deploy activities aimed at: • sharing knowledge and experience, sharing adaptation strategies and best practices, and sharing connections between partners; • supporting the inclusion of climate adaptation, DRR and spatial development by providing methods and tools; Selected cases of enhanced coherence 130 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe• enhancing the vision of the future by development of scenarios and adaptation strategies; • raising awareness among citizens and administrations by increasing visibility and providing tools and educational materials. An evaluation of intermediate results of the former Mayors Adapt (now integrated in the Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy) is provided in their mid-term review (EC 2016). An important feature of this network is that it provides, beyond the horizontal links between cities, vertical two-way links between cities and the European Commission. This dimension also helps in raising the visibility of adaptation as a political priority. One of the positive impacts mentioned is that this network will help to ensure that the policymaking process continues, even if the elected leadership changes. Larger cities may be more likely to join international networks than smaller ones. The value of the network is particularly high in countries where similar national networks are absent. For large cities international networks are more likely to meet their needs than national ones, as at the national level the number of similar cities with similar challenges is limited. The specific role and function of different networks may differ, overlapping and complementing each other, and providing incentives to individual cities to take part or to refrain from doing so. In a broader sense the role of city networks, in particular their function in motivating cities and supporting capacity building in the area of climate change policy, is crucial and should be rewarded with recognition and reliable funding from national governments or international agencies. However, a number of caveats apply in the transfer and subsequent uptake of experiences. A study (Slotboom, 2015) identifies nine factors that influence lesson drawing, with four of them putting the strongest constraints on lesson drawing: (1) complexity of the issue; (2) institutional context; (3) economic feasibility; and (4) different languages (of the actors involved). Kern and Bulkeley (2009) note that information strategies for network governance that aim at communication and providing information provide little guarantee of the quality, replicability and transferability of examples. Members of the network consequently speak of the need to find the ‘real story’ behind the official storylines. Furthermore, ‘there is less evidence that best practice is actually taken up and acted on in a direct sense. Instead, it is often merely used as a source of inspiration’ (Kern and Bulkeley, 2009). 5.6.3 Concluding remarks on Case 5 City networks are an important tool for sharing knowledge and raising awareness, both horizontally and vertically. Their reported activities show that they help in promoting the integration of CCA and DRR. The effectiveness of knowledge transfer and uptake of experiences that can be expected from these networks is co-defined by their organisational arrangements. A more demanding, hierarchical arrangement promotes effectiveness, but may come at the cost of alienating smaller, less active partners. 5.7 Case 6: Financing nature-based solutions for CCA and DRR – the European Investment Bank The European Investment Bank (EIB) is one of the largest investors in global infrastructure. The EIB has acquired substantial experience in Disaster Risk Management (DRM) related operations in recent years. 78 projects with a total value of nearly EUR 19 billion have made a significant contribution to major and local DRM programmes signed in the past 15 years. The EIB increasingly integrates nature-based solutions in the projects it finances. Examples can be found in several sectors such as the water sector or in the area of urban development (see Box 5.3). 5.7.1 Natural Capital Finance Facility The EIB has set up a financing instrument along with the European Commission, specifically dedicated to financing nature-based solutions for climate adaptation — the Natural Capital Finance Facility (NCFF). The NCFF is a new finance instrument which aims specifically at financing projects which apply nature-based solutions to adaptation measures. The instrument is currently in a pilot phase over the period 2015–2019 and aims to generate a revenue stream or achieve cost savings in order to pay back the investment. As such projects are relatively new and untested, the instrument includes an equity-type component to reduce risk, and a technical assistance component. This latter component aims to Selected cases of enhanced coherence 131 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe support the projects over their entire life-cycle. Support could include advice on technical, market, financial, economic and legal aspects as well as the monitoring and evaluation of the impacts of the project in order to build up a knowledge base on nature-based solutions. The lending volume to such projects can range from a minimum of EUR 2 million to a maximum of EUR 15 million per project. 5.7.2 Concluding remarks on Case 6 Nature-based solutions for climate adaptation that can be financed under the NCFF are broad and range from the re-naturalisation of rivers to reduce the risk of downstream flooding to agro-forestry projects and agricultural projects reducing soil erosion and adapting to climate change. Box 5.3 Germany – Emscher river The Emscher river, which flows through the German state of North Rhein-Westphalia, has been used for almost 100 years as an open sewerage system. The Emscher rehabilitation project, financed by the EIB, is in the process of building more than 400 km of new underground sewers and is ‘renaturalising’, i.e. returning to their original state, 350 km of river banks and landscapes. One of the components of this project is the reconstruction of the mouth of the river where it discharges out to the Rhine. Here it falls over a 6 m dam to land in the Rhine below. The dam prevents fish and other living organisms moving from the Rhine to the Emscher. To solve this, the Emscher mouth is to be diverted 500 m north, where it will spread out over more than 20 ha of wetlands. That will permit a more natural exchange of fish between the two rivers, but also will create a natural retention volume of about 1.3 million m3 providing additional flood prevention benefits for a densely populated and industrialized region. Source: Personal communication based on European Investment Bank (EIB) http://www.eib.org/ Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe132Opportunities to enhance coherence 6.1 Introduction The objective of this chapter is to outline practical opportunities to improve the coherence between CCA and DRR, building upon the evidence provided in Chapters 1 to 5. Some opportunities are already being advanced by specific stakeholders and communities, while others may need catalysing in the coming years. An overarching theme apparent in a number of the opportunities explored in this chapter is that of ‘resilience’. Both CCA and DRR communities use the language of resilience and as such it provides common ground upon which more coherent policies and actions might be built. However, as identified in Chapter 1, there is a need for a new ‘resilience management’ underpinned by risk assessment processes to help prepare for and prevent consequences of foreseeable events, but which also builds resilience into systems to recover and adapt when adverse events occur (Linkov et al., 2014). This framing may also require consideration of the concept of ‘transformational change’. This implies fundamental change in a system in order to achieve resilience (Lonsdale et al., 2015) or even a different kind of system when ecological, economic or social structures make the existing system untenable (Folke et al., 2010). This approach would take resilience thinking far beyond prevention and preparedness to incorporate systemic thinking in response to longer term changes in the frequency and severity of events. It would require improved two-way flows of knowledge across policy silos and between research, policy and practice communities.6 Opportunities to enhance coherence between climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in policy and practice • Both CCA and DDR communities use the concept of resilience and this provides common ground upon which more coherent policies and actions might be built. • At a strategic level, CCA and DRR can be better integrated through the development of long-term national programmatic approaches and could be supported by more innovative risk financing instruments. • There are opportunities to generate and communicate more consistent and complementary knowledge for CCA and DRR through MRE activities and by improving connections across knowledge platforms. • Improved processes (e.g. risk assessment) and mutually beneficial approaches (e.g. NBSs) also present opportunities to enhance coherence between the two policy areas. 6.2 Developing consistent and complementary knowledge and coordination platforms at EU, national and regional level As more countries formalise their adaptation planning processes and policies, there has been a growing demand for access to relevant and high- quality information. In response, CCA platforms (websites for exchanging knowledge, experiences and ideas) have been developed and are widely appreciated as potentially effective means of collecting, assimilating and communicating evidence, experience and knowledge (EEA, 2015b) to inform decision-making. As at 2015, 14 national adaptation platforms were in place in EEA member countries. Of these 14 established platforms, seven are directly linked to the implementation of National Adaptation Strategy (NAS) or action plan (Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Poland, Spain and Switzerland). The earliest of these (the UKCIP platform) has been active since 2000, and a further seven platforms (Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Norway and Sweden) have been established for more than 3 years. New adaptation platforms are constantly being developed and improved at national level, and for example Estonia the Czech Republic and Portugal have developed adaptation platforms and Norway has updated their platform between 2015 and 2017. There are also examples of transnational web-based platforms for the Alpine region and the Pyrenees. The nature and detailed objectives of these knowledge platforms vary, but in general terms they Opportunities to enhance coherence 133 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe all represent a means of enabling and empowering adaptation action by providing a platform for sharing information and knowledge and thus increasing the visibility and understanding of adaptation (EEA, 2015b). The type of information and knowledge incorporated on these platforms also varies but includes guidance and decision support tools; the results of adaptation research; data and information; policies at transnational, national and subnational levels; and experiences and case studies from practice. It is not simply the objectives and target audience(s) of individual platforms that can influence content; practical considerations such as budget, funding source(s) and the status of the host organisation (e.g. government, non-government) can also shape the type and nature of information shared. National-level knowledge ‘platforms’ have generally been defined differently in the context of DRR and refer to multi-stakeholder meetings/assemblies that do not necessarily imply an online presence. As with adaptation to climate change, the DRR community is seeking to build actions using an ‘all-society’ engagement process informed by multiple perspectives from both public and private sectors. To this end, the SFDRR encouraged further extension of the national (multi-stakeholder) platforms for DRR to subnational (local) level, and the establishment of national focal points (see Box 6.1). This focus on the subnational level is distinct from the general direction in which adaptation knowledge platforms have been developed, and emphasises the establishment of common priorities and processes rather than more general knowledge sharing. The EU Climate Adaptation Strategy (EC, 2013a) envisioned various coordination mechanisms, particularly at the EU level, but stopped short of encouraging the formation of multi-stakeholder adaptation platforms at national and subnational levels, whereas DRR multi-stakeholder platforms have been devised with a specific link to the delivery of the Sendai Framework. It may be a useful exercise for those responsible for national-level adaptation platforms to examine the multi-stakeholder platform approach emerging in DRR, and to consider the extent to which online platforms are, or could be, underpinned by multi-stakeholder processes. The Research & Innovation for our Dynamic Environment (RIDE) Forum (96) in the United Kingdom provides an example of a partnership that could link to both CCA and DRR communities. Multi-stakeholder platforms serving as vehicles of coordination for climate adaptation and risk reduction will draw on similar types of public and private organisations The EEA technical report (EEA, 2015b) highlights a considerable body of practical experience in developing national level platforms that could be timely given the recent emphasis on establishing DRR platforms. Interviews with national adaptation platform owners and operators also highlighted a desire to continue to share information and learn from one another (EEA, 2015b), and this could be extended to the DRR community. In terms of content, there is likely to be considerable overlap in terms of useful knowledge, information and experience as more national-level CCA and DRR platforms emerge. This should not necessarily be seen as duplication of effort; platforms are likely to be established with different objectives and target audiences in mind. However, consistency of information and data, and sharing of knowledge between CCA and DRR platforms will be crucial to inform policy and practice in a consistent manner. There will be valuable content that the DRR community could contribute to the various national-level Box 6.1 National and local multi-stakeholder platforms and focal points established for the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction National platforms for DRR are nationally owned and led coordination mechanisms or committees of multiple stakeholders. They serve as a hub for common priorities requiring concerted action through a coordinated and participatory process. National platforms are responsible for mainstreaming DRR into development policies, planning and programmes, and should contribute to the national DRR strategy, including national risk and capability assessments, and national review and reporting. Local platforms have a role in researching multi-hazard risks, promoting community disaster risk knowledge and supporting the development of local DRR strategies and plans. The national focal points have a role in international horizon scanning, in contributing to international debates about addressing risks and in informing national colleagues of agreed international approaches to risk. Source: UNISDR, 2017. (96) http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/partnerships/ride/ Opportunities to enhance coherence 134 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europeweb-based adaptation platforms, while adaptation expertise could add value to the multi-stakeholder platforms developed at national and local level for DRR. The aforementioned EEA technical report identifies the following seven key issues for adaptation platforms which might be useful as the basis of a dialogue with the DRR community tasked with establishing national level platforms: (1) funding and sustaining a platform; (2) understanding, communicating and engaging with users; (3) identifying relevant knowledge and information; (4) presenting relevant knowledge and information; (5) design, technical and structural elements of a platform; (6) linking across sectors, scales and platforms; and (7) monitoring, evaluating and improving a platform (EEA, 2015b). A dedicated workshop to bring together key stakeholders would present a chance to establish such a dialogue, alongside existing fora such as the annual European Environment Information and Observation Network (Eionet) workshop, the working group on adaptation under the EU Monitoring Mechanism Regulation, the Copernicus user forum, and meetings focused on civil protection. Box 6.2 Case study: An example of a subnational web portal, ‘Weather Alert Emilia-Romagna’ (Italy) In the Emilia-Romagna region of northern Italy, observations show an increase in surface air temperature of more than 1.5 °C in the past 50 years, and an increase in the number of heat wave events causing impacts on health and in the number of violent thunderstorms. These storms may produce heavy rainfall within a few hours and, in many cases, cause catastrophic flash floods and landslides, causing significant harm to populations. This is happening more and more frequently and this trend will continue and worsen. This observational evidence highlighted the need to optimise the regional early warning system, which has been working at a good level of efficiency since the beginning of 2004. In order to allow the population to react immediately to rapid-onset and increasingly intense events, there is a need to significantly decrease the time taken to transmit information and to increase detail contained in the warnings. At the same time there is a need to prepare and train communities to respond appropriately to disasters, taking into account these new hazard conditions. To address these new needs, a new regional web portal, ‘Weather Alert Emilia-Romagna’, has been developed in parallel with the development and refinement of real-time hydrometeorological monitoring technologies and a widespread risk communication programme put in place by the Emilia-Romagna regional authorities. Weather Alert Emilia-Romagna has been designed to make the transmission and uptake of warning information for hydrometeorological risk much more timely and effective, and it is hoped that it will prove to be a valuable tool to increase resilience in the region. This web portal became ‘live’ at the beginning of May 2017, is operational 24 hours a day and 365 days a year, and is managed by the Regional Civil Protection and Ground Defense and by the HydroMeteoClimate Service of the Regional Agency for Prevention, Environment and Energy (Arpae-SIMC). It is supported by two private consulting companies, which provided expertise in the preparation of the web portal and in risk communication on social media. The web portal has been designed to address two distinct and fundamental needs: firstly, working in synergy with the regional system of civil protection, it aims to integrate all risk information in a single service, in order to facilitate the coordinated management of warnings by the various agencies. Secondly, it is designed to ensure quick and direct communication between mayors, citizens and journalists, while also contributing to the cascade of self-protection information and knowledge of local risk conditions. The website has been built to be usable from mobile devices and contains all relevant information on risk and alerts, including: alerts and bulletins, real-time updates on the evolution of events, weather forecasts and data, civil protection plans, risk maps, news alerts published by mayors to inform citizens, post-event reports and specific guidelines. The regional map on the homepage is colour coded (green-yellow-orange-red), and is standardised and easy to read, allowing an immediate glance at the situation throughout the region, for the current and the following day. The map is navigable by individual risk/phenomenon, but also by geographical location, and is also geo-referenced in order to access local information quickly. Any user can adjust variables to reflect their exposure to a given hazard, and can also subscribe to the portal to take advantage of specific features such as notifications about alerts in a specific town or several towns. The portal has been designed and conceived to become an important resilience tool for the Emilia-Romagna region, increasing the benefits of modern and effective early warning systems, contributing to improved awareness among communities of hydrogeological risk, and making local administrators and citizens promptly informed and prepared to react quickly and appropriately to more frequent and intense extreme weather- and climate-related events. Source: Arpae Emilia-Romagna https://allertameteo.regione.emilia-romagna.it/ Opportunities to enhance coherence 135 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe At EU level, the European climate adaptation platform Climate-ADAPT (97) was established in 2012 and also highlighted in the 2013 EU Climate Change Adaptation Strategy as a key EU activity. It aims to support policymakers at different governance levels (transnational, EU, national, local) to develop and implement CCA strategies and actions. The platform shares knowledge from a variety of sources on climate observations and projections, vulnerability and risk assessments, adaptation strategies and options, case studies, and policy frameworks. The EEA organises regular workshops and expert meetings with member countries, including an Eionet workshop on climate change impacts, vulnerability and adaptation. The European Commission promotes adaptation and mitigation action in cities, including links to DRM, through the global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy (98), which includes exchange of knowledge through various mechanisms, including a website. In 2016, the European Commission’s JRC launched the DRMKC (99). This is a focal point of reference in the European Commission, and supports the work of Member States, relevant European Commission services and the wider DRM community within and beyond the EU. Platforms and portals are also being developed at subnational level. Some of these, such as Weather Alert Emilia-Romagna portal described in Box 6.2, provide an opportunity to combine CCA and DRR information to support improved flows of information and better decision-making. 6.3 Improved monitoring and risk assessment (outcomes and processes) Hazard mapping and risk assessment is an area where integration of DRR and CCA is well advanced and recognised as a priority area. Yet there is still a scope for improving coherence between climate change impacts and vulnerability assessment, and the assessment of disaster risk. There is an opportunity to learn from one another, advancing state-of-the-art knowledge that benefits both communities. National Risk Assessments completed by the EU Member States identify, assess and prioritise a number of security threats, of which climate change is only one. The experience of some countries, such as France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, shows that NRAs need to build on strong institutional frameworks, clearly assigned responsibilities and authority, and close stakeholder engagement. NRAs inform all phases of DRM (Section 2.2), while shedding light on possible disruption of essential services and economic repercussions. Better understanding of disaster impacts in increasingly interconnected economies should be a part of these efforts. Extreme weather- and climate-related events may disrupt production chains, and set off supply-and-demand shocks that affect regional economies in and beyond the disaster-affected areas. A thorough understanding of risks, including their cascade and spillover effects, is therefore vital. Improved knowledge of the economic costs of natural hazards is also important for a better understanding of implicit and explicit government liabilities, and designing comprehensive risk financing strategies. The fragmented and incomplete records of past disasters’ impacts on cultural heritage, economies, ecosystems and human health (see Chapter 4) are only partially suitable to this end. Comprehensive, harmonised and interoperable disaster loss databases contribute to improving existing damage models. Engagement of national statistical offices, national meteorological and hydrological services, and civil protection authorities in data standardisation, quality assurance and data accessibility is important to this end. Recorded losses should be complemented by hazard simulations and model-based losses, improved high-resolution exposure data and better understanding of the multiple vulnerabilities and multiple hazards. Hazard simulation and loss modelling are capable of filling gaps and better characterising the tails of the distribution of losses. The knowledge base on climate change impacts and vulnerability across Europe has increased over the past years, owing to enhanced and/or continued monitoring, and EU and national research projects. A range of countries have developed national climate change impact, vulnerability and/or risk assessments (EEA, 2014). Agriculture, water, forestry, human health and biodiversity are the sectors most frequently considered in assessments. Various countries report that an update of the national assessments has begun. A wide (97) http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/ (98) http://www.covenantofmayors.eu/index_en.html (99) http://drmkc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ Opportunities to enhance coherence 136 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europevariety of methods were used, including qualitative and quantitative methods. The geographical coverage and the quality of data on weather- and climate-related extreme events has improved over the past years (see Chapter 3). A new generation of climate models and consistent reanalyses of the coupled climate system make estimates of climate extremes more robust, even for low probability ranges (Heim, 2015; Alexander, 2016; Hay et al., 2016). Detection of trends in climate extremes and attribution to human induced climate change are becoming more reliable, with consistent evidence from observations and numerical models (Brown, 2016; Easterling et al., 2016). Multi-model ensembles with high spatial resolution document model uncertainty, and improved reliability of near-term (multi- year to decadal) climate predictions will contribute to reducing the impacts of climate variability and change. 6.4 Enhancing coherence between climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction climate services The role of climate services is recognised in Section 2.1 as being essential for catalysing economic and societal transformations that reduce risks and/or improve societal resilience. The European research and innovation roadmap (EC, 2015a) for climate services includes ‘support adaptation, mitigation and disaster risk management (DRM)’ in its definition of climate services, as does the Global Framework for Climate Services (GFCS). Emerging lessons from the PLACARD Horizon 2020 innovation project (100) highlight the need for practical steps to improve the alignment and coherence of change adaptation and DRR efforts. The co-design and co-development of appropriate climate services could provide such an opportunity. The European roadmap gives primacy to a service perspective on climate services (i.e. user driven and science informed) and is also underpinned by an approach to research and innovation based on co-design, co-development and co-evaluation of climate services (Street, 2016). Improved alignment of demand-led CCA and DRR climate service products would require decision-makers from both communities to have stronger linkages with each other, as well as with the providers of climate information and knowledge, and providers of climate services. Improve understanding of DRR/CCA market demand A starting point for this should be the identification of possible synergies and overlaps in terms of existing and potential demand (i.e. market potential) from both CCA and DRR communities. Such an analysis could start with the emerging evidence generated through the ‘European Research Area for Climate Services’ (ERA4CS), especially in the area of the co-development of advanced climate services, as well as recent initiatives relating to the assessment of market demand through Horizon 2020 (101) and the Copernicus Earth observation programme (102) (previously GMES) (EU, 2014). The DRR community has a long history of making use of hydrometeorological data but there may be opportunities to better integrate uncertainty considerations into DRR decision-making, perhaps linked to the concept of adaptation pathways outlined in Chapter 5 of this report. There may also be valuable overlap between DRR and CCA when examining how the two fields consider probability distribution and the implications for decision-making in the short, medium and long term. Similarly, there may be opportunities for adaptation decision-makers to apply data and approaches used in DRR (e.g. ensuring there is coherence between early warning systems using seasonal forecasting and longer term projections to inform adaptation planning). Catalyse market demand and prepare ground for co-design and co-development of CCA/DRR climate services In addition to an assessment of demand and synergies, there are opportunities to more actively stimulate market demand by building capacities of CCA and DRR decision-makers and making use of the few existing communities of practice that span CCA and DRR (e.g. PLACARD, DRMKC). Such communities can act as crucibles for the co-design of climate service opportunities, as they represent a shared space for both CCA and DRR. Additional stakeholders will need to be identified and engaged, potentially using a ‘sandpit’ concept to develop climate service ideas, where both CCA/DRR decision-makers and providers of climate services are fully engaged. In this context, a ‘sandpit’ refers to a discussion forum where a specific challenge or idea is explored and where free thinking is encouraged, with the aim of developing innovative solutions. (100) http://www.placard-network.eu/ (101) https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/ (102) http://www.copernicus.eu/ Opportunities to enhance coherence 137 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe Co-design and co-development of CCA/DRR climate service products Once an effective working environment and relationships are established and initial concepts are developed, further support would be needed for the detailed co-design and co-development of CCA/DRR climate service products. Such products need to be demand led, but possible areas for further exploration could include: • understanding and managing multiple risks, the sequencing of risks and cascading risks; • decision support tools that integrate both CCA and DRR; • products that ensure data and information are being developed and used consistently between CCA and DRR. 6.5 Long-term national programmatic approaches As of 2017, 28 European countries (25 EU Member States and three EEA member countries) have adopted an NAS, and 17 (15 EU Member States and two EEA member countries) have developed a national adaptation plan (Climate-ADAPT). Many of these refer to the need to enhance coherence between CCA and DRR. However, only a few Member States have detailed action plans in place to implement this objective more specifically, for example through programmatic approaches. Among the examples of a national programmatic approach described in Chapter 5 was the Dutch Delta Programme, which successfully integrates DRR and CCA for flooding. What are the key factors for this success and can they be generalised or even transferred to other countries? We distinguish three main factors. Part of the effectiveness of the programme was due to its systematic methodological approach (adaptive planning approach, main objectives, scenarios, assessment models, etc.), which was coordinated nationally and at the same time intentionally left sufficient room for regional decision-making on solutions (allowing additional regional objectives). In fact the main decisions were prepared in the regional programmes by the main regional stakeholders. Another factor of success was the effective mainstreaming of urgent short-term problems with the long-term challenges of climate change. Flood risk management always has been an ongoing and strongly regulated activity in the Netherlands, and is strongly focused on prevention. The additional challenge of climate change could be well integrated in the existing organisations, methodologies, procedures and budget planning. The adaptive planning approach helped to establish this. A third factor of success was the leadership of the programme and reliable funding for a number of years. In an early stage it was recognised that a high-level coordinator was needed that could operate at a ministerial level (without belonging to a single ministry), prepare decisions and communicate with parliament and society. As a result, the Delta commissioner was given recognition and support, formalised in a dedicated law. This proved to be effective even when the attention paid to climate change declined after a few years (arguments to promote the programme simply shifted from CCA to DRR). In addition there are some preconditions that were present in the Netherlands that may be somewhat unique. Defence against flooding historically has been a major activity and is widely supported in Dutch society. Floods in the Dutch Delta are rare but when they do occur, due to specific geographical circumstances (flat terrain that is below sea level), a large area of land and a large number of people are hit. This fact increases solidarity across the country. As expenditure for water management is also historically high (compared with other European countries) and thoroughly institutionalised, and the new Delta Programme does not drastically increase the required budget, no major budgetary obstacles are anticipated. Of course, future economic uncertainty may change this condition. Despite the abovementioned context-specific conditions, there are ample opportunities to transfer elements from the Dutch approach to other contexts. Within Europe there are many examples where there is sufficient urgency, awareness and budget available to potentially take a more programmatic approach. 6.6 Nature-based solutions (NBSs) to maximise co-benefits The policy interest in and the potential of NBSs for promoting and designing integrated measures for CCA and DRR is large, but they appear to be underused at various scales, and for various hazards and sectors. NBSs operationalise the concept of ecosystem services in real-world situations and can promote transformative change in addressing sustainability more explicitly. In this sense, the concept of NBSs emphasises the multipurpose nature of these solutions to address simultaneously multiple societal challenges. Adding CCA and DRR Opportunities to enhance coherence 138 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europeto the considerations used to motivate and design NBSs can also help to leverage funding, and facilitate connecting different communities working on joint solutions. As defined by the European Commission, ‘Nature-Based Solutions to societal challenges are solutions that are inspired and supported by nature, which are cost-effective, simultaneously provide environmental, social and economic benefits and help build resilience. Such solutions bring more, and more diverse, nature and natural features and processes into cities, landscapes and seascapes, through locally adapted, resource-efficient and systemic interventions’ (EC, 2015b). By addressing different societal challenges and providing multiple benefits, NBSs are often low- or no-regret solutions. In particular, in many circumstances they can address CCA and DRR (while addressing at the same time other societal challenges), and this potential should be further emphasised to help motivate the use of NBSs. In Section 2.3 and Chapter 5, reference is made to the significant potential of NBSs for CCA and DRR; see also EEA reports (2014, 2015a, 2016a, 2016b). Usage or restoration of floodplains and upland areas to decrease flood risk in downstream areas, GI in urban areas to reduce run-off during high-intensity precipitation events and forest management aiming at reducing wildfires or landslides are just three of many examples (see also the EU’s Green Infrastructure Strategy (EC, 2013b)) and the final report of the Horizon 2020 Expert Group on nature-based solutions and re-naturing cities (EC, 2015c), in which more than 200 NBS measures are listed). In the implementation of NBSs, the conservation and protection of biodiversity is both an objective to be met and a prerequisite to ensure ecosystem functioning, as well as contributing to a diversified and resilient ecosystem service delivery. While extreme weather- and climate-related events can affect the effective provision of ecosystem services and thus decrease the effectiveness of NBSs in affected areas (see Section 4.4), their potential remains significant. Many research projects are building an evidence base for NBSs, but the cursory reference to these types of solution in both the survey and the workshop organised in support of this report, which involved national representatives, suggests that the potential of NBSs is still not recognised properly by decision-makers on CCA and DRR solutions. In many countries, NBSs are still an emerging concept that needs further framing at both policy and practice levels, partly because the authorities strive to involve multiple stakeholders at the same time. While many of these solutions are ready for use, further development of policies, standards and guidance on limits and best-use cases, as well as improved communication and knowledge sharing, could promote their increased deployment. Furthermore, NBSs are in fact sometimes used but not labelled as such because they are framed from a specific point of view, e.g. CCA actors often use the term ‘ecosystem-based adaptation’ (EbA), or terminology related to disaster reduction such as ‘ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction’ (Eco-DRR), depending on the main objectives of individual projects, e.g. to reduce risk or increase protection and resilience against hazards (Figure 6.1). Such approaches address social, economic and environmental challenges from a distinct angle, whether the focus is on biodiversity, climate change, disaster risk or human health and wellbeing. NBSs offer an integrated way to look at different issues simultaneously. In order to realise the full potential of NBSs, various barriers (financial, institutional, implementational) need to be addressed. The activities below can promote the implementation of NBSs for CCA and DRR. • Translate available scientific and local expertise, and political support, into practice. More systematic learning from adaptive management on impacts and effectiveness of ecosystem-based approaches is needed, as is taking account of local perceptions and knowledge, and sustained political support, monitoring and funding (Salvaterra et al., 2016). This could be linked to improved monitoring and evaluation approaches (see Section 6.7). European-scale initiatives such as the Biodiversity Information System for Europe (BISE) (103) can support learning and knowledge exchange on ecosystem-based approaches. Climate-ADAPT also contains a range of cases of nature/ecosystem-based adaptation actions that have been implemented and that can form inspiring examples for others to learn from (104). The Horizon 2020 project EKLIPSE supports exchange of knowledge and collaboration between science, practice and policy actors. It has recently produced an impact evaluation framework to support planning and evaluation of NBS projects. This framework evaluates the multiple benefits, (103) BISE is the entry point for data and information on biodiversity supporting the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy. See also its dedicated section on GI ( http://biodiversity.europa.eu/topics/green-infrastructure ) and Oppla, a new ‘knowledge marketplace’ where the latest thinking on ecosystem services, natural capital and nature-based solutions is brought together ( http://oppla.eu/about ). (104) http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/knowledge/tools/sat Opportunities to enhance coherence 139 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe disservices, trade-offs and synergies of NBSs. It is sought for use by Horizon 2020-funded NBS demonstration projects for increasing urban resilience to climate change. The Partnership for Environment and Disaster Risk Reduction (PEDRR), a global alliance of UN agencies, NGOs and specialist institutes, aims to pool expertise and advocate for policy change and best practice in ecosystem management for DRR and CCA at the global level, based on science and practitioners’ experiences. • Add CCA and DRR objectives to the objectives of NBSs, creating synergies between climate adaptation, DRR and other policies . Examples include floodplain and upland restoration, and water management, land use and health policies. In many cases, CCA and disaster response policymakers may not yet give high priority to NBSs, while such solutions may be developed for other reasons (such as nature protection and enhancing quality of life). In such cases, objectives other than CCA and DRR can provide the main rationale behind national, regional or local GI developments. These multiple objectives and benefits can strengthen support for these measures among policymakers and citizens, and leverage funding opportunities.• Foster collaboration between actors working in CCA, DRR and other policy areas. From the perspective of integrating CCA and DRR, NBSs can facilitate collaboration between actors working in these two areas, and between them and other actors, because of shared objectives and common design features, for example through the development of joint strategic narratives to promote solutions. NBSs require combining technological, organisational, societal, cultural and behavioural innovation, and should be co-designed, co-developed and co-implemented in a trans-disciplinary, multi-stakeholder and participatory context. In this respect, the Horizon 2020 project ThinkNature (an NBS stakeholder platform) (105) will contribute to cross-sector and cross-disciplinary dialogue, as it aims at supporting the development of an integrated evidence base and reference framework, promoting the co-design, testing and deployment of improved and innovative NBSs, and facilitating a strategic, effective and sustained dialogue, and interactions among science, policy, business and society. At EU level, various actions have been initiated to enhance the knowledge of and uptake of NBSs and GI. (105) https://www.think-nature.eu/Figure 6.1 Linkages between ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) and ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction (Eco-DRR) Source: Adapted from Salvaterra et al., 2016 , amended from Doswald and Estrella, 2015 and CBD, 2016. Addresses climate-related hazards, long-term mean changes in climate (e.g. sea level rise, ocean acidification), and future uncertainties. Example: crop diversification to include drought-tolerant varieties Climate risk management, including weather – and climate-relatedhazards (e.g. storm, flood, drought, landslide, fire). Example: restoration of mangroves or salt marshes for coastal protection Risk management of weather, climate and non-climate related hazards (e.g. earthquake, volcano, avalanche, tsunami). Example: protection forests that stabilize slopesEbA & Eco-DRR Eco-DRREbA Opportunities to enhance coherence 140 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe6.7 Risk and adaptation financing (from risk transfer to risk prevention financing) The EU has made substantial investments in climate adaptation and DRR. To mainstream climate change concerns in its broader development strategy, the EU agreed to spend 20 % of the resources under the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014–2020 on climate change-related action. Adaptation to likely impacts of climate change is integrated (mainstreamed) in major EU sectoral policies by means of the European Structural and Investment Fund (ESIF). The EU Member States have allocated over EUR 29 billion under the thematic objective ‘Climate change adaptation and risk management’ of the ESIF (EC, 2016). Disaster resilience, and risk prevention and management, are also promoted under other priorities. Additional funds available for fostering climate adaptation and DRR include Horizon 2020, LIFE and the EUSF. The EU is also one of the major contributors to the Green Climate Fund (GCF), launched at the Cancun Climate Change Conference (COP 16) of the UNFCCC in 2010, and aimed at supporting developing countries’ efforts on mitigation and adaptation in a balanced manner (GCF, 2017). The recent EEA report on urban adaptation showcases how various financial instruments promoted DRR and CCA (EEA, 2016b). There is increased experience of how to finance adaptation actions, including at an urban scale, and a need to share these experiences. A 2017 EEA report (EEA, 2017) provides various examples of financing for nature-/ecosystem-based and other adaptation actions, including conventional and innovative funding such as crowdfunding and green bonds. A sound financial protection strategy can lessen the impacts of climate variability, speed up recovery and reconstruction, and harness knowledge and incentives for reducing risk (IPCC, 2012). Amid growing damage and losses caused by natural and human-made hazards (Section 4.4), a comprehensive financial strategy is conducive to better-framed and better-informed risk management and governance. In the absence of financial protection tools for coping with disasters, the incidence of major disasters in several EU Member States may exacerbate economic imbalances and reduce credit ratings. Disaster financing embraces a variety of instruments that are intended for and capable of achieving various outcomes. A strategy that builds upon a diversified pool of mutually complementing financial tools and institutions is better equipped to cope with and respond to a variety of environmental and human-induced risks. Comprehensive risk management (MCII, 2013) embraces a systematic identification of risk arising from multiple hazards, and employs a combination of financial instruments that take into account the hazard exposure and risk-bearing capacity of (national and subnational) governments, homeowners, enterprises and the most vulnerable populations. In a more comprehensive way, the total climate risk approach (ECA, 2009) first explores manifold risks arising at a specific location from a range of future scenarios, and then devises and assesses a portfolio of infrastructural, technological, behavioural and financial investments to adapt to these risks. Insurance offering individual protection against the risk of losses caused by various natural hazards is a part of DRM, complementing risk prevention and preparedness. Insurance facilitates post-disaster recovery and helps to curb the economic and social impacts of disasters. To some extent insurance may incentivise risk reduction and facilitate the transition towards a resilient and adaptive society. Yet commercial insurance does not guarantee affordable and equitable access to insurance (EC, 2013c). In 2013 and as part of the EU Climate Adaptation Strategy package, the European Commission launched a wide-ranging consultation (EC, 2013c) about what EU action could be taken to improve the performance of insurance markets. The responses cautioned against making the regulation on natural hazard insurance uniform across the EU (EC, 2014). In 2016, the European Commission launched a multi-stakeholder discussion on the optimal use of risk financing and transfers, and commissioned a study on how the insurance sector can contribute to incentivising risk reduction. In addition, comprehensive agricultural risk management schemes are supported through rural development programmes (EU, 2013; Bahadur et al., 2015). 6.8 Monitoring and evaluation to improve policy implementation and adaptive management An EEA report found that an increasing number of European countries are now taking action regarding the Monitoring, Reporting, and Evaluation (MRE) of adaptation at the national level (EEA, 2015a). This reflects the fact that more and more countries have an adaptation strategy or plan in place, the implementation of which needs to be monitored and evaluated effectively. This is also consistent with a growing focus on MRE as a key aspect of adaptation policymaking at international, transnational and subnational scales, and a rapidly growing literature on the topic. This emphasis on MRE in CCA and DRR is partially driven by the increased levels of investment in these Opportunities to enhance coherence 141 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe areas, and thus a need to provide accountability, but also by a desire to understand ‘what works well (or not), in which circumstances and for what reasons’ (Pringle, 2011) to inform future practice. A further influencing factor is countries’ obligations to report at European level (e.g. the EU Monitoring Mechanism Regulation Article 15, the EU Civil Protection Mechanism, the Floods Directive) and international bodies (e.g. UNFCCC) on the progress and effectiveness of their policies, national-level administrative or legal requirements, or simply their efforts to improve regulation. The evaluation of the EU Climate Change Adaptation Strategy during 2017–2018 is also expected to include analysis of policy effectiveness. In addition, recent international policy agendas for DRR — the SFDRR (UNISDR, 2015) — and CCA — the Paris Agreement (UNFCCC, 2015) — are initiating further efforts to monitor progress more effectively. CCA and DRR share a number of characteristics that can make monitoring and evaluating policies and measures challenging, including long timescales (in terms of either the changing risks they seek to manage or the lifetime of the investments they seek to make); uncertainty (relating to the social, economic and environmental drivers that influence the extent and nature of climate impacts); and establishing a counterfactual (what would have happened in the absence of CCA and DRR interventions?) and attribution (what avoided costs/losses can be attributed to CCA/DRR efforts?). Despite this common ground, the considerable body of work that has been undertaken to understand monitoring and evaluation challenges associated with adaptation is often developed seemingly in isolation from DRR. Improving the integration of MRE thinking across CCA and DRR Examples from outside Europe show the value of placing discussions relating to monitoring and evaluation at the interface of CCA, DRM and development (Silva Villanueva, 2011), yet approaches within Europe have not yet emerged to a significant extent. As noted in Chapter 5, there are examples of coherence between CCA and DRR policies and objectives in Europe and these might be realistically expected to mature, so MRE approaches specifically designed to address both CCA and DRR will become more apparent. This is the case for the Dutch Delta Programme (see Chapter 5), where a learning-focused MRE system has been developed that is designed to support the use of monitoring and evaluation results in order to revise and improve DRR and CCA activities and plans. The approach considers two main types of learning; ‘technical learning’ (learning about indicators and unforeseen values) and ‘social learning’ (learning through interaction and the perspectives of others) (Loeber and Kunseler, 2016). A strong emphasis is also placed on the need to create an environment that enables learning, regular reflection and knowledge exchange. Within Europe there is a clear opportunity to improve linkages between those responsible for the design and implementation of MRE within CCA and DRR, and then to improve the exchange of good practice. The PLACARD project would present a possible forum for such activity. However, such efforts need to be connected to the design and framing of CCA/DRR policies and measures, as outlined in Chapter 5. The definition of objectives that incorporate both adaptation and risk reduction-related outcomes can bring these two distinct yet connected policy areas closer together in real terms. It seems that resilience can play a potentially valuable role as a ‘bridging concept’ in this regard. As the Delta Programme illustrates, the importance of learning as a key function of MRE is also gaining traction within the applied research and policy communities, in recognition that accountability-driven MRE will not automatically lead to improved policies and practice. This could be a further focus for exploring synergies between CCA and DRR evaluation professionals and policymakers. Peer review processes that can support evaluation have been established for DRR but have not yet been implemented in the context of national adaptation strategies, policies and programmes. The European Commission has published guidelines for peer reviews in the areas of civil protection that builds on work by the OECD and UNISDR on peer reviews of DRM in terms of both procedure and methodology. The same guidelines describe peer review as ‘a governance tool where the performance in disaster risk management/civil protection of one country (‘reviewed country’) is examined on an equal basis by experts (‘reviewing peers’) from other countries’ (Falck, 2015), and six European countries have now completed this process. The value and potential of peer review in supporting strategy and policy evaluation is also acknowledged in the context of sustainability evaluation, where a Guidebook for peer reviews of national sustainable development strategies (106) has also been developed. A 2015 EEA workshop on MRE for adaptation held in Copenhagen brought together (106) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/pdf/nsds.pdf v Opportunities to enhance coherence 142 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europeexperts on national level MRE from across Europe and highlighted the value of shared learning, but it would be beneficial for the adaptation community to learn from the DRR approach to peer review and consider piloting a similar approach for national adaptation programmes. Improving the coordination of national-level indicators There are growing demands for the establishment of national-level indicator sets for CCA and DRR in Europe. This is partly driven by a need to improve understanding of the effectiveness and appropriateness of national-level policy and programmes within each country. However, the emergence of a number of key global and European policies that are likely to have specific (voluntary or mandatory) reporting requirements also appear to be an influential factor. For example, progress in implementing the SFDRR will be monitored through a set of global and national indicators developed by OIEWG and endorsed by the UN General Assembly on 2 February 2017, while the UNFCCC is also considering how best to track adaptation efforts at national level. A third key international policy pillar is the SDGs, especially SDG 13, ‘Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts’, which incorporates consideration of DRR. This SDG will also require nations to report on progress. The EU is considering how to assess progress in the EU and to report on SDGs to the UN. In November 2016, Eurostat published its first indicator-based report (Eurostat, 2016), which provides an overview of where the EU and its Member States stand in the areas relevant for sustainable development. Since 2015, the European Commission has developed a draft scoreboard in consultation with Member States. It consists of specific questions covering various domains of relevance, which are grouped into the ‘five steps’ of adaptation policymaking: (1) preparing the ground for adaptation; (2) assessing risks and vulnerabilities to climate change; (3) identifying adaptation options; (4) implementing adaptation action; and (5) monitoring and evaluation. The European Commission will prepare scoreboards for each EU Member State in 2017, as part of its evaluation of the EU adaptation strategy, to be finalised in 2018. The EU-level scoreboard will constitute the EU approach to a ‘process-based’ monitoring system and presents a further national-level indicator requirement. As individual UN and EU initiatives, each of the drivers for national-level CCA/DRR indicators outlined above can support an improved understanding of progress in each domain. However, there are opportunities to improve connectivity and coherence between these indicator requirements at EU level, in order to (1) improve the efficiency of data collection at national level and (2) build up a more complete picture of CCA and DRR progress and priorities at national level. As these requirements become clearer there would be considerable benefit in connecting those responsible for collating and reporting this information, to share ideas and practices between countries. Such an approach would be consistent with the EU REFIT initiative that aims to streamline data collection and reporting as part of a broader agenda for better, simpler, less costly EU regulations and laws. The European Commission’s Fitness Check on Monitoring and Reporting (107) is also relevant in this respect. It aims to further develop more modern, effective and efficient monitoring and reporting for EU environmental policy, as a necessary step towards delivering a better environment. This will reduce pressure on public and private sector contributions to reporting, while also filling information gaps. (107) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/reporting/fc_overview_en.htm 143References Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe References Chapter 1 Cutter, S. L., Ahearn, J. A., Amadei, B., Crawford, P., Eide, E. A., Galloway, G. E., Goodchild, M. F., Kunreuther, H. C., Li-Vollmer, M., Schoch-Spana, M., Scrimshaw, S. C., Stanley, E. M., Whitney, G. and Zoback, M. L., 2013, ‘Disaster resilience: A national imperative’, Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 55(2), 25–29 (DOI: 10.1080/00139157.2013.768076). EC, 2013, 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’, COM(2013) 216 final. EC, 2016, Commission staff working document ‘Action plan on the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030: A disaster risk-informed approach for all EU policies’, SWD(2016) 205 final. EEA, 2004, Mapping the impacts of recent natural disasters and technological accidents in Europe , EEA Environmental Issue Report 35/2003, European Environment Agency. EEA, 2011, Mapping the impacts of natural hazards and technological accidents in Europe — An overview of the last decade , EEA Technical Report No 13/2010, European Environment Agency. EEA, 2012a, Climate change, impacts and vulnerability in Europe 2012 , EEA Report No 12/2012, European Environment Agency. EEA, 2012b, Water resources in Europe in the context of vulnerability , EEA Report No 11/2012, European Environment Agency. EEA, 2014a, Adaptation of transport to climate change in Europe: Challenges and options across transport modes and stakeholders , EEA Report No 8/2014, European Environment Agency. EEA, 2014b, National adaptation policy processes across European countries — 2014, EEA Report No 4/2014, European Environment Agency.EEA, 2015a, Exploring nature-based solutions — The role of green infrastructure in mitigating the impacts of weather- and climate change-related natural hazards , EEA Technical Report 12/2015, European Environment Agency. EEA, 2015b, National monitoring, reporting and evaluation of climate change adaptation in Europe , EEA Technical Report No 20/2015, European Environment Agency. EEA, 2016a, Flood risks and environmental vulnerability — Exploring the synergies between floodplain restoration, water policies and thematic policies , EEA Report No 1/2016, European Environment Agency. EEA, 2016b, Mapping and assessing the condition of Europe’s ecosystems: Progress and challenges , EEA Report No 3/2016, European Environment Agency. EEA, 2016c, Urban adaptation to climate change in Europe 2016 — Transforming cities in a changing climate , EEA Report No 12/2016, European Environment Agency. EEA, 2017a, Climate change, impacts and vulnerability in Europe — An indicator-based report , EEA Report 1/2017, European Environment Agency. EEA, 2017b, Green Infrastructure and Flood Management Promoting cost-efficient flood risk reduction via green infrastructure solutions, EEA Report 14/2017, European Environment Agency. ETC/CCA and EEA, 2015, Extreme weather and climate in Europe , Technical Paper 2015/12/03, EEA and ETC/CCA. EU, 2007, Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks , OJ L 288, 6.11.2007, p. 27–34. Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T. and Rockström, J., 2010, ‘Resilience thinking: Integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability’, Ecology and Society 15(4). References 144 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in EuropeGiupponi, C. and Biscaro, C., 2015, ‘Vulnerabilities — Bibliometric analysis and literature review of evolving concepts’, Environmental Research Letters 10(12), 123002 (DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/10/12/123002). IPCC, 2012, Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation: Special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. IPCC, 2014a, ‘Annex II: Glossary’, in: Barros, V. R., Field, C. B., Dokken, D. J., et al. (eds), Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability — Part B: Regional aspects — Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, pp. 1757–1776. IPCC, 2014b, Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability — Part B: Regional aspects — Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. IRDR, 2014, Peril classification and hazard glossary, IRDR DATA Publication No 1, Integrated Research on Disaster Risk, Beijing, China. Kelly, P. M. and Adger, W. N., 2000, ‘Theory and practice in assessing vulnerability to climate change and facilitating adaptation’, Climatic Change 47(4), 325–352. Kelman I., Mercer, J. and Gaillard, J.C. eds., 2017, The Routledge handbook of disaster risk reduction including climate change adaptation , Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY. Linkov, I., Bridges, T., Creutzig, F., Decker, J., Fox-Lent, C., Kröger, W., Lambert, J. H., Levermann, A., Montreuil, B., Nathwani, J., Nyer, R., Renn, O., Scharte, B., Scheffler, A., Schreurs, M. and Thiel-Clemen, T., 2014, ‘Changing the resilience paradigm’, Nature Climate Change 4(6), 407–409 (DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2227). Lonsdale, K., Pringle, P. and Turner, B., 2015, Transformative adaptation: What it is, why it matters and what is needed , UK Climate Impacts Programme, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom. O’Brien, K., Eriksen, S., Nygaard, L. P. and Schjolden, A., 2007, ‘Why different interpretations of vulnerability matter in climate change discourses’, Climate Policy 7(1), 73–88 (DOI: 10.1080/14693062.2007.9685639). Poljanšek, K., Marin Ferrer, M., De Groeve, T., Clark, I., (Eds.), 2017. Science for disaster risk management 2017: knowing better and losing less. EUR 28034 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2017, ISBN 978-92- 79-60678-6, doi:10.2788/688605, JRC102482 UN, 2015, Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030, United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reducton, Geneva, Switzerland. UNFCCC, 2015, Adoption of the Paris Agreement, UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Bonn, Germany. UNISDR, 2009, 2009 UNISDR terminology on disaster risk reduction , United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, Geneva, Switzerland. UNISDR, 2017, ‘Terminology’ (http://www. preventionweb.net/english/professional/terminology/). accessed July 2017. Chapter 2 Andreu, J., 2015, ‘Júcar River Basin District, Spain: Operative droughts in water resource systems’, conference paper presented at: Research and Science-Policy Interfacing Conference, Valencia, Spain, 10 March 2015. Andreu, J., Ferrer-Polo, J., Pérez, M. A., Solera, A. and Paredes-Arquiola, J., 2013, ‘Drought planning and management in the Júcar River Basin, Spain’, in: Schwabe, K., Albiac, J., Connor, J. D. et al. (eds), Drought in arid and semi-arid regions: A multi-disciplinary and cross-country perspective , Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 237–249. Bowyer, P., Bender, S., Rechid, D. and Schalle, M., 2014, Adapting to climate change: Methods and tools for climate risk management , CSC Report 17, Climate Service Center, Hamburg, Germany. Brasseur, G. P. and Gallardo, L., 2016, ‘Climate services: Lessons learned and future prospects’, Earth’s Future 4(3), 79–89 (DOI: 10.1002/2015EF000338). Brooks, M. S., 2013, ‘Accelerating innovation in climate services: The 3 Es for climate service providers’, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 94(6), 807–819 (DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00087.1). Cabinet Office, 2015, National Risk Register of Civil Emergencies; London Climate Change Partnership (https://www.gov.uk/government/ uploads/system/uploads/attachment_ data/file/419549/20150331_2015-NRR-WA_Final.pdf). References 145 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe EC, 2004, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament of 20 October 2004 ‘Critical infrastructure protection in the fight against terrorism’, COM(2004) 702 final. EC, 2006, Communication from the Commission of 12 December 2006 on a European Programme for Critical Infrastructure Protection, COM(2006) 786 final. EC, 2010a, Commission staff working paper ‘Risk assessment and mapping guidelines for disaster management’, SEC(2010) 1626 final. EC, 2010b, Communication from the Commission ‘Europe 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’, COM(2010) 2020 final. EC, 2011a, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions ‘Our life insurance, our natural capital: An EU biodiversity strategy to 2020’, COM(2011) 244 final. EC, 2011b, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions ‘Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe’, SEC(2011) 1068 final. EC, 2013a, Commission staff working document on a new approach to the European Programme for Critical Infrastructure Protection ‘Making European critical infrastructures more secure’, SWD(2013) 318 final. EC, 2013b, 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’, COM(2013) 216 final. EC, 2013c, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions ‘Green infrastructure (GI) — Enhancing Europe’s natural capital’, COM(2013) 249 final. EC, 2013d, Green Paper on the insurance of natural and man-made disasters, COM(2013) 213 final. EC, 2013e, Commission staff working document ‘Guidelines on developing adaptation strategies’, SWD(2013) 134 final. EC, 2014a, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions ‘The post 2015 Hyogo Framework for Action: Managing risks to achieve resilience’, COM(2014) 216 final. EC, 2014b, Council conclusions on the post 2015 Hyogo Framework for Action: Managing risks to achieve resilience, Council of the European Union, Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting Luxembourg, 5–6 June 2014. EC, 2014c, Outcome of the European ministerial meeting on disaster risk reduction ‘Towards a post-2015 framework for disaster risk reduction: Building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters’, 8 July 2014, Milan, Italy. EC, 2015a, A European research and innovation Roadmap for Climate Services , Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. EC, 2015b, Towards an EU research and innovation policy agenda for nature-based solutions & re-naturing cities , Final report of the Horizon 2020 expert group on nature-based solutions and re-naturing cities, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. EC, 2016a, Commission staff working document ‘Action plan on the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030: A disaster risk-informed approach for all EU policies’, SWD(2016) 205 final. EC, 2016b, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions ‘Next steps for a sustainable European future European action for sustainability’, COM(2016) 739 final. EC, 2017, Commission staff working document ‘Overview of Natural and Man-made Disaster Risks the European Union may face’, SWD(2017) 176 final. EEA, 2011, Green infrastructure and territorial cohesion: The concept of green infrastructure and its integration into policies using monitoring systems , Technical Report No 18/2011, European Environment Agency. EEA, 2013, Adaptation in Europe — Addressing risks and opportunities from climate change in the context of socio-economic developments , EEA Report No 3/2013, European Environment Agency. EEA, 2014a, National adaptation policy processes across European countries — 2014 , EEA Report No 4/2014, European Environment Agency. References 146 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in EuropeEEA, 2014b, Spatial analysis of green infrastructure in Europe , Technical Report No 2/2014, European Environment Agency. EEA, 2015, Exploring nature-based solutions — The role of green infrastructure in mitigating the impacts of weather- and climate change-related natural hazards , Technical Report 12/2015, European Environment Agency. EEA, 2016a, Flood risks and environmental vulnerability — Exploring the synergies between floodplain restoration, water policies and thematic policies , EEA Report No 1/2016, European Environment Agency. EEA, 2016b, Urban adaptation to climate change in Europe 2016 — Transforming cities in a changing climate , EEA Report No 12, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark. EEB, 2015, Sustainable Development Goals: Implementation in Europe , European Environmental Bureau, Brussels. EFDRR, 2013, How does Europe link DRR and CCA?, Working paper, European Forum for Disaster Risk Reduction, Brussels. EU, 2007, Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks, OJ L 288, 6.11.2007, p. 27–34. EU, 2008, Council Directive 2008/114/EC of 8 December 2008 on the identification and designation of European critical infrastructures and the assessment of the need to improve their protection, OJ L 345, 23.12.2008, p. 75–82. EU, 2013a, Decision No 1082/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on serious cross-border threats to health and repealing Decision No 2119/98/EC, OJ L 293, 5.11.2013, p. 1–15. EU, 2013b, Decision No 1313/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism, OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 924–947. EU, 2014, Regulation (EU) No 377/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 establishing the Copernicus Programme and repealing Regulation (EU) No 911/2010, 0J L 122, 3.4.2010, p. 44–66. Feenstra, 2016, Steirischer Hitzeschutzplan , Gesundheit Steiermark, Graz, Austria.Fenton, N. E. and Neil, M., 2012, Risk assessment and decision analysis with Bayesian networks , Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, FL. Forzieri, G., Bianchi, A., Marin Herrera, M. A., Batista e Silva, F., Feyen, L., Lavalle, C., European Commission, Joint Research Centre and Institute for the Protection and the Security of the Citizen, 2015, Resilience of large investments and critical infrastructures in Europe to climate change , Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. Forzieri, G., Feyen, L., Russo, S., Vousdoukas, M., Alfieri, L., Outten, S., Migliavacca, M., Bianchi, A., Rojas, R. and Cid, A., 2016, ‘Multi-hazard assessment in Europe under climate change’, Climatic Change 137(1–2), 105–119 (DOI: 10.1007/s10584-016-1661-x). Gallina, V., Torresan, S., Critto, A., Sperotto, A., Glade, T. and Marcomini, A., 2016, ‘A review of multi-risk methodologies for natural hazards: Consequences and challenges for a climate change impact assessment’, Journal of Environmental Management 168, 123–132 (DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.11.011). German Committee for Disaster Reduction, 2004, Flood risk reduction in Germany , German Committee for Disaster Reduction, Bonn, Germany. De Groeve, T., Poljansek, K. and Ehrlich, D., 2013, Recording disaster losses recommendations for a European approac h, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. De Groeve, T., Poljansek, K., Ehrlich, D. and Corbane, C., 2014, Current status and best practices for disaster loss data recording in EU Member States , Joint Research Centre Institute for the Protection and the Security of the Citizen, Ispra, Italy. Groves, D. G. and Lempert, R. J., 2007, ‘A new analytic method for finding policy-relevant scenarios’, Global Environmental Change 17(1), 73–85 (DOI: 10.1016/j. gloenvcha.2006.11.006). Haasnoot, M., Kwakkel, J. H., Walker, W. E. and ter Maat, J., 2013, ‘Dynamic adaptive policy pathways: A method for crafting robust decisions for a deeply uncertain world’, Global Environmental Change 23(2), 485–498 (DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.12.006). Hallegatte, S., Shah, A., Lempert, R., Brown, C. and Gil, S., 2012, Investment decision making under deep uncertainty — Application to climate change , Policy Research working paper, World Bank, Washington, DC. References 147 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe ICPDR, 2013, Strategy on adaptation to climate change , International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River, Vienna, Austria. ICPR, 2015, Strategy for the IRBD Rhine for adapting to climate change , Report No 219, International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine, Koblenz, Germany. IPCC, 2001, Climate change 2001: Synthesis report — A contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. IPCC, 2012, Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation: Special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. IPCC, 2014, ‘Annex II: Glossary’, in: Barros, V. R., Field, C. B., Dokken, D. J., et al. (eds), Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability — Part B: Regional aspects — Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, pp. 1757–1776. JRC, 2015, Guidance for recording and sharing disaster damage and loss data: Towards the development of operational indicators to translate the Sendai Framework into action , JRC Science and Policy Reports, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy. Kappes, M. S., Keiler, M., von Elverfeldt, K. and Glade, T., 2012, ‘Challenges of analyzing multi-hazard risk: A review’, Natural Hazards 64(2), 1925–1958 (DOI: 10.1007/ s11069-012-0294-2). Klinke, A. and Renn, O., 2002, ‘A new approach to risk evaluation and management: Risk-based, precaution-based, and discourse-based strategies’, Risk Analysis 22(6), 1071–1094 (DOI: 10.1111/1539- 6924.00274). Lemos, M. C. and Rood, R. B., 2010, ‘Climate projections and their impact on policy and practice’, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 1(5), 670–682 (DOI: 10.1002/wcc.71). Lempert, R. J. and Groves, D. G., 2010, ‘Identifying and evaluating robust adaptive policy responses to climate change for water management agencies in the American west’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 77(6), 960–974 (DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2010.04.007).Liu, B., Siu, Y. L. and Mitchell, G., 2016, ‘Hazard interaction analysis for multi-hazard risk assessment: a systematic classification based on hazard-forming environment’, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 16(2), 629–642 (DOI: 10.5194/nhess-16-629-2016). Lourenco, T. C., Swart, R., Goosen, H. and Street, R., 2015, ‘The rise of demand-driven climate services’, Nature Climate Change 6(1), 13–14. MSB 2015, Resilient cities in Sweden – Six inspiring examples on DRR-action. Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency. ISBN: 978-91-7383-547-3 OECD, 2010, Recommendation of the Council on good practices for mitigating and financing catastrophic risks: Good practices for mitigating and financing catastrophic risks OECD recommendation, OECD, Paris, France. OECD, 2012, Global modeling of natural hazard risk — Enhancing existing capabilities to address new challenges , OECD, Paris, France. OECD, 2014a, Recommendation of the Council on the governance of critical risks, OECD, Paris, France. Pescaroli, G. and Alexander, D., 2015, ‘A definition of cascading disasters and cascading effects: Going beyond the ‘toppling dominos’ metaphor’, GRF Davos Planet@ Risk 3(1), 58–67. Poljanšek, K., Marín-Ferrer, M., De Groeve, T. and Clark, I., (Eds.), 2017, Science for disaster risk management 2017: knowing better and losing less, Technical EUR 28034 EN, JRC, Luxembourg. PROVIA, 2013, PROVIA Guidance on assessing vulnerability, impacts and adaptation to climate change, Consultation document, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. Renn, O., Klinke, A. and van Asselt, M., 2011, ‘Coping with complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity in risk governance: A synthesis’, AMBIO 40(2), 231–246 (DOI: 10.1007/s13280-010-0134-0). Sudmeier-Rieux, 2013, Ecosystem approach to disaster risk reduction: Basic concepts and recommendations to governments, with a special focus on Europe , Council of Europe, Strasbourg, France. SYKE, 2011, ‘Lake ice in Finland — Observed trends and future outlooks’ ( http://www.syke.fi/en-US/Current/ Press_releases/Lake_ice_in_Finland__observed_trends_ and(3200) ) accessed 20 September 2017. References 148 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in EuropeTrigila, A., Iadanza, C., Bussettini, M., Lastoria, B. and Barbano, A., 2015, Dissesto idrogeologico in Italia: Pericolosità e indicatori di rischio , Report No 233/2015, ISPRA, Rome, Italy. UBA, 2015, ‘Federal Environment Agency — Waste prevention’ (https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/en/ search/content/waste%2520prevention) accessed 25 September 2015. UN, 2015a, Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030, United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reducton, Geneva, Switzerland. UN, 2015b, Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (A/RES/70/1, 25 September 2015), United Nations, New York, NY. UN, 2016, Agenda for humanity: Annex to the Report of the Secretary-General for the World Humanitarian Summit (A/70/709, 2 February 2016), United Nations, New York, NY. UN, 2017, New urban agenda (A/RES/71/256, 23 December 2016), United Nations, New York, NY. UNFCCC, 2014, Synthesis report on methods and tools for, and good practices and lessons learned relating to, adaptation planning processes addressing ecosystems, human settlements, water resources and health, and good practices and lessons learned related to processes and structures for linking national and local adaptation planning , UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Bonn, Germany. UNFCCC, 2015, Adoption of the Paris Agreement, UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Bonn, Germany. UNFCCC, 2016, Marrakech action proclamation for our climate and sustainable development, UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Bonn, Germany. UNISDR, 2015, Disaster risk reduction and resilience in the 2030 agenda for sustainable development , United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, Geneva, Switzerland. UNISDR, 2016, The Science and Technology Roadmap to Support the Implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. UNISDR, 2017a, ‘The Cancun High-Level Communiqué – Ensuring the resilience of infrastructure and housing – Policy, Plans & Statements – Knowledge Base – PreventionWeb.net’ (https://www.unisdr.org/ archive/53426) accessed 13 July 2017.UNISDR, 2017b, Words into action guidelines: National focal points for disaster risk reduction, national platforms for disaster risk reduction and local platforms for disaster risk reduction , United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, Geneva, Switzerland. UNISDR, 2017c, ‘Terminology’ (http://www. preventionweb.net/english/professional/terminology/). accessed July 2017. Walker, W., Haasnoot, M. and Kwakkel, J., 2013, ‘Adapt or perish: A review of planning approaches for adaptation under deep uncertainty’, Sustainability 5(3), 955–979 (DOI: 10.3390/su5030955). Wise, R. M., Fazey, I., Stafford Smith, M., Park, S. E., Eakin, H. C., Archer Van Garderen, E. R. M. and Campbell, B., 2014, ‘Reconceptualising adaptation to climate change as part of pathways of change and response’, Global Environmental Change 28, 325–336 (DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.002). Chapter 3 Ahmed, K., 2017, ‘Italian avalanche: Ten found alive in Rigopiano hotel after two days’, BBC News, 21 January 2017 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world- europe-38691103) accessed 5 May 2017. Alfieri, L., Burek, P., Feyen, L. and Forzieri, G., 2015a, ‘Global warming increases the frequency of river floods in Europe’, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 19(5), 2247–2260 (DOI: 10.5194/hess-19-2247-2015). Alfieri, L., Feyen, L., Dottori, F. and Bianchi, A., 2015b, ‘Ensemble flood risk assessment in Europe under high end climate scenarios’, Global Environmental Change 35, 199–212 (DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.09.004). Alfieri, L., Feyen, L. and Baldassarre, G. D., 2016, ‘Increasing flood risk under climate change: A pan-European assessment of the benefits of four adaptation strategies’, Climatic Change 136(3–4), 507–521 (DOI: 10.1007/s10584-016-1641-1). Andersen, T. K. and Marshall Shepherd, J., 2013, ‘Floods in a changing climate’, Geography Compass 7(2), 95–115 (DOI: 10.1111/gec3.12025). Araújo, I. B. and Pugh, D. T., 2008, ‘Sea levels at Newlyn 1915-2005: Analysis of trends for future flooding risks’, Journal of Coastal Research 24, 203–212 (DOI: 10.2112/06-0785.1). Arca, B., Pellizaro, G., Duce, P., Salis, M., Bacciu, V., Spano, D., Ager, A., Finney, M. A. and Scoccimarro, E., 2012, References 149 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe ‘Potential changes in fire probability and severity under climate change scenarios in Mediterranean areas’, in: Spano, D., Bacciu, V., Salis, M., et al. (eds), Modelling fire behaviour and risk, Nuova Stampa Color, Sassari, Italy, pp. 92–98. Baatsen, M., Haarsma, R. J., Van Delden, A. J. and de Vries, H., 2015, ‘Severe autumn storms in future western Europe with a warmer Atlantic Ocean’, Climate Dynamics 45(3–4), 949–964 (DOI: 10.1007/s00382-014- 2329-8). Baldi, M., Ciardini, V., Dalu, J. D., De Filippis, T., Maracchi, G. and Dalu, G., 2014, ‘Hail occurrence in Italy: Towards a national database and climatology’, Atmospheric Research 138, 268–277. Ban, N., Schmidli, J. and Schär, C., 2015, ‘Heavy precipitation in a changing climate: Does short-term summer precipitation increase faster?’, Geophysical Research Letters 42(4), 2014GL062588 (DOI: 10.1002/2014GL062588). Barredo, J. I., 2009, ‘Normalised flood losses in Europe: 1970-2006’, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 9, 97–104 (DOI: 10.5194/nhess-9-97-2009). Barriopedro, D., Fischer, E. M., Luterbacher, J., Trigo, R. M. and Garcia-Herrera, R., 2011, ‘The hot summer of 2010: Redrawing the temperature record map of Europe’, Science 332(6026), 220–224 (DOI: 10.1126/ science.1201224). Bedia, J., Herrera, S., Camia, A., Moreno, M. J. and Gutiérrez, M. J., 2014, ‘Forest fire danger projections in the Mediterranean using ENSEMBLES regional climate change scenarios’, Climatic Change 122(1), 185–199 (DOI: 10.1007/s10584-013-1005-z). Berg, P., Moseley, C. and Haerter, J. O., 2013, ‘Strong increase in convective precipitation in response to higher temperatures’, Nature Geoscience 6(3), 181–185 (DOI: 10.1038/ngeo1731). Berthet, C., Wesolek, E., Dessens, J. and Sanchez, J. L., 2013, ‘Extreme hail day climatology in southwestern France’, Atmospheric Research 123, 139–150 (DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosres.2012.10.007). van den Besselaar, E. J. M., Haylock, M. R., van der Schrier, G. and Klein Tank, A. M. G., 2011, ‘A European daily high-resolution observational gridded data set of sea level pressure’, Journal of Geophysical Research 116(D11) (DOI: 10.1029/2010JD015468). Blauhut, V., Gudmundsson, L. and Stahl, K., 2015, ‘Towards pan-European drought risk maps: Quantifying the link between drought indices and reported drought impacts’, Environmental Research Letters 10(1), 14008 (DOI: 10.1088/1748- 9326/10/1/014008). Blunden, J. and Arndt, D. S., 2015, ‘State of the climate in 2014’, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 96(7), ES1-ES32 (DOI: 10.1175/2015BAMSStateoftheClimate.1). Blöschl, G., Hall, J., Parajka, J., Perdigão, R. A. P., Merz, B., Arheimer, B., Aronica, G. T., Bilibashi, A., Bonacci, O., Borga, M., Čanjevac, I., Castellarin, A., Chirico, G. B., Claps, P., Fiala, K., Frolova, N., Gorbachova, L., Gül, A., Hannaford, J. et al., 2017, ‘Changing climate shifts timing of European floods’, Science 357(6351), 588– 590 (DOI: 10.1126/science.aan2506). Brönnimann, S., Martius, O., von Waldow, H., Welker, C., Luterbacher, J., Compo, G. P., Sardeshmukh, P. D. and Usbeck, T., 2012, ‘Extreme winds at northern mid-latitudes since 1871’, Meteorologische Zeitschrift 21(1), 13–27 (DOI: 10.1127/0941-2948/2012/0337). Brooks, H. E., 2013, ‘Severe thunderstorms and climate change’, Atmospheric Research 123, 129–138 (DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosres.2012.04.002). Camia, A. and Amatulli, G., 2009, ‘Weather factors and fire danger in the Mediterranean’, in: Chuvieco, E. (ed.), Earth observation of wildland fires in Mediterranean ecosystems , Springer, Berlin, Germany, pp. 71–82. Camia, A., Amatulli, G. and San-Miguel-Ayanz, J., 2008, Past and future trends of fire danger in Europe , EUR 23427 EN, JRC, Ispra, Italy. Carvalho, A., Monteiro, A., Flannigan, M., Solman, S., Miranda, A. I. and Borrego, C., 2011, ‘Forest fires in a changing climate and their impacts on air quality’, Atmospheric Environment 45(31), 5545–5553 (DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.05.010). Castebrunet, H., Eckert, N., Giraud, G., Durand, Y. and Morin, S., 2014, ‘Projected changes of snow conditions and avalanche activity in a warming climate: the French Alps over the 2020–2050 and 2070–2100 periods’, The Cryosphere 8(5), 1673–1697 (DOI: 10.5194/tc-8-1673-2014). Cavicchia, L., Storch, H. von and Gualdi, S., 2013, ‘A long-term climatology of medicanes’, Climate Dynamics 43(5–6), 1183–1195 (DOI: 10.1007/s00382-013-1893-7). Cavicchia, L., von Storch, H. and Gualdi, S., 2014, ‘Mediterranean tropical-like cyclones in present and References 150 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europefuture climate’, Journal of Climate 27(19), 7493–7501 (DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00339.1). Chan, S. C., Kendon, E. J., Fowler, H. J., Blenkinsop, S., Roberts, N. M. and Ferro, C. A. T., 2014, ‘The value of high-resolution Met Office regional climate models in the simulation of multihourly precipitation extremes’, Journal of Climate 27(16), 6155–6174 (DOI: 10.1175/ JCLI-D-13-00723.1). Chorynski, A., Pinskwar, I., Kron, W., Brakenridge, G. R. and Kundzewicz, Z. W., 2012, ‘Catalogue of large floods in Europe in the 20th century’, in: Kundzewicz, Z. W. (ed.), Changes in flood risk in Europe , IAHS special publication, IAHS Press, Wallingford, United Kingdom. Christidis, N., Jones, G. S. and Stott, P. A., 2015, ‘Dramatically increasing chance of extremely hot summers since the 2003 European heatwave’, Nature Climate Change 5(1), 46–50 (DOI: 10.1038/ nclimate2468). Church, J. A., Clark, P. U., Cazenave, A., Gregory, J. M., Jevrejeva, S., Levermann, A., Merrifield, M. A., Milne, G. A., Nerem, R. S., Nunn, P. D., Payne, A. J., Pfeffer, W. T., Stammer, D. and Unnikrishnan, A. S., 2013, ‘Sea-level change’, in: Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., et al. (eds), Climate change 2013: The physical science basis: Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Ciervo, F., Rianna, G., Mercogliano, P. and Papa, M. N., 2016, ‘Effects of climate change on shallow landslides in a small coastal catchment in southern Italy’, Landslides 14(3), 1–13 (DOI: 10.1007/s10346- 016-0743-1). Cioni, G., Malguzzi, P. and Buzzi, A., 2016, ‘Thermal structure and dynamical precursor of a Mediterranean tropical-like cyclone’, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 142(697), 1757–1766 (DOI: 10.1002/qj.2773). Ciscar, J. C., Feyen, L., Soria, A., Lavalle, C., Raes, F., Perry, M., Nemry, F., Demirel, H., Rozsai, M., Dosio, A., Donatelli, M., Srivastava, A., Fumagalli, D., Niemeyer, S., Shrestha, S., Ciaian, P., Himics, M., Van Doorslaer, B., Barrios, S. et al., 2014, Climate impacts in Europe: The JRC PESETA II project, JRC Scientific and Policy Reports EUR 26586 EN, JRC87011, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Ispra, Italy. Ciscar, J.-C., Iglesias, A., Feyen, L., Szabo, L., Van Regemorter, D., Amelung, B., Nicholls, R., Watkiss, P., Christensen, O. B., Dankers, R., Garrote, L., Goodess, C. M., Hunt, A., Moreno, A., Richards, J. and Soria, A., 2011, ‘Physical and economic consequences of climate change in Europe’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108(7), 2678–2683 (DOI: 10.1073/ pnas.1011612108). Dangendorf, S., Müller-Navarra, S., Jensen, J., Schenk, F., Wahl, T. and Weisse, R., 2014, ‘North Sea storminess from a novel storm surge record since AD 1843’, Journal of Climate 27(10), 3582–3595 (DOI: 10.1175/ JCLI-D-13-00427.1). Dankers, R. and Feyen, L., 2009, ‘Flood hazard in Europe in an ensemble of regional climate scenarios’, Journal of Geophysical Research 114(D16) (DOI: 10.1029/2008JD011523). Dawkins, L. C., Stephenson, D. B., Lockwood, J. F. and Maisey, P. E., 2016, ‘The 21st century decline in damaging European windstorms’, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 16(8), 1–17 (DOI: 10.5194/ nhess-2016-121). Devon Maritime Forum, 2015, Holding the line? Reviewing the impacts, responses and resilience of people and places in Devon to the winter storms of 2013/2014 , Devon Maritime Forum, Plymouth, United Kingdom. Dixon, N. and Brook, E., 2007, ‘Impact of predicted climate change on landslide reactivation: case study of Mam Tor, UK’, Landslides 4(2), 137–147 (DOI: 10.1007/ s10346-006-0071-y). Donat, M. G., Alexander, L. V., Yang, H., Durre, I., Vose, R. and Caesar, J., 2013a, ‘Global land-based datasets for monitoring climatic extremes’, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 94(7), 997–1006 (DOI: 10.1175/ BAMS-D-12-00109.1). Donat, M. G., Alexander, L. V., Yang, H., Durre, I., Vose, R., Dunn, R. J. H., Willett, K. M., Aguilar, E., Brunet, M., Caesar, J., Hewitson, B., Jack, C., Klein Tank, A. M. G., Kruger, A. C., Marengo, J., Peterson, T. C., Renom, M., Oria Rojas, C., Rusticucci, M. et al., 2013b, ‘Updated analyses of temperature and precipitation extreme indices since the beginning of the twentieth century: The HadEX2 dataset’, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 118(5), 2098–2118 (DOI: 10.1002/jgrd.50150). Donat, M. G., Leckebusch, G. C., Wild, S. and Ulbrich, U., 2011a, ‘Future changes in European winter storm losses and extreme wind speeds inferred from GCM and RCM multi-model simulations’, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 11(5), 1351–1370 (DOI: 10.5194/nhess-11-1351-2011). References 151 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe Donat, M. G., Renggli, D., Wild, S., Alexander, L. V., Leckebusch, G. C. and Ulbrich, U., 2011b, ‘Reanalysis suggests long-term upward trend in European storminess since 1871’, Geophysical Research Letters 38(14) (DOI: 10.1029/2011GL047995). Dong, B., Sutton, R., Shaffrey, L. and Wilcox, L., 2016, ‘The 2015 European heat wave’, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 97(12), S57–S62 (DOI: 10.1175/ BAMS-D-16-0140.1). Dury, M., Hambuckers, A., Warnant, P., Henrot, A., Favre, E., Ouberdous, M. and François, L., 2011, ‘Responses of European forest ecosystems to 21st century climate: Assessing changes in interannual variability and fire intensity’, iForest — Biogeosciences and Forestry 4(2), 82–99. EAWS, 2016, ‘European Avalanche Warning Services (EAWS) Glossary’ (http://www.avalanches.org/eaws/en/ includes/glossary/glossary_en_all.html) accessed 29 August 2016. EC, 2013, A compilation of reporting sheets adopted by water directors common implementation strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), Guidance Document, European Commission, Brussels. EEA, 2012, Water resources in Europe in the context of vulnerability: EEA 2012 state of water assessment , EEA Report No 11/2012, European Environment Agency. EEA, 2015, State of nature in the EU: Results from reporting under the nature directives 2007-2012 , EEA Technical Report No 2/2015, European Environment Agency. EEA, 2016a, Flood risks and environmental vulnerability — Exploring the synergies between floodplain restoration, water policies and thematic policies , EEA Report No 1/2016, European Environment Agency. EEA, 2016b, ‘Use of freshwater resources’ (http:// www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/use- of-freshwater-resources-2/assessment-1) accessed 15 March 2016. EEA, 2017, Climate change, impacts and vulnerability in Europe — An indicator-based report , EEA Report 1/2017, European Environment Agency. Einhorn, B., Eckert, N., Chaix, C., Ravanel, L., Deline, P., Gardent, M., Boudières, V., Richard, D., Vengeon, J.-M., Giraud, G. and Schoeneich, P., 2015, ‘Climate change and natural hazards in the Alps’, Journal of Alpine Research 103(2) (DOI: 10.4000/rga.2878). van Engelen, A., Klein Tank, A., van der Schrier, G. and Klok, L., 2008, Towards an operational system for assessing observed changes in climate extremes , ECA&D Report 2008/1, KNMI, De Bilt, Netherlands. ESA-CCI, 2017, ‘CCI Open Data Portal’ (http://cci.esa.int/) accessed 28 April 2017. EU, 2007, Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks , OJ L 288, 6.11.2007, p. 27–34. EURO4M-CIB, 2013, ‘Central European flooding 2013’ (http://cib.knmi.nl/mediawiki/index.php/Central_ European_flooding_2013) accessed 16 February 2017. Feser, F., Barcikowska, M., Krueger, O., Schenk, F., Weisse, R. and Xia, L., 2014, ‘Storminess over the North Atlantic and northwestern Europe — A review’, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 141, 350–382 (DOI: 10.1002/qj.2364). Fischer, E. M., Sedláček, J., Hawkins, E. and Knutti, R., 2014, ‘Models agree on forced response pattern of precipitation and temperature extremes’, Geophysical Research Letters 41(23), 2014GL062018 (DOI: 10.1002/2014GL062018). Fischer, E. and Schär, C., 2010, ‘Consistent geographical patterns of changes in high-impact European heatwaves’, Nature Geoscience 3, 398–403 (DOI: 10.1038/ngeo866). Flageollet, J.-C., Maquaire, O., Martin, B. and Weber, D., 1999, ‘Landslides and climatic conditions in the Barcelonnette and Vars basins (southern French Alps, France)’, Geomorphology 30(1–2), 65–78 (DOI: 10.1016/ S0169-555X(99)00045-8). Forzieri, G., Feyen, L., Rojas, R., Flörke, M., Wimmer, F. and Bianchi, A., 2014, ‘Ensemble projections of future streamflow droughts in Europe’, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 18(1), 85–108 (DOI: 10.5194/hess-18-85- 2014). Forzieri, G., Feyen, L., Russo, S., Vousdoukas, M., Alfieri, L., Outten, S., Migliavacca, M., Bianchi, A., Rojas, R. and Cid, A., 2016, ‘Multi-hazard assessment in Europe under climate change’, Climatic Change 137(1), 1–15 (DOI: 10.1007/s10584-016-1661-x). References 152 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in EuropeGallant, A. J. E., Karoly, D. J. and Gleason, K. L., 2013, ‘Consistent trends in a modified climate extremes index in the United States, Europe, and Australia’, Journal of Climate 27(4), 1379–1394 (DOI: 10.1175/ JCLI-D-12-00783.1). García-Herrera, R., Díaz, J., Trigo, R. M., Luterbacher, J. and Fischer, E. M., 2010, ‘A review of the European summer heat wave of 2003’, Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 40(4), 267–306 (DOI: 10.1080/10643380802238137). Gariano, S. L. and Guzzetti, F., 2016, ‘Landslides in a changing climate’, Earth-Science Reviews 162, 227–252 (DOI: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2016.08.011). Gariano, S. L., Petrucci, O. and Guzzetti, F., 2015, ‘Changes in the occurrence of rainfall-induced landslides in Calabria, southern Italy, in the 20th century’, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 15, 2313–2330. Gastineau, G. and Soden, B. J., 2009, ‘Model projected changes of extreme wind events in response to global warming’, Geophysical Research Letters 36(L10810) (DOI: 10.1029/2009GL037500). Gattinoni, P., Scesi, L., Arieni, L. and Canavesi, M., 2012, ‘The February 2010 large landslide at Maierato, Vibo Valentia, Southern Italy’, Landslides 9(2), 255–261 (DOI: 10.1007/s10346-011-0296-2). Geggel, L., 2017, ‘Earthquakes or snowstorms? Cause of Italy’s deadly avalanche debated’ (http://www. livescience.com/57563-did-earthquakes-cause-italy- avalanche.html) accessed 5 May 2017. Gerritsen, H., 2005, ‘What happened in 1953? The Big Flood in the Netherlands in retrospect’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 363(1831), 1271–1291 (DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2005.1568). Giorgi, F., Coppola, E. and Raffaele, F., 2014, ‘A consistent picture of the hydroclimatic response to global warming from multiple indices: Models and observations’, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 119(20), 2014JD022238 (DOI: 10.1002/2014JD022238). Gobiet, A., Kotlarski, S., Beniston, M., Heinrich, G., Rajczak, J. and Stoffel, M., 2014, ’21st century climate change in the European Alps — A review’, Science of The Total Environment 493, 1138–1151 (DOI: 10.1016/j. scitotenv.2013.07.050).Groenemeijer, P., Vajda, A., Lehtonen, I., Kämäräinen, M., Venäläinen, A. and Hilppa Gregow, 2016, Present and future probability of meteorological and hydrological hazards in Europe: Final report of Rain Project, Impact of extreme weather on critical infrastructure 608166 , European Severe Storms Laboratory, DLR Institute for Atmospheric Physics, Wessling, Germany. Gudmundsson, L. and Seneviratne, S. I., 2015, ‘A comprehensive drought climatology for Europe (1950-2013)’, in: Andreu Alvarez, J., Solera, A., Paredes-Arquiola, J., et al. (eds), Drought: Research and science-policy interfacing, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 31–37. Günther, A., Reichenbach, P., Malet, J.-P., Eeckhaut, M. V. D., Hervás, J., Dashwood, C. and Guzzetti, F., 2012, ‘Tier-based approaches for landslide susceptibility assessment in Europe’, Landslides 10(5), 529–546 (DOI: 10.1007/s10346-012-0349-1). Haigh, I., Nicholls, R. and Wells, N., 2010, ‘Assessing changes in extreme sea levels: Application to the English Channel, 1900-2006’, Continental Shelf Research 30(9), 1042–1055 (DOI: 10.1016/j.csr.2010.02.002). Hannaford, J., Buys, G., Stahl, K. and Tallaksen, L. M., 2013, ‘The influence of decadal-scale variability on trends in long European streamflow records’, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 17(7), 2717–2733 (DOI: 10.5194/hess-17-2717-2013). Haque, U., Blum, P., Silva, P. F. da, Andersen, P., Pilz, J., Chalov, S. R., Malet, J.-P., Auflič, M. J., Andres, N., Poyiadji, E., Lamas, P. C., Zhang, W., Peshevski, I., Pétursson, H. G., Kurt, T., Dobrev, N., García-Davalillo, J. C., Halkia, M., Ferri, S. et al., 2016, ‘Fatal landslides in Europe’, Landslides 13(6), 1545–1554 (DOI: 10.1007/ s10346-016-0689-3). Hartmann, D. L., Klein Tank, A. M. G. and Rusticucci, M., 2013, ‘Observations: atmosphere and surface (final draft underlying scientific-technical assessment)’, in: Climate change 2013: The physical science basis , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, chapter 2. Henrich, G. and Gobiet, A., 2012, ‘The future of dry and wet spells in Europe: A comprehensive study based on the ENSEMBLES regional climate model’, International Journal of Climatology 1, 101–123 (DOI: 10.1002/ joc.2421). Hov, Ø., Cubasch, U., Fischer, E., Höppe, P., Iversen, T., Kvamstø, N. G., Kundzewicz, Z. W., Rezacova, D., Rios, References 153 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe D., Duarte Santos, F., Schädler, B., Veisz, O., Zerefos, C., Benestad, R., Murlis, J., Donat, M., Leckebusch, G. C. and Ulbrich, U., 2013, Extreme weather events in Europe: Preparing for climate change adaptation , Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway. Howard, T., Pardaens, A. K., Bamber, J. L., Ridley, J., Spada, G., Hurkmans, R. T. W. L., Lowe, J. A. and Vaughan, D., 2014, ‘Sources of 21st century regional sea-level rise along the coast of northwest Europe’, Ocean Science 10(3), 473–483 (DOI: 10.5194/os-10-473- 2014). van Huijgevoort, M. H. J., van Lanen, H. A. J., Teuling, A. J. and Uijlenhoet, R., 2014, ‘Identification of changes in hydrological drought characteristics from a multi-GCM driven ensemble constrained by observed discharge’, Journal of Hydrology 512, 421–434 (DOI: 10.1016/j. jhydrol.2014.02.060). Hunter, J., 2012, ‘A simple technique for estimating an allowance for uncertain sea-level rise’, Climatic Change 113(2), 239–252 (DOI: 10.1007/s10584-011-0332-1). Hunter, J. R., Church, J. A., White, N. J. and Zhang, X., 2013, ‘Towards a global regionally varying allowance for sea-level rise’, Ocean Engineering 71, 17–27 (DOI: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2012.12.041). IPCC, 2012, Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation: Special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. IPCC, 2013, Climate change 2013: The physical science basis: Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. IPCC, 2014, Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Part A: Global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York. Jacob, D., Petersen, J., Eggert, B., Alias, A., Christensen, O. B., Bouwer, L. M., Braun, A., Colette, A., Déqué, M., Georgievski, G., Georgopoulou, E., Gobiet, A., Menut, L., Nikulin, G., Haensler, A., Hempelmann, N., Jones, C., Keuler, K., Kovats, S. et al., 2014, ‘EURO-CORDEX: New high-resolution climate change projections for European impact research’, Regional Environmental Change 14(2), 563–578 (DOI: 10.1007/s10113-013- 0499-2).Jaedicke, C., Eeckhaut, M. V. D., Nadim, F., Hervás, J., Kalsnes, B., Vangelsten, B. V., Smith, J. T., Tofani, V., Ciurean, R., Winter, M. G., Sverdrup-Thygeson, K., Syre, E. and Smebye, H., 2014, ‘Identification of landslide hazard and risk ‘hotspots’ in Europe’, Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment 73(2), 325–339 (DOI: 10.1007/s10064-013-0541-0). Jomelli, V., Pech, V. P., Chochillon, C. and Brunstein, D., 2016, ‘Geomorphic variations of debris flows and recent climatic change in the French Alps’, Climatic Change 64(1–2), 77–102 (DOI: 10.1023/B:CL IM.0000024700.35154.44). Jongman, B., Hochrainer-Stigler, S., Feyen, L., Aerts, J. C. J. H., Mechler, R., Botzen, W. J. W., Bouwer, L. M., Pflug, G., Rojas, R. and Ward, P. J., 2014, ‘Increasing stress on disaster-risk finance due to large floods’, Nature Climate Change 4(4), 264–268 (DOI: 10.1038/ nclimate2124). Jung, T., Klinker, E. and Uppala, S., 2004, ‘Reanalysis and reforecast of three major European storms of the twentieth century using the ECMWF forecasting system — Part I: Analyses and deterministic forecasts’, Meteorological Applications 11(4), 343–361 (DOI: 10.1017/S1350482704001434). Jung, T., Klinker, E. and Uppala, S., 2005, ‘Reanalysis and reforecast of three major European storms of the twentieth century using the ECMWF forecasting system – Part II: Ensemble forecasts’, Meteorological Applications 12(2), 111–122 (DOI: 10.1017/S1350482705001623). Junghänel, T., Brendel, C., Winterrath, T. and Walter, A., 2016, ‘Towards a radar- and observation-based hail climatology for Germany’, Meteorologische Zeitschrift 25(4), 435–445 (DOI: 10.1127/metz/2016/0734). Kalnay, E., Kanamitsu, M., Kistler, R., Collins, W., Deaven, D., Gandin, L., Iredell, M., Saha, S., White, G., Woollen, J., Zhu, Y., Leetmaa, A., Reynolds, R., Chelliah, M., Ebisuzaki, W., Higgins, W., Janowiak, J., Mo, K. C., Ropelewski, C. et al., 1996, ‘The NCEP/NCAR 40-year reanalysis project’, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 77, 437–471 (DOI: 10.1175/1520- 0477(1996)077). Kapsch, M.-L., Kunz, M., Vitolo, R. and Economou, T., 2012, ‘Long-term trends of hail-related weather types in an ensemble of regional climate models using a Bayesian approach’, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 117(D15), D15107 (DOI: 10.1029/2011JD017185). Kastelic, J., Kobold, M., Sušnik, M., Brilly, M. and Globevnik, L., 2014, Analysing flood event in May 2014 in References 154 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in EuropeBosnia and Herzegovina, Slovenian Environment Agency and Water Institute , Ljubljana , Slovenia. Kendon, E. J., Roberts, N. M., Fowler, H. J., Roberts, M. J., Chan, S. C. and Senior, C. A., 2014, ‘Heavier summer downpours with climate change revealed by weather forecast resolution model’, Nature Climate Change 4(7), 570–576 (DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2258). Kendon, M., Marsh, T. and Parry, S., 2013, ‘The 2010–2012 drought in England and Wales’, Weather 68(4), 88–95 (DOI: 10.1002/wea.2101). Khabarov, N., Krasovskii, A., Obersteiner, M., Swart, R., Dosio, A., San-Miguel-Ayanz, J., Durrant, T., Camia, A. and Migliavacca, M., 2016, ‘Forest fires and adaptation options in Europe’, Regional Environmental Change 16(1), 21–30 (DOI: 10.1007/s10113-014-0621-0). King, A. D., Black, M. T., Min, S.-K., Fischer, E. M., Mitchell, D. M., Harrington, L. J. and Perkins-Kirkpatrick, S. E., 2016, ‘Emergence of heat extremes attributable to anthropogenic influences’, Geophysical Research Letters 43(7), 2015GL067448 (DOI: 10.1002/2015GL067448). Kopparla, P., Fischer, E. M., Hannay, C. and Knutti, R., 2013, ‘Improved simulation of extreme precipitation in a high-resolution atmosphere model’, Geophysical Research Letters 40(21), 5803–5808 (DOI: 10.1002/2013GL057866). Koutsias, N., Arianoutsou, M., Kallimanis, A. S., Mallinis, G., Halley, J. M. and Dimopoulos, P., 2012, ‘Where did the fires burn in Peloponnisos, Greece the summer of 2007? Evidence for a synergy of fuel and weather’, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 156, 41–53 (DOI: 10.1016/j. agrformet.2011.12.006). Kovats, R. S., Valentini, R., Bouwer, L. M., Georgopoulou, E., Jacob, D., Martin, E., Rounsevell, M. and Soussana, J.-F., 2014, ‘Europe’, in: Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability, Part B: Regional aspects: Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Krueger, O., Schenk, F., Feser, F. and Weisse, R., 2013, ‘Inconsistencies between long-term trends in storminess derived from the 20CR reanalysis and observations’, Journal of Climate 26(3), 868–874 (DOI: 10.1175/ JCLI-D-12-00309.1). Kundzewicz, Z. W., Krysanova, V., Dankers, R., Hirabayashi, Y., Kanae, S., Hattermann, F. F., Huang, S., Milly, P. C. D., Stoffel, M., Driessen, P. P. J., Matczak, P., Quevauviller, P. and Schellnhuber, H.-J., 2017, ‘Differences in flood hazard projections in Europe — Their causes and consequences for decision making’, Hydrological Sciences Journal 62(1), 1–14 (DOI: 10.1080/02626667.2016.1241398). Kundzewicz, Z. W., Pińskwar, I. and Brakenridge, G. R., 2013, ‘Large floods in Europe, 1985–2009’, Hydrological Sciences Journal 58(1), 1–7 (DOI: 10.1080/02626667.2012.745082). Kunz, M. and Kugel, P. I. S., 2015, ‘Detection of hail signatures from single-polarization C-band radar reflectivity’, Atmospheric Research 153, 565–577 (DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosres.2014.09.010). Kunz, M., Sander, J. and Kottmeier, C., 2009, ‘Recent trends of thunderstorm and hailstorm frequency and their relation to atmospheric characteristics in southwest Germany’, International Journal of Climatology 29(15), 2283–2297 (DOI: 10.1002/joc.1865). Kurnik, B., Kajfež-Bogataj, L. and Horion, S., 2015, ‘An assessment of actual evapotranspiration and soil water deficit in agricultural regions in Europe’, International Journal of Climatology 35(9), 2451–2471 (DOI: 10.1002/ joc.4154). Lehmann, J., Coumou, D. and Frieler, K., 2015, ‘Increased record-breaking precipitation events under global warming’, Climatic Change 132(4), 501–515 (DOI: 10.1007/s10584-015-1434-y). Lehner, F., Deser, C. and Sanderson, B. M., 2016, ‘Future risk of record-breaking summer temperatures and its mitigation’, Climatic Change , 1–13 (DOI: 10.1007/s10584- 016-1616-2). Lindner, M., Maroschek, M., Netherer, S., Kremer, A., Barbati, A., Garcia-Gonzalo, J., Seidl, R., Delzon, S., Corona, P., Kolström, M., Lexer, M. J. and Marchetti, M., 2010, ‘Climate change impacts, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability of European forest ecosystems’, Forest Ecology and Management 259(4), 698–709 (DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2009.09.023). Lugeri, N., Kundzewicz, Z. W., Genovese, E., Hochrainer, S. and Radziejewski, M., 2010, ‘River flood risk and adaptation in Europe — assessment of the present status’, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 15(7), 621–639 (DOI: 10.1007/s11027-009-9211- 8). Lung, T., Lavalle, C., Hiederer, R., Dosio, A. and Bouwer, L. M., 2013, ‘A multi-hazard regional level impact assessment for Europe combining indicators of climatic and non-climatic change’, Global Environmental Change 23(2), 522–536 (DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.11.009). References 155 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe Maier, N. and Haidu, I., 2017, ‘Radar climatology of hail in the Apuseni Mountains’, conference paper presented at: Conference dedicated to the World Meteorological Day and World Water Day, Cluj Napoca, Romania, 2017. Marcos, M., Jordà, G., Gomis, D. and Pérez, B., 2011, ‘Changes in storm surges in southern Europe from a regional model under climate change scenarios’, Global and Planetary Change 77(3–4), 116–128 (DOI: 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2011.04.002). Marsh, P. T., Brooks, H. E. and Karoly, D. J., 2007, ‘Assessment of the severe weather environment in North America simulated by a global climate model’, Atmospheric Science Letters 8(4), 100–106 (DOI: 10.1002/asl.159). Marsh, P. T., Brooks, H. E. and Karoly, D. J., 2009, ‘Preliminary investigation into the severe thunderstorm environment of Europe simulated by the Community Climate System Model 3’, Atmospheric Research 93(1–3), 607–618 (DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosres.2008.09.014). Marsh, T. J., Kendon, M., Hannaford, J. and Parry, S., 2013, The 2010-12 drought and subsequent extensive flooding — A remarkable hydrological transformation, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology , Wallingford, United Kingdom. Masselink, G., Scott, T., Poate, T., Russell, P., Davidson, M. and Conley, D., 2016, ‘The extreme 2013/2014 winter storms: Hydrodynamic forcing and coastal response along the southwest coast of England’, Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 41(3), 378–391 (DOI: 10.1002/esp.3836). Matulla, C., Schoener, W., Alexandersson, H., von Storch, H. and Wang, X. L., 2007, ‘European storminess: Late nineteenth century to present’, Climate Dynamics 31(2–3), 125–130 (DOI: 10.1007/s00382-007-0333-y). McDonald, R., 2011, ‘Understanding the impact of climate change on Northern Hemisphere extra-tropical cyclones’, Climate Dynamics 37, 1399–1425 (DOI: 10.1007/s00382-010-0916-x). McInnes, K. and Hemer, M., 2015, Towards a coordinated ocean storm surge model intercomparison project, manuscript, CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere Flagship , Clatyon, Australia. McKee, T. B., Doesken, N. J. and Kleist, J., 1995, ‘Drought monitoring with multiple time scales’, Preprints , 9th Conference on Applied Climatology, Dallas, TX, 15 January 1995.Menéndez, M. and Woodworth, P. L., 2010, ‘Changes in extreme high water levels based on a quasi-global tide-gauge data set’, Journal of Geophysical Research 115(C10) (DOI: 10.1029/2009JC005997). Merino, A., Wu, X., Gascón, E., Berthet, C., García-Ortega, E. and Dessens, J., 2014, ‘Hailstorms in southwestern France: Incidence and atmospheric characterization’, Atmospheric Research 140–141, 61–75 (DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosres.2014.01.015). Michetti, M. and Zampieri, M., 2014, ‘Climate-human- land interactions: A review of major modelling approaches’, Land 3(3), 793. Mohr, S. and Kunz, M., 2013, ‘Recent trends and variabilities of convective parameters relevant for hail events in Germany and Europe’, Atmospheric Research 123, 211–228 (DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosres.2012.05.016). Mohr, S., Kunz, M. and Geyer, B., 2015, ‘Hail potential in Europe based on a regional climate model hindcast’, Geophysical Research Letters 42(24), 10904–10912. Mokrech, M., Kebede, A. S., Nicholls, R. J., Wimmer, F. and Feyen, L., 2014, ‘An integrated approach for assessing flood impacts due to future climate and socio-economic conditions and the scope of adaptation in Europe’, Climatic Change 128(3–4), 245–260 (DOI: 10.1007/s10584-014-1298-6). Montesarchio, M., Zollo, A. L., Bucchignani, E., Mercogliano, P. and Castellari, S., 2014, ‘Performance evaluation of high-resolution regional climate simulations in the Alpine space and analysis of extreme events’, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 119(6), 2013JD021105 (DOI: 10.1002/2013JD021105). Moody, J. A., Shakesby, R. A., Robichaud, P. R., Cannon, S. H. and Martin, D. A., 2013, ‘Current research issues related to post-wildfire runoff and erosion processes’, Earth-Science Reviews 122, 10–37 (DOI: 10.1016/j. earscirev.2013.03.004). Moreira, F., Viedma, O., Arianoutsou, M., Curt, T., Koutsias, N., Rigolot, E., Barbati, A., Corona, P., Vaz, P., Xanthopoulos, G., Mouillot, F. and Bilgili, E., 2011, ‘Landscape-wildfire interactions in southern Europe: Implications for landscape management’, Journal of Environmental Management 92(10), 2389–2402 (DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.06.028). Moreno, J. M., 2014, Forest fires under climate, social and economic changes in Europe, the Mediterranean and other fire-affected areas of the world , FUME project, Toledo, Spain. References 156 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in EuropeMueller, B. and Seneviratne, S. I., 2012, ‘Hot days induced by precipitation deficits at the global scale’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109(31), 12398–12403 (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1204330109). Munich RE, 2014, ‘Overall picture of natural catastrophes in 2013 dominated by weather extremes in Europe and Supertyphoon Haiyan’ (http://www. munichre.com/en/media-relations/publications/press- releases/2014/2014-01-07-press-release/index.html) accessed 13 July 2015. Munich RE, 2016, ‘NatCatSERVICE’ (https://www. munichre.com/en/reinsurance/business/non-life/ natcatservice/index.html) accessed 7 September 2016. Nadim, F., Kjekstad, O., Peduzzi, P., Herold, C. and Jaedicke, C., 2006, ‘Global landslide and avalanche hotspots’, Landslides 3(2), 159–173 (DOI: 10.1007/s10346-006-0036-1). Nakicenovic, N. and Swart, R. (eds), 2000, Special report on emissions scenarios, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Nisi, L., Martius, O., Hering, A., Kunz, M. and Germann, U., 2016, ‘Spatial and temporal distribution of hailstorms in the Alpine region: A long-term, high resolution, radar-based analysis’, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 142(697), 1590–1604 (DOI: 10.1002/qj.2771). Orlowsky, B. and Seneviratne, S. I., 2011, ‘Global changes in extreme events: regional and seasonal dimension’, Climatic Change 110(3–4), 669–696 (DOI: 10.1007/s10584-011-0122-9). Orlowsky, B. and Seneviratne, S. I., 2013, ‘Elusive drought: Uncertainty in observed trends and short- and long-term CMIP5 projections’, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 17(5), 1765–1781 (DOI: 10.5194/hess-17- 1765-2013). Osinski, R., Lorenz, P., Kruschke, T., Voigt, M., Ulbrich, U., Leckebusch, G. C., Faust, E., Hofherr, T. and Majewski, D., 2015, ‘An approach to build an event set of European wind storms based on ECMWF EPS’, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences Discussions 3(2), 1231–1268 (DOI: 10.5194/nhessd-3-1231-2015). Otto, F. E. L., Massey, N., van Oldenborgh, G. J., Jones, R. G. and Allen, M. R., 2012, ‘Reconciling two approaches to attribution of the 2010 Russian heat wave’, Geophysical Research Letters 39(4), L04702 (DOI: 10.1029/2011GL050422).Outten, S. D. and Esau, I., 2013, ‘Extreme winds over Europe in the ENSEMBLES regional climate models’, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 13(10), 5163–5172 (DOI: 10.5194/acp-13-5163-2013). Papagiannaki, K., Lagouvardos, K. and Kotroni, V., 2013, ‘A database of high-impact weather events in Greece: A descriptive impact analysis for the period 2001-2011’, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 13(3), 727–736 (DOI: 10.5194/nhess-13-727-2013). Pardowitz, T., 2015, Anthropogenic changes in the frequency and severity of European winter storms , Dissertation FUDISS_derivate_000000017018, Free University, Berlin, Germany. Parry, S., Hannaford, J., Lloyd-Hughes, B. and Prudhomme, C., 2012, ‘Multi-year droughts in Europe: Analysis of development and causes’, Hydrology Research 43(5), 689–706 (DOI: 10.2166/nh.2012.024). Pausas, J. G. and Fernández-Muñoz, S., 2012, ‘Fire regime changes in the Western Mediterranean Basin: from fuel- limited to drought-driven fire regime’, Climatic Change 110(1), 215–226 (DOI: 10.1007/s10584-011-0060-6). Pausas, J. G. and Paula, S., 2012, ‘Fuel shapes the fire-climate relationship: Evidence from Mediterranean ecosystems’, Global Ecology and Biogeography 21(11), 1074–1082 (DOI: 10.1111/j.1466-8238.2012.00769.x). Pereira, M. G., Trigo, R. M., da Camara, C. C., Pereira, J. M. C. and Leite, S. M., 2005, ‘Synoptic patterns associated with large summer forest fires in Portugal’, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 129(1–2), 11–25 (DOI: 10.1016/j. agrformet.2004.12.007). Perkins, S. E., 2015, ‘A review on the scientific understanding of heatwaves — Their measurement, driving mechanisms, and changes at the global scale’, Atmospheric Research 164–165, 242–267 (DOI: 10.1016/j. atmosres.2015.05.014). Petley, D., 2012, ‘Global patterns of loss of life from landslides’, Geology 40(10), 927–930 (DOI: 10.1130/ G33217.1). Pickering, M. D., Wells, N. C., Horsburgh, K. J. and Green, J. A. M., 2012, ‘The impact of future sea-level rise on the European Shelf tides’, Continental Shelf Research 35, 1–15 (DOI: 10.1016/j.csr.2011.11.011). Pielmeier, C., Techel, F., Marty, C. and Stucki, T., 2013, ‘Wet snow avalanche activity in the Swiss Alps — Trend analysis for mid-winter season’, presentation given References 157 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe at: International Snow Science Workshop, Chamonix Mont-Blanc, France, 2013. PLANALP, 2016, Alpine strategy for adaptation to climate change in the field of natural hazards — Developed by the Platform on Natural Hazards of the Alpine Convention (PLANALP), Alpine Convention, Innsbruck, Austria. Polemio, M. and Lonigro, T., 2014, ‘Trends in climate, short-duration rainfall, and damaging hydrogeological events (Apulia, southern Italy)’, Natural Hazards 75(1), 515–540 (DOI: 10.1007/s11069-014-1333-y). Polemio, M. and Petrucci, O., 2010, ‘Occurrence of landslide events and the role of climate in the twentieth century in Calabria, southern Italy’, Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 43(4), 403–415 (DOI: 10.1144/1470-9236/09-006). PSMSL, 2016, ‘Tide gauge data’ (http://www.psmsl.org/ data/obtaining/) accessed 23 February 2016. Punge, H. J., Bedka, K. M., Kunz, M. and Werner, A., 2014, ‘A new physically based stochastic event catalog for hail in Europe’, Natural Hazards 73(3), 1625–1645 (DOI: 10.1007/s11069-014-1161-0). Punge, H. J. and Kunz, M., 2016, ‘Hail observations and hailstorm characteristics in Europe: A review’, Atmospheric Research 176–177, 159–184 (DOI: 10.1016/j. atmosres.2016.02.012). Rajczak, J., Pall, P. and Schär, C., 2013, ‘Projections of extreme precipitation events in regional climate simulations for Europe and the Alpine Region’, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 118(9), 3610–3626 (DOI: 10.1002/jgrd.50297). Rego, F. C. and Silva, J. S., 2014, ‘Wildfires and landscape dynamics in Portugal: A regional assessment and global implications’, in: Azevedo, C. J., Perera, H. A., and Pinto, A. M. (eds), Forest landscapes and global change: Challenges for research and management , Springer, New York, NY, pp. 51–73. Roberts, J. F., Champion, A. J., Dawkins, L. C., Hodges, K. I., Shaffrey, L. C., Stephenson, D. B., Stringer, M. A., Thornton, H. E. and Youngman, B. D., 2014, ‘The XWS open access catalogue of extreme European windstorms from 1979 to 2012’, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 14(9), 2487–2501 (DOI: 10.5194/ nhess-14-2487-2014). Rojas, R., Feyen, L., Bianchi, A. and Dosio, A., 2012, ‘Assessment of future flood hazard in Europe using a large ensemble of bias corrected regional climate simulations’, Journal of Geophysical Research 117, D17109 (DOI: 10.1029/2012JD017461). Rojas, R., Feyen, L. and Watkiss, P., 2013, ‘Climate change and river floods in the European Union: Socio- economic consequences and the costs and benefits of adaptation’, Global Environmental Change 23(6), 1737–1751 (DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.08.006). Romero, R. and Emanuel, K., 2013, ‘Medicane risk in a changing climate’, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 118(12), 5992–6001 (DOI: 10.1002/ jgrd.50475). Russo, S., Dosio, A., Graversen, R. G., Sillmann, J., Carrao, H., Dunbar, M. B., Singleton, A., Montagna, P., Barbola, P. and Vogt, J. V., 2014, ‘Magnitude of extreme heat waves in present climate and their projection in a warming world’, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 119(22), 12500–12512 (DOI: 10.1002/2014JD022098). Russo, S., Sillmann, J. and Fischer, E. M., 2015, ‘Top ten European heatwaves since 1950 and their occurrence in the coming decades’, Environmental Research Letters 10(12), 124003 (DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/10/12/124003). Salis, M., Ager, A. A., Finney, M. A., Arca, B. and Spano, D., 2014, ‘Analyzing spatiotemporal changes in wildfire regime and exposure across a Mediterranean fire-prone area’, Natural Hazards 71(3), 1389–1418 (DOI: 10.1007/s11069-013-0951-0). Saltikoff, E., Tuovinen, J.-P., Kotro, J., Kuitunen, T. and Hohti, H., 2010, ‘A climatological comparison of radar and ground observations of hail in Finland’, Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 49(1), 101–114 (DOI: 10.1175/2009JAMC2116.1). Sanderson, M. G., Hand, W. H., Groenemeijer, P., Boorman, P. M., Webb, J. D. C. and McColl, L. J., 2015, ‘Projected changes in hailstorms during the 21st century over the UK’, International Journal of Climatology 35(1), 15–24 (DOI: 10.1002/joc.3958). San-Miguel-Ayanz, J., Moreno, J. M. and Camia, A., 2013, ‘Analysis of large fires in European Mediterranean landscapes: Lessons learned and perspectives’, Forest Ecology and Management 294, 11–22 (DOI: 10.1016/j. foreco.2012.10.050). Santi, P., Cannon, S. and DeGraff, J., 2013, ‘13.16 Wildfire and Landscape Change’, in: Treatise on Geomorphology , Elsevier, pp. 262–287. References 158 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in EuropeScaife, A. A., Arribas, A., Blockley, E., Brookshaw, A., Clark, R. T., Dunstone, N., Eade, R., Fereday, D., Folland, C. K., Gordon, M., Hermanson, L., Knight, J. R., Lea, D. J., MacLachlan, C., Maidens, A., Martin, M., Peterson, A. K., Smith, D., Vellinga, M. et al., 2014, ‘Skillful long-range prediction of European and North American winters’, Geophysical Research Letters 41(7), 2014GL059637 (DOI: 10.1002/2014GL059637). Scaife, A. A., Spangehl, T., Fereday, D. R., Cubasch, U., Langematz, U., Akiyoshi, H., Bekki, S., Braesicke, P., Butchart, N., Chipperfield, M. P., Gettelman, A., Hardiman, S. C., Michou, M., Rozanov, E. and Shepherd, T. G., 2011, ‘Climate change projections and stratosphere-troposphere interaction’, Climate Dynamics 38(9–10), 2089–2097 (DOI: 10.1007/s00382-011-1080-7). Scherrer, S. C., Begert, M., Croci-Maspoli, M. and Appenzeller, C., 2015, ‘Long series of Swiss seasonal precipitation: regionalization, trends and influence of large-scale flow’, International Journal of Climatology (DOI: 10.1002/joc.4584). Schläppy, R., Eckert, N., Jomelli, V., Stoffel, M., Grancher, D., Brunstein, D., Naaim, M. and Deschatres, M., 2014, ‘Validation of extreme snow avalanches and related return periods derived from a statistical-dynamical model using tree-ring techniques’, Cold Regions Science and Technology 99, 12–26 (DOI: 10.1016/j.coldregions.2013.12.001). Schmuck, G., San-Miguel-Ayanz, J., Durrant, T., Boca, R., Liberta’, G., Petroliagkis, T., Di Leo, M., Boccacci, F. and Rodriguez Aseretto Roque, D., 2015, Forest fires in Europe, Middle East and North Africa 2014, EUR — Scientific and Technical Research Reports, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. Schoetter, R., Cattiaux, J. and Douville, H., 2014, ‘Changes of western European heat wave characteristics projected by the CMIP5 ensemble’, Climate Dynamics 45(5–6), 1601–1616 (DOI: 10.1007/ s00382-014-2434-8). van der Schrier, G., van den Besselaar, E. J. M., Klein Tank, A. M. G. and Verver, G., 2013, ‘Monitoring European average temperature based on the E-OBS gridded data set’, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 118(11), 5120–5135 (DOI: 10.1002/jgrd.50444). Schweizer, J., Bartelt, P. and van Herwijnen, A., 2015, ‘Snow avalanches’, in: Haeberli, W. and Whiteman, C. (eds), Snow and ice-related hazards, risks and disasters , Academic Press, Boston, MA, pp. 395–436.Seneviratne, S. I., Donat, M. G., Mueller, B. and Alexander, L. V., 2014, ‘No pause in the increase of hot temperature extremes’, Nature Climate Change 4(3), 161–163 (DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2145). Seneviratne, S. I., Nicholls, N., Easterling, D., Goodess, C. M., Kanae, S., Kossin, J., Luo, Y., Marengo, J., McInnes, K., Rahimi, M., Reichstein, M., Sorteberg, A., Vera, C. and Zhang, X., 2012, ‘Changes in climate extremes and their impacts on the natural physical environment’, in: Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, pp. 109–230. Sepulcre-Canto, G., Horion, S., Singleton, A., Carrao, H. and Vogt, J., 2012, ‘Development of a combined drought indicator to detect agricultural drought in Europe’, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 12(11), 3519–3531 (DOI: 10.5194/nhess-12-3519-2012). Severe Weather Europe, 2017, ‘Review of arctic outbreak with extreme cold, severe Bora winds and lots of snow across Balkan peninsula and S-CNTRL Italy, Jan 5-8, 2017’ (http://www.severe-weather.eu/ recent-events/review-of-arctic-outbreak-with-lots-of- snow-across-balkan-peninsula-and-italy-jan-5-8-2017/) accessed 5 May 2017. Sheffield, J., Wood, E. F. and Roderick, M. L., 2012, ‘Little change in global drought over the past 60 years’, Nature 491(7424), 435–438 (DOI: 10.1038/nature11575). Sillmann, J., Kharin, V. V., Zwiers, F. W., Zhang, X. and Bronaugh, D., 2013, ‘Climate extremes indices in the CMIP5 multimodel ensemble: Part 2: Future climate projections’, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 118(6), 2473–2493 (DOI: 10.1002/jgrd.50188). Skripniková, K. and Řezáčová, D., 2014, ‘Radar-based hail detection’, Atmospheric Research 144, 175–185 (DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosres.2013.06.002). Snow and Avalanche Research, 2016, ‘Long- term statistics’ (http://www.slf.ch/praevention/ lawinenunfaelle/lawinenstatistik/index_EN) accessed 29 August 2016. Spinoni, J., Neumann, G., Vogt, J. V. and Barbosa, P., 2015, ‘The biggest drought events in Europe from 1950 to 2012’, Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 3 , 509–524 (DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrh.2015.01.001). Spinoni, J., Neumann, G., Vogt, J. V. and Barbosa, P., 2016, Meteorological droughts in Europe: Events and References 159 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe impacts, past trends and future projections , Technical Report EUR 27748 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. Stagge, J. H., Rizzi, J., Tallaksen, L. M. and Stahl, K., 2015, Future meteorological drought: Projections of regional climate models for Europe , Drought R&SPI Technical Report No 25, Oslo, Norway. Stahl, K., Hisdal, H., Hannaford, J., Tallaksen, L. M., van Lanen, H. A. J., Sauquet, E., Demuth, S., Fendekova, M. and Jódar, J., 2010, ‘Streamflow trends in Europe: Evidence from a dataset of near-natural catchments’, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 14(12), 2367–2382 (DOI: 10.5194/hess-14-2367-2010). Stahl, K., Tallaksen, L. M., Hannaford, J. and van Lanen, H. A. J., 2012, ‘Filling the white space on maps of European runoff trends: Estimates from a multi-model ensemble’, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 16(7), 2035–2047 (DOI: 10.5194/hess-16-2035-2012). Steinkogler, W., Sovilla, B. and Lehning, M., 2014, ‘Influence of snow cover properties on avalanche dynamics’, Cold Regions Science and Technology 97, 121–131 (DOI: 10.1016/j.coldregions.2013.10.002). Stoffel, M., ‘Climate change impacts on mass movements — Case studies from the European Alps’ (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S004896971400285X) accessed 26 August 2016. Stoffel, M. and Beniston, M., 2006, ‘On the incidence of debris flows from the early Little Ice Age to a future greenhouse climate: A case study from the Swiss Alps’, Geophysical Research Letters 33(16), L16404 (DOI: 10.1029/2006GL026805). Stoffel, M. and Huggel, C., 2012, ‘Effects of climate change on mass movements in mountain environments’, Progress in Physical Geography 36(3), 421–439 (DOI: 10.1177/0309133312441010). Stoffel, M., Tiranti, D. and Huggel, C., 2014, ‘Climate change impacts on mass movements — Case studies from the European Alps’, Science of The Total Environment 493, 1255–1266 (DOI: 10.1016/j. scitotenv.2014.02.102). Stott, P., 2015, ‘Attribution: Weather risks in a warming world’, Nature Climate Change 5(6), 517–518 (DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2640). STRADA, 2013, ‘STRADA — Programma Cooperazione Transfrontaliera Italia-Svizzera 2007-2013’ (http://www. progettostrada.net/) accessed 3 February 2017.Stržinar, S. and Skok, G., 2016, ‘Comparison of different radar-based hail detection algorithms in Slovenia’, conference paper presented at: EMS Annual Meeting, Trieste, Italy, 2016. Suursaar, Ü., Kullas, T. and Szava-Kovats, R., 2009, ‘Wind and wave storms, storm surges and sea level rise along the Estonian coast of the Baltic Sea’, WIT Transactions on Ecology and Environment 127, 149–160 (DOI: 10.2495/ RAV090131). Techel, F., Jarry, F., Kronthaler, G., Mitterer, S., Nairz, P., Pavšek, M., Valt, M. and Darms, G., 2016, ‘Avalanche fatalities in the European Alps: Long-term trends and statistics’, Geographica Helvetica 71(2), 147–159 (DOI: 10.5194/gh-71-147-2016). Touma, D., Ashfaq, M., Nayak, M. A., Kao, S.-C. and Diffenbaugh, N. S., 2015, ‘A multi-model and multi- index evaluation of drought characteristics in the 21st century’, Journal of Hydrology 526, 196–207 (DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.12.011). Tous, M. and Romero, R., 2013, ‘Meteorological environments associated with medicane development’, International Journal of Climatology 33(1), 1–14 (DOI: 10.1002/joc.3428). Trenberth, K. E., Dai, A., van der Schrier, G., Jones, P. D., Barichivich, J., Briffa, K. R. and Sheffield, J., 2014, ‘Global warming and changes in drought’, Nature Climate Change 4(1), 17–22 (DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2067). Tsakiris, G., Pangalou, D. and Vangelis, H., 2007, ‘Regional drought assessment based on the Reconnaissance Drought Index (RDI)’, Water Resources Management 21(5), 821–833 (DOI: 10.1007/s11269-006- 9105-4). Ulbrich, U., Leckebusch, G. C. and Pinto, J. G., 2009, ‘Extra-tropical cyclones in the present and future climate: a review’, Theoretical and Applied Climatology 96, 117–131 (DOI: 10.1007/s00704-008-0083-8). UNISDR, 2015, Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 , UN Report UNISDR/GE/015, Geneva, Switzerland. Utsumi, N., Seto, S., Kanae, S., Maeda, E. E. and Oki, T., 2011, ‘Does higher surface temperature intensify extreme precipitation?’, Geophysical Research Letters 38(16), L16708 (DOI: 10.1029/2011GL048426). Van Den Eeckhaut, M. and Hervás, J., 2012, ‘State of the art of national landslide databases in Europe and their potential for assessing landslide susceptibility, hazard References 160 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europeand risk’, Geomorphology 139–140, 545–558 (DOI: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2011.12.006). Van Loon, A. F., 2015, ‘Hydrological drought explained’, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water 2(4), 359–392 (DOI: 10.1002/wat2.1085). Van Wagner, C. E., 1987, Development and structure of the Canadian forest fire weather index system , Forestry Technical Report 35, Canadian Forestry Service, Ottawa, Canada. Vicente-Serrano, S. M., Beguería, S. and López-Moreno, J. I., 2009, ‘A multiscalar drought index sensitive to global warming: The Standardized Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index’, Journal of Climate 23(7), 1696–1718 (DOI: 10.1175/2009JCLI2909.1). Vidmar, A., Globevnik, L., Koprivšek, M., Sečnik, M., Zabret, K., Đurović, B., Anzeljc, D., Kastelic, J., Kobold, M., Sušnik, M., Borojevič, D., Kupusović, T., Kupusović, E., Vihar, A. and Brilly, M., 2016, ‘The Bosna river floods in May 2014’, Natural Hazards and Earth System Science 16(10), 2235–2246 (DOI: 10.5194/nhess-16-2235-2016). Vilén, T. and Fernandes, P. M., 2011, ‘Forest fires in Mediterranean countries: CO2 emissions and mitigation possibilities through prescribed burning’, Environmental Management 48(3), 558–567 (DOI: 10.1007/s00267-011- 9681-9). Vormoor, K., Lawrence, D., Schlichting, L., Wilson, D. and Wong, W. K., 2016, ‘Evidence for changes in the magnitude and frequency of observed rainfall vs. snowmelt driven floods in Norway’, Journal of Hydrology 538, 33–48 (DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.03.066). Vousdoukas, M. I., Voukouvalas, E., Annunziato, A., Giardino, A. and Feyen, L., 2016, ‘Projections of extreme storm surge levels along Europe’, Climate Dynamics 47(9), 3171–3190 (DOI: 10.1007/s00382-016-3019-5). van Vuuren, D. P., Edmonds, J., Kainuma, M., Riahi, K., Thomson, A., Hibbard, K., Hurtt, G. C., Kram, T., Krey, V., Lamarque, J.-F., Masui, T., Meinshausen, M., Nakicenovic, N., Smith, S. J. and Rose, S. K., 2011, ‘The representative concentration pathways: An overview’, Climatic Change 109(1–2), 5–31 (DOI: 10.1007/s10584- 011-0148-z). Wang, X. L., Feng, Y., Compo, G. P., Zwiers, F. W., Allan, R. J., Swail, V. R. and Sardeshmukh, P. D., 2014, ‘Is the storminess in the twentieth century reanalysis really inconsistent with observations? A reply to the comment by Krueger et al. (2013b)’, Climate Dynamics 42(3–4), 1113–1125 (DOI: 10.1007/s00382- 013-1828-3). Wang, X. L., Wan, H., Zwiers, F. W., Swail, V. R., Compo, G. P., Allan, R. J., Vose, R. S., Jourdain, S. and Yin, X., 2011, ‘Trends and low-frequency variability of storminess over western Europe, 1878-2007’, Climate Dynamics 37(11), 2355–2371 (DOI: 10.1007/s00382- 011-1107-0). Weisse, R., Bellafiore, D., Menéndez, M., Méndez, F., Nicholls, R. J., Umgiesser, G. and Willems, P., 2014, ‘Changing extreme sea levels along European coasts’, Coastal Engineering 87, 4–14 (DOI: 10.1016/j. coastaleng.2013.10.017). Westra, S., Fowler, H. J., Evans, J. P., Alexander, L. V., Berg, P., Johnson, F., Kendon, E. J., Lenderink, G. and Roberts, N. M., 2014, ‘Future changes to the intensity and frequency of short-duration extreme rainfall’, Reviews of Geophysics 52(3), 2014RG000464 (DOI: 10.1002/2014RG000464). Wong, W. K., Beldring, S., Engen-Skaugen, T., Haddeland, I. and Hisdal, H., 2011, ‘Climate change effects on spatiotemporal patterns of hydroclimatological summer droughts in Norway’, Journal of Hydrometeorology 12(6), 1205–1220 (DOI: 10.1175/2011JHM1357.1). Wu, M., Knorr, W., Thonicke, K., Schurgers, G., Camia, A. and Arneth, A. C. J. G., 2015, ‘Sensitivity of burned area in Europe to climate change, atmospheric CO2 levels, and demography: A comparison of two fire-vegetation models’, Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences 120(11), 2256–2272 (DOI: 10.1002/2015jg003036). Zappa, G., Shaffrey, L. C., Hodges, K. I., Sansom, P. G. and Stephenson, D. B., 2013, ‘A multimodel assessment of future projections of North Atlantic and European extratropical cyclones in the CMIP5 climate models’, Journal of Climate 26(16), 5846–5862 (DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00573.1). Zolina, O., Simmer, C., Belyaev, K., Kapala, A. and Gulev, S., 2009, ‘Improving estimates of heavy and extreme precipitation using daily records from European rain gauges’, Journal of Hydrometeorology 10, 701–716. Zwiers, F. W., Alexander, L. V., Hegerl, G. C., Knutson, T. R., Kossin, J. P., Naveau, P., Nicholls, N., Schär, C., Seneviratne, S. I. and Zhang, X., 2013, ‘Climate extremes: Challenges in estimating and inderstanding References 161 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe recent changes in the frequency and Intensity of extreme climate and weather events’, in: Asrar, G. R. and Hurrell, J. W. (eds), Climate science for serving society , Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp. 339–389. Chapter 4 Aizenman, J., Hutchison, M. and Lothian, J., 2013, ‘The European sovereign debt crisis: Background and perspectives, overview of the special issue’, Journal of International Money and Finance 34, 1–5 (DOI: 10.1016/j.jimonfin.2012.11.001). Allen, T. I., Marano, K. D., Earle, P. S. and Wald, D. J., 2009, ‘PAGER-CAT: A composite earthquake catalog for calibrating global fatality models’, Seismological Research Letters 80(1), 57–62 (DOI: 10.1785/ gssrl.80.1.57). Analitis, A., Georgiadis, I. and Katsouyanni, K., 2012, ‘Forest fires are associated with elevated mortality in a dense urban setting’, Occupational and Environmental Medicine 69(3), 158–162 (DOI: 10.1136/oem.2010.064238). Analitis, A., Katsouyanni, K., Biggeri, A., Baccini, M., Forsberg, B., Bisanti, L., Kirchmayer, U., Ballester, F., Cadum, E., Goodman, P. G., Hojs, A., Sunyer, J., Tiittanen, P. and Michelozzi, P., 2008, ‘Effects of cold weather on mortality: Results from 15 European cities within the PHEWE project’, American Journal of Epidemiology 168(12), 1397–1408 (DOI: 10.1093/aje/ kwn266). Analitis, A., Michelozzi, P., D’Ippoliti, D., de’Donato, F., Menne, B., Matthies, F., Atkinson, R. W., Iñiguez, C., Basagaña, X., Schneider, A., Lefranc, A., Paldy, A., Bisanti, L. and Katsouyanni, K., 2014, ‘Effects of heat waves on mortality: Effect modification and confounding by air pollutants’, Epidemiology 25(1), 15–22 (DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e31828ac01b). Arbuthnott, K., Hajat, S., Heaviside, C. and Vardoulakis, S., 2016, ‘Changes in population susceptibility to heat and cold over time: Assessing adaptation to climate change’, Environmental Health 15(S1), 73–92 (DOI: 10.1186/s12940-016-0102-7). Arghius, V., Botezan, C., Gagiu, A. C., Samara, I., Senzaconi, F. and Ozunu, A., 2011, ‘Normalized economical flood damanges in Romania during 2000-2009’, Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 10(1), 17–21.Aström, C., Orru, H., Rocklöv, J., Strandberg, G., Ebi, K. L. and Forsberg, B., 2013, ‘Heat-related respiratory hospital admissions in Europe in a changing climate: A health impact assessment’, BMJ Open 3(1) (DOI: 10.1136/ bmjopen-2012-001842). Baccini, M., Kosatsky, T., Analitis, A., Anderson, H. R., D’Ovidio, M., Menne, B., Michelozzi, P., Biggeri, A. and PHEWE Collaborative Group, 2011, ‘Impact of heat on mortality in 15 European cities: Attributable deaths under different weather scenarios’, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 65(1), 64–70 (DOI: 10.1136/ jech.2008.085639). Barredo, J. I., 2009, ‘Normalised flood losses in Europe: 1970-2006’, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 9, 97–104 (DOI: 10.5194/nhess-9-97-2009). Barredo, J. I., 2010, ‘No upward trend in normalised windstorm losses in Europe: 1970–2008’, Natural Hazards and Earth System Science 10(1), 97–104 (DOI: 10.5194/ nhess-10-97-2010). Barthel, F. and Neumayer, E., 2012, ‘A trend analysis of normalized insured damage from natural disasters’, Climatic Change 113(2), 215–237 (DOI: 10.1007/s10584- 011-0331-2). Bartholmes, J. C., Thielen, J., Ramos, M. H. and Gentilini, S., 2009, ‘The European fllod alert system EFAS — Part 2: Statistical skill assessment of probabalistic and deterministic operational forecasts’, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 13(2), 215–237 (DOI: 10.5194/hess-13- 141-2009). Basagaña, X., Sartini, C., Barrera-Gómez, J., Dadvand, P., Cunillera, J., Ostro, B., Sunyer, J. and Medina-Ramón, M., 2011, ‘Heat waves and cause-specific mortality at all ages’, Epidemiology 22(6), 765–772 (DOI: 10.1097/ EDE.0b013e31823031c5). Battisti, A., Stastny, M., Buffo, E. and Larsson, S., 2006, ‘A rapid altitudinal range expansion in the pine processionary moth produced by the 2003 climatic anomaly’, Global Change Biology 12(4), 662–671 (DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01124.x). Berec, L., Gelbic, I. and Sebesta, O., 2014, ‘Worthy of their name: How floods drive outbreaks of two major floodwater mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae)’, Journal of Medical Entomology 51(1), 76–88. Blauhut, V., Stahl, K., Stagge, J. H., Tallaksen, L. M., De Stefano, L. and Vogt, J., 2016, ‘Estimating drought risk across Europe from reported drought impacts, drought References 162 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europeindices, and vulnerability factors’, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 20(7), 2779–2800 (DOI: 10.5194/hess-20- 2779-2016). Bosello, F., Nicholls, R. J., Richards, J., Roson, R. and Tol, R. S. J., 2011, ‘Economic impacts of climate change in Europe: Sea-level rise’, Climatic Change 112(1), 63–81 (DOI: 10.1007/s10584-011-0340-1). Bréda, N., Huc, R., Granier, A. and Dreyer, E., 2006, ‘Temperate forest trees and stands under severe drought: A review of ecophysiological responses, adaptation processes and long-term consequences’, Annals of Forest Science 63, 625–644. Breitner, S., Wolf, K., Peters, A. and Schneider, A., 2014, ‘Short-term effects of air temperature on cause-specific cardiovascular mortality in Bavaria, Germany’, Heart 100(16), 1272–1280 (DOI: 10.1136/ heartjnl-2014-305578). Brown, L. and Murray, V., 2013, ‘Examining the relationship between infectious diseases and flooding in Europe’, Disaster Health 1(2), 117–127 (DOI: 10.4161/ dish.25216). Burkart, K., Canário, P., Breitner, S., Schneider, A., Scherber, K., Andrade, H., Alcoforado, M. J. and Endlicher, W., 2013, ‘Interactive short-term effects of equivalent temperature and air pollution on human mortality in Berlin and Lisbon’, Environmental Pollution 183, 54–63 (DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2013.06.002). Cailleret, M., Bigler, C., Bugmann, H., Camarero, J. J., Cŭfar, K., Davi, H., Mészáros, I., Minunno, F., Peltoniemi, M., Robert, E. M. R., Suarez, M. L., Tognetti, R. and Martínez-Vilalta, J., 2016, ‘Towards a common methodology for developing logistic tree mortality models based on ring-width data’, Ecological Applications 26(6), 1827–1841 (DOI: 10.1890/15-1402.1). Calliari, E. and Mysiak, J., 2014, Partnerships for a better governance of natural hazard risks , Climate Change and Sustainable Development, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, Milan, Italy. Cancelliere, A., Nicolosi, V. and Rossi, G., 2009, ‘Assessment of drought risk in water supply systems’, in: Iglesias, A., Cancelliere, A., Wilhite, D. A., et al. (eds), Coping with drought risk in agriculture and water supply systems , Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards Research, Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp. 93–109. CDC, 2016, ‘Centre for Disease Control and Prevention — Drought and health’ (http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ drought/) accessed 15 September 2016.Ciais, P., Reichstein, M., Viovy, N., Granier, A., Ogée, J., Allard, V., Aubinet, M., Buchmann, N., Bernhofer, C., Carrara, A., Chevallier, F., De Noblet, N., Friend, A. D., Friedlingstein, P., Grünwald, T., Heinesch, B., Keronen, P., Knohl, A., Krinner, G. et al., 2005, ‘Europe-wide reduction in primary productivity caused by the heat and drought in 2003’, Nature 437(7058), 529–533 (DOI: 10.1038/nature03972). Ciscar, J. C., Feyen, L., Soria, A., Lavalle, C., Raes, F., Perry, M., Nemry, F., Demirel, H., Rozsai, M., Dosio, A., Donatelli, M., Srivastava, A., Fumagalli, D., Niemeyer, S., Shrestha, S., Ciaian, P., Himics, M., Van Doorslaer, B., Barrios, S. et al., 2014, Climate impacts in Europe: The JRC PESETA II project , JRC Scientific and Policy Reports EUR 26586 EN, JRC87011, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Ispra, Italy. Ciscar, J. C., Iglesias, A., Feyen, L., Szabo, L., Van Regemorter, D., Amelung, B., Nicholls, R., Watkiss, P., Christensen, O. B., Dankers, R., Garrote, L., Goodess, C. M., Hunt, A., Moreno, A., Richards, J. and Soria, A., 2011, ‘Physical and economic consequences of climate change in Europe’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108(7), 2678–2683 (DOI: 10.1073/ pnas.1011612108). Collins, D. J. and Lowe, S. P., 2001, A macro validation dataset for US hurricane models , Casualty Actuarial Society Forum, Arlington, VA. Confalonieri, U., Menne, B., Akhtar, R., Ebi, K. L., Hauengue, M., Kovats, R. S., Revich, B. and Woodward, A., 2007, ‘Human health’, in: Parry, M., Canziana, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., et al. (eds), Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 391–431. Crompton, R. P., McAnaney, K. J., Chen, K., Pielke, R. A. and Haynes, K., 2010, ‘Influence of location, population and climate on building damage and fatalities due to Australian bushfire: 1925-2009’, Weather, Climate, and Society 2(4), 300–310 (DOI: 10.1175/2010WCAS1063.1). Crompton, R. P. and McAneney, K. J., 2008, ‘Normalised Australian insured losses from meteorological hazards: 1967–2006’, Environmental Science & Policy 11(5), 371–378 (DOI: 10.1016/j. envsci.2008.01.005). De Groeve, T., Ehlrich, D. and Corbane, C., 2015, Guidance for recording and sharing disaster damage References 163 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe and loss data: Towards the development of operational indicators to translate the Sendai Framework into action , Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. De Groeve, T., Poljansek, K., Ehrlich, D. and Corbane, C., 2014, Current status and best practices for disaster loss data recording in EU Member States , European Commission — Joint Research Centre: Institute for the Protection and the Security of the Citizen, Ispra. De Groeve, T., Poljansek, K. and Ehrlich, D., 2013, Recording disaster losses: Recommendations for a European approach , JRC Scientific and Policy Reports, JRC, Ispra, Italy. De Sario, M., Katsouyanni, K. and Michelozzi, P., 2013, ‘Climate change, extreme weather events, air pollution and respiratory health in Europe’, European Respiratory Journal 42(3), 826–843 (DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00074712). De Stefano, L., Tánago, I. G., Ballesteros, M., Urquijo, J., Blauhut, V., Stagge, J. H. and Stahl, K., 2015, Methodological approach considering different factors influencing vulnerability — Pan-European scale , Technical Report 26, Drought R&SPI, Madrid, Spain. Dear, K. and Wang, Z., 2015, ‘Climate and health: Mortality attributable to heat and cold’, The Lancet 386(9991), 320–322 (DOI: 10.1016/S0140- 6736(15)60897-2). D’Ippoliti, D., Michelozzi, P., Marino, C., de’Donato, F., Menne, B., Katsouyanni, K., Kirchmayer, U., Analitis, A., Medina-Ramón, M., Paldy, A., Atkinson, R., Kovats, S., Bisanti, L., Schneider, A., Lefranc, A., Iñiguez, C. and Perucci, C. A., 2010, ‘The impact of heat waves on mortality in 9 European cities: Results from the EuroHEAT project’, Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source 9(37) (DOI: 10.1186/1476-069X- 9-37). EEA, 2011, Mapping the impacts of natural hazards and technological accidents in Europe — An overview of the last decade , EEA Technical Report No 13/2010, European Environment Agency. EEA, 2016a, Flood risks and environmental vulnerability — Exploring the synergies between floodplain restoration, water policies and thematic policies , EEA Report No 1/2016, European Environment Agency. EEA, 2016b, Mapping and assessing the condition of Europe’s ecosystems: Progress and challenges , EEA Report No 3/2016, European Environment Agency.EEA, 2017, Climate Change, impacts and vulnerability in Europe 2016. An indicator-based report. , EEA Report No 1/2017, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark. EEA and ETC/CCA, 2013, What makes flood events significant for the European policies? An analysis of threshold-base criteria , European Environment Agency. EEA, ETC/CCA and JRC, 2013, Towards a potential European flood impact database , Joint Technical Paper, European Environment Agency. ETC/ICM, 2015, Flood phenomena database — Structure and assessment , European Topic Centre on Inland, Coastal and Marine Water, Magdeburg, Germany. EU, 1992, Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.92, p. 7-92. EU, 2002, Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund, OJ L 311, 14.11.2002, p. 3-8. EU, 2007, Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks, OJ L 288, 6.11.2007, p. 27–34. EU, 2013, Decision No 1313/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism, L 347/924. EU, 2014, Regulation (EU) No 661/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund, OJ L 189, 27.6.2014, p. 143-154. Feyen, L. and Watkiss, P., 2011, The impacts and economic costs of river floods in Europe, and the costs and benefits of adaptation: Results from the ClimateCost project , Technical Policy Briefing Note 3, Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. Forzieri, G., Bianchi, A., Marin Herrera, M. A., Batista e Silva, F., Feyen, L., Lavalle, C., European Commission, Joint Research Centre and Institute for the Protection and the Security of the Citizen, 2015, Resilience of large investments and critical infrastructures in Europe to climate change , Publications Office, Luxembourg. Gall, M., 2015, ‘The suitability of disaster loss databases to measure loss and damage from climate change’, References 164 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in EuropeInternational Journal of Global Warming 8(2), 170–190 (DOI: 10.1504/IJGW.2015.071966). Gall, M., Borden, K. A. and Cutter, S. L., 2009, ‘When do losses count?’, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 90(6), 799–809 (DOI: 10.1175/2008BAMS2721.1). Gasparrini, A., Guo, Y., Hashizume, M., Lavigne, E., Zanobetti, A., Schwartz, J., Tobias, A., Tong, S., Rocklöv, J., Forsberg, B., Leone, M., De Sario, M., Bell, M. L., Guo, Y.-L. L., Wu, C., Kan, H., Yi, S.-M., de Sousa Zanotti Stagliorio Coelho, M., Saldiva, P. H. N. et al., 2015, ‘Mortality risk attributable to high and low ambient temperature: A multicountry observational study’, The Lancet 386(9991), 369–375 (DOI: 10.1016/S0140- 6736(14)62114-0). Guzman Herrador, B. R., de Blasio, B. F., MacDonald, E., Nichols, G., Sudre, B., Vold, L., Semenza, J. C. and Nygård, K., 2015, ‘Analytical studies assessing the association between extreme precipitation or temperature and drinking water-related waterborne infections: A review’, Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source 14(29) (DOI: 10.1186/s12940-015- 0014-y). Hajat, S., Vardoulakis, S., Heaviside, C. and Eggen, B., 2014, ‘Climate change effects on human health: Projections of temperature-related mortality for the UK during the 2020s, 2050s and 2080s’, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health (DOI: 10.1136/jech- 2013-202449). Hales, S., Kovats, S., Lloyd, S. and Campbell-Lendrum, D., 2014, Quantitative risk assessment of the effects of climate change on selected causes of death, 2030s and 2050s , World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. Hallegatte, S., Green, C., Nicholls, R. J. and Corfee- Morlot, J., 2013, ‘Future flood losses in major coastal cities’, Nature Climate Change 3(9), 802–806 (DOI: 10.1038/nclimate1979). Healy, J. D., 2003, ‘Excess winter mortality in Europe: A cross country analysis identifying key risk factors’, Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 57(10), 784–789 (DOI: 10.1136/jech.57.10.784). Honda, Y., Kondo, M., McGregor, G., Kim, H., Guo, Y.-L., Hijioka, Y., Yoshikawa, M., Oka, K., Takano, S., Hales, S. and Kovats, R. S., 2014, ‘Heat-related mortality risk model for climate change impact projection’, Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine 19(1), 56–63 (DOI: 10.1007/s12199-013-0354-6). Huang, C., Barnett, A. G., Wang, X., Vaneckova, P., FitzGerald, G. and Tong, S., 2011, ‘Projecting future heat-related mortality under climate change scenarios: A systematic review’, Environmental Health Perspectives 119(12), 1681–1690 (DOI: 10.1289/ehp.1103456). IPCC, 2012, Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation: Special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. IPCC, 2014a, Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability — Part B: Regional aspects — Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. IPCC, 2014b, Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Part A: Global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York. Ivits, E., Horion, S., Erhard, M. and Fensholt, R., 2016, ‘Assessing European ecosystem stability to drought in the vegetation growing season: Ecosystem stability to drought’, Global Ecology and Biogeography 25(9), 1131–1143 (DOI: 10.1111/geb.12472). Ivits, E., Horion, S., Fensholt, R. and Cherlet, M., 2014, ‘Drought footprint on European ecosystems between 1999 and 2010 assessed by remotely sensed vegetation phenology and productivity’, Global Change Biology 20(2), 581–593 (DOI: 10.1111/gcb.12393). Ji, L. and Peters, A. J., 2003, ‘Assessing vegetation response to drought in the northern Great Plains using vegetation and drought indices’, Remote Sensing of Environment 87(1), 85–98 (DOI: 10.1016/S0034- 4257(03)00174-3). Josseran, L., Caillère, N., Brun-Ney, D., Rottner, J., Filleul, L., Brucker, G. and Astagneau, P., 2009, ‘Syndromic surveillance and heat wave morbidity: A pilot study based on emergency departments in France’, BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 9(14) (DOI: 10.1186/1472-6947-9-14). Kastelic, J., Kobold, M., Sušnik, M., Brilly, M. and Globevnik, L., 2014, Analysing flood event in May 2014 in Bosnia and Herzegovina , Slovenian Environment Agency and Water Institute, Ljubljana , Slovenia. Katsouyanni, K. and Analitis, A., 2009, ‘Investigating the synergistic effects between meteorological variables and air pollutants: Results from the European PHEWE, References 165 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe EUROHEAT and CIRCE projects’, Epidemiology 20(6), S264 (DOI: 10.1097/01.ede.0000362883.27030.8f). Khabarov, N., Krasovskii, A., Obersteiner, M., Swart, R., Dosio, A., San-Miguel-Ayanz, J., Durrant, T., Camia, A. and Migliavacca, M., 2016, ‘Forest fires and adaptation options in Europe’, Regional Environmental Change 16(1), 21–30 (DOI: 10.1007/s10113-014-0621-0). Kinney, P. L., Schwartz, J., Pascal, M., Petkova, E., Tertre, A. L., Medina, S. and Vautard, R., 2015, ‘Winter season mortality: Will climate warming bring benefits?’, Environmental Research Letters 10(6), 64016 (DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/10/6/064016). Kovats, R. S., Lloyd, S., Hunt, A. and Watkiss, P., 2011, The impacts and economic costs on health in Europe and the costs and benefits of adaptation: Results of the ClimateCost project , The ClimateCost Project. Volume 1: Europe, Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. Kovats, S., Ayres, J., Bates, P., Baylis, M., Bell, S. and et al., 2016, UK climate change risk assessment 2017 , Committee on Climate Change, London, United Kingdom. Kramer, K., 2015, Evaluation of the present genetic conservation efforts in Pinus sylvestris, Picea abies, Quercus spp., Fagus sylvatica, and Pinus pinaster , Alterra, Wageningen, Netherlands. Kramer, K. and Verkaar, H. J., 1998, ‘Disturbed disturbances: the complicated management of sustainable forest ecosystems’, in: EFTI proceedings of the International Seminar and Sumerschool on Forest Scenario Modelling for Ecosystem Management at the Landscape Level , Wageningen, the Netherlands, pp. 47–65. Langan, S. J., 2011, The impact of nitrogen deposition on natural and semi-natural ecosystems , Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands. Larsson, C., Andersson, Y., Allestam, G., Lindqvist, A., Nenonen, N. and Bergstedt, O., 2014, ‘Epidemiology and estimated costs of a large waterborne outbreak of norovirus infection in Sweden’, Epidemiology and Infection 142(3), 592–600 (DOI: 10.1017/ S0950268813001209). Lévesque, M., Rigling, A., Bugmann, H., Weber, P. and Brang, P., 2014, ‘Growth response of five co-occurring conifers to drought across a wide climatic gradient in central Europe’, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 197, 1–12 (DOI: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2014.06.001). Linser, S. and Wolfslehner, B., 2015, ‘Meeting the goals for European forests and the Europe 2020 targets for forests: Report on the mid-term evaluation of the goals for European forests and the European 2020 targets for forests’, conference paper presented at: Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, Madrid, Spain, 2015. Lucas, R. A. I., Epstein, Y. and Kjellstrom, T., 2014, ‘Excessive occupational heat exposure: A significant ergonomic challenge and health risk for current and future workers’, Extreme Physiology & Medicine 3(1), 14 (DOI: 10.1186/2046-7648-3-14). Lung, T., Lavalle, C., Hiederer, R., Dosio, A. and Bouwer, L. M., 2013, ‘A multi-hazard regional level impact assessment for Europe combining indicators of climatic and non-climatic change’, Global Environmental Change 23(2), 522–536 (DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.11.009). Meyer, V., Becker, N., Markantonis, V., Schwarze, R., van den Bergh, J. C. J. M., Bouwer, L. M., Bubeck, P., Ciavola, P., Genovese, E., Green, C., Hallegatte, S., Kreibich, H., Lequeux, Q., Logar, I., Papyrakis, E., Pfurtscheller, C., Poussin, J., Przyluski, V., Thieken, A. H., et al., 2013, ‘Review article: Assessing the costs of natural hazards — state of the art and knowledge gaps’, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 13(5), 1351–1373 (DOI: 10.5194/nhess-13-1351-2013). Mysiak, J. and Perez-Blanco, D., 2015, ‘Partnerships for affordable and equitable disaster insurance’, Natural Hazards and Earth System Science Discussions 3, 4797–4832 (DOI: 10.5194/nhessd-3-4797-2015). Nakicenovic, N. and Swart, R. (eds), 2000, Special report on emissions scenarios , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Neumayer, E. and Barthel, F., 2011, ‘Normalizing economic loss from natural disasters: A global analysis’, Global Environmental Change 21(1), 13–24. Nichols, G., Lane, C., Asgari, N., Verlander, N. Q. and Charlett, A., 2009, ‘Rainfall and outbreaks of drinking water related disease and in England and Wales’, Journal of Water and Health 7(1), 1–8 (DOI: 10.2166/wh.2009.143). Nordhaus, W. D., 2010, ‘The economics of hurricanes and implications of global warming’, Climate Change Economics 1(1), 1–20 (DOI: 10.1142/ S2010007810000054). Paci, D., 2014, Human health impacts of climate change in Europe. Report for the PESETA II project , Report EUR 26494EN, Joint Research Centre, Seville, Spain. Paz, S., Malkinson, D., Green, M. S., Tsioni, G., Papa, A., Danis, K., Sirbu, A., Ceianu, C., Katalin, K., Ferenczi, E., Zeller, H. and Semenza, J. C., 2013, ‘Permissive summer References 166 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europetemperatures of the 2010 European West Nile fever upsurge’, PLoS One 8(2), e56398 (DOI: 10.1371/journal. pone.0056398). Pellizzer, P., Todescato, A., Benedetti, P., Colussi, P., Conz, P. and Cinco, M., 2006, ‘Leptospirosis following a flood in the Veneto area, north-east Italy’, Annali Di Igiene: Medicina Preventiva E Di Comunita 18(5), 453– 456. Peñuelas, J., Prieto, P., Beier, C., Cesaraccio, C., de ANGELIS, P., de DATO, G., Emmett, B. A., Estiarte, M., Garadnai, J., Gorissen, A., LáNg, E. K., KröEl-Dulay, G., Llorens, L., Pellizzaro, G., Riis-Nielsen, T., Schmidt, I. K., Sirca, C., Sowerby, A., Spano, D. et al., 2007, ‘Response of plant species richness and primary productivity in shrublands along a north-south gradient in Europe to seven years of experimental warming and drought: Reductions in primary productivity in the heat and drought year of 2003’, Global Change Biology 13(12), 2563–2581 (DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01464.x). Perring, M. P., Standish, R. J., Price, J. N., Craig, M. D., Erickson, T. E., Ruthrof, K. X., Whiteley, A. S., Valentine, L. E. and Hobbs, R. J., 2015, ‘Advances in restoration ecology: Rising to the challenges of the coming decades’, Ecosphere 6(8), 1–25 (DOI: 10.1890/ES15- 00121.1). Pickett, S. and White, P., 2013, The ecology of natural disturbance and patch dynamics , Academic Press, Cambridge, MA. Pielke, R. A., Gratz, J., Landsea, C. W., Collins, D., Saunders, M. A. and Musulin, R., 2008, ‘Normalized hurricane damage in the United States: 1900-2005’, Natural Hazards Review 9(1), 29–42. Pielke, R. A. and Landsea, C. W., 1998, ‘Normalized hurricane damages in the United States: 1925-95’, Weather and Forecasting 13, 621–631. Radovic, V., Vitale, K. and Tchounwou, P. B., 2012, ‘Health facilities safety in natural disasters: Experiences and challenges from South East Europe’, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 9(5), 1677–1686 (DOI: 10.3390/ijerph9051677). Rennenberg, H., Loreto, F., Polle, A., Brilli, F., Fares, S., Beniwal, R. S. and Gessler, A., 2006, ‘Physiological responses of forest trees to heat and drought’, Plant Biology 8(5), 556–571 (DOI: 10.1055/s-2006-924084). Rigling, A., Bigler, C., Eilmann, B., Feldmeyer-Christe, E., Gimmi, U., Ginzler, C., Graf, U., Mayer, P., Vacchiano, G., Weber, P., Wohlgemuth, T., Zweifel, R. and Dobbertin, M., 2013, ‘Driving factors of a vegetation shift from Scots pine to pubescent oak in dry Alpine forests’, Global Change Biology 19(1), 229–240 (DOI: 10.1111/gcb.12038). Robine, J.-M., Cheung, S. L. K., Le Roy, S., Van Oyen, H., Griffiths, C., Michel, J.-P. and Herrmann, F. R., 2008, ‘Death toll exceeded 70 000 in Europe during the summer of 2003’, Comptes Rendus Biologies 331(2), 171–178 (DOI: 10.1016/j.crvi.2007.12.001). Rojas, R., Feyen, L., Bianchi, A. and Dosio, A., 2012, ‘Assessment of future flood hazard in Europe using a large ensemble of bias corrected regional climate simulations’, Journal of Geophysical Research 117(D17) (DOI: 10.1029/2012JD017461). Rojas, R., Feyen, L. and Watkiss, P., 2013, ‘Climate change and river floods in the European Union: Socio-economic consequences and the costs and benefits of adaptation’, Global Environmental Change 23(6), 1737–1751 (DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.08.006). Rustad, L., Campbell, J., Marion, G., Norby, R., Mitchell, M., Hartley, A., Cornelissen, J., Gurevitch, J. and GCTE-NEWS, 2001, ‘A meta-analysis of the response of soil respiration, net nitrogen mineralization, and aboveground plant growth to experimental ecosystem warming’, Oecologia 126(4), 543–562 (DOI: 10.1007/s004420000544). Ryti, N. R. I., Guo, Y. and Jaakkola, J. J. K., 2015, ‘Global association of cold spells and adverse health effects: A systematic review and meta-analysis’, Environmental Health Perspectives 124(1), 12–22 (DOI: 10.1289/ehp.1408104). Schmid, D., Lederer, I., Much, P., Pichler, A.-M. and Allerberger, F., 2005, ‘Outbreak of norovirus infection associated with contaminated flood water, Salzburg, 2005’ (http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle. aspx?ArticleId=2727) accessed 16 February 2017. Schmidt, S., Kemfert, C. and Höppe, P., 2009, ‘Tropical cyclone losses in the USA and the impact of climate change: A trend analysis based on data from a new approach to adjusting storm losses’, Environmental Impact Assesment Review 29(6), 359–369 (DOI: 10.1016/j. eiar.2009.03.003). Seidl, R., Schelhaas, M.-J., Rammer, W. and Verkerk, P. J., 2014, ‘Increasing forest disturbances in Europe and their impact on carbon storage’, Nature Climate Change 4(9), 806–810 (DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2318). Semenza, J. C. and Damanovic, D., 2013, ‘Blood supply under threat’, Nature Climate Change 3(5), 432–435. Semenza, J. C., Herbst, S., Rechenburg, A., Suk, J. E., Hoser, C., Schreiber, C. and Kistemann, T., 2012a, References 167 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe ‘Climate change impact assessment of food- and waterborne diseases’, Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 42(8), 857–890 (DOI: 10.1080/10643389.2010.534706). Semenza, J. C., Houser, C., Herbst, S., Rechenburg, A., Suk, J. E., Frechen, T. and Kistemann, T., 2012b, ‘Knowledge mapping for climate change and food- and waterborne diseases’, Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 42(4), 378–411 (DOI: 10.1080/10643389.2010.518520). Semenza, J. C. and Menne, B., 2009, ‘Climate change and infectious diseases in Europe’, The Lancet Infectious Diseases 9(6), 365–375. Semenza, J. C., Tran, A., Espinosa, L., Sudre, B., Domanovic, D. and Paz, S., 2016, ‘Climate change projections of West Nile virus infections in Europe: Implications for blood safety practices’, Environmental Health 15(1), 125–136 (DOI: 10.1186/s12940-016-0105-4). Simmons, K. M., Sutter, D. and Pielke, R., 2013, ‘Normalized tornado damage in the United States: 1950-2011’, Environmental Hazards 12(2), 132–147 (DOI: 10.1080/17477891.2012.738642). So, E. K. M., Pomonis, A., Below, R., Cardona, O., King, A., Zulfikar, C., Koyama, M., Scawthorn, C., Ruffle, S. and Garcia, D., 2012, ‘An introduction to the global earthquake consequences database (GEMECD)’, conference paper presented at: 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, 24 September 2012. Stanke, C., Murray, V., Amlôt, R., Nurse, J. and Williams, R., 2012, ‘The effects of flooding on mental health: Outcomes and recommendations from a review of the literature’, PLoS Currents Disasters (DOI: 10.1371/4f9f1fa9c3cae). Thielen, J., Bartholmes, J. C., Ramos, M. H. and de Roo, A., 2009, ‘The European flood alert system — Part 1: Concept and development’, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 13(2), 125–140 (DOI: 10.5194/hess-13- 125-2009). Turner, M. G. and Dale, V. H., 1998, ‘Large, infrequent disturbances: Comparing large, infrequent disturbances: What have we Llearned?’, Ecosystems 1(6), 493–496 (DOI: 10.1007/s100219900045). UNDP, 2009, Regional programme on capacity building for sustainable recovery and risk reduction: Guidelines and lessons for establishing and institutionalizing disaster loss databases , United Nations Development Programme, New York, NY. UNDP, 2013, Comparative review of country-level and regional disaster loss and damage databases , United Nations Development Programme, New York, NY. UNEP, 2003, Impacts of summer 2003 heat wave in Europe , Environment Alert Bulletin, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. UNISDR, 2011, Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015 mid-term review , United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, Geneva, Switzerland. UNISDR, 2015, Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 , United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, Geneva, Switzerland. Urban, D. L., O’Neil, R. V. and Shugart, H. H., 1987, ‘A hierarchical perspective can help scientists understand spatial patterns’, BioScience 37, 119–127. Ureche-Rangau, L. and Burietz, A., 2013, ‘One crisis, two crises … the subprime crisis and the European sovereign debt problem’, Economic Modelling 35, 35–44 (DOI: 10.1016/j.econmod.2013.06.026). Van Oijen, M., Balkovi, J., Beer, C., Cameron, D. R., Ciais, P., Cramer, W., Kato, T., Kuhnert, M., Martin, R., Myneni, R., Rammig, A., Rolinski, S., Soussana, J.-F., Thonicke, K., Van der Velde, M. and Xu, L., 2014, ‘Impact of droughts on the carbon cycle in European vegetation: A probabilistic risk analysis using six vegetation models’, Biogeosciences 11(22), 6357–6375 (DOI: 10.5194/bg-11- 6357-2014). Vardoulakis, S., Dear, K., Hajat, S., Heaviside, C. and Eggen, B., 2014, ‘Comparative assessment of the effects of climate change on heat- and cold-related mortality in the United Kingdom and Australia’, Environmental Health Perspectives 122(12), 1285–1293 (DOI: 10.1289/ ehp.1307524). Vicente-Serrano, S. M., Lopez-Moreno, J.-I., Beguería, S., Lorenzo-Lacruz, J., Sanchez-Lorenzo, A., García-Ruiz, J. M., Azorin-Molina, C., Morán-Tejeda, E., Revuelto, J., Trigo, R., Coelho, F. and Espejo, F., 2014, ‘Evidence of increasing drought severity caused by temperature rise in southern Europe’, Environmental Research Letters 9(4), 44001 (DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/9/4/044001). Vidmar, A., Globevnik, L., Koprivšek, M., Sečnik, M., Zabret, K., Đurović, B., Anzeljc, D., Kastelic, J., Kobold, M., Sušnik, M., Borojevič, D., Kupusović, T., Kupusović, References 168 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in EuropeE., Vihar, A. and Brilly, M., 2016, ‘The Bosna river floods in May 2014’, Natural Hazards and Earth System Science 16(10), 2235–2246 (DOI: 10.5194/nhess-16-2235-2016). Walker, B., Kinzig, A. and Langridge, J., 1999, ‘Plant attribute diversity, resilience, and ecosystem function: The nature and significance of dominant and minor species’, Ecosystems 2(2), 95–113 (DOI: 10.1007/ s100219900062). Watkiss, P. and Hunt, A., 2012, ‘Projection of economic impacts of climate change in sectors of Europe based on bottom up analysis: Human health’, Climatic Change 112(1), 101–126 (DOI: 10.1007/s10584-011-0342-z). Watts, N., Adger, W. N., Agnolucci, P., Blackstock, J., Byass, P., Cai, W., Chaytor, S., Colbourn, T., Collins, M., Cooper, A., Cox, P. M., Depledge, J., Drummond, P., Ekins, P., Galaz, V., Grace, D., Graham, H., Grubb, M., Haines, A. et al., 2015, ‘Health and climate change: Policy responses to protect public health’, The Lancet 386(10006), 1861–1914 (DOI: 10.1016/S0140- 6736(15)60854-6). WEF, 2016, ‘Climate change and risks to food security’ (http://reports.weforum.org/global-risks-2016/climate- change-and-risks-to-food-security/) accessed 20 September 2017. WHO, 2011, Public health advice on preventing health effects of heat , World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark. WHO and PHE, 2013, Floods in the WHO European Region: Health effects and their prevention , World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe; Public Health England, Copenhagen, Denmark. WHO and WMO, 2015, ‘Heatwaves and health: guidance on warning-system development’ (http://www.who.int/ globalchange/publications/heatwaves-health-guidance/ en/) accessed 17 February 2017. Wolf, T., Lyne, K., Martinez, G. S. and Kendrovski, V., 2015, ‘The health effects of climate change in the WHO European Region’, Climate 3(4), 901–936 (DOI: 10.3390/ cli3040901). Ye, X., Wolff, R., Yu, W., Vaneckova, P., Pan, X. and Tong, S., 2011, ‘Ambient temperature and morbidity: A review of epidemiological evidence’, Environmental Health Perspectives 120(1), 19–28 (DOI: 10.1289/ehp.1003198). Zimmerman, R., Zhu, Q. and Dimitri, C., 2016, ‘Promoting resilience for food, energy, and water interdependencies’, Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 6(1), 50–61 (DOI: 10.1007/s13412-016- 0362-0). Chapter 5 Amaral, R., 2016, Cat regimes in France: Dealing with changing threats, Global Reinsurance. Appenzeller, C., 2011, Swiss climate change scenarios CH2011 , Center for Climate Systems Modeling, Zürich, Switzerland. BAFU, 2014a, Anpassung an den Klimawandel in der Schweiz Aktionsplan 2014-2019 , Zweiter Teil der Strategie des Bundesrates, Bundesamt für Umwelt, Bern, Switzerland. BAFU, 2014b, PROTECT Bio: Methodik zur Beurteilung der Wirkung biologischer Schutzmassnahmen gegen Natur gefahren als Grundlage für ihre Berücksichtigung bei Risikoanalysen , Synthesebericht Phase III, NaturDialog, Thun, Switzerland. Deltacommissie, 2008, Samen werken met water: Een land dat leeft, bouwt aan ziin toekomst , September 2008, Deltacommissie, The Hague, Netherlands. EC, 2013, 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’, COM(2013) 216 final. EC, 2016, Mayors Adapt Knowledge Base Strategy: ‘Urban adaptation knowledge gaps in Europe ‘, Executive Summary for European Commission, EC. EEA, 2016, Urban adaptation to climate change in Europe 2016 — Transforming cities in a changing climate , EEA Report No 12/2016, European Environment Agency. Espejo Gil, F., 2016, Climate change and insurance: a many-sided interrelationship , No 04, Consorcio de Compensación de Seguros, Madrid, Spain. FOEN, 2012, Adaptation to climate change in Switzerland: Goals, challenges and fields of action , Environmental miscellanea UD-1055-E, Federal Office of the Environment, Bern, Switzerland. geo7, 2015, Klimasensitivität Naturgefahren , Bundesamt für Umwelt, Bern, Switzerland. References 169 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe Haasnoot, M., 2013, Anticipating change: Sustainable water policy pathways for an uncertain future, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands. Haasnoot, M., Kwakkel, J. H., Walker, W. E. and ter Maat, J., 2013, ‘Dynamic adaptive policy pathways: A method for crafting robust decisions for a deeply uncertain world’, Global Environmental Change 23(2), 485–498 (DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.12.006). Kern, K. and Bulkeley, H., 2009, ‘Cities, Europeanization and multi-level governance: Governing climate change through transnational municipal networks’, Journal of Common Market Studies 47(2), 309–332. Kind, J. M., 2014, ‘Economically efficient flood protection standards for the Netherlands: Efficient flood protection standards for the Netherlands’, Journal of Flood Risk Management 7(2), 103–117 (DOI: 10.1111/jfr3.12026). Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, 2016, Adapting with ambition National Climate Adaptation Strategy 2016 (NAS) , Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, The Hague, Netherlands. O’Brien, S., Papanagnou, G., Tepp, M. and McGuinn, J., 2016, Mid-term evaluation of the urban adaptation initiative within the framework of the Covenant of Mayors , Final Report No 340202/2014/685147/SER/CLIMA.C.3, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. OECD, 2014, Water governance in the Netherlands , OECD Studies on Water, OECD, Paris, France. OECD, 2016, National risk assessments: A cross country perspective , High Level Risk Forum GOV/PGC/ HLRF(2016)7, OECD, Paris, France. PLANAT, 2004, Sicherheit vor Naturgefahren Vision und Strategie , No 1/2004, National Platform for Natural Hazards, Bern, Switzerland. PLANAT, 2014, Security level for natural hazards , National Platform for Natural Hazards, Bern, Switzerland. Reeder, T. and Ranger, N., 2011, How do you adapt in an uncertain world? Lessons from the Thames Estuary 2100 project , World Resources Report, Washington, DC. Slotboom, L., 2015, Lesson-drawing in European networks, Masters thesis in European Spatial and Environmental Planning, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands. Surminski, S., 2016, ‘Taking a risk on the weather’, Financial World (February/March), 49–51.Surminski, S. and Eldridge, J., 2015, ‘Flood insurance in England: An assessment of the current and newly proposed insurance scheme in the context of rising flood risk’, Journal of Flood Risk Management (DOI: 10.1111/ jfr3.12127). WRC, 2015, Screening assessment of draft flood risk management plans , UC10757.01, WRc, Swindon, United Kingdom. Chapter 6 Alexander, L. V., 2016, ‘Global observed long- term changes in temperature and precipitation extremes: A review of progress and limitations in IPCC assessments and beyond’, Weather and Climate Extremes 11, 4–16 (DOI: 10.1016/j.wace.2015.10.007). Bahadur, A. V., Peters, K., Wilkinson, E., Pichon, F., Gray, K. and Tanner, T., 2015, The 3As: Tracking resilience across BRACED , BRACED Working Paper, Overseas Development Institute, London, United Kingdom. Brown, A., 2016, ‘Attribution: Heatwave mortality’, Nature Climate Change 6(9), 821–821 (DOI: 10.1038/ nclimate3117). CBD, 2016, Synthesis report on experiences with ecosystem-based approaches to climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction , CBD Technical Series No 85, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Canada. Doswald, N. and Estrella, M., 2015, Promoting ecosystems for disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation: Opportunities for integration , UNEP Discussion Paper, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. Easterling, D. R., Kunkel, K. E., Wehner, M. F. and Sun, L., 2016, ‘Detection and attribution of climate extremes in the observed record’, Weather and Climate Extremes 11, 17–27 (DOI: 10.1016/j.wace.2016.01.001). EC, 2013a, 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’, COM(2013) 216 final. EC, 2013b, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions ‘Green infrastructure (GI) — Enhancing Europe’s natural capital’, COM(2013) 0249 final. References 170 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in EuropeEC, 2013c, Green Paper on the insurance of natural and man-made disaster, COM(2013) 213 final. EC, 2014, Summary of responses received to the European Commission’s Green Paper on the insurance of natural and man-made disasters , European Commission, Brussels. EC, 2015a, A European research and innovation Roadmap for Climate Services, European Commission Directorate-General (DG) for Research and Innovation. EC, 2015b, ‘Demonstrating innovative nature- based solutions in cities’ (https://ec.europa. eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/ opportunities/h2020/calls/h2020-scc-2016-2017. html#c,topics=callIdentifier/t/H2020- SCC-2016-2017/1/1/1/default-group&callStatus/t/ Forthcoming/1/1/0/default-group&callStatus/t/ Open/1/1/0/default-group&callStatus/t/Closed/1/1/0/ default-group&+identifier/desc) accessed 25 April 2017. EC, 2015c, Towards an EU research and innovation policy agenda for nature-based solutions & re-naturing cities , Final report of the Horizon 2020 expert group on ‘Nature-based solutions and re-naturing cities’, European Commission, Brussels. EC, 2016, Commission staff working document — Action Plan on the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030: A disaster risk-informed approach for all EU policies, COM(2016) 739 final. ECA, 2009, Shaping climate-resilient development: A framework for decision-making , Economics of Climate Adaptation Working Group, New York, NY. EEA, 2014, National adaptation policy processes across European countries — 2014 , EEA Report No 4/2014, European Environment Agency. EEA, 2015a, National monitoring, reporting and evaluation of climate change adaptation in Europe , EEA Technical Report No 20/2015, European Environment Agency. EEA, 2015b, Overview of climate change adaptation platforms/services in Europe , Technical report No 5/2015, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark. EEA, 2016a, Mapping and assessing the condition of Europe’s ecosystems: Progress and challenges , EEA Report No 3/2016, European Environment Agency. EEA, 2016b, Urban adaptation to climate change in Europe 2016 — Transforming cities in a changing climate , EEA Report No 12/2016, European Environment Agency. EEA, 2017, Financing urban adaptation to climate change , EEA Report No 2/2017, European Environment Agency. EU, 2013, Regulation (EU) 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007, OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671-854. EU, 2014, Regulation (EU) No 377/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 establishing the Copernicus Programme and repealing Regulation (EU) No 911/2010, OJ L 122, 24.4.2014, p. 44-66. Eurostat, 2016, Sustainable development in the European Union: A statistical glance from the viewpoint of the UN Sustainable Development Goals , Statistical Books, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. Falck, 2015, Guidelines peer review: Version 1.1. March 2015 , Programme for peer reviews in the framework of EU cooperation on civil protection and disaster risk management 2015-2016, European Commission, Brussels. Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T. and Rockström, J., 2010, ‘Resilience thinking: Integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability’, Ecology and Society 15(4). GCF, 2017, Status of pledges and contributions made to the Green Climate Fund , Green Climate Fund, Incheon, Korea. Hay, J. E., Easterling, D., Ebi, K. L., Kitoh, A. and Parry, M., 2016, ‘Conclusion to the special issue: Observed and projected changes in weather and climate extremes’, Weather and Climate Extremes 11, 103–105 (DOI: 10.1016/j.wace.2015.11.002). Heim, R. R., 2015, ‘An overview of weather and climate extremes — Products and trends’, Weather and Climate Extremes 10, 1–9 (DOI: 10.1016/j.wace.2015.11.001). IPCC, 2012, Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation: Special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Linkov, I., Bridges, T., Creutzig, F., Decker, J., Fox-Lent, C., Kröger, W., Lambert, J. H., Levermann, A., Montreuil, References 171 Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe B., Nathwani, J., Nyer, R., Renn, O., Scharte, B., Scheffler, A., Schreurs, M. and Thiel-Clemen, T., 2014, ‘Changing the resilience paradigm’, Nature Climate Change 4(6), 407–409 (DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2227). Loeber, A. and Kunseler, E., 2016, ‘How to institutionalize the capacity for learning into complex policy programs addressing climate change? A design for monitoring and evaluation in the Dutch Delta Program’, presentation given at: European Environmental Evaluators Network, Copenhagen, Denmark, 15 September 2016. Lonsdale, K., Pringle, P. and Turner, B., 2015, Transformative adaptation: What it is, why it matters and what is needed , UK Climate Impacts Programme, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom. MCII, 2013, Climate risk adaptation and insurance: Reducing vulnerability and sustaining the livelihoods of low-income communities , No 13, Munich Climate Insurance Initiative, Bonn, Germany. Pringle, P., 2011, AdaptME: Adaptation monitoring and evaluation , UK Climate Impacts Programme, Oxford, United Kingdom. Salvaterra, T., Allenbach, K., Hobson, P., Ibisch, P. L., Korn, H., Mysiak, J., Renaud, F. and Pulquério, M., 2016, Exploring the potential of ecosystem-based approaches: Ecosystem-based adaptation and ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction , Policy brief with proceedings from a PLACARD session convened as part of the 4th Adaptation Futures Conference, 10 – 13 May, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, PLACARD, Rotterdam, Netherlands. Silva Villanueva, P., 2011, Learning to ADAPT: Monitoring and evaluation approaches in climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction — Challenges, gaps and ways forward , SCR Discussion Paper 9 No 9, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, United Kingdom. Street, R. B., 2016, ‘Towards a leading role on climate services in Europe: A research and innovation roadmap’, Climate Services 1, 2–5 (DOI: 10.1016/j. cliser.2015.12.001). UNFCCC, 2015, Adoption of the Paris Agreement , Decision 1/CP.21, UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Bonn, Germany. UNISDR, 2015, Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 , UN Report UNISDR/GE/015, Geneva, Switzerland. UNISDR, 2017, Words into action guidelines — National focal points for disaster risk reduction , United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, Geneva, Switzerland. European Environment Agency Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe Enhancing coherence of the knowledge base, policies and practices 2017 — 172 pp. — 21 x 29.7 cm ISBN 978-92-9213-893-6 doi:10.2800/938195 Getting in touch with the EU In person All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct Information Centres. You can find the address of the centre nearest you at: http://europa.eu/contact On the phone or by e-mail Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this service – by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), – at the following standard number: +32 22999696 or – by electronic mail via: http://europa.eu/contact Finding information about the EU Online Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa website at: http://europa.eu EU Publications You can download or order free and priced EU publications from EU Bookshop at: http://bookshop.europa.eu. Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (see http://europa.eu/contact) EU law and related documents For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1951 in all the official language versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu Open data from the EU The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/data) provides access to datasets from the EU. Data can be downloaded and reused for free, both for commercial and non-commercial purposes. TH-AL-17-012-EN-N doi:10.2800/938195 European Environment Agency Kongens Nytorv 6 1050 Copenhagen K Denmark Tel.: +45 33 36 71 00 Web: eea.europa.eu Enquiries: eea.europa.eu/enquiries