Status box

WG F Climate Change Adaptation workshop: 16.10.2012

Title : Draft Report of the WG F Climate Change Adaptation Workshop

Version no: 3 Date: 04.04.2013

Author(s): M. Kämper (DG ENV), B. Näslund-Landenmark (SE), M. Adamson (IE).

Proposal

WG F participants are asked to comment on the draft report by 30.04.2013

Disclaimer:

This document has been developed in the context of the Common Implementation Strategy (CIS), a collaborative programme involving the European Commission, all the Member States, the Accession Countries, Norway and other stakeholders and Non-Governmental Organisations. The document is a working draft and does not necessarily represent the official, formal position of any of the partners. This means that the views expressed in the document do not necessarily represent the views of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any other CIS partners are responsible for the use that any third party might make of the information contained in this document.

WG F WORKSHOP REPORT :

CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION

TUESDAY 16 OCTOBER 2012

9:30 – 13:00

VENUE: CENTRE CONFERENCE ALBERT BORSCHETTE, ROOM 0BRUE FROISSART 36, 1040 BRUSSELS

CONTENTS

1. BACKGROUND.................................................................................................... 1

1.1. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION..............................................................11.2. OVERVIEW OF THE WORKSHOP – BARBRO NÄSLUND-LANDENMARK, SE

11.3. PRELIMINARY FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMISSION ON CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE PFRA – MARIA BRÄTTEMARK, COM............................................2

2. DEVELOPMENTS IN CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION...........................3

2.1. CLIMATE CHANGE STRATEGY – JOAN CANTON, DG CLIMA....................32.2. IPCC SPECIFIC REPORT ON EXTREME EVENTS – DEMETRIO INNOCENTI, UNISDR................................................................................................... 3

2.2.1. DISCUSSION: STATUS AND DIRECTION OF POLICY AND SCIENCE4

3. IMPLEMENTATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION.....................5

3.1. FLOOD INUDATION MAPS – INCLUDING A FUTURE CLIMATE CHANGE - MONICA BAKKAN, NO.............................................................................53.2. CLIMATE CHANGE – A LONG TERM POLICY – WILLIAM VAN BERKEL, NL 53.3. RHINE – ICPR APPROACH TOWARDS CLIMATE CHANGE - ADRIAN SCHMID-BRETON, ICPR – COBLENCE).........................................................................6

4. THEMED DISCUSSION....................................................................................... 7

4.1.1. CLIMATE CHANGE IN PFRA.................................................................74.1.2. CLIMATE CHANGE AND FLOOD MAPPING........................................84.1.3. CLIMATE CHANGE IN FRMPs AND MEASURES.................................94.1.4. CLIMATE CHANGE IN SPATIAL PLANNING......................................10

5. REFLECTIONS AND NEXT STEPS.................................................................11

5.1. WORKSHOP CLOSE....................................................................................115.2. REFLECTIONS............................................................................................. 115.3. NEXT STEPS................................................................................................ 11

6. PROVIDED INFORMATION / SUGGESTED READINGS.................................12

ANNEXESAnnex I Agenda

Annex II List of Participants

Annex III Consolidated Questionnaire Responses

Annex IV Graphical Representation of Questionnaire Responses

Annex V Table of General Principles and Suggested Actions

1. BACKGROUND

Climate Change will change flood patterns and it is important to have access to information about the effects of climate change and how to handle the risks that will arise. It is important to integrate adaptation to Climate Change into the daily work and to develop adaptation plans.

Climate Change is a topic where new knowledge and information together with new research results are of high importance, especially for the adaptation work. The purpose of organizing an information exchange event was to update the WG F members on recent research and ongoing events since three years have passed after the Floods and Climate Change workshop in Karlstad, Sweden. There were many issues raised at the Karlstad workshop that now is left to the MS to take care of. Many of the issues are documented in the WG F Consolidated Outcome documents.

The objective of a mini-workshop was to promote information exchange on climate change in relation to the implementation of the Floods Directive. In particular to:

- Provide a forum to make WG F member aware of ongoing activities by the Commission, other CIS groups and other initiatives (e.g., the ‘White Paper’ and related work, research, international activities) in relation to climate change

- Address any outstanding issues or questions that arose during the Karlstad Workshop

- Provide a forum for MS to share experiences, such as providing for climate change in flood mapping and integrating adaptation into the FRMPs.

Documents and presentations are available on CIRCABC [link]

1.1. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION

Mr Mark Adamson (MA, WG F Chair) welcomed the participants (listed in annex I) to the Climate Change Adaptation Workshop, which was proposed by Sweden, and therefore Barbro Näslund-Landenmark (BNL, SE) is co-chairing this workshop.

MA informed that a questionnaire concerning the consideration of the impact of climate change in the implementation of the floods directive, and a table with the guiding principles and suggested actions as outlined in the CIS Guidance Document No. 24 for input of examples and comments by MS, had been sent out in preparation of this workshop.

1.2. OVERVIEW OF THE WORKSHOP – Barbro Näslund-Landenmark, SE

Ms Barbro Näslund-Landenmark gave a presentation on the overview and the aim of the workshop. It should serve to exchange information on the topic of climate change as well as to raise awareness under the member of WG F on ongoing changes. The workshop’s proceedings will be presented in an informal report together with the consolidated set of questionnaire responses regarding the consideration of climate change in the implementation of the EU 'Floods' Directive. Participating Member States agreed on that.

1

1.3. PRELIMINARY FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMISSION ON CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE PFRA – Maria Brättemark, COM

The presentation, held by Ms Maria Brättemark (COM, DG ENV.D.1), gave a short overview regarding the results of a first assessment of the electronic reports on how climate change has been taken into account in the PFRA's. In 88 % of electronic WISE-PFRA climate change is mentioned by the MS. The impacts of climate change mentioned in the PFRA are mainly regarding change in precipitation, change in temperature and sea level rise. In the presentation was also stated if the MS refer to work with models, scenarios or literature. Most of them used scientific literature, global and regional models or relied on readily available information. The presentation was finished with examples of conclusions, statements and next steps, which were outlined by the Member States in the electronic WISE-PFRA like:

• "Climate adaptation can start now – the trends are robust enough. Conclusion from the Karlstad workshop on Floods and Climate Change 2009." (SE)

• "There is still a high uncertainty." (AT, DE, CZ)

• "The concept of coastal protection contains an climate surcharge of 0.5 m." (DE)

• "Not sufficient available or readily-derivable information to undertake a robust assessment of the impact of potential climate change on these form of flooding, but an assessment will be included in the review of the PFRA in 2018." (IE)

2

2. DEVELOPMENTS IN CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION

2.1. CLIMATE CHANGE STRATEGY – Joan Canton, DG Clima

Joan Canton (DG CLIMA.C.3), the unit responsible for Climate Change Adaptation, gave a presentation on 'The EU Strategy for Adaptation to Climate Change'. He highlighted that impacts of climate change are already being felt in Europe and that it is a cross-sectoral issue. Therefore, adaptation is necessary and an integrated approach across Europe is needed. He stated that 12 Member State already have adaptation strategies, but only one considered transboundary issues. He underlined the benefits from a good adaptation strategy and the general aim of the EU adaptation Strategy to

climate change, which should be adopted in spring 2013.

"A proper assessment of risk and vulnerabilities at national / regional level helps identifying cross border issues and EU added value." (Joan Canton, DG Clima)

Currently, the EU is preparing a Green Paper and Mr Canton drew the attention to a new climate sub-programme in LIFE+, which is still under discussion yet, but the EU provides funding for 'lighthouse-projects' within the cycle 2014 – 2020.

2.2.

IPCC SPECIFIC REPORT ON EXTREME EVENTS – Demetrio Innocenti, UNISDR

Mr Demetrio Innocenti (UNISDR) gave a presentation on the 'IPCC Special Report on Managing Risks of Extreme Events and Disaster to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX)'. This IPCC report addresses, for the first time, how integrating expertise in climate science, disaster risk management, and adaptation can inform discussions on how to reduce and manage the risks of extreme events and disasters in a changing climate.

The SREX-report clearly points out that climate change leads to changes in extreme weather events and climate events as well as to an increasing temperature and sea level rise. Mr Innocenti emphasised the differences between this statement and the one that is done by the AR4. According to the AR4 climate change might be have an influence on extreme weather events. Furthermore, he said that impacts from weather and climate events depend on nature and severity of events as well as vulnerability and exposure. For exposed and vulnerable communities even non/extreme weather events can have extreme events. Mr Innocenti stressed that economic losses from climate

3

Further information on EU Adaptation Strategy – building on the success of Climate Change – ADAPT can be found under: http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/

related disasters have increased over the past years and that floods produce the most economic impact. Therefore it is not wise not to invest in disaster risk management.

Full report under: http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-All_FINAL.pdf; Policy makers summary available at: http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-SPMbrochure_FINAL.pdf

2.2.1. DISCUSSION: STATUS AND DIRECTION OF POLICY AND SCIENCE

During the discussion, questions were raised by the MS concerning the cooperation between the work being done by WG F, and the work of DG CLIMA, the problems caused by the high uncertainty in the predictions as well as solutions how to increase the knowledge of policy makers.

Regarding the high uncertainty in the predictions, CZ emphasised that there are much more things we do not know and cited out of a scientific paper, that "the models outcome on precipitation is poor to use".

An aim of this workshop is to clarify this problem to meet the demand arising out of the 'Floods Directive' to take climate change into account. DG Clima and DG Environment are working closely together. DG Clima can provide support, but climate adaptation can be mainstreamed when it comes to toolboxes and how to come up to an adaptation plan. DG Clima is going to check the results concerning the implementation of the 'Floods Directive'.

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) advised that due to the uncertainty MS should try to define methodologies, which help to deal with climate change. A suggestion from WMO was that MS should make use of empirical models and a very simple rule of thumb - prepare for the known extremes, then you have covered potential extremes due to climate changes.

Regarding the question of how to improve the knowledge of policy makers, various proposals were made. The IPCC SREX report is for instance furthermore also available in a "Summary for decision maker" understandable for policy makers or invest in responding or invest in going local.

4

3. IMPLEMENTATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION

3.1. FLOOD INUDATION MAPS – INCLUDING A FUTURE CLIMATE CHANGE - Monica Bakkan, NO

Ms Monica Bakkan gave her presentation 'Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate’ (NVE), responsible of the production of flood maps. She pointed out the key future climate influence in Norway, which are floods, sea level rise and landslides. Therefore, Norway implemented a 'Flood mapping and land use planning' Strategy including a 20 % increase of a 200 yr flood during the next 100 yr. In additional Norway did a research-project on 'hydrological projections for floods in Norway under a future climate'. The Research focused on 115 catchments. Projections were given for a 200 yr and 1000 yr flood and for two future periods (2021 – 2050 and 2071 – 2100). Ms Bakkan presented the conclusions. For inland catchments dominated by spring/early summer snowmelt floods in today’s climate is a 0% increase expected. In contrast for coastal locations and local source areas is a 20 % increase expected as well as for catchments < 100 km2. On an example of the Naustdal municipality Ms Bakkan showed the consequences of the research expressed in a flood inundation map.

The map is available under the following link: http://www.nve.no/PageFiles/18174/Flaumsonekart_200%c3%a5rsflaum_med_klima.pdf?epslanguage=no)

In response to questions raised by other participants regarding the methodology and how this information is used by land use planning further clarifications were given.

Norway used the mean annual flood and did not include any scenarios in the models.

Regarding the question of how this information is used, Ms Bakkan answered that all maps are available and that municipalities asked for them. In Norway existing strict guidelines for their municipalities, which is a strong force. The co-chair (BNL) noted that the situation in Norway where there is an obligation to link flood mapping and spatial planning is positive.

Report "Hydrological projections for floods in Norway under a future climate” can be found under the following link: http://webby.nve.no/publikasjoner/report/2011/report2011_05.pdf

3.2. CLIMATE CHANGE – A LONG TERM POLICY – William van Berkel, NL

Mr Wiliam van Berkel (NL) presented the Dutch approach on the topic 'Climate Change – A long term policy'. He mentioned the future threats and that NL developed four scenarios which politicians should take measures on, e. g. building dykes. Mr van Berkel underlined that safety standards are regulated in the water law and yet no change in probability. Additional, he mentioned that exposure depends on the location and that climate change is expected to have a higher effect downstream and in

5

western parts of Holland. In the NL are no reliable land-cover maps regarding climate change available yet.

One question was raised regarding the scenario, which is used. Mr Wiliam van Berkel stated that it is a 2020-scenario, but the Delta Commission scenarios cover the periods of 2020 – 2050 and 2071 – 2100.

3.3. RHINE – ICPR APPROACH TOWARDS CLIMATE CHANGE - Adrian Schmid-Breton, ICPR – Coblence)

Mr Adrian Schmid-Breton (ICPR) presented the work in the international river commission for the Rhine - 'Rhine – ICPR approach towards climate adaptation'. The Rhine catchment area consists of nine countries and the starting point for an adaptation strategy was back in 2007. As a basis for the development of an adaptation strategy serves the 'Study of Scenarios for the Discharge Regime of the Rhine' as well as a summary synthesis of available literature. Future steps are the assessment of scenarios in terms of impact on quality status and uses as well as identifying possibilities to mitigate impact in cooperation with the ICPR WGs Floods, Substances and Ecology. The adaptation strategy should be developed by 2013 – 2014. Mr Schmid-Breton stated the impacts of climate change on water management in the Rhine catchment as well as the future work of ICPR.

A question was raised by Mr Canton, DG Clima, regarding if the economic consequences were taken into account. At that stage, there are not taken into account, mentioned Mr Adrian Schmid-Breton, but it is foreseen to do a big study with an assessment of measures to reduce the risks.

6

4. THEMED DISCUSSION

To facilitate discussion, Mr Mark Adamson (MA) presented the preliminary results of the questionnaire regarding the consideration of climate change in the implementation of the EU 'Floods Directive' (FD), to which 14 MS had replied by the time of the Workshop. Further questionnaires were submitted following the workshop, and the complete sets of results are presented below, with further details of the responses provided in Annexes III and IV.

4.1.1. CLIMATE CHANGE IN PFRA

Question 2.1: Did you take climate change into account during the PFRA?

Yes 11

Use of Extreme Events 5

No 2

PFRA Not Undertaken 3

Questionnaire Interpretation

The significant majority of the respondents who undertook the PFRA (i.e., excluding those MS that applied Article 13.1.b) have taken account of climate change in the PFRA. This has either been directly (i.e., including a change in extreme sea levels, precipitation and / or fluvial flood flows / levels explicitly due to climate change) or through the use of an extreme event to represent the potential impacts of climate change.

A number of MS who did take account of climate change only did so with respect to sea level rise, citing significant uncertainty in the impacts on fluvial flooding.

For some MS that did not include a provision for climate change, this decision was on the basis of significant uncertainty or no evidence that a change would occur. This was however only applied in relation to fluvial flooding.

Workshop Discussion

MA presented the results on that question, and then different MS presented their outcomes and if they had taken climate change into account.

SE took climate change into account for fluvial flooding in the country by using a very extreme event, ~ the 10 000 year flood.

IE is currently examining the potential impacts of sea level rise.

RO took several scenarios into account and the results showed no real changes in the frequency of maximum discharges.

FR took a sea level rise of 1 m for 2100 into account, but no climate change impacts for rivers.

DE considered a sea level rise.

7

FI used a 1000 yr scenario and underlined that is quite tricky to calculate climate change along the coastal line.

MA summarised that there is increased trend in floods in SE, NO and FI. There is still a high uncertainty and that it is weak for the rest of Europe. Sea level rise is taken into account.

BNL emphasised that the implementation of the Floods Directive is an on-going process, which will be reviewed in 6 yr time so there will be new and better information available for each cycle of review.

4.1.2. CLIMATE CHANGE AND FLOOD MAPPING

Question 3.1: Will you be producing flood maps that indicate potential future scenarios?

Yes 12

No 9

Questionnaire Interpretation

There is a clear split in these results, with only a slight majority of MS intending to include provision for climate change in the flood maps.

Among those that are including a provision for climate change, some appear to be developing separate maps for potential future scenarios as well as current scenarios, while others appear only to be developing maps with an inclusion for the potential impacts of climate change (although it is not always clear from the results which of these approaches are being taken).

Question 3.2: Do you intend to intend to indicate uncertainty in the presentation of flood maps?

Yes 3

In Reports / Legend / Metadata 8

No 8

N/A 2

Questionnaire Interpretation

Only a limited number of MS intend to represent uncertainty on the flood maps. Of those MS that do not intend to do so, half do intend nonetheless to describe the uncertainty in either the map legend or the accompanying report or metadata.

Workshop Discussion

In connection to the reported results, different MS stated their approach.

8

SE decided to produce detailed maps.

NL just visualise the current situation, but they have additional inspection programmes on dykes every yr.

CH applies an approach where they include everything they know in the hazards maps.

BE emphasised that their maps are based on future projections.

There was extensive discussion with quite differing views on the merits and possible risks in providing information on uncertainty, either on a map or in the accompanying material.

Reasons put forward for including climate change scenarios and / or uncertainty on flood maps included:

To highlight that the information provided on the map is not certain

Providing richer information to facilitate the users to make appropriate decisions in light of the uncertainties associated with the information provided

Reasons put forward against including climate change scenarios and / or uncertainty on flood maps included:

The provision of such information could confuse the user

The identification of uncertainty could undermine the credibility, which in turn could undermine the use of the maps, reduce investment or increase insurance rates

[Note: At the FloodRisk 2012 Conference (Rotterdam, NL, 20-22 November 2012), this issue was raised and discussed. It was noted that users often only want one answer or a single definitive flood extent, and do not want an uncertain answer. It was also noted that this represents a transfer of responsibility, whereby the policy / decision-maker is not taking into account the uncertainty, and instead transfers responsibility to the ‘expert’ who develops the map]

4.1.3. CLIMATE CHANGE IN FRMPs AND MEASURES

Question 4.1: Do you intend to incorporate climate change in setting FRM objectives?

Yes 15

No 5

N/A 1

Questionnaire Interpretation

There is a clear majority of MS who intend to incorporate climate change into the Flood Risk Management Objectives that need to be set in the preparation of the Flood Risk Management Plan. For those MS who do not intend to do so, this was due to uncertainty or research indicating limited or no impact of climate change on flooding, or no reason was given.

9

Question 4.2: Do you have guidance or requirements on climate change adaptation relating to design and implementation of FRM strategies and measures?

Yes 8

No 12

No Existing Guidance 1

Questionnaire Interpretation

A slight majority of respondents do not have existing guidance on climate change adaptation relating to design and implementation of FRM strategies and measures.

One MS reported that they intend to develop guidance, but have none at present.

Workshop DiscussionNL raised the question, how can we assure the measures are climate proof? There are limits in heightening dykes, so we have to look at other flexibilities and possibilities you have.

SE added the example of Australia. The country is investing a very little amount in preventive flood risk management measures, most in re-building.

HU stated that their fight to reduce the level of the flood as well as fighting against drought and scarcity.

4.1.4. CLIMATE CHANGE IN SPATIAL PLANNING

Question 5.1: Does spatial planning legislation or guidance in your country/area explicitly take into account the potential impacts of climate change?

Yes 4

Referred to, but not used in Zoning 6

No 10

N/A 1

Questionnaire Interpretation

A few MS report that climate change is specifically provided for when zoning land for development, while a number of others describe that the potential impacts of climate change are referred to in land use management guidance / regulations as a factor to be considered, but are not explicitly used in land use zoning.

10

Almost half of the respondents however indicated that climate change is not taken into account in land use management under current guidelines / regulations.

11

5. REFLECTIONS AND NEXT STEPS

5.1. WORKSHOP CLOSE

MA requested that any further questionnaire responses would be welcomed (a number were subsequently received), and asked MS also to confirm that they were happy for responses to be included in the workshop report (no objections were received).

MA then noted that certain topics related to the workshop, such as how to deal with uncertainties in the implementation of the ‘Floods’ Directive, could be the subject of future work.

MB thanked MS for the contribution and mentioned that while MS may not agree on every point, it is important to keep the information exchange between WG F Members and with the Commission on-going on a regular basis on this particular evolving question.

BNL then thanks all participants and closed the workshop.

5.2. REFLECTIONS

During the discussions at the workshop several outstanding issues were raised such as:

While working with the FD it is important, in the review of each step, to bring in the new knowledge on Climate Change to consideration.

How to assess uncertainty is a question to discuss for another workshop.

Were trends from the historical floods and data into consideration while planning for the society today? And why not - the future is even more uncertain.

A possible way to look at measures with flexibility is to develop strategies on how to adjust them for the uncertain future.

Reflect on uncertainty as a specific activity for the next work programme, 2013 – 2015.

5.3. NEXT STEPS

It was agreed at WG F 12 that a half-day workshop on ‘Decision-Making under Uncertainty’ would be held back-to-back with the WG F 13 Meeting to be held in Dublin, IE, to be organised by UK (NI) supported by IE.

As referred to by MB at the close of the workshop, further and ongoing information exchange related to the potential impacts of, and adaptation to, the effects of climate change should remain a core theme for WG F, and it may be appropriate for further workshops to be organised in future on this topic.

12

6. PROVIDED INFORMATION / SUGGESTED READINGS

Book on large flood including Prof. Kundzwewicz's paper: http://www.ifi-home.info/icfm-icharm/Large-Flood-Book.html

Mudelsee's paper: http;//www.manfredmudelsee.com/publ/pdf/flood.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/change/

13

Annex I: Agenda

CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION WORKSHOP TUESDAY 16 OCTOBER 2012

09:30 – 13:00

VENUE : CENTRE CONFERENCE ALBERT BORSCHETTE, ROOM 0B RUE FROISSART 36, 1040 BRUSSELS, BELGIUM.

2ND DRAFT AGENDA

Agenda Items

09:30 A –Welcome and Introduction (M. Adamson)

i) Overview of Workshop – B. Näslund-Landenmark, SE

ii) Preliminary Feedback from the Commission on Climate Change in the PFRA – M. Brättemark, COM

09:45 B – Developments in Climate Change Adaptation

iii) Climate Change Adaptation Strategy – Presentation – DG Clima

iv) IPCC Specific Report on Extreme Events – Presentation Demetrio Innocenti – UNISDR

v) Discussion: Status and direction of policy and science

11:00 C – Implementation of Climate Change Adaptation

i) Flood Inundation Maps – Including a Future Climate – Presentation, Monica Bakkan, NO

ii) Climate Change, A Long-Term Policy – Presentation, William van Berkel, NL

iii) Themed Discussion

a. Climate Change in PFRA

b. Climate Change and Flood Mapping

c. Climate Change in FRMPs and Measures

12:45 D – Conclusions

13:00 Close

14

Annex II: List of Participants

MEMBER STATE/ORGANISATION NAMEMEMBER STATESAustria Rudolf Hornich

Belgium Kris Cauwenberghs

Belgium Mohssine El Kahloun

Belgium Didier de Thysebaert

Belgium Neel Devroede

Bulgaria Maria Arangelova

Cyprus Kostas Aristeidou

Czech Republic Petr Brezina

Czech Republic Jan Danhelka

Denmark Henrik Kristensen

Denmark Carl-Christian Munk-Nielsen

Estonia Agne Aruväli

Finland Minna Hanski

Finland Mikko Huokuna

France Amelie Renaud

Germany Meike Gierk (MG)

Greece Katerina Triantafyllou

Hungary Arpad Szentivanyi

Iceland Arni Snorrason

Ireland Mark Adamson

Italy Martina Bussettini

Margherita Tolotto

Latvia Zane Ozola

Latvia Viktors Jefimovs

Lithuania Gediminas Dudenas

Luxembourg Henri Hansen

Netherlands Max Linsen

William van Berkel

Poland Agata Wlodarczyk

Ewa Urbanowicz

Romania Mary-Jeanne Adler

Spain Jorge Ureta Maeso

Sweden Barbro Näslund-Landenmark

United Kingdom David Porter

15

MEMBER STATE/ORGANISATION NAMEMatthew Hampshire

Roy Richardson

CANDIDATE COUNTRIES & EFTATurkey -

Norway Monica Bakkan

Iceland --

Switzerland Andre Wehrli

STAKEHOLDERSEUREAU --

EWA --

WWF --

FLOOD-WISE-Project --

IOC-UNESCO --

INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONSIKSR Adrian Schmid-Breton

ICPDR Igor Liska

IMC Paul Racot

WMO Tommaso Abate

UNISDR Demetrio Innocenti

OTHERSUmweltbundesamt -

President, Ireland Mark Adamson (MA)

EUROPEAN COMMISSIONDG ENV.D.1 Maria Brättemark (MB)

Manja Kämper

DG ENV B1 -

DG ECHO A3 -

DG CLIMA Joan Canton

EC EEA Wouter Vanneuville (WV)

DG ENV F4 Elena Montani

DG JRC -

16

Annex III: Consolidated Questionnaire Responses

PFRA

2.1a: Did you take climate change into account during the PFRA?2.1b: If yes, please provide a brief description as to how this was done:

AT: No

BE (FL): N/A - There is no PFRA for Flanders. Flanders will report on all risks (being 90% of all known flood damages).

BE (Wal): No (Partly) - PFRA not done (transitional measures, art.13)

BG: Yes - Modeling of the expected rainfall and temperature changes and assessment of maximum water quantity regarding flood risk has been performed.

The available data are insufficient for a model-based assessment of the river flow. Because of the cyclic recurrence of the climate phenomena a more prolonged investigation is needed. It was concluded that at this stage the climate changes could be considered only as a tendency.

The areas with the reoccurring flash floods in the last years were identified in the PFRA.

The Bulgarian stretch of Danube river was identified as an APSFR because of the fact that the raising of the water level in Bulgarian part is closely connected with the rainfall and with the rapid snowmelt in the upper part of the Danube River basin.

CH: Yes (Partly) - The PFRA is based on an extreme event.

CY: Yes - In brief this was done as follows:

After identifying all areas of potential flood hazard, climate change was taken into account together with all other factors for deciding if the flood hazard is to be considered significant or not. This was done in a qualitative way by assuming that climate change will result in an increase in the frequency and magnitude of extreme storm events occurring in that area in relation to historical extreme storm events in that area.

CZ: Yes - The summary was made based on available outputs of climate change impact on flood regime study in selected basins. As it proved that the uncertainty is very large and thus the results are not robust and in addition there was mostly no trend (or decreasing) we concluded that climate change impact in the Czech Republic is not relevant factor in changing the flood risk.

CZ General comment:Mapping and planning are based on the values of design floods (return periods of 20, 100 and 500y). There is no evidence for change these values due to expected change of climate variables in the Czech Republic. However design values are under the continuous review process and thus changes in maps and plans will follow if design floods change.

1

PFRA

2.1a: Did you take climate change into account during the PFRA?2.1b: If yes, please provide a brief description as to how this was done:

DE: Yes - Investigation about CC: KLIBIW (Lower saxony); Those strategies consider spatial and timly differentiated analysis of CC and ist consequences as well as ecological and societal issues with the target to assess the flood risk. The results are part of the PFRA.

- In Rhineland-Palatinate investigations about climate change together with Bavaria,Baden-Württemberg and the German Weather Service (Project KLIWA). Those strategies consider spatial and timly differentiated analyses of climate change and its impacts.

- The risk assessment was carried out based on current extreme value statistics of observed discharges. As climate change has already influenced the observations it was implicitly taken into account (Saarland)

- Based upon published sea level rise projections, and considering the existing coastal flood defences, a GIS-based evaluation of people and assets at stake was conducted for extreme storm surge water levels. It was concluded that, for those coastal areas that are not adequately protected, proper spatial planning instruments and regulations should be developed in the FRMP´s (see 4.1b)

- In the PFRA evaluation of all measurements are included until the end of the reporting date. In coastal areas climate change was in addition indirectly considered by taking into account the assessment of the relative sea level rise for 100 years. Research results have been evaluated but have not been considered for the PFRA. (Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania)

- In the past there has been some research on the consequences of climate change on flooding events in Baden-Württemberg. According to the current state of knowledge in Baden-Württemberg flood flow with a low probability of occurrence in large catchments is not being increased in a significant way. As these big flooding events form the basis for the PRFA, the consequences of climate change can be considered as being taken into account. See

http://www.kliwa.de/index.php?pos=ergebnisse/fachveroeffentlichungen/klimawandel_und_hochwasser/

DK: Yes - A rise in sea level has been taken into account.

EE: Yes - We assessed the long-term developments of climate change on the occurrence of flood.

ES: Yes - We took into account the studies carried out by our government and their possible implication on our PFRA’s, the result was that we didn’t find any interesting change on the floods problem due to the climate change.

2

PFRA

2.1a: Did you take climate change into account during the PFRA?2.1b: If yes, please provide a brief description as to how this was done:

Continued

FI: Yes (Partly) - Climate change impacts on hydrology, water resources and lake regulation were estimated for 15 watersheds based on different climate scenarios and simulations with a hydrological model (WaterAdapt-project, more information in English).

In order to take into account the possible increase of floods due to the climate change very rare scenarios (current ~1/1000a flood) was used when identifying APSFR in the watersheds. Sea levels were based on integrated probability for a flood that before year 2200 will statistically occur once + minimum wave heights (corresponds to the recommendations for minimum elevations for buildings) + additional height of 20 cm (corresponds 1/1000a flood).

FR: Yes - The impact of CC on river floods was not taken into account due to the great uncertainty concerning the nature of this impact. Studies show great variability and non-conclusive results.Sea level rise was taken into account. Based on the studies made by the ONERC (Observatoire National sur les Effets du Réchauffement Climatique: National Observatory on the impacts of CC), itself relying on results from IPCC, the “extreme” scenario for 2100 (+1m) was taken into account.

GR: Yes – Rainfall data have not been used for the identification of flood prone areas. However the methodology used to identify areas vulnerable to inundation, based on geomorphological criteria (areas with ground slope < 2% or areas with alluvial deposits), represent the worst case scenarios including in that way potential vulnerable areas due to the climate change.

IE: Yes (Partly) - Considered re fluvial flooding, but very significant uncertainty in both effects of CC on regional short-duration rainfall extremes, and variable catchment response- PFRA analysis currently being done re. sea level rise (future scenario maps not available at time of initial analysis)

LV: Yes – The conclusions of first phase of scientific research programme KALME „The impact of climate changes on water in Latvia” (2006) were taken into account. The first phase of the project dealt with discharge extremities caused by climate change and their impact on flood risk areas. Institutions such as University of Latvia, Latvia University of Agriculture and Latvian Institute of Aquatic Ecology took part in developing research programme.

LU: No – Not yet

NL: No (Partly) - Used Article 13.1.b. A PFRA was not executed.

NO: No - PFRA is based on extreme floods. Uncertainty is already very high.

PL: Yes - Climate change was taken into account during the PFRA only within the scope of raise of sea level due to the climate change. These data, available from Polish Strategy for Protection of the Seacoast, were used in identification of future floods and APSFR, in case of floods from the sea in coastal areas.Data concerning climate change impact on fluvial floods weren’t available during works on PFRA. These data were available after finish of the project ‘Climate - Climate change impacts on the environment, economy and society’, developed by Polish Institute of Meteorology and Water Management. Project was finished in 2012, after PFRA was prepared.

SE: Yes - We have been using the discharge for the highest estimated flood and the calculations for this flood have so many assumptions so that CC is considered to be covered. But there are new algorithms already onboard and coming so there will always be a certain area of uncertainty.

3

FLOOD MAPPING

3.1a: Will you be producing flood maps that indicate potential future scenarios (i.e., with allowance for climate change)?3.1b: If yes, please provide a brief description as to how this will be done, and for which sources of flooding:

AT: No

BE (FL): No - Flanders will not report to the EC flood maps including climate change influences.

However, for internal purposes for a most of the non-navigable rivers with significant potential flood risk, flood hazards maps have been calculated including climate change effects on flood extent, flood depth and flood probability. Maps are available for both “low-medium and high” perturbed climate change projections that have been downscaled for Flanders. VMM use perturbed rainfall series of 100 years as input for hydrological models so that they could run the hydrodynamic models also with perturbed inflow hydrograms.

BE (Wal): Yes - Flood maps for extreme events (that take into accounts climate change) are calculated with Q100 + 30%, only for modelled rivers. For other rivers, we consider the major bed, delineated considering the soil maps.

BG: Yes - It is expected that the influence of the CC to the occurrence and consequences of floods to be considered as a corrective in the statistical processing of the hydrological data, used for the modelling of the water levels and afterwards - of the flood extent, where it is appropriate.

The Approach is expected to be specified in the currently developing methodology for flood risk assessment.

CH: Yes - The scenarios for flood mapping which we take into account already include likely impacts of CC. We consider the following scenarios: 30, 100, 300 und 1000y. Moreover, we consider all sources of flooding.

CY: No

CZ: No - Potential future scenarios will be implemented in the flood risk maps only with respect to planned development (activities) in the flood plain, not the change in flood hazard due to lad-use change or climate change.

DE: Yes - CC is taken into account calculating HQ100. The current coastal concepts contain almost a so called “climate adjustment” for designing coastal diykes, e.g.0,5 m (Lower Saxony, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania)

DK: Yes - A rise in sea level has been taken into account.

EE: No

ES: No - We are working in pilot projects that in the future will allow us to develop such kind of maps

4

FLOOD MAPPING

3.1a: Will you be producing flood maps that indicate potential future scenarios (i.e., with allowance for climate change)?3.1b: If yes, please provide a brief description as to how this will be done, and for which sources of flooding:

Continued

FI: Yes, If Necessary - Based on the results of the WaterAdapt-project spring snowmelt floods will decrease due to warmer winters and decrease in snow storage especially in Southern and Central Finland. According to the most climate scenarios increases in precipitation will increase floods in large central lakes and their outflow rivers in large watersheds.

A flood hazard map for a climate change scenario can be produced in areas where floods are expected to increase. On the other hand a scenario of current climate (observed and extrapolated to rare events, e. g. ~1/1000a) could correspond some climate change scenario (~1/250a) and this can be mentioned in the metadata.

Climate change scenarios for the sea level rise are calculated in 2013 in the project sea level scenarios and flood risks on the Finnish coast. They are based on integrated probability for a flood that, during 2012-2100, will statistically occur five times, twice, once, 0.4 times or 0.1 times. Long-term sea level change and its uncertainties, as well as short-term variability will be taken into account. Flood hazard maps can be produced based on these scenarios.

FR: Yes - A fourth scenario will be represented, for coastal floods: medium scenario + 60cm sea level rise(“pessimistic scenario” for 2100 according to our national observatory on the impact of CC (ONERC)

GR: Yes – During the 1st cycle of Floods Directive implementation the following potential future scenarios will be included:

floods with high probability (return period of 50 years)

floods with medium probability (return period of 200 years)

floods with low probability (return period of 1 000 years) and

In the most sensitive areas, floods with extreme low probability (return period of 10 000 years) will be also investigated.

Our methodology is based on stochastic analysis and more specifically in power-type distribution tails, which represent extreme hydrologic conditions. We have choosen this reliable probabilistic approach because it incorporates even the most severe impacts of the climate change to the hydrological regime. Furthermore, the results of on-going research in National Technical University of Athens will be utilized; e.g. Y. Markonis doctoral thesis, namely “Stochastic investigation of large-scale hydroclimatic links in Mediterranean area”, which is under development.

In this framework, the flood maps for extreme low probability conditions are going to be included in the 2nd cycle of Floods Directive implementation, alongside with analysis of any possible consequences of the sea-level rise to sensitive regions near estuaries.

IE: Yes - Mapping done for 2 future scenarios

LV: No – Flood maps will include the flood scenarios stated in the Flood Directive, but climate change will not be taken in to account in the overall maps of units of management, because we decided to analyze the most severe scenario, and for most part of Latvia that would be the current situation, therefore was used all available hydrological data up to year 2010. However local governments might decide to develop more detailed maps for their municipalities, currently city of Riga has more detailed flood risk maps that also take into account climate change.

5

FLOOD MAPPING

3.1a: Will you be producing flood maps that indicate potential future scenarios (i.e., with allowance for climate change)?3.1b: If yes, please provide a brief description as to how this will be done, and for which sources of flooding:

Continued

LU: No – Not yet

NL: Yes - With this restriction. We do not provide specific maps with future scenario’s. While modelling the maps for 1/10, 1/100 and extreme also future scenario’s are taken into account.

NO: Yes – Flooding areas for the 200-year flood in 2100 will be presented on flood maps if results from NVE report 5/2011 “Hydrological projections for floods in Norway under a future climate” show an increase in floods > 20%.

PL: No

SE: Yes - New calculations of discharges will take CC into account for the 100-year flood and the 200-year flood. CC has also been taken into account for the boundary conditions for big lakes and the sea etc.

6

FLOOD MAPPING

3.2a: Do you intend to intend to indicate uncertainty in the presentation of flood maps

3.2b: If yes, please provide a brief description as to how this will be done:

AT: Yes - Scenarios with log jam e.g. at bridges

BE (FL): No (Partly) - Again, uncertainty has been calculated but will not be published to the EC as we believe it causes more confusion to the public then given added value.

BE (Wal): No

BG: Yes - According to main principles of Guidance 24 on the EU about climate changes and the currently developing methodology for flood risk assessment.

The results of the climate scenarios will be shown on the maps (indication where and how far the flood extent/ flood depth have been calculated considering climate change) for the process of public consultation. By stressing on the CC-influence on the flood-mapping and additional explanation of the uncertainty ensuing in the process of public consultation.

CH: Yes (Partly) - Each flood map comes along with a technical report. In this report, uncertainty in the evaluation and the propagation of the hazards have to be discussed.

In the flood maps the events with a recurrence of < 300y (great uncertainty) are indicated with a yellow-white striped signature.

CY: No

CZ: No

DE: Yes and No - Flood maps are produced on a certain scale and are also displayed only within certain scale limits. The uncertainty is indicated by the resolution of the symbols and items in the maps.(Saarland)

DK: Not decided yet

EE: No

ES: No - We currently work with error probability in our flood maps but not directly with uncertainty

FI: Yes (Maybe) - There has been some discussion about this. Probably we will not indicate uncertainty on the maps itself, but it could be mentioned in the metadata that e. g. 1/250a scenario can correspond either 1/100a or 1/1000a scenarios in 95 % probability.

7

FLOOD MAPPING

3.2a: Do you intend to intend to indicate uncertainty in the presentation of flood maps

3.2b: If yes, please provide a brief description as to how this will be done:

FR: Yes - It will be a mandatory item in the report going with the map. It can be represented directly on the map, but it’s not mandatory and dependent on local choices of representation.

GR: Yes – The following cases regarding the hydrographs used in the development of the flood hazard maps will be applied:

The average-case hydrograph, resulting from average assumptions for hydrological input and hydraulic parameters.

The severe-case hydrograph, resulting from severe assumptions for hydrological input and hydraulic parameters.

The moderate-case hydrograph, resulting from moderate assumptions for hydrological input and hydraulic parameters.

The above hydrographs will be used in the sensitivity analysis of the floodplain area and the runoff depth, which will quantify and indicate the uncertainty in the flood hazard maps.

IE: Yes - Broad scale, indicative method developed to determine and indicate uncertainty category

LV: Yes – The system of flood hazard and risk maps will have disclaimer that states that system is devised only for civil protection and planning of civil protection.

LU: No

NL: Yes (Partly) - As a disclaimer in the legend, indicating that the maps provide actual but possibly not the latest information or data.

NO: No

PL: No

SE: Not decided yet

FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES4.1a: Do you intend to incorporate climate change in setting FRM objectives?4.1b: If yes, please provide a brief description as to how this will be done:

AT: No

8

BE (FL): Yes - For the non-navigable rivers, the objective of the optimal risk reduction (during a plan period 2010-2050) uses directly the above mentioned maps to calculate the benefits (avoided risk). So climate change is directly incorporated and VMM have chosen to take the medium climate variant for risk calculations.

For the Coastal Zone and the Scheldt, a mean climate scenario has been considered by MOW. Climate change is already incorporated in the Coastal Safety Plan and the Sigmaplan.

Climate change is also already considered in smaller studies for infrastructure works on the navigable waterways. It is clear that climate change will also be considered in the future FRMP’s for the navigable waterways.

BE (Wal): Yes - At the moment, not yet defined

BG: Yes - The Climate-change adaptation will be taken into account in setting FRM objectives. Furthermore, the CC will be used as a linkage of the FRM objectives with the environmental objectives of the WFD and RBM, in order to achieve as far as possible a positive synergies between the FRMP and RBMP.

The consideration of the CC in the FRM objectives is laid down in the concept paper on Coordination aspects of EFD implementation in the Danube River Basin (ICPDR). The FRMP in the Bulgarian part of the Danube River Basin will be coordinated with the common flood management strategy at Basin level.

CH: Yes - All measures have to be designed to cope with extreme events (overload situations). This means that a measure needs to endure overload situations without getting damaged or without increasing the damage in the flooded area after a failure. To do so, discharge corridors as well as flood retention space for extreme events need to be provided by means of land-use planning and related measures (see picture below). Additionally, organizational measures for emergency response should be considered so to reduce any kind of damage in case of an extreme event. All these measures are implemented within the framework of integrated risk management.

CY: Yes - Not decided yet

CZ: No - see question 1.

DE: Yes - It is intended to include a chapter related to CC within the FRMPl, e.g Adaptation to flood protection. It exists a LAWA Strategypaper „Auswirkungen des Klimawandels auf die Wasserwirtschaft“ (LAWA-Guidance on Climate Change Adaptation of the Water Sector). Lower Saxony, Saarland and Mecklenburg-Western-Pomerania will consider it.

Where climate change is shown to have a relevant influence within the time frame of the management plan it is considered in the measures. (Saarland)

The present Schleswig-Holstein State Coastal Risk Management Plan already considers climate change in the following way. In the dimensioning of the main coastal flood defences (state dikes), a sea level rise of 0.5 up to 1.5 m is being considered in a flexible phased approach (4.2b). For those coastal areas that are not adequately protected, the Master Plan contains guidelines for building and developments (see also 5.1b).

9

FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES4.1a: Do you intend to incorporate climate change in setting FRM objectives?4.1b: If yes, please provide a brief description as to how this will be done:

Continued

DK: Not decided yet

EE: Yes - It’s not yet clear.

ES: Yes - As far as we are collecting reliable data on climate change we will use it on our plans

FI: Yes (Partly) - The decreasing flood scenarios can’t be used in design because of the uncertainty of the climate scenarios. FRM objectives are based on preliminary flood risk assessment where climate change impact scenarios for floods have been taken into account as well as on flood risk maps. So the objectives are set based on future scenarios.

FR: Yes - It’s not determined precisely yet

GR: No – We do not intend to incorporate climate change in setting FRM objectives because:

a. There is enhanced uncertainty in the existence of any possible links between climate change and flood risk analysis (Di Baldassarre et al., 2010).

b. There is strong evidence that the future precipitation at the Mediterranean area cannot yet be predicted efficiently by General Circulation Models (GCMs) due to the complex topography of the region and the numerous micro-climates (Planton et al., 2012).

c. There are serious doubts raised about the overal prognostic capability of the GCMs (Koutsoyiannis et al., 2008; Scafetta, 2011; Weijer et al., 2012).

Thus, our analysis is based on the multi-scale stochastic description of the overall climatic variability (see also Markonis and Koutsoyiannis, 2012). [References Provided – See end of Appendix]

IE: Yes - Degree of adaptability is one of the objectives and criteria against which options are appraised and measures are prioritised.

LV: No

LU: No – Not yet

NL: Yes - Only for the long term objectives.

NO: Yes - Climate change adaptation is mentioned in NVE report 15/2010 “Climate change adaptation within NVEs engagements”

PL: Yes - At present stage of the work on ‘FRM Methodology’, ways of incorporating climate change in setting FRM objectives are not defined yet.

SE: Yes - Most likely. We have a fairly good picture about how CC will affect us in the future. Many regional investigations have been performed.

10

FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES4.2a: Do you have guidance or requirements on climate change adaptation relating to the design and implementation of FRM strategies and measures?4.2b: If so, please provide a brief description as to how this has been / will be done, and if possible a brief description of any examples of implementation:

AT: Yes - Study: Climate change: Adaption strategy for the water management in Austria http://www.lebensministerium.at/wasser/wasser-oesterreich/herausforderungen/klimawasser.html

BE (FL): Yes - The methodology used by VMM for non-navigable rivers will be presented on FloodRisk 2012 conference. VMM is interested in:

- Knowing how other countries make a selection out of the available climate change projections (does each Member State selects the medium variant)

- Can we synchronise in Europe on using the same IPCC-based projections (e.g. for FRMP-second cycle, the new projections) ? How will we deal with large fluctuations in the next cycle FRMP actins when using new (worser) climate change projections (consistency of results over multiple cycles) ?

- In Flanders the effects of climate change can’t be separated from the impacts of landuse changes on flood risk, as a result of the choosen methodology. Is this also so in other countries ?

For the navigable waterways, MOW have high-mean-low scenarios available.

For the coastal zone and the Scheldt, MOW used a (North Sea-specific) mean scenario (not linked to one of the IPCC-scenarios).

BE (Wal): No

BG: No

CH: Yes - See description above. Example of the Engelberger Aa is attached (see also picture below)

CY: No

CZ: No - see question 1.

DE: Yes - Prevention measures concerning CC are already taken into account, e.g. setting of priorities to eliminate weak points, considering a climate coefficient when designing dykes.

- LAWA-Guidance on Climate Change Adaptation of the Water Sector.

- In the designing of state dike strengthening measures, a sea level rise of 0.5 m is considered. Further, the outer dike slopes are flattened in order to allow for a further strengthening campaign in a later stage, if needed and as appropriate (if sea level rise becomes greater than 0.5 m).

- Prevention measures like reservoirs for extreme floods at Oberrhine as well as technical measures through renaturation of rivers and creeks in the frame of “Action Blue” (“Aktion Blau”) for ecologic and decentralised flood retention.(Rhineland-Palatinate)

Tables for matching coefficient for the dimensioning of flood protection facilities ( http://www.kliwa.de/download/S_65bis69_BWGZ_2_07.pdf )

DK: Yes - Climate scenarios have been recommended by a central government committee.

11

FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES4.2a: Do you have guidance or requirements on climate change adaptation relating to the design and implementation of FRM strategies and measures?4.2b: If so, please provide a brief description as to how this has been / will be done, and if possible a brief description of any examples of implementation:

Continued

EE: No

ES: No - Not so far but as far as possible we would like to include the studies carried out in Spain and Europe

FI: Yes (Partly) - There is no guidance or requirements, but when assessing impacts of measures, every measure's adjustability to climate change will be evaluated. This is one evaluation criteria in common national assessment framework that should be used when prioritising measures.

FR: Not determined yet

GR: No

IE: Yes - Partially developed – Needs refinement

LV: No

LU: Yes – Basic Principles – “Plan Nationale D’Adaptation aux Changements Climatiques”

NL: Yes - This is not the case for all strategies and measures. Some design guidance or requirements make use of a safeguard while calculating fro e.g. the height of a dike. Also a policy is set to prevent building structures in retention areas.

NO: No

PL: No

SE: No

12

SPATIAL PLANNING

5.1a: Does the spatial planning legislation or guidance in your country/area explicitly take into account the potential impacts of climate change?5.1b: If yes, please provide a brief description as to how climate change is provided for (e.g., requirements for adaptability in development, development zones based on assumptions re. climate change, etc.):

AT: No

BE (FL): No (Partly) - At present spatial planning legislation itself does not take into consideration climate change explicitly. However, through the “water-test” water managers today already use climate change flood maps in the advices they give for new developments in flood prone areas.

With the new results coming out of the Floods Directive, it is the intention to incorporate new measures (e.g. partial building stop & resilience measures within optimised flood frequency contours) in the spatial planning policy itself. Discussion on that are starting now in Flanders and should result in extended legislation through FRMP-I.

BE (Wal): No

BG: No

CH: Yes - In our recommendation “Spatial Planning and Natural Hazards” (ARE/BWG/BUWAL, 2005) you can find information on how to handle e.g. extreme events within the framework of spatial planning. See reference below.

ARE/BWG,BUWAL, 2005. Spatial Planning and Natural Hazards. Berne, Switzerland (available in German, French, Italian and English at:http://www.bafu.admin.ch/publikationen/publikation/00806/index.html?lang=en

CY: No

CZ: No

DE: Yes - - To ensure risk prevention concerning the adaptation to CC in crucial storm flood area at the coast the risk prevention will be taken into account for all measures. For an effective flood risk management and for CC adaptation measures areas which can be inundated with lower probability, particularly protected zones shall be set out.(Lower Saxony)- The requirements of climate change in spatial planning have been identified by a vulnerability study and are incorporated in the development plan (Landesentwicklungsplan).(Saarland)- In the Schleswig-Holstein and Mecklenburg-Western-Pomerania State Spatial Development Plan it is stipulated that, with respect to the impacts of climate change, space for adapting flood defences should be kept free from other uses. Further, it is stated that climate change will result in higher flood risks that should be counteracted by proper spatial planning instruments.- For an effecient flood risk management and for measures related to adaptation to climate change designation / identification of priority and reserved areas for floods are set. KLIWA-results shall be taken into account for Rhine and the Mosel-Saar catchment.(Rhineland-Palatinate)

DK:

13

SPATIAL PLANNING

5.1a: Does the spatial planning legislation or guidance in your country/area explicitly take into account the potential impacts of climate change?5.1b: If yes, please provide a brief description as to how climate change is provided for (e.g., requirements for adaptability in development, development zones based on assumptions re. climate change, etc.):

Continued

EE: No

ES: No - Not for the moment but is scheduled to include it in the future

FI: Yes (Partly, in 2013) - The recommendations for minimum elevations for buildings on the Finnish coasts were calculated in 1998. Since then, new information on sea level scenarios has accumulated. The recommendations together with the general guidelines how the recommendations should be adapted will be updated in 2013 both for the coast and watersheds.

In the National Land Use Guidelines the Climate Change prevention and adaptation have been taken into account in a general level. For example the increased probability for storms, heavy rainfalls and floods has to be taken into account.

FR: Yes - For sea level rise: based on the scenario +60cm by 2100, new buildings must be adapted to this future hazard when there is a Flood risk prevention plan implemented (they don’t cover all communes on the French coast). It’s a new spatial planning rule (2011), so we don’t have much feedback yet ( a flood risk prevention plan takes at least 3 years to be implemented)

GR: No

IE: Yes (Partly) - Referred to in Guidance as something to be considered, but not explicitly included in zoning

LV: No

LU: No

NL: No

NO: Precautions to areas affected by climate change are mentioned in the guidelines to the plan and building act and the regulation of technical requirements for buildings.

However, it’s not yet decided if areas affected by CC will have the same restrictions in land use planning as the areas affected by the 200-year flood.

PL: Yes - Polish National Spatial Planning Concept Paper 2030, developed by Ministry of Regional Development, takes into account potential impacts of climate change. This document in general way describes what kind of climate changes could be expected and which factors could be influenced (settlement and agriculture in certain areas of the country, water management, natural disaster management). Climate change impact is defined as ‘moderate’. This document also describes realised and planned actions.

Polish National Strategy for Adaptation to Climate Change, which is being developed by Ministry of Environment, is planned to be adopted in 2012.

14

SPATIAL PLANNING

5.1a: Does the spatial planning legislation or guidance in your country/area explicitly take into account the potential impacts of climate change?5.1b: If yes, please provide a brief description as to how climate change is provided for (e.g., requirements for adaptability in development, development zones based on assumptions re. climate change, etc.):

Continued

SE: Yes (or almost) - In the Planning and Building Act there is a chapter about taking aspects of climate into consideration for planning and building and for the building permit. The planning and building permit is a matter of local responsibility in Sweden so the application might differ from municipality to municipality.

The words “climate change” are not mentioned in the text of the legislation but “climate aspect”.

References:

Greece – Question 4.1b:

Koutsoyiannis, D., A. Efstratiadis, N. Mamassis, and A. Christofides (2008) On the credibility of climate predictions, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 53 (4): 671–684

Di Baldassarre, G., A. Montanari, H. F. Lins, D. Koutsoyiannis, L. Brandimarte, and G. Blöschl (2010) Flood fatalities in Africa: from diagnosis to mitigation, Geophysical Research Letters, 37: L22402.

Scafetta N. 2011. Testing an astronomically based decadal-scale empirical harmonic climate model versus the IPCC (2007) general circulation climate models (2011) Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 80: 124–137

Markonis, Y., and D. Koutsoyiannis (2012) Climatic variability over time scales spanning nine orders of magnitude: Connecting Milankovitch cycles with Hurst–Kolmogorov dynamics, Surveys in Geophysics, doi:10.1007/s10712-012-9208-9

Planton et al., The Climate of the Mediterranean Region in Future Climate Projections (2012) In: The Climate of the Mediterranean Region, From the past to the future (P. Lionello Ed). Elsevier B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 449-494

Weijer, W., Sloyan, B.M., Maltrud, M.E., Jeffery, N., Hecht, M.W., Hartin, C.A., van Sebille, E.,

Wainer, I. and Landrum, L. (2012) The Southern Ocean and its climate in CCSM4. Journal of Climate,

25: 2652-2675.

15

Annex IV: Graphical Representation of Questionnaire Responses

16

Q2.1 - Did you take Climate Change into account during the PFRA?

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Y N N/A P

17

Q3.2 - Do you intend to represent Uncertainty in the presnetation of the Flood Maps?

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Y N N/A P

Q4.1 - Do you intend to incorporate Cliamte Change in setting FRM Objectives?

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Y N N/A P

18

Q5.1 - Does the Spatial Planning legislation or guidance in your ccountry / area take into account the potential impacts of Climate Change?

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Y N N/A P

Q4.2 - Do you have Guidance or requirements on Climate Change Adaptation relating to the design and implementation of FRM Strategies and Measures?

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Y N N/A P

Annex V: Table of General Principles and Suggested Actions

General Principles Suggested Actions National / Project Examples Comments

General :

1. Start adapting flood risk management to potential climate change as soon as possible, when information is robust enough, since full certainty will never be the case. Follow the guiding principles set out for the WFD

o

PFRA :

2. Understand and anticipate as far as possible climate change impact on flood patterns

A.Understand and anticipate as far as possible climate change impact on floods Monitor changes to flood patterns

by gathering comprehensive information on past floods - consider development of a “past floods database at European level” or list of national databases.

DK: National climate scenarios have just recently been developed and is followed by all mapping in Denmark. Guidance for usage is under development.

FI: www.environment.fi/floods > Flood risk management planning

FI: Doctoral dissertation: Estimation of Climate Change Impacts on Hydrology and Floods in Finland (Veijalainen 2012)

DE (NI): KLIFF - Climate impact and adaptation research in Lower Saxony, with two water related projects- Surface water: Effect of climate change on water supply, flood riskand water pollution in Lower Saxony ‘KLIFWA’- Coast: Changes in the coastal climate, evaluation of alternative

PFRA – Requirement for reporting of data on past floods

EEA Database on past floods

GMES Network

1

3. Use best available information and data

Develop a structure for gathering information on past and new floods, set a standards for information on past floods to ensure their comparability.

Improve trends detection, using the information gathered over the implementation cycles detecting trends of changing flood patterns

B. Use best available information Anticipate and improve readily

available information Use monitoring under WFD on

flows, physical modifications, pressures and impacts, etc.

Consider what is "available and readily derivable information"

strategies in coastal protection - ‘A-KŰST’www.kliff-niedersachsen.de DE-MV: continuous Measurement of Water levels and waves at the coast of MV including Data recording and storage (www.imk-mv.de), data analysis with the aim to detect impacts of climate change (10 year circle) and considering of results for functional design of flood protection systems (Regelwerk Küstenschutz 2012)

NO: Flood data base under development

IE: www.floodmaps.ie

IE: Flood data collection guidance and proforma

BE (wallonie): Flood data base under development, no PFRA done

CZ: Research project on climate change (incl. topic) of floods 2007-2011.

CZ: Flood database under development

CZ: Historical floods – Book (Brázdil et al. 2005), PhD thessis (Elleder, 2010), CHMI Proceedings (2012)

DK: Sea level rise has been taken into consideration in the PFRA in the first cycle.

2

4. Homogenize time series, and remove bias as far as possible.

5. Understand and anticipate as far as possible changed exposure, vulnerability, and flood risk due to climate change, for establishing areas of potential significant floodrisk.

today and what is foreseen to be "available and readily derivable information" in 2011, 2018, etc. (taking into account for instance the forthcoming 5th IPCC AR).

Exchange information with the insurance industry, as well as land use and spatial planners

Make the best use of review cycles of PFRA

Continue further best practice exchange on how to incorporate climate change information in the PFRA at European level

C. Homogenize time series, and remove bias as far as possible Remove bias from time series

and use time series that are as long as possible

Gain information on paleofloods and pre-instrumental era floods to better estimate flood hazard of low probability.

D. Understand and anticipate as far as possible changed vulnerability and flood risk due to climate changeo Take climate change into account

when assessing the effectiveness of existing manmade flood defence structures

IE: Predictive PFRA analysis being re-run taking into account sea level rise

DE (NI): Flood data incorporate into spatial planning

F: Sea level rise has been taken into consideration in the PFRA (+1m in 2100). National Flood database under development. A national Climate change adaptation plan has been approved in 2011 and is being implemented. It plans for studies to improve knowledge on CC impacts on natural hazards in order to adapt policies accordingly.

DE-MV: Results of research project for homogenisation of time series are available for the Baltic Sea coast

CZ: project on developing reference scenarios for water management planning under way.

ICPR: first consistent basin wide study about the impacts of climate change on the discharge regime of the Rhine: “Study of Scenarios for the Discharge Pattern of the Rhine” (ICPR report nr. 188; www.iksr.org) based amongst others on the multi-model analysis RheinBlick2050 (www.chr-

3

o Be transparent in the use of “worst case” scenarios – take latest available climate change information into consideration

o Think of developing reference scenario to ensure comparability of results

E.Make sure best available information (see above under Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment) is taken into account when flood scenarios are reviewed every 6 years.

khr.org)

DE-MV: Research projects RADOST (calculating changes based on climate szenarios) and HORISK (risk management for the coastal region) and develop possible adaption strategies

Mapping :

6. When identifying the different flood scenarios, incorporate information on climate change if appropriate

7. Present uncertainties surrounding climate change in maps transparently if appropriate

8. Use the 6-year review of flood maps to incorporate climate change information

F. Present uncertainty related to climate change in a transparent manner in flood maps if appropriate

IE: Flood maps (Art. 6) to include two future scenariosBE: (Wallonie) : Flood maps using climate change scenario, using Q100+30%, as a result of Interreg project AMICEDK: rise in sea level is taken into consideration and will include 3 future climate scenarios.DK: a new law requires a complete (blue spot) mapping of Denmark that takes 2-3 climate scenarios into consideration (sea level rise only)NO: Based on results from the NVE report 5/2011 “Hydrological projections for floods in Norway under a future climate”, flood

FI: Research need: Develop the joint probability methods (inc. river ice)

http://www.amice-project.eu/

4

inundation maps now show a 200-year flood in 2100. Example from NaustdalIE: Method for broad-scale, indicative uncertainty assessmentFI: Laser scanning project, a new national elevation modelFI: Sea level scenarios and flood risks on the Finnish coastDE (NI): Climate change scenarios based on the past floods are used to calibrate the water resource model

F: rise in sea level is taken into consideration (medium scenario+ 60cm). Data concerning the impact of CC on river floods is not considered robust enough to be taken into account for mapping in this cycle, as studies are often not conclusive or may be contradictory with each other.

Flood risk management plans

9. Incorporate climate change in setting flood risk management objectives

10. Ensure coordination at catchment level, also respecting the Directive’s coordination requirements at RBD/unit of management level

G. Indicate how climate change plays a role in setting flood risk management objectives.

IE: Appraisal and prioritisation of FRM measures includes objectives (criteria) on adaptability of measures to future flood risk

NO: Two pilot plans made: 1) Tana River (cross-border watershed with Finland) and 2) Melhus municipality

11. Include climate change scenarios in on-going initiatives and in planning processes

o Include climate change related flood risk changes in on-going education initiatives to improve flood risk awareness and

FI: MCDA in –FRMP (for example involving local stakeholders (p. 91-) and national FRMP-pilot)

5

preparedness. o Be clear and honest in

communicating the uncertainties of climate scenarios and derived flood regime scenarios.

o Improve institutional awareness of potential climate change related impacts on flood risk, for instance ensure that authorities responsible for climate change adaptation and flood risk management coordinate with river basin management.

o Ensure all interested parties are involved in the consultation process for the Flood Risk Management Plans.

o Increase the resilience of civil protection and disaster management infrastructure in view of climate change.

Measures :

12. Perform a climate check of flood risk measures

13. Favour options that are robust to the uncertainty in climate projections

a. Focus on pollution risk in flood prone zones

b. Focus on non-structural measures and instruments when possible

c. Focus on “no-regret" and "win-win" measures

Consider occurrence of multiple hazards in flood risk management, example of increased incidents of ephemeral floods.

Develop tool-boxes and examples of "no-regret" and "win-win" measures, and exchange this information across the EU.

Take into account guidance and expertise on catchment approach and non-structural measures when investigating “better environmental options” according to Article 4.7 WFD.

o

NO: Work done on “tool-boxes”, contact Bent Braskerud, NVE (bcb@nve.no) NO: Testing of “green roofs” and “raingardens” in a cold climate.

6

d. Focus on a mix of measures

14. Favour prevention through the catchment approach including the need for transboundary cooperation on prevention

15. Take account of a long term perspective in defining flood risk measures (e.g. with respect to land use, structural measures efficiency, protection of buildings, critical infrastructure, etc).

e. Include long-term climate change scenarios in land-use planning

f. Develop robust cost-benefit methods which enable taking into account longer term costs and benefits in view of climate change.

g. Use economic incentives to influence land use [Link insurance]

Further development and exchange of good practices on adaptation measures related to flood management.

Ensure land use / spatial planning is robust in view of climate change.

Improve economic models to enable taking into account long-term costs and benefits in planning.

Increased use of economic incentives, such as the cost of insurance being linked to flood risk of individual properties.

FI: Updating national recommendations for the minimum permissible building heights during year 2013

IE: CC partially provided for in National Guidelines on Spatial Planning

NO: Same status as in IE

BE: changes in the Insurance Law – natural disasters insurance included in the fire insurance : insurers take into account the flood risks maps

F: rise in sea level is already being taken into account for land use planning: flood risk prevention plans (which determine land use rules) on coastal areas have to include a scenario for 2100 (medium scenario +60cm) in order to adapt new building to climate change.

16. Assess other climate change adaptation measures on their impact on flood risks:

h. Hydropower and flow regulation

Review permits for impoundments (see WFD) to make sure possible climate change related flood risks can be mitigated

Include information on exceptional

FI: Ilmava2-project. The existing permits for flow regulation will be assessed taking account the effects of Climate Change

7

i. Link with water scarcity floods giving rise to the use of Article 4.6 WFD, which is consistent and coherent with the information and measures included in FRMP.

8