EEA Coastal vulnerability assessment methods expert meeting

advertisement
Expert meeting ‘Methods for assessing current and future coastal
vulnerability assessment‘
EEA, Copenhagen, 27-28 October 2010
Meeting Minutes
Summary and conclusions of the meeting
On 27-28 October an expert meeting was held at EEA (Copenhagen) on ‘Coastal vulnerability
assessment methods’. About 25 experts attended from seven countries (Denmark, Germany, Ireland,
Italy, Netherlands, Spain, and United Kingdom) and from the European Commission (DG MARE,
JRC-IES), EEA, ETC ACC and ETC LUSI.
The objectives of this expert meeting were to consider coastal vulnerability mapping from the
perspective of observational evidence and future projections (e.g. key factors of coastal vulnerability
and related indicators). Vulnerability of ecosystems as well as socio-economic systems (e.g.
infrastructure) was considered. The meeting discussed available EU level and more detailed
national/regional/local models, their methodological strengths and weaknesses, the spatial/temporal
scales in which they operate, and their data input requirements (current availability/gaps), and how
the results are presented (e.g. maps, at different scales). The meeting also discussed the usefulness
of coastal vulnerability assessments at the European level for improving coastal management
strategies that address climate change and socio-economic pressures. Finally also the content and
planning of a forthcoming EEA coastal assessment report was discussed.
The European Commission (DG MARE) was invited to make a presentation on the policy
perspectives of DG MARE on climate change adaptation, as well as on the EU policy developments
and future requirements. In order to guide future activities and scientific researches DG MARE
mentioned the following policy needs and requirements:
 On knowledge base:
 Strengthening efforts for producing data, indicators and maps on socio-economic impacts
of climate change in coastal areas and the sea, including impacts on maritime sectors.
 Reducing uncertainties on the impacts of climate change at regional and local level.
 Producing a stocktaking of the existing databases and observation programmes on
climate change risks, vulnerabilities and impacts will be useful. What does already exist
and how can this knowledge be used.
 On projections and assessments:
 Working towards more realistic socio-economic scenarios which also include adaptation
measures and producing data at more detailed scales.
 Using cost-benefit analysis on climate change adaptation measures.
 Integrating information on the economic value of ecosystems providing goods and
services in the models for assessing the vulnerability of the coast to climate change.
Towards ecosystem-based adaptation strategies to increase resilience of ecosystems
and communities.

On Governance: better coherence between science and policy:
 Improving current models to assess the vulnerability to climate change of the coast and
the policy requirements and priorities.
 Strengthening feed back and flows of information between researchers and policymakers.
 Reaching coherence with/between on-going research projects (EU funds).
 Foster synergies between data produced by research projects and current and future
initiatives on data sharing and making data easily available and public such as the EU
adaptation clearinghouse mechanism, EEA products/services, EMODNET, etc
The meeting agreed on the following conclusions.
General:














(Coastal) vulnerability assessments need to start by specifying a clear policy and/or
research question
The IPCC definition of vulnerability to climate change can be a starting point for
assessments but needs to be operationalized according to the specific policy question
More transparency is needed across risk-hazard assessments and climate change
assessments on concepts and definitions
Some existing EC directives (Water Framework; Floods) already have guidance on how
to integrate adaptation into the directive (and vulnerability) assessments (e.g. flood risk
maps)
Relevant EU policies and instruments include the White Paper on Climate Change
Adaptation, Integrated Maritime Policy (and action plan), Marine Framework Directive,
Maritime Spatial Planning, Marine Knowledge, Integrated Coastal Zone Management
(ICZM) (including the Protocol on Integrated Management of Coastal Areas for the
Mediterranean), Floods Directive, Strategic Environmental impact Assessment (SEA) and
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) but also sectoral policies (e.g. energy, transport)
Different tools are needed for assessments at different spatial and temporal scales, in
different regions (e.g., Wadden Sea vs. Mediterranean), and for different policy purposes
Many models to assess coastal vulnerability are research models in “developmental”
stage to be used by their developers and (possibly) other scientific experts
Model-based decision-support tools are being used for policy support
Experience exists regarding assessments of coastal vulnerability from local to continental
scales
A multi-hazard approach is required to assess the vulnerability of coastal zones to climate
change, considering changes in sea level together with sea temperature, storms, salinity,
waves, and sedimentation.
Coastal assessment requires a transdisciplinary approach
There is a need for analysis of adaptation policy measures (e.g., cost-benefit analysis)
but this analysis requires different information than vulnerability assessments
Estimates of economic costs of climate change vary by at least one order of magnitude
depending on assumptions
Coarse-scale coastal vulnerability maps and indices have yet to be applied to assess
policy effectiveness / efficiency
Conclusions regarding data:

Monitoring of key relevant parameters is essential (remote and in-situ)

Globally available data (e.g., digital elevation models) need to be corrected for application
at regional scales

The coastal vulnerability index (CVI) has been calculated (with some modifications) to
assess the biophysical vulnerability of coastal zones in different regions

The CVI has been applied to identify regions where further studies are needed,
confirming prior expert knowledge

Other indicators have been used to address different policy purposes, which have
different data needs
Conclusions regarding the planned 2012 EEA coastal assessment report:
The outline was generally accepted (Introduction – setting the scene; Trends in state of coastal
zones; Living by the sea: pressures and impacts; Current trends in policy responses; Building the
conceptual framework for the coast). Proposals to include more on the following aspects: Spatial
planning, Insurance aspects, Examples of flexible approaches over long-term time line, Link to
National Adaption Strategies
The conclusions and revised background paper will be disseminated by EEA to the participants and
also to the following relevant EIONET National Reference Centres: Marine/coastal environment;
Maritime; Climate change impacts, vulnerability, adaptation. Detailed minutes of the meeting are
provided in the annex below.
Annex – Detailed minutes of the Expert meeting ‘Methods for assessing
current and future coastal vulnerability assessment‘, EEA, Copenhagen,
27-28 October 2010
Day 1 – 27 October
Introduction
Introduction and objectives of the expert meeting (André Jol, EEA)
 EEA support EC and Adaptation White Paper - mainstreaming adaptation into Member
States (MS) and EU policies
 Some existing EC directives (Water Framework; Floods) already have guidance on how to
integrate adaptation into the directive (and vulnerability) assessments (e.g. flood risk maps)
 Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFW) as well as Integrated Coastal Zone
Management is a key entry point for adaptation at the coast
 EEA will be publishing its next State of the Environment Report (SOER) in November 2010
(which is produced every five years)
Andrus Meiner (EEA regional assessments and geospatial data project manager)
 EEA has held two relevant EIONET workshops 25 and 26 Oct on 1) Marine and coastal
environmental aspects – with MS (National reference centres, NRcs, on marine and coastal
environment), and 2) New approach – on maritime issues with a new group of MS
representatives (NRCs maritime)
 EEA will prepare a cross-cutting coastal assessment to be published in 2012. It will include
“Maritime” elements and it will be looking at ecosystem based approaches. It is expected that
various European Topic Centre’s (ETCs) will contribute to the report.
Policy perspectives, developments and requirements (Ana Ruiz, EC-DG MARE)
 The policy perspectives of DG MARE on climate change adaptation, as well as on the EU
policy developments and future requirements (see above).
Discussion
DG CLIMA is responsible for the management of the development of the EU Clearinghouse on
climate change impacts, vulnerability and adaptation and EEA and JRC are also participating in the
management group. A contractor has been appointed by the EC to develop and build the CHM from
Sep 2010 to Feb 2012. Afterwards, in 2012, the EEA will take over the maintenance and the updating
of the Clearinghouse.
Apart from the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and Integrated Coastal Zone Management there
are a number of other EU policies and instruments that are relevant for coastal vulnerability – e.g.
EIA/SEA and the Soil Thematic Strategy. For the Mediterranean, including non-EU countries, the
ratified ICZM protocol is also relevant.
Presentation of EEA Background Paper to the workshop (Alejandro Iglesias-Campos, ETC
LUSI / Junta de Andalucía)
Presentation of an overview of the coastal vulnerability at Europe’s coasts, about data, methods and
models for assessing vulnerability and covering a review of the following models: Inundation Model –
Bathtub; SLAMM - Sea-level Affecting Marshes Model (SLAMM); Barataria-Terrebonne Ecosystem
Landscape Spatial Simulation – BTELSS; SimCLIM; DIVA (Dynamic Interactive Vulnerability
Assessment); FUND (Climate Framework for Uncertainty, Negotiation and Distribution).
Discussion
Identification of models – it is not possible to develop, maintain and use one model to be used
everywhere and for all possible questions. Models evolve and e.g. work on the DIVA model has
been ongoing for 5 years adding new data, better algorithms and new features.
It costs as much to make a model available to end users/policy makers as it does to develop the
scientific part.
It is difficult to map the land and sea interface as data availability and resolution are often different.
In oceanography/meteorology – there are three phases of models, and each phase can take 10 years
1. Developmental (scientific development with local validation)
2. Pre-operational (handed over to other users who haven’t developed it)
3. Operational (where results can confidently be produced by people who know nothing about
the model)
The background paper could include, for each model, in which phase it currently is. In addition the
main purpose/policy question for which the model was developed can be included.
However policy makers also need decision support systems (DSS), in which model results are
integrated (and can be changed when new results occur). Therefore policymakers need to be
included in the development process of such support systems.
Atlases are a new way to present complex information in a more easily understandable way.
Vulnerability to climate change
Current understanding of vulnerability and methods for its assessment (Jochen Hinkel, PIK)
 FAVIA project (formal approaches to vulnerability assessment that informs adaptation)
 Findings: the IPCC concept of vulnerability used in the climate change vulnerability and
adaptation scientific community is not easily made operational as the key terms (sensitivity,
adaptive capacity, harm, system,) are not defined and the IPCC concept is not consistent with
the concept of risks and vulnerability used in the (natural) hazard assessment scientific
community
 This causes problems in developing and understanding methodologies for vulnerability – and
in particular vulnerability indicators
 Most models do not include adaptation and thus give ‘unrealistic’ high estimates for potential
impacts by 2100
Further findings:
 Any method can be derived from any definition
 Research or policy questions are not made explicit from the outset
 Assessing vulnerability is not a clear research question
 Vulnerability maps can be used for awareness raising but limitations must be communicated
transparently
 Need to ask the concrete/specific questions we want to address when we speak about
assessing climate change vulnerability
Discussion
Concepts of sensitivity, exposure, harm and risks need to be defined based on a framework. It has to
be made clear which framework is used (e.g the can be the IPCC definition or the definition used in
the hazard community or another approach).
Work on natural hazard and risks concepts and definitions started in the 1950s and thus the
experience is longer than with climate change vulnerability and adaptation (used in IPCC). The IPCC
Special Report on 'Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change
Adaptation' (due to be published in November 2011, see: http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/extremessr/index.html) addresses vulnerability from both perspectives and thus the report can help in
improving the consistency and transparency in the various concepts. There is also in Europe a need
to bring the two communities together (climate change vulnerability/adaptation and natural hazard
risks/disaster risk reduction) which was also one of the conclusions of the EEA expert meeting on
natural disaster data held in May 2010 (EEA, Copenhagen).
Sea level rise and coastal flooding
Integrated numerical modelling in coastal areas and vulnerability to regional climate change
scenarios (Sandro Carniel, CNR-ISMAR)
 It difficult to link climate models and oceanographic/coastal modelling approaches
 Parameters to include should go beyond sea level rise, and also include winds or heat fluxes
(e.g. relevant drivers for the Adriatic sea circulation), although current climate models don’t
include yet sufficient detail at the right scale on wind storms (and consequently wave height)
 Energy impacts at the coast can be used as a key variable relevant for vulnerability. Caution
has to be used when delivering results in terms of multi-annual averages, since sometimes
overall results can show a decrease (of extreme wind and waves) but seasonal ones can
highlight increase in peaks.
Challenges in assessing socio-economic impacts of sea-level rise (Athanasios Vafeidis, Kiel
University)




Scale and methods of analysis and use of data are inter-related
Great deal of effort and resources required for improving global and regional datasets, e.g.
data on elevation, population density, GDP density
Data should be employed with caution
Methods exist for improving the spatial detail data (i.e. land cover and land use data) and
should be applied
Discussion
The global DIVA model can be used for Europe, and DIVA model outputs have been used in the EEA
SOER 2010 report. However the accuracy is not better than for other coastal regions since datasets
for Europe are not more detailed (e.g. digital elevation models). US elevation data is better and also
Europe needs a better dataset. Improvement in elevation data is important since the range of SLR is
in centimetres (90-120 cm for example) but elevation data is usually in meters.
A Eurostat project in collaboration with National MS statistics provided a gridded dataset for each
country at 1km2 for population density but so far only 8-10 countries are involved. One of the data
sources used was CLC2000 and census population data. .
A US global High-Resolution Population Distribution Model exists which can also be used and the
advantage is that it covers all EU countries (LandScan, US Oakridge Laboratory
Lessons learned from sea-level rise indices and estuary vulnerability assessments (David
Prandle, Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory and Bangor University)





UK estuaries dominated by tides not waves, thus different from the Mediterranean
Other key aspects are morphology, river flow, and salinity.
Large estuaries are the most vulnerable
Small shallow estuaries have kept pace with historic SLR – large/deep estuaries have not
because of sediment accumulation
It is essential to continue and improve monitoring (as part of the Global Climate Observing
System) in order to improve hindcasting (which can lead eventually to better projections)
Vulnerability assessment
Brief overview of Deltares tools related to coastal vulnerability assessment (Tom Bucx, Deltares)
 Deltares has developed a range of modelling tools (Delft3D and SOBEK model suite) (partly
open source) – for the interface between river and sea systems. The models can investigate
hydrodynamics, sediment transport, morphology and water quality and also can be used e.g.
for flood forecasting, drainage systems, irrigation systems, and sewer overflow. These model
suites are applied in numerous international applications all-over the world.


Delft-FEWS – is a free of charge flood forecasting and early warning system with a user
friendly outer shell which is easy to customise, toolbox for development of a forecasting
system, fully configurable, time series analysis and GIS maps
Vulnerability and risks can be modelled using these types of tools – by including longer term
climate change projections and they are also used as a basis for Decision Support Systems.
Discussion
Monitoring of climate change and its impacts is important to better understand long term past trends
in particular regarding extreme events. The main international requirements come from GCOS
(http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/gcos/) which is aimed at improving Essential Climate Variables
(ECVs) from both space and in-situ. In particular in-situ monitoring, which is the responsibility of MS
will be important for improving vulnerability assessments since data at sub-national/local level are
needed (e.g. sea level rise monitored by tide gauges).
Under the MSFD and in developing their respective marine strategies, Member States need to
specify, where appropriate, any evidence of climate change impacts. The Commission recently (Sep
2010) published a Decision on criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status of
marine waters. Although these are not specifically aimed at monitoring climate change, the
implementation can help achieve better monitoring and understanding of climate change and its
impact in marine waters and coastal areas.
Taxonomy of vulnerability indicators for water-related climate change impacts (DG ENV
ClimWatAdapt project) (Natasha Marinova, Alterra)
 Developing a framework to identify vulnerable areas due to floods and droughts and how
possible adaptation measures can be evaluated
 Exposure is measured using the hydrological sub-system, sensitivity is measured using the
socio-economic sub-system and both are coupled together in the framework
 An important driver is the availability of relevant data
 It is important to include feedbacks and relationship between different indicators and the
interlinkages between measures taken and the solution which may create new impacts or
problems
Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI) for Andalusia Coasts (Pablo Fraile-Jurado, University of Seville)
 Requested by the Andalusian regional government: where are the areas that will be affected
by SLR using the CVI developed by Gornitz for USGS.
 Vulnerability here is meant as biophysical sensitivity in the IPCC concept
 The CVI shows which areas are the least or the most vulnerable based on past data for the
following variables: geomorphology, erosion potential, topography, sea level, wave systems
and tidal range. Thus the CVI does not calculate probability/damages/costs, it does not
assume any future scenarios nor consider extreme hazards.
 The modellers had to modify one of the variables to suit Andalusia – the slope variable – with
a topographic index to better identify vulnerable zones since otherwise results did not show
vulnerable zones.
 the CVI is a useful first approach to detect areas that could be affected by SLR, easy
implementation, and it can be used in different areas and at different spatial scales
Discussion
Stakeholders were actively involved in the whole process – including technical government staff,
ICZM managers, EIA specialists and the interested public. There is strict Spanish legislation that all
research has to be available and INSPIRE directive compliant and that stakeholders have to be
involved.
CVI will be an internal decision-support tool for adaptation planning and regional strategy on ICZM
and will support policy options for local municipalities.
CVI only has physical factors included as it is environmental and for the regional government for the
environment – work is currently going on testing how to include socio-economic factors. Projections
of climate change may be included also – but this was not the purpose and has not been done yet.
Day 2 – 28 October
Methodologies for coastal vulnerability assessments developed by IH Cantabria (Sonia
Castanedo, University of Cantabria)





In their projects they use risk definition from disaster risk management community (risk is thus
a combination of hazard, vulnerability and exposure)
Various studies have been done and are ongoing e.g. in Latin America and Caribbean
Three spatial levels are included: ~ 50 Km = Global Level (Low Resolution, LR); ~ 5 Km =
Regional level (Medium Resolution, MR); 10 m – 100 m = Local level (High Resolution, HR)
At global level data availability is a problem
They participate in the EC THESEUS project (Innovative technologies for safer European
coasts in a changing climate) and IH Cantabria is undertaking a Santander Bay case study
including wave climate hindcast validated by satellite data, wave buoys, tidal gauge.
Vulnerability assessment is ongoing for biological, physical and socio-economic factors,
based on available GIS data considering flooding (vulnerability of ecosystems and humans),
beaches and coastal defence
Discussion
Primary objective of the work is hazard impacts not vulnerability – so they can identify hotspots for
decision makers. Not as confident in climate change assessment as in hazard assessment (which
focuses on current risks, rather than future/projected). The second phase of the project will apply the
method to country scale (Spain) and the proposal is that decision makers can apply their own
weighting. The project team is still working on the methodology and data for the economic
assessment.
This approach is different from the CVI approach in the other part of Spain – Andalusia – as it started
at global scale. The main reason the project team did not use the CVI approach was that they wanted
to apply more detailed methods.
Issue and data needs on using a methodology for a transdisciplinary approach to coastal
planning (Francesca Santoro, University Ca' Foscari of Venice and CMCC)
 Since a number of years ICZM is in place in the EU and recently also specifically in the
Mediterranean a legally binding agreement is in place (Protocol on Integrated Management of
Coastal Areas for the Mediterranean); but these have not yet fully demonstrated their
potential
 Transdisciplinary approaches are needed which require communication and collaborative
planning between researchers, stakeholders and decision makers
 Strengths and weaknesses of transdisciplinarity were shown and what can be learned
 In the project they have developed CoAST (collaborative assessment support tools) and there
are also links with the FP7 project PEGASO (http://www.pegasoproject.eu/)
 Start with the socio-economic system – design objectives of the management process that
has to be decided jointly (by all actors involved). This approach is also applicable for adaptive
management process dealing with climate change. They have tested this approach in the
Mediterranean
Discussion
Researchers are rewarded by publishing papers but stakeholders don’t read scientific papers. Often
researchers don’t get rewarded for good dissemination of projects.
Natural science researchers are increasingly requested to do stakeholder engagement but this
requires skills that they often do not have. The process requires involvement of other sciences than
natural science; how to improve the involvement of stakeholders needs consideration from the start of
a project and takes time and effort.
2012 EEA Coastal report – State of Coasts in Europe (Andrus Meiner, EEA)
 The report is planned to be published end of 2012. It is meant to support the European
Commission ICZM strategy review and other relevant EU policies and instruments.



The content of the report was presented (Introduction – setting the scene; Trends in state of
coastal zones; Living by the sea: pressures and impacts; Current trends in policy responses
Building the conceptual framework for the coast); the report will have an integrated approach
It can be regarded as a follow up to a 2006 coastal assessment report
The issue of vulnerability/risks of coastal systems will be an important element in the report
and thus the outcomes of the expert meeting are expected to be relevant for the development
of report in 2011
2010 Technical Paper on European Coastal Impacts, Vulnerability and Adaptation: A review of
evidence (Nikki Hodgson, ETC/ACC)
 The purpose of the Technical Paper is to review evidence of the impacts of climate change,
adaptation policies, measures and actions across Europe’s coasts – it seeks to capture key
points/issues/messages and does not aim to be comprehensive
 The paper will contribute to EEA’s coastal assessment (2012)
 Review categorised by the same marine regions as the 2008 European Marine Strategy
Framework Directive (MSFD) - which established European Marine Regions (and subregions) on the basis of geographical and environmental criteria
 Final Technical Paper to be produced by December 2010
Discussion session
Waddensea area (North Germany) and North Sea coasts in general are completely different – soft
coast which is man-made, the methods discussed work well in the Mediterranean but what about
elsewhere? Sea level rise and erosion are very relevant for North Sea coasts. What will happen in
the future to sediment budget depends on the point of view on management and protection – the
Netherland’s say they can protect the coast for next 1000 year, Germany the next 100 year and
Denmark the next 50 year. These approaches should also be included in the background paper to
the extent feasible.
Application of models depends on the location and the needs from policy/decision makers. A specific
local issue is that as better data becomes available, at resolution down to individual house level, how
will local/national authorities deal with this information and its possible implications?
ICZM doesn’t have a clear measurable objective since it calls for a strategic approach to coastal zone
planning and management in order to achieve sustainable development. It aims to provide a better
context to benefit from synergies and to level out inconsistencies across different policies and
sectors/stakeholders. Thus ICZM tries to assess important issues for all relevant sectors and
stakeholders in an integrated way. Objectives or research questions can be defined more clearly by
case studies undertaken in relation to ICZM.
There is a need for a stronger integrated approach – bringing together various policy makers and
authorities (including adaptation policy and ICZM), scientists and data providers (climate change and
natural hazards) and stakeholders.
The background paper needs a clearer section on policy needs – this can be taken e.g. from the DG
MARE information. The paper also needs to better show which main data/variables the models
cover, including waves, windstorms, storm surges, erosion, sea level rise and which of these drivers
are influenced by climate change.
Specifically for the Mediterranean sea-level rise projections for the future (next 50-100 years) are very
different for the range of IPCC scenarios and even a decrease of sea level may occur locally. Using
this in the CVI for Med countries will still be useful, but it is important to be transparent on the input
data for the CVI and how the results can be interpreted.
List of participants attended
No.
LAST name
FIRST name
Organisation/Country
E-mail address
1.
Álvarez-Francoso
José
University of Seville, Spain
2.
Bucx
Tom
Deltares, Netherlands
[email protected] or [email protected]
[email protected]
3.
Carniel
Sandro
ISMAR-CNR, Italy
[email protected]
4.
Castanedo
Sonia
University of Cantabria, Spain
[email protected]
5.
Favaro
Marco
City of Venice, Italy
[email protected]
6.
Fraile-Jurado
Pablo
Dept. of Physical Geography, University of Seville, Spain
[email protected]
7.
Gault
Jeremy
Coastal and Marine Resources Centre, University College Cork, Ireland
[email protected]
8.
Hinkel
Jochen
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany
9.
Kraft
Dietmar
Institute for Chemistry and Biology for the Marine Environment, University of
Oldenburg, Germany
[email protected]
[email protected]
10.
Malvarez-García
Gonzalo
Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Seville, Spain
11.
Margottini
Claudio
ISPRA, Dept. Geological Survey of Italy
[email protected]
[email protected]
12.
Marinova
Natasha
Wageningen University, Netherlands
[email protected]
13.
Münier
Bernd
National Environmental Research Institute, Denmark
14.
Prandle
David
Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory and Bangor University
[email protected]
[email protected]
15.
Maria Santoro
Francesca
University Ca' Foscari, Venice, Italy / Euro-Mediterranean Centre for Climate
Change
[email protected]
16.
Vafeidis
Athanasios
Dept of Geography, University of Kiel, Germany
[email protected]
EEA
17.
Füssel
Hans-Martin
EEA
[email protected]
18.
Jol
André
EEA
[email protected]
19.
Meiner
Andrus
EEA
[email protected]
ETC / EC
20.
Barale
Vittorio
JRC-IES
21.
Hodgson
Nikki
ETC/ACC
[email protected]
[email protected]
22.
Iglesias-Campos
Alejandro
ETC/LUSI
[email protected]
23.
Ruiz
Ana
European Commission DG MARE - C1 C1-Maritime Policy
[email protected]
24.
Schauser
Inke
ETC/ACC
[email protected]
Download
Related flashcards

Climate change

26 cards

Climate change

46 cards

Greenhouse gases

31 cards

Greenhouse gases

36 cards

Create Flashcards