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 jose_afra@yahoo.es or jalvarez@us.es Tom.Bucx@deltares.nl 3. Carniel Sandro ISMAR-CNR, Italy sandro.carniel@ismar.cnr.it 4. Castanedo Sonia University of Cantabria, Spain sonia.castanedo@unican.es 5. Favaro Marco City of Venice, Italy marco.favaro@comune.venezia.it 6. Fraile-Jurado Pablo Dept. of Physical Geography, University of Seville, Spain pfraile@us.es 7. Gault Jeremy Coastal and Marine Resources Centre, University College Cork, Ireland J.Gault@ucc.ie 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 hinkel@pik-potsdam.de dkraft@icbm.de 10. Malvarez-García Gonzalo Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Seville, Spain 11. Margottini Claudio ISPRA, Dept. Geological Survey of Italy gcmalgar@upo.es claudio.margottini@gmail.com 12. Marinova Natasha Wageningen University, Netherlands natasha.marinova@wur.nl 13. Münier Bernd National Environmental Research Institute, Denmark 14. Prandle David Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory and Bangor University bem@dmu.dk Davidprandle@hotmail.co.uk 15. Maria Santoro Francesca University Ca' Foscari, Venice, Italy / Euro-Mediterranean Centre for Climate Change fsantoro@unive.it 16. Vafeidis Athanasios Dept of Geography, University of Kiel, Germany vafeidis@geographie.uni-kiel.de EEA 17. Füssel Hans-Martin EEA Martin.fuessel@eea.europa.eu 18. Jol André EEA Andre.jol@eea.europa.eu 19. Meiner Andrus EEA Andrus.meiner@eea.europa.eu ETC / EC 20. Barale Vittorio JRC-IES 21. Hodgson Nikki ETC/ACC vittorio.barale@jrc.ec.europa.eu nikki.hodgson@aeat.co.uk 22. Iglesias-Campos Alejandro ETC/LUSI alejandro.iglesias@uma.es 23. Ruiz Ana European Commission DG MARE - C1 C1-Maritime Policy Ana.RUIZ@ec.europa.eu 24. Schauser Inke ETC/ACC Inke.Schauser@uba.de