Climate Adaptation – modelling water scenarios and sectoral impacts

ClimWatAdapt – 2nd Stakeholder MeetingBudapest, 30-31 March 2011

Martina Flörke

Center for Environmental Systems ResearchUniversity of Kassel

Climate Adaptation – modelling water scenarios and sectoral impacts


Aim of the Project

Objectives

• To put in place an integrated assessment framework (IAF)

• To analyse a set of comprehensive scenarios • To identify and assess vulnerable regions and

sectors• To identify and assess potential adaptation

measures • To involve experts and stakeholders• To make results available for WISE and ACE• To support policy action at the EU-level


Integrated Assessment Framework

C. Giupponi


Comprehensive scenarios

Living with uncertainty…

Basis

• Ensembles of hydrological simulations (SRES A1B ENSEMBLES climate input, bias-corrected)

• 4 socio-economic scenarios and water use projections (SCENES)


Ensembles of hydrological output




SCENES scenarios

SustainabilityEventually

PolicyRules

EconomyFirst

FortressEurope

SCENES

A1

A2

B1

B2

GEO-4

IPCC

K. Kok, I. Bärlund, M. Flörke




Projections of total water withdrawals


Vulnerability Assessmenta)

c)

b)

d)

vulnerable river basins


Selection of adaptation measure(s)General description

Description:

Managing water demand through the right mix of restrictions, pricing and water efficiency is considered essential for ensuring safe and reliable water supplies in times of low water

Climate event addressed: Water scarcity

Link to vulnerability indicators

all sensitivity and adaptive capacity indicators

Character of measure: Preparatory and recovery

Sector(s) affected: Water management

Time to implement short-term

Administrative level municipality / company / farm

EU Policy area that could be used for implementation

WFD, WS&D-policy

Overall urgency and priority of the measure

score comment

urgency and priority 4 The measure shows evident benefits also in the current scenario

Assessment

sub-criteria score comment

Side effects a) win-win: b) no regrets: c) spill-over: d) negative:

5 5 4 4

The measure is by-definition a win-win solution (a) and with potential benefits since now (b)

Performance under uncertainties

a) flexibility b) robustness

4 3

The design of the right mix of instruments is challenging

Efficiency ratio cost to benefit 4 Expected costs and benefits are highly variable depending on the contexts

Effectiveness to reduce exposure and /or sensitivity

3 Benefits in terms of sensitivity reduction are expected

Conditions for decision making

a) feasibility; b) combinability; c) institutional

requirements

3 4 2

Measure require significant efforts of institutional design and to mobilise multiple competent institutions

Comments

Reference National review of water restrictions: http://www.nwc.gov.au/www/html/524-national-review-of-water-restrictions-in-australia.asp?intSiteID=1


Assessment of measuresWin-win Does the measure entail positive side-benefits for other

social, environmental or economic objectives

No regrets Is the measure is be beneficial even if there is no need for adaptation, because it alleviates an existing problem?

Spill-over Does the measures have an effect on other sectors or agents?

Side-effects to non adaptation issues

Negative side effects

Does the measure negatively affect other sectors or agents For example the structural changes to river course may have as an unintended consequence a higher water stages during the flood event and thus higher probability of floods.

flexibility in implementation

Perception of assessor and stakeholders about how feasible is to update/change measure in the preparatory and operational phases of the project. If this update is very feasible to make that the degree of adaptability is high – Easy, if not it is low – difficult.

Performance under uncertainties

robust to uncertainties

Measure performs robust under various climate scenarios

Efficiency what are the investment/ operational/transaction/social costs of adaptation measures comparing to their benefits (from very high to very low)

Effectiveness qualitative or quantitative assessment of the impact on the unit level

Feasibility barriers from limited technical capacity, economic strength, socio-cultural acceptance and potential conflicts with current legal settings

Institutional requirements

What institutional requirements are necessary to enable the implementation

Conditions for decision making

Combinability of measures

Does the measures call/allow for combination with other measures?


Elicitation of relative weightsExpert identification

Name: _______________________________________________________________ Geographical area:_____________________________________________________ Institution: ___________________________________________________________ Role: ________________________________________________________________ How to assign the relative importance:

1. Read carefully the list of criteria and sub-criteria. 2. You have a total of 100 points to allocate among the different criteria listed. 3. More important sub-criteria should be assigned higher points. 4. The total points assigned should equal 100. This will ensure that you trade-off

along the different dimensions.

Criterion sub-criteria weight

Side effects a) win-win: b) no regrets: c) spill-over: d) negative:

___ ___ ___ ___

Performance under uncertainties a) flexibility b) robustness

___ ___

Efficiency ratio cost to benefit ___

Effectiveness to reduce a) exposure b) sensitivity

___ ___

Conditions for decision making a) urgency & priority, b) feasibility; c) combinability; d) institutional requirements

___ ___ ___ ___

100


Analyzing the results with mDSS

C. Giupponie


Business and Pleasure…

1. Assessment of measures• water scarcity & droughts, flooding• 5 criteria for weighting (1 to 5)

2. Discussion on usefulness and effectiveness• semi-quantitative

3. YOUR experience & knowledge is needed

Why are WE here?

Documents

Climate Adaptation – modelling water scenarios and sectoral impacts