climate adaptation – modelling water scenarios and sectoral impacts
DESCRIPTION
Climate Adaptation – modelling water scenarios and sectoral impacts. Martina Flörke Center for Environmental Systems Research University of Kassel. Objectives To put in place an integrated assessment framework (IAF) To analyse a set of comprehensive scenarios - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
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
ClimWatAdapt – 2nd Stakeholder MeetingBudapest, 30-31 March 2011
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
ClimWatAdapt – 2nd Stakeholder MeetingBudapest, 30-31 March 2011
Integrated Assessment Framework
C. Giupponi
ClimWatAdapt – 2nd Stakeholder MeetingBudapest, 30-31 March 2011
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)
ClimWatAdapt – 2nd Stakeholder MeetingBudapest, 30-31 March 2011
Ensembles of hydrological output
ClimWatAdapt – 2nd Stakeholder MeetingBudapest, 30-31 March 2011
Ensembles of hydrological output
ClimWatAdapt – 2nd Stakeholder MeetingBudapest, 30-31 March 2011
SCENES scenarios
SustainabilityEventually
PolicyRules
EconomyFirst
FortressEurope
SCENES
A1
A2
B1
B2
GEO-4
IPCC
K. Kok, I. Bärlund, M. Flörke
ClimWatAdapt – 2nd Stakeholder MeetingBudapest, 30-31 March 2011
Ensembles of hydrological output
ClimWatAdapt – 2nd Stakeholder MeetingBudapest, 30-31 March 2011
Projections of total water withdrawals
ClimWatAdapt – 2nd Stakeholder MeetingBudapest, 30-31 March 2011
Vulnerability Assessmenta)
c)
b)
d)
vulnerable river basins
ClimWatAdapt – 2nd Stakeholder MeetingBudapest, 30-31 March 2011
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
ClimWatAdapt – 2nd Stakeholder MeetingBudapest, 30-31 March 2011
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?
ClimWatAdapt – 2nd Stakeholder MeetingBudapest, 30-31 March 2011
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
ClimWatAdapt – 2nd Stakeholder MeetingBudapest, 30-31 March 2011
Analyzing the results with mDSS
C. Giupponie
ClimWatAdapt – 2nd Stakeholder MeetingBudapest, 30-31 March 2011
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?