Climate change impacts and vulnerability in Europe 2016

Multi-sectoral vulnerability and risks
All the estimates above are partial, i.e. they do not
consider interactions between sectors. Even within
the sectors covered, the analysis considers a sub-set
of the possible effects of climate change, both positive
and negative. There are also important sectors for
which estimates are not reported above (e.g. business)
and some others where valuation remains challenging,
notably biodiversity and ecosystem services. There
is also little quantitative evidence on how impacts
of climate change outside Europe will affect Europe
(see Section 6.4). Finally, these estimates involve a
high degree of uncertainty, which is not captured by
central projections, but is critical when considering
adaptation.
Costs and benefits of adaptation
There is a growing knowledge base on the costs
and benefits of adaptation. While the number of
pan‐European assessments for adaptation costs and
benefits remains low, and with most that do exist
constrained to the coastal sector (see Brown et al.,
2015, for the most recent estimates), there are many
more studies at the national, regional and local scales.
This information has recently been reviewed and
collated as part of the ECONADAPT ( 121 ) project (Watkiss
et al., 2015). In terms of the coverage by sector and risk,
estimates have moved beyond the previous focus on
coastal zones and now extend to water management,
floods, agriculture and the built environment. However,
major gaps remain for ecosystems and business/
services/industry. There has also been a shift in the
analysis of adaptation towards early adaptation
investment (early low-regret options, capacity-building
and non-technical options) and the use of iterative
climate risk management and decision-making under
uncertainty.
Estimates are emerging at the national level, which
are more relevant than pan-European assessments
with respect to adaptation governance and
implementation. There are good national-level
studies on adaptation costs and benefits in the
Netherlands and the United Kingdom, which are
using iterative frameworks (Delta Programme, 2010,
2013) and recently developed dynamic cost–benefit
analysis (Eijgenraam et al., 2014; Kind, 2014) (in the
UK Economics of Climate Resilience and the National
Adaptation Programme and the Thames Estuary 2100
project) (EA, 2012; HMG, 2013). There are also studies
in other European countries that have estimated the
costs of adaptation. The analysis in Sweden (SCCV,
2007) presented investment and financial flow costs
for several sectors; the Bank of Greece study (BoG,
2011) assessed costs for an adaptation scenario; and a
study in Germany undertook cost–benefit analysis on
potential adaptation options (Tröltzsch, et al., 2012).
Interestingly, recent implementation-based and
policy-orientated studies indicate that the costs of
adaptation are likely to be higher than estimated in
the earlier impact assessment literature (ECONADAPT,
2015), as seen in recent estimates of future coastal
and river flood risk management in the Netherlands
(Deltacommissie, 2008; Eijgenraam et al., 2014)
and the United Kingdom (ASC, 2014; EA, 2014). This
is because more recent policy-orientated studies
consider broader objectives, existing standards and
multiple risks, they recognise and plan for uncertainty,
and they include the additional opportunity and
transaction costs associated with implementation.
Finally, while important gaps exist in the empirical
evidence, and there are issues over the transferability
of estimates, the new evidence base provides an
increasing opportunity for sharing information and
good practice.
( 121 ) ECONADAPT: 'The Economics of Climate Change Adaptation'.
Climate change, impacts and vulnerability in Europe 2016 | An indicator-based report
287