Reducing disaster risks and adapting to climate change are ever more important policy goals in Europe and worldwide. The commitment to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and complementary multilateral frameworks, including the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, has galvanized pursuits for policy coherence. The report ”Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe: enhancing coherence of the knowledge base, policies and practices“ of the European Environment Agency identified several ways for how coherence and resilience can be built through knowledge sharing, collaboration and investments.
The reported economic impacts from extreme weather and climate-related events (hereafter, climate extremes) in the member countries of the European Environment Agency (EEA) over 1980–2017 come to cost more than EUR 452 billion (EEA, 2018b). These are conservative estimates of the actual economic impacts since many intangible and non-monetary impacts are difficult to quantify (OECD, 2018). Climate variability and change have noticeable effects on human health, the spread of climate-sensitive diseases, environmental quality, and social well-being, and these impacts are either not or only partially accounted for. Climate extremes can affect and shape ecosystems and thus have an impact on the services they provide (e.g. water retention, food production, cooling, energy production, recreation, and carbon sequestration). In some cases the loss of such services can increase the probability of further hazards. For example, forest fires exacerbated by drought can lead to slope destabilization and increase the risk of landslides during extreme rainfall events.
The already high tolls of climate extremes are expected to further increase as a result of human-induced climate change. Under future climate change, nearly all climate extremes are projected to increase in severity, duration, and/or extent, and some also in frequency (EEA, 2016). Heat waves are projected to become more intense and to persist longer in all regions in Europe (Russo et al., 2014). However, projected changes in frequency and intensity of extreme precipitation show regional differences, with the largest increases in central and eastern Europe in winter months (Jacob et al., 2014). Similarly, changes in river floods show strong regional differences, with the greatest increases for the British Isles, northwestern and southeastern France, northern Italy, parts of Spain, the Balkans, and the Carpathians (Alfieri et al., 2015; Russo et al., 2014). Changes in population and wealth, driven by developments in hazard-prone areas (Winsemius et al., 2015), and the deteriorated status of natural ecosystems drive the impacts upwards.
Sound climate risk management (Mechler and Schinko, 2016) can lessen the impacts of disaster risks and contribute to boosting resilience. Climate change adaptation (CCA) and disaster risk reduction (DRR) (see Supplement for the definition of main terms) have been, to some extent, mainstreamed into European and national policies, but it is important to make the resulting efforts internally consistent and mutually supportive. Policy coherence is an objective of the European Commission's regulation agenda (EC, 2017a) and external actions. But there is a notable paucity about how policy coherence between CCA and DRR can be actively promoted. Evidence of good practices does exist (EFDRR, 2013) but the opportunities for building up resilience by better integrating CCA and DRR are yet to be fully exploited. The EEA report “Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe: enhancing coherence of the knowledge base, policies and practices” (EEA, 2017) tries to fill the above gap. The report builds upon an extensive expert review and consultations with the European Environment Information and Observation Network (EIONET) countries. The release of the report was aligned in a timely way with complementary reports of the Disaster Risk Management Knowledge Centre and the UN Office for Disaster Risk reduction (Poljanšek et al., 2017; UNISDR, 2017). It sets out to feed information for an ongoing review of the EU's Adaptation Strategy (EC, 2018) and the implementation of the Sendai Framework for DRR 2015–2030 in the EU (EC, 2016a).
Building state and societal resilience to climate variability and change is a shared, progressively more coordinated and goal-oriented concern of EU internal and external actions. The EU and member states' commitment to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (UN, 2015a) and complementary multilateral frameworks, including the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 (UN, 2015b) (SFDRR) and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change (UNFCCC, 2015), has sponsored greater policy coherence and resilience building. The SFDRR advocates multi-hazard, inclusive, science-based, and risk-informed decision-making and lays down priorities for action and policy targets. Progress in achieving these targets is monitored and assessed by means of 38 indicators, some of which are also used to report on the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The Sendai Framework Monitor was launched in March 2018 to facilitate the reporting. The Paris Agreement specifies, among other things, a global adaptation goal focussed on the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and on climate resilience, both among the essential prerequisites for sustainable development.
Coherence on sustainable development, DRR, and CCA is backed by interrelated and consistent European action plans (EC, 2016a, b), aiming to reinforce resilience to shocks and stresses, while boosting innovation, growth, and job creation. The EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change (EC, 2013a) has fostered development of national adaptation strategies and national adaptation plans and boosted knowledge sharing and mainstreaming of climate adaptation in other policy areas. These policy domains include environment and critical infrastructure protection, agriculture, food and nutrition security, integrated coastal management, cohesion policy, and EU Structural and Investment Funds. While the EU Adaptation Strategy only addressed impacts that may occur within EU borders, the 2017–2018 review (EC, 2018) recommended more emphasis on (i) risks from climate impacts that (may) materialize elsewhere and the (ii) relations between adaptation within and beyond the EU. The EU's Civil Protection Mechanism (EC, 2013b) emphasizes multi-hazard risk assessments and (short- to long-term) prevention as bases for effective disaster preparedness and response. In 2017 the European Commission (EC) proposed a reform of the mechanism (EC, 2017b) which accentuates coherence among CCA, disaster prevention, and disaster response.
A systemic approach on policy coherence and resilience also informs the EU's external action. The 2016 Global Strategy for the EU's foreign and security policy (EC, 2016c) included “state and societal resilience” among its five priorities. The strategy recognized that climate change exacerbates potential conflicts and laid down shared vision and common principles that foster coherence of external EU actions. The 2017 “Joint Communication on Resilience” by the Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the EC further specifies how a strategic approach to resilience can support the EU's development and humanitarian commitments, while better protecting it from external threats (EC, 2017c). The communication identified four “building blocks” for incorporating resilience in the EU's external actions: (i) improving risk analysis at the country and regional level; (ii) a more dynamic monitoring of external pressures; (iii) integrating resilience in programming and financing external action; and (iv) developing international policy and practice on resilience.
Assessment of climate-related hazards and risks is an area that has long stimulated the building of common grounds between CCA and DRR. Climate-related hazards are outcomes of multiple stochastic processes. On a temporal scale, the probability distributions span years, decades, and centuries. In some cases, even lower probabilities are still relevant for today's decision-making. These stochastic processes are often not stationary but respond to environmental changes, including climate change. This is why CCA and DRR communities have successfully sought to reconcile key terms and definitions (Jurgilevich et al., 2017). The levels of vulnerability are changing as our societies are transformed in terms of demography, wealth, cohesion, and use of technology (Ward et al., 2017). Notwithstanding the importance of the quality-assured, systematically collected, and thorough records on impacts of natural hazards, the loss data systems in Europe are fragmented and inconsistent. Empirical and evidence-based risk analysis and assessment are a vital part of CCA and DRR efforts.
The desk review and consultations have revealed a lack of explicit criteria that define “good” practice examples in terms of policy coherence. Cases were identified which were characterized by a higher level of coherence, as well as examples that hold greater potential for transferable lessons learned. However, throughout our extensive search we did not find many cases in which (i) improved coherence was a planned outcome, with clearly demonstrated added value for both policy areas; (ii) uncertainty was given due regard from a long-term perspective; and (iii) the existing practices were thoroughly embedded within the risk management and climate adaptation planning cycles.
Good examples of governance exhibit a robust legislative mandate, well-defined organizational and institutional tiers, and clearly assigned roles and responsibilities. In terms of risk and adaptation financing, good practices include proper budgetary endowments and sound use of financial or economic instruments and incentives. From a policy perspective, the proposed measures should not only be efficient and effective, but also compatible with and complementary to measures implemented for other similar purposes. On a more practical level, good practice examples imply use of combined knowledge and data on short- and long-term hazards, exposure, vulnerability, and performance of past climate risk reduction efforts, including the underlying assumptions and uncertainties.
Six good examples were eventually chosen for the report and include (1) development of a long-term planning vision in the Netherlands; (2) insurance and risk financing based on public–private partnerships in Spain, France, and the United Kingdom; (3) local risk governance in Switzerland; (4) national risk assessments serving both CCA and DRR purposes; (5) city networking for improved urban resilience; and (6) financing nature-based solutions for CCA and DRR (Table 1).
Selected examples of good practice that fosters coherence between DRR and CCA.
Even though CCA and DRR pursue complementary goals, they are two distinct areas of policy and practice, each characterized by its own institutional organization and legal frameworks, which differ across countries as a result of multiple factors. The coherence between them can be promoted through knowledge sharing and a closer collaboration across existing science and policy platforms and networks.
No data sets were used in this article.
The supplement related to this article is available online at:
All authors have contributed equally to the conception, design, analysis, and interpretation of the findings in this paper.
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
The research was supported by the European Topic Centre on Climate Change impacts, vulnerability and Adaptation (ETC/CCA) under the Framework Partnership Agreement with the European Environment Agency (EEA), and by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement nos. 653255 and 730482. Edited by: Sven Fuchs Reviewed by: Laura Booth and one anonymous referee