Chapter 13: Europe
Executive Summary
What Are the Solutions, Limits and Opportunities of Adaptation?
Closing the adaptation gap requires moving beyond short-term planning and ensuring timely and adequate implementation (high confidence). Inclusive, equitable and just adaptation pathways are critical for CRD. Such pathways require consideration of SDGs, gender and Indigenous knowledge and local knowledge (IKLK) and practices. The success of adaptation will depend on our understanding of which adaptation options are feasible and effective in their local context (high confidence). Long lead times for nature-based and infrastructure solutions or planned relocation require implementation in the coming decade to reduce risks in time. To close the adaptation gap, political commitment, persistence and consistent action across scales of government, and upfront mobilisation of human and financial capital, is key (high confidence), even when the benefits are not immediately visible {13.2.2;13.8;13.11; Cross-Chapter Box GENDER in Chapter 18}.
13.11 Societal Adaptation to Climate Change Across Regions, Sectors and Scales
|
Box 13.3 | Climate Resilient Development Pathways in European Cities
Malmö (population 300,000): Since the 1990s, Malmö has been transitioning towards an environmentally, economically and socially sustainable city, investing in eco-districts (redeveloped areas that integrate and showcase the city’s sustainability strategies) and adopting ambitious adaptation and mitigation targets. The city has focused on energy-efficient buildings and construction, collective and low-carbon transportation, and green spaces and infrastructure (Anderson, 2014; Malmo Stad, 2018). Malmö has developed creative implementation mechanisms, including a ‘climate contract’ between the city, the energy distributor and the water and waste utility to co-develop the climate-smart district, Hyllie (Isaksson and Heikkinen, 2018; Kanters and Wall, 2018; Parks, 2019). Flagship eco-districts play a central role in the city’s transition, in the wider adoption of CRD and in securing implementation partners (Isaksson and Heikkinen, 2018; Stripple and Bulkeley, 2019). The city has also leveraged its status as a CRD leader to attract investment. The private sector views CRD as profitable, due to the high demand and competitive value of these developments (Holgersen and Malm, 2015). Malmö adopted the SDGs as local goals and the city’s Comprehensive Plan is evaluated based on them, for example, considering gender in the use, access and safety of public spaces, and emphasising development that facilitates climate-resilient lifestyles (Malmo Stad, 2018). Malmö also engages stakeholders via dialogue with residents, collaboration with universities and partnerships with industry and service providers (Kanters and Wall, 2018; Parks, 2019). Despite measurable and monitored targets, and supportive institutional arrangements, sustainability outcomes for the flagship districts have been tempered by developers’ market-oriented demands (Holgersen and Malm, 2015; Isaksson and Heikkinen, 2018) and there is limited low-income housing in climate-resilient districts (Anderson, 2014; Holgersen and Malm, 2015).
|
The scope of climate risks included in European adaptation policies and plans (Step B in Figure 13.34) is generally broad (EEA, 2018a). Systemic and cascading risks (Section 13.10) are often recognised, but most conventional risk assessment methods that inform adaptation planning are ill-equipped to deal with these effects (Adger et al., 2018). For example, transboundary risks emerging in regions outside of Europe are considered only by a few countries such as the UK and Germany (Section 13.9.3). European climate change adaptation strategies and national policies are generally weak on gender, sexual orientation, as well as other social equality issues (Cross-Chapter Box GENDER in Chapter 18; Boeckmann and Zeeb, 2014; Allwood, 2020).
13.11.3 Adaptation, Transformation and Sustainable Development Goals
Adaptation responses can also be understood in terms of their tradeoffs and synergies with SDGs (Papadimitriou et al., 2019; Bogdanovich and Lipka, 2020). In terms of synergies, analysis of the Russian NAP found that successful completion of the NAP’s first phase could lead to significant progress towards 15 of the 17 goals (Bogdanovich and Lipka, 2020). European water adaptation (e.g., flood protection) can similarly support freshwater provision; and water-secured environments support socioeconomic growth (Sadoff et al., 2015) since people and assets tend to accumulate in areas protected from flooding and supplied with water, reducing the incentive for autonomous adaptation (de Moel et al., 2011; Hartmann and Spit, 2016; Di Baldassarre et al., 2018). In health, behavioural measures to reduce mental health impacts (e.g., gardening, active travel) can have broader health benefits (SDG 3) as well as help reduce emissions (Section 13.7; SDGs 7 and 13). Conversely, growing use of air conditioning for humans and livestock represents a potential trade-off between adaptation and mitigation (Sections 13.5–13.7, 13.10). As noted in Section 13.8, addressing poverty (SDG 1)–including energy poverty (SDG 7) and hunger (SDG 2); and addressing inequalities (SDG 10), including gender inequality (SDG 5)–improves resilience to climate impacts for those groups that are disproportionately affected (women, low-income and marginalised groups). Also, more inclusive and fair decision making can enhance resilience (SDG 16; Section 13.4.4), although adaptation measures may also lead to resource conflicts (SDG 16; Section 13.7). Climate adaptation, particularly NbS, also supports ecosystem health (SDGs 14 and 15) (Dzebo et al., 2019).
Figure 13.36 | Co-benefits for SDGs from adaptation actions. Shown is how European cities have assessed the sustainability co-benefits of taking adaptation actions. Data were extracted from the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) database using the 2019 dataset; of the 861 European cities submitting data, 167 provided data on their adaptation actions, and these data are shown here (CDP, 2019). The CDP categories of climate hazards were re-categorised into WGI Climate Impact Drivers (e.g., cold spell, heavy precipitation); CDP adaptation actions were re-classified into AR5 adaptation options (‘social’, ‘structural’ and ‘institutional’; ‘other’ includes actions falling outside these AR5 categories); and CDP co-benefits were re-categorised as SDGs. The upper panel shows that all SDGs except one (SDG 17) were identified as a co-benefit of adaptation, although more environmental co-benefits were identified than social or economic ones. The lower left panel shows that societal actions were most common, followed by structural, then institutional. Informational measures were particularly common. The lower right panel shows how many actions were taken by different European cities.
Please refer to page 1900 to see Figure 13.36, which mentions SDG 5: Gender Equality.
|
FAQ 13.1 | How can climate change affect social inequality in Europe?
The poor and those practising traditional livelihoods are particularly exposed and vulnerable to climate change. They rely more often on food self-provisioning and settle in flood-prone areas. They also often lack the financial resources or the rights to successfully adapt to climate-driven changes. Good practice examples demonstrate that adaptation can reduce inequalities.
Social inequalities in Europe arise from disparities in income, gender, ethnicity, age as well as other social categorisations. In the EU, about 20% of the population (109 million people) live under conditions of poverty or social exclusion. Moreover, poverty is unequally distributed across Europe, with higher poverty levels in EEU. The oldest and youngest in society are often most vulnerable.
The poor and those practising traditional livelihoods are particularly vulnerable and exposed to climate risks. Many depend on food self-provisioning from lakes, the sea and the land. With higher temperatures, the availability of these sources of food is likely to be reduced, particularly in SEU. Poorer households often settle in flood-prone areas and are therefore more exposed to flooding. Traditional pastoralist and fishing practices are also negatively affected by climate change across Europe. Semi-migratory reindeer herding, a way of life among Indigenous and traditional communities (i.e., Komi, Sámi, Nenets) in the European Arctic, is threatened by reduced ice and snow cover. Almost 15% of the EU population (in some countries more than 25%) already cannot meet their health care needs for financial reasons, while they are at risk of health impacts from warming.
In addition to being more exposed to climate risks, socially vulnerable groups are also less able to adapt to these risks, because of financial and institutional barriers. More than 20% of people in SEU and EEU live in dwellings that cannot be cooled to comfortable levels during summer. These people are particularly vulnerable to risks from increasing heatwave days in European cities (e.g., when they already face energy poverty). They may also lack the means to protect against flooding or heat (e.g., when they do not own the property). Risk-based insurance premiums, which are intended to help people reduce climate risks, are potentially unaffordable for poor households. The ability to adapt is also often limited for Indigenous people, as they often lack the rights and governance of resources, particularly when in competition with economic interests such as resource mining, oil and gas, forestry and expansion of bioenergy.
Adaptation actions by governments can both increase and decrease social inequality. The installation of new, or the restoration of existing, green spaces may increase land prices and rents due to a higher attractiveness of these areas, leading to potential displacement of population groups who cannot afford higher prices. On the other hand, rewilding and restoration of ecosystems can improve the access of less privileged people to ecosystem services and goods, such as the availability of freshwater. At city level, there are examples of good practice in CRD that consider social equity which integrate a gender-inclusive perspective in its sustainable urban planning, including designing public spaces and transit to ensure that women, persons with disabilities and other groups can access, and feel safe using, these public amenities.
|
|
FAQ 13.4 | What opportunities does climate change generate for human and natural systems in Europe?
Not all climate-change impacts across Europe pose challenges and threats to natural communities and human society. In some regions, and for some sectors, opportunities will emerge. Although these opportunities do not outweigh the negative impacts of climate change, considering these in adaptation planning and implementation is important to benefit from them. Nevertheless, Europe will face difficult decisions balancing the trade-offs between the adaptation needs of different sectors, regions and adaptation and mitigation actions.
Opportunities of climate change can be (a) positive effects of warming for specific sectors and regions, such as agriculture in NEU, and (b) co-benefits of transformation of cities or transport measures that reduce the speed and impact of climate change while improving air quality, mental health and well-being. Windows of action for transformation opportunities for large-scale transitions and transformation of our society may be accelerated through new policy initiatives in response to the COVID-19 crisis, such as the European New Green Deal and Building Back Better.
As warming and droughts impact SEU most strongly, direct opportunities from climate change are primarily in northern regions, thereby increasing existing inequalities across Europe. Across Europe, positive effects of climate change are fewer than negative impacts and are typically limited to some aspects of agriculture, forestry, tourism and energy sectors. In the food sector, opportunities emerge by the northward movement of food production zones, increases in plant growth due to CO2 fertilisation and reduction of heating costs for livestock during cold winters. In the energy sector, positive effects include increased wind energy in the southwest Mediterranean and reduced energy demand for heating across Europe. While climatic conditions for tourist activities are projected to decrease for winter tourism (e.g., insufficient snow amount) and summer tourism in some parts of Europe (e.g., too much heat), conditions may improve during spring and autumn in many European locations. Fewer cold waves will reduce risks on transport infrastructure, such as cracking of road surface, in parts of NEU and EEU particularly by the end of the century.
Indirect opportunities emerge from the co-benefits of implementing adaptation actions. Some of these co-benefits are widespread but need careful consideration in order to be utilised. For example, an NbS approach to adaptation can make cities and settlements more liveable, increase the resilience of agriculture and protect biodiversity. Ecosystem-based adaptation can attract tourists and create recreational space. There are opportunities to mainstream adaptation into other developments and transitions, including the energy or agricultural transitions as well as COVID-19 recovery plans. Transformative solutions to achieve sustainability may be accelerated through larger changes of, for example, behaviour, energy, food or transport, to better exploit new opportunities and co-benefits. Implementation of adaptation actions can also help to make progress towards achieving the SDGs.
Inclusive, equitable and just adaptation is critical for CRD considering SDGs, gender as well as IKLK and practices. Implementation requires political commitment, persistence and consistent action across scales of government. Upfront mobilisation of political, human and financial capital in implementation of adaptation actions is key, even when the benefits are not immediately visible.
|
