1 / 24

Part 2: CCIAV research perspectives in Europe

Part 2: CCIAV research perspectives in Europe. FFCUL, Lisboa Martin König. The scientific content. Milestone on our mutual understanding of the scientific scope of CIRCLE partner programmes. Conclusions.

sarila
Download Presentation

Part 2: CCIAV research perspectives in Europe

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Part 2: CCIAV research perspectives in Europe FFCUL, Lisboa Martin König

  2. The scientific content • Milestone on our mutual understanding of the scientific scope of CIRCLE partner programmes

  3. Conclusions • different national research landscapes and geographical settings determine different scientific foci • still the majority of programmes puts emphasis on natural sciences, BUT shift is visible, most new programmes embrace socio-economic sciences • integration of adaptation measures gets more and more important • builds base for “complementarity search” leading towards joint/transnational activities

  4. Programme management aspects • Milestone of our common understanding of programmes/projects and their management

  5. Conclusions • for most cases: administrative settings allow transnational cooperation • some administrative problems to be solved for joint/transnational activities: • schedules of the programme (frequency of calls) • common evaluation procedure • mechanism on final decisions for funding • handling of common budgets • BUT for most of the programmes an internationalisation via ERA-Net is most welcome, so that “hurdles” will be overcome

  6. Country-wise • Countries show very different approaches • The classical procedure in research related to adaptation measures should be: • Starting phase of impact assessments for certain sectors and/or regions • Full national impact assessment (regularly updated) • Derived from impact assessment:adaptation strategy (top-down/bottom-up) • Last step: national regionalised adaptation plan(s) for all relevant sectors

  7. Israel • New national programme on climate impacts and adaptation measures in Israel just started • 2006 – 2008 • Budget not yet decided • Inventory of areas vulnerable to climate change impacts, adaptation measures (including practical steps) with foci on water infrastructure, coastal zone management, energy consumption and air pollution • Contact: Yeshayaho Bar-Or (Ybo@sviva.gov.il)

  8. Italy • The EuroMediterranean Center for Climate Change • 2005/06 – open end • 27m EUR (2005-2007) • Climate change impacts on Italy and the Mediterranean as a whole as well as climate modelling and capacity building around the Mediterranean • The Center will serve as national excellence center for research on climate impacts and adaptation • Several institutions (like INGV, FEEM,…)will be bunched in the Center • Contact: Sergio Castellari (castellari@bo.ingv.it)

  9. Portugal • SIAM: Climate Change in Portugal – Scenarios, Impacts and Adaptation Measures • That you know much better than I do ;-) • The SIAM project (co-ordinated by Filipe Santos) already issued a national impact assessment for Portugal (http://www.siam.fc.ul.pt/SIAM_Book) • Contact: Filipe Santos (fdsantos@oal.ul.pt)

  10. France • GICC: Climate change management and related impacts • 1999-2003 (phase I), 2004-2008 (phase II) • Around 25m EUR • Promotion and development of French scientific research on identifying national impacts of Climate Change and associated physical mechanisms including adaptation measures • Contact: Eric Vindimian (Eric.VINDIMIAN@ecologie.gouv.fr) and Laurence Colinet (laurence.colinet@ecologie.gouv.fr)

  11. Belgium • SPSD: Scientific Support Plan for a Sustainable Development Policy • 2001 – 2005 (SPSD II) • 7m EUR • Global Change, Ecosystems and Biodiversity with some regional focus on the North Sea and Antarctica (from precursor programme SPSD I); focussed on natural sciences, but with links to other areas covered by SPSD (e.g. sustainable consumption and production patterns) • Contact: Aline van der Werf (Aline.VANDERWERF@belspo.be)

  12. Netherlands • KvR – Klimaat voor Ruimte and NRP CC • KvR is getting more and more from impacts towards adaptation measures with a focus on land use and planning • KvR is just starting now, while the former programme NRP CC (mainly focussed on climate impacts) has been finished • Contact: Kees Dorland (kees.dorland@falw.vu.nl)

  13. Germany • DEKLIM and klimazwei • DEKLIM, the large climate research programme with 39m EUR budget has been finished more or less (with some remaining projects still running in 2006) • DEKLIM: Improving the understanding of the climate system including anthropogenic influences; Reducing uncertainties in analysis and forecasting; Developing and deriving strategies for dealing with climate change • The new national research programme (klimazwei) will go much more towards adaptation strategies • Contact: Annette Münzenberg (annette.muenzenberg@dlr.de)

  14. Norway • NORKLIMA: Climate Change and Impacts in Norway • 2004 – 2011 (!) • 11-12m EUR/year • Climate Programme - Klimaprog, Climate Effects (KlimaEffekter) and Polar climate research with wide range of topics and focus on vulnerability assessments; Regional impact assessments are brought out under the sub-programme RegClim • Contact: Karine Hertzberg (kah@forskningsradet.no)

  15. Sweden • Swedish Climate Modelling Resource(SCMR, former SWECLIM) and COPE • SCMR: 2003 – 2005 (phase II) • 9m EUR budget • Main focus are climate models and climate scenarios.But SCMR encompasses as well meteorology, hydrology and oceanography; the work is conducted in co-operation with a broad range of user and impact study areas • COPE: 2001 – 2005 • Awareness on climate impacts, policy issues, communication, legal aspects of impacts and adaptation • 1.8m EUR • Contact: Marianne Lilliesköld (Marianne.Lillieskold@naturvardsverket.se)

  16. Finland • FINADAPT + the Academies’ project programme on climate change • Has set some important benchmarks for national adaptation strategies • Maybe one more word: No other European country has yet a national adaptation strategy. So, this is unique! • Next might be the UK • Contact: Tim Carter (tim.carter@ymparisto.fi) and Heli Karjalainen (heli.karjalainen@aka.fi)

  17. Hungary • VAHAVA and Climate Change Action (CCA) programmes • 2003 – 2008 • Budget flexible • Impacts of and adaptation to climate change in Hungary in the frame of sustainable development • Contact: Sugárka Kelecsényi (kelecsenyi@mail.kvvm.hu)

  18. Austria • proVision • proVision: 2004 – 2006 (option until 2013) • 12m EUR (2004 – 2006) • Sustainable development and global change(about 1/3 of the programme is dedicated to climate impacts and adaptation) • StartClim • Small programme with flexible budget and “research by emergency” approach for highlighting certain climate impacts • FloodRisk • Small programme with starting with first adaptation measures in the field of flood protection for the next phase (2006/07) • Contacts: Irene Gabriel (irene.gabriel@bmbwk.gv.at)and me (martin.koenig@umweltbundesamt.at)

  19. CIRCLE observers (grey) • UK, Ireland, Denmark, Poland and Russian Federation act as observers within CIRCLE • Their programmes/contacts are described in the CIRCLE country report as well • It is obvious that eastern and south-eastern Europe is still some kind of white gap on our CIRCLE-landscape • Due to only very few existing national programmes • Due to still lacking research infrastructure • Due to the fact that we received no responses in many countries • We will work on it! For most EEC countries we have established at least some contacts

  20. Non-CIRCLE member Spain and new CIRCLE observer Switzerland • In Spain, the ECCE project published recently an 800 pages preliminary impact assessment for Spain (http://www.mma.es/oecc/en_impactos2.htm) • In Switzerland, the NCCR-climate programme produces very valuable output mainly on impact assessments and climate modelling, while the OCCC acts as some kind of “national IPCC” for the Swiss government • Links: http://www.nccr-climate.unibe.ch/, http://www.occc.ch/, http://www.proclim.ch/

  21. CCIAV-related projects in EU-FP5 • Within FP5 some 44 projects in the field of climate change (impacts, vulnerability and adaptation) • Among them very important projects founding the base of our common knowledge on climate impacts in Europe and beyond(e.g. PRUDENCE, ATEAM, STARDEX,…) • But within FP5 only three projects tackling adaptation measures directly

  22. adaptation-related projects in EU-FP5 • ATLANTIS: Atlantic sea level rise – adaptation towards worst case scenarios • DINAS-COAST: vulnerability of coastal zones on different scales including an adaptation assessment module and • CCASHH: Climate Change and adaptation strategies for human health in Europehttp://www.euro.who.int/ccashh

  23. CCIAV-related projects in EU-FP6 • Within FP6 some 28 projects in the field of climate change (impacts, vulnerability and adaptation) • Again very important projects which improve(d) the impact assessment base on different scales and for different sectors(e.g. ENSEMBLES, EURO-LIMPACS,…) • But just one project tackling adaptation: • NEWATER: adaptation of water management of the European river catchments under uncertainty and climate change

  24. Adaptation effort for EU-FP7? Two ways: • “Just do it”-approach with acknowledgement to uncertainties and regular updates of the underlying impact assessments. This might be a bit risky, when certain patters switch (like e.g. gulf stream problem), but it comes in time. (like FINADAPT) • “be safe”-approach with putting furthermore emphasis on impact assessments and waiting until uncertainties are negligible. PROBLEM: It might become too late! • I prefer 1st approach much more, because research is obliged to deliver suggestions towards policy from rather sound existing impact assessments • And for this we urgently need transnational cooperation!

More Related