Effectiveness, Degree of Implementation and Obstacles of Adaptation:

We have responses from the expert survey (method described in chapter 2.6) on measures that are suitable for climate change adaptation in the transport sector from the following five federal states: Schleswig-Holstein, Hamburg, Berlin, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, and Brandenburg. There were no responses from Southern federal states. The following results of the survey must be seen as preliminary assessment of the measures that are suitable to adapt the German transport sector to climate change, since only one expert per federal state was approached and the return of the questionnaires from the federal states was scarce.

In the survey, different dimensions of the adaptation measures were evaluated; the effectiveness of the measures to mitigate the potential impacts and capitalize on potential opportunities of climate change introduced in section 4.7.5 (see Tab. 4-7), and the present degree of implementation of the adaptation measures (see Fig. 4.7-2).

Tab. 4-7: Rating of the degree of effectiveness of adaptation measures to mitigate risks and capitalize on opportunities of climate change in the transport sector. The number of respondents that rated a particular measure of mitigation resp. exploitation as effective is shown. Sample size: 5 questionnaires from the federal states Berlin, Hamburg, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Schleswig-Holstein, and Brandenburg.

Measures

Less risk through frost/snow (warmer winters)

Higher risk through extreme

events

Risk of low water Risk of high water Greater fluctuations in

water levels

Protection of roads against extreme

events 2 2 - 3 1

Protection of railroad tracks against

extreme events - 1 - 1

-Technical control of water levels

- - 2 1

-Improved coordination in water

level control - - 1 1 1

Shifting the transport of goods from

ships to rail - - 1 2

-Impacts

Fig. 4.7-2: Assessment of the degree of implementation of measures that are suitable to adapt to climate change in the transport sector. Sample size: 5 questionnaires from the federal states Schleswig-Holstein, Hamburg, Berlin, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, and Brandenburg. The n-values give the number of questionnaires each box-plot is based on ²⁷.

27 Illustration of the frequency distribution of ratings by various federal states as box-plot: Each box represents the central 50% of the distribution and therefore illustrates the values between the lower and the upper quartile. The more to the left the box is shown, the more negative a specific impact of climate change is rated. The thick vertical line represents the median value. The whiskers to the left and right of the box illustrate the range of responses. The n-values give the number of valid answers each box-plot is based on.

not discussed

currently consideredplanned

partially implemented

implemented

Degree of implementation

Creation of reserve funds Insurance against damages Shifting the transport of goods from ships to rail

Improved coordination in water level control Technical control of water levels Protection of railroad tracks against extreme events

Protection of roads against extreme events

n=3

n=3 n=4 n=4

n=4

n=4

n=2

Road Traffic: Protection of Roads against Extreme Events

Respondents thought of the protection of roads against extreme events as an effective measure to respond to an increased risk of extreme events and floods²⁸ (see Tab. 4-7). However, according to 4 out of 5 respondents, this measure is so far “not discussed” in their federal states (see Fig. 4.7-2) (one expert did not respond to this question). One expert explained this lack of debate on the protection of roads against extreme events by the lack of a need to do so in his federal state. Owing to the lack of a debate on this topic, respondents did not name any obstacles and did not evaluate the complexity of this measure.

Rail Traffic: Protection of Railroad Tracks against Extreme Events

Only one respondent saw the protection of railroad tracks as an effective measure to respond to the increased risk of extreme events and floods (see Tab. 4-7). Four out of 5 respondents reported that this measure is so far “not discussed” in their federal states (see Fig. 4.7-2) (one expert did not respond to this question). To experts claimed that there was no danger of extreme events to the railroad tracks in their federal states. Again, there were no responses on obstacles or the complexity of implementation of this measure.

Navigation: Technological Maintenance and Control of Water Levels, Shifting Transport of Goods from Ships to Rail

Respondents thought of the three adaptation measures in navigation as equally effective with regard to the risk of high and low water (see Tab. 4-7).

The degree of implementation of these measures is different (see Fig. 4.7-2). The technological maintenance of water levels was reported as “not discussed” in two federal states (Hamburg and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania), and as already

“implemented” in two other federal states (Berlin and Brandenburg), resulting in the misleading average of “planned” (see Fig. 4.7-2). The expert of one federal state did not rate the degree of implementation of this measure. The expert from Hamburg explained the lack of a debate about technological maintenance of water levels with the lack of a need for this measure. The expert from Berlin explained the implementation of this measure with the assurance of navigability of the waterways;

the respondent from Brandenburg gave the experiences with the Oder and Elbe floods as reasons. However, the potential impacts of climate change did not influence the implementation of this measure.

Improved control of water levels was only evaluated by three respondents (Berlin, Hamburg, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania), who uniformly rated the degree of implementation of this measure as “not discussed”. Again, the expert from Hamburg reported a lack of necessity.

The shifting of transport of goods from ships to rail has already been “partially implemented” in Hamburg (due to problems with capacity for transport of goods), while this measure is “not discussed” in the federal states Brandenburg, Berlin, and Schleswig-Holstein (there was no response from Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania).

Since the three surveyed measures were mostly “not discussed” in navigation, it is understandable that respondents did not reply to questions on obstacles and complexity of the measures.

Measures Integrating Several Risks: Insurances and Reserve Funds

Respondents reported that measures integrating several risks, such as insurances and the creation of reserve funds, which were also surveyed in the other climate-sensitive

28 We were puzzled by the response of two experts that the protection of roads against extreme events was an effective measure to respond to decreased risks of frost and snow following climate change.

sectors (e.g. forestry, agriculture), were “not discussed” in their federal states (see Fig. 4.7-2). From the responses in other climate-sensitive sectors we know that respondents – representatives of functional departments – mainly thought of an implementation of this measure through agencies and federal bodies, which is naturally not probable. It is well possible that we would have found higher degrees of implementation of these measures, had we surveyed transport enterprises.

Further Measures

Moreover, experts were asked for further measures in the transport sector that may be suitable to prevent risks of climate change or capitalize on opportunities. Only one expert responded to this. He named better predictions of storms (frequency and strength) for an increase safety in navigation and rail traffic.

Adaptation to Climate Change in Transport Departments

Only two out of five respondents from the transport departments of federal states reported that there is a debate about the adaptation to climate change within their administration. However, no practical programmes in these two federal states – Brandenburg and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania – aimed at tackling the impacts of climate change in the transport sectors were named. Asked about the current relevance of climate adaptation in their administration in relation to other topics, these two experts responded “slightly important”, the three other experts with

“unimportant”. None of the respondents chose “important” or “very important”. Also with regard to the very low rate of return of questionnaires, we conclude that adaptation to climate change is currently of nearly no significance in the transport departments in most federal states.

Adaptation in the Transport Sector: Summary and Conclusions

Overall, the German transport sector so far is very little adapted to climate change. A debate about adaptation to climate change seems to occur only in very few transport departments of the federal states. The knowledge of potential impacts of climate change, as well as the degree of implementation of measures that are suitable to adapt to climate change is in general rather low. In comparison to the other surveyed climate-sensitive sectors, the transport sector exhibited the lowest rate of returns of questionnaires. This is also an indication that there is little debate about adaptation to climate change, and a low degree of adaptation in the transport sector in Germany (at least for federal bodies).

In general, the transport sector should be able to adapt to potential impacts of climate change in future. A range of effective adaptation measures is available. On the other hand, adaptation will probably be very complicated; it can hardly be based on existing knowledge or measures. At the same time, the transport sector is faced with other challenges (e.g. Toll Collect, the decree on particulate matter).

Im Dokument Climate Change (Seite 157-161)