5 RESULTS OF THE STAKEHOLDER-WORKSHOP
5.2 R ESULTS OF THE W ORKSHOP
Even if the pre-interviews with workshop participants indicated a high level of importance of climate change adaptation in their organisations and administrations, this did not mean that they relied on a high level of knowledge about climate change and its impacts in Germany. The strong desire to receive information, which was already apparent in the pre-interview responses, prevailed also during the workshop.
This apparent need of decision-makers for information and support with regard to impacts of climate change in Germany may be seen as the main result of the workshop.
Trust in the Scientific Results on Climate Change
To explain climate change and its impacts, two presentations were given during the workshop. Prof. Schönwiese (Meteorological Institute of Frankfurt University) based his talk “Probabilities of the Occurrence of Extreme Events in Germany” on statistical analyses of climate and weather events in the past, and stressed that there always has been climate change. However, since approximately the middle of the last century, new positive trends in temperature establish, which have become stronger particularly in the recent decades. The development of this trend is mainly anthropogenic. Dr.
Zebisch (Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research), co-author of this study, then gave a presentation on “Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Agriculture, Forestry, Water Management, Nature Conservation, Tourism, Transport and Health in Germany”.
This was based mainly on computer models of global change, which simulate climate change and its impacts in the future on the basis of scientific assumptions (see also chapter 2). The results presented in both talks have been integrated into chapters 3 and 4 of this report.
In the afternoon’s discussions, these two presentations and their relevance for decision-makers were debated. The question was, whether decision-makers orient themselves rather on future scenarios and projections, or on time series and trends of the past. Some participants claimed the latter. In contrast, other participants reported to base their planning on climate scenarios of the future.
The discussion showed the significance of trust in scientific results. Some decision-makers voiced scepticism particularly with regard to climate models of the future, which, in contrast to trends of the past, they cannot compare with their own personal experience. The importance of trust in the results of climate models and the possibility to establish this trust are therefore subject of chapter 6.2.2. However, trust building
unimportant 0%
slightly important
31%
important 45%
very important 12%
missing 12 %
does not include the concealment of existing uncertainties in future scenarios, as the flowing section shows.
Uncertainty
The assessment of future climate change and its potential impacts comes naturally with a certain uncertainty. Even with further improvement of scientific methods, results will always remain somewhat uncertain. The amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is only predictable to a certain extent, as is the reaction of the climate system to these greenhouse gases.
The uncertainty of risk information often leads to obstacles in risk prevention.
Therefore we explicitly addressed the constructive management of uncertainty and unspecific hazard potentials within the stakeholder-workshop with a presentation given by Prof. Gigerenzer (Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin) on
“Decision-making, Communication and Dealing with Uncertainties”.
It is often assumed that the communication of uncertainty inherent in scientific results would impair their credibility. Using the Bank of England as an example, of Prof.
Gigerenzer showed that the opposite is true. The Bank of England is known for transparent communication of uncertainties in its projections of the development of economy and currencies, at the same time it is the organisation enjoying the highest credibility in England. In the end, avoiding communication of uncertainty in projections results in loss of credibility of the communicating institutions, when the projections are wrong (see also chapter 6.2.2).
Following Prof. Gigerenzer’s talk, a discussion about the model of the “informed citizen” sprang up. This model is currently used particularly on European level. A change in mentality is needed to transform the old ideal of the “protecting administration” to the model of “informed citizens”. To make educated decision-making possible, citizens need many sources of information. Here, the adequate communication of risk will play an important role. According to Prof. Gigerenzer, the goal of this development should not only be the “informed” but also “serene citizen”, who knows not only about the existing risks but also how to deal with them serenely.
Dealing with uncertainty takes not only a serene attitude, but also concrete decisions.
How one can systematically deal with uncertainty of climate change in the decision-making process is illustrated by the decision support system introduced in chapter 6.2.4 (see also chapter 6.2.3).
Adaptation
Adaptation measures to respond to the impacts of climate change were the subject of the presentation “Adaptation Measures in Germany – Exploiting Opportunities and Mitigating Risks” given by Mr. Grothmann (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, PIK), co-author of this study. Primarily, results from an experts’ survey with representatives of the functional departments of federal states for the sectors agriculture, forestry, water, nature conservation, tourism, transport, and health were presented. These representatives were asked about the effectiveness, the degree of implementation, the obstacles and the complexity of measures that are generally suitable to adapt to climate change (e.g. conversion to mixed forests in forestry), even if they had been implemented for other reasons (see also chapter 2.6). This survey was conducted to get an impression of the current state of adaptation in Germany and the vulnerability to future impacts of climate change without further adaptation measures (see chapter 2.8). The main result of this survey is that measures, which are generally suitable to adapt to climate change (e.g. flood protection measures), are already partially implemented in many sectors but still need to be adjusted accordingly. So far, none of the studies sectors seems to be fully adapted to climate change. Mr. Grothmann concluded that all sectors had the adaptive capacity to adapt to climate change in future, since they can often rely on existing measures and the obstacles for of adaptation to climate change rarely seem insurmountable.
The subsequent discussion revealed that the presentation of measures that are
generally suitable to adapt to, but have not been motivated by climate change is mistakable. The rating of such measures as partially implemented was in particular misunderstood by participants and evoked the impression of the conclusion that there was hardly any need for further action to adapt to climate change. Furthermore, the reliability of the responses was doubted. Particularly the current degree of implementation of measures was believed to be easily overestimated. Therefore, when presenting these results in this report (particularly chapter 4) we strongly emphasize that the survey results are only a preliminary assessments, and that measures that are generally suitable to adapt to climate change are not yet fully implemented in most sectors, and also not yet adjusted to the particularities of climate change. Therefore, we conclude that none of the studied sectors is yet adapted to climate change.
One participant remarked, that there is a need to distinguish a general strategy for climate change adaptation from specific adaptation measures, whose implementation is justified also by motives besides climate change. This remark was related to the false impression, that the conclusion from the experts’ survey was that there is hardly any further need for action in the adaptation to climate change. We have indeed enquired about the existence of specific strategies and programmes within the survey.
The sobering outcome of this is presented in chapter 4.
Participants encouraged the inclusion of experts from outside federal administrations (e.g. from economy and environmental organisations), and the use of telephone interviews rather than written questionnaires to obtain more reliable experts’
assessments in the future. Both were not possible in the presented survey, owing to financial restrictions.
Further Networking
It seems desirable to expand the network of actors that was initiated through this stakeholder-workshop, just as the inclusion of further experts in the surveys would be useful. Asked about institutions and organisations that should be invited as actors in the context of climate change adaptation, participants listed the following: further federal ministries besides the Federal Environmental Agency (e.g. German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, German Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment), the German committee of hazard prevention, national advisory bodies (German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU), the Sustainability Council etc.), The Association of German Cities and Towns, and trade associations. For the nature conservation sector, participants named the Working Group of the Federal States on Nature and Landscape Conservation and Recreation (LANA), for agriculture the National Farmers’ Union, for forestry the German Forestry Council, for the water sector National/Federal Working Group on Water (LAWA), for transport the German Transport Forum, and for the health sector the Action Programme Environment and Health.
Furthermore, the inclusion of the financial sector (banks and re-insurance companies) was demanded. From science, participants encouraged the inclusion of economic research institutions and climate researchers. Finally, networking with activities in other nations (e.g. within the EU) was suggested.
Expectations of Further Support
As apparent in the pre-interviews and the during the workshop, decision-makers had a high demand for information and support regarding the question which impacts of climate change threaten Germany and which adaptation measures are available.
Representatives from federal states voiced the need for a consistent database within Germany and standardised climate scenarios. Besides this, the information demands from the different sectors varied partly, but were often similar:
• Water sector: homogenisation of adaptation research; report of the state of affairs.
• Agriculture: regional climate scenarios; sustainable adaptation strategies.
• Forestry: future potential natural vegetation; research on ecological stability;
sensitivity of different forest communities; possibilities of support for adaptation measures.
• Nature conservation: regional climate scenarios; information about other sectors.
• Health: systematic monitoring of the expansion of disease vectors.
• Tourism: sustainable adaptation strategies.
• Transport: Information on weather extremes (extreme rainfall events, storm risk);
development of grass fire risk / grass fire index.
Centre of Competence for Climate Impacts at the Federal Environmental Agency (UBA)
As stated before, for the Federal Environmental Agency the workshop was the first event to establish an actors’ network on the adaptation to climate change in Germany.
The establishment of such an actors’ network is part of the intention of the Federal Environmental Agency to build a Centre of Competence for Climate Impacts starting in 2006. This Centre is intended to function as a central information platform for climate impacts and adaptation in Germany. In this, collaboration with the Federal Ministry of Education and Research is sought.
In her presentation “Tasks and Structure of the Centre of Competence for Climate Impacts at UBA” Ms. Mahrenholz (Federal Environmental Agency, UBA, Dessau) introduced the envisioned goals, tasks and products of the Centre of Competence. In the subsequent discussion various questions enquired about the concrete orientation of the planned Centre. Ms. Mahrenholz stressed that the Centre will not conduct science, but focus on a pragmatic, demand-oriented exchange of information. Similar to the
“United Kingdom Climate Impact Programme (UKCIP)” the main task is the praxis-oriented counselling and support of actors, whose sectors are potentially impacted by climate change.
The workshop participants welcomed UBA’s initiative for such a Centre of Competence in the sense of a central German information and networking platform for the adaptation to climate change. Competences and tasks will need to be clearly defined, to make the division of tasks between the federation and the states transparent.
Ms. Harnisch (Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, BMU, Berlin) explained that the adequate reference to the necessity of a national strategy for the adaptation to climate change is part of the agenda in the current evaluation phase of the “National Climate Protection Programme 2000”.
In the Centre or Competence the dialogue between actors in adaptation is planned to play a major role. In this context, we discussed the question whether future workshops should be organised per specific sector or across sectors. One suggestion envisaged workshops with sections that address cross-sector issues and sections that are sector specific.
The next stakeholder-workshop is planned for the beginning of 2006 and coincides with the planned start of the Centre of Competence.