Impacts of climate change in coastal systems in Europe. PESETA-Coastal Systems study. Dr Julie A. Richards & Prof Robert J.

Transcription

1 Ipacts of cliate in al systes in Europe. PESETA- Systes study Dr Julie A. Richards & Prof Robert J. Nicholls EUR EN

2 The ission JRC-IPTS is to provide custoer-driven support to the EU policy-aking process by developing science-based responses to policy challenges that have both a socioeconoic as well as a scientific/technological diension. European Coission Joint Research Centre Institute for Prospective Technological Studies Contact inforation Address: Edificio Expo. c/ Inca Garcilaso, 3. E Seville (Spain) E-ail: jrc-ipts-secretariat@ec.europa.eu Tel.: Fax: Legal Notice Neither the European Coission nor any person acting on behalf Coission is responsible for the use which ight be ade of this publication. Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union Freephone nuber (*): (*) Certain obile telephone operators do not allow access to nubers or these calls ay be billed. A great deal of additional inforation on the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the Europa server JRC EUR EN ISBN ISSN DOI /3558 Luxebourg: Office for Official Publications European Counities European Counities, 2009 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged Printed in Spain

3 Ipacts of cliate in al systes in Europe. PESETA- Systes study Dr Julie A. Richards & Prof Robert J. Nicholls School of Civil Engineering and the Environent, and the Tyndall Centre for Cliate Change Research University of Southapton

4 PESETA project. systes assessent. Preface The ain objective PESETA (Projection of Econoic ipacts of cliate in Sectors European Union based on botto-up Analysis) project is to contribute to a better understanding possible physical and econoic effects induced by cliate in Europe over the 21st century. PESETA studies the following ipact categories: agriculture, river basin s, al systes, touris, and huan health. This research project has followed an innovative, integrated approach cobining high resolution cliate and sectoral ipact odels with coprehensive econoic odels, able to provide estiates ipacts for alternative cliate futures. The project estiates the ipacts for large geographical regions of Europe. The Joint Research Centre (JRC) has financed the project and has played a key role in the conception and execution project. Two JRC institutes, the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS) and the Institute for Environent and Sustainability (IES), contributed to this study. The JRC-IPTS coordinated the project and the JRC-IES ade the river s ipact assessent. The integration arket ipacts under a coon econoic fraework was ade at JRC-IPTS using the GEM-E3 odel. The final report PESETA project (please visit is accopanied by a series of technical publications. This report presents in detail the al physical ipact assessent, ethodology and results. Antonio Soria Acting Head of Unit Econoics of Cliate Change, Energy and Transport Unit JRC-IPTS i

5

6 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table of Contents Executive Suary...i 1. Introduction Data / Methodology The DIVA odel Cliate Change Scenarios Considered in the PESETA Analysis Socio-Econoic and Scenarios Considered in the PESETA Analysis Uncertainties Physical Ipact Assessent Results Econoic Ipact Assessent Results Discussion and Conclusions References Appendix A. Data and for Scenarios and Cost-Benefit Analysis ethodology (adapted fro Tol, 2005) Appendix B. EC Physical ipacts results by SRES storyline, sea- scenario and adaptation options.. 37 Appendix C. EC Econoic ipacts results by SRES storyline, sea- scenario and adaptation options43 Appendix D. National Results by SRES storyline, sea- scenario and adaptation options iii

7 PESETA project. systes assessent. List of Tables Table 1. Global sea- rise for low, ediu and high cliate sensitivities, at 2100, for the A2 and B2 SRES storylines and associated greenhouse gas eissions 8 Table 2. options considered in the PESETA analysis 12 Table 3. Suary of for beach nourishentused to infor the PESETA analysis 12 Table 4. Annual Costs of -Level Rise in the EU (illions /year) (1995 values) 21 List of Figures Figure 1. Adinistrative units in north-west Europe within the DIVA 1.0 odel 3 Figure 2. Scheatic of odule linkages in the DIVA tool. The socio-econoic ipact and adaptation assessent are considered in one odule: Costing and 7 Figure 3. - rise for each eission scenarios and cliate odels used within the PESETA analysis 9 Figure 4. Exaple Reduction in return period with an increase in sea, where sea- rise is represented as an increase in water 10 Figure 5. Coparison of DIVA outputs for land in the EU under the A2 storyline without adaptation 16 Figure 6. Coparison of DIVA outputs for total intertidal in the EU under the A2 storyline without adaptation 16 Figure 7. Coparison of DIVA estiates nuber of people ed in the EU with and without adaptation by 2080s 17 Figure 8a. Baseline results for people ed (thousands/year) across Europe 18 Figure 9. Annual of daages due to salinity in the EU under ECHAM4 GCM inputs 22 Figure 10. d annual total residual due to sea- rise in the EU for the 2080s 23 Figure 11. Net annual benefit of adaptation to sea- rise in the EU (illions /year) 23 iv

8 PESETA project. systes assessent. Executive Suary Results physical ipacts and adaptation cost assessent of sea- rise for the European Union are presented for the A2 and B2 SRES socio-econoic storylines and for a range of plausible sea- rise scenarios, using data fro the ECHAM4 and HADCM3 Global Cliate Models (GCMs) odels. In addition, to better understand the sensitivity of the results to the agnitude of sea- rise, the full IPCC (2001) range of sea rise predictions and scenarios of no cliate have also been odelled. These results are all derived using the global Dynaic Interactive Vulnerability Assessent (DIVA) tool for assessing regional to global al ipacts and adaptation. Both the physical and econoic ipacts of sea- rise increase with tie for both the A2 and B2 storylines, especially under scenarios of high sea- rise. Without adaptation, significant ipacts and therefore daages are apparent. Significant s are threatened with displaceent by ing and al erosion. An exploratory adaptation analysis using standard protection easures of construction and beach nourishent, where benefit-cost analysis suggests this is the optiu response, reduces these ipacts significantly. While adaptation in Europe is likely to be uch ore diverse than these two sple options, these results deonstrate the significant benefits of protection, and ore generally suggest that widespread adaptation to sustain huan al activities would be prudent. Moreover, under these protection assuptions, al ecosystes are significantly reduced in, especially under the high sea- rise scenario and cliate raises significant challenges for wider al anageent in Europe, even if huan uses in the al zone are protected. i

9 PESETA project. systes assessent. 1. Introduction The potential effects of rising sea-s on al regions and the high vulnerability al zone due to the concentration of natural and socio-econoic resources highlight the need for regional to global assessents se effects and how the potential to adapt (MCLEAN et al. 2001). The objective of this al assessent is to estiate the physical ipacts of cliate on al systes in the European Union and to onetise the. Two global scenarios have been selected fro the IPCC s Special Report on Eissions Scenarios (SRES): the A2 and B2 scenario storylines (NAKICENOVIC and SWART 2000). This choice partly covers the range of uncertainty associated with the driving forces of global eissions: deographic, econoic developent and technological. In the A2 scenario, where the storyline focus is on national enterprise, global greenhouse gas eissions are assued to increase ore significantly leading to approxiately a tripling of average CO 2 concentrations by the end of this century copared to the pre-industrial concentration. The B2 storyline focuses on local stewardship and results in approxiately a doubling atospheric CO 2 concentration, so cliate is saller. More background inforation on the PESETA study is given in Annex 2. The final report PESETA project is available at the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (JRC-IPTS) website (please visit (Ciscar et al., 2009). Both scenarios were downscaled to the European nation scale for use in this project. The analysis has been undertaken using the Dynaic and Interactive Vulnerability Assessent (DIVA) Tool, produced by the EU-funded DINAS-COAST Project (Dynaic and Interactive Assessent of National, Regional and Global Vulnerability of Zones to Cliate Change and -Level Rise) (DINAS-COAST Consortiu, 2006). This is an integrated ipact-adaptation odel, allowing the interaction between a series of biophysical and socio-econoic odules to assess ipacts of sea- rise. The DIVA odel provides a new and unique perspective on the ipacts of sea- rise, with results available fro national to global scales, as well as for up to 2,000 sub-national adinistrative units. A ajor weakness of earlier studies is that they only exaine a subset physical consequences of sea- rise, whereas DIVA allows all the ajor direct ipacts of sea- rise to be quantitatively evaluated in physical ters. These include (i) direct ipacts on erosion, (ii) increased risk and inundation, (iii) al and, and (iv) salinisation. is an explicit part odel and the benefits of a range of 1

10 PESETA project. systes assessent. hoogenous adaptation options can be explored together with their, including options fro no protection to total protection, together with an estiate econoically-optial response using cost-benefit analysis. For the PESETA project, DIVA has been restricted to the 22 European countries with s, listed below. Figure 1 shows the adinistrative units within DIVA for part of Europe; in total there are 140 adinistrative units used for the PESETA analysis. Territories of European countries that are not considered part European Union or are outside Europe were excluded fro the analysis and are listed in italics. 1. Belgiu, 2. Bulgaria, 3. Croatia, 4. Denark ( Greenland, Faeroes), 5. Estonia, 6. Finland, 7. France (Juan de Nova Island, Wallis & Futuna, Glorioso Island, Territory near Wallis & Futuna, French Southern Territories, St Pierre & Miquelon, St Johns), 8. Gerany, 9. Greece, 10. Ireland, 11. Italy, 12. Latvia, 13. Lithuania, 14. Malta, 15. Netherlands, 16. Poland, 17. Portugal, 18. Roania, 19. Slovenia, 20. Spain, 21. Sweden, 22. United Kingdo (Gibraltar, Isle of Man, Guernsey, Jersey, Polynesia, Cayan Islands, Pitcairn Islands, Turks & Caicos, Virgin Islands, Anguilla, St Kitts & Nevis, Falkland Islands, South Georgia, Saint Helena, British Indian Ocean Territory). 2

11 PESETA project. systes assessent. Figure 1. Adinistrative units in north-west Europe within the DIVA 1.0 odel 3

12

13 2. Data / Methodology 2.1. The DIVA odel PESETA project. systes assessent. The DIVA ethodology was developed during the DINAS-COAST project which built on earlier work such as the Global Vulnerability Assessent (HOOZEMANS et al. 1993) and projects which drew on it (e.g. NICHOLLS and TOL 2006). It developed a new global database of physical and socio-econoic paraeters around the world s s with a base year of 1995 (MCFADDEN et al. 2007), (Vafeidis et al., accepted). Ipacts are described by a series of linked ipacts and adaptation algoriths which can be acsessed through a Graphic User Interface (GUI) (DINAS-COAST CONSORTIUM 2006; HINKEL 2005; HINKEL and KLEIN 2007). DIVA was designed to assess ipact and vulnerability al zone at regional to global scales and is driven by a set of internally consistent 'id-ter' (until 2100) scenarios of sea- rise and consistent socio-econoic drivers (, GDP, etc). The database includes data on physical, ecological and socio-econoic characteristics at various resolutions. All the data in the DIVA database are referenced to linear al segents and are expressed as attributes of five ain geographic features: (a) line segents, (b) adinistrative units, (c) countries, (d) rivers, (e) tidal basins (MCFADDEN et al. 2007; VAFEIDIS et al. 2004; 2007). This gives a fundaentally different vector-based data structure copared to the ore coon raster datasets used in global studies and allows for the evaluation of a range of response options in both physical and onetary ters. The segents are coupled to integrated odules which assess ipacts under user-selected cliate, socio-econoic and possible adaptation scenarios. While DIVA contains a set of purpose-developed cliate scenarios, any scenario can be integrated into the odel with calculations repeated over five year tie steps up to a tiescale of 100 years (HINKEL and KLEIN 2007; NICHOLLS et al. 2007a). For the PESETA analysis, scenarios consistent with PESETA were used, as outline below. 5

14 PESETA project. systes assessent. DIVA operates at the individual linear al segents, which are considered to behave independently. The database contains over 80 paraeters for each variable length segent which are utilised, as required, in the following odules: Internal Drivers (includes the socio-econoic scenarios) -Level Rise Effect Wetland Change Flooding Wetland Valuation Indirect Erosion Erosion Touris Costing and. Each integrated odules are run to calculate the ipacts of sea- rise on al systes, including direct al erosion, al ipacts, s in s, and effects in rivers; the odel is initialised for the year 1995 (baseline results) and first odel results are provided for the year Changes are then evaluated in ters of socioeconoic ipacts and their onetary which, for exaple, include translating land es into onetary values. A range of adaptation options can then be considered, with the adaptation easures influencing the results operating in the next tie step and thereafter. Mitigation of cliate is not explicitly considered, but the benefits of itigation can be evaluated by using cliate and socio econoic scenarios that are consistent with given itigation policies. Physical ipacts and onetary daages and adaptation are direct outputs DIVA odel. The odule linkages are shown in Figure 2. 6

15 PESETA project. systes assessent. Figure 2. Scheatic of odule linkages in the DIVA tool. The socio-econoic ipact and adaptation assessent are considered in one odule: Costing and SOCIO-ECONOMIC SCENARIOS USER SELECTION CLIMATE CHANGE/ SEA LEVEL RISE SCENARIOS ADAPTATION OPTIONS INITIALISATION (For 1995) IMPACT ASSESMENT (5 year tie steps to 2100) STORM SURGE BACKWATER EFFECT EROSION SALINISATION WETLAND LOSS/CHANGE T=T +1 FLOOD RISK WETLAND VALUATION SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS ADAPTATION ASSESMENT IMPACT METRICS (Fro 2000 to 2100) Socio-econoic ipacts, both direct and indirect, are assessed through the costing and adaptation odule. This odule ipleents adaptation easures based on preset or userdefined decision rules, and these easures then influence the calculations physical effects and socio-econoic ipacts next tie step. The costing and adaptation odule coputes the econoic ipacts of sea- rise, including the effects selected adaptation options. Assessed ipacts include land lost due to erosion and ing, lost, risks, salinity and forced igration. The costing and adaptation odule also controls a range of possible adaptation responses: (1) raising s; (2) beach nourishent (to counter beach erosion); and (3) nourishent (to counter es of al s). This allows the coupled behaviour of natural and huan systes to be explored in ore detail, giving ore realistic estiates of ipacts, and adaptation for a range of unitigated and itigated sea- rise scenarios (NICHOLLS et al. 2007b). In this analysis, adaptation include building and beach nourishent with the decisions on adaptation being based on cost-benefit analysis. In Europe, adaptation is widespread under benefit-cost analysis, reflecting the large econoic values located in any al zones. 7

16 PESETA project. systes assessent. Exaple outputs odel are nubers of people ed, net of s lost, the of land lost and protection. More details cost-benefit analysis carried out within the costing and adaptation odule is contained in Appendix A Cliate Change Scenarios Considered in the PESETA Analysis Within DIVA the cliate odel of interediate coplexity CLIMBER 2 (GANOPOLSKI et al. 2001; PETOUKHOV et al. 2000), is used to produce a set of internally consistent id-ter (until 2100) scenarios of sea- rise. However, for consistency across the PESETA project, CLIMBER-2 scenarios have been replaced with ECHAM4 and HADCM3 GCM results for low, ediu and high scenarios of sea- rise (GORDON et al. 2000; ROECKNER et al. 1996). In addition, a no cliate scenario has been included where sea- rise and teperature have been excluded fro the odel. This enables the s due to the socio-econoic scenarios to be separated fro the cliate signal. The global sea- rise figures used within this analysis are shown in Table 1. The outputs ECHAM4 and HADCM3 GCMs are also copared to the low and high IPCC sea- rise figures (CHURCH et al. 2001). The IPCC Third Assessent Report (TAR) high and low scenarios encopass the full range of uncertainty in sea- rise projections (IPCC 2001), excluding uncertainties due to ice sheet instability and elting in Antarctica. Table 1. Global sea- rise for low, ediu and high cliate sensitivities, at 2100, for the A2 and B2 SRES storylines and associated greenhouse gas eissions Global Cliate Model ECHAM4 HADCM3 IPCC TAR Socio-Econoic Scenario A2 B2 A2 B2 A2/B2 -Level Rise Scenario Low (c) Mediu (c) High (c)

17 PESETA project. systes assessent. Figure 3. - rise for each eission scenarios and cliate odels used within the PESETA analysis Level Rise () IPCC Low IPCC High ECHAM A2 Low ECHAM4 A2 Mediu ECHAM4 A2 High ECHAM4 B2 Low ECHAM4 B2 Mediu ECHAM4 B2 High HADCM3 A2 Low HADCM3 A2 Mediu HADCM3 A2 High HADCM3 B2 Low HADCM3 B2 Mediu HADCM3 B2 High Year Figure 3 displays odelled predictions of sea- rise fro 1990 to 2100, for each GCM and SRES storyline. For both cliate odels, sea- rise is lower for the B2 than A2 storyline, reflecting the lower greenhouse gas eissions.. The HADCM3 odel consistently predicts lower sea- rise than the ECHAM4 odel, with increasing divergence over tie. This reflects the increasing uncertainty in the sea- rise projections as the tiescale gets longer. An uncertainty analysis based on sea- rise has also been carried out through the odelling IPCC range of sea- rise scenarios, of 9 and 88 c sea- rise by 2100 (Church et al., 2001). relative sea- rise is calculated for each al segent using the SRES global sea rise scenarios, the glacio-isostatic adjustent estiated by Peltier s (1999) geophysical odel and deltaic subsidence, where appropriate (e.g. the Rhone, Po and Ebro deltas). Therefore, where cliate is excluded fro the scenario, a in relative sea- rise due to latter two factors is still included but this effect is relatively sall in ost locations around Europe. 9

18 PESETA project. systes assessent. Figure 4. Exaple Reduction in return period with an increase in sea, where sea rise is represented as an increase in water Water Level Return Period The DIVA odel also considers s in extree water s by cobining current extree water s (characterised by return periods fro 1 in 1 year to 1 in 1,000 year) with relative sea- rise to deterine the in return period (Figure 4) Socio-Econoic and Scenarios Considered in the PESETA Analysis use in the al zone is the ajor deterinant onetary aspect DIVA odel. Monetarised dryland es are based on the assuption that this is agricultural land and are therefore iniu estiates land value. For al s, saltarsh and unvegetised tidal flats are analysed; es are onetarised is specified using the valuation ethods of BRANDER et al (2003). These are based on a eta-analysis of the valuation literature and consider type, size, location, national GDP/capita and density. In addition, the ing odule within DIVA calculates the potentially ed of low-lying al s due to the cobined effects of extree water s produced by stors and sea- rise, taking into account the effect of any defences (which are treated as sea s). These are then translated into three paraeters; 10

19 PESETA project. systes assessent. in the hazard zone (PHZ): the nuber of people living below the 1 in 1,000 year event who are potentially at risk of al ing. at risk (PAR): the nuber of people who experience ing in an average year, which is a function of PHZ and the standard of protection. to respond (PTR): the nuber of people ed annually or ore frequently. This has been taken as a crude easure of those people who will need to respond in soe anner to the high frequency of ing. The econoic ipact on these s is then estiated using a siple depth-daage curve. The costing and adaptation odule coputes the econoic ipacts of sea- rise and deterines the of adaptation. Ipacts valued are land lost to erosion and ing, lost and, risks, salinity and forced igration. The adaptation ethods and assessed in PESETA are the raising of dykes and the application of beach nourishent, thereby concentrating on and erosion risk anageent, respectively. It is recognised that these are only exaples of possible adaptation options (representing protection options) and a range of accoodation and planned retreat options are also available and increasingly considered within al anageent (KLEIN et al. 2001). However, the hard defence option of raising heights is a ethod that is currently widely-used across Europe. The use of nourishent to reduce beach erosion is also a current, sustainable option that is coonly applied across Europe, where the use of beach fill and renourishent is on the increase (HANSON et al. 2002). While active planned retreat is an adaptation response that is not considered explicitly in the DIVA odel, s that are not protected are, by iplication, s that experience retreat. The types of adaptation considered in DIVA are norally public-funded and the is generally seen as a public good; hence all adaptation are considered to be public investents. Thus DIVA could be seen as a odel that trades-off protection versus retreat (cf. FANKHAUSER 1995). 11

20 PESETA project. systes assessent. The specific adaptation assessent options used are shown in Table 2. These focus on reducing risk through the construction and increase in height of defence s and reducing beach erosion through nourishent (placing of additional sand onto existing beach s). (Wetland nourishent is excluded fro the study as this is not currently a coon anageent strategy.) It is assued that the adaptation takes place where it is econoically optiu, as deterined by cost-benefit analysis. is applied after one tie step (i.e. with a 5-year lag), which is stylised copared to practise, but eaningful when it is considered that adaptation is spread across a country. Table 2. No options considered in the PESETA analysis based on cost benefit analysis No increase in defence heights fro baseline No beach nourishent. Increase in defence heights. Application of beach nourishent. The odel is global in design rather than Europe focussed and factors such as the of construction and beach nourishent vary between countries. As part of PESETA, beach nourishent have been updated using data fro a variety of sources within Europe. Standard for beach nourishent within DIVA (set at default values of 1995 US$5, 6, 9 per 3, for plentiful, ediu and low conditions of sedient supply respectively) appear too low for the experienced within Europe. NICHOLLS et al (1995) found through a survey of present and projected unit beach fill, that the of beach fill sand to be 1995 US$ / 3, based on assuption of locally-available supplies of suitable sand. However, this price is sensitive to the availability of sand and rises rapidly due to transport distance between borrow and nourishent sites; volue and sand properties. For exaple, in the UK, are low as 4.5 ($8.5) have been experienced where aterial dredged locally fro a channel has been used (Harlow, pers co.). In all cases there is an additional, fixed cost for exaple, for the obilization of equipent and a variable cost of placeent, which depends ore on the volue beach fill (Sanchez-Arcilla, pers co.). Table 3. Suary of for beach nourishentused to infor the PESETA analysis Country Price per 3 sand (1995 US$) Source US $5 Nicholls et al 1995 Netherlands $6-7 Nicholls et al 1995 Netherlands $ Stive, pers co Spain $ Sanchez-Arcilla, pers co UK $22.8 MAFF/Defra,

21 PESETA project. systes assessent. With consideration identified in Table 3, it was concluded that 1995 US$5/ 3 represents a reasonable iniu cost where sand is plentiful and for this assessent Europespecific beach nourishent were entered as US$5/ 3 for s of plentiful sand, a idrange figure of US$10/ 3, and a low supply figure of US$15/ 3. National are taken fro Hoozeans et al (1993) updated to 1995 values. These are based on thhe international experience of Delft Hydraulics. Other are also calculated within DIVA, including those related to increased river ing in the lower reaches of rivers subject to the influence of sea and the construction of river s. However, these are only a inial portion of total daage and adaptation and, although included as part of total daages are not considered in depth here. The two adaptation options (increase in defence heights and beach nourishent) were not considered to over the tiescale assessent, based on the reasonable assuption that these technologies are ature. DIVA produces econoic results in 1995 US dollars, and in order to ake the results European relevant the of daages and adaptation have been converted to illions of Euros per year (conversion using the International Monetary Fund currency archive fro the IMF website Uncertainties There are any sources of uncertainty that should be considered when interpreting the results of this type of analysis. As the ipacts are highly dependent on the agnitude of sea- rise, the widely recognised uncertainties regarding cliate odels and the prediction of sea rise should be taken into account (e.g. NICHOLLS and LOWE 2004). The high and low ipacts based on the IPCC scenarios give the likely range of this effect. In addition, while DIVA has greatly iproved spatial resolution copared to earlier analyses, availability and quality of al data at the European scale still presents soe probles. The scale analysis based on the al segents reains quite coarse as the response for a given segent is unlikely to be unifor. Secondly, single adaptation options are a caricature of 13

22 PESETA project. systes assessent. adaptation as a wider variety and cobination of easures are potentially available. However, the two adaptation approaches used within this analysis are well understood options and provide a eaningful sense of how adaptation could influence ipacts and the. Thirdly, how land use will evolve to the year 2085 is not considered in this assessent (it is assued that the current al land use pattern is aintained with new al residents and infrastructure inflating the current pattern). Given the growing concentration of huan assets in the al zone, agricultural land ay not be available in al s and the onetary value of land ay be uch higher than estiated by DIVA The cost of adaptation is also uncertain. It is assued that s are a ature technology and so prices will rise with inflation. However, a large deand for s ay ipact on prices via the availability aterials, plant and expertise required to build the. Siilarly, for beach nourishent liited sand resources, or a potential deand for sand resources exceeding existing supply and liited experience with the application of beach nourishent could all cause a rise in nourishent that is not considered here. A ore systeatic assessent of and nourishent through the 21 st Century under different deand scenarios would benefit future al analyses. While beyond the scope PESETA analysis, in the future a sensitivity analysis of DIVA would be prudent. 14

23 PESETA project. systes assessent. 3. Physical Ipact Assessent Results The results al systes physical ipact assessent are presented in Appendix C as EU aggregated results. The results for individual European countries, all paraeters and each scenario are given in Appendix C. Each sea- rise scenarios in Table 1 were investigated for each SRES storyline. The IPCC high value in conjunction with a no sea rise scenario cover the range of results that can be expected over the tiescales odelled and represent the significant uncertainty in future sea- rise predictions (even if the greenhouse gas eissions are known). The foreost physical ipacts odelled within DIVA and discussed here are: land due to subergence ( with a return period of 1 in 1 year) and erosion,, in average protection nuber of people ed each year It is apparent fro the results that ipacts are generally higher for the A2 storyline for all odels. This is due to both the higher rates of sea- rise (Table 1, Figure 4) and the larger increase in used within this storyline. It is also clear that adaptation has a significant ipact results for each paraeter under investigation. Without adaptation, land due to both subergence and erosion increases over tie and is higher for an increased rate of sea- rise (Figure 5). These es are substantially reduced with cost-benefit adaptation (see Appendix B Tables 1 18) with annual land due to subergence potentially being reduced by two or three orders of agnitude (2080s, high sea rise, both A2 and B2). Annual land due to erosion is notably less than subergence, but is still observed to decrease with adaptation. Wetland es also increase with higher rates of sea- rise and over tie (Figure 6). 15

24 PESETA project. systes assessent. Figure 5. Coparison of DIVA outputs for land in the EU under the A2 storyline without adaptation s 2080s Subergence Erosion Subergence Erosion Subergence Erosion Subergence Erosion Subergence Erosion Subergence Erosion Subergence Erosion Area ( ) ECHAM4 HADCM 3 IPCC ECHAM4 HADCM3 IPCC No sea- rise Low sea- scenario High sea- scenario Figure 6. Coparison of DIVA outputs for total intertidal in the EU under the A2 storyline without adaptation 2020s 2080s Area ( ) no sea- rise low sea- rise ediu sea rise high sea rise low sea- rise ediu sea rise high sea rise low sea- rise high sea rise Baseline ECHAM4 HADCM3 IPCC 16

25 PESETA project. systes assessent. Figure 7. Coparison of DIVA estiates nuber of people ed in the EU with and without adaptation by 2080s (000s) No adaptation With adaptation A2 B2 A2 B2 A2 B2 A2 B2 A2 B2 A2 B2 A2 B2 No sea- rise ECHAM4 HADCM3 IPCC ECHAM4 HADCM3 IPCC Low sea- scenario High sea- scenario The nuber of people ed also increases over tie (Figures 8 a and b) and with increasing sea (Figure 8 c) if no adaptation is undertaken. While countries with the highest nubers correspond to those with either substantial s of al plain or high figures, the increase in people ed is largely due to the in protection s. These are reduced as sea- rise increases over tie (see Figure X) with a consequent increase in the annual nubers of people ed. Figure 7 also indicates that the agnitude of sea- rise also has a large ipact on the nubers of people ed. Under the A2 scenario (Figure 8c) increases in the nubers of people ed per year can be seen for large s of Greece and Latvia when copared to the B2 scenario (Figure 8b). Also, the A2 (ECHAM4) low sea- rise scenario for the 2080s results in 2.2 x 10 5 people ed per year, whereas high sea- rise results in 1.4 x 10 6 people ed per year. However, when adaptation is taken into account, the nubers of people ed are significantly reduced and are relatively consistent across the sea- scenarios (Figure 8c). protection s increase over tie under both the A2 and B2 storylines. Under the A2 scenario with adaptation, the nuber of people ed reains relatively stable 17

26 PESETA project. systes assessent. over tie as increased protection is offset by increasing al (i.e. exposure). Under a B2 scenario including adaptation, the nuber of people ed falls as the is siilar for the 2020s and 2080s, having peaked in the 2050s and subsequently fallen (ARNELL et al. 2004). Figure 8a. Baseline results for people ed (thousands/year) across Europe ed (thousands/year) <= 2.00 > 2.00 > 4.00 > 6.00 > 8.00 > > Figure 8b. ed (thousands/year) across Europe, for the B2 scenario, 2080s (ECHAM4), without adaptation ed (thousands/year) <

27 PESETA project. systes assessent. Figure 8c. ed (thousands/year) across Europe, for the A2 scenario, 2080s (ECHAM4), without adaptation ed (thousands/year) <

28

29 PESETA project. systes assessent. 4. Econoic Ipact Assessent Results Tabular results econoic ipact assessent carried out using the DIVA Costing and odule can be found in Appendix C with national results for the 22 European Union countries in Appendix D. The econoic are based on a nuber of paraeters, including and GDP/capita and have been divided into three ain categories; total residual daage (sea, salinity and igration, where igration is due to both subergence and erosion), adaptation (sea and beach nourishent ), and net benefit of adaptation (residual daages without adaptation inus residual daages with adaptation and adaptation ). The total of sea- rise under each scenario have been calculated by subtracting the of adaptation under the scenario without any cliate, fro the of adaptation under each sea- rise scenario (Table 4). The increase over tie fro the 2020s to the 2080s, with increasing sea- rise, and range fro about 0 illion/year in the 2020s under the lowest sea- rise scenario, to about 2.3 billion/year by the 2080s under the highest scenario. Table 4. Annual Costs of -Level Rise in the EU (illions /year) (1995 values) -Level Rise Scenario A2 B2 2020s 2080s 2020s 2080s IPCC Low IPCC High ECHAM4 Low ECHAM4 Mediu ECHAM4 High HADCM3 Low HADCM3 Mediu HADCM3 High are calculated for selected rivers and deltas. As, no adaptation to salinity is included within DIVA, these are constant with or without adaptation easures. increase with sea- rise and over tie and are greater under the A2 storyline, as would be expected (Figure 9). 21

30 PESETA project. systes assessent. Figure 9. Annual of daages due to salinity in the EU under ECHAM4 GCM inputs 2020s 2080s Euros (illions/year) A2 B2 A2 B2 A2 B2 A2 B2 No sea- rise Low sea-- rise Mediu sea- rise High sea- scenario ECHAM4 residual daage increase over tie fro the baseline in 1995 to the 2080s (Figure 10). Daage for the high rate of sea- rise for the 2080s are substantially higher than for a low rate of sea- rise and both are substantially reduced if adaptation is undertaken. Costs of people igrating due to land through subergence and erosion are also substantially increased under a high rate of sea- rise, assuing no adaptation, and increase over tie. When benefit-cost adaptation options are included, this displaceent of people becoes a inor ipact, showing the iportant benefit of adaptation to al s under rising sea s. It is iportant to note that the high sea- rise without adaptation shown in Figure 10 are exaggerated by IPCC sea- values used which translate into high as a result of sea ing. 22

31 PESETA project. systes assessent. Figure 10. d annual total residual due to sea- rise in the EU for the 2080s No sea- rise Low sea- rise High sea- scenario Euros (illions/year) A2 B2 A2 B2 No adaptation With adaptation Figure 11. Net annual benefit of adaptation to sea- rise in the EU (illions /year) s 2080s euro/year A2 B2 A2 B2 A2 B2 A2 B2 A2 B2 A2 B2 A2 B2 ECHAM4 HADCM3 IPCC ECHAM4 HADCM3 IPCC No sea- rise Low sea-- rise High sea- scenario Although adaptation increase over tie, this analysis suggests that the net benefits of adaptation are substantial even in the 2020s (Figure 11 and tables in Appendix D). 23

32

33 5. Discussion and Conclusions PESETA project. systes assessent. This analysis has provided the first quantitative assessent ipacts of sea- rise for Europe, including the benefits of adaptation, and costings. As such it is a substantial iproveent over earlier assessents of Europe which had to be ore qualitative in nature (KUNDZEWICZ et al. 2001; NICHOLLS 2000). The results show that while Europe is potentially highly threatened by sea- rise, adaptation (in the for two protection options considered) can greatly reduce these ipacts to s which appear anageable. Iportantly, there are alost iediate benefits of such adaptation, and this analysis suggests that widespread adaptation to sea- rise across Europe would be prudent. While the adaptation options considered in DIVA are realistic they are not coprehensive, and the PESETA analysis should not be seen to endorse these approaches. For exaple, there is increasing interest in cobining hard protection with other, ore sustainable techniques, such as the creation of storage s and selective anaged realignent. Systeatic retreat line could be applied to and erosion risk s and also as an adaptation to increasing pressure on s fro developent and sea- rise. Fro both the physical and econoic ipact results, it can clearly be seen that adaptation significantly reduces total residual daage over tie, and by the 2080s under all cliate and socio-econoic scenarios, the net benefit of adaptation increases substantially, indicating that adaptation reduces total by several ties over. Iportantly, while the results without adaptation show the large ipact potentially, the results suggest that realistic s of adaptation will avoid widespread huan ipacts, including worst case al abandonent, which is possible without adaptation. Hence, the results show the iportance in Europe of considering adaptation when assessing the effects of cliate in al s through the 21 st Century and beyond. 25

34 PESETA project. systes assessent. However, ecosyste es are not avoided as illustrated earlier and this represents a ajor challenge for the response to cliate in Europe as discussed by Nicholls and Klein (2005), aong others. Finding an appropriate balance between protection of huan use (as adaptation eans in this DIVA analysis) and aking space for al s (by retreat), and/or developing new ethods for widespread nourishing of s in situ (as a new ethod of conservation) represents a strategic challenge for al anageent at the European scale. This has iportant iplications for the EU Habitat and Bird Directives and is being addressed as an issue in the EU-funded BRANCH project ( Further European scale analyses, cobine with selected, detailed case studies could shed uch ore insight on these issues. It is apparent fro the results for both storylines and across the different rates of sea- rise, that the adoption of adaptation easures reduces the daage related to both sea ing and igration significantly. 26

35 PESETA project. systes assessent. 6. References ARNELL, N. W., LIVERMORE, M. J. L., KOVATS, S., LEVY, P. E., NICHOLLS, R., PARRY, M. L. & GAFFIN, S. R. (2004) Cliate and socio-econoic scenarios for global-scale cliate ipacts assessents: Characterising the SRES storylines. Global Environental Change, 14, 3-20 BRANDER, L. M., FLORAX, R. J. G. M. & VERMAAT, J. E. (2003) The epirics of valuation: A coprehensive suary and a eta-analysis literature. DINAS-COAST Working Paper. Available at Last accessed January 2007 CHURCH, J. A., GREGORY, J. M., HUYBRECHTS, P., KUHN, M., LAMBECK, K., NHUAN, M. T., QIN, D. & WOODWORTH, P. L. (2001) Changes in sea. In HOUGHTON, J. T., DING, Y., GRIGGS, D. J., NOGUER, M., VAN DER LINDEN, P. J. & XIAOSU, D. (Eds.) Cliate Change The Scientific Basis. Cabridge, UK: Cabridge University Press, pp CISCAR, J.C., IGLESIAS, A., FEYEN, L., GOODESS, C.M., SZABÓ, L., CHRISTENSEN, O.B., NICHOLLS, R., AMELUNG, B., WATKISS, P., BOSELLO, F., DANKERS, R., GARROTE, L., HUNT, A., HORROCKS, L., MONEO, M., MORENO, A., PYE, S., QUIROGA, S., VAN REGEMORTER, D., RICHARDS, J., ROSOSN, R., SORIA, A. (2009) Cliate ipacts in Europe. Final report PESETA research project. EUR EN. JRC Scientific and Technical Reports. DINAS-COAST CONSORTIUM (2006) DIVA: Version 1.0. CD-ROM. Potsda, Gerany: Potsda Institute for Cliate Ipact Research, FANKHAUSER, S. (1995) Protection versus retreat: estiating the of sea- rise. Environent and Planning A, 27, (2), GANOPOLSKI, A., PETOUKHOV, V., RAHMSTORF, S., BROVKIN, V., CLAUSSEN, M., ELISEEV, A. & KUBATZKI, C. (2001) CLIMBER-2: a cliate syste odel of interediate coplexity. Part II: odel sensitivity. Cliate Dynaics, 17, (10), GORDON, C., COOPER, C., SENIOR, C. A., BANKS, H., GREGORY, J. M., JOHNS, T. C., MITCHELL, J. F. B. & WOOD, R. A. (2000) The siulation of SST, sea ice extents and ocean heat transports in a version Hadley Centre coupled odel without flux adjustents. Cliate Dynaics, 16, (2/3),

36 PESETA project. systes assessent. HANSON, H., BRAMPTON, A., CAPOBIANCO, M., DETTE, H. H., HAMM, L., LAUSTRUP, C., LECHUGA, A. & SPANHOFF, R. (2002) Beach nourishent projects, practices, and objectives a European overview. Engineering Journal, 47, (2), HINKEL, J. (2005) DIVA: an iterative ethod for building odular integrated odels. Advances in Geosciences, 4, 45 5 HINKEL, J. & KLEIN, R. J. T. (2007) Integrating knowledge for assessing al vulnerability to cliate. In MCFADDEN, L., NICHOLLS, R. & PENNING-ROWSELL, E. C. (Eds.) Managing al vulnerability: An integrated approach. Asterda, Netherlands: Elsevier Science, pp. HOOZEMANS, F. M. J., MARCHAND, M. & PENNEKAMP, H. A. (1993) A global vulnerability analysis: Vulnerability assessent for, al s and rice production on a global scale. The Hague, the Netherlands: Delft Hydraulics and Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Manageent, IPCC (2001) Cliate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. HOUGHTON, J. T., DING, Y., GRIGGS, D. J., NOGUER, M., VAN DER LINDEN, P. J., DAI, X., MASKELL, K. & JOHNSON, C. A.(Eds.). Cabridge: Cabridge University Press, pp.881 KLEIN, R. J. T., NICHOLLS, R. J., RAGOONADEN, S., CAPOBIANCO, M., ASTON, J. & BUCKLEY, E. N. (2001) Technological options for adaptation to cliate in al zones. Journal of Research, 17, KUNDZEWICZ, Z., PARRY, M. L., CRAMER, W., HOLTEN, J. I., ZACMAREK, A., MARTENS, P., NICHOLLS, R. J., OQUIST, M., ROUNSEVELL, M. D. A. & SZOLGAY, J. (2001) Europe. In MCCARTHY, J. J., CANZIANI, O. F., LEARY, N. A., DOKKEN, D. J. & WHITE, K. S. (Eds.) Cliate Change 2001: Ipacts, and Vulnerability. Report of IPCC Working Group II. Cabridge, UK: Cabridge University Press, pp MCFADDEN, L., NICHOLLS, R. J., VAFEIDIS, A. T. & TOL, R. S. J. (2007) A ethodology for odelling al space for global assessents. Journal of Research, 23, (4), MCLEAN, R. F., TSYBAN, A., BURKETT, V., CODIGNOTTO, J. O., FORBES, D. L., MIMURA, N., BEAMISH, R. J., ITTEKKOT, V., BIJLSMA, L. & SANCHEZ-AREVALO, I. (2001) Radiative forcing of cliate. In HOUGHTON, J. T., DING, Y., GRIGGS, D. J., NOGUER, M., VAN DER LINDEN, P. J., DAI, X., MASKELL, K. & JOHNSON, C. A. (Eds.) Cliate Change - The Scientific Basis. IPCC Third Assessent Report, Contribution of Working Group I. Cabridge, UK: Cabridge University Press, pp. 28

37 PESETA project. systes assessent. NAKICENOVIC, N. & SWART, R. (Eds.) (2000) Eissions scenarios. Special report Intergovernental Panel on Cliate Change. Cabridge, UK: Cabridge University Press, 599 NICHOLLS, R. J. (2000) zones. In PARRY, M. L. (Ed.) Assessent of potential effects and adaptations for cliate in Europe: The Europe ACACIA Project. University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK: Jackson Environent Institute, pp. 324 NICHOLLS, R. J. & KLEIN, R. J. T. (2005) Cliate and al anageent on Europe s. In VERMAAT, J. E., LEDOUX, L., TURNER, K., SALOMONS, W. & BOUWER, L. (Eds.) Managing European Coasts: Past, Present and Future. London: Springer, Environental Science Monograph Series, pp. NICHOLLS, R. J., KLEIN, R. J. T. & TOL, R. S. J. (2007a) Managing al vulnerability and cliate : A national to global perspective. In MCFADDEN, L., NICHOLLS, R. J. & PENNING-ROWSELL, E. C. (Eds.) Managing al vulnerability. Asterda, Netherlands: Elsevier Sceince, pp NICHOLLS, R. J., LEATHERMAN, S. P., DENNIS, K. C. & VOLONTE, C. R. (1995) Ipacts and responses to sea- rise: qualitative and quantitative assessents. Journal of Research, SI 14, NICHOLLS, R. J. & LOWE, J. A. (2004) Benefits of itigation of cliate for al s. Global Environental Change, 14, (3), NICHOLLS, R. J. & TOL, R. S. J. (2006) Ipacts and responses to sea- rise: a global analysis SRES scenarios over the twenty-first century. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Matheatical Physical and Engineering Sciences, 364 (1841), NICHOLLS, R. J., TOL, R. S. J. & HALL, J. W. (2007b) Assessing ipacts and responses to global-ean sea- rise. In SCHLEISINGER, M., REILLY, J., EDMONDS, J., KHESHGI, H., KOLSTAD, C. D. & SMITH, J. B. (Eds.) Huan-induced cliate : An interdisciplinary assessent. Cabridge, UK: Cabridge University Press, pp. PELTIER, W. R. (1999) Global sea rise and glacial isostatic adjustent. Global and Planetary Change, 20, PETOUKHOV, V., GANOPOLSKI, A., BROVKIN, V., CLAUSSEN, M., ELISEEV, A., KUBATZKI, C. & RAHMSTORF, S. (2000) CLIMBER-2: a cliate syste odel of interediate coplexity. Part 1: odel description and perforance for present cliate. Cliate Dynaics, 16,

38 PESETA project. systes assessent. ROECKNER, E., OBERHUBER, J. M., BACHER, A., CHRISTOPH, M. & KIRCHNER, I. (1996) ENSO variability and atospheric response in a global coupled atosphere-ocean GCM. Cliate Dynaics, 12, VAFEIDIS, A. T., NICHOLLS, R. J., BOOT, G., COX, J., GRASHOFF, P. S., HINKEL, J., MAATENS, R., MCFADDEN, L., SPENCER, T. & TOL, R. S. J. (2004) A global database for al vulnerability analysis. Ocean Interactions in the Zone (LOICZ) Newsletter No 33. pp.1-4 VAFEIDIS, A. T., NICHOLLS, R. J., BOOT, G., COX, J., GRASHOFF, P. S., HINKEL, J., MAATENS, R., MCFADDEN, L., SPENCER, T. & TOL, R. S. J. (2007) A new global al database for ipact and vulnerability analysis to sea- rise. Journal of Research, Accepted 30

39 PESETA project. systes assessent. Appendix A. Data and for Scenarios and Cost-Benefit Analysis ethodology (adapted fro Tol, 2005). Data and paraeters 1. Incoe per capita Currently the incoe per capita data within DIVA is fro the IMAGE region ipleentation of SRES scenarios (IMAGE Tea, 2002). The regional growth rates are assued to apply hoogeneously to the countries within the region, with the exception of rich countries in poor regions, the exception is valid for Hong Kong, Singapore, Macau, Taiwan and several Caribbean countries. 2. Gini coefficient This easures incoe inequality; the lower the nuber, the ore equal the distribution of incoe. Gini coefficients for various countries are taken fro the WRI Database (WRI, 2002). The Gini coefficient ranges fro 0 to 100, with larger values denoting greater inequality. 3. Literacy Literacy is a standard indicator for the of education. The percentages of literate people for various countries are taken fro the WRI Database (WRI, 2002). 4. Corruption The corruption index for various countries is taken fro Kaufann et al. (1999). The index ranges fro -2.5 to 5.5, with lower values denoting ore corruption. 5. Deocracy The deocracy index for various countries is taken fo the Polity IV project (Marshall & Jaggers, 2003). The index ranges fro 0 to 10, with higher values denoting ore deocracy, that is, a higher involveent in decision-aking. 31

40 PESETA project. systes assessent. 6. Econoic freedo The index of econoic freedo for various countries is taken fro the Heritage Foundation (2003). It easures the extent to which the governent regulates the arket. The index ranges fro 1 to 5, with higher values denoting less freedo. For paraeters 3 to 7, the elasticity for each paraeter is used to extrapolate current value to future value. 7. use sue scenarios were taken fro the IMAGE Tea (2002). The scenarios give doinant land use in a 0.5 x 0.5 degree grid. Fro this, the doinant land use in a al segent was derived. Cost-Benefit Analysis Methodology The cost-benefit analysis is carried out within the costing and adaptation odule with the DIVA odel, and this assesses the of sea- rise to society and the reaction of society to sea- rise. 1. Costs: The value of drylands occupied by huans is assued to be the agricultural land value, as it is assued that agricultural land has the lowest value of anaged lands and that this land will be lost first. If land for housing or industry is to be peranently inundated, it is assued that the lost will be replaced through the use of agricultural land. daages are calculated using the ed, the axiu depth and the probability occurring. The are calculated linearly along the, for each al segent. daages use the sae paraeters as for sea s, however, the length of backwater effect up the river is used, rather than length of. 32

41 PESETA project. systes assessent. Salinisation through of salt into the ground or surface water used for agriculture, can reduce the yield, and increase of agricultural production, (DIVA assues that halophytes are a saturated niche arket) and therefore a decrease in the value land. It is assued that saline agricultural land is half as valuable as is non-saline land. are related to the nuber of people forced to igrate, calculated fro the al peranently ed ties the density of that. The value per igrant is three ties the per capita incoe country of origin. 2. : The standard of al protection can be defined as the design return period of protection easures. The benefits of protection depend on the per capita incoe. The depend on the surge height (which deterines the requireent for height) as well as per capita incoe and sea- rise. Optial protection results fro equating arginal and benefits. National building are taken fro Hoozeans et al. (1993). Eight cultural and socio-econoic factors are also included, which affect the perceived benefits of protection, and hence for a set of indicators easuring the relative risk aversion of each country. Optial protection is a function indicators of relative risk aversion and al protection (deterined by return period height). The cultural and socio-econoic factors which deterine risk are per capita incoe, Gini coefficient, deocracy, corruption, econoic freedo and literacy (see Appendix B). Other variables (e.g. religion, political stability) were found to be insignificant, in ters of predicting risk aversion. s are constructed along the entire al segent. Height of river s is deterined by the requireent to incorporate the backwater effect interaction of rivers and the sea. The effect is stronger at the outh river than further inland, and the odule assues rivers have a linear slope, indicating that the increase in river height falls linearly. s are built along the length river influenced by backwater effect sea- rise). 33

42 PESETA project. systes assessent. Nourishent requireents are calculated using the Bruun Rule, odified to include beach nourishent. The rule states that erosion is a linear function of sea- rise and beach nourishent and iplies that the arginal benefits of beach nourishent are constant; for each cubic etre of additional sand supply the sae additional aount of land is protected fro erosion. value is assued to be constant, and the of beach nourishent are linear with the aount of sand supply. If the cost (per cubic etre of sand) of beach nourishent is greater than the arginal benefit (i.e. the value land protected fro erosion per cubic etre of sand supplied), there will be no nourishent. If the cost is less than the benefit, nourishent is assued to fully offset erosion. The nourishent are assued to be practically constant over tie, and the are the sae in all countries, as the technology is universal and nourishent copanies are generally ultinationals. However, nourishent depend on the availability of sand, and onshore nourishent is ore expensive than foreshore nourishent. The benefits of nourishent are deterined by the presence of tourists. If there are no tourists the land value is assued to be that of agricultural land and the cheaper underwater shore nourishent technique is used, where sand is placed in hallow water and brought onshore by waves. If tourists use the beach, the nourishent will be a ore expensive beach nourishent and the land value is given by 65% nuber of tourists ties 25% expenditure per tourist divided by the below the 1000 year stor surge height. It is assued that if the teperature hottest onth is below 15ºC, there will be no beach touris, which has iplications for Europe by the 2020s and 2080s. 34

43 PESETA project. systes assessent. References HERITAGE FOUNDATION (2003), Index of Econoic Freedo, HOOZEMANS, F.M.J., MARCHAND, M. and PENNEKAMP, H.A. (1993) Level Rise: A Global Vulnerability Assessent Vulnerability Assessents for Population, Wetlands and Rice Production on a Global Scale. Second revised edition, Delft Hydraulics and Rijkswaterstaat, Delft and The Hague, The Netherlands, 184p IMAGE Tea (2002), The IMAGE 2.2 ipleentation SRES scenarios, RIVM CD- ROM Publication , RIVM, Bilthoven. KAUFMANN, D., A. KRAAY and P. ZOIDO-LOBATON (1999), Governance Matters, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 2196, Worldbank, Washington, D.C.. MARSHALL, M.G. and K. JAGGERS (2003), Polity IV Project: Political Regie Characteristics and Transitions, , Center for International Developent and Conflict Manageent, University of Maryland, College Park. TOL, R.S.J. (2005) The DIVA odel: socio-econoic scenarios, ipacts and adaptation, and world heritage. DIVA tool paper. WRI (2002), World Resources Database World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C., USA. 35

44

45 PESETA project. systes assessent. Appendix B. EC Physical ipacts results by SRES storyline, sea- scenario and adaptation options Table B1. Scenario EU Aggregated Results for ECHAM4 A2 Physical Ipacts, Low - Rise, for the 2020s and 2080s Tieslice - Rise () for Europe suberg ence ( fro baseline) erosion ( fro baseline) Net of ( fro baseline) protection (return period in years) ed (thousand s per year) Baseline No 2020s s Cost-Benefit 2020s s Table B2. Scenario EU Aggregated Results for ECHAM4 A2 Physical Ipacts, Mediu - Rise, for the 2020s and 2080s Tieslice - Rise () for Europe suberg ence ( fro baseline) erosion ( fro baseline) Net of ( fro baseline) protection (return period in years) ed (thousand s per year) Baseline No 2020s s Cost-Benefit 2020s s Table B 3. Scenario EU Aggregated Results for ECHAM4 A2 Physical Ipacts, High - Rise, for the 2020s and 2080s Tieslice - Rise () for Europe suberg ence ( fro baseline) erosion ( fro baseline) Net of ( fro baseline) protection (return period in years) ed (thousand s per year) Baseline No 2020s s Cost-Benefit 2020s s

46 Table 4. Scenario PESETA project. systes assessent. EU Aggregated Results for HADCM3 A2 Physical Ipacts, Low - Rise, for the 2020s and 2080s Tieslice - Rise () for Europe suberg ence ( fro baseline) erosion ( fro baseline) Net of ( fro baseline) protection (return period in years) ed (thousand s per year) Baseline No 2020s s Cost-Benefit 2020s s Table B5. Scenario EU Aggregated Results for HADCM3 A2 Physical Ipacts, Mediu - Rise, for the 2020s and 2080s Tieslice - Rise () for Europe suberg ence ( fro baseline) erosion ( fro baseline) Net of ( fro baseline) protection (return period in years) ed (thousand s per year) Baseline No 2020s s Cost-Benefit 2020s s Table B6. Scenario EU Aggregated Results for HADCM3 A2 Physical Ipacts, High - Rise, for the 2020s and 2080s Tieslice - Rise () for Europe suberg ence ( fro baseline) erosion ( fro baseline) Net of ( fro baseline) protection (return period in years) ed (thousand s per year) Baseline No 2020s s Cost-Benefit 2020s s

47 Table B7. Scenario PESETA project. systes assessent. EU Aggregated Results for ECHAM4 B2 Physical Ipacts, Low - Rise, for the 2020s and 2080s Tieslice - Rise () for Europe suberg ence ( fro baseline) erosion ( fro baseline) Net of ( fro baseline) protection (return period in years) ed (thousand s per year) Baseline No 2020s s Cost-Benefit 2020s s Table B8. Scenario EU Aggregated Results for ECHAM4 B2 Physical Ipacts, Mediu - Rise, for the 2020s and 2080s Tieslice - Rise () for Europe suberg ence ( fro baseline) erosion ( fro baseline) Net of ( fro baseline) protection (return period in years) ed (thousand s per year) Baseline No 2020s s Cost-Benefit 2020s s Table B9. Scenario EU Aggregated Results for ECHAM4 B2 Physical Ipacts, High - Rise, for the 2020s and 2080s Tieslice - Rise () for Europe suberg ence ( fro baseline) erosion ( fro baseline) Net of ( fro baseline) protection (return period in years) ed (thousand s per year) Baseline No 2020s s Cost-Benefit 2020s s

48 Table B10. Scenario PESETA project. systes assessent. EU Aggregated Results for HADCM3 B2 Physical Ipacts, Low - Rise, for the 2020s and 2080s Tieslice - Rise () for Europe suberg ence ( fro baseline) erosion ( fro baseline) Net of ( fro baseline) protection (return period in years) ed (thousand s per year) Baseline No 2020s s Cost-Benefit 2020s s Table B11. Scenario EU Aggregated Results for HADCM3 B2 Physical Ipacts, Mediu - Rise, for the 2020s and 2080s Tieslice - Rise () for Europe suberg ence ( fro baseline) erosion ( fro baseline) Net of ( fro baseline) protection (return period in years) ed (thousand s per year) Baseline No 2020s s Cost-Benefit 2020s s Table B12. Scenario EU Aggregated Results for HADCM3 B2 Physical Ipacts, High - Rise, for the 2020s and 2080s Tieslice - Rise () for Europe suberg ence ( fro baseline) erosion ( fro baseline) Net of ( fro baseline) protection (return period in years) ed (thousand s per year) Baseline No 2020s s Cost-Benefit 2020s s

49 Table B13. Scenario PESETA project. systes assessent. EU Aggregated Results for IPCC A2 Physical Ipacts, Lowest - Rise, for the 2020s and 2080s Tieslice - Rise () for Europe suberg ence ( fro baseline) erosion ( fro baseline) Net of ( fro baseline) protection (return period in years) ed (thousand s per year) Baseline No 2020s s Cost-Benefit 2020s s Table B14. Scenario EU Aggregated Results for IPCC A2 Physical Ipacts, Highest - Rise, for the 2020s and 2080s Tieslice - Rise () for Europe suberg ence ( fro baseline) erosion ( fro baseline) Net of ( fro baseline) protection (return period in years) ed (thousand s per year) Baseline No 2020s s Cost-Benefit 2020s s Table B15. Scenario EU Aggregated Results for IPCC B2 Physical Ipacts, Lowest - Rise, for the 2020s and 2080s Tieslice - Rise () for Europe suberg ence ( fro baseline) erosion ( fro baseline) Net of ( fro baseline) protection (return period in years) ed (thousand s per year) Baseline No 2020s s Cost-Benefit 2020s s

50 Table B16. Scenario PESETA project. systes assessent. EU Aggregated Results for IPCC B2 Physical Ipacts, Highest - Rise, for the 2020s and 2080s Tieslice - Rise () for Europe suberg ence ( fro baseline) erosion ( fro baseline) Net of ( fro baseline) protection (return period in years) ed (thousand s per year) Baseline No 2020s s Cost-Benefit 2020s s Table B17. Scenario EU Aggregated Results for A2 Physical Ipacts, No - Rise, for the 2020s and 2080s Tieslice - Rise () for Europe suberg ence ( fro baseline) erosion ( fro baseline) Net of ( fro baseline) protection (return period in years) ed (thousand s per year) Baseline No 2020s s Cost-Benefit 2020s s Table B18. Scenario EU Aggregated Results for B2 Physical Ipacts, No - Rise, for the 2020s and 2080s Tieslice - Rise () for Europe suberg ence ( fro baseline) erosion ( fro baseline) Net of ( fro baseline) protection (return period in years) ed (thousand s per year) Baseline No 2020s s Cost-Benefit 2020s s

51 PESETA project. systes assessent. Appendix C. EC Econoic ipacts results by SRES storyline, sea- scenario and adaptation options Table C1. Scenario EU Aggregated Results for ECHAM4 A2 Econoic Ipacts, Low - Rise (illions /year) (1995 values) Tieslice residual daage Flood Costs Intrusion Costs land ) Costs Net Benefit of No 2020s s Cost-Benefit 2020s s Table C2. Scenario EU Aggregated Results for ECHAM4 A2 Econoic Ipacts, Mediu - Rise (illions /year) (1995 values) Tieslice residual daage Flood Costs Intrusion Costs land ) Costs Net Benefit of No 2020s s Cost-Benefit 2020s s Table C3. Scenario EU Aggregated Results for ECHAM4 A2 Econoic Ipacts, High - Rise (illions /year) (1995 values) Tieslice residual daage Flood Costs Intrusion Costs land ) Costs Net Benefit of No 2020s s Cost-Benefit 2020s s Table C4. Scenario EU Aggregated Results for HADCM3 A2 Econoic Ipacts, Low - Rise (illions /year) (1995 values) Tieslice residual daage Flood Costs Intrusion Costs land ) Costs Net Benefit of No 2020s s Cost-Benefit 2020s s

52 Table C5. Scenario PESETA project. systes assessent. EU Aggregated Results for HADCM3 A2 Econoic Ipacts, Mediu - Rise (illions /year) (1995 values) Tieslice residual daage Flood Costs Intrusion Costs land ) Costs Net Benefit of No 2020s s Cost-Benefit 2020s s Table C6. Scenario EU Aggregated Results for HADCM3 A2 Econoic Ipacts, High - Rise (illions /year) (1995 values) Tieslice residual daage Flood Costs Intrusion Costs land ) Costs Net Benefit of No 2020s s Cost-Benefit 2020s s Table C7. Scenario EU Aggregated Results for ECHAM4 B2 Econoic Ipacts, Low - Rise (illions /year) (1995 values) Tieslice residual daage Flood Costs Intrusion Costs land ) Costs Net Benefit of No 2020s s Cost-Benefit 2020s s Table C8. Scenario EU Aggregated Results for ECHAM4 B2 Econoic Ipacts, Mediu - Rise (illions /year) (1995 values) Tieslice residual daage Flood Costs Intrusion Costs land ) Costs Net Benefit of No 2020s s Cost-Benefit 2020s s Table C9. Scenario EU Aggregated Results for ECHAM4 B2 Econoic Ipacts, High - Rise (illions /year) (1995 values) Tieslice residual daage Flood Costs Intrusion Costs 44 land ) Costs Net Benefit of No 2020s s Cost-Benefit 2020s s

53 Table C10. Scenario PESETA project. systes assessent. EU Aggregated Results for HADCM3 B2 Econoic Ipacts, Low - Rise (illions /year) (1995 values) Tieslice residual daage Flood Costs Intrusion Costs land ) Costs Net Benefit of No 2020s s Cost-Benefit 2020s s Table C11. Scenario EU Aggregated Results for HADCM3 B2 Econoic Ipacts, Mediu - Rise (illions /year) (1995 values) Tieslice residual daage Flood Costs Intrusion Costs land ) Costs Net Benefit of No 2020s s Cost-Benefit 2020s s Table C12. Scenario EU Aggregated Results for HADCM3 B2 Econoic Ipacts, High - Rise (illions /year) (1995 values) Tieslice residual daage Flood Costs Intrusion Costs land ) Costs Net Benefit of No 2020s s Cost-Benefit 2020s s Table C13. Scenario EU Aggregated Results for IPCC A2 Econoic Ipacts, Lowest - Rise (illions /year) (1995 values) Tieslice residual daage Flood Costs Intrusion Costs land ) Costs Net Benefit of No 2020s s Cost-Benefit 2020s s Table C14. Scenario EU Aggregated Results for IPCC A2 Econoic Ipacts, Highest - Rise (illions /year) (1995 values) Tieslice residual daage Flood Costs Intrusion Costs land ) Costs Net Benefit of No 2020s s Cost-Benefit 2020s s

54 Table C15. Scenario PESETA project. systes assessent. EU Aggregated Results for IPCC B2 Econoic Ipacts, Lowest - Rise (illions /year) (1995 values) Tieslice residual daage Flood Costs Intrusion Costs land ) Costs Net Benefit of No 2020s s Cost-Benefit 2020s s Table C16. Scenario EU Aggregated Results for IPCC B2 Econoic Ipacts, Highest - Rise (illions /year) (1995 values) Tieslice residual daage Flood Costs Intrusion Costs land ) Costs Net Benefit of No 2020s s Cost-Benefit 2020s s Table C17. EU Aggregated Results for A2 Econoic Ipacts, No - Rise (illions /year) (1995 values) Scenario Tieslice residual daage Flood Costs Intrusion Costs land ) Costs Net Benefit of No 2020s s Cost-Benefit 2020s s Table C18. EU Aggregated Results for B2 Econoic Ipacts, No - Rise (illions /year) (1995 values) Scenario Tieslice residual daage Flood Costs Intrusion Costs land ) Costs Net Benefit of No 2020s s Cost-Benefit 2020s s

55 PESETA project. systes assessent. Appendix D. National Results by SRES storyline, sea- scenario and adaptation options. List of Tables Table D1. Baseline (1995) results by country. Table D2. Results by country, for the ECHAM4 A2, low sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with no adaptation. Table D3. Results by country, for the ECHAM4 A2, low sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with no adaptation. Table D4. Results by country, for the ECHAM4 A2, ediu sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with no adaptation. Table D5. Results by country, for the ECHAM4 A2, ediu sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with no adaptation. Table D6. Results by country, for the ECHAM4 A2, high sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with no adaptation. Table D7. Results by country, for the ECHAM4 A2, high sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with no adaptation. Table D8. Results by country, for the ECHAM4 A2, low sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with adaptation. Table D9. Results by country, for the ECHAM4 A2, low sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with adaptation. Table D10. Results by country, for the ECHAM4 A2, ediu sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with adaptation. Table D11. Results by country, for the ECHAM4 A2, ediu sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with adaptation. Table D12. Results by country, for the ECHAM4 A2, high sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with adaptation. Table D13. Results by country, for the ECHAM4 A2, high sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with adaptation. Table D14. Results by country, for the ECHAM4 B2, low sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with no adaptation. Table D15. Results by country, for the ECHAM4 B2, low sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with no adaptation. 47

56 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D16. Results by country, for the ECHAM4 B2, ediu sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with no adaptation. Table D17. Results by country, for the ECHAM4 B2, ediu sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with no adaptation. Table D18. Results by country, for the ECHAM4 B2, high sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with no adaptation. Table D19. Results by country, for the ECHAM4 B2, high sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with no adaptation. Table D20. Results by country, for the ECHAM4 B2, low sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with adaptation. Table D21. Results by country, for the ECHAM4 B2, low sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with adaptation. Table D22. Results by country, for the ECHAM4 B2, ediu sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with adaptation. Table D23. Results by country, for the ECHAM4 B2, ediu sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with adaptation. Table D24. Results by country, for the ECHAM4 B2, high sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with adaptation. Table D25. Results by country, for the ECHAM4 B2, high sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with adaptation. Table D26. Results by country, for the HADCM3 A2, low sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with no adaptation. Table D27. Results by country, for the HADCM3 A2, low sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with no adaptation. Table D28. Results by country, for the HADCM3 A2, ediu sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with no adaptation. Table D29. Results by country, for the HADCM3 A2, ediu sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with no adaptation. Table D30. Results by country, for the HADCM3 A2, high sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with no adaptation. Table D31. Results by country, for the HADCM3 A2, high sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with no adaptation. Table D32. Results by country, for the HADCM3 A2, low sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with adaptation. 48

57 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D33. Results by country, for the HADCM3 A2, low sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with adaptation. Table D34. Results by country, for the HADCM3 A2, ediu sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with adaptation. Table D35. Results by country, for the HADCM3 A2, ediu sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with adaptation. Table D36. Results by country, for the HADCM3 A2, high sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with adaptation. Table D37. Results by country, for the HADCM3 A2, high sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with adaptation. Table D38. Results by country, for the HADCM3 B2, low sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with no adaptation. Table D39. Results by country, for the HADCM3 B2, low sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with no adaptation. Table D40. Results by country, for the HADCM3 B2, ediu sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with no adaptation. Table D41. Results by country, for the HADCM3 B2, ediu sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with no adaptation. Table D42. Results by country, for the HADCM3 B2, high sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with no adaptation. Table D43. Results by country, for the HADCM3 B2, high sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with no adaptation. Table D44. Results by country, for the HADCM3 B2, low sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with adaptation. Table D45. Results by country, for the HADCM3 B2, low sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with adaptation. Table D46. Results by country, for the HADCM3 B2, ediu sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with adaptation. Table D47. Results by country, for the HADCM3 B2, ediu sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with adaptation. Table D48. Results by country, for the HADCM3 B2, high sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with adaptation. Table D49. Results by country, for the HADCM3 B2, high sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with adaptation. 49

58 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D50. Results by country, for the IPCC A2, low sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with no adaptation. Table D51. Results by country, for the IPCC A2, low sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with no adaptation. Table D52. Results by country, for the IPCC A2, high sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with no adaptation. Table D53. Results by country, for the IPCC A2, high sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with no adaptation. Table D54. Results by country, for the IPCC A2, low sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with adaptation. Table D55. Results by country, for the IPCC A2, low sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with adaptation. Table D56. Results by country, for the IPCC A2, high sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with adaptation. Table D57. Results by country, for the IPCC A2, high sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with adaptation. Table D58. Results by country, for the IPCC B2, low sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with no adaptation. Table D59. Results by country, for the IPCC B2, low sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with no adaptation. Table D60. Results by country, for the IPCC B2, high sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with no adaptation. Table D61. Results by country, for the IPCC B2, high sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with no adaptation. Table D62. Results by country, for the IPCC B2, low sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with adaptation. Table D63. Results by country, for the IPCC B2, low sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with adaptation. Table D64. Results by country, for the IPCC B2, high sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with adaptation. Table D65. Results by country, for the IPCC B2, high sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with adaptation. Table D66. Results by country, for the A2, no sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with no adaptation. 50

59 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D67. Results by country, for the A2, no sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with no adaptation. Table D68. Results by country, for the A2, no sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with adaptation. Table D69. Results by country, for the A2, no sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with adaptation. Table D70. Results by country, for the B2, no sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with no adaptation. Table D71. Results by country, for the B2, no sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with no adaptation. Table D72. Results by country, for the B2, no sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with adaptation. Table D73. Results by country, for the B2, no sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with adaptation. 51

60 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D1. Baseline (1995) results by country adaptation Beach of nourishent the residual daage land ) land ) Net of ed protection sea- (since 1995) Costs /yr /yr Thousands thousands/ thousands year year Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

61 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D2. Results by country, for the ECHAM4 A2, low sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with no adaptation Beach adaptation Nourishent residual daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed thousands/ year Floodplain Protection Thousands year sea- (since 1995) Intrusion Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo Wetland 53

62 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D3. Results by country, for the ECHAM4 A2, low sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with no adaptation Beach adaptation nourishent residual daage Net land /yr land ) /yr Thousands land ) Net of ed thousands/ year Floodplain protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

63 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D4. Results by country, for the ECHAM4 A2, ediu sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with no adaptation adaptation Beach nourishent daage illions Loss illions /yr /yr land ) Thousands land ) Net of /yr Actually ed thousands/ year protection /yr thousands year Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo Dike Flood sea- (since 1995) Flood /yr 55

64 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D5. Results by country, for the ECHAM4 A2, ediu sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with no adaptation Beach adaptation nourishent daage illions Loss illions /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) Actually ed /yr thousands/ year protection /yr thousands year Dike Flood sea- (since 1995) Flood /yr Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

65 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D6. Results by country, for the ECHAM4 A2, high sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with no adaptation Beach adaptation nourishent daage illions Loss illions /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) Actually ed /yr thousands/ year protection /yr thousands year Dike Flood sea- (since 1995) Flood /yr Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

66 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D7. Results by country, for the ECHAM4 A2, high sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with no adaptation Beach adaptation nourishent daage illions Loss illions /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) Actually ed /yr thousands/ year protection /yr thousands year Dike Flood sea- (since 1995) Flood /yr Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

67 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D8. Results by country, for the ECHAM4 A2, low sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed thousands/ year Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

68 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D9. Results by country, for the ECHAM4 A2, low sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed thousands/ year Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

69 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D10. Results by country, for the ECHAM4 A2, ediu sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed thousands/ year Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

70 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D11. Results by country, for the ECHAM4 A2, ediu sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed thousands/ year Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

71 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D12. Results by country, for the ECHAM4 A2, high sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

72 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D13. Results by country, for the ECHAM4 A2, high sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

73 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D14. Results by country, for the ECHAM4 B2, low sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with no adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

74 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D15. Results by country, for the ECHAM4 B2, low sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with no adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

75 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D16. Results by country, for the ECHAM4 B2, ediu sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with no adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

76 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D17. Results by country, for the ECHAM4 B2, ediu sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with no adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

77 Table D18. Results by country, for the ECHAM4 B2, high sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with no adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr PESETA project. systes assessent. land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

78 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D19. Results by country, for the ECHAM4 B2, high sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with no adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

79 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D20. Results by country, for the ECHAM4 B2, low sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

80 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D21. Results by country, for the ECHAM4 B2, low sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

81 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D22. Results by country, for the ECHAM4 B2, ediu sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

82 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D23. Results by country, for the ECHAM4 B2, ediu sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

83 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D24. Results by country, for the ECHAM4 B2, high sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

84 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D25. Results by country, for the ECHAM4 B2, high sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

85 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D26. Results by country, for the HADCM3 A2, low sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with no adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

86 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D27. Results by country, for the HADCM3 A2, low sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with no adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

87 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D28. Results by country, for the HADCM3 A2, ediu sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with no adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

88 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D29. Results by country, for the HADCM3 A2, ediu sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with no adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

89 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D30. Results by country, for the HADCM3 A2, high sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with no adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

90 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D31. Results by country, for the HADCM3 A2, high sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with no adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

91 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D32. Results by country, for the HADCM3 A2, low sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

92 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D33. Results by country, for the HADCM3 A2, low sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

93 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D34. Results by country, for the HADCM3 A2, ediu sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

94 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D35. Results by country, for the HADCM3 A2, ediu sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy E Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal E Roania Slovenia Spain E Sweden United Kingdo E

95 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D36. Results by country, for the HADCM3 A2, high sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

96 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D37. Results by country, for the HADCM3 A2, high sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

97 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D38. Results by country, for the HADCM3 B2, low sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with no adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

98 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D39. Results by country, for the HADCM3 B2, low sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with no adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

99 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D40. Results by country, for the HADCM3 B2, ediu sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with no adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

100 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D41. Results by country, for the HADCM3 B2, ediu sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with no adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

101 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D42. Results by country, for the HADCM3 B2, high sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with no adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

102 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D43. Results by country, for the HADCM3 B2, high sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with no adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

103 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D44. Results by country, for the HADCM3 B2, low sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

104 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D45. Results by country, for the HADCM3 B2, low sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

105 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D46. Results by country, for the HADCM3 B2, ediu sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

106 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D47. Results by country, for the HADCM3 B2, ediu sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

107 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D48. Results by country, for the HADCM3 B2, high sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

108 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D49. Results by country, for the HADCM3 B2, high sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

109 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D50. Results by country, for the IPCC A2, low sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with no adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

110 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D51. Results by country, for the IPCC A2, low sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with no adaptation Beach adaptation nourishent illions illions residual daage illions illions /yr land ) /yr thousands land ) illions Net of ed thousands /yr protection thousands year illions illions Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo sea- (since 1995) illions illions illions r 102

111 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D52. Results by country, for the IPCC A2, high sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with no adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

112 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D53. Results by country, for the IPCC A2, high sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with no adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

113 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D54. Results by country, for the IPCC A2, low sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

114 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D55. Results by country, for the IPCC A2, low sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

115 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D56. Results by country, for the IPCC A2, high sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

116 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D57. Results by country, for the IPCC A2, high sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

117 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D58. Results by country, for the IPCC B2, low sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with no adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

118 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D59. Results by country, for the IPCC B2, low sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with no adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

119 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D60. Results by country, for the IPCC B2, high sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with no adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

120 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D61. Results by country, for the IPCC B2, high sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with no adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

121 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D62. Results by country, for the IPCC B2, low sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

122 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D63. Results by country, for the IPCC B2, low sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

123 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D64. Results by country, for the IPCC B2, high sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

124 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D65. Results by country, for the IPCC B2, high sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

125 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D66. Results by country, for the A2, no sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with no adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

126 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D67. Results by country, for the A2, no sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with no adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

127 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D68. Results by country, for the A2, no sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

128 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D69. Results by country, for the A2, no sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

129 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D70. Results by country, for the B2, no sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with no adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

130 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D71. Results by country, for the B2, no sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with no adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

131 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D72. Results by country, for the B2, no sea- rise scenario for the 2020s, with adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

132 PESETA project. systes assessent. Table D73. Results by country, for the B2, no sea- rise scenario for the 2080s, with adaptation Beach nourishent Daage /yr land ) /yr Thousands Net of land ) ed Thousands /yr Protection thousands year sea- (since 1995) Belgiu Bulgaria Croatia Denark Estonia Finland France Gerany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Roania Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdo

133 European Coission EUR EN Joint Research Centre Institute for Prospective Technological Studies Title: Ipacts of cliate in al systes in Europe. PESETA- Systes study Authors: Julie A. Richards and Robert J. Nicholls Luxebourg: Office for Official Publications European Counities 2009 EUR Scientific and Technical Research series ISSN ISBN DOI /3558 Abstract Results physical ipacts and adaptation cost assessent of sea- rise for the European Union are presented for the A2 and B2 SRES socio-econoic storylines and for a range of plausible sea- rise scenarios, using data fro the ECHAM4 and HADCM3 Global Cliate Models (GCMs) odels. In addition, to better understand the sensitivity results to the agnitude of sea- rise, the full IPCC (2001) range of sea rise predictions and scenarios of no cliate have also been odelled. These results are all derived using the global Dynaic Interactive Vulnerability Assessent (DIVA) tool for assessing regional to global al ipacts and adaptation. Both the physical and econoic ipacts of sea- rise increase with tie for both the A2 and B2 storylines, especially under scenarios of high sea- rise. Without adaptation, significant ipacts and therefore daages are apparent. Significant s are threatened with displaceent by ing and al erosion. An exploratory adaptation analysis using standard protection easures of construction and beach nourishent, where benefit-cost analysis suggests this is the optiu response, reduces these ipacts significantly. While adaptation in Europe is likely to be uch ore diverse than these two sple options, these results deonstrate the significant benefits of protection, and ore generally suggest that widespread adaptation to sustain huan al activities would be prudent. Moreover, under these protection assuptions, al ecosystes are significantly reduced in, especially under the high sea- rise scenario and cliate raises significant challenges for wider al anageent in Europe, even if huan uses in the al zone are protected. How to obtain EU publications Our priced publications are available fro EU Bookshop ( where you can place an order with the sales agent of your choice. The Publications Office has a worldwide network of sales agents. You can obtain their contact details by sending a fax to (352)

134 The ission Joint Research Centre is to provide custoer-driven scientific and technical support for the conception, developent, ipleentation and onitoring of European Union policies. As a service European Coission, the Joint Research Centre functions as a reference centre of science and technology for the Union. Close to the policy-aking process, it serves the coon interest of the Meber States, while being independent of special interests, whether private or national. LF-NA EN-C