Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-13 (section)

==== 13.6.2.1 Current Status of Adaptation ====

<div id="h3-24-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

There is new evidence on increasing adaptation planning in cities, settlements and key infrastructures, but less on implemented adaptation (Table 13.1; see Box 13.3; Figure 13.36), adaptation by private actors and by cities against SLR (Chapter 16; Cross-Chapter Paper 2).

'''Table 13.1 |''' Present status of planned and implemented adaptation in European cities, energy sector, tourism sector, transport and industry (Table SM13.17)

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
! colspan="3"| '''General commitments / Adaptation Plans'''

! colspan="3"| '''Implemented adaptation actions'''

|-
| Cities

| colspan="3"| * An increasing number of cities acknowledge the critical role of adaptation in building resilience to climate change.
* Of 9609 European municipalities in the Covenant of Mayors for Climate &amp; Energy (CoM), 2221 reported on adaptation through the CoM platform; 429 provided some information on adaptation goals, risk and vulnerability assessments/action plans, and less than 300 reported adaptation goals and funds. Extreme heat, drought and forest fire were the most often reported hazards.
* Most urban adaptation plans include ecosystem-based measures, but often with limited baseline information and convincing implementation actions.
* Adaptation to risks from climate extremes (mostly flooding) is often addressed through municipal emergency plans.

| colspan="3"| * Large cities (e.g., Helsinki, Copenhagen, Rotterdam, Barcelona, Madrid, London, Moscow) are in the process of implementing adaptation actions.
* Current climate policies implemented at city-scale are primarily addressing mitigation and, to a lesser extent adaptation. Though many cities have implemented measures potentially supporting adaptation, they are not labelled as such.
* Nature-based Solutions and ecosystem-based adaptation are increasingly used to address urban heat and flooding risks that are enhanced by surface sealing and limited infiltration.
* Strategic and emergency measures have been applied for drought management in some cities (e.g., London, Istanbul).

|-
| rowspan="2"| Energy

| rowspan="2" colspan="3"| * In 2020, 29 countries had an adaptation plan for the energy sector. Some of them included specific adaptation actions (mostly preparatory) in their national or energy-specific risk assessments.

| colspan="3"| * In 2020, 11 countries had implemented adaptation actions in the energy sector.

|-
| colspan="3"| * Measures undertaken by some distribution system operators and energy companies, focus on adaptation of transmission lines, water cooling, actions to avoid flooding (e.g. dams) and secure fuel supply.

|-
| rowspan="2"| Tourism

| rowspan="2" colspan="3"| * Consideration of tourism in national adaptation strategies is limited, and national tourism strategies rarely mention adaptation.
* In some countries there is legally binding consideration of climate change when constructing new tourism units (e.g., the 2016 French Mountain Act).
* Many tourism operators focus on near-term coping strategies and do not consider longer term adaptation.

| colspan="3"| * Snow making is widely applied in the Alps and Pyrenees ski resorts; e.g. from 18% of ski slopes in Germany to 67% in Austria. Some resorts already offer nocturnal skiing (e.g., Spain) and other snow-based activities.
* There is already some transformation to year-round mountain resorts (e.g., in 70% of Spanish ski resorts).

|-
| colspan="3"| * Some diversification of tourism products is offered in Mediterranean coastal destinations.
* Water saving measures, primarily for cost reduction, have been implemented, e.g. in hotels.

|-
| rowspan="2"| Transport

| colspan="3"| * At the national level, 10 countries have started coordination activities or identified adaptation measures. Some countries are mainstreaming adaptation within transport planning and decision-making (e.g., the ‘Low-water Rhine’ action plan, in Germany).
* Some action is undertaken in the public and private sector, e.g., revised manuals/guidelines/ protocols that consider climate change impacts and extreme events (e.g., Deutsche Bahn, Norwegian Public Roads Administration).
* An integrated, transmodal approach to transport adaptation is lacking.

| colspan="3"| * Most adaptation actions are preparatory; 5 countries have implemented specific actions. Planned and implemented actions mostly focus on infrastructure and much less on services, although the latter are increasing (e.g., operational forecasts for water levels in rivers).
* Transport modes often compete for public funds and political priorities often influence adaptation for specific modes.

|-
| colspan="3"|
| colspan="3"| * Some public and private actors are moving faster: new railway drainage standards (Network Rail/ UK), adverse weather event predictions (Spanish rail service operator), measures against coastal flooding (Copenhagen Metro), measures for sea level rise (Rotterdam port, France).

|-
| Industry and business

| colspan="3"| * Some businesses are following recommendations of the High-Level Expert Group on Sustainable Finance, endorsed by the European Commission, and implementing the guidelines provided by the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosure in 2019.

| colspan="3"| * Fifty large European publicly listed companies disclosed their climate risks in 2020, yet only a small percentage provided specifics on sectoral risks, as well as how risks differ over time and according to different climate scenarios.
* Large national and multinational companies, and companies regulated by mitigation policy are the first movers in corporate adaptation, while small and medium-sized enterprises often lack the knowledge and resources to address risks and adaptation options.
* Climate service providers, insurance companies and central banks have developed different tools for climate risk assessment, such as, stress testing, scenario analysis, value at risk.

|-
|
| Well-established adaptation

|
| colspan="2"| Advancing adaptation

|
| Low adaptation

|}

Although urban adaptation is underway, many small, economically weak (i.e., with low GDP per capita) or cities facing high climate-change risks lack adaptation planning ( [[#Reckien--2015|Reckien et al., 2015]] ; [[#EEA--2016|EEA, 2016]] ). While almost all large municipalities in NEU and WCE report implemented actions at least in one sector, this is not the case for 39% of municipalities in SEU ( [[#Aguiar--2018|Aguiar et al., 2018]] ). In the UK, the legal requirement to develop urban adaptation plans has been a significant driver for their widespread adoption ( [[#Reckien--2015|Reckien et al., 2015]] ). The availability of, and access to, funding for adaptation is also crucial for plan development ( [[#13.11.1|Section 13.11.1]] ). Network membership (e.g., ICLEI, C40, Covenant of Mayors for Climate &amp; Energy) is an important driver for city planning and transfer of best practices ( [[#Heikkinen--2020a|Heikkinen et al., 2020a]] ). Stakeholder engagement is key for successful adaptation (Chapter 17; [[#Bertoldi--2020|Bertoldi et al., 2020]] ).

Only 29% of local adaptation plans are mainstreamed in cities, which could reduce the effectiveness of implementing adaptation ( [[#13.11.1.2|Section 13.11.1.2]] ; [[#Reckien--2019|Reckien et al., 2019]] ). Although large municipalities usually fund the implementation of their adaptation plans, smaller and less populated municipalities (particularly in SEU and EEU) often depend on intergovernmental, international and national funding.

<div id="13.6.2.2" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="adaptation-options-as-a-function-of-impacts"></span>