Scientific Progress Report Self assessments of the Knowledge for Climate research consortia This Scientific Progress Report has been prepared for the Knowledge for Climate Final Evaluation, in addition to the Final Report of the research programme. The report is provided to the (scientific) reviewers of Knowledge for Climate in order to get better insight into the scientific approach and results of the programme. The Scientific Progress Report is compiled based on the final reporting of the eight research consortia of Knowledge for Climate. The consortia have been asked to perform a self assessment on their scientific approach, implementation of the research programme, main results and achievement of the initial objectives. The most relevant elements of the self assessments, with respect to the scientific review, are included in this report. For more information, details about the consortia and lists of publications, please visit the Knowledge for Climate review website. Board of Directors of Knowledge for Climate, Prof. Pier Vellinga Prof. Peter Driessen Ir. Kees van Deelen October 2014 Scientific Progress Report Knowledge for Climate Final Evaluation Content Theme 1 – Climate Proof Flood Risk Management ................................................................................. 3 Theme 2 – Climate Proof Fresh Water Supply ...................................................................................... 17 Theme 3 – Climate Adaptation for Rural arEas (CARE) ......................................................................... 24 Theme 4 – Climate Proof Cities (CPC) ................................................................................................... 38 Theme 5 – Infrastructure and Networks, Climate Adaptation and Hotspots (INCAH) ......................... 51 Theme 6 – High-quality Climate Projections for Adaptation in the Netherlands ................................. 62 Theme 7 – Governance of Adaptation to Climate Change.................................................................... 71 Theme 8 – Decision Support Tools ........................................................................................................ 87 2 Scientific Progress Report Knowledge for Climate Final Evaluation Theme 1 – Climate Proof Flood Risk Management Consortium leader: Dr. Frans Klijn (Deltares) 1. Reflection on the consortium’s position in the international research arena and the contribution to the (inter)national scientific and public debate The Netherlands has a great international reputation when it comes to managing flood risks. The country’s traditional calling cards are the Afsluitdijk and Delta Works, but these have recently been complemented by ‘soft’ solutions such as the ‘Room for the River’ programme and sand nourishment along the coast (e.g. the ‘Sand Engine’ project). The world looks to the Netherlands, not only because of its technical accomplishments (Oosterscheldekering and Maeslantkering), but also because of the way in which knowledge creation (‘Delft’ and ‘Wageningen’) and practice (the Directorate-General for Public Works and Water Management and the water boards) influence one another and work together, and not least because of the way in which public authorities, knowledge institutions and local stakeholders arrive at joint solutions with ample public support (knowledge sharing and participative planning). The Delta Programme has added a new dimension to this positive international reputation, namely that of ‘anticipating’ what we might be facing in the future, rather than responding to disasters when they have occurred. With the introduction of Adaptive Delta Management, the Netherlands is again setting the pace, as is apparent from the media attention after the recent flooding in the UK (‘To plug floods will mean going Dutch’) and the enthusiasm with which the Dutch approach and Dutch proposals were received in the USA (‘Dutch Dialogues’ and ‘Rebuild by Design’). Our consortium has benefited from the warmth of the existing international respect, but has certainly also contributed to it. The broad approach to ‘flood risk management’ as something that is not merely a technical issue, but also a spatial and social planning issue, had already been explored by some of the partners in the consortium and by our international sub-contractors in the EU project FLOODsite, which helped to lay the foundations for the EU Flood Risk Directive. Our consortium has been able to build on that experience, partly because some of the members already knew each other and were quickly able to reach agreement on the conceptual framework. The concepts/points of departure and principles that we share are the DPSIR framework, a risk-based approach, ‘multiple-tiered flood risk management (measures to reduce the probability of flooding, to limit exposure and to reduce vulnerability) and a consistent focus on achieving goals (risk management at acceptable social costs), but with attention to undesirable side effects and possibilities for synergies with other objectives (objectives for spatial quality and nature). These concepts and points of departure are not only shared within our consortium, but also correspond with international scientific developments and social developments in the Netherlands and other countries. In our view, we have played a demonstrably relevant role in operationalising these concepts, as is apparent from publications in prestigious journals such as Global Environmental Change (Jongman et al., 2012), Nature Climate Change (Jongman et al., 2014) and Science (Aerts et al., 2014), the success of FLOODrisk2012, a scientific conference that the consortium jointly 3 Scientific Progress Report Knowledge for Climate Final Evaluation organised (Klijn & Schweckendiek, 2013), but also from the significant contribution it has made to the preparation of policies in various sub-programmes of the Delta Programme (‘Wadden Region’, ‘Large Rivers’, ‘Flood Security’, ‘Urban Development & Redevelopment’, ‘Rijnmond-Drecht cities’), the STOWA programme Delta Proof and the municipal (Rotterdam) and regional adaptation strategies in a number of the KfC hotspots (particularly Rotterdam Region and Major Rivers). The fact that we, in the Netherlands, are not only concerned with managing existing flood risk, but are explicitly anticipating the development of potential future risks by performing scenario analyses and assessing measures from the perspective of sustainability (not only for their current effectiveness but also their effectiveness and possible side-effects in the future) is regarded as ground-breaking in international terms. The consortium has consciously tried to give substance to this long-term orientation by devoting attention to robustness, spatial quality and nature development in the research. The interdisciplinary approach that the consortium has adopted is also regarded as state-of-the-art. It encompasses a problem analysis that takes into account not only climate and water, but also demographic and economic developments, an exploration of solutions not only on the basis of technical and scientific knowledge (natural sciences), but also with a feeling for societal relations and as a ‘governance problem’ (social sciences), and the basic desire to produce good plans and to design technical solutions jointly with stakeholders, as a form of cultural activity (arts). Part of the consortium’s added value is therefore attributed to the fact that it brings together engineering (civil engineering at Delft University of Technology, HKV, GfZ), the natural sciences (Environmental Sciences at the Free University (VU) in Amsterdam and Wageningen University and Research Centre (WUR), the social sciences (WUR, the Flood Hazard Research Centre (FHRC)) and arts (Urban Planning at Delft University of Technology). The public debate about ‘flood security’ in the Netherlands has been influenced by our research and our – consequently well-informed – participation in this debate. We, for example, have participated in efforts to bring balance into the discussion about ‘multiple-tiered flood risk management by, among other things, a) quantifying the potential of spatial policy and developing tools to support this (risk zoning maps; Delta Programme ‘Urban Development & Redevelopment’’), b) demonstrating the added value of room-for-river measures compared with raising dikes (Delta Programme ‘Rivers’), c) quantifying the possible significance of ‘fail-free embankments’ for preventing flood fatalities (Delta Programme ‘Flood Security’), d) outlining the potential role of salt marshes and mudplains for combining functions in flood defences (Delta Programmes ‘Wadden Region’ and ‘Large Rivers’), e) initiating discussion of the significance of the many regional flood defences managed by water boards as compartmentalisation in view of higher sea levels in the future (STOWA’s Delta Proof programme). Our international orientation has also proved very important for the public debate in the Netherlands, since other countries often choose totally different portfolios of measures which has prompted some people to suggest that similar solutions be adopted in the Netherlands. For example, the UK consciously opts for private insurance: our English colleagues extensively analysed the potential of flood insurance, reaching the conclusion that the Netherlands would be better off with a ‘government insurance’ as implicitly present. We wrote a Delta Fact on the subject. In Germany, 4 Scientific Progress Report Knowledge for Climate Final