ateam - Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research

ATEAM final report Section 5 and 6 (2001-2004) 38
analysis), and developing adaptive capacity indices that are specific for particular sectors or climatic
events. All usual and well-documented problems with using indices apply to this way of assessing
adaptive capacity as well. It would be interesting to explore the possibility of ‘validation’ of this adaptive
capacity approach using historical data of past hazards in regional comparison.
Our impression from the last stakeholder workshop, where we discussed this index is that stakeholders
show little interest and trust in this indicator. As individuals they are concerned with their individual
adaptive capacity, which is not captured by the index. They were however willing to see this as a first
attempt to capture the regional context in which they make decisions. Not surprisingly though, the
indicators used as components of the index were questioned. In the age of mobile telecommunication,
‘Number of telephone lines’, as used in this approach, will not adequately indicate a region’s
communication infrastructure. The choice of indicators and the spatial resolution of the adaptive
capacity model are constrained by the availability of data. Even though it is quite clear that adaptive
capacity will be sector specific and depend on the nature of the exposure, we had insufficient
information, time and budget to assess adaptive capacity per sector or per global change event.
When asked the crucial question, whether using a generic indicator of adaptive capacity in vulnerability
assessments can be better than no indicator at all, many colleagues clearly agreed to use such generic
indicators. Nevertheless, we are very aware of the limitations of such an approach. We therefore wish to
state clearly that our adaptive capacity index is designed for use within a European vulnerability
assessment which is carried out for the fifteen EU countries plus Norway and Switzerland. The index
does not include individual abilities to adapt, but it can give a context in which individuals adapt. The
macroscale adaptive capacity index indicates part of the adaptive capacity of a region (i.e. provinces
and counties) to cope with changes. For example, while the index cannot indicate whether individuals
will exhibit precautious behaviour when faced with flood risk, it can indicate a regions capacity to
change the river bed in order to decrease the likelihood of flooding.
The approach has been presented at various conferences and a publication to be submitted to Global
Environmental Change is currently being prepared (see Annex 2).
6.2.4 Stakeholder dialogue (WP1 and 5)
A dialogue between stakeholders and scientists was initiated at the beginning of the project and has
been continued, intensified, and evaluated. The general objective of this dialogue was to facilitate a
more appropriate assessment of vulnerability, i.e. to produce results that would adequately inform the
decision-making of stakeholders. In particular the aims of the stakeholder dialogue were to (1) identify
indicators of changes in ecosystem services; (2) settle useful scales and units at which these indicators
should be measured or modelled; (3) discuss thresholds for these indicators that represent limits outside
which the adaptive capacity of the sectors is exceeded; and (4) present and discuss results as well as
the format they are presented in (clarity of maps, graphs, etc). Stakeholder dialogue activities have
focussed on confirming stakeholders’ interest on ATEAM’s scientific goals, enhancing the stakeholder
network, following a coherent dialogue strategy, and, most important, obtaining critical insights, requests
and comments from stakeholders on our approach and results. Practical steps in this were the
preparation, running, evaluation and reporting of a number of workshops, and the development of an
evaluation and dissemination strategy.
In the course of the communication between ATEAM and the stakeholders we have structured the
assessment into six sectors labelled as follows: (1) agriculture; (2) forestry; (3) carbon storage & energy;
(4) water; (5) biodiversity & nature conservation; and (6) mountains (especially tourism & recreation). It
was recognised that the sectors, as well as the ecosystem services they use, are highly interdependent.
They are also only an incomplete selection of possible sectors to be studied in a vulnerability
assessment, although they are highly suitable to demonstrate the approach and to yield first-order
results.