Lessons Learned and Sharing Good Practices and Challenges

1. Lessons Learned and Sharing Good Practices and Challenges Funding – different situtation – not shared solution Move from project to foundation - exploring Portal at the national government – maybe the research organisation host – conflicts – foundation with a diverse source of funding (chips in a bit) – individual users not want to pay for what is generic Louise – funding from government (runs out this year) – if not funding we are supported Petra – commitment from government or commitment within national adaptation strategy (mainstreamed within IT funding) Molly – deliverying through others (embeding in others) – does not take away resource requirement – third party involved in developing the tools (would want to make profit on the use of the tool) – market research suggest that people would pay a small amount Asa – not have one solution, but working smart with the resources we have (e.g., others writing material for inclusion on the website – responsibility for updating by others) Petra – asked by CSC to write text for them – but we have constraints Guro – linked to what kind of portal – some are very much are information developed in the portal. There are aspects that are held on different portals (related to scope). Portal is part of the national work – coordination Belgium – what you focus on has implications for the funding that will be available – what is the scope determines the funding. Would it better to send people to Climate ADAPT except to inform local communities

2. Louise – who interested, started with sectors and identified who were the users (focus group discussion on what could be used – more data). Focus has been on improving data available (focus groups – good to focus at the beginning and also questionnaire) Alfonso – cost requires considering maintenance and design consideration – keep at a level based on your understanding of resources and need Spain – concern as to who would maintain beyond the project. Difference between development (needs additional resources) and maintenance that needs core budget. Content of the platform linked to development of the project Sabine – using other infrastructures and not duplicating – selling our infrastructure as a platform to be used by others. Have some success in Austria – 5-page summary for policy-makers. Also the idea of ‘invading’ other platforms. Hasse – research programme is demanding that connected to research portal – magnet to share results. Foundation is split into two parts – maintenance of website and delivering services (workshops) and user resources to support web portal. May not be able to use – as funded by government, but others may see some possibility Asa – initially had to demand and now others are contacting us to make the link. Guro – not a problem any more as they come to us. Norway – links to other authorities where they have authority, and we do some development.

3. Sabine – only now engaging with different levels of interaction, but may help understand what is needed by others (offering training) Molly – asking individuals to cover the cost of development of tools – people value what they pay for – working with trade organisation regarding CPD events. Provision of information has its purpose. Information in its own right is necessary but not sufficient Evaluating Molly – keen on this need to be clear on what you are expecting those using it should do. Focus on business can use this focus (one-hour tool) could measure how far people had gone and if an outcome measure Petra – evaluating base on contacts and time on website. In Germany – law requirement for information to be available . Process indicators, when will adaptation be successful – no complete answer Alfonso – public perspective, value does not need to be demonstrated as they are based on demand (before hand by the stakeholder who participated). On the other hand there are different initiatives developing multiple platforms – will see some potential for business. Asa – not based on demand, if not told to think about they would. Johan – flooding in Copenhagen – given the information they did not act Molly – evaluation of the need and the evaluation of how successful you have met that need – thinking from the perspective of the user in developing the web. Fine tuning of the website as part of your evaluation process. Louise – use information to focus what information that is available on the website. Mobile teams ask if they use what is on the web portal – not use as need more detailed tools – thinking about how to accommodate

4. Have not been evaluating for last couple of years Petra – built new concept similar to Danish (profiles) and they get different products and text (and different languages) – led to the personas. Website gets new structure as publications could not be found. Lower entry points and barriers allowing people to go into the data. Sabine – evaluating the value of the information provided – checking the purpose of your platform – information to inform, changing decisions, etc. The second point is that adaptation is a process starting with NAS and happy to have information available and now need to move to more interactions (moving from informing to encouraging to take action) Jose – managing so much uncertainties that it is difficult to ‘sell’ this to users, Need to promote adaptation at different levels. The big enterprise can have that capacity, but smaller are far behind Louise – interest is driven by flooding events (evident in website statistics). Still find that a lot of people that not clear what to do Jose – some projects will to case studies Louise – targeted case studies to target audience – municipalities and citizens to inspire (good practices)

5. Alfonso – case studies can be more than action on the ground? Mainstreaming adaptation Guro – have case studies mainly from municipalities. Have they inspired anyone? No answer on this Petra – database ‘doing something’ with 200 case studies (municipalities and companies for water resources – learn from each other) – searchable. Contains comments from those implementing the case study. Related to what is good practice (effectiveness , cost-benefit, stakeholder participation and acceptance, transferability) Started by filling in the data base as a contest and looking for champions – worked well. Adaptation label for contest winners Molly – market research – high feedback and information on adaptation options (need to unpick this as what these were being used for) – completing research around this and developing case studies around this. Loads of people went these, but stayed little time Louise – once target groups implementing need these case studies to inform their implementation. Municipalities looking for solutions when they get to implementation Hasse – they are interested in the lessons (thick books available of options) and when they are looking for adaptation they consider what is developed here. Starting with solutions – collecting lessons learned

6. Birgit – Bonn city representatives – they request case studies but also want city to city information – provide case studies with a real Adaptation to climate change – good practice examples (practice and territorial examples). Collect young people’s papers, Green cities – transferability important. Missing points that should be discussed: • Climate Services • Link to DRR Platform

7. Andre – Climate ADAPT Different audience all of Europe, but not straight forward and was part of initial discussions. NAS needed to be supported with information. May be a larger audience at the city level (ICLEI link). What does this mean for the national platforms and the case studies? What have you seen as the benefit of Climate ADAPT for you? Johan – finance or people do not exist in Belgium to match Climate ADAPT, including maintenance. Information more than you could get for Belgium alone. Look to Belgium portal for information on Belgium, beyond look to Climate ADAPT. More interesting to have a European central database. Highlighting the cases (look to databases for tools and case studies) Hasse – build on Climate ADAPT – recognise that it can do a lot but also things that it cannot do. Where interactions at the local level are needed to inform, it would be difficult to work at the European level. Risk maps at the local level. Johan – where you need local data and local models Jose – Climate ADAPT not necessarily right for all levels of adaptation – key source of information at the European level. Scales are different below national level. Need for other information at this level – room to find that complementarity

8. Hungary – Useful tool at the European level and useful at the national level for information (country descriptions) – good for stakeholders who can read and understand English. For some national and local levels need to operate at the national level. Johan/Jose – regional climate scenarios on Climate ADAPT from projects. At the national level our platform provides the means to access information from the national projects (including those not available in English). Process of participation at the sub-national level – national platform provide a more appropriate level to bring these stakeholders together. National platform according to national circumstances Molly – look where users are going and make sure information is there where the users are going. Useful to know where UK users are going within Climate ADAPT – is there a thirst for knowledge beyond the UK? Would be useful to share information on use (Google analytics is the means being used). Stephane – most used are the national pages and have some information on where they are coming from. Could be clever about what information we are gathering. Sergio – ETC Case study initiative – need to increase the link between the Climate ADAPT and the national level. Information on the active language would be included on the national platforms. Translating these into English for use on Climate ADAPT. Andre – useful to have case studies at the European level. Question is how we move forward? Petra – we will do both (translate and incorporate in our website and on our website). Easy to find the information on our website Louise – good to have case studies at Climate ADAPT level – many of these cases will address adaptation at the larger level (Copenhagen) rather than at smaller scale (drawing in the country side), Good to have a data base where information is updated regularly Hesse – local initiatives (inspirational rather than specific details). Learning and transferability also through providing contacts Simona – users – did you consider connecting portal to COPERNICUS?

9. National strategies, assessments, local priorities, etc. – is what you are looking for located in the structure. National vulnerability maps (Climate service under COPERNICUS) – a lot of questions left unanswered Petra – VAs incorporate values – the maps that are available within Climate ADAPT cannot meet the needs of the users at the local level – need our own data base. The maps available should be accompanied by additional information to place them in context and should not be replacing those available at the national level. Jose – planning to add a model to associate information with a location (map). Note where Vas and Ras have been done. Scale of European assessments are done at a scale that cannot deal with the issues at the sub-national level. Jose – see the added value of European level, but where more resolution is needed should be using national level information Sergio – two risk maps from two different projects that were different (heat stress). Need a clear indication of the data, assumptions and interpretations. Without this could be confusing. Andre – agreement for delivery of information from FP7 projects (build from scratch and not necessary relate to other similar outputs). Alfonso – need to describe what is behind the maps – have added value, but has to be clear that adaptation decisions need to be made at the appropriate scale. Need to consider these maps in the context of transboundary adaptation (particularly in mountainous areas) –national vulnerability maps do not necessarily combine. Andre – providing a re-direction from the European level to national levels Sabine – not a fan of vulnerability mapping (compariability and for what purpose do we need those maps – vulnerability at the EU level. Do not see the purpose of these maps within Climate ADAPT as users should be looking for this information from the national portals

10. Climate ADAPT should be limited to more aggregated indicators and when interested at a national level, should be going to the national platform. Summarising and aggregating information from different projects. Andre – not prioritise efforts at this sub-national level. Not recognise that out of 39 countries most do not have national portals. Alfonso – Vas and maps at a resolution of the national level should be available at the national level – concerns regarding navigation Petra – like the idea of ensuring availability of information on the underlying data and perspectives (including what information is available and not, and how to be used) – concern regarding misuse Risk of requiring use of other scenarios ( e.g., other than UKCP09) – used by a small number of users – improving access is one direction. Not clear how they may evolve over time. Something that needs to be thought about Linking Andre – is there something that we need to do better about linking Climate ADAPT to national sites? Is this urgent? Sabine – would be interesting to note somewhere (e.g., within the country pages – short abstract of what would be available in the national specific country portal Molly – Climate ADAPT does not make the landscape any more complicated than it already is. COPERNICUS Simona – did not see appropriate listing, including new climate FP7 projects. Will possibly be new portals that should be listed Sabine – think about the international audience – how Europe is dealing with adaptation – role for Climate ADAPT. From presentation – concerns related to reporting and potential to have a single online reporting (template) related to this reporting. Streamlining of reporting – Climate Change committee would be the appropriate place for these types of discussions

11. Alfonso – Role of Climate ADAPT as a means of streamlining is on the table but no discussion yet. Hope to come with a proposal soon. Andre – report summarising the outcomes – not ready for recommendations. Information on presentations and some background information Second workshops – date to be set and interested in identifying others to join the Advisory Group