Main recommendations & conclusions (1) Overview (general): A large amount of information on climate change vulnerability (and disaster risk) mapping is available that can be useful for the EEA SOER2010 report, but a careful selection is needed (including quality assurance and control) Available information could be shared within the proposed future EU Clearinghouse on climate change impacts, vulnerability and adaptation, and also here a careful selection is needed (including quality assurance and control) Disaster risk and climate change vulnerability assessment and mapping expert communities should share experiences more, e.g. definitions and concepts could be further clarified For disaster data there is a need for improved European wide monitoring and reporting with involvement of countries and the European Commission It is important to always first define the objective and purpose of indicators (key policy questions) with involvement of stakeholders, and clarifying where in the policy cycle these are needed (e.g. policy development or implementation) Climate change vulnerability maps are one tool next to others to assess adaptation options Vulnerability and disaster risks mapping workshop, EEA, Copenhagen, 2 July 2009

Main recommendations & conclusions (2) Cost benefit analyses could be useful, at different levels (national, local), but its limits should be clarified and understood Innovation and opportunities due to climate change should be taken more into account Probabilistic climate change vulnerability assessments are important and useful (provided uncertainties are transparent), but not for all policy questions Assessments of ecosystem vulnerability (to climate change) should be performed more, since many current assessments are focused on safety, infrastructure, human health Land use change should also be included in the assessments since it is an important pressure (for some themes/regions/initial future periods it can be more important than climate change) There is a need for guidance on good practices for data and methods to use for EU-wide (and also national) climate change vulnerability (and disaster risk) mapping Further expert meetings should be held, either thematic or regional, perhaps as part of the European Commission Impact and Adaptation Steering Group Vulnerability and disaster risks mapping workshop, EEA, Copenhagen, 2 July 2009

Main recommendations & conclusions (3) Data and methodological issues to address include: The limits of aggregated/integrated indices (the scientific methods and the communication of the results) Work with stakeholders at the right level (e.g. when defining weighting factors for aggregated/integrated indices) Consistency and comparability across EU, national, local (case studies) How to be transparent and pragmatic The adaptive capacity (socio economic data) is the most difficult to estimate (quantitatively), especially for the future (using scenarios), but it could also be done qualitatively Communicate uncertainties transparently Vulnerability and disaster risks mapping workshop, EEA, Copenhagen, 2 July 2009