1. Pan-European assessment of weather driven natural risks Carlo Lavalle, José I. Barredo, Ad De Roo, Luc Feyen, Stefan Niemeyer, Andrea Camia, Roland Hiederer, Paulo Barbosa European Commission DG Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability Land Management & Natural Hazards Unit e-mail: carlo.lavalle@jrc.it web : http://natural-hazards.jrc.it, http://moland.jrc.it, http://effis.jrc.it

2. Outline The Institutional Context Hazards, Vulnerability and Risk analysis for the EU –Floods, droughts, forest-fires and heatwaves Approaches for forecasting and mitigation of natural hazards : integrated scenario modelling Brief outlook of next steps

3. Natural Hazards: the institutional context Within the European Commission, the JRC provides scientific and technical advice/support for policies related to: –“Flood risk management, flood prevention, protection and mitigation” [COM(2004) 472] –“Winning the Battle Against Global Climate Change” [COM(2005) 35 final] –Monitoring of forests and environmental interactions in the Community (Forest Focus), regulation No 2152/2003 –6 th Environmental Action Plan –The definition process of the Strategic Guidelines for the Programming period 2007-2013

4. Risk assessment for Natural Hazards The Approach ExposureVulnerabilityHazard The present assets: Population Infrastructure Settlements Ecological values …. The resistance to damaging forces: GDP/ capita Planning regulations Protection measures Warning systems Insurance mechanisms … The threatening event: Floods Droughts Forest Fires Heatwaves Risk Combination Methods Risk = hazard x exposure x vulnerability Note : exposure and vulnerability are hazard-specific.

5. The Quantification of Hazards Floods –Maps (intensity and frequency) produced by hydrological modelling (LISFLOOD) and validated with actual data (when/where available) –LISFLOOD ingests data from meteo forecast and/or climate scenarios and is the basis of the European Flood Alert System (efas.jrc.it) Droughts –Maps produced by hydrological modelling (LISFLOOD) and based on a quasi-climatogical data analysis Forest Fires –Data from Member States (the EU Forest Fire Data Base, built upon the Common Core Database) + Model (European Forest Fire Information System (effis.jrc.it)) + Observed fires (remote sensing) Heatwaves –Meteorological and climatological data

6. The making of flood risk map ++ = => hazardexposurevulnerability Risk (grid)Risk (NUTS-3) Ref.: Barredo, et al. (2005). European flood risk mapping. S.P.I.05.151.EN, European Commission

7. Potential Drought Hazard Maps Soil Water Stress Maps LISFLOOD model run on 44 years (1957/2002) of ECMWF ERA40 meteorological data A ‘quasi-climatological’ analysis Daily maps of the forecasted soil moisture development in Europe (seven days trend) available on line

8. Burned Forest: From EU Fire database Wildland: From CORINE 2000 Fire density Burned Wildland Fraction Forest Fire Hazard Maps YEARS of Data Portugal: 10 Spain: 10 France: 10 Italy: 10 Greece: 10 Germany: 6 Cyprus: 5 Latvia: 1 Czech R. 1 Slovakia: 1 Poland:10 Lithuania:1 Hungary:3 Sweden:9 Romania:1 Ref.: Meeting of the Group of Experts on Forest Fires – Brussels 24 Mar 2006

9. Risk Indicator: Vulnerable Population Exposed to Heatwave Heatwave Extent Vulnerable Population Exposure No. of people over 65 years exposed to HUMIDEX exceeding 35 during June, July and August 2003 Population Number Population Exposed Vulnerable Population Group + +

10. Natural Hazards LISFLOOD EFFIS Climate Change GCM/RCM Risk Prevention Scenarios (adaptation) Current Climate Meteo Data Soil, Vegetation Land Use Socio-eco Stats Impact Analysis Cost / Benefit Appraisal Integrated scenario modelling Land use MOLAND

11. Pilot area in the Upper Danube – Preliminary results Increase of flood impacts for Climate Change Scenarios Tentative estimate upper Danube: Current Climate: 45 Billion Euro damage (theoretical maximum for a 100-yr flood) A2 Scenario40 % increase in total damage, 11 % increase in exposed population B2 Scenario19 % increase in total damage, 6 % increase in exposed population Limitations: a) Uncertainties due to emission scenarios and downscaling procedures b) Cost estimation made per land use classes with approx. depth-damage curves Next steps: include land use simulations and adaptation measures Change in annual avg max 5-day precipitation Change in flood water depth

12. Outlooks Refinement of EU 25+ maps of risk: –More detailed quantification of impacts (pre- and post-event) –Improved resolution –Definition and analysis of macro-regions Proper inclusion of adaptation activities in the scenario modeling; –Products of EU Flood GIS Project (EP funded) Further development of downscaling methods for Climate Change Models (from GCM to ‘dedicated’ RCM); –quantitative assessment of changes in hydrological extremes –quantitative assessment of changes in forest species distribution and forest fire risk –Improve understanding and prediction of extreme weather events Further development of climate change/territorial development –Feed back interactions in Moland –Completion of scenarios on pilot areas (for flood/fire/drought based on a multi-scale approach) Subjects for collaboration with Regions and Local Authorities (e.g. via INTERREG) Data exchange, Transfer of methods and tools, Exchange of good practices Exchange of visiting staff Pilot experiments