‘= 2011-2012 Hintergrundstudien, regelmäßige Information in der

Mehrjährigen Finanzrahmen, in die „Green Growth" Strategie
der EU und die EU-Politiken wie die GAP und andere sektorale
Politiken,

» Wunsch der Mitgliedstaaten nach Flexibilität in Bezug auf
rechtssetzende Instrumente und in Bezug auf Berichtswesen,
welches auch nach Ansicht KOM angemessen, zielorientiert
und wenig aufwändig (‚light") sein soll,

» Bedeutung von Indikatoren, Wissensaustauch und Wunsch
nach Handlungsleitfäden („guidelines‘),

«= Bedeutung des grenzüberschreitenden (transnationalen)
Aspekts für alle Ebenen.

Frau Bento Pais ergänzte zur EU-Strategie wie folgt, ohne

ergänzende Informationen zu liefern:

ı Strategie soll für etwa die nächsten 10 Jahre gültig sein

» Ziel der EU-Anpassung ist der Aufbau von Klimaresilienz auf
allen Ebenen in einer kosteneffizienten Art, die zu Wachstum im
Sinne der EU2020-Strategie beiträgt.

Auch auf mehrfache Nachfrage der Mitgliedstaaten blieb
Kommission allerdings eine klare Aussagen zum Ziel und zur
Vision der EU-Strategie (= EU-Mehrwert zu nationalen
Aktivitäten) sowie zur inhaltlichen Rechtfertigung einer möglichen
RL schuldig.

Von den Mitgliedstaaten UKD, DNK, NLD, DEU und ESP wurde die
Bedeutung des internationalen Kontextes (wie Migration,
Außenbeziehungn unter Klimawandel) für eine EU-Strategie
hervorgehoben. Kommission reagierte hierauf nicht.

DEU wurde vielfach unterstützt im Wunsch das Thema Mehrjähriger
Finanzrahmen (VO-Entwürfe werden derzeit in RAG unter FF BMWi
verhandelt) auf nächste TO der ASG zu setzen, um in ASG
thematischen Austausch zum Verständis „Mainstreaming“ versus
„explizite Anpassungsfinanzierung“ zu beginnen.

Zeitschiene: .

kommissionsinternen Abstimmungsgruppe (Interservice group
meetings), Mitgliedstaaten sollen über „Committee for Climate
Change" und „Working Party on Environment“ in den weiteren
Abstimmungsprozess einbezogen werden. Eine eindeutige
Rolle der ASG hierin besteht nicht, was den beratenden
Charakter der Gruppe erneut deutlich machte.

= Nächste (6.) ASG Sitzung ist für KW 21, zugleich Green Week
in BXL (vermutich am 24.5.) angekündigt.

ı Vorlage des „Impact Assessments“ ist für Herbst angekündigt.

» _Kommission-interne Abstimmung soll im Anschluss erfolgen.

«» März 2013: Verabschiedung der Kommissionsmitteilung (EU-
Strategie).

Vertiefungsthemen

2.) Insurance

Swiss Re und Insurance Europe stellten den Beitrag von
Versicherungslösungen im Kontext der Anpassung an
Extremereignisse aber auch anderer nicht-klimatischer
Naturkatastrophen vor. In der anschließenden Diskussion wurden
unterschiedliche nationale Modelle von Versicherungslösungen

 

 

 

 

? Europäische Investitionsbank

* siehe dazu auch laufende Abstimmungen zum VO-Vorschlag „General Savety of Products"

>

 

 

 

skizziert mit dem Ergebnis, dass klar wurde, dass
Versicherungslösungen immer Ergebnis sehr spezifischer nationaler
gesellschaftlicher und politischer Rahmenbedingungen sind.
Kommission stellte dennoch das Thema als zentralen Baustein der
kommenden Strategie heraus.

Auf Nachfrage DEU blieb Kommission Erklärung schuldig, warum
eine spezifische Befassung (über einen Informationsaustausch in
ASG hinaus) in der EU-Strategie wünschenswert ist bzw. welche
EU-übergreifenden Fragestellungen oder ggfs.
‘Harmonisierungsbedarfe damit verbunden sein könnten.

3.) Strengthening the role of standards - Guidelines enhancing
climate resilience in the EU

Nach Präsentation zur Standard- und Normensetzung auf EU-
Ebene wurde von verschiedener Seite (EIB?, Mitgliedstaaten und
EP) der Bedarf herausgestellt, in der Befassung ‚deutlich zwischen
produktbezogener technischer Standardsetzung” (durch
Unternehmen für Unternehmen), der Betrachtung von Normen (z. B.
der Standsicherheit), die auf klimasensiblen Grundlagen oder
expliziten Klimadaten basieren, sowie der Standardsetzung in
Bezug auf Planungs- und Managementprozesse zu unterscheiden. .
Kommissionsseitig scheint der Fokus eindeutig auf neuer .
technischer Infrastruktur zu liegen im Sinne eines ‚climate-proofing’
von durch EU-Mittel geförderten Infrastrukturaufbaus (TEN-T, TEN-
E und neuer Kommunikationstechnologien etc.). EIB stellte heraus,
dass gesamtes System betrachtet werden muss, insb. ist
Anpassung bestehender „alter“ Infrastrukturen erforderlich, um eine
umfassende Systemresilienz zu erreichen, auch hier kann
Standardsetzung helfen. Herr Prodi (EP) stellte die frühzeitige
Einbeziehung von Vorsorge- und Risikominderungsleistungen in der
Fläche in Bezug auf Extremereignisse heraus (services for risk
reduction // sustainability as a common good), das umfasst
entsprechende Landnutzungen und Landnutzungssplanungen um
perspektivisch aufwändige neue technische Lösungen bzw.
bestehende Infrastrukturen zu entlasten (Bsp. Sturzfluten in Italien).
Die beiden Interventionen stellen exepmplarisch die Breite der
Diskussion dar und vermitteln, dass technische Lösungen /
technische Standardsetzung und auch Versicherungslösungen am
Ende einer ganzen Kette von vorsorgenden
Anpassungsmaßnahmen einschließlich der Bereitstellung von
Informationen stehen, die ggfs. deutlich kostengünstiger sind.

KOM bestätigte, dass Handreichungen in Vorbereitung sind:

» Guidelines on EIA/SEA zum ‘Climate Proofing’

» Guidelines for project planners -
ferner wird zur Vorbereitung der EU-Strategie durch Referat Bento-
Pais eine Liste zu klimasensiblen Normen und Standards erarbeitet.

 

 

 

Nationale Relevanz

 

Mittel bis Hoch, insbesondere wenn mit der Kommission-Mitteilung
der EU-Strategie bindende Vorgaben (in Form eines
Verordnungsvorschlags) vorgelegt werden, die Inhalte und Vorgehen
in der Erarbeitung von nationalen Anpassungsstrategien sowie
Vorgaben zu einem umfassenden verpflichtenden Berichtswesen für
die nationale Anpassung enthalten sind.

Um Doppelarbeit zu vermeiden, ist es dringend angeraten, einen
eindeutigen und klar kommunizierbaren Mehrwert der EU-Strategie
im Verhältnis zu nationalem Vorgehen zu erreichen.

Sollten Berichtspflichten (über den bekannten o.g.
Verordnungsentwurf oder die EU-Strategie) nicht abwendbar sein, ist
dringend auf Sinnhaftigkeit, Angemessenheit und Flexibilität i in der.
Ausgestaltung sowie frühzeitige Einbeziehung der Länder zu achten.

men
Anpassungsmaßnahmen und deren Finanzierung vermeiden werden.
Schriftliche Rückmeldung an Kommission zu den 3 Bei BMU
Hintergrundpapieren, bitte um Zulieferung aus den 23.3.
Ländern

Befassung mit diesem Thema auf nächster AFK- 9. +
i ‘ 10.7.2012

BMU bzw. Bundesländer
(Art, ggf. Termin)

Schriftliche Rückmeldung an Kommission zu den 3
BMU bzw. IMA Hintergrundpapieren, bitte an Ressorts diese zu

Anpassungsstrategie kommentieren.
(Art, ggf. Termin) Befassung mit diesem Thema auf nächster IMA-

Sonstige
(Art, zuständig, ggf. Termin)

Anmerkungen

Bonn, den 16.03.2012 gez. Almut Nagel

1.

Pe EUROPEAN COMMISSION
E DIRECTORATE-GENERAL
un CLIMATE ACTION

ey

zw MEETING OF THE ADAPTATION STEERING GROUP
"8-9 March 2012
Draft Minutes

PLENARY SESSION — PREPARATORY WORK FOR THE ADAPTATION STRATEGY

The discussion was based on a background paper distributed ahead of the meeting and a
presentation made on the projects to support the development of the Adaptation Strategy.

Main outcomes ofthe discussion:

2.

Mainstreaming of climate adaptation into the different EU policies as the favoured

"approach at all levels (as opposed to centralising adaptation duties in some entity).

Share of experience and good practices needs to be strengthened and Climate-Adapt
is a good vehicle to facilitate it. Regularly updated guidance also seen as useful.

Need to take account of local characteristics and priorities when framing the content
and context of adaptation strategies.

If there is to be legislative action, it needs to be light and flexible, and taking into
account existing legal means and pre-existing national strategies (and their revision
cycles).

On reporting requirements, a light and flexible approach was favoured by many.
Guidance was also expected to clarify what is expected from Member States on the
current legislative proposal on the Monitoring Mechanism Regulation.

Need to think about the feasibility of adaptation and to consider its co-benefits, on
renewable energy or water management, for instance.

Knowledge on transboundary issues should be reinforced, including for cities, and by
promoting risk assessments. The need to identify local adaptation options in relation
to the use of EU funds was also highlighted.

Important to identify the risks related to most vulnerable groups and other
humanitarian issues, as well as the international/transboundary dimension and the
impact of climate change on global supply chains (e.g. energy, food, insurance) and
on migration. :.

The Commission also presented the four main contracts on the support to the
preparation of the Adaptation Strategy: on cities, on climate proofing CAP
and/Cohesion funds, and on guidance for project managers. Annex 1 shows the list of
meetings with Member States and stakeholders as presented at the ASG .

- SUB-GROUP ON INSURANCE

Swiss RE presented the key issues on the natural catastrophe insurance and national
insurance schemes across the EU. The Commission briefly introduced key issues related
to insurance from the climate change perspective pointing that insurance can be used as

Commission europeenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUEI/BELGIE - Tel. +32 22991111

an instrument to support adaptation by providing information, incentives for risk
prevention and risk management capacity.

Main outcomes ofthe discussion:

- Insurance is an important issue and should be addressed in the Adaptation Strategy. It
was stressed that there is an added value especially in addressing it from the cross-border
and international perspectives.

- The best way forward is mainstreaming adaptation into the EU insurance policy and
cross-referencing it in the Adaptation Strategy. It is important to ensure that climate
change is addressed in the upcoming Green paper on catastrophe insurance.

- Insurance should be considered from a broader perspective by integrating it with risk
prevention and overall risk management. It was pointed that our objective is not to boost
the insurance market, but to use insurance effectively for adaptation.

- Social and solidarity issues were also stressed. It has to be ensured that the most
vulnerable part of population is protected. This can be achieved by mainstreaming
adaptation into the cohesion and other policies.

- Actions for addressing insurance should be targeted to ensure that high risk areas such
as coasts for example are not left only for the market. Private companies might not be
able to cover high risks so there is a need for coordination / intervention from the public
sector (Public Private Partnerships and compulsory insurance could be considered as part
ofthe solution).

- There were a number of examples of state intervention presented. Some interventions
are intended just to keep insurers from bankruptcy in case of major disasters (DK). In
other cases government agrees with insurers to maintain minimum risk prevention levels
while insurers commit to insure all remaining risks (UK). Customers can get loss
compensation from the government only if they can prove that insurance is not available
in a specific area (DE). Government provides partial compensation for the premiums
while insurance scheme is managed by a consortium of private companies (ES). As an
alternative to insurance subsidies — insurance vouchers were mentioned, that could be
used to support lower income households. In some MS insurance schemes get partial
support from the EU funds.

- Some members have expressed their preference for the concept of the optional
insurance as opposed to the compulsory one. It was suggested that a customer should be
presented with options and information for an educated choice. However the compulsory
insurance could still have a role to play in specific cases. Compulsory insurance allows
for distributing risk more widely, reduce premiums and increase insurance availability.
The bigger insurance market is the more risk is dispersed. It also addresses also the
solidarity issue.

- Weather related risks should be separated from climate change risks. Weather related
risk can be dealt by insurers while climate change related risks need support from the
public authorities.

- Multi-risk products could be promoted which would improve the functioning of the
insurance market.

Main challenges raised:

- Insurance market alone might not be able to cope with very high risks. This is
particularly relevant for the coastal areas for example. A question was raised on how the
market could be reinforced to enable it coping with these risks.

- There is a potential conflict between the objectives of incentivising risk prevention and
ensuring availability and affordability of the insurance.

- If stakeholders do not understand that they have a role to play in risk prevention actions
then insurance can not function properly.

- Some examples show that there are difficulties with compulsory insurance.

3.  SUB-GROUP ON STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES

As basis for a broad discussion on standards and guidelines, the session included various
presentations and a background note. Particular emphasis was put on developing
guidelines to support the elaboration of adaptation strategies, promote good practices in
adaptation, build on.the experience of adaptation frontrunners, and enhance knowledge
exchange.

On standards, the presentation focused on their potential as instruments for adaptation,
e.g. climate-proofing of physical / technical infrastructure such as buildings, roads,
railways, energy transmission. The limitations were also highlighted, for example that
standards often are voluntary and developed in a bottom-up approach, which has limiting
EU influence.

The participants emphasised the relevance of incorporating adaptation in the early stages
of the development of major infrastructure projects (as a complement to standards). In
that context, the discussion reaffirmed that standards and guidelines will provide relevant
tools for adaptation to climate change — and therefore should be adequately taken into
consideration in the preparation ofthe EU Adaptation Strategy.

Particular emphasis will be given to enhancing the resilience of infrastructure in key
sectors and subject to key impacts resulting from climate change.

5th meeting of the Adaptation Steering Group

Subject: Background note on strengthening the role of standards and
guidelines in enhancing climate resilience in the EU

Background

Standards are particularly important in the area of infrastructure; and infrastructure sectors are
particularly important in the context of climate change adaptation for two main reasons.
Firstly, they are characterized by long investment cycles, which means that they will need to
withstand future (and likely more extreme) weather events. Secondly, they are often strongly
regulated, which means that policies governing these sectors play an important role and might
need to be revised. One of the most important types of instrü ent used to regulate
infrastructure sectors are standards, which often include references to (directly or indirectly)
weather/climate related pressures.

Guidelines represent an important element in incentivising adaptation action in the EU at all
levels of decision making. While their effectiveness in terms of guaranteeing the
' implementation of adaptation measures is obviously limited, they are, however, a good means
of defining good practice without facing substantial administrative burden. Links with
standards, in particular as regards infrastructure could be explored.

Key issues

One clear EU added-value would be to ensure that EU investments (i.e. investments
supported by EU financial instruments and related policies, for example in the context of
structural funds, the Common Agricultural Policy and the trans-European networks (TEN-E
and -T) take due consideration of the empirical evidence about weather related natural
disasters to date, and changes in climate and climatic variability over the life time of the
investments.

The same holds for infrastructure of European or regional (i.e. trans-boundary) importance, in
terms of trans-European networks, the integration of supply chains across Member States or
for example in relation to potential transboundary technical and natural disasters triggered by
climate change; where cross-border 'adaptation measures need to be implemented; or where
(differences in) standards might have a significant effect on the functioning the internal
market.

One important task (for enhancing the climate resilience of EU infrastructure) is to identify
EU critical infrastructure vulnerable to climate change impacts. This requirement could be
reflected, a/o, in adjusting existing reporting and monitoring guidelines or standards. Another
possibility would be to include climate resilience into existing risk assessments or in the cost-
benefits-analysis guidelines applicable to investments under EU financial instruments (One
example are the Cost-Benefit Analysis guidelines referred to in the proposal for an energy
infrastructure package').

While standards and guidelines are in principle applicable and used in all sectors across the
economy, an initial focus on a limited sectoral scope would be desirable.

 

!COM(201 1) 658 final: Proposal for a regulation ofthe European Parliament and ofthe Council on guidelines
for trans-European energy infrastructure and repealing Decision No 1364/2006/EC, Annex V, para 6 (3), p.45

1