COMRISK meeting – March 2003

EUROSIONCoastal Erosion - Assessing the

needs for actions

Project funded by the

European Commission

COMRISK meeting – March 2003

OBJECTIVE

“To provide the European Commission with a package of recommendations on policy and management measures to address coastal erosion in the EU.

These recommendations should be based on a thorough assessment of the state of coastline and of the response options available at each level of administration.”

COMRISK meeting – March 2003

ORIGINS

Jan. 2001 : Budget amendment proposed by the European Parliament

July 2001 : Call for tender launched by thethe Directorate General Environment

Dec. 2001 : Appointment of the consortium led by the National Institute for Coastal andMarine Management of the Netherlands

Jan. 2002 : Starting date

Jan. 2004 : Expected ending date

COMRISK meeting – March 2003

Unit B.3 Territorial Dimension

European Commission

Directorate-General Environment

Directorate B - Environmental quality of Natural resources

THE CLIENT

COMRISK meeting – March 2003

THE CONSORTIUM

Rijksinstituut voor Kust en Zee (RIKZ)

EUCC - The Coastal Union

Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona (UAB)

Bureau de Recherche Geologiques et Minieres (BRGM)

IGN France International

Institut Français de l’Environnement (IFEN)

EADS Systems & Defense Electronics

COMRISK meeting – March 2003

WORK PACKAGE 2

Production of a comprehensive multi-thematic database at scale 1:100,000, of European coasts and their vulnarability to coastal erosion

WORK PACKAGES 3&4

Review of lessons learned from local shoreline experiences and elaboration of a shoreline management guide

WORK PACKAGE 5

Formulation of policy recommendations for managing coastal erosion.

WORK PACKAGE

1

PROJECT

MANAGEMENT

WORK PACKAGES 6&7

Communication and dissemination of the project results towards the public

PROJECT ORGANISATION

COMRISK meeting – March 2003

GEOGRAPHICAL EXTENT

COMRISK meeting – March 2003

FROM DATA TO INFORMATION

Occurence of storms

Sea level rise

Coastline sections featuring coastal erosion

Sediments discharged from rivers

Coastal urbanization

Change in coastal erosion patterns since 1985

Infrastructure disrupting sediment transports

Economical assets at risk

People at risk

Natural habitats at risk

INDICATORS OF DRIVING FORCES

INDICATORS OF PRESSURE

INDICATORS OF STATE

INDICATORS OF IMPACT

Areas potentially subject to floods

INDICATORS OF RESPONSE

Budget invested in shoreline management

Presence of coastal defence works

FROM INFORMATION TO ACTION

Administrative boundaries

Elevation and bathymetry

Land cover and Land cover changes

Hydrography

Infrastructure

Sediments discharged from rivers

Hydrodynamics and sea level rise

Geology, geomorphology and evolutionary trends

Nationally designated areas (NATURA2000)

Legal and regulatory patterns

Budget invested in shoreline management

Socio-economical profiles

EUROPE-WIDE DATABASE

Coastal erosion hotspots

Highly vulnerable areas

Moderately vulnerable areas

Lowly vulnerable areas

VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

WP 2 – EUROPE-WIDE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

COMRISK meeting – March 2003

Review erosion management practices over 60 case studies

1. Geomorpho- and hydro-dynamical processes2. Policy framework3. Technical and engineering solution4. Social and economical profile

WP3&4 - LESSONS LEARNED FROM LOCAL EXPERIENCES

5. Communication between stakeholders

Decision-making processesPublic perception

6. Information management practices

Modelling and monitoring toolsData collection and storageData processing and representationData dissemination and exchange

11 pilot areas11 pilot areas

Guidelines for implementing Local Information Systems

Elaboration of a Shoreline Management Guide

COMRISK meeting – March 2003

STEP 1 - SCOPING STUDY

STEP 2 - TREND ANALYSIS

STEP 3 - POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

WP 2

WP 3

WP 4

WP5 - POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

COMRISK meeting – March 2003

seawall

dunes

wetland

“Hold the line”

“Managed realignment”

“Do nothing”

“Move seaward”

“Limited intervention”

water level rise

WP5 - THE 5 POLICY OPTIONS

COMRISK meeting – March 2003

Community of Coastal Zone managers, scientists

and Policy-Makers

Advisory Board

Steering Group

EuropeanCommission

Eurosion Team

Steering Group (20 members):

- Assists European Commission- Approves deliverables- Orients the project strategy

Advisory Board (70 members):

- Reviews and comments deliverables- Makes suggestions to Eurosion team- Facilitates contacts at the local level

Community of CZM and Policy-makers:

-Is informed about the project progress via Eurosion Website and Newsletters-Provides feedback on Eurosion tools

European Commission:

- Approves Eurosion deliverables- Orients the project strategy- Reports to European Parliament

WP 6&7 - COMMUNICATION STRATEGY

COMRISK meeting – March 2003

TIME SCHEDULE

Inception Report : April 2002

First Interim Report : December 2002

Second Interim Report : September 2003

Final Report : January 2004

Final event : Brussels, March 2004

COMRISK meeting – March 2003

http://www.eurosion.org

Thank you for your attention !

COMRISK meeting – March 2003

COMRISK meeting – March 2003

GEOMORPHOLOGY AND GEOLOGYExample of Aquitaine (France)

Source: EUROSION

COMRISK meeting – March 2003

ADMINISTRATIVE BOUNDARIESExample of Ajaccio Bay – Corsica (France)

Source: SABE

Mediterranean Sea

COMRISK meeting – March 2003

LAND COVER Example of Andalucia (Spain)

Source CORINE Land Cover

COMRISK meeting – March 2003

(0.7643 E, 49.2345 N) statistical values observed over a period of 18.6 yearsN NE E SE S SW W NW All

Mean wave height (m) 0.9 2.3 2.2 2.7 2.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 1.7Wave height that is exceeded 10% ot the time (m) 1.5 3.9 3.7 4.6 3.6 1.9 1.7 1.5 2.8Wave height that is exceeded 1% ot the time (m) 2.6 6.6 6.4 7.8 6.1 3.2 2.9 2.6 4.8Mean wave period (s) 3.6 4.2 4.1 4.2 4.4 4.3 4.1 3.8 4.1Mean wave period that is exceeded 10% of the time (s) 6.1 7.1 7.0 7.1 7.5 7.3 7.0 6.5 6.9Mean wave period that is exceeded 1% of the time (s) 10.4 12.1 11.8 12.1 12.7 12.4 11.8 11.0 11.8Average w ind speed at 10 meter height (m/s) 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.9Wind speed that is exceeded 10% of the time (m/s) 3.1 3.4 3.6 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.3Wind speed that is exceeded 1% of the time (m/s) 5.2 5.8 6.1 5.8 5.5 5.5 5.2 5.2 5.5Tidal range (m) - - - - - - - - 3.2Sea level rise (mm) - - - - - - - - 2.4

HYDRODYNAMICAL DATAExample of Fécamp (France)

Source: EUROSION

COMRISK meeting – March 2003

Quantity discharged in 2000

QUANTITY OF SEDIMENTS DISCHARGED BY RIVERS Source: adapted from NOPOLU / JRC