Scholarly article on topic 'Adaptation strategies for agricultural water management under climate change in Europe'

Adaptation strategies for agricultural water management under climate change in Europe Academic research paper on "Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries"

CC BY-NC-ND
0
0
Share paper
Academic journal
Agricultural Water Management
OECD Field of science
Keywords
{Adaptation / "Climate change" / "Water scarcity" / Irrigation / Agriculture / "Water management"}

Abstract of research paper on Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries, author of scientific article — Ana Iglesias, Luis Garrote

Abstract Climate change is expected to intensify the existing risks, particularly in regions where water scarcity is already a concern, as well as create new opportunities in some areas. Efforts to develop adaptation strategies for agricultural water management can benefit from understanding the risks and adaptation strategies proposed to date. This understanding may assist in developing priorities for the adaptation of water resources for irrigation. Here we characterise the main risks across European regions and evaluate adaptation strategies by reviewing over 168 highly relevant publications that appeared in the last 15 years. Based on this extensive database we characterise the effort and benefit of a number of agronomic and policy measures, aiming to develop concrete adaptation plans and responding to concrete regional challenges. The adaptation choices consider current technological perspectives and do not project future technological change; we are certain that technological change will shape some choices for adaptation in the coming decades. The greatest scope for action is in improving adaptive capacity and responding to changes in water demands, however the implementation requires revamping current water policy, adequate training to farmers and viable financial instruments. These results aim to assist stakeholders as they take up the adaptation challenge and develop measures to reduce the vulnerability of the sector to climate change.

Academic research paper on topic "Adaptation strategies for agricultural water management under climate change in Europe"

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Agricultural Water Management

journal homepage www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat

' Agricultural Water Management

Review

Adaptation strategies for agricultural water management under climate change in Europe

Ana Iglesias3 *, Luis Garroteb

a Department of Agricultural Economics and Social Sciences, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain b Department of Civil Engineering, Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, Spain

ABSTRACT

Climate change is expected to intensify the existing risks, particularly in regions where water scarcity is already a concern, as well as create new opportunities in some areas. Efforts to develop adaptation strategies for agricultural water management can benefit from understanding the risks and adaptation strategies proposed to date. This understanding may assist in developing priorities for the adaptation of water resources for irrigation. Here we characterise the main risks across European regions and evaluate adaptation strategies by reviewing over 168 highly relevant publications that appeared in the last 15 years. Based on this extensive database we characterise the effort and benefit of a number of agronomic and policy measures, aiming to develop concrete adaptation plans and responding to concrete regional challenges. The adaptation choices consider current technological perspectives and do not project future technological change; we are certain that technological change will shape some choices for adaptation in the coming decades. The greatest scope for action is in improving adaptive capacity and responding to changes in water demands, however the implementation requires revamping current water policy, adequate training to farmers and viable financial instruments. These results aim to assist stakeholders as they take up the adaptation challenge and develop measures to reduce the vulnerability of the sector to climate change.

© 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND

license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

^^ CrossMark

ARTICLE INFO

Article history:

Received 9 December 2013

Accepted 18 March 2015

Keywords:

Adaptation

Climate change

Water scarcity

Irrigation

Agriculture

Water management

Contents

1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................113

2. Data and methods......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................114

2.1. Framework and data..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................114

2.2. Defining the risks and opportunities................................................................................................................................................................................................................114

2.3. Selecting adaptation choices and criteria for evaluation......................................................................................................................................................................114

2.4. Limitations......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................115

3. Regional risks and opportunities........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................116

4. Making adaptation choices....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................117

4.1. Selection of adaptation measures......................................................................................................................................................................................................................117

4.2. Evaluation of adaptation measures....................................................................................................................................................................................................................120

5. Discussion and conclusions..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................120

Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................121

References ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................121

* Corresponding author at: Department of Agricultural Economics and Social Sciences, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM), Avenida de la Complutense, sn, 28040 Madrid, Spain. Tel.: +34 913 365 794/914 524 900x1914.

E-mail addresses: ana.iglesias@upm.es (A. Iglesias), l.garrote@upm.es (L. Garrote).

1. Introduction

Water management for agriculture is becoming increasingly complex. The challenges of climate change will have to be met through adaptation. Agriculture is an important sector in Europe

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2015.03.014

0378-3774/© 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

providing employment opportunities to rural population, and supporting food security goals. However, agriculture requires water, an increasingly scarce resource. Choices for agricultural water management include a large range of technical, infrastructure, economic and social factors. Irrigated agriculture is protected to some extent from natural variability by hydraulic infrastructure, but the sector uses a major share of the available water resources in the world. Agriculture water needs must be supplied in a context of diminishing availability, due to environmental awareness, population growth, economic development and global change. As a consequence, water management for agriculture is inter-related not only to traditional water resources management, but also to food production, rural development and natural resources management.

Climate change will add to the many economic and social challenges already being faced by water management in agricultural areas (Rosenzweig et al., 2004; EEA, 2012a,b,c; Iglesias et al., 2011a; IPCC, 2008). While some aspects of climate change such as increased precipitation may bring some localised benefits, there will also be a range of adverse impacts, including reduced water availability and more frequent extreme weather (Alcamo et al., 2007; Arnell and Delaney, 2006; Arnell et al., 2011; Easterling et al., 2000; Rosenzweig et al., 2004; Iglesias et al., 2007). These negative impacts may put current water management, especially at the level of individual land managers and regions, at significant risk (summary of evidence in IPCC, 2014).

To advance the understanding of adaptation choices for agricultural water management, this study reviews 168 recent publications related to the multiple dimensions of adaptation of water management for agriculture: from technical aspects to barriers and motivations to public support. This study then links climate change impacts to the development of adaptation strategies for European regions. It aims to facilitate an improved understanding of the potential implications of climate change and adaptation options for agricultural water management and thereby assist policy makers as they take up the adaptation challenge and develop measures to reduce the vulnerability of the agricultural sector to climate change.

With the aim of providing support for adaptation planning, we believe two questions are particularly relevant: what are the adaptation needs in view of climate change? How successful are the proposed adaptation strategies in overcoming the risk posed by climate change? We address these questions by evaluating the risks of climate change for water for agriculture and then linking these risks to the development of adaptation strategies for agricultural water management.

The paper is structured into 5 sections: Section 1 is the introduction; Section 2 presents the methods and data; Section 3 presents regional risks and opportunities for water availability for irrigation in European agricultural areas; Section 4 presents an analysis of the adaptation choices to increase the sustainability of water resources allocation for irrigation in view of the impacts of climate change; and Section 5 discusses the results and draws a conclusion.

2. Data and methods

2.1. Framework and data

The framework of the study consists of a series of steps representing a logical progression from an assessment of climate change risks and opportunities, identification of adaptation options and evaluation of the most adequate ones for implementation, aiming to inform adaptation priorities and policies (Fig. 1). The assessment is a review of the available literature covering climate change projections, impacts on water needs for agriculture and water availability, and potential responses to overcome the negative impacts,

Fig. 1. Structure of the study and research questions. The total number of publications is 168, some publications overlap in the two components, and some are included only to support our discussion.

all of which are relevant to understanding the use of water for agriculture in the 21st century. The study includes 168 highly relevant publications from 1999 to 2014, cited in peer reviewed journals, and reports of the World Bank, United Nations, European Commission, European Environment Agency and OECD. Some publications overlap in the two components and some are included only to support our discussion.

2.2. Defining the risks and opportunities

Risks and opportunities were identified in relation to projected impacts to water availability and water needs for agriculture. We identified those that need to be addressed most urgently and provided a rationale for focusing the adaptation assessment on key issues. The likelihood of risks and opportunities was assessed using estimates of certainty of impacts provided in the literature. These vary in their comprehensiveness. In some circumstances, we have an estimate of certainty for the impact of climate change on farming activities; in other cases, we only have an uncertainty score for the general effects of climate change on a sector. We have used published information where possible.

2.3. Selecting adaptation choices and criteria for evaluation

The selection of adaptation measures and their attributes is based on a subset of the 168 publications, that is 100 studies that include information on specific adaptation measures (see Section 2.1). Here we propose an evaluation based on the most common listed attributes in the literature, particularly on two studies: first, De Bruin et al. (2009) described an inventory of climate adaptation options and provided a ranking of the different alternatives in The Netherlands, including options for water for agriculture. Their study evaluates the options based on stakeholder analysis and expert judgement, and presents some estimates of incremental costs and benefits. Second, the qualitative assessment focuses on ranking and prioritisation of adaptation options. Mukheibir defined criteria used for strategy analysis with experts, such as technical difficulty, potential costs of implementation and potential benefit. These criteria are widely used in adaptation studies (Leary, 1999; Burton and Lim, 2005), although each study quantifies these indicators in different ways. Here we have a qualitative approach based on published studies and synthesised by Iglesias et al. (2006). As result we have selected the attributes to evaluate adaptation strategies presented in the results section.

Table 1 outlines the criteria for the evaluation of the choice of adaptation measures in this study. The type of measure largely determines the extent to which water managers or farmers can

adopt them without additional assistance. Stakeholders are likely to be able to implement some management measures without support. This will also be true, to a large extent, for agronomic measures, while infrastructural measures are likely to require significant capital investment. We have considered timescales for action in the short-term (within the next 5 years), medium-term (within 5-10 years' time) or long-term (beyond 10 years). While these timeframes seem short in comparison with the timescales for climate change predictions, they are used because they correspond to normal timescales for business planning and policy development. As the impacts of climate change intensify over the coming decades, many of the adaptation measures initially adopted will have to be reinforced or expanded across wider areas.

The timescale refers to time necessary to implement the adaptation measures. There are a number of factors that determine the timescale or urgency with which an adaptation action is considered. Many adaptations may be carried out relatively quickly by individuals in response to observed water scarcity, for example implementing water exchange rights. In these cases, the timescale for action is likely to be governed mainly by the cost and technical feasibility of making such a change. We consider this timescale 1-5 years. In contrast some adaptation measures that call for policy changes or large scale infrastructure investments will require sector-wide cooperation. In such cases, adaptation measures will require a long lead time of perhaps many years. We consider this timescale more than 10 years. Many adaptation measures, such as the construction and management of small scale reservoirs in farmland could be implemented in a timescale of 5-10 years.

Cost benefit is used for the evaluation of concrete measures where costs associated with action and inaction are well documented. De Roo et al. (2012) have recently reported a multi-criteria optimisation of scenarios for the protection of water resources in Europe.

2.4. Limitations

It is important to note that the data used for the impact and risk evaluation were obtained from a very broad range of studies developed using different methods. This broad analysis aims to decrease the uncertainty level of the results that arise from the different methods used. Nevertheless, in some cases it may be difficult to establish commonality across the studies in a particular region. Therefore, this study considers data that may be contradictory.

The somewhat arbitrary nature of the scoring and weighting system is acknowledged. However, by basing the method upon criteria widely accepted (Table 1) using assessments of risk published in peer-reviewed literature, the method is an informative and valid way of producing a preliminary assessment of adaptation measures.

Our assessment does not consider technological change. The assumption that the current technological context will be valid in the future is clearly flawed. This choice was made due to the fact that most climate change impact studies do not consider technological change and we did not want to introduce a variable that will make our estimates depart from the original research results.

Another drawback of focusing on climate change adaptation only is that we lose sight of the overall context in which agriculture

Table 1

Criteria for the evaluation of the adaptation measures.

Attributes of the adaptation measures Evaluation Criteria

Level F (farm) The scope of the action is local and the initiative is taken privately by the farmer or firm The scope of the action is regional (extends to more than the single farm) and the initiative is taken by the administration

P (public)

Category AG (agronomic) MA (management) IN (infrastructural) Requires efforts on research and innovation for implementation of existing knowledge or for new technological development Development of institutional and organisational skills needed to improve performance of socio-economic systems Involves construction work and development of new built physical facilities

Timescale ST (short term) MT (medium term) LT (long term) Time estimated for an action to show an effect since its implementation begins: 0-5 years Time estimated for an action to show an effect since its implementation begins: 5-10 years Time estimated for an action to show an effect since its implementation begins: more than 10 years

Technical difficulty L (low) M (medium) H (high) Measures that are currently available at the present time to agents with no technical skill or formal training Measures that are currently available at the present time but they require significant effort to implement Requires new technological or management developments not currently available in the present time, their implementation is topic of active research

Potential cost L (low) M (medium) H (high) Can be supported by individuals or administrations and no additional financing is required, the farmer can do it with its own resources, cost of less than 5 years of production Assumed by local institutions through the standard short and medium term financing (less than 10 years) or by standard cost recovery actions (i.e., financed by implementing a canon or tax), cost to farmers between 5 and 20 years of production Assumed by national or international institutions requiring long term financing (more than 10 years) from international policy or lenders

Potential benefit L (low) M (medium) H (high) Local scope with potential benefits mainly for the farmer that implements the measure Scope that transcends the farmer level with benefits affecting mostly the agricultural sector, the positive externalities are regional Global scope, with potential benefits at the regional collective level, with possible externalities and co-benefits in other sectors

will develop in the future. This may lead to overestimating the importance of climate change impacts when they are considered in isolation from, for example, issues relating to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).

The analysis does provide some indication of the overall projected impact of climate change on farmers across agro-climatic zones. It does not, however, provide a means for identifying the risks/opportunities that affect the most vulnerable farmers. In many cases, the literature that was reviewed did not provide enough information on vulnerable groups for a breakdown at this level to be possible. However, when the potential adaptations measures are considered, a range of practical, farm level adaptations will be identified that can help the vulnerable farming systems and sub-sectors deal with climate change impacts.

Finally, the database of impacts used in this study did not include an evaluation of the interaction among stressors, due to the lack of published research in this important area. It is clear that real impact will results from the interaction of stressors like heat, drought, nutrient deficiencies, pests and diseases under changing CO2 concentration or the impact of extreme events and climate variability under climate change. There is a common understanding that these impacts are important but scientific research on these aspects is still at the beginning. Therefore there might be a bias towards established knowledge while emerging research fields may be underrepresented.

3. Regional risks and opportunities

There are several hundred studies on the potential impacts of climate change on water resources which apply many different approaches (EEA, 2012a). A summary of the most relevant studies in the last 15 years is presented in Table 2 and summarised in Fig. 2. These studies have different focuses - from ecosystems services approach to water policies, to recreational water, a wide range of time-frames, as well as different scenarios and spatial scales that vary from the local to the global analysis. Although the results are diverse and sometimes contradictory, a common element is that one of the primary impacts of climate change will be a reduction of water availability for irrigation purposes across all regions (EEA, 2012a).

Two variables are particularly critical for agriculture: future precipitation patterns and their distribution throughout the year, and the incidence of extreme weather events (IPCC, 2007, 2008, 2014; Iglesias et al., 2012a,b). The main consequences of changes in water resources for agricultural production include: (i) increased demand for water in all regions due to increases in crop evapotranspiration in response to increased temperatures; (ii) increased water shortages, particularly in the spring and summer months, increasing the water requirement for irrigation, especially in areas with current water stress; (iii) reduced water quality due to higher water temperatures and lower levels of runoff in some regions, particularly in

Table 2

Database of climate change impacts on water availability and irrigation requirements projected for the 2050-2080s period with high confidence level.

Projected impacts Potential negative effects and consequences A sample of studies (1999-2014)

for agro-ecosystems and rural areas

All Review of all impacts IPCC, 2014

Changes in water availability Seasonal variations in hydrological regime Decreased water availability Risks of water quality loss Increased risk of soil salinisation Conflicts among users Groundwater abstraction depletion and decrease in water quality Iglesias et al., 2000, 2007, 2011b, 2012a; Antle et al., 2004; Doll and Zhang, 2010; Arnell and Delaney, 2006; Arnell et al., 2011; Beniston, 2003; Biemans et al., 2013; Brown and Funk, 2008; Droogers, 2004; Ewert et al., 2005; Fink et al., 2004; Fronzekand Carter, 2007; Gertenet al., 2011; Giannakopoulos et al., 2009; González-Zeas et al., 2013; Henriques et al., 2008; Kempen et al., 2010; Lloret et al., 2004; Parry et al., 2004; Rosenzweig et al., 2001, 2004; Trnka et al., 2011; Yang et al., 2002; Strzepek et al., 1999; Zhang and Cai, 2013, Dai et al., 2009

Changes in the incidence of extreme events (floods and water scarcity) Increased frequency and magnitude of droughts and floods Increased water logging Increased water shortages Arnell and Delaney, 2006; Lehner et al., 2006; Arnell et al., 2011; Becker et al., 2007; Beniston, 2003; Beniston et al., 2007; Brown et al., 2011; Burke et al., 2009; Christensen and Christensen, 2007; Gardner, 2009; Hoerling et al., 2012; Iglesias et al., 2007; Lehneret al., 2006; Menzel et al., 2006; Rosenzweig et al., 2001; Vogt and Somma, 2000; Easterling et al., 2000; Feyen et al., 2012; Hirabayashi et al., 2008

Increased irrigation requirements High in areas already vulnerable to water scarcity Increased demand for irrigation Decreased yield of crops Alcamo et al., 2007; Arnell and Delaney, 2006; Arnell et al., 2011; Bastola et al., 2011; Berbel et al., 2011; Biggsa et al., 2010; Brenkert and Malone, 2005; Conway, 2005; Doll, 2002; Gleick, 2003; Lopez et al., 2009; Mizyed, 2009; Nkomozepi and Chung, 2012; Rodriguez Diaz et al., 2010; Rosenzweig et al., 2004; Vorosmarty et al., 2000

Changes in agricultural land use Shift in optimal conditions for farming Deterioration of soils Land abandonment Decreased crop yields Brown et al., 2011; Ewert et al., 2005; Kempen et al., 2010; Metzgeret al., 2006; Olesen and Bindi, 2002; Rounsevell etal., 2005; Yooetal., 2013

Deterioration of water quality in rivers and aquifers and soil erosion High for southern countries Decrease in water quality from nutrient leaching Increased risk of desertification Barnett et al., 2005; Gleeson et al., 2012; Pavelic et al., 2012; Pulido-Velazquez et al., 2011; Rounsevell et al., 2005; Causapé et al., 2005; Nearing et al., 2004

Loss of glaciers and alteration of permafrost Changes in hydrologic regime Barnett et al., 2005; Beniston, 2003; Jasper et al., 2004

Biodiversity loss High for vulnerable regions Loss of natural adaptation options Modified interaction among species Harrison et al., 2008; Metzger et al., 2006; Palmer et al., 2009; Thuiller et al., 2005; Vorosmarty et al., 2010; Wu etal., 2012

Atlantic ^

Increased floods Increased Irrigation needs Sea level rise Shifts in land use

Mountain regions

Loss of glaciers Alteration of hydrologlcal regime Loss of biodiversity

Boreal

Alteration of permafrost Increased floods Increased land useforagriculturey'

fContinental

Increased floods Shifts in optimal conditions for fanning Soil erosion

Mediterranean

Increased drought Decreased water availability Deterioration ofwaterquality Increased irrigation needs V Loss of biod iversity_^

Fig. 2. Summary of changes in the risk of climate change for agricultural water management in Europe (based on data presented in Table 2).

summer, imposing further stress in irrigated areas; (iv) increased risk of flooding due to the expected concentration of winter rainfall; and (v) the projected increases in sea level will also affect agricultural production in the low-lying coastal areas, unless measures to protect vulnerable land or other land management schemes are put in place.

Summer rainfall is projected to decline in continental climates of mid latitudes, leading to increased water stress (Iglesias et al., 2007; Vorosmarty et al., 2000). In northern Mountain regions, climate change is projected to bring mixed effects: initial benefits such as increased crop yields (at moderate levels of warming) are likely to be outweighed over time by more frequent flooding and increasing ground instability (Giorgi and Lionello, 2008; Hirabayashi et al., 2008). Altered carbon and nitrogen cycles may affect soil erosion and water quality in all regions (Nearing et al., 2004).

Coastal areas are vulnerable to flooding and attention needs to be given to measures that will reduce this risk.

Our current understanding of European climate leads to projected overall temperature increase from 2 to 4 °C and precipitation changes of 10 to -50% by the 2080s. The changes are not equally distributed across different regions or seasons. The changes are likely to be more pronounced in southern Europe, with temperature increases reaching +5 °C by the 2080s in some scenarios and an alarming increase of extreme temperature (hot and very hot days); drought periods may increase throughout the Mediterranean (Giorgi and Lionello, 2008; Christensen and Christensen, 2007). As result, evapotranspiration rates will increase, resulting in increased demand of water for agriculture.

The last IPCC report (IPCC, 2014) clearly reported empirical evidence of changes in precipitation, temperature, extreme events and CO2. Looking into the future, the IPCC (2014) projected the changes in different areas are not uniform, but studies show with certainty that for the 2070s, the percentage of surface area under conditions of severe water stress is expected to increase from the current 19% to 35%. Some changes imply potential benefits; nevertheless, the opportunities can only be realised if the necessary adaptations and knowledge and expertise are available.

These projections may result in reductions of average annual runoff up to 50%, challenging the whole socioeconomic model which is based largely on water demanding activities: recreation, tourism and food production. A number of studies have shown that under climate change annual river flow is expected to decrease in Southern Europe and increase in Northern Europe; changes are also expected in the seasonality of river flows with considerable differences over the European region (Arnell and Delaney, 2006; Arnell et al., 2011; Milly et al., 2005; Alcamo et al., 2007).

4. Making adaptation choices

In this section we present an assessment in terms of potential benefits, technical feasibility and potential costs for the potential adaptation options explored, not just for dealing with climate change risks, but also to allow for the exploitation of the possible opportunities.

4.1. Selection of adaptation measures

The database of studies that contributed to the formulation of adaptation measures is presented in Table 3. Based on the information provided by the studies in Table 3, we selected 33 adaptation measures that respond to the risks identified. Table 4 outlines the mechanism behind each selected adaptation option that overcomes the impacts caused by climate change. The potential benefit of the measure is characterised by how much the climate impacts can be offset by each option; this is presented in Table 5.

The suggested measures are far from comprising an exhaustive list, nor are they to be taken as a set menu of policies, rather they are meant to reflect the kind of policies that may be appropriate for redressing impact variables in the future. At the same time, implementation of measures depends on local conditions. For instance, in areas with considerable social and economic inequality and where water scarcity is not as pressing an issue, water management policies should focus on ensuring equitable access for disadvantaged populations to guarantee health and economic benefits (Iglesias et al., 2011a,b,c). The appropriate policy mechanisms follow from

Table 3

Sources of information to characterise adaptation strategies and measures in response to climate change impacts on water availability and irrigation requirements.

Type of strategy or measure

A sample of studies (1999-2014)

Adaptation frameworks, cost and benefits: information from organisations and institutions

Adaptation frameworks, cost and benefits: information from academic publications

Irrigation Deficit irrigation

Conjunctive use of surface and groundwater Desalinisation and water reuse Water markets Biotechnology

Measures addressing water scarcity

Measures addressing the risk of flood

Insurance

Water harvesting

Innovation

Acceptance and implementation of measures: the point of view of the citizens and farmers

DEFRA, 2005, 2010; OECD, 2009a,b, 2011; UNDP, 2010a,b,c; UNECE, 2009; World Bank, 2010a,b, COM, 2009a,b, 2012, FAO, 2008, UNDP, 2005

Adger et al., 2005; Agrawal, 2008; Arnell and Delaney, 2006; Arnell et al., 2011; Bermann et al., 2012; Bryan et al., 2009; Burton and Lim, 2005; Ciscar et al., 2011; De Bruin et al., 2009; De Loek et al., 2001; De Roo et al., 2012; Dinar, 2011; Easterling et al., 2003; Fankhauseret al., 1999; Fankhauser, 2010; Gleick, 2003; Howden et al., 2007; Huntjens et al., 2010; Iglesias and Buono, 2009; Iglesias et al., 2011a,b,c, 2012b; Krysanova et al., 2010; Leary, 1999; Lempert and Groves, 2010; Ma et al., 2008; Mukheibir, 2008; Palmer et al., 2009; Quevauviller et al., 2005; Smit and Skinner, 2002; Strzepek and Boehlert, 2010; Wreford et al., 2010; Wu et al., 2012; Yang et al., 2002

Berbel et al., 2011; Biemans et al., 2013; Causapé et al., 2005; Finger et al., 2011; Gaydon et al., 2012a,b; Heumesser et al., 2012; Mehtaa et al., 2013; Pavelic et al., 2012; Siebert et al., 2007; Tornqvist and Jarsjo, 2012; Yoo et al., 2013; Zimmerer, 2011

Ates et al., 2013

Pulido-Velazquez et al., 2011

Abufayed and El-Ghuel, 2001; Trinh et al., 2012; McEvoy and Wilder, 2012 Garrick et al., 2009

Ceccarelli et al., 2010; Challinor et al., 2007

Droogers, 2004; Garrote et al., 2007, 2014; Iglesias et al., 2007; Martin-Carrasco et al., 2013; Roncoli et al., 2001; Rosegrant et al., 2009; Rossi, 2009; UNISDR, 2009; Vogt and Somma, 2000; Zhu et al., 2013; Zougmoré et al., 2010

Becker et al., 2007; Gersonius et al., 2013

Glauber, 2004; Glenk and Fischer, 2010

Glendenninga et al., 2012; Moges et al., 2011; Oweis and Hachum, 2005 Rodima-Tayloret al., 2012; Sunding and Zilberman, 2001

Eurobarometer, 2008, 2009; Faysse et al., 2013; García de Jalón et al., 2013a,b; Holman et al., 2008; Ivey et al., 2004; Leiserowitz, 2006; Michel-Guillou and Moser, 2006; Sadoff and Grey, 2002; Semenza et al., 2011; Shwom et al., 2010; García de Jalón et al., 2013a,b

the kinds of policy interventions that are required, as determined by a combined analysis of water scarcity levels and weaknesses in social system at the local level (Iglesias et al., 2011a,b,c).

The measures outlined above show that, for the water sector, planned interventions must consider both supply side and demand side solutions (Gleick, 2003; Gleick and Palaniappan, 2010). On the supply side, adaptation options involve increases in storage capacity or abstraction from water courses. Demand-side options, like increasing the allocative efficiency of water to ensure that economic and social benefit is maximised through use in higher-value sectors, aim to increase value per volume used and to ensure that quality is maintained (Gleick and Palaniappan, 2010). In sum, it becomes clear that the water sector's importance for numerous other productive and social arenas requires policies and management strategies to be well aware of water's widespread impacts.

Regarding climate change predictions, water resources reallocation seems to be a key adaptation measure to tackle water scarcity problems. However, there are some potential solutions to water allocation problems, such as changes in infrastructure, land-use or limitations of irrigation that may not be well accepted by the whole of society (Iglesias et al., 2011a,b,c) and decision-making processes often can lead to conflicts among different stakeholders. Thus it is essential to incorporate the interests of the different stakeholders affected by the consequences of these processes, including policy makers, farmers and the public (Semenza et al., 2011). The Water Framework Directive (EUWFD), which represents a benchmark in the design of water policies in Europe, greatly promotes stakeholders and public participation in decision- and policy-making processes. Relly and Sabharwal (2009) claim that there is a growing demand for the processes used to allocate resources to be

transparent, based on scientific evidence and deliver outcomes that are in the public's interest. This reinforces the need to study public preferences for climate change adaptation measures in order to incorporate public opinion into policy- and decision-making processes. Thus a better understanding of how stakeholders' perceive climate change, adaptation policies and the factors or predictors influencing their support for adaptation policies, can be a helpful tool in the development of these decisions and policies.

Bermann et al. (2012) evaluate the role of institutions in the transformation of coping capacity to sustainable adaptive capacity. The study identified four key challenges to understand the transformation of coping to adaptive capacity, which include (1) the concealed nature of adaptive capacity; (2) the temporal tradeoffs between coping and adaptive capacity; (3) the limited focus to date on rural communities; and (4) the lack of empirical evidence. Agrawal (2008) provides a clear review of adaptation to climate change, highlighting the role of local institutions. Huntjens et al. (2010) propose a theoretical improved institutional design, and Lempert and Groves (2008) identify concrete actions for water management institutions.

Public choice for adaptation in the European Union has been documented based on extensive surveys (Eurobarometer, 2008, 2009); in the USA it has been documented with more analytical approaches. Perceptions and policy choices are often complex and reflect local values (Leiserowitz, 2006). Public concern of the state of the environment has grown rapidly and this has also increased interest in participatory decision making. Consequently, public approval has become an important decision objective and public participation has become a common element in environmental decision making processes. However, the large

Table 4

Adaptation measures selected and mechanism behind each option that offsets the potential negative impacts of climate change for agricultural water management.

Adaptation needs Measure Mechanism to overcome the impacts of climate change

I. Improve resiliency (1) Implement regional adaptation plans Enhances effectiveness of adaptation measures

and adaptive capacity (2) Improved monitoring and early warning Mitigates consequences of adverse events

(3) Improve coordination planning Enhances effectiveness of adaptation measures

(4) Innovation and technology Improves effectiveness of adaptation measures and

reduces costs

II. Response to changes (5) Innovation: water use efficiency Increases water availability

in water availability (6) Improve soil moisture retention capacity Increases water use efficiency

(7) Small-scale water reservoirs on farmland Increases water management flexibility at the local level

(8) Improve the reservoir capacity Increases management flexibility and water availability at

regional level

(9) Water reutilisation Increases water availability

(10) Improve water charging and trade Decreases inefficient use of water

(11) Re-negotiation ofallocation agreements Improves water use efficiency

(12) Set clear water use priorities Improves water use efficiency

(13) Integrate demands in conjunctive systems Increases management flexibility and water availability

III. Response to floods (14) Create/restore wetlands Reduces flood peaks

and droughts (15) Enhance flood plain management Reduces flood vulnerability

(16) Improve drainage systems Reduces extent and duration of flooding

(17) Farmers as 'custodians' of floodplains Decreases risk of flood damages

(18) Hard defences Decreases risk of flood damages

(19) Increase rainfall interception capacity Reduces flood peaks at the local level

(20) Introduce drought resistant crops Improves agronomic water use efficiency

(21) Insurance to floods or drought Decreases economic losses to the farmer

IV. Response to (22) Change in crops and cropping patterns Decreases economic risk to farmers

increased irrigation (23) Improve practices to retain soil moisture Decreases the need for additional water to crops

requirements (24) Develop climate change resilient crops Mitigates impacts of climate change

V. Response to changes (25) Relocation of farm processing industry Maintains industrial activity

in agricultural land use (26) Addition of organic material into soils Recovers soil functions

(27) Introduce new irrigation areas Develops new agricultural land

VI. Response to (28) Improve nitrogen fertilisation efficiency Reduces agricultural diffuse pollution

deterioration of water (29) Soil carbon management and zero tillage Reduces soil erosion and improves soil water retention

and soil quality capacity

(30) Protect against soil erosion Reduces land degradation

VII. Response to loss of (31) Increase water allocation for ecosystems Improves ecosystem services, effective at the global level

biodiversity (32) Maintain ecological corridors Improves biodiversity with positive global consequences

(33) Improve crop diversification Improves biodiversity

number of stakeholders also results in a large number of conflicting views and, therefore, transparent and structured processes are needed to reach participants' shared understanding of the problem.

Local needs and capacities are based on the potential for capacity to develop new irrigation systems (Yoo et al., 2013; Zimmerer, 2011; Siebert et al., 2007) or implement improved technology for irrigation (Ates et al., 2013), desalinisation (Abufayed and El-Ghuel, 2001), water re-use technology (Trinh et al., 2012), alternatives of groundwater management (Causapé et al., 2005), water harvesting (Glendenninga et al., 2012; Moges et al., 2011; Oweis and Hachum, 2005), capacity to develop insurance (Glenk and Fischer, 2010) or capacity to develop water markets (Garrick et al., 2009).

The integration of water demands in conjunctive systems allows for the joint management of surface and groundwater resources to overcome dry periods and thus build robustness into water resources systems (Pulido-Velazquez et al., 2011 ). This is achieved through integration of a large number of demands and diversification of supply sources in combined systems. The sources of water supply from different origins can have very different characteristics. Resources of a different nature (e.g., surface and groundwater) show highly significant differences in terms of variability and reliability (Garrote et al., 2014). Systems that integrate a large number of demands and supply sources can best respond to situations of scarcity through integrated water resources management, using every resource for the purposes that are more appropriate depending on its amount, regularity and reliability (Garrote et al., 2014; Pulido-Velazquez et al., 2011 ).

Although local needs determine the scenario for adaptation, cooperation is always a priority for adaptation that includes water resources management, as shown for example in the case of trans-boundary water management (Ma et al., 2008; Sadoff and Grey, 2002). Upscaling local initiatives is often impossible, but knowledge transfer should play a major role in the development of adaptation strategies, especially the strategies that include local resiliency as a major component of the adaptation assessment needs (World Bank, 2010a,b).

The need for developing win-win strategies to avoid the potential conflicts that may arise due to climate change impacts have been stressed endlessly (Fankhauser et al., 1999). However, win-win strategies are often difficult to find and the trade-offs of each one need to be evaluated. The adaptation programme of DEFRA (2005, 2010) includes a comprehensive analysis of adaptation trade-offs for the agricultural sector in the UK.

Finally, given the costs and lack of incentives associated with promoting adaptive capacity, adaptation is unlikely to be facilitated through the introduction of new and separate policies, but rather by the revision of existing policies that currently undermine adaptation and by the strengthening of policies that promote adaptation (Iglesias et al., 2011a,b,c; Howden et al., 2007). Finding common ground between competing claims is a serious challenge to policy development. Nevertheless, this challenge needs to be addressed to ensure the coherence and efficiency of policy measures under a changing climate.

Table 5

Adaptation measures to climate change risks and opportunities.

Responding to the need of adaptation & measures

Level(1)

Category (2)

Time-scale

Technical difficulty (4)

Potential cost (5)

Potential benefits (6)

Benefit to effort ratio (7)

I. Improving resiliency and adaptive capacity

(1) Implement regional adaptation plans P MA

(2) Improved monitoring and early warning P MA

(3) Improve coordination planning P MA

(4) Innovation and technology P MA

II. Responding to changes in water availability

(5) Innovation: water use efficiency P MA

(6) Improve soil moisture retention capacity F T

(7) Small-scale water reservoirs on farmland F I

(8) Improve the reservoir capacity P I

(9) Water reutilisation P I

(10) Improve water charging and trade P MA

(11) Re-negotiation ofallocation agreements P MA

(12) Set clear water use priorities P MA

(13) Integrate water demands in conjunctive systems P MA

III. Responding to floods and droughts

(14) Create/restore wetlands F I

(15) Enhance flood plain management F MA

(16) Improve drainage systems F I

(17) Farmers as'custodians'of floodplains P MA

(18) Hard defences P I

(19) Increase rainfall interception capacity P I

(20) Introduce drought resistant crops F MA

(21) Insurance to floods or drought P MA

IV. Responding to increased irrigation requirements

(22) Change in crops and cropping patterns F MA

(23) Improve practices to retain soil moisture F MA

(24) Develop climate change resilient crops P T

V. Responding to changes in agricultural land use

(25) Relocation of farm processing industry P MA

(26) Addition of organic material into soils F MA

(27) Introduce new irrigation areas P MA

VI. Responding to deterioration of water and soil quality

(28) Improve nitrogen fertilisation efficiency F MA

(29) Soil carbon management and zero tillage F T

(30) Protect against soil erosion F MA

VII. Responding to loss of biodiversity

(31) Increase water allocation for ecosystems P MA

(32) Maintain ecological corridors P MA

(33) Improve crop diversification F T

LT MT ST LT

ST MT LT

LT ST LT

ST MT MT

LT LT LT

H M M H

M M M H H H H H M

H H M M H M H M

M M L H

M M M H H H H L L

H H L H H M M H

H H H H

H L H H H H H H M

M H M H H H M H

1.15 1.50

2.14 1.00

1.50 0.50 1.50

1.15 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.36 1.25

1.00 1.07 1.11 1.36 1.15 1.88 0.77 1.88

1.43 1.00 0.67

1.00 0.71 1.15

1.00 1.00 0.42

1.15 1.00 0.91

(1) Farm level (F), policy level (P); (2) agronomic (AG), management (MA), infrastructural (IN); (3) short term (ST), medium term (MT) or long term (LT); (4)-(6) low (L), medium (M) or high (H).

4.2. Evaluation of adaptation measures

Table 5 provides an assessment of the potential adaptation options to respond to each one of the identified risks and opportunities. Level of implementation, option category and information

£ I_I

I 1 iz=l (1) m

Agronomic Management Infrastrucutural Category of measure

Fig. 3. Range of benefit to effort ratio ofthe agronomic, management and infrastructural measures presented in Table 4. The boxes show the standard deviation from the mean and the maximum and minimum values are represented by the bars.

about timescale (urgency), technical difficulty, potential cost and potential benefits are reported for each potential adaptation option. The discussion of the table is divided broadly into the risks, measures and opportunities identified, following the order in which they are listed in Table 5.

Fig. 3 summarises the benefit to effort ratio of the adaptation measures (1-33 in Table 4). The value of effort is a combination of the timescale, technical difficulty and potential cost; the benefit is characterised by the potential benefit. The range values of the benefit to effort ratio for the agronomic, management and infras-tructural measures is presented in Table 5.

5. Discussion and conclusions

An evidence-based assessment of adaptation strategies ideally would require common metrics across all measures and agreement on how significance is defined. Given the multiple dimensions of water in society and ecosystems this is impossible. Therefore, our study has many limitations.

This study only considers the climate drivers to define adaptation strategies and excludes the non-climate drivers that are largely contextual. Water availability is a main determinant of

water for agriculture and is a driver that is largely contextual. Water availability is determined by demand for water for people and the environment. The demand for water is heavily influenced by socio-economic factors; the most obvious one being that the total population dictates the level of overall demand. Since population growth is likely to magnify existing demand patterns, this study probably underestimates the need for adaptation strategies for agricultural water. Because of this, an overall adaptation strategy would involve interventions that seek to reduce (or at least not significantly increase) population density in water stressed areas.

The study does not include projections of technological change. The assumption that the current technological context will be valid in the future is clearly flawed. While technological change in the area of climate change mitigation - reduction of greenhouse gas emissions - is clearly documented, in the area of climate change adaptation this needs to be evaluated. The OECD (2011) provides guidance to develop appropriate investment incentives to encourage climate change action. Here we have considered some adaptation strategies that will require technological development, such as biotechnology, conjunctive use of surface and ground water, among others. We are certain that technological change will shape some choices for adaptation in the coming decades.

Assessing the costs and benefits of adaptation requires information not only on emissions and the climate system, but also on possible future socio-economic change. However, this is not considered in this study. Finally, another limitation of focusing on climate change related risks alone is that we lose sight of the overall context in which agriculture will develop in the future. This may lead to overestimating the importance of climate change impacts when they are considered in isolation from, for example, issues relating to agricultural support in the USA, the EU, and Canada, or in the effects of trade liberalisation in China or Africa (Iglesias et al., 2011a,b,c).

Recognising these limitations, the study provides insights into irrigation policy challenges and choices in response to climate change in Europe, since it builds from a vast range of studies and provides a common regional framework for analysing impacts and adaptation.

The optimistic future depends on whether agriculture is able to manage and consume water in a sustainable way. This would require a set of actions which may not have tangible results in the short run, such as information and education programmes. Ensuring economic efficiency in water use and taking measures to promote water and soil conservation are priority areas for action. As they have been in the past, technological innovations will continue to be a crucial factor. The clarification of water rights and establishment of ownership of property may potentially lead to large increases in agricultural production, as was the case in Central Asia and Eastern Europe. With sufficient political will, sustainable water for agriculture may be ensured through the application of current technologies and through recognition of the importance of investing in research, in order to enable land and water management to cope with both known and unknown future challenges (Godfray et al., 2010).

Nevertheless, it needs to be recognised that the threat of bad governance is persistent (Godfray et al., 2010) and that, although policies that develop financial incentives may result in short term gains, they can also incentivise unexpected behaviour that may result in increased damages (such as the impacts of biofuels on food production at a global level).

Water for agriculture often competes with water for other uses. Therefore, successful adaptation of water for agriculture often requires combined efforts from other sectors, including financial, rural development, trade, industry and environment, among others. Water policy in many regions has evolved to integrate stakeholders.

In the beginning of the 21st century, the acceptance of climate change by society is clear (Eurobarometer, 2008, 2009). It is more difficult to understand how society will change and the social uncertainty often dominates the consensus on adaptation choices.

Linking science to policy becomes increasingly important when considering the evolving future. There is no substitute for realisable data and reliable demonstration projects. Only policies that rely on objectively verifiable indicators will prove adequate.

Even when policies are well defined, demonstration and training efforts are necessary (Quevauviller et al., 2005). For example, improving the efficiency of irrigation or introducing water metering may only be options for societies that already have an understanding of alternative technologies and who know how to encourage implementation.

If adaptation is to become "mainstreamed", it will be necessary for relevant polices, such as the CAP and the Water Framework Directive, to address the issue more directly (Iglesias et al., 2012a,b). Finding common ground between these competing regional claims is a serious challenge to regional policy development. Nevertheless, it is a challenge that needs to be addressed to ensure the coherence and efficiency of policy measures under a changing climate.

The implementation of adaptation options may be a challenge at the individual farmers, water managers and policy levels. In the short term, social barriers may limit the adoption of low cost and technically feasible measures (Quevauviller et al., 2005). Long term measures that require infrastructure, technology or governance changes are often difficult to justify in political terms.

This work provides an assessment of the main potential adaptation options in responding to the identified risks and opportunities that climate change might create in Europe. Our results show that the more interesting adaptation options in terms of their benefit to effort ratio are the following: improving coordination planning, setting clear water use priorities and increasing water allocation for ecosystems. It is important to highlight that these three adaptation options should be implemented at a policy scale level. On the other hand, our results show that the adaptation options most beneficial at a farm scale are the improvement of drainage systems and small-scale water reservoirs on farmland. Our results show that all climate change risks might be tackled with adaptation options which can provide new opportunities to offer numerous benefits to society. To this end, the use of a meta-analysis with the purpose of gathering information of previous studies seems to be adequate to assess the adaptation options for agricultural water management in Europe.

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the financial support of the European Commission BASE project (Grant agreement no.: ENV-308337) of the 7th Framework Programme (http://base-adaptation.eu).

References

Abufayed, A., El-Ghuel, M.K., 2001. Desalination processes application in Libya.

Desalination 138 (1), 47-53. Adger, N., Arnell, N., Tompkins, E., 2005. Successful adaptation to climate change

across scales. Glob. Environ. Change 15 (2), 77-86. Agrawal, A., 2008. The role oflocal institutions in adaptation to climate change. Paper Prepared for the Social Dimensions of Climate Change, Social Development Department, The World Bank, Washington, DC, March 5-6,2008, Available from: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTSOCIALDEVELOPMENT/Resources/ updated-SDCCWorkingPaper-LocalInstitutions.pdf Alcamo,J., Floerke, M., Maerker, M., 2007. Future long-term changes in global water resources driven by socio-economic and climatic changes. Hydrol. Sci. 52 (2), 247-275.

Antle, J.M., Capalbo, S.M., Elliott, E.T., Paustian, K.H., 2004. Adaptation, spatial heterogeneity, the vulnerability of agricultural systems to climate change and CO2 fertilization, an integrated assessment approach. Clim. Change 64 (3), 289-315. Arnell, N., Delaney, E., 2006. Adapting to climate change: public water supply in England and Wales. Clim. Change 78 (2), 227-255.

Arnell, N.W., van Vuuren, D.P., Isaac, M., 2011. The implications of climate policy for the impacts ofclimate change on global water resources. Glob. Environ. Change 21,592-603.

Ates, S., Isik, S., Keles, G., Aktas, A.H., Louhaichi, M., Nangia, V., 2013. Evaluation of deficit irrigation for efficient sheep production from permanent sown pastures in a dry continental climate. Agric. Water Manag. 119,135-143.

Barnett, T.P., Adam, J.C., Lettenmaier, D.P., 2005. Potential impacts of a warming climate on water availability in snow-dominated regions. Nature 438 (7066), 303-309.

Bastola, S., Murphy, C., Sweeney, J., 2011. The role of hydrological modelling uncertainties in climate change impact assessments of Irish river catchments. Adv. Water Resour. 34, 562-576.

Becker, G., Aerts, J., Huitema, D., 2007. Transboundary flood management in the Rhine basin: challenges for improved cooperation. Water Sci. Technol. 56 (4), 125.

Beniston, M., 2003. Climatic change in mountain regions: a review of possible impacts. Clim. Change 59,5-31.

Beniston, M., Stephenson, D., Christensen, O.B., Ferro, C.A.T., Frei, C., Goyette, S., Hal-snaes, K., Holt, T., Jylha, K., Koffi, B., 2007. Future extreme events in European climate: an exploration of regional climate model projections. Clim. Change 81, 71-95.

Berbel, J., Mesa-Jurado, M.A., Pistón, J.M., 2011. Value of irrigation water in Guadalquivir Basin (Spain) by residual value method. Water Resour. Manag. 25, 1565-1579.

Bermann, R., Quinn, C., Paavola, J., 2012. The role of institutions in the transformation of coping capacity to sustainable adaptive capacity. Environ. Dev. 2, 86-100.

Biemans, H., Speelman, L., Ludwig, F., Moors, E., Wiltshire, A.J., Kumar, P., Gerten, D., Kabat, P., 2013. Future water resources for food production in five South Asian river basins and potential of adaptation options - a modelling study. Sci. Total Environ., http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.05.092.

Biggsa, T.W., Rao, P.G., Bharati, L., 2010. Mapping agricultural responses to water supply shocks in large irrigation systems, southern India. Agric. Water Manag. 97, 924-932.

Brenkert, A.L., Malone, E.L., 2005. Modelling vulnerability and resilience to climate change: a case study of India and Indian states. Clim. Change 72 (1-2), 57-102.

Brown, I., Poggio, L., Gimona, A., Castellazzi, M., 2011. Climate change, drought risk and land capability for agriculture: implications for land use in Scotland. Reg. Environ. Change 11, 503-518.

Brown, M.E., Funk, C.C., 2008. Food security under climate change. Science 319, 580-581.

Bryan, E., Deressa, T.T., Gbetibouo, G.A., Ringler, C., 2009. Adaptation to climate change in Ethiopia and South Africa: options and constraints. Environ. Sci. Policy 12,413-426.

Burke, M.B., Lobell, D.B., Guarino, L., 2009. Shifts in African crop climates by 2050, and the implications for crop improvement and genetic resources conservation. Glob. Environ. Change 19,317-325.

Burton, I., Lim, B., 2005. Achieving adequate adaptation in agriculture. Clim. Change 70(1-2), 191-200.

Causapé,J., Ouilez, D., Aragüés, R., 2005. Groundwater quality inCR-V irrigation district (Bardenas I, Spain): alternative scenarios to reduce off-site salt and nitrate contamination. Agric. Water Manag. 84 (3), 281-289.

Ceccarelli, S., Grando, S., Maatougui, M., Michael, M., Slash, M., Haghparast, R., Rah-manian, M., Taheri, A., Al-Yassin, A., Benbelkacem, A., Labdi Mimoun, H., Nachit, M., 2010. Plant breeding and climate changes. J. Agric. Sci. 148,627-637.

Challinor, A.J., Wheeler, T.R., Craufurd, P.Q., Ferro, C.A.T., Stephenson, D.B., 2007. Adaptation of crops to climate change through genotypic responses to mean and extreme temperatures. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 119(1), 190-204.

Christensen, J.H., Christensen, O.B., 2007. A summary of the PRUDENCE model projections of changes in European climate by the end of this century. Clim. Change 81, 7-30.

Ciscar, J.C., Iglesias, A., Feyen, L., Szabó, L., Van Regemorter, D., Amelung, B., Nicholls, R., Watkiss, P., Christensen, O.B., Dankers, R., Garrote, L., Goodess, C.M., Hunt, A., Moreno, A., Richards, J., Soria, A., 2011. Physical and economic consequences of climate change in Europe. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108, 2678-2683.

COM, 2012. 673 Final. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A Blueprint to Safeguard Europe's Water Resources. {SWD(2012) 381 final}. {SWD(2012) 382 final}, Brussels, November 14, 2012.

COM, 2009a. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, April 1, 2009.

COM, 2009b. 147 Final. White Paper. Adapting to Climate Change: Towards a European Framework for Action.

Conway, D., 2005. From headwater tributaries to international river: observing and adapting to climate variability and change in the Nile basin. Glob. Environ. Change 15,99-114.

Dai, A., Qian, T., Trenberth, K.E., Milliman, J.D., 2009. Changes in continental freshwater discharge from 1948 to 2004. J. Clim. 22 (10), 2773-2792.

De Bruin, K., Dellink, R., Ruijs, B., Bolwidt, L., van Buuren, A., Graveland, J., de Groot, R.S., Kuikman, P.J., Reinhard, S., Roetter, R.P., Tassone, V.C., Verhagen, A., van Ier-land, E.C., 2009. Adapting to climate change in The Netherlands: an inventory of climate adaptation options and ranking of alternatives. Clim. Change 95, 23-45.

De Loek, R., Kreutzwiser, R., Moraru, L., 2001. Adaptation options for the near term: climate change and the Canadian water sector. Glob. Environ. Change 11, 231-245.

De Roo, A., Burek, P., Gentile, A., Udias, A., Bouraoui, F., Aloe, A., Bianchi, A., La Notte, A., Kuik, O., Elorza Tenreiro, J., Vandecasteele, I., Mubareka, S., Baranzelli, C., Van Der Perk, M., Lavalle, C., Bidoglio, G., 2012. A multi-criteria optimisation

of scenarios for the protection of water resources in Europe. Support to the EU Blueprint to Safeguard Europe's Waters. JRC Scientific and Policy Report. European Commission.

DEFRA, 2005. Review of Defra's Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation (Agriculture) R and D Programme, Available from: www.defra.gov.uk (accessed September 2014).

DEFRA, 2010. Measuring Adaptation to Climate Change - A Proposed Approach, Available from: http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/climate/ documents/100219-measuring-adapt.pdf (accessed September 2014).

Dinar, A., 2011. Economy-Wide Implications of Direct and Indirect Policy Interventions in the Water Sector: Lessons from Recent Work and Future Research Needs. Policy Research Working Paper 6068 (WPS6068). The World Bank, Washington DC, USA.

Döll, P., 2002. Impact of climate change and variability on irrigation requirements: a global perspective. Clim. Change 54 (3), 269-293.

Döll, P., Zhang, J., 2010. Impact ofclimate change on freshwaterecosystems: aglobal-scale analysis of ecologically relevant river flow alterations. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 14(5), 783-799.

Droogers, P., 2004. Adaptation to climate change to enhance food security and preserve environmental quality: example for southern Sri Lanka. Agric. Water Manag. 66,15-33.

Easterling, D.R., Meehl, J., Parmesan, C., Chagnon, S., Karl, T.R., Mearns, L.O., 2000. Climate extremes: observations, modeling, and impacts. Science 289, 2068-2074.

Easterling, W.E., Chhetri, N., Niu, X.Z., 2003. Improving the realism of modeling agronomic adaptation to climate change: simulating technological submission. Clim. Change 60 (1-2), 149-173.

EEA, 2012a. Water Resources in Europe in the Context of Vulnerability. EEA 2012 State of Water Assessment. EEA Report No 11/2012. European Environment Agency.

EEA, 2012b. European Waters - Current Status and Future Challenges: Synthesis. EEA Report No 9/2012. European Environment Agency.

EEA, 2012c. Climate Change, Impacts and Vulnerability in Europe 2012. An Indicator-based Report. EEA Report No 12/2012. European Environment Agency.

Eurobarometer, 2008. Surveys on Climate Change (2008) European's Attitudes Towards Climate Change, Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/ public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_300_full_en.pdf (accessed September 2014).

Eurobarometer, 2009. Survey Towards Water (2009) European's Attitudes Towards Water, Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_261_en.pdf. (accessed September 2014).

EUWFD, 2000. Water Framework Directive, Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community Action in the Field of Water Policy. EU Water Framework Directive (EUWFD).

Ewert, F., Rounsevell, M.D.A., Reginster, I., Metzger, M.J., Leemans, R., 2005. Future scenarios of European agricultural land use. I. Estimating changes in crop productivity. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 107,101-116.

Fankhauser, J., Smith, B., Tol, R.S.J., 1999. Weathering climate change: some simple rules to guide adaptation decisions. Ecol. Econ. 30 (1), 67-78.

Fankhauser, S., 2010. The costs of adaptation. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 1 (1), 23-30.

FAO, 2008. Climate Change, Water and Food Security. FAO Water Report 36. FAO, Rome.

Faysse, N., Rinaudo, J.D., Bento, S., Richard-Ferroudji, A., Errahj, M., Varanda, M., Imache, A., Dionnet, M., Rollin, D., Garin, P., Kuper, M., Maton, L., Montginoul, M., 2013. Participatory analysis for adaptation to climate change in Mediterranean agricultural systems: possible choices in process design. Reg. Environ. Change 14(1), 57-70.

Feyen, L., Dankers, R., Bodis, K., Salamon, P., Barredo, J.I., 2012. Fluvial flood risk in Europe in present and future climates. Clim. Change 112 (1), 47-62.

Finger, R., Hediger, W., Schmid, S., 2011. Irrigation as adaptation strategy to climate change - a biophysical and economic appraisal for Swiss maize production. Clim. Change 105, 509-528.

Fink, A., Brücher, T., Krüger, A., Leckebusch, G., Pinto, J., Ulbrich, U., 2004. The 2003 European summer heatwaves and drought-synoptic diagnosis and impacts. Weather 59 (8), 209-216.

Fronzek, S., Carter, T., 2007. Assessing uncertainties in climate change impacts on resource potential for Europe based on projections from RCMs and GCMs. Clim. Change 81,357-371.

García de Jalón, S., Iglesias, A., Cunningham, R., Pérez Díaz, J.I., 2013a. Building resilience to water scarcity in Southern Spain: a case study of rice farming in Donana protected wetlands. Reg. Environ. Change, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10113-013-0569-5.

García de Jalón, S., Iglesias, A., Quiroga, S., Bardají, I., 2013b. Exploring public support forclimate change adaptatio policies in the Mediterranean region: a case study in Southern Spain. Environ. Sci. Policy 29, 1-11.

Gardner, L.R., 2009. Assessing the effect ofclimate change on mean annual runoff. J. Hydrol. 379,351-359.

Garrick, D., Siebentritt, M.A., Aylward, B., Bauer, C.J., Purkey, A., 2009. Water markets and freshwater ecosystem services: policy reform and implementation in the Columbia and Murray-Darling Basins. Ecol. Econ. 69, 366-379.

Garrote, L., Flores, F., Iglesias, A., 2007. Linking drought indicators to policy. The case of the Tagus basin drought plan. Water Resour. Manag. 21, 873-882.

Garrote, L., Iglesias, A., Granados, A., Mediero, L., Martín-Carrasco, F., 2014. Quantitative assessment of climate change vulnerability of irrigation demands in Mediterranean Europe. Water Resour. Manag., http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s11269-014-0736-6.

Gaydon, D.S., Meinke, H., Rodriguez, D., 2012a. The best farm-level irrigation strategy changes seasonally with fluctuating water availability. Agric. Water Manag. 103, 33-42.

Gaydon, D.S., Meinke, H., Rodriguez, D., McGrath, D.J., 2012b. Comparing water options for irrigation farmers using Modern Portfolio Theory. Agric. Water Manag. 115,1-9.

Gersonius, B., Ashley, R., Pathirana, A., Zevenbergen, C., 2013. Climate change uncertainty: building flexibility into water and flood risk infrastructure. Clim. Change 116,411-423.

Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Hoff, H., Biemans, H., Fader, M., Waha, K., 2011. Global water availability and requirements for future food production. J. Hydrometeorol. 12, 885-899.

Giannakopoulos, C., Le Sager, P., Bindi, M., Moriondo, M., Kostopoulou, E., Good-ess, C.M., 2009. Climatic changes and associated impacts in the Mediterranean resulting from a 2 °C global warming. Glob. Planet. Change 68, 209-224.

Giorgi, F., Lionello, P., 2008. Climate change projections for the Mediterranean region. Glob. Planet. Change 63,90-104.

Glauber, J.W., 2004. Crop insurance reconsidered. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 86 (5), 1179-1195.

Gleeson, T., Wada, Y., Bierkens, M.F.P.,vanBeek, L.P.H., 2012. Water balance of global aquifers revealed by groundwater footprint. Nature 488,197-200.

Gleick, P., 2003. Global freshwater resources: soft-path solutions for the 21st century. Science 302,1524-1528.

Gleick, P., Palaniappan, M., 2010. Peak water limits to freshwater withdrawal and use. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 1004812107v1-8.

Glendenninga, C.J., van Ogtrop, F.F., Mishra, S.K., Vervoort, R.W., 2012. Balancing watershed and local scale impacts of rain water harvesting in India - a review. Agric. Water Manag. 107,1-13.

Glenk, K., Fischer, A., 2010. Insurance, prevention or just wait and see? Public preferences for water management strategies in the context of climate change. Ecol. Econ. 69, 2279-2291.

Godfray, H.C.J., Crute, I.R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, F., Nisbett, N., Pretty, J., Robinson, S., Toulmin, C., Whiteley, R., 2010. The future ofthe global food system. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 365, 2769-2777.

González-Zeas, D., Quiroga, S., Iglesias, A., Garrote, L., 2013. Looking beyond the average agricultural impacts in defining adaptation needs in Europe. Reg. Environ. Change 13(1), 1-11.

Harrison, P., Berry, P., Henriques, C., Holman, I., 2008. Impacts ofsocio-economic and climate change scenarios on wetlands: linking water resource and biodiversity meta-models? Clim. Change 90(1-2), 113-139.

Henriques, C., Holman, I.P., Audsley, E., Pearn, K., 2008. An interactive multi-scale integrated assessment of future regional water availability for agricultural irrigation in East Anglia and NorthWest England. Clim. Change 90, 89-111.

Heumesser, C., Fuss, S., Szolgayová, J., Strauss, F., Schmid, E., 2012. Investment in irrigation systems under precipitation uncertainty. Water Resour. Manag. 26, 3113-3137.

Hirabayashi, Y., Kanae, S., Emori, S., Oki, T., Kimoto, M., 2008. Global projections of changing risks of floods and droughts in a changing climate. Hydrol. Sci. J. 53 (4), 754-772.

Hoerling, M., Eischeid, J., Perlwitz, J., Quan, X., Zhang, T., Pegion, P., 2012. On the increased frequency of Mediterranean drought. J. Clim. 25, 2146-2161.

Holman, I., Rounsevell, M., Cojacaru, G., Shackley, S., McLachlan, C., Audsley, E., Berry, P., Fontaine, C., Harrison, P., Henriques, C., Mokrech, M., Nicholls, R., Pearn, K., Richards, J., 2008. The concepts and development of a participatory regional integrated assessment tool. Clim. Change 90 (1-2), 5-30.

Howden, M.S., Soussana, J.F., Tubiello, F.N., Chhetri, N., Dunlop, M., Meinke, H., 2007. Adapting agriculture to climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104 (40), 19691-19696.

Huntjens, P., Pahl-Wostl, C., Grin, J., 2010. Climate change adaptation in European river basins. Reg. Environ. Change 10, 263-284.

Iglesias, A., Rosenzweig, C., Pereira, D., 2000. Prediction spatial impacts ofclimate in agriculture in Spain. Glob. Environ. Change 10,69-80.

Iglesias, A., Buono, F., 2009. Towards sustainability of water policies in Mediterranean countries: approaches in the SWAP project. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 1 (2), 133-140.

Iglesias, A., Quiroga, S., Diz, A., 2011a. Looking into the future of agriculture in a changing climate. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 38 (3), 427-447.

Iglesias, A., Garrote, L., Diz, A., Schlickenrieder, J., Martin-Carrasco, F., 2011b. Rethinking water policy priorities in the Mediterranean Region in view of climate change. Environ. Sci. Policy 14, 744-757.

Iglesias, A., Mougou, R., Moneo, M., Quiroga, S., 2011c. Towards adaptation of agriculture to climate change in the Mediterranean. Reg. Environ. Change 11 (S1), 1-8.

Iglesias, A., Garrote, L., Flores, F., Moneo, M., 2007. Challenges to manage the risk of water scarcity and climate change in the Mediterranean. Water Resour. Manag. 21 (5), 227-288.

Iglesias, A., Garrote, L., Quiroga, S., Moneo, M., 2012a. A regional comparison of the effects of climate change on agricultural crops in Europe. Clim. Change 112, 29-46.

Iglesias, A., Garrote, L., Quiroga, S., Moneo, M., 2012b. From climate change impacts to the development of adaptation strategies: challenges for agriculture in Europe. Clim. Change 112,143-168.

IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, Cambridge, United Kingdom/New York, NY, USA.

IPCC, 2008. Technical Paper on Climate Change and Water, June 2008. IPCC, Cambridge, United Kingdom/New York, NY, USA.

IPCC, 2014. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. IPCC, Cambridge, United Kingdom/New York, NY, USA.

Ivey, J., Smithers, J., de Loe, R., Kreutzwiser, R., 2004. Community capacity for adaptation to climate-induced water shortages: linking institutional complexity and local actors. Environ. Manag. 33 (1), 36-47.

Jasper, K., Calanca, P., Gyalistras, D., Fuhrer, J., 2004. Differential impacts of climate change on the hydrology of two alpine river basins. Clim. Res. 26,113-129.

Kempen, M., Elbersen, B.S., Staritsky, I., Andersen, E., Heckelei, T., 2010. Spatial allocation of farming systems and farming indicators in Europe. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 142 (1-2), 51-62.

Krysanova, V., Dickens, C., Timmerman, J., Varela-Ortega, C., Schlüter, M., Roest, K., Huntjen, P., Jaspers, F., Buiteveld, H., Moreno, E., 2010. Cross-comparison of climate change adaptation strategies across large river basins in Europe, Africa and Asia. Water Resour. Manag. 24 (14), 4121-4160.

Leary, N.A., 1999. A framework for benefit-cost analysis of adaptation to climate change and climate variability. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 4 (3-4), 307-318.

Lehner, B., Döll, P., Alcamo, J., Henrichs, T., Kaspar, F., 2006. Estimating the impact of global change on flood and drought risks in Europe: a continental, integrated analysis. Clim. Change 75 (3), 273-299.

Leiserowitz, A., 2006. Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: the role of affect, imagery and values. Clim. Change 77, 45-72.

Lempert, R.J., Groves, D.G., 2010. Identifying and evaluating robust adaptive policy responses to climate change for water management agencies in the American west. Technol. Forecast. Soc. 77, 960-974.

Lopez, A., Fung, F., New, M., Watts, G., Weston, A., Wilby, R.L., 2009. From climate model ensembles to climate change impacts and adaptation: a case study of water resource management in the southwest of England. Water Resour. Res. 45 (8), W08419, http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2008wr007499.

Ma, J., Hipel, K., De, M., Cai, J., 2008. Transboundary water policies: assessment, comparison and enhancement. Water Resour. Manag. 22 (8), 1069-1087.

Martin-Carrasco, F., Garrote, L., Iglesias, A., Mediero, L., 2013. Diagnosing causes of water scarcity in complex water resources systems and identifying risk management actions. Water Resour. Manag. 27 (6), 1693-1705.

McEvoy, J., Wilder, M., 2012. Discourse and desalination: potential impacts of proposed climate change adaptation interventions in the Arizona-Sonora border region. Glob. Environ. Change 22 (2012), 353-363.

Mehtaa, V.K, Haden, V.R., Joyce, B.A., Purkey, D.R., Jackson, L.E., 2013. Irrigation demand and supply, given projections of climate and land-use change, in Yolo County, California. Agric. Water Manag. 117, 70-82.

Menzel, L., Thieken, A., Schwandt, D., Bürger, G., 2006. Impact of climate change on the regional hydrology - scenario-based modelling studies in the German Rhine catchment. Nat. Hazards 38 (1), 45-61.

Metzger, M.J., Rounsevell, M.D.A., Acosta-Michlik, L., Leemans, R., Schröter, D., 2006. The vulnerability of ecosystem services to land use change. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 114,69-85.

Michel-Guillou., E., Moser, G., 2006. Commitment of farmers to environmental protection: from social pressure to environmental conscience. J. Environ. Psychol. 26, 227-235.

Milly, P.C.D., Dunne, K.A., Vecchia, A.V., 2005. Global pattern of trends in streamflow and water availability in a changing climate. Nature 438 (7066), 347-350.

Mizyed, N., 2009. Impacts of climate change on water resources availability and agricultural water demand in the West Bank. Water Resour. Manag. 23, 2015-2029.

Moges, G., Hengsdijk, H., Jansen, H.C., 2011. Review and quantitative assessment of ex situ household rainwater harvesting systems in Ethiopia. Agric. Water Manag. 98,1215-1227.

Mukheibir, P., 2008. Water resources management strategies for adaptation to climate-induced impacts in South Africa. Water Resour. Manag. 22,1259-1276.

Nearing, M.A., Pruski, F.F., O'Neal, M.R., 2004. Expected climate change impacts on soil erosion rates: a review. J. Soil Water Conserv. 59, 43-50.

Nkomozepi, T., Chung, S.O., 2012. Assessing the trends and uncertainty of maize net irrigation water requirement estimated from climate change projections for Zimbabwe. Agric. Water Manag. 111, 60-67.

OECD, 2009a. Economic aspects of adaptation to climate change: integrated assessment modelling of adaptation costs and benefits. In: De Bruin, K., Dellink, R., Agrawala, S. (Eds.), OECD Working Papers Environment Working Papers No. 6, 24/03/2009, English. , 49 pp.

OECD, 2009b. Integrating Climate Change Adaptation into Development CoOperation: Policy Guidance. OECD, Paris, France, 193 pp.

OECD, 2011. Financing Climate Change Action and Boosting Technology Change: Key Messages and Recommendation from Current OECD Work. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France, 12 pp.

Olesen, J.E., Bindi, M., 2002. Consequences of climate change for European agricultural productivity, land use and policy. Eur. J. Agron. 16 (4), 239-262.

Oweis, T., Hachum, A., 2005. Water harvesting and supplemental irrigation for improved water productivity of dry farming systems in West Asia and North Africa. Agric. Water Manag. 80, 57-73.

Palmer, M., Lettenmaier, D., Poff, N., Postel, S., Richter, B., Warner, R., 2009. Climate change and river ecosystems: protection and adaptation options. Environ. Manag. 44 (6), 1053-1068.

Parry, M.A., Rosenzweig, C., Iglesias, A., Livermore, M., Fischer, G., 2004. Effects of climate change on global food production under SRES emissions and socioeconomic scenarios. Glob. Environ. Change 14 (2004), 53-67.

Pavelic, P., Patankar, U., Acharya, S., Jella, K., Gumma, M.K., 2012. Role ofgroundwater in buffering irrigation production against climate variability at the basin scale in South-West India. Agric. Water Manag. 103, 78-87.

Pulido-Velazquez, D., Garrote, L., Andreu, J., Martin-Carrasco, F.J., Iglesias, A., 2011. A methodology to diagnose the effect of climate change and to identify adaptive strategies to reduce its impacts in conjunctive-use systems at basin scale. J. Hydrol. 405,110-122.

Quevauviller, P., Balabanis, P., Fragakis, C., Weydert, M., Oliver, M., Kaschl, A., Arnold, G., Kroll, A., Galbiati, L., Zaldivar, J.M., Bidogli, G., 2005. Science-policy integration needs in support of the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive. Environ. Sci. Policy 8 (3), 203-211.

Rodima-Taylor, D., Olwig, M.F., Chhetri, N., 2012. Adaptation as innovation, innovation as adaptation: an institutional approach to climate change. Appl. Geogr. 33, 107-111.

Rodriguez Diaz,J.A., Weatherhead, E.K., Knox,J.W., Camacho,J., 2010. Climate change impacts on irrigation water requirements in the Guadalquivir river basin in Spain. Reg. Environ. Change 7,149-159.

Roncoli, C., Ingram, K., Kirshen, P., 2001. The costs and risks of coping with drought: livelihood impacts and farmers' responses in Burkina Faso. Clim. Res. 19, 119-143.

Rosegrant, M.W., Ringler, C., Zhu, T., 2009. Water for agriculture: maintaining food security under growing scarcity. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 34, 205-222.

Rosenzweig, C., Iglesias, A., Yang, X.B., Chivian, E., Epstein, P., 2001. Climate change and extreme weather events: implications for food production, plant diseases, and pests. Glob. Change Human Health 2,90-104.

Rosenzweig, C., Strzepek, K., Major, D., Iglesias, A., Yates, D., Holt, A., Hillel, D., 2004. Water availability for agriculture under climate change: five international studies. Glob. Environ. Change 14,345-360.

Rossi, G., 2009. EU Policy for improving drought preparedness and mitigation. Water Int. 34 (4), 441-450.

Rounsevell, M.D.A., Ewert, F., Reginster, I., Leemans, R., Carter, T.R., 2005. Future scenarios of European agricultural land use: II. Projecting changes in cropland and grassland. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 107 (2-3), 117-135.

Sadoff, C., Grey, D., 2002. Beyond the river: the benefits of cooperation on international rivers. Water Pollut. 4 (5), 389-403.

Semenza, J., Ploubidis, G., George, L., 2011. Climate change and climate variability: personal motivation for adaptation and mitigation. Environ. Health 10,46.

Shwom, R., Bidwell, D., Dan, A., Dietz, T., 2010. Understanding U.S. public support for domestic climate change policies. Glob. Environ. Change 20,472-482.

Siebert, S., Nagie, M., Buerkert, A., 2007. Climate and irrigation water use of a mountain oasis in northern Oman. Agric. Water Manag. 89,1-14.

Smit, B., Skinner, M.W., 2002. Adaptation options in agriculture to climate change: a typology. Mitig. Adapt Strateg. Glob. Change 7, 85-114.

Strzepek, K., Boehlert, B., 2010. Competition for water for the food system. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 365, 2927-2940.

Strzepek, K., Rosenzweig, C., Major, D., Iglesias, A., Yates, D., Holt, A., Hillel, D., 1999. New methods of modeling water availability for agriculture under climate change. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 35 (6), 1639-1655.

Sunding, D., Zilberman, D., 2001. The agricultural innovation process: research and technology adoption in a changing agricultural sector. Handbook of Agricultural Economics, Part 1, vol. 1., pp. 207-226.

Thuiller, W., Lavorel, S., Araujo, M.B., Sykes, M.T., Prentice, I.C., 2005. Climate change threats to plant diversity in Europe. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 8245-8250.

Tornqvist, R.,Jarsjo,J., 2012. Water savings through improved irrigation techniques: basin-scale quantification in semi-arid environments. Water Resour. Manag. 26, 949-962.

Trinh, L.T., Nguyen, G., Vu, H., Van Der Steen, P., Lens, R.N.L., 2012. Climate change adaptation indicators to assess wastewater management and reuse options in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Water Resour. Manag. 27 (5), 1175-1191.

Trnka, M., Olesen, J.E., Kersebaum, K.C., Skjelvâg, A.O., Eitzinger, J., Seguin, B., Peltonen-Sainio, P., Iglesias, A., Orlandini, S., Dubrovsky, M., Hlavinka, P., Balekl, J., Eckersten, H., Cloppet, E., Calanca, P., Rotter, R., Gobin, A., Vueetic, V., Nejedlik, P., Kumar, S., Lalic, B., Mestre, A., Rossi, F., Kozyra, J., Alexandrov, V., Semerâdovâ, D., Zalud, Z., 2011. Agroclimatic conditions in Europe underclimate change. Glob. Change Biol. 17 (7), 2298-2318.

UNDP, 2005. Adaptation Policy Frameworks for Climate Change: Developing Strategies, Policies and Measures. Cambridge University Press, New York, United States, 258 pp.

UNDP, 2010a. Designing Climate Change Adaptation Initiatives. A UNDP Toolkit for Practitioners. UNDP Bureau of Development Policies.

UNDP, 2010b. Adaptation Policy Frameworks for Climate Change: Developing Strategies, Policies and Measures: Annexes, Available from: http://www.undp.org/gef/documents/publications/apf-annexes-a-b.pdf

UNDP, 2010c. Designing Climate Change Adaptation Initiatives: A UNDP Toolkit for Practitioners, Available from: http://www.adaptationlearning.net/sites/

default/files/Toolkit_for_Designing_Climate_Change_Adaptation_Initiatives___

November_2010.pdf

UNECE, 2009. Guidance on Water and Adaptation to Climate Change. Economic Commission for Europe, New York/Geneva, 144 pp.

UNISDR, 2009. Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction: Risk and Poverty in a Changing Climate. The United Nations, Geneva.

Vogt, J.V., Somma, F., 2000. Drought and Drought Mitigation in Europe. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London, 336 pp.

Vorosmarty, C., Green, P., Salisbury, J., Lammers, R.B., 2000. Global water resources: vulnerability from climate change and population growth. Science 289, 284-288.

Vorosmarty, C.J., McIntyre, P.B., Gessner, M.O., Dudgeon, D., Prusevich, A., Green, P., Glidden, S., Bunn, S.E., Sullivan, C.A., Liermann, C.R., Davies, P.M., 2010. Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature 467 (7315), 555-561.

World Bank, 2010a. Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change: Synthesis Report. World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, 101 pp.

World Bank, 2010b. Mainstreaming Adaptation to Climate Change in Agriculture and Natural Resources Management Projects, Available from: http://climatechange.worldbank.org/climatechange/content/mainstreaming-adaptation-climate-change-agriculture-and-natural-resources-management-project

Wreford, A., Moran, D., Adger, N., 2010. Climate Change and Agriculture: Impacts, Adaptation and Mitigation. OECD, Paris.

Wu, J., Wu, J., Wang, X., Zhong, M., 2012. Securing water for wetland conservation: a comparative analysis of policy options to protect a national nature reserve in China. J. Environ. Manag. 94,102-111.

Yang, X., Lin, E., Ma, S., Ju, H., Guo, L., Xiong, W., Li, Y., Xu, Y., 2002. Adaptation of agriculture to warming in Northeast China. Clim. Change 54, 269-293.

Yoo, S.H., Choi, J.Y., Lee, S.H., Oh, Y.G., Yun, D.K., 2013. Climate change impacts on water storage requirements of an agricultural reservoir considering changes in land use and rice growing season in Korea. Agric. Water Manag. 117,43-54.

Zhang, X., Cai, X., 2013. Climate change impacts on global agricultural water deficit. Geophys. Res. Lett. 40 (6), 1111-1117.

Zhu, T., Ringler, C., Iqbal, M.M., Sulser, T.B., Goheer, M.A., 2013. Climate change impacts and adaptation options for water and food in Pakistan: scenario analysis using integrated global water and food production model. Water Int. 38 (5), 651-669.

Zimmerer, K.S., 2011. The landscape technology of spate irrigation amid development changes: assembling the links to resources, livelihoods, and agrobiodiversity-food in the Bolivian Andes. Glob. Environ. Change 21, 917-934.

Zougmoré, R., Mando, A., Stroosnijder, L., 2010. Benefits of integrated soil fertility and water management in semi-arid West Africa: an example study in Burkina Faso. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 18,17-27.