Advertisement

Cross-border climate change impacts: implications for the European Union

  • Magnus Benzie
  • Timothy R. Carter
  • Henrik Carlsen
  • Richard Taylor
Original Article

Abstract

The European Union (EU) is increasingly connected to the rest of the world via flows of people, capital, goods and resources, exposing it to the potential impacts of climate change occurring outside its borders, in addition to impacts occurring on and between EU countries themselves. However, there is currently no peer-reviewed literature that describes the way in which cross-border impacts might affect the EU as a whole, or what the pattern of exposure to cross-border impacts might look like from a European perspective. This paper describes the pathways via which the EU may be impacted and analyses indicator data to identify some of the potential key issues for EU adaptation. We find that many EU countries are more exposed than the global average to climate-related risks in the context of transboundary water dependency, trade openness, openness to asylum and globalisation. We introduce a typology of cross-border climate change impacts to guide future assessments and adaptation planning in the European Union: EU internal aspects resulting from climate risks shared between neighbouring member states and within the single market; EU external aspects resulting from climate impacts beyond the EU’s borders; and EU impacts on the rest of the world, recognising that the EU and its member states will themselves transmit impacts to others depending on the success of their own adaptation efforts. Cross-border climate impacts raise a number of challenges for EU adaptation—such as applying existing cohesion and external action mechanisms to build resilience to cross-border climate change impacts, or monitoring member states to track changes in exposure to “internal” cross-border climate risks; and to research—such as making better use of economic, trade and other supply chain modelling and data analysis to assess climate-related risks, as well as other methods and approaches that have not been applied widely in adaptation studies to date. Overcoming these challenges will help to advance society’s understanding of and preparedness for cross-border climate change impacts.

Keywords

Climate change impacts Adaptation strategies Risk exposure Cross-border Spillover Globalisation European Union Cascading effects 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the substantial contributions made by Oskar Wallgren for original conceptual development; Georgia Savvidou, Frida Lager, Fanny Groundstroem and Nina Pirttioja for contributing to the review material and preparing summary figures and tables; and Åsa Persson for the critical review and contributions.

Funding

Financial support from the European Commission Seventh Framework Programme project IMPRESSIONS (Impacts and Risks From Higher-End Scenarios—Grant Agreement No. 603416) and valuable contributions and feedback from project partners were provided. Additional funding was provided by Formas, The Swedish Research Council for Sustainable Development, Sida, who provide core support to the Stockholm Environment Institute and the PLUMES (Pathways Linking Uncertainties in Model Projections of Climate and Its Effects) project of the Academy of Finland (decision 277276).

Supplementary material

10113_2018_1436_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.8 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 1864 kb)

References

  1. Amec (2013) Assessing the spillover effects in the EU of the adverse effects of climate change in the rest of the world, in particular the EU’s Neighbourhood countries—summary for policy makers. AMEC Environment & Insfrastructure UK Limited in partnership with Bio Intelligence Service, Cambridge Econometrics and Milieu Limited. Report to European Commission DG CLIMAGoogle Scholar
  2. Arent DJ, Tol RSJ, Faust E, Hella JP, Kumar S, Strzepek KM, Tóth FL, Yan D (2014) Key economic sectors and services. In: Field CB, Barros VR, Dokken DJ et al (eds) Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: Global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 659–708Google Scholar
  3. Atteridge A, Remling E (2018) Is adaptation reducing vulnerability or redistributing it? Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 9:e500.  https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.500 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker A, Ng AKY, McEvoy D, Mullett J (2018) Implications of climate change for shipping: ports and supply chains. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 9:e508.  https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.508 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benzie M (2014) National Adaptation Plans and the indirect impacts of climate change. Stockholm Environment Institute, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  6. Benzie M, John A (2015) Reducing vulnerability to food price shocks in a changing climate. Stockholm Environment Institute, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  7. Benzie M, Wallgren O, Davis M (2013) Adaptation without borders? How understanding indirect impacts could change countries’ approach to climate risks. Stockholm Environment Institute, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  8. Benzie M, Hedlund J, Carlsen H (2016) Introducing the transnational climate impacts index: indicators of country-level exposure—methodology report. Stockholm Environment Institute, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  9. Benzie M, Carter T, Groundstroem F, Carlsen H, Savvidou G,Pirttioja N, Taylor R, Dzebo A (2017) Implications for the EU of cross-border climate change impacts, EU FP7 IMPRESSIONS Project Deliverable D3A.2Google Scholar
  10. Benzie M, Adams KM, Roberts E et al (2018) Meeting the global challenge of adaptation by addressing transboundary climate risk: a joint collaboration between SEI, IDDRI, and ODI. Stockholm Environment Institute, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  11. Bosello F, Roson R, Tol RSJ (2007) Economy-wide estimates of the implications of climate change: sea level rise. Environ Resour Econ 37:549–571.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-006-9048-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bren d’Amour C, Wenz L, Kalkuhl M, Christoph Steckel J, Creutzig F (2016) Teleconnected food supply shocks. Environ Res Lett 11:035007.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/3/035007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brooks DH, Ferrarini B, Go EC (2013) Bilateral trade and food security. J Intl Econ Commer Policy 04:1350015.  https://doi.org/10.1142/S1793993313500154 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brown C, Alexander P, Holzhauer S, Rounsevell MDA (2017) Behavioral models of climate change adaptation and mitigation in land-based sectors. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 8:e448.  https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.448 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Castellari S, Lung T, Hildén M et al (2017) Vulnerability to climate change in European macro-regions. In: Climate change, impacts and vulnerability in Europe 2016. European Environment Agency, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, pp 294–305Google Scholar
  16. Challinor AJ, Adger WN, Baylis M et al (2016) UK climate change risk assessment evidence report: chapter 7, international dimensions. Report prepared for the Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Committee on Climate Change, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Ciscar JC, Ibarreta D, Soria A, Dosio A, Toreti A, Ceglar A, Fumagalli D, Dentener F, Lecerf R, Zucchini A, Panarello L, Niemeyer S, Pérez-Domínguez I, Fellmann T, Kitous A, Després J, Christodoulou A, Demirel H, Alfieri L, Dottori F, Vousdoukas MI, Mentaschi L, Voukouvalas E, Cammalleri C, Barbosa P, Micale F, Vogt JV, Barredo JI, Caudullo G, Mauri A, de Rigo D, Libertà G, Durrant TH, Vivancos TA, San-Miguel-Ayanz J, Gosling SN, Zaherpour J, De Roo A, Bisselink B, Bernhard J, Bianchi L, Rozsai M, Szewczyk W, Mongelli I, Feyen L (2018) Climate impacts in Europe: Final report of the JRC PESETA III project, EUR 29427 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.  https://doi.org/10.2760/93257
  18. Costinot A, Donaldson D, Smith C (2016) Evolving comparative advantage and the impact of climate change in agricultural markets: evidence from 1.7 million fields around the world. J Polit Econ 124:205–248.  https://doi.org/10.1086/684719 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Diaz D, Moore F (2017) Quantifying the economic risks of climate change. Nat Clim Chang 7:774–782.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3411 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. EC (2013) EU adaptation strategy. DG CLIMA, European CommissionGoogle Scholar
  21. EEA (2017) Climate change, impacts and vulnerability in Europe 2016. European environmental agency, Publications Office of the European Union, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  22. European Union (2016) Shared vision, common action: a stronger Europe. A global strategy for the European Union’s foreign and security policy. The European Union BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  23. Foresight (2011) International dimensions of climate change. Final Project Report. The Government Office for Science, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Gephart JA, Rovenskaya E, Dieckmann U, Pace ML, Brännström Å (2016) Vulnerability to shocks in the global seafood trade network. Environ Res Lett 11:035008.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/3/035008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Godar J, Persson UM, Tizado EJ, Meyfroidt P (2015) Towards more accurate and policy relevant footprint analyses: tracing fine-scale socio-environmental impacts of production to consumption. Ecol Econ 112:25–35.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.02.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gotangco CK, Favis AM, Guzman MAL, Tan ML, Quintana C, Josol JC (2017) A supply chain framework for characterizing indirect vulnerability. Int J Clim Change Strategies Manage 9:184–206.  https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCCSM-04-2015-0046 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harrison PA, Dunford RW, Holman IP, Rounsevell MDA (2016) Climate change impact modelling needs to include cross-sectoral interactions. Nat Clim Chang 6:885–890.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3039 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hedlund J, Fick S, Carlsen H, Benzie M (2018) Quantifying transnational climate impact exposure: new perspectives on the global distribution of climate risk. Glob Environ Chang 52:75–85.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.04.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hewitson B, Janetos A, Carter TR et al (2014) Regional context. In: Barros VR, Field CB (eds) Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability: Part B: Regional aspects. Working Group II Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1133–1197Google Scholar
  30. Hildén M, Groundstroem FM, Carter TR et al (2016) Ilmastonmuutoksen heijastevaikutukset Suomeen (Cross-border effects of climate change in Finland). Publications of the Government’s analysis, assessment and research activities, Helsinki, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  31. Hilden M, Huuki H, Kivisaari V, Kopsakangas-Savolainen M (2018) The importance of transnational impacts of climate change in a power market. Energy Policy 115:418–425.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.01.039 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. INFRAS (2007) Auswirkungen der Klimaänderung auf die Schweizer Volkswirtschaft (Internationale Einflüsse)[Impact of climate change on the Swiss economy (international influences)]. Arbeitsgemeinschaft INFRAS/Ecologic/Rütter + Partner, ZürichGoogle Scholar
  33. IPCC (2007) Summary for policymakers. In: Parry ML, Canziani O, Palutikof J et al (eds) Climate change 2007: impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Working group II contribution to the fourth assessment report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. IPCC (2014) Summary for policymakers. In: Field CB, Barros VR, Dokken DJ et al (eds) Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: Global and sectoral aspects: Working Group II contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–32Google Scholar
  35. Kankaanpää S, Carter T (2007) Implications of international climate change impacts for Finland (IMPLIFIN). Report to the Ministry of the Environment. Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE), HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  36. Lamperti F, Dosi G, Mandel A et al (2016) A new family of agent-based models and their application to high-end scenarios. IMPRESSIONS Deliverable D5.2Google Scholar
  37. Lewis K, Witham C (2012a) Agricultural commodities and climate change. Clim Pol 12:S53–S61.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2012.728790 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lewis K, Witham C (2012b) Manufactured commodities and climate change. Clim Pol 12:S62–S72.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2012.728793 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Liu J, Hertel TW, Taheripour F, Zhu T, Ringler C (2014) International trade buffers the impact of future irrigation shortfalls. Glob Environ Chang 29:22–31.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.07.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Liverman D (2016) U.S. national climate assessment gaps and research needs: overview, the economy and the international context. Clim Chang 135:173–186.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1464-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lung T, Füssel H-M, Eichler L (2017) Europe’s vulnerability to climate change impacts outside Europe. In: Climate change, impacts and vulnerability in Europe 2016. European Environment Agency, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, p 288–293Google Scholar
  42. Moser SC, Hart JAF (2015) The long arm of climate change: societal teleconnections and the future of climate change impacts studies. Clim Chang 129:13–26.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1328-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nicholls RJ, Kebede AS (2012) Indirect impacts of coastal climate change and sea-level rise: the UK example. Clim Pol 12:S28–S52.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2012.728792 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Oppenheimer M, Campos M, Warren R et al (2014) Emergent risks and key vulnerabilities. In: Field CB, Barros VR, Dokken DJ et al (eds) Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: Global and sectoral aspects: Working Group II Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1039–1099Google Scholar
  45. Persson Å, Benzie M (2016) Climate adaptation and world markets: governance implications of indirect, transnational climate impacts. ISA Annual Convention 2016, Atlanta, USAGoogle Scholar
  46. Puma MJ, Bose S, Chon SY, Cook BI (2015) Assessing the evolving fragility of the global food system. Environ Res Lett 10:024007.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/2/024007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. PwC (2013) International threats and opportunities of climate change for the UK. Report prepared for the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)Google Scholar
  48. Schenker O (2013) Exchanging goods and damages: the role of trade on the distribution of climate change costs. Environ Resour Econ 54:261–282.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-012-9593-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Singh-Peterson L, Serrao-Neumann S, Crick F, Sporne I (2013) Planning for climate change across borders: insights from the Gold Coast (QLD)–Tweed (NSW) region. Aust Plan 50:148–156.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07293682.2013.776980 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Suweis S, Carr JA, Maritan A, Rinaldo A, D’Odorico P (2015) Resilience and reactivity of global food security. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112:6902–6907.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1507366112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. van Vuuren DP, Kriegler E, O’Neill BC, Ebi KL, Riahi K, Carter TR, Edmonds J, Hallegatte S, Kram T, Mathur R, Winkler H (2014) A new scenario framework for climate change research: scenario matrix architecture. Clim Chang 122:373–386.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0906-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vonk M, Bouwman A, van Dorland R, Eerens H (2015) Worldwide climate effects: risks and opportunities for the Netherlands. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  53. Watkiss P, Benzie M, Klein RJT (2015) The complementarity and comparability of climate change adaptation and mitigation. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 6:541–557.  https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.368 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wellesley L, Preston F, Lehne J, Bailey R (2017) Chokepoints in global food trade: assessing the risk. Res Transp Bus Manag 25:15–28.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2017.07.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wenz L, Levermann A (2016) Enhanced economic connectivity to foster heat stress–related losses. Sci Adv 2.  https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1501026
  56. West C, Croft S, Dawkins E et al (2016) Identifying and exploring key commodity chains at risk from climate impacts. Report for AVOID2 WPF.2Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI)StockholmSweden
  2. 2.Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE)HelsinkiFinland
  3. 3.Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) Oxford CentreOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations