P. Vellinga

Flood Protection in Venice under Conditions of Sea-Level Rise: An Analysis of Institutional and Technical Measures

It is widely acknowledged that in times of climate change loss of coastal resources and risk for human life can be minimized by implementing adaptation strategies. Such strategies need to encompass a balanced mix of non-structural (institutional) and structural (technical) measures based on sound scientific knowledge. This article discusses measures carried out to protect the city of Venice, Italy from flooding (locally known as “high water”), and reflects on their ability to anticipate a possible acceleration of sea-level rise as induced by climate change. It is based on scientific literature, legislative and policy documents of key institutions, reports and documents of organizations working on Venice issues, newspaper articles, and interviews. Our analysis shows that the synergic action of the hydraulic defense infrastructure under construction is in principle adequate to withstand a broad range of sea-level rise scenarios for the next 100 years. However, when the goal is to use these investments effectively major changes in the existing institutional arrangements will be required in the years to come. The Venice findings point out the difficulties and yet the importance of identifying and implementing both non-structural and structural measures to adapt to climate change.

Copenhagen, evaluation and future prospects

Never before have so many Heads of State, Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of leading companies and Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs), tried so hard to reach an agreement on reducing the human impact on the global climate. The media coverage was unprecedented. What remains in many minds is a disappointing outcome of an ambitious and chaotic process. This editorial reviews the process and the outcome. It puts the negotiations in a historic perspective and looks further ahead. The issue of climate change will not go away. The challenge for countries and companies is now to position them in the techno-economic competition towards a climate-neutral world. For the time being, they will have to settle for a kind of pledge and review regime. A smaller negotiation table and more creative issue linkage will be necessary to develop the type of regime really needed. The G-20 could well serve as the platform to negotiate such a regime.