A Climate for Change

(^86) Coastal Zone and Sea-Level Rise Human Development Report - Croatia 2008
Part of any activity for adaptation should include
detailed physical plans and elevation models of the
coastline covering those valuable places at higher risk.
Currently, most of the coastline is represented in el-
evation models with insufficient resolution – mostly a
25m grid resolution - with the exception of a few high-
er resolution plans produced by the State Geodetic
Administration. Digital elevation models of very high
resolution (such as 0.5 m resolution) would be needed
to evaluate the valuable sites and areas at greater risk
of flooding. Otherwise, no relevant risk and adapta-
tion assessment will be possible.
Further analysis of particularly vulnerable and valu-
able areas – the Neretva Delta, Krka River, Vrana Lake
Nature Park, Krapanj, and others – appears necessary.
This analysis should include an examination of adap-
tation measures – including costs and benefits.
The above information should be made available to
physical planners on the coast. This is a key aspect of
low-cost adaptation preparedness for future sea-level
changes. With relevant information, physical planners
may solve possible future problems before they ap-
pear. Such information is also valid for the current ICZM
plans. For example, by rigorously implementing con-
struction laws for buildings which are being built too
close to the present sea-level, future flooding related
problems can be avoided and thus make adaptation
cheaper. This is, of course, not applicable to histori-
cal sites built long ago. Adaptation for such structures
should be assessed by a cost benefit analysis.
A case study from the Fondi Plain in Italy suggests that
the cost of inaction is still greater than the cost of ac-
tion. The study involved a socio-economic evaluation
of local adaptation possibilities assessed through a
cost-benefit analysis. The economic value of the areas
at risk of flooding was calculated to represent the cost
of the ‘no intervention’ option. Two alternative mea-
sures of land protection (improvement of the existing
drainage system and restoring of coastal dunes) were
then compared to the ‘no intervention’ option. In the
conclusion, the cost of inaction was between EUR 130
and 270 million while the cost of action was between
EUR 50 and 100 million. The point of this study is that
economic analysis has to be complemented with so-
cial and political analysis within the local context.
5.4.2. Resource availability for adaptation
and adaptation studies and the role of
institutions and decision-making authorities
Coastal planning is mostly regulated by the “Ordi-
nance on Regulation and Protection of Protected
Coastal Area on the Sea”^18 which has incorporated
some basic coastal protection measures against un-
regulated building within the Protected Coastal Belt
(300 m from the coast line in the direction of the sea
and 1000 m from the coastline inland). Unfortunately,
in practice, this is often not observed and illegal build-
ing is one of the key problems and pressures within
protected coastal areas. However, no legislation takes
sea-level rise into consideration and there is no obliga-
tion for planners to consider it for planning purposes.
This is one of the fundamental issues when attempt-
ing to decrease the costs of adaptation to sea-level
rise. It may not be easy to change what has already
been done, but with careful planning we can avoid fu-
ture problems and associated costs.
5.4.3. Analysis of available technological
options for adaptation
In general, the relatively long time it will take for sea-
level to rise should help reduce the cost of adjusting
to it for two reasons. First, it allows individuals and the
Government to cope with the problem through long-
term planning and investment decisions. Second, the
long time scale will allow those involved to “learn by
doing”, which substantially reduces the probability of
making large investment decisions that are later re-
gretted because of bad forecasts. The long time scale
of sea-level rise also means that adaptation can be
incremental. Individuals can take interim “no-regrets”
measures to reduce the adverse impacts of sea-level
rise without eliminating the possibility of long-run op-
tions. For example, such a no-regret measure could be
to replenish a sandy beach or gravel in the short-run
to cope with a few centimetres of sea-level rise and
then, if necessary, completely abandon the beach 50
years later. This type of no-regrets measure would be
more beneficial than choosing an option calculated
for 100 years into the future.
The cost of
inaction is still
greater than the
cost of action