Anreize zur Reduktion von Schäden durch Naturkatastrophen mit besonderem Augenmerk auf Möglichkeiten im Kontext von Kompensation und Versicherung von Hochwasserschäden

Im Rahmen des Workshops des ACRP Projekts InsAdapt diskutierten 25 ExpertInnen aus Verwaltung, Versicherungswirtschaft und Wissenschaft sowie ein Vertreter einer BürgerInnen-initiative Möglichkeiten zur Risikoreduktion in Bezug auf Naturkatastrophen auf Haushalts-ebene und Anreize, deren Umsetzung zu forcieren. - Im Kontext steigender Schäden durch Überschwemmungen und wachsender Finan-zierungslücken müssen Möglichkeiten zur Anpassung des aktuellen Hochwasserrisiko-managements und besonders bestehender Risikotransfermechanismen in Erwägung ge-zogen werden. - Weder Zahlungen aus dem Kompensationsfonds, noch Leistungen privater Versicherer bie-ten aktuell Anreize und Auflagen zur privaten Risikoreduktion. Problematisch ist überdies die Risikodemenz in der Bevölkerung, d.h. das rasche Vergessen katastrophaler Ereig-nisse. - Umfassender öffentlicher Hochwasserschutz bei gleichzeitig unzulänglicher Bewusst-seinsbildung beeinflusst das Risikobewusstsein in der Bevölkerung negativ. - Standardisierte Versicherungsprämien für Naturkatastrophen tragen nicht zur Bewusstseinsbildung bei. - ÖsterreicherInnen bezahlen aktuell den Großteil der Schäden aus eigener Tasche, nur ein Teil wird aus öffentlichen Kompensationszahlungen und privater Hochwasserversicherung gedeckt. - Sowohl auf Seiten der öffentlichen Hand als auch der Privatwirtschaft gibt es vereinzelte Lösungsansätze, um das aktuelle System zu verbessern. - In Vorarlberg werden zum Beispiel versicherbare Schäden bis 7.200 EUR nicht öffentlich kompensiert - In Salzburg, werden Schäden in der roten Gefahrenzone nur in Ausnahmefällen kompensiert. In Niederösterreich wird nur unter der Voraussetzung der Richtigkeit behördlicher Bewilligungen eine Kompensation ausbezahlt - In einer öffentlichen - privaten Zusammenarbeit wurde eine risikobasierte Versiche-rungslösung für Naturkatastrophen erarbeitet, die 100% Schadensdeckung ermöglichen würde, was aber eine quasi Versicherungspflicht darstellt

Drought risk and drought risk management strategies among Austrian crop farmers

So far, droughts have not been a main concern for high-income countries, including Austria. However, the effects of climate change will likely cause droughts to occur more frequently and with greater severity also in Austria particularly (Hochrainer-Stigler et al. 2018). Particularly Austrian farmers have frequently been affected by drought over the past decade, and scientific research predicts a continuation of this trend. Targeted efforts at relevant policymaking have been increasing in parallel in different sectors and domains, however, no concerted drought risk management strategies – neither for the agricultural sector nor at a cross sectoral level – are available. This working paper presents a survey that we designed and conducted to investigate Austrian cropping farmers’ perceptions of and experiences with drought risk and its management. The aim was to inform policy making at different levels to design both targeted and integrated drought risk management strategies. The working paper includes a description of the data collection process and the survey design, as well as a detailed characterization of the sample and the data collected. This document thus highlights the main findings of the survey and serves as a background document for further, more detailed analysis. The work presented is part of the ACRP-funded FARM project. For more information on the project, please consult www.iiasa.ac.at/farm. For more information on the conceptual context as well as Austrian governance landscape for drought see Hanger-Kopp and Palka 202

Decision spaces in agricultural risk management: a mental model study of Austrian crop farmers

Drought has become a dominant climate risk both around the world and in Europe, adding to the already challenging task of farming and governing the agricultural sector under climate change. Drought risk management is extremely complex. Apart from irrigation, most drought risk management options have more than one goal and may potentially have negative trade-offs with other risk management objectives. Moreover, government regulations and market mechanisms influence farmers’ decision-making. However, previous studies, both in developed and in developing countries, have predominantly focused on attitudinal and structural influencing factors on farmers’ risk management behavior. In this paper, we comprehensively investigate farmers’ decision spaces with respect to drought risk management. We address two applied research questions: (1) What are farmers’ preferred drought risk management measures? (2) From a farmer’s perspective, what are the dominant factors influencing drought risk management decisions? We find that farmers primarily think of production-based rather than financial measures with respect to drought risk management. At the same time, natural and technical constraints and enabling factors dominate their mental decision space, followed by public and private institutional aspects. This research provides a basis for the design of integrated and holistic drought risk management policy and the drought risk governance needed for sustainable use of land and water resources such as needed to address systemic risks and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Moreover, we introduce a novel approach using mental models extracted from interviews to explore cognitive representations of farmers' decision spaces. This approach has the potential to complement mainstream research using standardized surveys and behavioral models to analyze drivers of risk management

An expert workshop on integrated drought risk management (DRM): Identifying synergies and trade-offs for the Austrian agricultural sector

In this working paper we present the findings from an expert workshop on integrated drought risk management (DRM) for the Austrian agricultural sector, with a focus on crop farming. We argue that the nature of most DRM measures, which serve several purposes besides addressing drought risk such as soil management, requires an integrated approach, considering risk management efforts from actors beyond the farm level. Thus, the main objective was to identify synergies and trade-offs between decision areas from plant production to trade, across the spectrum of public, private and third sector actors. We describe the expert elicitation process including the workshop design and pre- and post-workshop procedure. We had limited success encouraging systems thinking in this process and highlight the potential for developing such methods further. Most importantly, however, our findings intend to inform deliberations on holistic and integrated DRM, with the aim of achieving greater policy coherence in relevant decision areas, and ultimately, enabling greater societal drought resilience. While on-farm production-based DRM is well advanced, the links (synergies and trade-offs) to related areas of decision making such as trade, spatial planning, and transport need to be better understood

Agricultural drought risk management in Austria: A farm level study

1. Theme Drought is increasingly becoming an issue in Austria, both in regions with a traditionally arid climate, and elsewhere. Farmers operate in a very complex decision space between nature, market and public regulation, and drought risk is only one among many threats they have to manage. Indeed, only few risk management options are available that directly address drought, such as irrigation, and many more, which reduce drought risk as a positive side-effect, such as certain tillage practices. It is thus interesting to understand the role droughts play in the intricate management of a farm; the strategies farmers apply to manage potential negative impacts; as well as the underlying drivers. Beyond economic factors, empirical research suggests risk perception and personal coping capacity as influential to adaptive behavior. Personal values and worldviews additionally shape behavior in the face of complex decisions. At the same time the available private and public offers supporting risk management may be decisive for ultimate strategic behavior. This is relevant for developing sustainable, effective, and socially acceptable policies that reflect the heterogeneous profiles of Austrian farmers. 2. Method We conducted over 40 face-to-face interviews with farmers, following a semi-structured interview protocol. The aim was to collect detailed individual narratives on risk management strategies, and underlying motivations, with a specific focus on the role of droughts. Moreover, we intended to identify perceptions and preferences with respect to public and private policies and risk management instruments, particularly subsidized drought insurance. Better than standardized methods semi-structured interviews are suited to explore the details and nuances of farmer’s choices with respect to risk management, which often are decisive when choices need to be made. They allow us to collect more intricate information, which we need to deduce worldviews. Such methods are particularly important for emerging policy issues, which are insufficiently understood, in this case drought risk management, which are insufficiently understood in countries. The geographical focus of the data collection is on the Northeast and East of Austria. The farm-level study is embedded in an analysis of relevant regional, national, and EU agricultural policy relying on document analysis, and key-informant interviews. 3. Results Currently, drought is still not a major concern of Austrian farmers, such as most weather and climate related risks, which have been part of farm-live and risk management for a long time. It is therefore difficult to identify all relevant direct and indirect risks management mechanisms, as many are not perceived as such. Most certainly, we can identify a trend in crop selection and diversification that reflects increasingly common choices for more heat tolerant crops, such as sorghum, or crops avoiding dry periods, such as winter crops. Moreover, sustainable soil management is widely practiced. Financial instruments for risk management, including insurance, are not actively sought and employed, particularly not by small farmers. Especially in the case of droughts, insurance is nothing farmers rely on. Reference values and calculation methods for drought compensation seem to be unsatisfactory for all farmers. As a consequence, public support will have to go beyond risk financing tools. However, to date drought has played only a marginal role in agricultural policy. Identifying the relevant entry points, synergies and trade-offs for drought risk management remains an important task. Public and private actors need to coordinate, and promote available management options, and follow-up with adequate support