Scandinavia

SUMMARY

The Scandinavian Pilot centres on agriculture, forestry, and energy—three sectors particularly vulnerable to climate change impacts, such as fluctuations in water availability. For instance, extreme rainfall may cause floods, while heatwaves and droughts can lower agricultural productivity, exacerbate forest fires, or expand biological hazards like the habitats of pine beetles. Simultaneously, the transition to a low-carbon society influences these sectors and ecosystems, as rising demands for land, energy, wood, and food intensify pressures. Climate change, coupled with society’s growing needs, challenges sectors like hydropower, wood production, and ecosystem conservation, creating new trade-offs.

The Scandinavian Pilot Study employs both qualitative and quantitative methods to explore interactions between multiple hazards from seasonal to multi-decadal scales, as well as their impacts across different sectors. Through collaboration with stakeholders and decision-makers across Scandinavia, the pilot focuses on:

Better understanding the relationship between multi-hazards affecting water availability and their effects on key sectors such as agriculture, forestry and energy.

Assessing the economic consequences of multi-hazard events at the national level and remotely.

Investigating the direct and indirect impacts and risks of these events, looking at cross-sectoral effects.

Highlighting nature’s role in managing climate risks from multi-hazards that simultaneously affect multiple sectors (e.g. Wetlands as game-changers for climate change mitigation and adaptation)

Relationship to the MYRIAD-EU Framework

Finding a system definition

Figure 1: Schematic describing the system examined in the Scandinavian pilot.

The Scandinavian pilot employs a range of tools and methods to define the system (see Figure 1) under study. This process involves engaging stakeholders through interviews to identify challenges in disaster risk management (DRM) across the region (Šakić Trogrlić et al., 2024). Notably, discussions with the Norwegian Directorate for Civil Protection provided valuable insights into the system, as their role involves maintaining a comprehensive overview of risks and vulnerabilities at local, regional, and national levels. Regular exchanges with the Wetland International also contributed to the system definition. Additional approaches to refining the system definition include storytelling techniques to analyse historical multi-hazard events (in collaboration with UKRI BGS) and applying the Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways (DAPP, in collaboration with Deltares) method to develop forward-looking risk management strategies. 

As part of the MYRIAD-EU project, the Scandinavian pilot examines the wide-ranging impacts of multi-hazard events on critical sectors such as agriculture, forestry, and energy—industries particularly vulnerable to climate change in the region. By focusing on water-related multi-hazards, including heat-drought-fire and extreme precipitation-flood scenarios, the pilot stresses the challenges these events pose to Scandinavia’s climate, ecosystems, and socio-economic systems.

Characterisation of direct risk

Figure 2: Schematic of climate risks from multi-hazards impacting agriculture, energy, and forestry (non-exhaustive)

To identify direct risks posed by multi-hazards to energy, forestry and agriculture in Scandinavia, as partly described in Figure 2, the Scandinavian pilot began with a literature review. This helped to better understand the risks specific to each sector and their individual contexts. For the agriculture sector, this work contributed to a publication on the sustainability of the food system in Norway (van Oort et al., 2024). For the energy sector it resulted in a collaboration with the SUSRENEW project and a joint workshop.   

The Scandinavian pilot continued their investigations by analysing past events to better understand direct impacts, exposure and vulnerabilities from multi-hazards events. They then focused on one specific past event, the summer of 2018, which was exceptionally unusual in Scandinavia from a climatological perspective. After an unusually warm and dry spring, the summer experienced extreme heat and drought, accompanied by widespread forest fires and the outbreak of ecosystem diseases (Ducros et al., 2024). See here, for more information on the event.

In addition to quantitative analysis, the Scandinavian pilot complemented their investigations with qualitative assessments using the storyline approach to the multi-hazard event of 2018. This approach allowed them to expand their sectors of interest, including the health sector, as well as covering a wider range of impacts on nature (e.g. ecosystem diseases).

Characterisation of indirect risk

To characterise indirect and direct risks from multi-hazards as described in Figure 3, the Scandinavian pilot employed the macroeconomic GRACE model (Aaheim et al., 2018). GRACE (Global Responses to Anthropogenic Changes in the Environment) is a computable general equilibrium model designed to assess the economic impacts of climate policies and climate change on the global economy. The model categorises economic activities worldwide into regions and sectors, using projections of population growth, investments, technological advancements, and climate change scenarios to estimate how key economic indicators, as defined in national accounts, are influenced. More information on the GRACE model can be found here: The GRACE Model.  Combining the direct sectoral impacts of 2018 multi-hazards, the GRACE model evaluates a broad range of indirect socio-economic impacts. It includes changes in sectoral outputs, prices, labour inputs, trade, and GDP as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Concept flow chart showing how the macroeconomic GRACE model was used to work on the compound event of 2018 in Scandinavia.

Evaluation of direct and indirect risk

To evaluate direct and indirect risks from multi-hazards, the Scandinavian pilot built on the two previous steps, resulting in the following publication on the impacts and risks from the multi-hazard event of 2018 (Ducros et al., 2024).

 

The article shows:

  • Direct Impacts: Negative impacts were observed on the production of agriculture, forestry, and electricity sectors. These industries faced significant challenges due to the direct consequences of multi-hazard events, affecting their overall productivity and stability.
  • Indirect Impacts: The multi-hazard events caused a rise in the prices of various products, reflecting disruption in the supply chain. The refined oil sector and manufacturing experienced declines, while the production of crude oil and gas increased. In response to these changes, there was a notable reallocation of labour across different sectors. Additionally, the 2018 events led to a decrease in the trade balance of forestry goods in Scandinavia.
  • Cross-regional impacts: The 2018 event led to cross-regional impacts through bilateral trade. It resulted in widespread economic impacts within Europe as shown in Figure 4, showing the impacts on the GDP. Five out of eight European regions, which are crucial trading partners for Scandinavian forestry products, experienced a decline in their trade balance, highlighting the broader economic impact of the multi-hazard events.
Figure 4. Economic impacts of 2018 compound events: GDP impacts in 33 European countries

This type of analysis, documenting different types of impacts, contributes to a better understanding of climate risks from multi-hazards in the Scandinavian region.  

Defining risk management options

This work was carried out as part of developing Dynamic Adaptation Policy Pathways for Multi-Risks (DAPP-MR) for the energy, agriculture and forestry sectors over the pilot region.  The pilot began by collecting potential measures for climate adaptation for these three sectors through desk reviews and stakeholder discussions during the first and second Focus Group meetings. However, due to the diverse conditions represented in the sectors and in the countries across the Scandinavian region, it proved impractical to propose specific solutions for addressing multi-hazard and multi-risk challenges at the pilot scale.

To reduce the complexity, the pilot chose to focus on the energy sector as a starting point, addressing interlinkages with other sectors when developing risk management pathways. The geographical scope was also narrowed down to Norway, where the energy sector plays a key role, contributing, for example, to national resilience and emission reduction targets. Throughout the exchanges with local stakeholders and experts, participants noted that energy risks are closely tied to impacts on nature. On the other hand, policy measures for the forestry and agricultural sectors can both influence and potentially compete with the energy sector in terms of water and land resources. It was therefore important to understand both synergies and trade-offs across these three sectors while identifying feasible risk management measures.

Figure 5. Score matrix of energy-specific measures (rows) against multiple resilience-related dimensions (columns).
Scores range from –3 to +3, where positive values represent synergies and negative values represent trade-offs. A score of 0 indicates no clear effect (adapted from Schlumberger et al., 2025).

As a key step for the implementation of DAPP-MR, the pilot had to list and then evaluate  risk management options relevant to the energy sector in Norway. The pilot also worked on sequences for their implementations. This task was informed by knowledge gained from a literature review, national and sectoral reports, as well as expert consultations. To evaluate the different measures, the pilot used seven dimensions. One of them focused on synergies and trade-offs between energy-specific measures and their effects on other sectors, adopting a cross-sectoral perspective. Each measure was evaluated against the following dimensions, as shown in Gottardo et al. (2025):

  • Social acceptance
  • Impacts on nature and ecosystems
  • Energy security
  • Economic profitability
  • Resilience to climate shocks, including multi-hazards
  • Cross-sectoral interactions, focusing on agriculture and forestry

The pilot assessed the measures in relation to these seven dimensions through a subjective scoring system, based on expert judgment and existing evidence. When creating the score matrix, the pilot aimed to gain a more holistic perspective of the energy sector, as well as  providing a clear visualisation of how each energy measure contributes to cross-sectoral aspects.

 

Accounting for future system state

To account for future system uncertainties, particularly those related to non-climatic drivers, the Scandinavian Pilot further developed DAPP-MR (see Figure 6), testing several pathways under scenarios. Both scenarios are based on national and industry reports addressing public acceptance of renewable energy developments and changes in market dynamics (Energikommisjonen, 2023; IEA, 2022; Statnett, 2023).

Figure 6. Example of a cross-sectoral energy pathway.
Rows represent specific energy measures, while the time axis indicates implementation periods. ‘+’, ‘++’, and ‘+++’ indicate incremental capacity expansion over time. Dashed lines show links between measures and cross-dimensional challenges (adapted from Schlumberger et al., 2025).

DEVELOPING MULTI-RISK PATHWAYS

As shown in Gottardo et al. (2025), numerous academic papers have already recognized the challenges related to social acceptance associated with renewable energy development, particularly for onshore wind farms in Norway. Therefore, the pilot decided to increase the focus on social acceptance and evaluated how each pathway would evolve in the case of a “social acceptance barrier”, where, for example, strong social resistance would appear due to large-scale onshore wind development.

Figure 7. Example of the energy sectoral pathway under the scenario of “social acceptance barrier”.
The rows represent the energy-specific measures. The time-axis indicates the time scale of the pathway. The signs of ‘+’, ‘++’, ’+++’, and ’++++’ indicate the capacity extension of each measure in the pathway over time. Red ‘+’ symbols denote changes in capacity expansion under the scenario compared to the baseline.

The development of the pathways demonstrated the complexity of the task, but also highlighted the necessity of working with a holistic and cross-sectoral perspective. This work demonstrated that a structured DRM approach can integrate multidimensional interactions, including economic, environmental, social, and cross-sectoral factors, to support more resilient decision-making. Additionally, uncertainties in the future states will undoubtedly impact the selection of pathways for decision-making on the DRM. Thus, fitting the design under a multi-scenario context is necessary.

References: 

  1. Aaheim, A, A Orlov, T Wei and S Glomsrød (2018). GRACE model and applications. CICERO Report 2018/1. Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research, Oslo, Norway.
  2. Ducros, G., Tiggeloven, T., Ma, L., Daloz, A. S., Schuhen, N., and de Ruiter, M. C.: Multi-hazards in Scandinavia: Impacts and risks from compound heatwaves, droughts and wildfires, EGUsphere [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3158, 2024.
  3. Šakić Trogrlić, R., Reiter, K., Ciurean, R. L., Gottardo, S., Torresan, S., Daloz, A., Ma, L., Padrón Fumero, N., Tatman, S., Hochrainer-Stigler, S., de Ruiter, M. C., Schlumberger, J., Harris, R., Garcia-Gonzalez, S., García-Vaquero, M., Arévalo, T. L. F. A., Hernandez-Martin, R., Mendoza-Jimenez, J., Mauro Ferrario, D., Geurts, D., Stuparu, D., Tiggeloven, T., Duncan, M. J., Ward, P. J.: Challenges in assessing and managing multi-hazard risks: A European stakeholders perspective, Environmental Science & Policy, Volume 157, 2024, 103774, ISSN 14629011, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103774
  4. van Oort, B., Daloz, A.S., Andrew, R. et al. Ruminating on sustainable food systems in a net-zero world. Nat Sustain 7, 1225–1234 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-024-01404-9
  5. Energikommisjonen (2023), Mer av alt – raskere: Energikommisjonens rapport (NOU 2023: 3). Oslo: Olje- og energidepartementet. Retrieved from https://www.regjeringen.no
  6. Gottardo, S., Ciurean, R., Daloz, A. S., Padron-Fumero, N., Šakić Trogrlić, R., Tatman, S., Torresan, S., Casartelli, V., Critto, A., Dal Barco, M. K., Díaz- Pacheco, J., Ferrario, D. M., García González, S., Gatti, I., Geurts, D., Hochrainer-Stigler, S., Ma, L., Marengo, A., Romero Manrique Lara, D., … Ward, P. J. (2025). D3.4 Final report on forward-looking DRM pathways and recommendations for upscaling and transferability. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17245464
  7. International Energy Agency. (2022). Norway 2022: Energy policy review. https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/de28c6a6-8240-41d9-9082-a5dd65d9f3eb/NORWAY2022.pdf.
  8. Statnett. (2023). Forventer kraftig vekst i kraftforbruket, avhengig av nett og mer kraftproduksjon. https://www.statnett.no/om-statnett/nyheter-og-pressemeldinger/nyhetsarkiv-2023/forventer-kraftig-vekst-i-kraftforbruket-avhengig-av-nett-og-mer-kraftproduksjon/.
  9. Schlumberger, J., Warren, A., Daloz, A. S., Geurts, D., Hochrainer-Stigler, S., Ma, L., Padrón-Fumero, N., Reiter, K., Trogrlić, R. Š., Tatman, S., Banks, V., Crummy, J., Díaz-Pacheco, J., Antequera, P. D., García-González, S., López-Díez, A., Arévalo, T. L., Romero-Manrique, D., Strelkovskii, N., … de Ruiter, M. C. (2025). Developing multi-risk DRM pathways — lessons from four European case studies. Climate Risk Management, 50, 100753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2025.100753 .