Two approaches can be distinguished in studies of climate change impacts on water resources when accounting for issues related to impact model performance: (1) using a multi-model ensemble disregarding model performance, and (2) using models after their evaluation and considering model performance. We discuss the implications of both approaches in terms of credibility of simulated hydrological indicators for climate change adaptation. For that, we discuss and confirm the hypothesis that a good performance of hydrological models in the historical period increases confidence in projected impacts under climate change, and decreases uncertainty of projections related to hydrological models. Based on this, we find the second approach more trustworthy and recommend using it for impact assessment, especially if results are intended to support adaptation strategies. Guidelines for evaluation of global- and basin-scale models in the historical period, as well as criteria for model rejection from an ensemble as an outlier, are also suggested.

This paper introduces a Special Issue of Hydrological Sciences Journal containing 10 research papers which present current applications of the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) for water resources assessment. First, an overview of selected, recently published papers with application of SWAT is given. The papers address the following topics: nutrients and related best management practices (BMPs); sediments and related BMPs; impoundment and wetlands; irrigation; bioenergy crops; climate change impact; and land-use change impacts. Then, papers from this Special Issue are briefly described, covering the themes: surface runoff and sediments; nonpoint-source pollution; surface water and groundwater; impacts of climate and land-use change; and large-scale SWAT applications. The presented model applications of SWAT were conducted across a variety of spatial scales, physiographic regions and climatic zones. This collection of papers demonstrates that applications of SWAT for water resources assessment are growing in number and cover drainage basins in many regions worldwide.

Importance of evaluation of global hydrological models (gHMs) before doing climate impact assessment was underlined in several studies. The main objective of this study is to evaluate the performance of six gHMs in simulating observed discharge for a set of 57 large catchments applying common metrics with thresholds for the monthly and seasonal dynamics and summarize them estimating an aggregated index of model performance for each model in each basin. One model showed a good performance, and other five showed a weak or poor performance in most of the basins. In 15 catchments, evaluation results of all models were poor. The model evaluation was supplemented by climate impact assessment for a subset of 12 representative catchments using (1) usual ensemble mean approach and (2) weighted mean approach based on model performance, and the outcomes were compared. The comparison of impacts in terms of mean monthly and mean annual discharges using two approaches has shown that in four basins, differences were negligible or small, and in eight catchments, differences in mean monthly, mean annual discharge or both were moderate to large. The spreads were notably decreased in most cases when the second method was applied. It can be concluded that for improving credibility of projections, the model evaluation and application of the weighted mean approach could be recommended, especially if the mean monthly (seasonal) impacts are of interest, whereas the ensemble mean approach could be applied for projecting the mean annual changes. The calibration of gHMs could improve their performance and, consequently, the credibility of projections.

A cross-comparison of climate change adaptation strategies across regions was performed, considering six large river basins as case study areas. Three of the basins, namely the Elbe, Guadiana, and Rhine, are located in Europe, the Nile Equatorial Lakes region and the Orange basin are in Africa, and the Amudarya basin is in Central Asia. The evaluation was based mainly on the opinions of policy makers and water management experts in the river basins. The adaptation strategies were evaluated considering the following issues: expected climate change, expected climate change impacts, drivers for development of adaptation strategy, barriers for adaptation, state of the implementation of a range of water management measures, and status of adaptation strategy implementation. The analysis of responses and cross-comparison were performed with rating the responses where possible. According to the expert opinions, there is an understanding in all six regions that climate change is happening. Different climate change impacts are expected in the basins, whereas decreasing annual water availability, and increasing frequency and intensity of droughts (and to a lesser extent floods) are expected in all of them. According to the responses, the two most important drivers for development of adaptation strategy are: climate-related disasters, and national and international policies. The following most important barriers for adaptation to climate change were identified by responders: spatial and temporal uncertainties in climate projections, lack of adequate financial resources, and lack of horizontal cooperation. The evaluated water resources management measures are on a relatively high level in the Elbe and Rhine basins, followed by the Orange and Guadiana. It is lower in the Amudarya basin, and the lowest in the NEL region, where many measures are only at the planning stage. Regarding the level of adaptation strategy implementation, it can be concluded that the adaptation to climate change has started in all basins, but progresses rather slowly.