paul watkiss ecbi fellowship programme [email protected] adaptation funding
TRANSCRIPT
Adaptation Funding
Kyoto Protocol’s Adaptation Fund
Aid agencies have woken up to climate change
E.g. 53% of total donor expenditure in Bangladesh has been estimated by the OECD to be at risk from climate impacts
World Bank and DFID looking at very seriously at adaptation funding
Emerging issue is which projects to fund, how to assess suitability
Where should we focus?
Adaptation Policy / Frameworks
Starting to see emergence of adaptation policy frameworks and plans…
• UNDP/GEF Adaptation Policy Framework (APF)
• World Bank ‘look before you leap’
• DFID ‘linking climate risk and adaptation’ – possible country programme
• FINADAPT
• UK CIP + UK Defra Adaptation Policy Framework (APF)
• Canadian Climate Change
• Australian Government - National Climate Change Adaptation Programme
• European Commission to publish Adaptation Green Paper 1st December 2006
General Approach
General approach to adaptation frameworks are similar…
• Risk screening – assessing current and future vulnerability to climate risks
• Including assessment of socio-economic trends
• Identification of a set of adaptation policy options or measures
• Prioritisation of options using some form of decision analysis
Adaptation – the broader policy question
What level of adaptation is appropriate?
There is a high level need for a vision on what is successful adaptation
Do everything – ‘climate proof’ – very expensive and inefficient
Do nothing – ‘live with the risk’ – unacceptable
Aim for something between, i.e. ‘climate resilience’
aiming for adaptation that is cost-effective and proportionate?
Or narrower economic (cost-benefit analysis) – only when benefits exceed costs – or optimality
Link with development goals?
Adaptation and economics
What are the impacts (risks) and costs of climate change?
What options (and costs of options) are available to adapt to impacts?
What does adaptation achieve – what are the residual impacts (costs) after adaptation, i.e. net benefits of adaptation? How do these compare to the costs?
What level of adaptation is appropriate between competing priorities for action?
Priorities between adaptation funding and development?
Mal-Adaptation
Recognition need to avoid mal-adaptation
Inefficient use of resources compared to other options, i.e. some adaptation has no benefits, or costs exceed benefits
E.g. increasing road design to cope with future rainfall intensity - increase road construction costs now - but road design lifetime less than expected event probability horizon, or costs exceed likely benefits
Ineffective (scenarios that do not appear or appear in far future)
E.g building reservoir with added capacity to cope with flood volumes that not expected for 30-50 years (and might not still occur)
Displacing vulnerability from one actor to another
E.g. Flood protection shifting the vulnerability from one zone down-stream
Possible Vision for Successful Adaptation (Funding)
1. Prepare to adapt by building capacity
Research
Awareness
Policies
Monitoring 2. Alter existing plans to manage climate risks and take advantage of new opportunities
Urgent and high priority
Win-win, Low cost
Existing frameworks
Disaster responses
3. Implement adaptation actions
Cost-effective/Cost benefit analysis
Additional criteria-existing frameworks
Modify infrastructure
Alter processes
Adaptation – some extra issues
Equity weighting and adaptive capacity - focus adaptation on protecting those less able to adapt ? And equity or distributional weighting?
Discount rate - how discount long-term impacts CC vs costs of adaptation now
Timing - anticipatory vs. reactive
Capturing non-technical options properly, looking at action vs. insurance, capturing ancillary effects (especially development)
Whether to weight impacts that irreversible, or low adaptive capacity (ecosystem)
• Different levels of uncertainty with:
• Average temperature and sea level rise
• Precipitation
• Extreme events (floods/drought/storm)
• Major climate shifts (e.g. major sea level rise)
Climate Uncertainty
Confidence in climate change Observed trends and hazards Prediction
Shift in risk
Bounded risks Surprise
Data gaps
Trend is reverse of expected climate change
No detected trends
Trend in means
Increase in extremes
Trend in means & extremes
Inadequate data
Key Issues for Discussion
Overall aim of adaptation
Climate proofing or climate resilience
Capacity, no regrets, action
Cost-effectiveness or Cost-Benefit Analysis
Developed or Developing country framework
Avoiding mal-adaptation
Development – including ancillary effects
Discounting and equity
Irreversibility, timing, approach
Climate uncertainty
Additional Material
UNDP/GEF
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and Global Environment Facility (GEF) comprises five components:
1. Scoping and designing an adaptation project to ensure that a project – whatever its scale or scope – is well integrated into the national policy planning and development process. This is the most vital stage of the APF process. The objective is to put in place an effective project plan so that adaptation strategies, policies and measures can be implemented.
2. Assessing current vulnerability by responding to several key questions: Where does a society stand today with respect to vulnerability to climate risks? What factors determine a society’s current vulnerability? How successful are the efforts to adapt to current climate risks?
3. Assessing future climate risks by considering the development of scenarios of future climate, vulnerability, and socio-economic and environmental trends as a basis for considering future climate risks.
4. Formulating an adaptation strategy in response to current vulnerability and future climate risks. This involves the identification and selection of a set of adaptation policy options and measures, and the formulation of these options into a cohesive, integrated strategy.
5. Continuing the adaptation process involves implementing, monitoring, evaluating, improving and sustaining the initiatives launched by the adaptation project.
1a. Define policy aim
1b. Propose generic adaptation objectives
2. Determine priority sectors for action
3. Characterise priority risks and opportunities
4. Propose adaptation objectives
5a. Define targets
5b. Select indicators
9. Link u p policy framework
10. Review and Revise
7. Appraise options
8. Identify cross sectoral overlap and possible conflicts
6. Identify adaptation options
SECTORAL POLICY DEVELOPMENT
ADAPTATION POLICY VISION
Coverage of the Impacts - Risk Matrix
Source: Tom Downing and Paul Watkiss
Market Non Market (Socially Contingent)
Projection(e,g, sea level
Rise)
Bounded Risks
(e.g. droughts, floods, storms)
System change
& surprises(e.g. major
events)
Coastal protection
Loss of dryland
Energy (heating/cooling)
Loss of wetland
Heat stress Regional costs
Investment
Agriculture
Water
Variability
(drought, flood, storms)
Ecosystem change
Biodiversity
Loss of life
Secondary social effects
Comparative
advantage &
market structures
Above, plus
Significant loss of landand resources
Non- marginal effects
Higher order
social effects
Regional collapse
Irreversible losses
Regional collapse
Uncertainty in Valuation
Uncertainty in
PredictingClimateChange
Level of response Current vulnerability Future climate risks
Raising awareness Inventories of disaster impacts (e.g., lives lost, population affected, economic costs); climate monitoring systems
'What if' scenarios of climate change translated into impacts in key sectors
Precautionary strategies Baseline vulnerability mapping, targeting of urgent regions and populations; screening of existing development projects; identification of key thresholds such as length of the growing season or drought frequency
Screening of responses on simple criteria such as trends in observed risks, confidence in key elements of climate change
Proactive risk management Same as above, with projections of how vulnerability is likely to change
As above, with probabilistic distributions of future risks if warranted by decision
Crisis response Same as above, likely with more quantitative data required to justify costly responses
Probabilistic risks defined in terms of significant trends in climatic hazards and impacts
Kenya Bangladesh Smallholder
drought Water
resources Malaria Coastal
erosion River flooding/ infrastructure
Policy Food security, poverty alleviation
Water poverty, urban & economic growth
Health & livelihoods
Preservation of resource base; reduced landless and urban migration
Protection of urban centres and economic infrastructure (employment)
Priority Arid and semi-arid lands
Semi-arid to sub-humid basins with larger urban areas
Core malaria zones and expansion into highlands
Coastal delta and char lands
Dhaka
Adaptation: minimum risk management
Do nothing; Awareness and information; Drought contingency plans
Do nothing; demand management measures
Do nothing; mosquito nets
Do nothing; mutual self-help
Cope with periodic disruptions
Adaptation: Extreme case
Reallocate investment, migration, non-farm economic development
New reservoir and pipe infrastructure
Widespread eradication programme
Migration; engineered sea walls
Flood defences and pumping stations
Climate Disasters, poverty & vulnerability Adaptation Information Types Information Types Information Types I. Policy framework Poor, but
improving Scoping studies and existing frameworks
Adequate ISDR profiles Poor, but improving Guidance in NAPA, UNEP vulnerability, UNDP Adaptation Policy Framework
II. Set priorities Adequate Existing reports and international data sets (e.g., National Communications, drought atlases)
Adequate Country profiles & studies
(Not usually included in this step)
III. Identify options (Secondary) (Specialist literature for each sector)
Adequate Development plans & studies
Adequate International and sectoral studies
IV. Screen options Adequate Baseline data, trends Adequate Development plans Adequate Existing criteria in development plans, stakeholder consultations
V. Assess risk Adequate to poor Downscaled and extreme events
Adequate Disaster studies and statistics
Poor Impact, decision-support and development models
VI. Design project Poor to inadequate
Probability distributions of extreme events
Adequate to poor Local studies Poor Codes of practice for implementing adaptive projects