The EACC study has two broad objectives: to develop a global estimate of adaptation costs for informing the international community’s efforts to help the developing countries most vulnerable to climate change meet adaptation costs, and to help decisionmakers in developing countries assess the risks posed by climate change and design strategies for adapting to climate change. That requires costing, prioritizing, sequencing, and integrating robust adaptation strategies into development plans and budgets. And it requires strategies to deal with high uncertainty, potentially high future damages, and competing needs for investments for social and economic development.
Supporting developing country efforts to design adaptation strategies requires incorporating country- specific characteristics and sociocultural and economic conditions into analyses. Providing macro-level information to developed and developing countries to support international negotiations and to identify the overall costs of adaptation to climate change requires analysis at a more aggregate level. Reconciling the two needs involves a tradeoff between the specifics of individual countries and a global picture.
The methodology developed for this study met both objectives by linking the country-level analysis with the analysis for estimating the global costs of adaptation. Initially, the intention was to use country case studies to develop unit least costs of adaptation and then to apply them to similar adaptation conditions in other developing countries. As the country level analysis got under way, however, it became clear that generalizing from the seven country cases (the seven partnering countries) would not work. A two-track approach—a global track to meet the first study objective and a case study track to meet the second—
would yield a more robust estimate.
For the global track, country-level data sets with global coverage are used to estimate adaptation costs for all developing countries by sector—infrastructure, coastal zones, water supply and flood protection, agriculture, fisheries and ecosystem services, human health, and forestry. The cost implications of
changes in the frequency of extreme weather events are also considered. For most sectors, a consistent set of future climate and precipitation projections are used to establish the nature of climate change, and a consistent set of GDP and population projections are used to establish a baseline of how development would look in the absence of climate change. This information is used to establish economic and social impacts and the costs of adaptation (left side of figure 1).
For the country track, the impacts of climate change and adaptation costs are being established only for the major economic sectors in each case study country (see right side of figure 1). To complement the global analysis, vulnerability assessments and participatory scenario development workshops are being used to highlight the impact of climate change on vulnerable groups and to identify appropriate adaptation strategies (see box 1). Macroeconomic analyses are being used to integrate the sectoral analyses and to identify cross-sector effects, such as relative price changes. Finally, in two country case studies (Bolivia and Samoa), an investment model is being developed to prioritize and sequence adaptation measures (see box 2).
17
Figure 1. Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change study structure: global and country tracks
Global track Country track
Source: Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change study team.
The two tracks are intended to inform each other, to improve the overall quality of the analysis. This report presents the methodology and the results for the global track. The report for the case study track will be released early in 2010, by which time lessons from the country studies will be used to validate and improve the estimate of total adaptation costs, resulting in a final report of the global track in early 2010.
Though the current report has undergone intensive review, with an internal World Bank review of the concept note, methodology note, and draft report and reviews of draft sector chapters by an external and an internal expert, the current report is nonetheless considered a consultation draft. Revisions to account for comments received during the consultation process with a wide range of stakeholders will also be incorporated in the final report.
Box 1. Understanding what adaptation means for the most vulnerable social groups
The negative impacts of climate change will be experienced most intensely by the poorest people in developing countries. Just as development alone will not be enough to equip all countries or regions to adapt to climate change, neither do all individuals or households within a country or region enjoy the same levels of adaptive capacity (Mearns and Norton forthcoming). Drivers of physical, economic, and social vulnerability (socioeconomic status, dependence on natural resource based livelihood sources, and physical location, compounded by factors that shape social exclusion such as gender, ethnicity, and migrant status) act as multipliers of climate risk for poor households. Social variables further interact with institutional arrangements that are crucial in promoting adaptive capacity, including those that increase access to information, voice, and civic representation in setting priorities in climate policy and action (World Bank 2010).
Work is under way in six developing countries (Bangladesh, Plurinational State of Bolivia, Ethiopia, Ghana, Mozambique, and Vietnam) under the EACC study to understand what adaptation means for social groups that are most vulnerable to the effects of climate change and what external support they need to help them take adaptation measures. This social component of the study combines vulnerability
18
assessments in selected geographic hotspots with facilitated workshops applying participatory scenario development approaches. In the workshops, participants representing the interests of vulnerable groups identify preferred adaptation options and sequences of interventions based on local and national climate and economic projections. This approach complements the sectoral analyses of the costs of climate change adaptation in those countries. The findings on what forms of adaptation support various groups consider to be most effective—including “soft” adaptation options such as land use planning, greater public access to information, institutional capacity building, and integrated watershed management—have implications for the costs of adaptation. While this work is ongoing, some preliminary results from the country investigations in Bangladesh, Bolivia, Ethiopia, Ghana, and Mozambique are presented throughout this report to illustrate the range of adaptation options that are being suggested.
Box 2. Climate-resilient investment planning
A three-step methodology has been developed to help planners integrate climate risk and resilience into development policies and planning. The first is to identify and validate climate-resilient investment alternatives using a multicriteria decision analysis. This involves qualitative and quantitative impact assessments for each sector, consultation at the national level (government, policymakers, technical experts), and participatory workshops with community representatives and local authorities at the county level. The second step is to conduct a cost-benefit analysis for identified climate-resilient investment alternatives at a specific geographic unit. The final step is implementation of an investment planning model that allows the government to prioritize and sequence robust adaptation strategies into development plans and budgets.
19