Climate change impacts, mitigation and
adaptation. Synergies and trade-off with
development
Francesco Bosello
*Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, Euro-Mediterranean
Centre on Climate Change and University of Milan
Interlinkages between climate change, education and economic growth
RESCUE project workshop
Lecce, 13.05.2013
Overview
Provide some insights on the relationships between
development and climate change adaptation, with a
(macro) economic perspective.
- Link adaptation development
- Link development adaptation
How to spend adaptation money wisely
- Adaptation cost
- Tackling the issue of education included in the wider
context of adaptive capacity building
- Adaptation and equity
1
Adaptation: some basics
“Adjustment in ecological, social, or economic systems in response to
actual or expected climatic stimuli, and their effects or impacts. […] refers
to changes in processes, practices or structures to moderate or offset
potential damages or to take advantages of opportunities associated with
changes in climate” (IPCC TAR, 2001)
Emissions
Economic
system
Mitgation
Adaptation
Damages
“Something” (a
process) acting on
the effects (impacts)
of climate change
2
Climate
system
Ex ante  Anticipatory
Ex post  Reactive
Autonomous Private
Planned Public
Incremental  Soft
Transformational  Hard
Adaptation is unavoidable, but mitigation is needed
… and the associated impacts
Thus… “Managing the
unavoidable, avoiding the
unmanageable”
3
The two-way relation CC adaptation - development
From Adaptation
to Development
Direct: lower negative effects from climate change => lower
“losses” and lower negative impact on economic activity and social
“welfare”
Indirect (side) effects: adaptation (especially proactive) actions can
consist in (a) investments (no pure costs) (b) not necessarily
related only to climate change. E.g.: coastal defence, irrigation,
health care, landscape management and risk reduction programs
that (c) can spur e.g. “welfare”, employment and technological
innovation in addition to environmental benefit. (ILO)
4
Mal adaptation: higher rather than lower vulnerability  conflicts
with other adaptation needs, adapting agents (water) or with the
objectives of other policies (e.g. mitigation when higher energy use
is necessary, desalination, air conditioning etc.)
The two-way relation CC adaptation - development
In general: adaptation is deeply integrated in the socialeconomic fabric. Needs thus to be also integrated in the wider
policy context
The consequence (and current debate):
Moving from
“mainstreaming cimate change adaptation”
to
“mainstreaming climate change vulnerability reduction”
to
“mainstreaming vulnerability reduction, ultimately
development”
5
in planning
Damage reducing potential of adaptation
Calibrating regional adaptation cost and benefit functions on
Agrawala and Fankhauser 2008, UNFCCC 2007.
Huge uncertainty!
6
Implications for world CC residual damage
15
14
13
12
11
USD Trillion
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
2100
Adaptation
2090
2080
2070
7
2060
Source Bosello et al. (2012)
2050
2040
2030
2020
2010
No Policy
Implications for world CC residual damage
15
14
13
12
11
USD Trillion
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Mitigation
2100
2090
2080
Adaptation
2070
8
2060
Source Bosello et al. (2012)
2050
2040
2030
2020
2010
No Policy
Implications for world CC residual damage
15
14
13
12
11
USD Trillion
10
9
8.8
8.7
7.2
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
2100
Mitigation+Adaptation
2090
2080
9
2070
Source Bosello et al. (2012)
2060
Adaptation
2050
2040
2030
2020
2010
No Policy
Mitigation
But “crowding out ” between adaptation and mitigation
Mitigation halves adaptation effort (wrt adaptation alone). Still adaptation
expendiure non negligible.
2500
US$ Billion
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Adaptation and mitigation
2100
2090
2080
2070
2060
Source Bosello et al. (2012)
2050
10
2040
2030
2020
2010
Adaptation
The two-way relation CC adaptation - development
Development
Adaptation
The idea: the “richer” you are, the higher is your resources
availability to anticipate/cope with adverse consequences
including those from climate change. Or, the more you care
about climate impacts (“environment “as a luxury good)
Extending: Development is the best way to address climate
change impacts  “Shelling Conjecture” (Shelling, 1992)
This may hold for countries, but also for social groups
Mixed evidence
11
An example with (future) malaria mortality in Nigeria
Source: Tol et al. (2007)
12
An example with (past) catastrophic events
Natural Catastrophes 1980-2010
Source: Munich-RE (2011)
13
Summarizing
More development may mean lower vulnerability depending
on a complex interaction between:
- Exposure (tipe of impacts a society is subjected to)
- Social- economic structure
- Their joint evolution (paths of development)
Thus
- It can hold for some societies and not for other
- It can hold in some periods and not other (Anthoff and Tol 2011,
Fankhauser and Burton, 2011)
14
More on adaptation costs
In the short-medium term adaptation costs are already
relevant for developing and developed countries
Yearly adaptation expenditure
120
109.0
105.0
100
89.6
US $ Billion/Y
86
80
78
66.0
60
50.0
40
41.0
37.0
27
22
20
9
0
World Bank
(2006)
4
Stern (2006)
Oxfam (2007)
Developing Cs 2010-15
UNDP (2007)
UNFCCC
(2007)
EACC (2009)
UNFCCC
(2007)
Developing Cs 2030
15
Developed Cs 2030
To do what: hard vs soft adaptation
On the one hand there is the need of “hard” measures
Yearly adaptation costs 2010-2050
Source: WB (2010)
16
These figures are likely to be underestimated: around $ 100140 Billion / year in the first half of the century and increasing
thereafter (IIED 2011)
To do what: hard vs soft adaptation
On the other hand there is the need of establishing those prerequisites for a succefull adaptation i.e. of adaptive capacity
building.
In a loose sense => more knowledge and awareness  key role of
education at different levels.
- In the short term: awareness raising on climate change impacts
and adaptation; more research on climate change and on cost and
benefits of climate change policies/ measures; institutional capacity
building
-In the longer term , change in social behavior
17
-These actions are particularly useful in the presence of
uncertainty which requires flexibility and to reduce “moral
hazard”
Where: an equity issue
Developing countries are more vulnerable to climatic damages, more exposed (70%
of damages occur here), more sensitive, lack of resources and Adaptation
deficit: adaptive capacity (institutions, access to information, natural resources,
and education) is lower
1200
80% of adaptation expenditure is
needed in D.ing countries $260
billion annuitized
US$ Billion
1000
800
600
400
200
Equalizing adaptation expenditure
20%
of adaptation
is
over
GDPexpenditure
=> $ 180
billion from D.ed
needed in D.ed countries $70
to D.ingbillion
countries
annuitized yearly (quick and dirty
back of the envelope calculation!)
0
2100
Developing countries
2090
2080
2070
2060
18
2050
2040
2030
2020
2010
Developed countries
Financing adaptation today
Adaptation funding through dedicated
multilateral climate (public) funds (until 2011)
Recipients of adaptation funding (until 2011)
Cancun Adaptation
Framework proposes $
30 billion fast start
finance 2010-2012 for
mitigation and
adaptation (100 billion
by 2020) …
In 2011 total approved
adaptation finance was $
957 million (Nakooda et al. 2011),
… still far from $180
billion…
19
19
Source: Nakooda et al., (2011)
Ideas under debate…
• Relevant part of adaptation is a “private good” that could be efficiently
provided by the individual/firm
• Today about 60% of funding for climate-related investments originates
from the private sector (Buchner 2011).
Could private initiative help to cover
the adaptation financial gap?
20
• E.g. collective insurance and microfinance may be ways to help
developing countries communities to respond to climate change 
Pros: they can mobilize financing to adaptation in times of austerity.
Cons: financing adaptation through loans put more stress on already
highly indebted communities
• Currently debated by the “high-level advisory group on climate finance”
as well as work commissioned by the G20: use of taxes or levies on
financial transactions or bunker fuels and carbon market revenue to
support adaptation.
From the global to the local/urban dimension
Climate Change
impact areas
 Water resources
 Agricultural and food security
 Terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems
All have a
urban
dimension
 Coastal zones and marine ecosystems
 Human settlements
 Energy and industry
 Insurance and other financial services
 Human health
Source: IPCC FAR 2001
21
All the interactions and
issues mentioned can
be declined at the
urban level
Thank you!!!
??????
http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/en/
http://www.adaptationatlas.org/
23