AdaptCost
Briefing Paper 5: Ecosystem Based Adaptation Costs – Africa Review
Key Messages
1.
Estimates of the costs of adaptation require investigation of several lines of evidence, from case studies
of projects and plans through to the global scale. Each approach brings insight into a complex area,
where we have relatively little experience. This note considers the costs of adaptation for ecosystems.
2.
Biodiversity and ecosystems provide multiple benefits to society, which in turn have economic benefits,
though these are rarely captured by markets. These benefits are known as ‘ecosystem services’ and
include provision of food, supporting services such as nutrient recycling, regulatory services including
flood protection and recreational and cultural services.
3.
Ecosystem services are integral to the African economy and underpin large parts of GDP, foreign
revenue and export earnings, as well as sustaining a very large proportion of the population. There are
many stresses on these systems already and climate change will add to these pressures. The existing
studies show potentially very large impacts to ecosystems in Africa, which are beyond their natural
coping capacity. Planned ecosystem service adaptation is therefore a priority for the continent.
4.
It is also clear that tackling these impacts requires the management of ecosystems within interlinked
social-ecological systems, to enhance ecological processes and services that are essential for resilience
to multiple pressures, including climate change. This is termed Ecosystem based adaptation (EbA)
and integrates the management of ecosystems and biodiversity into an overall strategy to help people
and ecosystems adapt to the adverse impacts of global climate change.
5.
At the aggregated scale, a number of studies have estimated the short-term adaptation costs, using
estimates based on extending protected areas, wider conservation and off reserve measures, though
these responses are primarily targeted at addressing current vulnerability and could be more accurately
described as good practice and accelerated development, rather than specific options targeted towards
tackling climate change (though these measures would have the effect of enhancing future resilience).
6.
The additional cost for enhancing the network of terrestrial protected areas in Africa has been estimated
at $4 to $5.5 billion/year for Africa. This would improve the core reserve system in the continent but is
effectively addressing current vulnerability. Some studies increase these costs by a factor of three to
reflect wider conservation measures, implying annual costs of US$12 to US$17 billion, though again,
these are focused on current vulnerability rather than marginal increases for future climate change.
7.
These numbers only include the terrestrial protected area network. There are additional costs of
adaptation outside this. Biodiversity and ecosystem conservation in the wider matrix of landscapes has
also been estimated (including new assessments in the study) and these imply costs of approximately
$20 billion / year for Africa. these costs address forest, agriculture and freshwater ecosystems in the
wider landscape matrix, but do not include urban ecosystems. These are primarily associated with
current vulnerability and immediate concerns, but these wider actions are seen as essential for
addressing future climate change.
8.
There are also additional costs for marine ecosystems. The recent global World Bank study has
estimated the costs of adaptation for marine fishery resources for Africa at $1- 2 billion per year (in the
period through to 2050), though the estimates are highly uncertain.
9.
A range of bottom-up costs and country estimates have also been considered. The existing African
NAPAs include around $100 million of funding for ecosystem type initiatives, implying immediate needs
of over $250 million if replicated across the continent on a per capita basis. There have also been recent
studies on matrix management in South Africa, and agro-forestry in Kenya, which provide national
values and have the potential for replication.
10. However, this remains a fairly limited area of study, and the economics of ecosystem based adaptation
for Africa is seen as a key priority for future work adaptation work following from the AdaptCost project.
1
Ecosystem services are integral to the African
economy and underpin a large proportion of GDP
(over 50% in some countries), as well as foreign
revenue and export earnings. They also sustain a
very large proportion of the population. While the
definition of ecosystem services includes
consideration of agriculture and water, these are
included in a separate sectoral analysis, and thus
omitted from this note here. The consideration of
coastal ecosystems is also discussed in the
coastal sector note.
Introduction
The AdaptCost study has reviewed the evidence
on the costs of adaptation in Africa. This includes
consideration of different aggregation scales and
evidence, such as:

Aggregated continental level studies and
regional studies.

Major country initiatives and national studies.

Sectoral studies and case studies.
Ecosystems and the services they provide will be
affected by climate change and are the focus of
this sectoral briefing note.
As part of this work, the AdaptCost study has also
commissioned specific sectoral work, notably on
ecosystem based adaptation. This briefing note
reports on this review work. Full details are
included in a sector report (Devisscher, 2010).
Given the multiple services that ecosystems
provide to society and the role they play as
habitats of a diverse fauna and flora, their
maintenance/enhancement is critical for building
resilience to future risks, including climate-related
ones. The valuation of ecosystem services has
progressed in recent years, but more work needs
to be done to account for the range of services
that ecosystems can provide and the synergies
and trade-offs that could affect cost-benefit
analyses. A number of studies have estimated
values for protected areas in Africa and can serve
as a basis to estimate the benefits of enhancing
ecosystem services that facilitate adaptation.
However, to date studies have focused on current
pressures, rather than climate change.
Ecosystem Services
Africa has a highly diverse fauna and flora. It
contains a fifth of all known species of plants,
mammals and birds in the world, and a sixth of
the amphibians and reptiles. It has over 3,000
protected areas including 198 marine protected
areas, 50 biosphere reserves, and 80 wetlands of
international importance. Eight of the world’s 34
international biodiversity hotspots are in Africa.
Forest and woodlands occupy about 22% of the
land area in Africa and the region accounts for
around 17% of the global forest cover.
The varied ecosystems of Africa are not only
habitat to diverse species, but also provide a
number of services and goods for the local
population and the economies of African
countries.
They provide multiple benefits to
society, which in turn have economic benefits,
though these are rarely captured by markets.
These benefits are known as ‘ecosystem services’
and can be divided into:

Provisioning services
fisheries, timber, water),

Supporting services (soil formation, nutrient
recycling),

Regulating services (climate regulation, flood
protection, water quality regulation) and

Cultural services (recreational, educational
and cultural benefits).
(e.g.
The Impacts of Climate Change
on Ecosystems in Africa
There are many stresses on ecosystems already,
such as agricultural expansion, destruction of
habitat; pollution; high rates of land use change;
population growth, etc. and many of the
ecosystems of Africa are under threat or overexploited already. Climate change will add to
these pressures. Indeed, climate change is likely
to have major effects on managed and natural
ecosystems and associated ecosystem services.
agriculture,
The impacts are complex but potentially arise
from temperature increases, shifts in climatic
zones, melting of snow and ice, sea level rise,
droughts, floods and other extreme weather
events. Particularly vulnerable areas include arid
2
Effects of Climate Change on African
Ecosystems for Varying Temperature Increase
lands (from water scarcity and heat stress),
coastal zones due to pressure from sea level rise
and mountain regions.
Climate change will lead to shifts in species
distributions, changes in the timing of life-history
events, or phenology, the potential decoupling of
coevolved interactions, such as plant–pollinator
relationships; effects on demographic rates,
including as survival, changes in population size;
and in some cases extinction. There may also be
effects from direct loss of habitat due to sea-level
rise, increased fire frequency, altered weather
patterns, glacial recession, and direct warming of
habitats. This can be compounded by other
indirect effects such as changes in the distribution
or spread of wildlife diseases, parasites; changes
in invasive or non-native species, including plants,
animals, and pathogens.
Many of these potential impacts are uncertain,
and highly complex to predict. What is clear is
that climate change could cause bio-climatic
zones (and their ecosystems) to move, potentially
by tens to hundreds of kilometres by the end of
the century, though the changes will depend on
the scale of climate change. The success of
ecosystem movement will depend on various
factors: the capacity of a species to migrate (e.g.
migration will be easier for birds than for plants or
especially forests), the connectivity within the
landscape structure (i.e. availability of stepping
stones and/or habitat networks), and the presence
of receptor habitats within the new climate range
of a species. This is obviously problematic in
populated
areas
and
highly fragmented
agricultural landscapes.
Climate change is expected to put African
ecosystems and biodiversity at severe risk, with
the IPCC AR4 (2007) reporting that potentially
5,000 African plant species and over 50% of bird
and mammal species will be seriously affected or
even lost by the end of this century. It also reports
on studies that estimate that by 2100 the
productivity of Africa’s lakes could decline by 20
to 30%. These changes will have large economic
consequences through the ecosystem services
provided, whether this is the provision of food, the
tourism potential of key areas, etc. Possible
effects projected by different studies are shown
below.
(°C)
<1.5
Possible Impacts
Up to 15% of Sub-Saharan species could be at
risk of extinction (IPCC WGII 2007).
1.5
Widespread bleaching of up to 97% of coral
reefs of East Africa (Hoegh-Guldberg 1999).
1.5
Flora and fauna disappear in the Sahel due to
possible drought / shifting sands (ECF 2004).
<1.5
Glaciers on Mount Kilamanjaro, Mount Kenya
could be lost by 2015 (Thompson et al. 2002)
<1.5
Severe loss in extent of the Karoo threatening
2,800 plants (Rutherford et al. 1999).
1.5
Five south African parks could lose more than
40% of their animals (Rutherford et al. 1999).
1.5
10-15% of sub-Saharan species could be at risk
of extinction (IPCC WGII 2007).
2.0
41-51% loss in plant endemic richness in S.
Africa and Namibia (Broennimann et al. 2006).
1.7 –
3.2
8-12% of 277 med/large mammals in 141
national parks at risk (Thuiller et al. 2006).
1.2 –
2.7
51-65% loss of Fynbos; Succulent Karoo area
reduced by 80% (2,800 plant species); 5 parks
lose > 40% of plant species in S. Africa (Thomas
et al. 2004, Rutherford et al. 2000, Midgley et al.
2002, Hannah et al. 2002).
2.4
Bio-climatic range of 25-57% (full dispersal) or
34-76% (no dispersal) of 5,200 plant species
exceeded in Sub-Saharan Africa (McClean et al.
2005).
>2.0
Erosion likely to outpace growth of tropical coral
reefs (University of Copenhagen 2009).
>2.0
At least 40% of sub-Saharan species at risk of
extinction (IPCC WGII 2007).
2.5 –
3.0
24-59% of mammals, 28-40% of birds, 13-70%
of butterflies, 18-80% other invertebrates, 2145% of reptiles possible extinction; 66% of
animal species potentially lost from Kruger in S.
Africa (Thomas et al. 2004, Erasmus et al. 2002).
2.3 –
4.6
Cloud forests lose hundred of meters of
elevational extent, potential extinctions at 2.5 °C
for Africa (Still et al. 1999).
2.63.7
30-40% of 277 mammals in 141 parks critically
endangered (Thuiller et al. 2006).
Sources: IPCC AR4, PA 2009. T above pre-industrial.
3
Examples of Current and Possible Future Impacts of Climate Change on African Ecosystems
Source: Devisscher, 2010.
The figure above summarises possible future
effects of climate change on ecosystems / species
in each sub-region of Africa.
A number of potential adaptation (planned)
measures are available, which include:
Of course, while these future effects are
influenced by climate change, they are also
heavily affected by socio-economic factors,
including the growth and movement of people and
goods, changes in land use and economic
development.
The consideration of future
baselines and the potential for economic
development to reduce future burdens is therefore
a key consideration.

To maintain and increase ecosystem
resilience:
enhancing
the
ability
of
ecosystems to absorb and recover from
change whilst maintaining and increasing
biodiversity.

To accommodate the potential impacts of
climate change: considering both gradual
change and extreme weather events.

To facilitate knowledge transfer and action
between partners, sectors and countries:
successful
adaptation
requires
that
ecosystem and biodiversity conservation is
integrated with other sectoral management
activities.

To develop the knowledge/evidence base and
plan strategically: to effectively plan for an
uncertain future, the best available evidence
is needed to develop techniques that allow
socio-ecological systems to adapt.
Ecosystem Based Adaptation
Climate change presents a major threat to
ecosystems, their functions and services.
Autonomous adaptation of natural ecosystems will
not be enough to withstand the future combined
impacts and climate change, and human planned
adaptation is essential for adaptation of socioecological systems.
4

To use adaptive management: relates to the
use of a flexible approach for effective
conservation and adaptation planning.

To enhance vulnerability assessments and
monitoring systems: to allow evidence to be
collated, existing schemes to be strengthened
and new requirements incorporated.
dispersal
schemes;
e.g.
through
agri-environment

Increasing and maintaining monitoring
programs to study response of species to
climate change (physiological, behavioral,
demographic) and socio-ecological dynamics;

Integrating climate change into planning
exercises and programmes;

Assessing, modelling, and experimenting at
different spatial scales for improved predictive
capacity and outcomes;

Improving inter-agency, regional coordination;

Conducting restoration and rehabilitation of
habitats and ecosystems with high adaptation
value;

Intensive conservation management to secure
populations, including for threatened and
endangered species;
For some of the provisioning services, notably
forestry, there is a range of specific planned
adaptation options available.
For general
unmanaged or semi-managed ecosystems, there
is a range of potential adaptation response, many
of which build on addressing existing risks or
extending existing conservation. They include:

Translocation or reintroduction of species at
risk of extinction to new areas that are
climatically suitable for their existence;

Ex situ conservation e.g. seed banks, zoos,
botanic gardens, captive breeding for release
into wild.

Reducing and managing existing stresses,
such as fragmentation, pollution, overharvesting, population encroachment, habitat
conversion and invasive species;

Maintaining ecosystem structure and function
as a means to ensure healthy and genetically
diverse populations able to adapt to climate
change;

Increasing
reserves;
These options also need to be considered
alongside other options for enhancing ecosystem
services. These include flexible mechanisms
such as:
 Regulation
 Economic Instruments
 Integration,
 Market-based Mechanisms,
 Green Investment

Increasing habitat heterogeneity within
reserves and between reserves by including
gradients of latitude, altitude and soil moisture
and by including different successional states;
A key feature of these adaptation measures is the
need to build in flexibility, i.e. adaptive
management based on iterative processes of
learning by doing, reviewing, and refining,
because the future effects on ecosystems are
particularly uncertain.
However, the uncertainties of the precise nature
of future climate change and its impacts on
ecosystems and biodiversity must not delay
practical action.
the
size
and/or
number
of

Building in buffer zones to existing reserves;

Increasing connectivity, for example with the
use of biological corridors or stepping stones
to link areas, removal barriers for dispersal,
linking of reserves and refugia;

And means and adaptive processes:

Research Capacity,

Knowledge Sharing,

Technology and Innovation,

Adaptive Governance,

Socio-institutional Change
The combination of the principles of adaptation
and the consideration of ecosystem services are
being brought together under the concept of
Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA), shown in
the figure below.
Increasing landscape permeability through
reduction in unfavourable management
practices and increasing area for biodiversity
5
Ecosystem Based Adaptation
To facilitate the adjustment of human societies and ecological systems to changing conditions and multiple
stressors, the dynamic landscape of EbA Pathways combines EbA strategies (active core, in blue), with
flexible enabling mechanisms and adaptive processes (supportive milieu, in green).
Source: Devisscher, 2010.
Aggregate Costs of Ecosystembased Adaptation for Africa
Ecosystem based adaptation relates to the
management of ecosystems within interlinked
social-ecological systems. The aim is to enhance
ecological processes and services that are
essential for resilience to multiple pressures,
including climate change.
A number of recent studies have estimated the
costs of adaptation for Africa focusing on
ecosystems. These include some estimates of
forestry and fisheries, and some estimates in
relation to conservation-based adaptation. Most of
the existing estimates focus on the costs of
increasing
protected
areas,
the
wider
conservation costs, and off reserve measures.
These are summarised below.
EbA therefore integrates the management of
ecosystems and biodiversity into an overall
strategy to help people and ecosystems adapt to
the adverse impacts of global change, such as
changing climate conditions.
1) James et al 2001
An optimal overall ecosystem-based strategy will
seek to maintain ecological functions at the
landscape scale in combination with multifunctional land uses and multi-scale benefits.
James et al. (2001i) examined the goal of the
World Conservation Union (IUCN) to increase
protected areas by 10 per cent. They examined
6
two options, one of which was more ambitious
aiming at a stronger overall level of protection.
Their estimate is that to expand the current
network in line with IUCN guidelines, and meeting
the opportunity costs of local communities could
be achieved with an annual increase in
expenditures of USD 12 – 22 billion.
The
estimates include survey and purchase costs of
new land, recurrent management costs, and
compensation costs for lost opportunities –
however the higher value has a higher increase in
the percentage of higher protection levels of IUCN
categories (categories I, II, and IIIii).
millions and for Sub-Saharan Africa up to US$3.1
billion (1996 dollars), a total annual increase of
US$3.8 billion for Africa-wide, assuming current
proportions of protected areas in each IUCN
category being maintained. Under the stricter
protection scenario, annual funding requirements
would increase reaching up to US$1.5 billion for
Middle East and North Africa, and US$4 billion for
Sub-Saharan Africa, a total annual increase of
US$5.5 billion to improve the core reserve system
in the entire continent.
Considering that enhancing and protecting a core
reserve system may be insufficient to ensure
long-term conservation and ecological processes
given climate change, James et al. (2001)
estimated costs for conservation within a wider
matrix (i.e. within the wider landscape). The study
estimated an additional $290 billion for
conservation based on extrapolation of figures for
conservation within the agriculture sector and
global estimates from Agenda 21 for conservation
outside the agriculture sector (urban ecosystems
were not included).
These estimates are really the level of investment
needed to address the current protection shortfall,
i.e. they are essentially a cost for improving
current protection levels to achieve a goal set for
2010 and could be classified as accelerated
development – though they would be expected to
increase the resilience of ecosystems to future
climate change. Similarly, as they are not specific
to current climate, they cannot be classified as
addressing an adaptation deficit (although again,
they would be likely to enhance current
resilience).
James et al. (2001) assumed that global
agriculture remediation costs around US$240
billion per year. This number was obtained by
extrapolating costs in the UK ($2.4 billion per
year) for the entire world based on the UK’s
percentage of global cereal production (1%).
Using FAO estimates (2010), Africa was
responsible for 5% of the global cereal production
in 2008 and thus using similar assumptions,
introducing conservation practices into agriculture
in Africa would cost around US$12 billion per
year.
There are some estimates in the study for Africa.
Africa has about 26% of the terrestrial protected
areas with a total extent equivalent to 1.1 million
km2 for Middle East and North Africa, and 2.5
million km2 for Sub-Saharan Africa, or around
3.67 million km2 for Africa-wide. Using the values
from James et al. (1999) estimated that
expenditures for protected areas for Middle East
and North Africa at US$41/km2 and for SubSaharan Africa at US$118/km2 (in 1996 dollars),
Africa is estimated to invest a total of US$ 346.5
million in protected areas.
In addition, James et al. (2001) used figures from
Agenda 21 that assessed global conservation
needs at US$34 billion for forests, and US$1
billion for freshwater ecosystems. According to
the Global Forest Resources Assessment (FAO
2005), Africa contains 16% of the total forest area
worldwide and 17% of the global area of inland
water bodies. On this basis and using Agenda 21
figures, it could be assumed that conservation
needs in Africa require US$5.4 billion for forests,
and US$0.2 billion for freshwater ecosystems.
This suggests a total of US$17.6 billion per year
for the management of the wider matrix in Africa.
However, as above, these costs are associated
The additional costs of achieving the IUCN’s 10%
conservation goal in Africa was estimated by
James et al. (2001) (over 30 years) to an area of
0.88 million km2 to 2.72 million km 2 for the range
of options. The costs for enhancing the network
of protected areas (i.e. enhancing management of
existing reserves, survey and purchase costs for
an
ecologically
representative
expansion,
management budgets for new reserves, and
compensation for opportunity costs) was
estimated at additional annual expenditures for
Middle East and North Africa of up to US$676
7
with current protection and are not specific to
future climate change.
et al study and reporting global costs of $290
billion for conservation based on extrapolation of
figures for conservation within the agriculture
sector and global estimates from Agenda 21 for
conservation outside the agriculture sector.
2) UNFCCC (2007)
The
UNFCCC
(2007iii)
estimated
global
adaptation costs at $50 to $170 billion/year by
2030, of which $28 to $67 billion/year was
anticipated in developing countries (Non-Annex1
parties). The analysis was based on investment
and financial flow analysis. The study assessed
the potential costs of adaptation for ecosystems
(Berry, 2007).
3) IIED and Grantham Institute (2009):
Assessing the Costs of Adaptation to
Climate Change
The IIED/Grantham Institute study on assessing
the costs of adaptation (Parry et aliv) provides a
review of the UNFCCC (2007) study (above). The
analysis mostly re-states the UNFCCC method,
and the values of 12 to 21 billion above.
The analysis cited the estimates from James et al.
(2001) above, thus it cites the numbers of 12 -22
billion in the main report - but not in the main
global headline figures – as the figures are not
specific to additional investment to address
climate change.
It also states that using a similar methodology to
James et al. (2001), Balmford et al. (2002 v)
calculated that to cover 30% of the total area of
the seas with marine protected areas would cost
at most about $23 billion a year, with about $6
billion a year in starting costs for 30 years
(global).
The study also cites that current annual spending
to ensure natural ecosystem protection is of the
order of USD 7 billion from public domestic and
external funding.
4) World Bank EACC
Based on the assumption that only one third of
the global conservation budget is spent on
reserves and that this will continue into the future
(based on UNEP 1992 and James et al. 2001
figures), the ecosystems technical annex (Berry,
2007) estimated that additional expenditure of $36
billion (mitigation) to $64.5 billion (BAU) might be
needed for adaptation to climate change – this
was derived simply by multiplying the original
values of 12 to 21 billion by three. Again this
number relates really to a level of investment for
addressing current conservation funding up to
satisfactory levels, rather than specifically
addressing climate change.
The Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change
(EACC) Studyvi. This estimates the costs of
adaptation per year over future decades in
developing countries through to 2050. It has some
similarities to the previous global studies, but also
marks a significant advance forward because it
works with a more explicit economic framework
and uses country specific data sets as well as
climate model output, using a range of climate
projections reflecting the range of model
projections for temperature and precipitation. It
also accounts for future socio-economic
development.
The study defines and assessed adaptation costs
as the costs of initiatives needed to restore
welfare to levels prevailing before climate change
along the projected development baseline (note
that this assumption has been the subject of
considerable comment). This reduction of impacts
is the benefit of adaptation.
It is possible to extrapolate the equivalent
numbers for Africa. Using a similar assumption
that approximately a third of the spend on
conservation is on reserves, then the total
additional annual expenditure for Africa would rise
to US$11.4 billion to US$16.6 billion for
conservation of terrestrial ecosystems in Africa.
The study focused on planned (public sector)
adaptation costs. It primarily considered “hard”
options involving engineering solutions (except
The underlying consultant report (Berry) also cites
the costs associated with biodiversity protection in
the wider landscape again considering the James
8
extreme events, where the costs of adaptation
where based on education). It also considered
different aggregation rules in accounting for the
positive as well as negative effects of climate
change and adaptation costs.
Note that adaptation costs are lower under the
overexploitation future scenario, as there are less
fish to be affected by climate change.
Annual cost of adaptation for fisheries—loss
in landed catch values, by region, 2010–50 ($
billions at 2005 prices, no discounting)
Under the drier scenario, the global costs of
adaptation for developing countries over the
period 2010 – 2050 were estimated at US$78
billion per year. Under the wetter scenario, the
costs were higher at US$90 billion.
Scenarios
The study did assess fisheries and forestry, in
addition to agriculture.
For marine fisheries, the study assessed the likely
impact of climate change on the productivity of
marine fisheries and on landed catch values and
household incomes (under different scenarios of
future resource exploitation). Adaptation costs
were then estimated as the costs of restoring
these revenue indicators to levels that would have
prevailed in the absence of climate change.
Middle
East and
North
Africa
SubSaharan
Africa
Total
Africa
Less intensive
0.08
0.08
0.16
More intensive
0.13
0.15
0.28
Overexploitation
0.10
0.10
0.20
Source World Bank.
The study highlights that possible adaptation
measures could include buybacks, transferable
quotas, and investments in alternative sources of
employment and income.
Climate change is predicted to lead to losses in
landed catch values or gross fisheries revenues of
$10–31 billion globally by 2050 and $7–19 billion
for developing countries. The values for Africa
are shown below.
The study also considered forestry and
ecosystem services, including fuel wood
(particularly important for Africa). However the
study highlights that most studies of the effects of
climate change on forests show an increase in
biological productivity, with forest areas roughly
unchanged, over the period to 2050.
Loss in landed values of fish catches under
three scenarios, 2050 ($ billions at 2005
prices, no discounting)
6) Grantham Institute (2009)
Scenarios
Middle
East and
North
Africa
SubSaharan
Africa
The Grantham Institute for Climate Change
produced a fact-base on climate change in Africa,
including impacts, required actions and adaptation
costs, presented at the CAHOSCCvii.
Total
Africa
Less intensive
0.61
0.44
1.05
More intensive
0.84
0.96
1.8
Overexploitation
0.43
0.21
0.64
It concluded that if Africa can set up its
institutional
capabilities
and
land
use
management programmes, long-term financial
flows could be generated
by avoided
deforestation
(REDD)
and
afforestation/
reforestation (A/R). The costs of these initiatives
in forestry are estimated at $4.5–6.9 billion per
year for 2015, rising to $14.5–20.5 billion per year
by 2030.
Source World Bank. Less intensive scenario assumes 10
per%cent reduction by 2050 in annual catches compared with
the baseline, the more intensive assumes a 30 % reduction,
and overexploitation assumes a 40 % reduction.
Because of the paucity of data, adaptation costs
were estimated as the damages caused by
climate change or reductions in landed catch
values induced by climate change.
The study also highlights that developing a
sustainable biofuels industry – respecting the food
production and avoided deforestation objectives –
is another opportunity that African countries are
9
already exploring, in which better access to global
markets and technology could help build a large
industry, though it concludes that when
developing such an industry, land and water
constraints will have to be considered.
Costs associated to local initiatives that are
relevant to EbA in Africa are presented below
(note these exclude the costs of reserve
protection, as this is included in the aggregate
studies above).
Bottom-up and Country/ Sector
Studies
Some of the estimates related to restoration costs
above have been compiled by the Economics of
Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB 2009) study.
The TEEB estimated cost ranges for different
restoration efforts from an analysis of 96 studies
that estimate restoration costs. This analysis
considered the degree of degradation, the goals
and specific circumstances in which restoration is
carried out, and the methods used. The figure
below illustrates the cost ranges for restoring
different ecosystems obtained by the TEEB
(2009).
While the estimates above provide some headline
context, there is a need to progress to more
detailed assessment of adaptation, i.e. to help
identify where actions are needed and to assess
specific and feasible actions.
The main issue with a bottom-up approach is that
although a number of options exist that could be
applied individually or in combination in a dynamic
landscape of EbA pathways, they have not been
tested for effectiveness in practice. Moreover,
many of these options overlap in practice and this
complicates costing exercises due to doublecounting issues.
Cost Ranges of Restoring Different Ecosystems (Eur/ha) based on a Series of Case Studies
Source: TEEB 2009
10
Relevant Costs Estimates for Ecosystem-based Adaptation Strategies
Effort and context
Type of action
Ecosystem
Restoration of
Masoala Corridors in
Madagascar
Restoration of
rainforest corridors,
Andasibe area,
Madagascar
Conservation of
migration corridors by
the Wildlife Foundation
in Kenya
Catchment
rehabilitation, Working
for Water, South Africa
Tree and plant
nurseries, plantation,
and forest maintenance
Sourcing and planting
trees
Securing migration
corridors on private
land through
conservation leases
Clearing of invasive
species in catchment
areas
Restoration of
wetlands, Denmark
Restoration through
hydrological
manipulation
Establishment of a
riparian buffer with and
without fencing cost
Restoration of little
Tennessee River,
North Carolina
Mangrove restoration
Gene banking, South
Africa
Nature tourism
maintenance in South
Africa
Maintenance of Gorilla
tourism in Rwanda
Payment for
ecosystem services
from forest
conservation
Study
Tropical forests
Costs US$ /
hectare / year
60 - 1700
Tropical forests
770 - 1690
Holloway and
Tingle 2009
Rainforest
10
Ferraro and
Kiss 2002
Woodland and
shrub-land in
mountain
catchments and
riparian zones
Freshwater
wetlands
270 - 950
Turpie et al.
2008
1,300
Hoffman
2007
Riparian zones
3,100 US$/km
without, 9,900
US$/km with
fencing
8,240 – 12,550
Holmes et al.
2004
Scholes 2006
Replanting mangrove
trees and other
restoration measures
Collection, DNA
extraction and genetic
fingerprinting, capital
and operational costs
for gene baking
Mangroves
Fees to cover
management costs
---
US$180/species
for collection
US$22/specimen
for DNA
extraction
US$30/fingerprint,
US$ 26,600
capital and
operational costs.
7.5
Permits for Gorilla
viewing to cover
management
PES to conserve
multiple ecosystem
services provided by
forests
Rainforest
86
Cloud forests
40
Various
Source: Velarde 2004, Scholes 2006, TEEB 2009
11
Holloway et
al. 2009
Barbier 2007
Turpie and
Siegfried
1996
Djoh and van
der Whal
2001
Muñoz-Piña
et al. 2007
Other sources of information are reviewed below.
patch edges that enable ecological processes and
species flux at multiple scales (Scholes 2006).
Initiatives based on Terrestrial
Ecosystems in the African NAPAs
Scholes (2006) estimated matrix management
costs in South Africa based on a opportunity costs
approach that considers: net margins from
common farming practices on high, medium and
low
valued
land,
administration
costs
(management and monitoring), alien species
removal, and fire management.
Of the 31 African National Adaptation
Programmes of Action (NAPAs), almost all
identify projects based on terrestrial ecosystems
as priority projects for climate adaptation.
These projects relate to land management,
enhancement of forest ecosystems, management
and/or restoration of wetlands/lakes, protection of
natural sites, buffer zones, capacity building and
knowledge
generation
on
ecosystem
management, among others.
Deriving Africa estimates
Based on figures calculated by Scholes (2006), it
is possible to extrapolate estimates for Africa. The
Scholes study uses an average of the net margins
from three land uses. Two of them are wheat
production in lowland (44 $/ha) and grazing in
mountain area (6 US$/ha). These net margins
adopt a “worst case” scenario, as they assume
that conservation practices require total noncropping.
This category does not include water resources
management, sustainable agriculture practices,
coastal zones and marine ecosystems.
A list of NAPA projects based on terrestrial
ecosystems is provided in the main report. The
total costs of these projects sum up to a total of
US$ 86.3 million over the next five years for 23
African countries. Based on per capita cost
estimates based on cu
In practice, however, many matrix management
options do not need total non-cropping and
instead can have benefits from conservationbased land use (e.g. for ecotourism). For this
case however, it is assumed that part of the
farmland becomes a private reserve area
managed by the farmer.
Although ecosystem-based adaptation projects
and costs differ from country to country, these
results could indicate an average cost of US$3.8
million per country for priority EbA projects
(around 20 to 70% of costs identified in NAPAs
correspond to EbA options).
In addition to net margins, administration costs
used by Scholes (2006) are based on figures that
estimate management costs at 18$/ha. As part of
the Global Land Cover Characteristics (GLCC)
project, Loveland et al. (2000) estimated that the
total area comprised of cropland/natural
vegetation mosaics in Africa is around 231.5
million hectares and the total cropland area is 214
million hectares.
If this total sum is used to estimate costs per
capita and per capita costs are extrapolated to the
continental level (including non least developed
countries, LDCs), a total of $266.9 million would
be required only to fulfill urgent EbA needs
established through NAPAs which respond to
current priorities, but not necessarily future
threats.
Assuming both areas are going to be part of the
matrix and using above figures provided by
Scholes (2006), it could be argued that a total of
US$19.2 billion per year would be needed to
manage the wider matrix in Africa.
Matrix Management Costs based on
Study in South Africa (Scholes, 2006)
This matrix does not include urban ecosystems.
However, giving urbanization processes in Africa,
these ecosystems will need to be accounted for in
further analysis.
Conservation practices in land-uses such as
agriculture, forest, and freshwater ecosystems are
essential to create the conditions within the wider
matrix, that allow for a dynamic landscape with
12
Agroforestry based on Study in Kenya
(SSA, 2009)
NEEDS project, and from the UNDP Investment
and Financial Flow Studies in Africa.
Agroforestry systems have the potential to bring
not only economic and environmental benefits to
farmers, but also to increase resilience to climate
variability and extremes. This can be achieved
through a combination of mechanisms and
processes that enable improving farming systems
and adopting sustainable agriculture land use
(SALM), such as capacity building, networking,
partnerships, payment for ecosystem services,
and enterprise development.
The AdaptCost Project
The AdaptCost Africa project, funded by United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) under
the Climate Change – Norway Partnership, is
producing a range of estimates of the financial
needs for climate adaptation in Africa using
different evidence lines.
This briefing note was prepared by Tahia
Devisscher and Paul Watkiss.
Based on the experience gained from recent
projects, SCC-Vi Agroforestry (2009) estimated
that the total costs to provide advisory services for
agroforestry
interventions
in
terms
of
administration, capacity building, logistics, and
provision of resources is around US$17 per farm
household per year. These estimates were scaled
up for Kenya, as part of the SEI East Africa
economics of climate change study (SEI, 2009viii).
For Kenya, cost estimates have been scaled up to
suitable agro-ecological zones (humid-semi arid)
to estimate the next step on the adaptation
signature. The study has also looked at the
potential for carbon finance revenues. The budget
needed to cover those AEZ is $ 58.8 million
annually during the intensive period (3 years) and
$ 21.6 million annually during the extensive period
(3 years) giving a total of $ 241 million.
Based on figures provided by SCC-Vi
Agroforestry (2009), an analysis was undertaken
to scale up for Sub-Saharan Africa. Considering
the different AEZ of the region, costs for advisory
services are estimated at around US$ 869.4
million annually during the intensive period. The
total funds needed to up-scale agroforestry and
SALM in Sub-Saharan Africa could reach up to
US$ 3.6 billion over a period of six years (average
time to ensure sustainability according to SCC).
Future Studies
Additional information will emerge later in 2010
from the World Bank country studies on the
economics of adaptation, from the UNFCCC
13
Footnotes and References
i
James A, Gaston K and Balmford A. 2001. Can we afford
to conserve biodiversity? BioScience. 51: pp. 43 – 52.
ii
The reason why scenario 2 costs more is because in order to
expand the PA network to reach the IUCN goal using only
categories I, II and III more land will have to be set aside and
incorporated into the reserve system. In the African context
this is the same. Expanding the PA network in scenario 1 will
require an additional area of 0.88 million km2 for Africa, and
scenario 2 would need an additional area of 2.72 million km2
for Africa.
iii
UNFCCC (2007). Investment and financial flows relevant to
the development of an effective and appropriate international
response to Climate Change (2007). United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change
iv
Martin Parry, Nigel Arnell, Pam Berry, David Dodman,
Samuel Fankhauser, Chris Hope, Sari Kovats, Robert Nicholls,
David Satterthwaite, Richard Tiffin, Tim Wheeler (2009)
Assessing the Costs of Adaptation to Climate Change: A
Review of the UNFCCC and Other Recent Estimates,
International Institute for Environment and Development and
Grantham Institute for Climate Change, London.
v
Balmford, A., Bruner, A., Cooper, P., Costanza, R., Farber,
S., Green, R.E., Jenkins, M., Jefferiss, P., Jessamy, V.,
Madden, J., Munro, K., Myers, N., Naeem, S., Paavola, J.,
Rayment, M., Rosendo, S., Roughgarden, J., Trumper, K. and
Turner, R.K. (2002) ‘Economic reasons for conserving wild
nature’, Science 297, pp950–953.
vi
World Bank (2009). The Costs to Developing Countries of
Adapting to Climate Change: New Methods and Estimates.
The Global Report of the Economics of Adaptation to Climate
Change Study. Consultation Draft. September 2009.
vii
African Partnership Forum and Conference of African Heads
of State and Government on Climate Change (CAHOSCC), at
the special session on climate change. September 3rd 2009,
Addis Ababa. http://www.uneca.org/apf/index.asp
Grantham Institute (2009). Possibilities for Africa in global
action on climate change. Executive Summary. July 2009
viii
SEI (2009). The Economics of Climate Change in East
Africa. Downing, T., et al. Report for DFID and DANIDA.
Available at http://kenya.cceconomics.org/. (Accessed January
2010).
14