Lessons Learned from Previous UNDP Country Studies

1. Lessons Learned from Previous UNDP Country Studies Mac Callaway, Ph.D UNEP-RISØ Centre Roskilde, Denmark UNDP Socio-economic Impacts Workshop Bratislava, Slovak Republic: November 8-10, 2010

2. Croatia Human Development Report - I • Crops • Bottom-up based on DSAT/CERES Maize model • Yield reductions: 3-8% (2050), 8-15% (2100) • Translates into gross revenue losses of: €6-16 million (2050) and €31-43 million (2010) at current prices and area • Hydro • Based on assumption of generation losses proportional to runoff reductions • Annual value added losses (10% - 30% runoff reductions): €17 – 52 million/yr. • Annual replacement cost (example: 35% reduction in runoff) • Coal plant (least cost): €65 million/yr • Import from grid: €117 million/yr

3. Croatia Human Development Report - II • Sea-level Rise • Bottom-up based on: • GIS projections of impact of 50 cm and 88 cm sea-level rise in 8 vulnerable sea-coast areas • All costal counties • Total coastal area flooded • 50 cm – 100,055 ha • 88 cm – 112,459 ha • Economic losses estimated using land use/price data • 50 cm: €2.8 – 6.5 billion worth of assets • 88 cm: €3.2 – 7.2 billion worth of assets

4. Moldova Human Development Report • Focused only on agriculture • Moldova’s 2nd National Communication estimated reductions in winter wheat yields to climate alone: • 14-18% losses for 2010-2039 • 23-34% losses for 2040-2069 • 38%-54% losses for 2070-2099 • But this doesn’t really tell the whole story because over the historical period, climate only explained about 40-60% of the variation in yields • More important were political and market-related factors (see next table) • Which illustrates nicely the problems of holding prices and area constant in many bottom-up approaches.

5. Crops Moldova

6. Montenegro Economic Impact Report • Covered • Crops (bottom-up) • Irrigated agriculture (water balance) • Tourism • Hamburg Tourism Model • PESETA Tourism Model • Hydro-electric generation (bottom-up) • Heat-related mortality (bottom-up)

8. Some Lessons Learned - I • Problems encountered in bottom-up modelling • Impact models may be missing • Data availability and gaps • Doesn’t account for impact of climate change on prices, scales of operation (i.e., land area and capital investment) • Hard to model adaptation • Transfer of data, models and prices/benefits from other countries may not be apt • Hard to model non-market impacts

9. Some Lessons Learned - II • Are “preliminary” bottom-up studies worth doing? • Given budgetary and time constraints, that’s about all one can do. • A point of departure • Helpful in identifying climate vulnerabilities in sectors as they are structured now • It’s an educational process – to reveal limitations and need to develop better data, models and capacity to make better estimates

10. Lessons Learned - III • Some other challenges to economic analysis generally • In lesser developed countries, observed fluctuations in output, prices, investment, etc. are often due less to climate variability/change than underlying structural features • Decision-makers in national governments don’t always have a clear idea of how economic analyses of climate change impacts can help them, aside from showing how vulnerable their economies are. • Integrating climate change planning into public and private project planning is as important as integrating climate change into national development plans