Climate change: water supply in developing countries will be hit hardest

Adapting raw industrial and domestic water supply to climate change could cost US$ 12 billion per year, with up to 90% of this needed in developing countries, according to new research [1]. A research team from the Netherlands, US and UK found that the highest costs are in Sub-Saharan Africa. Though US$ 12 billion seems a lot, the team stressed that the baseline costs of meeting existing and future demand for water by 2050 in most regions were far greater than adaptation costs.

“Many studies have already shown that the developing world is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change,” Philip Ward of the VU University Amsterdam in the Netherlands told environmentalresearchweb. “In this study we show that the costs of adaptation to climate change in the industrial and municipal water supply sector are also greater for developing countries than for developed countries, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP.”

The highest climate adaptation costs were for sub-Saharan Africa, where western Central Africa is projected to dry, followed by Latin America, which is likely to see increased seasonal and interannual rainfall variability in eastern Brazil.

Before calculating the climate adaptation costs, the researchers analysed the baseline costs needed to meet existing and future demand for water by 2050 without the effects of climate change. These baseline costs also covered the elimination of existing backlogs and the consequences of socioeconomic development.

The researchers then analysed the effect of adaptation to climate change over and above this baseline, using one emissions scenario and two global climate models to project the effects of climate on water supply.

“We found that in most regions the baseline costs far exceed adaptation costs,” said Ward. “This supports the notion of mainstreaming climate-change adaptation, and current and future climate vulnerability, into broader policy aims. It raises the question of ‘how much climate change adaptation should be factored into the current design of water supply systems?’ “

On a global scale, the baseline costs for water supply were $73 billion per year, compared with $12 billion per year for adaptation to climate change.

The researchers fixed the cost of meeting increased demand at US$ 0.30/cubic meter, whether this was met by additional surface reservoirs or other techniques, such as desalination, recycling, or rainwater harvesting. ,

The building of reservoirs is controversial as it can cause heavy environmental and social impacts. The team’s projections indicate that under these assumptions, global reservoir storage capacity would need to increase by around 34–36% by 2050 to cope with water demand.

The researchers hope their work can assist ongoing climate negotiation, such as COP-16, the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Cancun, which ends on 10 December 2010.

[1] Ward, P.J. … [et al.] (2010). Partial costs of global climate change adaptation for the supply of raw industrial and municipal water: a methodology and application. Environmental research letters ; vol. 5, no. 4 ; 044011. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/5/4/044011

Source: Liz Kalaughe, environmentalresearchweb, 08 Dec 2010

Climate change: making water supply and sanitation services more resilient

If the widely-anticipated flood and drought consequences of climate change come to pass, then both established water and sanitation services and future gains in access and service quality will be at real risk. A study commissioned by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the UK Department of International Development (DFID) examines what can be done to make water and sanitation technologies and systems more resilient to climate change.

The study’s five key conclusions are:

1. Climate change is widely perceived as a threat rather than an opportunity. There may be significant overall benefits to health and development in adapting to climate change.
2. Major changes in policy and planning are needed if ongoing and future investments are not to be wasted.
3. Potential adaptive capacity is high but rarely achieved. Resilience needs to be integrated into drinking-water and sanitation management to cope with present climate variability. It will be critical in controlling adverse impacts of future variability.
4. Although some of the climate trends at regional level are uncertain, there is sufficient knowledge to inform urgent and prudent changes in policy and planning in most regions.
5. There are important gaps in our knowledge that already or soon will impede effective action. Targeted research is urgently needed to fill gaps in technology and basic information, to develop simple tools, and to provide regional information on climate change.

The resilience of water and sanitation technologies are categorized as follows:

Read more in a new booklet which summarises the WHO/DFID study:

Howard, G. and Bartram, J. (2009). Summary and policy implications Vision 2030 : the resilience of water supply and sanitation in the face of climate change. Geneva, Switzerland, World Health Organization and London, UK, Department for International Development (DFID). 41 p. ISBN 978-92-4-159842 2

Download full publication

Climate change: high adaptation costs for water sector, World Bank study says

“Water supply and flood management, ranks as one of the top three climate adaptation costs in both the wetter and drier scenario, with Sub-Saharan Africa footing by far the highest costs” says a new World Bank report.

The draft global report of the Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change Study (EACC) calculates the cost between 2010 and 2050 of adapting to an approximately 2°C warmer world by 2050. A second report due in March 2010 will consist of seven country case studies (Bangladesh, Bolivia, Ethiopia, Ghana, Mozambique, Samoa, and Viet Nam).

The EACC study estimates that over the next 40 years, global net annual adapation costs for municipal and industrial water supply will be between US$ 10.0 billion (wetter scenario) and US$ 11.1 billion (dry scenario). In both scenarios, nearly two-thirds of these costs (US$ 5.9 billion and US$ 7.3 billion, respectively) are for Sub-Saharan Africa [tab. 13, p. 54].

“Costs of adaptation are defined as the cost of providing enough raw water to restore future industrial and municipal water demand to the levels that would have existed without climate change. Such demand is assumed to be met by increasing the capacity of surface reservoir storage, except when that would raise withdrawals to more than 80 percent of river runoff and when the cost of supplying water from reservoir yield is more than $0.30 a cubic meter. In these cases, supply is assumed to be met through alternative measures, such as recycling, rainwater harvesting, and desalination, at a cost of $0.30 a cubic meter” [p. 53].

The adaptation cost for water supply and flood management in the EACC study is higher than previously calculated by United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) in 2007. The World Bank says this is because it has tried to include a number of costs that UNFCC overlooked, such as the costs of maintaining water quality standards and operating costs [p. 82-83].

“As do most sectoral studies of global adaptation costs, [EACC] study focuses on hard adaptation measures, which are easier to cost than behavioral measures. There is no implication that these are the best measures for adaptation. Ideally, adaptation options to ensure water supply during average and drought conditions should integrate strategies on both demand and supply sides. While demand-side adaptations are not explicitly costed in this study (demand projections already account for some increase in efficiencies over time, so this could lead to double counting), there is wide scope for economizing on water consumption” [p. 55].

Global adapation costs for water supply and sanitation infrastructure were estimated to be US$ 700 million per year [tab. 8, p. 44].

Average annual adaptation costs in the health sector for diarrhoea and malaria prevention and treatment lie in a narrow range of US$ 1.3–1.6 billion a year over the 40-year period 2010–50, according to the EACC study. These estimates for malaria and diarrhea are lower than the prior estimates of US$ 4–12 billion, because they take into account the effects of development and the resulting decline in under-five mortality [p. 66-68].

Though adaptation is costly, costs can be reduced, says the World Bank. “The clearest opportunities to reduce the costs of adaptation are in the water supply and flood protection sector. [...] A large share of the costs of adaptation in the water supply and flood protection sector could be avoided by adopting better management [and water tariff] policies” [p. 94-95].

One important lesson that the report mentions is that “development is the most powerful form of adaptation”. It suggests too that the costs of adaptation may also be dramatically reduced by a combination of technical change and private initiative.

Climate change: the price tag for adaptation

Countries staring into a gloomy future of low food production, less water, higher storm surges, longer dry periods and other expensive consequences of climate change have been told they can adapt at a cost ranging from several hundred billion dollars to over a trillion dollars.

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) [is helping] developing countries calculate the cost of implementing measures not only to mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions but also to adapt to climate change. [...] The assistance is being provided by way of the National Economic and Environmental Development Study (NEEDS) in nine pilot countries: Costa Rica, Egypt, Ghana, Indonesia, Lebanon, Mali, Nigeria, Pakistan and the Philippines.

The study estimates the cost of implementing climate change mitigation and adaptation measures in the country; then national consultants, with the engagement of the ministries of finance and planning, identify policy and finance instruments available to support the identified measures. With the financing priorities worked out, the countries stand a better chance of accessing funds from the Convention, including the Adaptation Fund set up under UNFCCC auspices. The Fund is expected to raise money from a levy of about two percent on credits generated by the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

UNFCCC hopes to present the NEEDS study findings at the UN climate change summit in Copenhagen in December 2009, which will look at a new global agreement to come into effect after the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol ends in 2012.

The UNFCCC has come up with a price tag of between US$ 49 billion and $171 billion per year globally for adaptation by 2030, based on investment and financial flows in five sectors: agriculture, forestry and fisheries, water supply, human health, coastal zones, and infrastructure.

“The UNFCCC assessment is perhaps the most rigorous one out there, as it breaks down the costs sectorally and examines the impact in detail,” said Shardul Agrawala, principal economist at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the lead author of a new book [Economic Aspects of Adaptation to Climate Change: Costs, Benefits and Policy Instruments] that takes a critical look at all the studies on adaptation costs.

Most global studies, “while relevant for the international discussion on adaptation and its financing, face serious limitations,” he said. “In most cases, the estimates do not have a direct attribution to specific adaptation activities, nor are the benefits of adaptation investments articulated, and many just stack upon the assumptions made in preceding studies and the results are consequently not truly independent.”

The book, which Agrawala co-wrote with Samuel Fankhauser, principal economist at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, also examined the costs of adapting to climate change drawn up by the Least Developed Countries, with specific projects listed as part of the National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPA) under the UNFCCC.

The cost of implementing all the projects identified by 22 countries, which had submitted their NAPA by the end of 2007, was about US$472 million, but Agrawala noted that the mandate had been limited to identifying priority projects.

NEEDS was a “sensible way to go about integrating adaptation at a higher strategic level examining all the sectors in the national planning process,” he said. “In some sectors it might just need a change in existing policy or regulations.”

[...] Agrawala said funds might be hard to come by in the current economic environment, but it did open a “window of opportunity” because many countries were investing in infrastructure as part of their economic stimulus packages.

Source: IRIN, 30 Mar 2009

Climate change: How much money for adaptation?

With barely six months left before countries have to clinch a climate change deal in Copenhagen in December [2009], a call for more money – over and above development aid – to help poor countries adapt to climate change has been backed by a major report. The report – Closing the Gaps: Disaster Risk Reduction and Adaptation to Climate Change in Developing Countries – is the work of the international Commission on Climate Change and Development (CCCD), set up in 2008 by the Swedish government and chaired by Gunilla Carlsson, Sweden’s Minister for international development cooperation.

The first in its two-step approach urged rich countries to speedily mobilise US$1 billion to $2 billion to help nations most vulnerable to the impact of global warming: low-income small island states and, particularly, African countries. [...] The second step is an effective mechanism for funding adaptation that would be created through climate negotiations.

The Official Development Assistance (ODA) provided by rich countries and other public funds “are unlikely to provide the full resources required to finance adaptation efforts of all developing countries in the long term”, the CCCD commented. The global economic recession is also likely to shrink available funding.

[...] Under the “polluter pays” principle, industrialised countries are obliged to help developing ones adapt to climate change, but developing countries and environmental lobby groups have been wary of much needed ODA being repackaged to pay for adaptation.

[...] “Adaptation is much more than climate-proofing development efforts and ODA,” said the report. “It requires sustainable development: meeting the needs of the present in ways that do not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their need.”

The report noted that ODA totalled $104 billion in 2007, and the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) estimated that more than 60 percent of ODA could be considered as relating to adaptation. “Obviously, increasing ODA would both provide funds for climate-proofing development assistance and increase funding for adaptation. The appropriate role of ODA in supporting climate adaptation needs to be articulated.” However, Oxfam’s Hill said adaptation cost estimates should take account of the most recent scientific assessments, which showed that previous estimates were dramatically low. “The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has estimated that between $50 billion and $170 billion per year (in current values) will be needed by the year 2030.”

The authors noted that “This is only a twentieth of current spending on development of new infrastructure globally, and a tenth of the expected cost of emissions reductions.”

Source: IRIN, 19 May 2009

Climate change: better water use could reduce future food crises

If the overall water resources in river basins were acknowledged and managed better, future food crises could be significantly reduced, say researchers from Stockholm Resilience Centre at Stockholm University, Stockholm Environment Institute and Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

The challenge of meeting future water needs under the impacts of climate change and rapidly growing human demands for water may be less bleak than widely portrayed. An analysis [1] by a team of Swedish and German scientists quantifies for the first time the opportunities of effectively using both “green” and “blue” water to adapt to climate change and to feed the future world population.

The current approach to water management considers only blue water, that is river discharge and groundwater. According to the researchers, this limits the options to deal with increasing water scarcity and water risks induced by climate change. Under those conditions, over three billion of the current world population are estimated to suffer from severe water scarcity. The new analysis which additionally accounts for green water, that is water in the soil that stems directly from rainfall, suggests that the actual number is under one billion. It also shows that wise water management can lift billions out of water poverty.

“This opens a new area of investments for climate adaptation and a window to achieve a much needed new green revolution in poor countries in the world. Our analysis shows that many water-short countries are able to produce enough food for their populations if green water is considered and managed well,” the researchers report.

[...] A better use of green water can form the basis for a new green revolution. It may also provide the basis for building resilience towards more frequent and intense floods, droughts and dry spells under human-induced climate change.

“We show that investments in current technologies and improved green water use can promote more robust, climate-resilient farming systems, which provide more stable food supplies,” says Holger Hoff, researcher at the Potsdam-Institute for Climate Impact Research.

[...] Many countries which are classified as chronically blue water-short, have enough blue-plus-green water to produce a standard diet for their populations. Kenya, for example, has plenty of unused or not well-managed green water to benefit from.

[...] The model showed that by 2050, 59 percent of the world population will face blue water shortage, and 36 percent will face green-plus-blue water shortage. This means that 36 percent of the world population will live in countries that will not have enough water to produce their own food.

“Unfortunately, despite the new opportunities arising from our green-blue analysis, our findings show that humanity will still face major water challenges by 2050 in certain regions of the world,” says says lead author Johan Rockström from the Stockholm Environment Institute and the Stockholm Resilience Centre. [If] green water was managed better [...] even under climate change good options would exist to build water resilience in many countries even without expanding cropland.

[1] Rockström, J. … [et al.] (2009). Future water availability for global food production : the potential of green water for increasing resilience to global change. Water resources research ; 45, W00A12, doi:10.1029/2007WR006767.

Source: EurekAlert, 05 May 2009

Climate change: a scapegoat for the world’s water woes?

Climate change and adaptation [was] a central topic of the 5th World Water Forum (WWF) in Istanbul.

[...] Is the overwhelming emphasis on water and climate change justified? Certainly water is predicted to be the primary medium through which early climate change impacts will be felt by people, ecosystems and economies. Both observational records and climate projections provide strong evidence that freshwater resources are vulnerable, and have the potential to be strongly affected. However, the recent IPCC Technical Report on climate change and water recognises impacts on water have yet to be adequately addressed in either scientific analyses or water policy – an issue that [was] discussed at a meeting hosted by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) in [the  UK]  Parliament on 30 March [2009].  

But nagging questions remain. How do we separate out the impacts of climate change from those related to socio-economic and demographic trends, and should we  deal with adaptation as a separate development issue? Separating impacts and responses is not easy, but it is clear that climate change is one of a number of pressures on water and livelihoods.

Take demographic change in sub-Saharan Africa. In contrast to the lack of knowledge on the direction and magnitude of hydrological changes under different climate change scenarios, the prospects of demographic change in the 21st century are known with some certainty. The population there  is expected to increase from 700 million in 2007 to 1100 million in 2030 and 1500 million by 2050, and populations will become increasingly urban. Overall water demand can therefore be expected to more than double in the first half of the 21st century, without considering rises in per capita demand for food and water. In Ethiopia, the figures are particularly alarming. The population is expected to increase from 77 million in 2007 to around 146 million by 2050, an increase of almost 90 per cent         

What are the implications for development, and for adaptation? There are perhaps two main conclusions. Firstly, treating development and adaptation as separate issues is misguided. In Ethiopia, extending access to secure water and sanitation, and reducing dependence on unprotected water sources, is central to both poverty reduction and adaptation. This is simply ‘good development in a hostile climate’, in a context where access to water rather than its absolute availability will remain key.

Yet despite all the calls for adaptation ‘mainstreaming’ – in Istanbul it [was] treated as a separate subject; other sessions in different halls focussed on water management, water supply and sanitation, irrigation and disaster management. Second, a sense of perspective is needed. There is a real danger that climate change is crowding out other, inter-related concerns around demographic shifts, urbanisation, water pollution and changing land use. There are multiple pressures on water. Climate change is one of them.

Source: Roger Calow, ODI blog, 20 Mar 2009