Climate Change Budgeting and Planning. Historical Context Rio 1992 Limits to Growth 1970s Climate...

Climate Change Budgeting and

Planning

2

Historical Context

Rio 1992

Limits to Growth 1970s

Climate Science

and IPCC

GCF $100bn

KyotoUNFCCC

Mainstreaming and CPIERssince 2011

Source: IPCC AR5

3

Terminology

• Adaptation: actions that reduce the vulnerability to CC• Mitigation: actions that reduce net emissions

• Low regret: actions that are viable if CC doesn’t happen• Climate Risky: actions that are not viable without CC

• Mainstreaming: integrated in budget, not separate project• Performance Based Budgeting: budget linked to results

• Leveraging: added private finance created by public exp.

4

Climate Public Expenditure and Institutional ReviewsNepal CPEIR 2011 Policy, institutions, expenditure, PFM, SNA

Bangladesh CPEIR 2012 Policy, institutions, expenditure, PFM, SNALeading to tagging work

Thailand CPEIR 2012 Policy, institutions, expenditure, PFM, SNALeading to MOAC initiative

Cambodia CPEIR 2010CCFF 2014

Policy, institutions, expenditure, PFM, SNACosted action plans to support CC StrategyLinks expenditure to benefits

Samoa CPEIR 2012 Policy, institutions, expenditure, PFM, SNA

Indonesia MFF 2013 Mitigation spending, effectiveness, impactLeads to tagging, GPB Strategy

Vietnam Ongoing Policy, institutions, expenditure, PFM, SNALinks expenditure to CC policies

Africa Ongoing Expenditure and institutions

Philippines Ongoing

Latin America Planned

5

What is Climate Finance?

• UNFCCC & HLAG (on the $100bn), based on source of finance• CPI definition, based on tracking all steps• Distinguishes between direct and indirect

• OECD DAC definition for donor tracking• Principle objective (2), if the aim is direct and explicit• Significant objective (1), if secondary aim declared

• CPEIR definitions from country perspective• High-mid-low-marginal relevance• Scores (0%-100%)

6

CPEIR Definitions

7

Comparison of Classifications

8

Implications of Differences Bottom Top Bangladesh Cambodia Renewable energy 75%, if motivated mainly by cost 100% (mitigation) 75%-100% 80% Electricity (non-RE) -ve, if seen as increasing emissions 25% (?) if used for reducing losses or stopping

use of fuelwood or generators Some 25%

Some 0% Forestry 50%, if motivated mainly by incomes or

biodiversity 100%, if motivated entirely by mitigation 75%-100% 80%

Disaster management 25%, reflecting the increased frequency of extreme climate events

100%, if seen as fully relevant to climate change 80%

Disaster relief 0%, if seen as related only to current extreme climate, not changes

100%, if seen as part of a deliberate adaptation strategy

80%

Water supply and water quality

25%, reflecting increase in extreme climate events and/or rainfall/ET trends

100%, if seen as fully relevant to climate change, or if all used for climate proofing

Some 80% Some 50% Some 25%

Irrigation 25% (?) if considering only the increased frequency

100%, if all for climate proofing Some 75%-100% 50%

Agriculture Some 75%-100% Some 50%-75%

Treated as livelihoods

Biodiversity/conservation 0%, if unrelated to climate 50% (?) if partly affected by climate change 50% Eco-tourism 0% if not contributing to household

resilience or climate-related biodiversity 50% (?) if giving incomes for climate vulnerable, or helping climate-related biodiversity

50%

Livelihoods 0%, if not helping the climate vulnerable 50% (?) if highly focused on increasing the incomes for climate vulnerable

25%-50% Some 50%, Some 25%

Social protection (<) 25%, if designed primarily for current day risks

100%, if specifically designed to respond to increased climate risks

50%-75% 0%

Railway (<) 25%, if impact on emission is small 50%, if impact on emissions is large 50% Roads and infrastructure (<) 25%, if some proofing undertaken, of if

there are secondary benefits to welfare of climate vulnerable households

100%, if all spent on climate proofing Some 75%-100% Some 50%-75% Some 25%-50% Some 0%-25%

Some 80% Some 50% Some 25% Some 0%

Health (climate sensitive diseases)

25% (?) if considering only the increased frequency

100%, if all for climate proofing 80%

Health (General) <10%, if no focus on climate diseases (<?) 25%, if climate diseases important 25% Planning for CC 100% 100% 25%-50% 80% Governance/planning (General)

0%, if unrelated to climate change (<?) 25%, if supporting systems that could help climate planning

25%

9

Some of the Programme most difficult to classify

• Disaster relief – disasters will become more common, but should all relief to existing climate count• Climate proofing – knowing what part of the design is

for extreme events and is it protecting against existing or future extremes• Livelihoods – all vulnerability studies show that

increased incomes/savings is the best way to reduce vulnerability, but that includes a huge part of public expenditure• Social protection – it does reduce vulnerability, but it is

rarely linked with CC

10

Key Elements of CC Planning and Budgeting

Actual Expenditure

Effectiveness

Damage from Climate Change

CC Strategy

Budget Influence

Impact

Private Sector and Revenue

Policy

11

Application of methodology

12

Application of methodology 2

13

CC Damage and Loss

14

CC Modelling - IPCC

Best B1 = high growth esp. in tertiary sectors A1T = high growth, non-fossil energy A2 = slow growth and technological change B2 = mid growth, regional solutions A1B = high growth mixed technical changeWorst A1FI = high growth and fossil intensive

Source: IPCC AR4

Source: SREX Report 2012

Source: IPCC AR4

15

Downscaled models

Supnithadnaporn et al

16

CC Damage and Loss• Global – Stern Review suggested 5% of GDP ‘now and forever’• Agriculture

• Cambodia – last 10 years loss to flood, drought and dry spell is 0.71%, so by 2050 losses will be 1.42%, under B1 with no adaptation – loss is each year, accumulated

• FAO suggest varies from 5% to 75% lower in 2050• WB in India suggest degradation of farmland reduced national GDP by 1.7% in 2009

• Forestry losses depend on the national situation with forest stocks and dependency of GDP on forest exploitation

• Energy • Infrastructure losses 0.07% cumulative in Cambodia• Pollution related to urban emissions has health costs that reduce urban labour

productivity by 4.2% in US, 3.1% in China, 3.0% in India, 1.1%-1.5% in Philippines

• Accelerated infrastructure degradation costing 0.71% of GDP by 2050 in Cambodia, based on engineers estimates

• Damage to people/property from storms/floods cost average of 0.12% of GDP in last 10 years in Cambodia and will double by 2050

• WHO suggests increased burden from climate sensitive diseases: 0.85% GDP

17

Thailand’s Second National Communication to the UNFCCC• Climate change projections

• Uncertainty over trends in precipitation, but likely to increase• But climate variability and the frequency of extreme events is

already increasing and this will continue• And sea level rise is also clear

• Policy response to climate change• Disaster reduction management for floods, droughts etc• Support for farmers response• Some complex hydrology modelling• Early research on health effects• Support for local level resilience plans

• Mitigation is 70% power, but also 23% agriculture, mainly from rice paddy and livestock• Food security is essential, so agricultural mitigation is win-win

18

Other Research on CC Impact in Thailand and SE Asia

• TRF doing lots of work on climatology• ADB 2009. PAGE2002 model. Total cost of CC in SE Asia is

6.7% GDP/year by 2100. Adaptation of 0.2% GDP/year will reduce costs by 1.9% of GDP.• CSIRO 2010. Aquacrop model. Rice yields up 8%-28% by 2050

in Thailand/Laos. Mixed in rest of SE Asia.• DAI USAID 2013 Mekong ARCC. Aquacrop model. Most crop

yields declining by 3% to 12% by 2050, but some parts of Thailand increase by 5%.• WorldFish 2013 Coastal SE Asia, using changes in

vulnerability index.• WB global EACC, incl. Vietnam. IMPACT model (CERES). GDP

growth down 0-3% by 2050. Agri VA down 6-14%.

19

Selected International Analysis

• Lots of work with crop water modelling, based on FAO I&D Papers 24, 33 & 56 (eg CERES, CLICROP, CROPWAT, Aquacrop, WOFOST, DSSAT …)• Models integrating crop response with

economics (eg IFPRI IMPACT, FAO MOSAICC …)• Some statistical regression analysis (eg US/EU

Ricardian studies and UK CCRA time series)• Zoning produces more varied projections but

explores farmer response (eg in Brazil, FAO Ecocrop and FAO/IIASA Agro-Ecol Zone model)• HRW review of value of sophisticated models

20

Influence on Strategy and the

Budget

21

Budget Influence

• CC Planning and Budgeting ensures that existing spending is used in the most efficient ways• It facilitates marginal shifts towards those

programmes that can deliver higher benefits with CC (and away from those that are climate risky)• It gives a good overview of uncertainty about CC

and a good mix of low and high regret options• It guides any additional financing that may be

available, either international or domestic

22

Benefits to the Budget of CC Planning and Budgeting in MOAC• Smaller increases in yield variability reduces cost of

rice price support and other social support schemes• More resilient agricultural growth protects revenue

from crop processing• If rural communities have their own adaptation, relief

for floods and droughts costs less• Improved agricultural yields reduces pressure on

deforestation and emissions• More resilient crop production reduces export

variability and so vulnerability to oil shocks (because food and oil prices are linked)

Source: IMF Commodity Prices

23

Strategy Preparation

24

CC Finance Scenarios

Measuring Climate Expenditure

25

CPEIR Headlines on Climate Expenditure

26

27

Trends in Climate Spending

28

Breakdowns

29

Action Plans

30

Benefits Analysisand

Cost Effectiveness

31

Main processes

• Any indicator that is linked to rainfall variability can be assumed to double by 2050, as a working rule of thumb• This change can be expected to take place linearly

between now and 2050, as a first approximation• There may be some places where more detailed CC

evidence is available, especially on seasonality, but these are likely to be limited• Trends in average rainfall are generally difficult to model

in SE Asia, so it may be best to leave these at present• In a few cases, performance will be affected by

temperature (eg related to water balance, health …)

32

Main sources of evidence• Simulation models (eg the crop models, but also livestock …)

• may appear to require less data, but are only as good as the calibration, which does require data (often they are used with international parameters – eg standard FAO values)

Source: DDPM 2007Source: Saito et al 2006

• Statistical analysis, either geographical or time series• because of the big

structural difference over time and space, this may be best used to cross-check other evidence

• Expert opinion (including that of farmers)• essential to check with this and

especially valuable for more complex farmer response options

33

Effectiveness and Benefits

Has to accommodate three types of CC expenditure:A. Rescaling of existing expenditure simply because it

gives higher benefitsB. Modifying existing expenditure (eg ‘proofing’)C. New dedicated actions (which could be the

proofing element of modifying expenditure)

34

High and Low Regret and Climate Risky

35

Mitigation Effectiveness

Source: McKinsey 2010

Source: DNPI 2010

Source: Wetzelaer et al 2007

36

Impact of CC on Benefits - Type A

• Actions already producing reasonable BCRs• Benefits increased by CC (eg

because the action provides protection against temp/floods/drought and this protection becomes more important)• These actions should get a

marginally higher priority• The CC weight is the %

increase in benefits

37

Impact of CC on Benefits - Type ANote

Increase in average yield 10%Risk related benefits/yield related 50%

NPV Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5+Costs ($/ha)

Reserch investment 1 81 85Extension 81 85

Benefits ($/ha)Without CC

Average annual improved crop margins 2 276 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5Risk related benefits 3 138 8.25 8.25 8.25 8.25 8.25

With CCAverage annual improved crop margins 276 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5Risk related benefits 276 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5

Net Benefits ($/ha) BCRWithout CC 2.56 252 -145 25 25 25 25With CC 3.42 390 -137 33 33 33 33

CC relevance measure 33%

1 According to http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/126037/2/1-PS-Birthal.pdf, the global investment in drought resistent varieties is about $1bn, to date, with benefits of about 292m $/yr. The return on reseach investment is scare. Lybbert and Bell (2010) estimates that the investment in drought tolorance crossed $1 B. Gollin (2006) estimates an imrovement of yields in developping countries, generating wheat and maize at $149M and $143M per year respectively.2 According to above, typical yield increases are 10% to 15% from new varieties3 According to above source, risk aversion benefits are typically an additional 50% above aggregate benefits.

38

Impact of CC on Benefits: Type B

• Actions already producing reasonable BCRs• CC generates losses (mainly

because rehabilitation costs increase with floods)• Proofing involves some costs,

but reduces the losses• CC weight is the % change in

benefits• The estimate of losses

contributes to aggregate GDP losses

39

Adaptation Effectiveness

Wet season yield lost from rainfall variability, without CC /1 16.7%Wet season yield lost from rainfall variability, with CC /2 33%

Dry

Rice cultivation No CC With CCCosts of production, excl. labour & irrigation ($/ha) 75 75 120 221Labour (days/ha) 120 120 150 220Yield (t/ha) 2.00 1.60 3.20 4.40Price ($/t) 270 270 270 270Income ($/ha) 540 432 864 1188 13%Margin ($/ha) 165 57 369 417Margin ($/t) 83 36 115 95

NPV Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7 Y8 Y9 Y10 Y11 Y12 Y13 Y14 Y15 Y16 Y17 Y18 Y19 Y20 Y21 Y22 Y23 Y24 Y25 Y26 Y27 Y28 Y29 Y30 Y31 Y32 Y33 Y34 Y35 Y36 Y37NEW CONSTRUCTION: no proofingCosts ($/ha)

Investment costs 1143 1200Rehab costs, without CC 1760 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105Rehab costs, with CC 3521 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211Annual operation and maintenance 1003 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60

Benefits ($/ha)Dry season (with/without CC) 6969 417 417 417 417 417 417 417 417 417 417 417 417 417 417 417 417 417 417 417 417 417 417 417 417 417 417 417 417 417 417 417 417 417 417 417 417 417Wet season without CC 3409 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204Wet season with CC 5214 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312

Net Benefits ($/ha) BCRWithout CC 2.66 6472 -744 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456With CC 2.15 6516 -742 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458

NEW CONSTRUCTION: proofedCosts ($/ha)

Investment costs 1714 1800Rehab costs, with/without CC 880 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53Annual operation and maintenance 1504 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90



REHABILITATION: no proofingCosts ($/ha)

Investment costs 952 1000Rehab costs, without CC 1760 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105Rehab costs, with CC 3521 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211Annual operation and maintenance 836 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50



REHABILITATION: proofingCosts ($/ha)

Investment costs 1429 1500Rehab costs, with/without CC 880 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53Annual operation and maintenance 836 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50



Wet SeasonRainfed Irrigated

New, Unproofed

New, Proofed

Rehab, Unproofed

Rehab, Proofed

40

Supplementing Research with Expert Opinion

Benefit estimates based on whatever scientific evidence is available, Thailand, SE Asia or international.But they can also be based on expert opinion, eg using the structure below1.5-2.0 = the benefit, on its own, is strongly positive and easily enough to justify

the cost (public and/or private)

1.2-1.7 = the benefit, on its own, is just enough to justify the cost

0.7-1.3 = the benefit is about equal to the cost – probably not enough to justify, but not a disastrous waste of resources

0.3-0.8 = important contribution of benefits, but not enough to justify cost – so a secondary objective

0.1-0.4 = minor benefits, worth noting and protecting, but not at the expense of more importance benefits

Benefits

41

Benefits

42

Conclusions from Samoan CBA• Reliability of cost benefit analysis is subject to uncertainty and subjectivity

of assumptions

• The main output is not a quantitative analysis, but a qualitative assessment of strengths and weaknesses found through the definition of the methodology.

• Adaptation projects are harder to assess than mitigation ones because economic benefits are different from financial benefits.

• Benefits under a climate change scenario are higher than a no CC scenario by 3.6% to 15%. This figure can be used to advocate for climate change expenditure.

• Policy makers should start to include in their policies and in their CBAs the impact of the climate change because it can bias completely the profitability of an investment.

43

44

Using Benefits as a Relevance Scores

The score = (B – A) / B, whereA = the benefits that would be

generated by the action, if there was no CC

B = the benefits that would be generated with CC

Potentially used for estimating appropriate top-up funding for CC finance

AB

45

Modalities and the Private

Sector

46

Modalities

• Direct public expenditure• National Climate Fund, considered in Samoa and

Cambodia, but full of challenges

• Transfers and subsidies• Financial instruments through banks (eg loan

guarantees, cheap loans …)• Regulatory controls and promotional work (eg the

whole of the UK Carbon Plan)• Transfers to local government, with/without targeting• Public awareness and capacity building

47

Instruments and Leverage Ratios

48

Patterns of Expenditure (CPI)

49

Impact

50

Impact• Extent to which existing finance delivers the mitigation target or

reduces the damage loss from CC• (But international rule of thumb (Stern) that you can only expect to

avoid two thirds of the damage from CC)• Indonesia mitigation 15%• Cambodia adaptation 27.5%

• Complicated timing issues about investment now followed by impact later, so we can’t leave it all until 2050 – in fact, the benefits of a constant level of spending now roughly matches the need to offset increasingly high damage/loss

• To reduce CC damage loss by 2/3 would require about $1000m, in 2018, when the low growth scenario is only $275m

• So the CCAP will achieve only 27.5% of what could be achieved• Because adaptation funding usually gives higher BCRs that standard

investment, it is worth switching resources to adaptation

51

Avoiding lower GDP growth

52

Reducing the losses• There is a Green GDP Gap associated with resource loss• There will also be a large reduction in GDP growth from CC

damage and further resource degradation• To protect 7% growth (in Green GDP), and reverse these losses,

total public GE expenditure needs to rise from IDR 20tr in 2013 (weighted) to IDR 46tr in 2020 (data to be finalised), assuming switch to pro-private sector instruments

53

Overall Conclusions• So far, country systems for mainstreaming climate finance

have focused on description of patterns to reveal trends and the big picture• Plus a review of the policies and institutions• Next phase is to start using this to influence the budget by

linking it more clearly to policy• Two main (complementary) ways being explored

• Classifying expenditure according to policies - Vietnam• Linking expenditure to any existing results-based prioritisation –

Cambodia and Indonesia

• Both are challenging and need judgement• But the costs of failing to mainstream could stall growth

completely in the more vulnerable countries, by 2050

54

The END

(Thank goodness)

and Thank You

Climate Change Budgeting and Planning. Historical Context Rio 1992 Limits to Growth 1970s Climate...

Documents

Transcript of Climate Change Budgeting and Planning. Historical Context Rio 1992 Limits to Growth 1970s Climate...