Technologies for adaptation to climate change
Examples from the agricultural and water sectors in Lebanon
1 Introduction
During recent years increasing attention has been given to technologies for adaptation on the international climate change agenda, not least in the agricultural and water sectors. Following COP 13 in 2007, emphasis on the financing of technology transfer was stepped up, with the Nairobi Work Programme becoming the focal point for discussions of technologies for adaptation (UNFCCC 2010). Discussions of technologies have previously been focused mainly on mitigation, but the adoption of the Cancun Agreements in December 2012, including decisions to create the Climate Adaptation Framework and the Technology Mechanism, has provided the Parties with an opportunityfollowing COP 13 in 2007, emphasis on the financing of technology transfer was stepped up, and increased opportunities to scale up existing work on technologies for adaptation. followed (UNFCCC 2010).
This increasing focus on 'technologies'technologies is likely to affect the way adaptation activities are planned, financed and implemented at both the international and local levels.One such consequence could be the degree to which the social development dimensions of adaptation are considered in the practical implementation of (typically internationally funded) adaptation activities in developing countries. InNevertheless, in adaptation studies, the focus has implicitly been on what can be defined as adaptation technologies. For example, in a number of adaptation cost studies (see e.g. Trærup et al. 2011; Halsnæs and Trærup 2009),) the economic estimates are based on technologies such as irrigation, malaria bed nets and treatment, and road infrastructure. These initiatives are called measures or practices, but could just as well be defined as adaptation technologies.
Investments in technology-based adaptation (seeds, dams, irrigation, etc.) are complicatedby the fact that it remains difficult to predict future climate change impacts, especially on a local scale.Estimating the costs and benefits of adaptation technologies is complicatedchallenged by several uncertainties associated with the lack of a consensus in projections of climate change and with incomplete information on the path of economic growth and technological change (World Bank 2010). For many countries there is still uncertaintyregardinghow great the changes will be. For example, predicted changes in precipitation inTanzania include an increase of 5–30 percent during rainy seasons for some parts of the country(Hulme and otherset al.2001; Clark and otherset al. 2003). For Mozambique, projections indicate that climate change may lead to significant changes in water run-off, which will increase the frequency and magnitude of flooding, though the magnitude is not certain(Arnell 2003, 2004). Therefore, decisions about investments in adaptationtechnologies with a life-time of twenty, thirty or maybe forty years, including drainage, water storage, bridges and other infrastructure, will have to be based upon incompleteuncertain information, given the highdegree of variation in climate change projections. Predicting economic growth is also connected with some uncertainty. Faster economic growth will put more assets at risk and possibly increase the potential risk of damage, but as a result of higher levels of investment and technical changeevolution in technologies, it will also result in greater levels of flexibility and of thecapacity to adapt to climate change. Also, predictions of innovation and technological development seem complicated and difficult to account for,and cost calculations often do not allow for these unknowableunknown effects on technologies. Assumptions about these uncertainties have beenwidely adopted in a range of adaptation cost studies (for example, World Bank 2010a2010; Parry et al. 2009),as well as in general analyses of economic sectors with extended time horizons. The uncertainties further stress the importance of implementing development activities that reduce the underlying vulnerabilities of a system in general and of enhancing adaptive capacity as a strategy for integrating climate change adaptation into development.
Estimating the costs and benefits of a technology often assumes that future climate change impacts are known with certainty. However, inIn reality, the prevailing uncertainties when planning adaptation will have to deal with considerable uncertainty, regarding the magnitude and even direction ofclimate change at the local level. Thislevels,can have the effect that, in some cases, the transfer and diffusion of a number of adaptation technologies will be delayed until more information is available. Consequently adaptation costs may be reduced, but the magnitude of impacts, and thus the costs, couldalso be increased. In other cases, uncertainty may force decision-makers to extend the scope of the adaptation technology to enable it to deal with a wider range of outcomes and thusincrease the costs of its implementation.
In the agricultural and water sectors, there is an increasing emphasis, not only on quantifying the impacts ofclimate change, but alsoinonmaking economic valuations of these impacts and of the costs and benefits associated with adaptation technologies in order to adjust ruralagricultural production to climate change impacts. The existing knowledge base of the costs and benefits of adaptation initiativesis relatively limited. A number of studies provide global and aggregated estimates of adaptation (see e.g. World Bank 2010, Parry et al. 2009, Agrawala and Fankhauser 2008, Stern 2006), but they2007). These studiesfocus on adaptation in general as such and do not distinguish between different kinds of adaptation actions, but provide manyaggregated estimates, which prove difficult for policy-makers and project planners to use at the local and national levels, when allocating budgets for various adaptation activities. Existing national databases are often used to generate these aggregated estimates, often drawing on a wide variety of sector studies (see e.g., for example,World Bank 2010). In a series of sector studies for the UNFCCC (see, for example, McCarl 2007, Kirschen 2007), sub-regionalestimates of the influences of climate change on a variety of sectorswere provided,including agriculture, water, health, ecosystems, infrastructure, extreme events and coastal zones. In studies where national estimates are provided, costs of the adaptation measures are often scaled to national levels after calculations are made using global models. This approach was taken in aDfID-funded study on the economic impacts of climate change in East Africa (Watkiss et al.,. 2011). The majority of aggregated estimates based on national databases and global models can most likely be traced to the limited number of previous efforts and difficulties in getting the rightproper data at more disaggregated levels. In addition to the estimates being largely aggregated, the majority of existing studies have focused on the adaptation costs as apercentage of GDP. However, as Stage(2010) points out (2010),,most agricultural production in developing countries takes place in the informal sector,meaning that it is not represented in GDP figures.
Traditionally, adaptation has been viewed as a matter for national governments (IPCC 2007), which are responsible for flood preparedness, irrigation schemes, research and development of improved seeds, dams and water availability. In an idealworld, individuals and communities would act autonomously without government planning or intervention, though taking account of social, political, cultural and market institutions. Nevertheless, Fankhauser et al. (1999) conclude that often this is not the case. Continuous constraints such as inadequate information and resources ensure thatgovernments remain in lead positions,when it comes to taking adaptation initiatives. In order to move towards more autonomous adaptation, governments will have to improve conditions for individual households and communities in terms of institutional and socio-economic environments. This is in line with general economic theory stating that government involvement is necessary, whenever the market is not working well, given the existence of information irregularity, negative externalities and public goods. This is evident, for example, in a situation drought situations, where farmers intensify irrigation and subsequently overexploit existing water reservoirs, and consequently incur a negative externality in terms of depletion costs. To avoid imperfect information for farmers and to empower them to make the right choices, more local level case studies, including of the benefits and costs of implementing adaptation technologies, are required.
The present paper provides a discussion of the concept of technologies for adaptation and a framework for evaluating the costsand benefits of these technologies at the local level. In addition, two examples of technologies that have been implemented in the agricultural and water sectors in Lebanon, including the benefits and costs,are presented.The resultscontribute to the knowledge base on benefits and costs for both planning and funding technologies in the context of adaptation to climate change, in addition to prioritizing between various adaptation technology investments at the local level.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the local context of the research area. This includes an introduction tocurrent climate conditions and future changes in Lebanon. Section 3 introduces the applied data and methodology, whileSection 4 analysesand discusses the results and provides a discussion of them.. Finally, Section 5 offers some conclusions. concludes.
2 Local context
Lebanon is located on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea betweenlatitudes 34° 41' N and 33° 02' N, covering an area of 10,452 km2. The resident population is estimated at having been 4.1 million in mid-2007. (UN 2012). The annual population growth rate is estimated at 1.2% per centforthe period 2001-2007. The and therural population accounts for only 13% per cent of the population. Although agriculture makes a relatively minor contribution to Lebanon’s overall economy (Agriculture contributes with 6.1% per cent of GDP in 2007), it plays an important role in rural areas. The rural population accounts for an estimated 20 to 25% of the active population of Lebanon that has some activity in agriculture. Within agriculture,, whereofcrop production is estimated to account for about 72% per cent of the total value of agricultural production. (MOA 2008). The total agriculture area is approximately 248,000 ha, out of which 42 per cent are irrigated. Irrigated crops include mostly fruit and vegetable crops.
2.1Current climate conditions and future changes
Climate in the eastern Mediterranean is characterized by mild rainy winters from the westward moving cyclonicwind activity and long, hot, dry summers. Lebanon's climate is further shaped by its unique topography of a coastal strip, the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon mountain ranges, and the inland Beqaa plateau. Thus the coastal area and the western sidepart of the Lebanon mountain range exhibit maritime characteristics, while the climate oninthe eastern sidepart is more continental. Precipitation on the coastal range reaches a maximum of 1400mm/year, including snowfall. Inland, precipitations can be as low as 150mm in the northern part of Beqaa. (MoE 2011).The average winter temperature is 13°C on the coast, diminishing with altitude. In summer, the average temperature is 29°C. Daily and seasonal variations and extremes are recorded in the mountains and the Beqaa.
Lebanon’s Second National Communication (SNC)drew upclimate change scenarios with vulnerability assessments (MoE 2011). Future climate scenarios expectpredict that heat stress will intensify, while winter precipitation will diminish due to the northward shift of the mid-latitude storm track. In addition to changes in the mean climate, changes in extremes are also likely to occur.
According to the SNC (MoE 2011), and in relation to the present climate, by By 2040 temperatures will increase by around 1°C on the coast to 2°C in the interior, and by 2090 they will be 3.5°C to 5°C higher. than the present temperature averages (MoE 2011).Rainfall is also projected to decrease by 10-20%20per cent by 2040 and by 25-45%45per cent by the 2090, compared to the present. Temperature and precipitation extremes will also intensify. Over the whole country, periods of drought will become 9 days longer by 2040 and 18 days longer by 2090 (MoE 2011)..
2.2 Climate change impact on the agricultural and water sectors in Lebanon
Currently, 60 per cent of the available water is used in the agriculture sector (MoA 2008). Irrigated crops will face water shortages due to increased water demand and decreased water availability for irrigation. Rain-fed crops will show either no change or a decrease in their surface area or productivity. However, increases in temperature will lead to a potential expansion of the coastal plantations of crops such as bananas and tomatoes to higher altitudes.
Chilling requirements for mountainous fruit trees such as cherries and apples will not be met in some parts of the country, leading to a risk of failure of blossom pollination and fecundation by up to 50%. per cent (MoE 2011). Changes in climate will also lead to increased infestation ofpests and fungi and bacterial diseases for most crops, as well as new types of bacteria, requiring new types of treatment, which would result in additional efforts for pest control and treatment. Irrigated crops will face water shortages due to increased demands forwater and decreased water availability for irrigation, which will negatively affect yields.
[Table 2 about here]
3 Data and methodology
The examples presented in this paper drawsare based on evidence acquireddata from conducting athe Technology Needs Assessment (TNA) for Lebanon under the largest international scale capacity-building programme for adaptation technology identification and deployment in the developing world, the GEF-funded and UNEP/UNEP Risoe Centre-implemented "Technology Needs Assessment (TNA) Project".project, running from 2010 to 2013. The project has provided targeted financial, technical and methodological support to assist countries from Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean and Eastern Europe, in conducting technology needs assessments. The project is a country‐driven activity aimed at assisting developing countries, in identifying and prioritizing technology needs for mitigating and adapting to climate change (see The TNA project in Lebanon embedded the identification of the most relevant adaptation technologies forLebanon fortheagriculture and water sectors.
Due to limitations of data,theanalyses are in this paper should be viewed as indicative of potential impacts and adaptation measures rather thancontain accurate information about all relevant aspects, and in resolute. In practice, it has primarily been possible to include a somehow limited number of indicators of the direct costsand benefits of implementingspecificthe selectedtechnologies. The limitationsof these economic parameters will be highlighted in relation to the differenttechnology examples, namely conservation agriculture for the agricultural sector and rainwater harvesting from greenhouse roof tops for the water sector. In addition uncertainties about future climate change remains, as in other analyses of climate change.
The agricultural and water sectors(and their associatedthe identified adaptation technologies)are in practice highly interrelated (naturally so, of course, as agriculture is by far the largest consumer of fresh water in most developing countries)..For example, a large proportionof water technologies are fully or partly focused directly on the agricultural sector (e.g. building dams to capture surface run off and store it for the dry season so it can be used to irrigate crops, as well as perhaps providing a secondary function as and eventually to providea drinking water reserve for domestic consumption and livestock). The additional water supply facilitated by a 'hardware' water technology may therefore feed directly into (and be practically co-implemented with) 'software' agricultural technologies such as water user associations, introducing more drought-resistant cropping systems, etc.
3.1Evaluation of benefits and costs
In order to estimate the benefits and costs of the adaptation technologytechnologies, several scenarios weredrawn up that took into accountdeveloped taking climate change into account, with and without the adaptation technology in place. By comparing these scenarios, it was possible to isolate the adaptation costs and benefits arising from implementingthe adaptation technologies. This made it possible to single out the impacts of the adaptation technology, for example, in relation to crop yields and other effects.
A baseline scenario was established as a “business-as-usual” scenario, which did not include the adaptation technology. The second scenariois similar to the baseline scenario, but alsotook into accountincludes the adaptation technology. The differences between the two scenarios, such as required capital costs, crop yields, available amount of and water, magnitude of illness, and for example remaining assets after flooding events availabilityformed the basis for estimating the benefits and costs of the adaptation technologies. Because of uncertainty in climate change projections, technologies are designed to meet higher requirements than posed by actual climate change. In this way some technologies may turn out inefficient, if their potential is not fully used. If a technology. The scenarios can is not designed to meet the necessary requirements to reduce climate change impacts, it will be outlined as follows:ineffective and lead to unnecessary damages and loses.
Scenario S2 is the baseline “business-as-usual” scenario, which estimates the impacts of climate change on the relevant issue/sector considering projected climate change impacts (such as disease pattern, crop yields, water supply etc.) in the analysis. However, the technology in use is conventional, based on expected climate variation from historical data. The impacts, on crop production, for example, can be estimated based on existing vulnerability and impact studies or on the results of an econometric analysis of the relevant variables.
Scenario S2* is similar to Scenario S2, but includes a technology which is well adapted to the new climate conditions under climate change, and its costs, benefits and other side effects.
Table 1 illustrates the scenarios which are useful to consider.
[Table 1 about here]
In order to compare the benefits of the respective adaptation technologies with their costs of implementation, a cost-benefit analysis was carried out for each technology.
In the calculations, gross benefits were estimated from the reduced damage costs attributed to the adaptation technology compared to the situation without the adaptation technology in place. Marginal benefits were then calculated as the sum of gross benefits across the lifetime of the technology anda defined period of time accounting eventually the shelf-life of major equipments if they do exist and the period for breaking downthe investment/investment costs. Also, because costs and benefits accumulate over time,to render current and future effects comparable,the calculations are presented as capitalized values in the form of Net Present Value (NPV) using a discount rate of 6 percentper cent. Discount rates typically range from 0 to 10 percent. Using a high discount rate will make future costs of the technology negligible, and hence make investments more attractive in comparison to an assessment using low discount rates. Also, a high discount rate implies that future economic benefits from reduced damage/costs have a lower weight.