What is Adaptation? In everyday life, the word “adaptation” recalls the idea of a process and/or transformation to which something affected by a pressure, reacts adjusting. According to common sense it brings about also a feeling of acceptance or fatalism. In the climate change context however, adaptation is something different. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) describes adaptation as: “adjustment in ecological, social, or economic systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli, and their effects or impacts. [It] refers to changes in processes, practices or structures to moderate or offset potential damages or to take advantages of opportunities associated with changes in climate” (IPCC TAR, 2001). Albeit general this definition conveys the clear message that adaptation is exactly the opposite of passive behaviour. Differently from mitigation, which is the other pillar of climate change strategy that acts on the causes of the phenomenon, adaptation gathers all those actions needed to eliminate or reduce a damage (enhance a benefit) when climate change materializes. Developing more climate resilient crops’ varieties, enhancing irrigation systems and water efficiency, improving extreme weather events early warning systems, setting and applying better techniques for the insulation of building, re-thinking landscape management to minimize hydro-geological risk, long-term investment in coastal protection, all this, and much more, is adaptation. As can be seen adaptation is multifaceted. There are different subjects of adaptation: they can be ecological, social and/or economic systems. There are different objects of adaptation: in their diversity they can be grouped into changes in average conditions usually slow and within the “coping range” of systems or changes in variability of extreme events, usually abrupt and outside this coping range. There are different ways for adaptation deployment. It can be anticipatory when it takes place before impacts of climate change are observed or reactive if it intervenes after; can be long term or short term; localized or widespread. Probably the most relevant differentiation among adaptation types is that originated by autonomous and planned adaptation. Following the IPCC, the former “does not constitute a conscious response to climatic stimuli but is triggered by ecological changes in natural systems and by market or welfare changes in human systems” the last “is the result of a deliberate policy decision” (IPCC TAR, 2001). Planned adaptation comes into play when information requirements or the investment scale are beyond the possibility of private agents.
Why Adaptation? Adaptation is necessary and unavoidable. The scientific community is currently proposing a “safety threshold” to temperature increase of +2°C with respect to preindustrial level. Such a limit should reasonably avoid catastrophic and irreversible damages and, as such, is presently embedded in climate change mitigation strategy of the EU (CEC 2007). However even in a world 2°C warmer, climatic change damages are far from negligible: crops productivity and water availability are expected to decrease especially at low latitudes where the majority of developing countries are located; the risk of extinction could affect the 30% of existing species; mortality and morbidity associated to vector borne diseases in developing countries and to heat waves in developed countries will increase; extreme weather events will become more frequent and intense. Moreover, considering the painstaking negotiation process leading to the Kyoto Protocol, whose unresolved issues – the difficulty to convince developing countries to accept binding emission reduction targets, not to mention that of many developed countries to meet their mitigation commitments – are re-emerging during the ongoing COP15 at Copenhagen, aggressive mitigation policies seem unlikely in the very next future. Adding that present global emission paths are consistent with the high ranges of temperature projections of the IPCC scenarios, we get a picture where adaptation is mostly needed.
Adaptation needs are differentiated At the global level, a comparison of recent key results in the literature (IPCC AR4 (2007), Eboli et al. (2009); Bosello et al. (2009b,d), Tol (2009)) shows that a 2.5° increase in the global average temperature would cause a world GDP loss in a range between 0 and – 2%. The warming effects however vary across regions and sectors: developing countries are much more severely damaged than developed countries. This is a combination of three factors. Their higher exposure: at mid to low latitude where they are mainly located climate change is stronger than at the higher latitudes. Their higher sensitivity: on the one hand, climate change affects adversely economic sectors, like agriculture more relevant in their value added production than in developed countries; on the other hand also a slight worsening is particularly concerning on their already impaired economic situation. Their lower capacity to adapt: technological, financial and institutional constraints prevent them to deploy the resources needed for an effective adaptation strategy. Thus while damages for developed countries (excluding the possibility of catastrophic climatic outcomes) are at worst the 0.3% of GDP by °C of temperature increase (if not even gains for moderate temperature increases), developing countries, can loose in a range, from the 20% to the 1% of the GDP per °C depending on the region. Adaptation needs vary accordingly. Recent studies (Bosello et al. 2009a) estimate that adaptation cost in developed countries could reach 140 US$ billions in 2060, but in developing countries it can exceed 360 US$ billions. Today their adaptation needs are estimated to range already between 9 and 50 US$ billions. This large amount of resources which has to be considered an additional burden to the development needs of the Third World is unlikely within the availability of the region. It requires a strong, financial, technological and institutional support by the developed world.
Adaptation in international environmental agreements Already in 1992 the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) referred to adaptation as ‘vital’. It is also recognized as fundamental by the 1997 Kyoto Protocol (art. 10 and 12.8). However, in the past decade the science and policy focus on adaptation was limited. On the one hand supporting adaptation was viewed as a way to accept climate change and provide an excuse to avoid the necessary effort to limit it, on the other adaptation appeared more of an issue for developing countries, which were/are less vocal parts in the climate policy processes. The discussion on how to link mitigation and adaptation and on the need of an adaptation fund started officially in 2001 during COP 7 at Marrakech, but only in 2008, the Bali action plan (See Note 1) identifying the need for enhanced action on adaptation by the Parties to the Convention, launched the Adaptation Fund. In the EU context, on the 1st of April 2009 the EC officially published its long waited White Paper on Adaptation. It sets up an action framework for a more consistent and strategic approach to adaptation in Europe, in order to reduce Europe’s vulnerability to climate change. This framework intends to complement adaptation actions by individual Member States while supporting international efforts towards a comprehensive post-Kyoto climate agreement. In this direction the White Paper urges all Member States to further develop National or Regional Adaptation Strategies, considering also the possibility that these strategies become mandatory after 2012. By 2011 the EC White Paper also foresees the creation of a Clearing House to facilitate the exchange of information on climate change risk assessment, impacts and best practices between Governments, international agencies and other types of organisations working on adaptation policies. Presently 9 EU Member states have adopted their National Adaptation Strategies.
Adaptation and mitigation A key question on adaptation policies emerged recently is on the potential trade-offs and/or synergies with mitigation strategies (Bosello et al. 2009a, c). Adaptation and mitigation are certainly intertwined, but in fact they addresses the same problem, climate change damages, from two different angles: mitigation is the only strategy that could decrease the likelihood of irreversible and catastrophic consequences to which it would be impossible to adapt; adaptation can cope with the residual damages that cannot be eliminated by mitigation. Thus in practice the two strategies are two edges of the same sword and having them both in a policy portfolio can increase the overall effectiveness and decrease the total costs of an integrated climate-change policy. One interesting question is whether a climate negotiation linking the two strategies could be more successful both in enlarging participation to developing countries, and in enhancing global environmental effectiveness, than one focussed on mitigation only. However, this field of research is practically unexplored.
***
Note 1 Designed at the 13th Conference of the Parties to the Convention (COP) in Bali, 2008.
References Bosello, F., Carraro, C. and de Cian E. (2009a), "An Analysis of Adaptation as a Response to Climate Change", report for the Copenhagen Consensus on Climate, Copenhagen Consensus Center.
Bosello, F., Eboli, F and R. Parrado (2009b) "Climate Change Impacts and the Role of Autonomous Adaptation", paper presented at the International Workshop on the Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change, Venice, 2-3 April 2009.
Bosello, F., Carraro, C. and E. de Cian (2009c), "The Optimal Timing and Investment Size of Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies", paper presented at the International workshop on ‘The Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change’, Venice, 2-3 April 2009.
Bosello, F., de Cian, E., Eboli, F. and R. Parrado (2009d), "Macro economic assessment of climate change impacts: a regional and sectoral perspective" in: Impacts of Climate Change and Biodiversity Effects, final report of the CLIBIO project, European Investment Bank, University Research Sponsorship Programme.
CEC (2007), "Limiting Global Climate Change to 2 Degrees Celsius – The Way Ahead for 2020 and Beyond" - COM(2007) 2 final.
Eboli, F., Parrado, R. and R. Roson (2009), "Climate Change Feedback on Economic Growth: Explorations with a Dynamic General Equilibrium Model" FEEM Note di Lavoro 2009.043.
J. J. McCarthy, O.F. Canziani, N.A. Leary, D.J. Dokken, K.S. White Eds, Climate Change 2001 – Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC, Cambridge University Press, UK.
M. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J. Paulitkof, P. van der Linden, C. Hanson Eds, Climate Change 2007 – Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC, Cambridge University Press, UK.
Tol, R.S.J. (2009), "An Analysis of Mitigation as a Response to Climate Change" Copenhagen Consensus Center Report for the Copenhagen Consensus on CLinate.
