BY PACKY GRIFFIN
Packy Griffin is an MIPP student concentrating in Energy, Resources, and Environment with a special interest in equitable, data-driven climate change policy. This article was adapted from a research assignment from the course Climate Change: Science, Economics, and Policy.
Introduction
Climate change is a generational challenge that demands swift, systemic action to forestall its most severe effects. Governments, corporations, institutions, and individuals have begun to enact policies and mobilize investments to decarbonize economies with the intent of mitigating the worst effects of climate change. However, mitigation offers little in terms of resilience against the effects of climate change that are already locked in due to historic greenhouse gas emissions. Recent events clearly demonstrate that climate change is already wreaking havoc globally, to the tune of a record 50 billion-dollar (adjusted for inflation) weather disasters in 2020 worldwide.[1] The present threat to communities and economies demonstrates the critical need to prioritize adaptation efforts, especially where populations are most vulnerable to climate shocks and stresses.
It is widely understood that the world’s poor are especially vulnerable to the effects of climate change.[2] Shocks and stresses, including extreme weather events, flooding, drought, extreme heat, desertification, and sea level rise, disproportionately threaten the poor – entire countries, as well as the most socially and economically marginalized populations within – both because these communities lack the means to adequately prepare for potential disasters, and because each catastrophic event can wipe out a greater proportion of these communities’ resources. Additionally, weak or corrupt governance that fails to prioritize climate change adaptation solutions and social systems that enable inequity among communities deepen vulnerabilities by limiting the pathways to adaptation action for the poor. In other words, lack of fiscal resources for adaptation and systemic prejudice upheld by governments or social norms render poor communities less resilient to climate disasters. Populations that are exposed to these three conditions – climate shocks and stresses, social disparities created or upheld by governments, and insufficient and unequally distributed economic resources – experience triple vulnerabilities.
Problem
According to the United Nations Environment Programme Adaptation Gap Report 2021, the annual cost of climate adaptation in developing countries is estimated at $70 billion USD and is expected to balloon to $140-300 billion USD by 2030.[3] Unfortunately, the gap between adaptation costs and international finance flows is large and growing.[4] At the United Nations Climate Change Conference of Parties (COP26) proceedings in November 2021, adaptation edged further into the spotlight, yet the Glasgow Climate Pact resulted in commitments of only $40 billion annually for adaptation efforts, a virtual doubling of previous commitments, but still markedly short of estimated needs.[5] Even if developed nations honor their pledges, allocating limited funding to achieve the greatest adaptation outcomes will remain a difficult prioritization challenge.
To effectively direct and sequence financing and resources toward communities of greatest need, policymakers must be able to understand, quantify, and evaluate the need for prospective adaptation actions at the intersection of climate change vulnerability, social vulnerabilities perpetuated by regimes, and economic need. Unfortunately, adaptation studies and policy lack sufficient research on social justice, suggesting that policymakers determine where to direct scarce funding without adequate contextualization of vulnerability and inequities.[6] Without considering social and economic vulnerability factors, policymakers risk overlooking the needs of communities that are disadvantaged, underserved, and disproportionately exposed to the effects of climate change. In both prioritization and implementation, adaptation actions must comprehensively account for systemic vulnerabilities in addition to those caused by climate change to promote equitable and sustainable solutions.
Objective, Assumptions, and Scope
This analysis aims to identify triple vulnerabilities by examining the intersection of climate change vulnerability, social vulnerability, and economic need using macro and individual-level metrics from existing open-source data to answer three inter-related research questions:
· Where are communities and individuals most vulnerable to the effects of climate change?
· Where are governments most capable of representing the will and diverse needs of the people if adaptation financing is made available?
· Where are economic inequalities greatest, indicating populations that require financial assistance to adapt?
Three existing indices provide data to inform each of the research questions: the Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative (ND-GAIN) Country Index, the Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy Index 2020, and the World Inequality Database. Combining these data sets enables a comparison of adaptation needs against the governance and economic environment in which funds may be mobilized at the global level (See Table 1 below for an alignment of research questions, assumptions, and data sources). This comparison can expand policymakers’ understanding beyond awareness of climate change vulnerability alone to describe where investments may be most effectively mobilized based on additional systemic factors to achieve benefits that are both significant and equitable.
Approach
The analytical approach consolidates data from each of the three sources (Table 2 below describes data from each source) and produces a variety of visualizations offering different perspectives for comparison. Results are reported by country for all inputs, but organization according to both regime type – including full democracies, flawed democracies, hybrid regimes, and authoritarian regimes – and geographic region enables the identification of trends that may aid policymakers in strategically mobilizing investment. Using this variety of data-driven perspectives, the following analysis progressively layers measures against the climate change vulnerability factor to create a narrative that highlights where policymakers should direct attention to maximize the impact of adaptation investments.
Analysis and Findings
The initial step of this examination is to establish context regarding climate change vulnerability, identifying where it is greatest and where trends might exist according to different perspectives. The analysis first quantifies climate change vulnerability by region. Vulnerability scores range broadly worldwide, but Africa demonstrates the greatest vulnerability with 21 of the top 25 most vulnerable countries (Chart 1). Food, health, and adaptive capacity data especially drive up vulnerability scores for Africa.[13] On the opposite end of the scale, Europe demonstrates the lowest average vulnerability to climate change as a region and contains 20 of the 25 countries least vulnerable to climate change according to the ND-GAIN Country Index. The Americas and Asia return similar average vulnerability scores, though the most vulnerable Asian countries register higher scores than the most vulnerable countries in the Americas. Finally, Oceanic countries vary drastically in climate change vulnerability, but small island developing states (SIDS), such as Papua New Guinea and Fiji, are especially vulnerable.
By shifting the perspective to organize climate change vulnerability by government types according to Democracy Index 2020 data, the examination finds that authoritarian and hybrid regimes demonstrate similarly high relative climate change vulnerability scores, though ranges are broad (Chart 2). African countries continue to rank as the most vulnerable among authoritarian and hybrid regimes. Meanwhile, full democracies demonstrate relatively low climate change vulnerability scores. Flawed democracies return diverse scores, with two SIDS, Papua New Guinea and Timor-Leste, recording the highest scores and demonstrating vulnerability above the average for all regime types.
It is important to note that climate change vulnerability scores do not suggest a causal relationship between government types and vulnerability to climate change. The ranges of scores for each regime type emphasize the breadth of possible conditions and remove suspicion of causality. However, different government types likely dictate implementation procedures and experiences for adaptation actions once financing is made available. Policymakers should consider regime type when designing solutions and mobilizing investments and customize actions and agreements accordingly to promote effectiveness and equity.
Factoring political freedom and civil liberties into the analysis to better understand conditions in the most vulnerable countries is essential to tailor solutions according to regime type. The examination shows that countries that are highly vulnerable to climate change tend to register low Democracy Index 2020 scores (Chart 3). Authoritarian and hybrid regimes account for this observation visible in the top right quadrant of the scatterplot. On the opposite end of the scale, full democracies demonstrate low relative vulnerability to climate change. This relationship between high climate change vulnerability scores and less democratic regimes suggests that countries most in need of adaptation action may not have political systems to effectively and equitably use financing if made available.
Coloring the same scatterplot according to region, the examination finds that African countries represent the majority of those registering high climate change vulnerability and low Democracy Index scores (Chart 4). Niger and Liberia stand out in the analysis among other African countries, including Mali, Guinea Bissau, Chad, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Conversely, European countries return low climate vulnerability and high Democracy Index scores in the bottom left quadrant. Oceanic countries tend to be more democratic but demonstrate a broad range of climate change vulnerability as described in earlier charts. Finally, countries in the Americas and Asia demonstrate a broad range of results across both indices.
The comparison of climate change vulnerability and democracy yields macro-level insights regarding the type of political and governance environments where adaptation action is most critical. Yet, policymakers must also maintain an awareness of economic vulnerability at the individual and community level to understand where external aid may be most essential to build and maintain resilience on the ground. Using data from the World Inequality Database, the analysis characterizes economic inequality in terms of the percentage of each country’s income owned by the bottom 50% of the population along the horizontal axis of Chart 5 below. To conceptualize all three factors at once, and therefore highlight the triple vulnerabilities present within some countries, the analysis represents Democracy Index 2020 scores in the size of each of the bullets.
Authoritarian regimes in light blue demonstrate the greatest vulnerability across all three metrics – the triple vulnerabilities that demand attention from investors seeking to promote equitable climate change adaptation. Some hybrid regimes (purple bubbles) log similarly concerning scores, including Liberia, Uganda, Benin, and Zambia. Several flawed democracies (dark blue bubbles) warrant further analysis due especially to economic inequality, including Namibia and Botswana. Countries with high climate change vulnerability, high economic inequality, and low Democracy Index 2020 scores will require adaptation financing assistance, but also clear guidance and oversight to ensure benefits are distributed equitably.
Once more viewing the same chart colored according to region, the examination demonstrates that countries in Africa are the most vulnerable across all three factors (Chart 6). In particular, Niger, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Chad, Guinea-Bissau, and the Central African Republic demand attention from policymakers as they demonstrate severe triple vulnerabilities. Several countries in Asia – including once more Afghanistan and Yemen – also register as highly vulnerable and worthy of further analysis.
Triple vulnerabilities undoubtedly require the urgent attention of policymakers that dictate where limited adaptation funding will be mobilized. However, for investors and institutions that have the capacity to support international climate change adaptation efforts, poor democracy and economic equity scores require special scrutiny. Noble as investments in countries where inequality is greatest may be, regimes that are less democratic may pose institutional obstacles to adaptation benefits for the most vulnerable, as authoritarian governments or severely un-democratic regimes may purposefully withhold investments from communities based on political alignment, race, ethnicity, class, or some other characteristic.
Separate but just as significant is the consideration of economic inequality among communities and individuals in terms of relative wealth and income. In countries with significant economic inequality, the need for adaptation aid is amplified, and policymakers would be right to devote attention to tailored adaptation action. However, by prioritizing countries with vast economic inequality, investments may be spread across a larger vulnerable population, potentially diluting benefits. This analysis can help policymakers understand the nuances of triple vulnerabilities and prioritize adaptation financing with a holistic understanding of the factors that may impact successful investment and implementation within countries and regions.
Recommendations for Policymakers
As the effects of climate change continue to unfold with increasing severity, adaptation financing for the most vulnerable countries is critical. But effective and equitable investment will require actors to understand and account for economic and social vulnerabilities and tailor financial commitments and implementation accordingly. This global examination of triple vulnerabilities provides a dynamic, multi-factoral analysis that can aid policymakers in prioritizing countries and regions in which adaptation action is needed and tailoring investments to maximize impact. While the examination represents the consolidation of various important metrics and offers various perspectives to support analysis and understanding, it does not guarantee clear identification of greatest adaptation need. Rather policymakers should use the examination as a decision-making aid where strategic leadership is needed to maximize adaptation results with scarce fiscal resources.
In addition to designing adaptation actions according to the unique climatic conditions and effects experienced in each country or region, policymakers should also tailor projects according to governing conditions and economic inequality within a population. For countries with weak or unjust governance practices, establishing oversight boards and monitoring and evaluation mechanisms is necessary to promote appropriate, effective, and timely use of funding. For countries with significant economic inequalities within populations, establishing clear guidelines to equitably distribute benefits across populations is necessary to avoid and, where possible, mitigate disparities. By understanding these triple vulnerabilities, considering the unique conditions where they exist, and designing and implementing adaptation actions accordingly, policymakers can maximize the impact of every adaptation dollar.
PHOTO CREDIT: "General Photos: Mongolia" by Asian Development Bank is marked with CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.
References
[1] Masters, Jeff. “World Hammered by Record 50 Billion-Dollar weather Disasters in 2020.” Yale Climate Connections. Published 25 January 2021. https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/01/world-hammered-by-record-50-billion-dollar-weather-disasters-in-2020/.
[2] Pelling, Mark and Garschagen, Matthias. “Put Equity First in Climate Action.” Nature. Published 14 May 2019. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01497-9.
[3] “Step up climate change adaptation or face serious human and economic damage – UN report.” United Nations Environment Programme. Published 14 January 2021. https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/step-climate-change-adaptation-or-face-serious-human-and-economic.
[4] Adaptation Gap Report 2021: The gathering storm – Adapting to climate change in a post-pandemic world. United Nations Environment Programme (2021). Nairobi. Accessed 27 November 2021. https://www.unep.org/resources/adaptation-gap-report-2021. p. XV.
[5] “What Does COP26 Mean for Adaptation?” UN Environment Program. Published 17 November 2021. https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/what-does-cop26-mean-adaptation.
[6] Coggins, Shaugn, et al. “Empirical Assessment of Equity and Justice in Climate Adaptation Literature: A Systemic Map.” Environmental Research: Letters. Published 23 June 2021. p. 2. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac0663/pdf
[7] Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative. Country Index. Last updated July 2021. https://gain.nd.edu/assets/254377/nd_gain_technical_document_2015.pdf.
[8] The Economist Intelligence Unit. “Democracy Index 2020: In Sickness and In Health?”
[9] World Inequality Database. WID. World. Accessed 22 November 2021. https://wid.world/data/.
[10] Chen, C.; Noble, I.; Hellmann, J.; Coffee, J.; Murillo, M.; Chawla, N. “University of Notre Dame Global Adaptation Index Country Index Technical Report.” Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative. Published November 2015. p. 6. https://gain.nd.edu/assets/254377/nd_gain_technical_document_2015.pdf.
[11] “Democracy Index 2020: In Sickness and In Health?” The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021. Accessed 22 November 2021. https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2020/.
[12] World Inequality Database.
[13] Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative. Country Index.