Transcript Climate Change Impacts in the Context of Economic

Climate Change Vulnerability in Norway
Socio-economic Perspectives on
Policies and Impacts
Karen O’Brien
CICERO
Approaches to Studying Climate
Change Impacts
© Seppo Leinonen, www.seppo.net
Impacts of Climatic Change
Climatic Change Scenarios
(RegClim)
First-Order Impacts
(Climatic Properties: temperature, precipitation)
Second-Order Impacts
(Crop Yields)
Third-Order Impacts
(Regional Productivity)
Higher-Order Impacts
(Farm Income, Consumer Prices, etc.)
Impact Assessment
Vulnerability Approaches to Impacts

Vulnerability describes
the extent to which a
system is susceptible to
sustaining damage from
climate change.
Aspects of Vulnerability
Biophysical vulnerability
 Social vulnerability

IPCC Conceptualization of Vulnerability

Vulnerability is a function of the character,
magnitude and rate of climate change and
variation to which a system is exposed, its
sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity.
Sensitivity

The degree to which a
system will respond,
either positively or
negatively, to a change
in climate.
Exposure

The degree of climate
stress upon a particular
unit of analysis

Climate stress:
 long-term climate conditions
 climate variability
 magnitude and frequency of
extreme events
Adaptive Capacity

The capacity of a
system to adjust in
response to actual or
expected climate
stimuli, their effects, or
impacts.
IPCC conclusion:
”Those with the least resources have the
least capacity to adapt and are the most
vulnerable.”
Is Norway vulnerable to
climate change?
Which regions, sectors, and social
groups within Norway are most
vulnerable to climate change?
Climate Change and Extreme Events
Average annual
disbursement
80-00, mill NOK, (2001value)
Flooda
Storma
Avalanche/
landslidea
Møre og Romsdal
61,7
5.4 %
91.2 %
3.2 %
Hedmark
48,1
92.1 %
7.3 %
0.5 %
Akershus/Oslo
46,0
53.5 %
42.8 %
3.6 %
Nordland
45,0
4.2 %
87.3 %
8.5 %
Hordaland
27,7
7.2 %
81.7 %
11.0 %
Sør-Trøndelag
24,2
5.6 %
86.6 %
7.6 %
Sogn og Fjordane
18,7
10.3 %
79.4 %
9.7 %
Oppland
21,3
81.0 %
14.5 %
4.3 %
Nord-Trøndelag
19,3
19.1 %
72.3 %
8.5 %
Troms
22,0
5.8 %
84.8 %
8.9 %
Rogaland
18,1
12.1 %
85.8 %
2.0 %
Buskerud
18,0
46.6 %
33.5 %
19.8 %
Telemark
15,3
46.8 %
41.7 %
11.1 %
Østfold
14,1
47.7 %
48.6 %
3.6 %
Finnmark
12,3
3.7 %
79.5 %
16.6 %
Vestfold
10,3
19.8 %
69.1 %
10.3 %
Vest-Agder
10,3
16.8 %
80.3 %
2.9 %
Aust-Agder
1,7
31.7 %
60.9 %
7.2 %
Fylke
Vulnerable sectors:

Agriculture

Forestry

Winter tourism
Indicators of biophysical vulnerability:
Agricultural sector
Spring rainfall
 Autumn rainfall
 Length of growing season
 Spring frost/thaw
 Autumn frost/thaw
 Snow depth

Indicators of social vulnerability:
agricultural sector
Climate sensitivity

Employment in agricultural sector, %
Economic capacity


Untied public income (taxes and govt. transfers), NOK
Employment growth prognosis, %
Demographic capacity



Dependency rate, %
Aging working population, %
Net migration rate, avg. 91-01 %
How correct are these indicators?
Case studies must be carried out to verify
the indicators selected, and identify factors
that shape vulnerability in Norwegian
municipalities.
 Stakeholder dialogues: Voss and Oppdal
(June 2003)

Vulnerability is shaped by numerous
social and biophysical factors
Social welfare policies
 Globalization and regionalization
 Disease outbreaks

Vulnerability to Climate Change Policies
Sensitivity
 % employment in secondary sector
 % of CO2 emissions coming from industry
Adaptive capacity
 Economic factors
 Demographic factors
Vulnerability:
A differential concept
 A dynamic concept
 Scale dependent
 Shaped by multiple stressors

A vulnerability approach can
improve our understanding of socioeconomic perspectives on climate
impacts and policies, and help in
identifying and targeting adaptation
strategies.
Thanks to the project team!
Asbjørn Aaheim, Guro Aandahl, Sjur Kasa, Bård Romstad,
Linda Sygna, Heather Tompkins, Anders Undertun
(CICERO)
Geir Orderud and Bjørnar Sæter (NIBR)