Expert Workshop on Adaptation Financing and Implementation, Putting Priorities into Practice in OECD Countries, Paris, 18-19 June, 2014

1. Prioritising adaptation in Greece
Research and first outcomes from the Climate Change
Impacts Study Committee – Bank of Greece
Michalis Skourtos
Agricultural University of Athens and CCISC – Bank of Greece
OECD Expert Workshop on Adaptation Financing and Implementation
18-19 June 2014
Paris, France

2. K. Drakatos, Chairman
C. Zerefos, Coordinator
Climate Unit
C. Zerefos
C. Repapis
A. Asimakopoulos
X. Gianakopoulos
G. Tselioudis
P. Xatzinikolaou
και συνεργάτες
Environment Unit
E. Baltatzis
A. Nastis
A. Karamanos
D. Papanikolaou
S. Papoutsoglou
M. Seferlis
G. Stournaras
Economy
G. Donatos
A. Papandreou
H. Coccosis
A. Xepapadeas
E. Sartzetakis
A. Kontogianni
Μ. Σκούρτος
και συνεργάτες
Energy
P. Kapros
G. Gianopoulos
Society
J. Yfantopoulos
P. Thomopoulos
J. Sampethai
Scientific Secretary
D. Antonakaki
V. Roussou
Overall Coordination
Representatives of the Bank of Greece

3. The profile of CCISC
2009: Founded by the Director of BoG as an independent think-tank
2011: Completion of the first Study on the environmental, economic and
social impacts of climate change in Greece
(http://www.bankofgreece.gr/Pages/en/klima/default.aspx)
2012: Initiation of research on: A National Strategy of Climate Change
Adaptation
2013: First sectoral study on Adaptation in the Greek Tourist Sector

4. Basic assumptions of CCISC report
Climatic parameters:
 Temperature (ºC)
 Precipitation (mm)
 Relative Humidity (%)
 Downward SW Surface Radiation (W/m2)
 Wind Speed (m/sec)
 Cloud Fractional Cover (%)
Study for 3 different SRES Emission Scenarios: B2, A1B and A2
Time Periods: 1961-1990, 2021-2050, 2071-2100
1) Future Projections under SRES A1B are based on 12 RCMs (Regional
Climate Models) simulations (EU ENSEMBLES Project) (RCMs spatial
resolution: 25 km x 25 km)
2) Future Projections under SRES B2 and SRES A2 are based on 8 and 13
respectively RCMs simulations (EU PRUDENCE Project) (Data available only
for periods 1961-1990 and 2071-2100)
Greek territory divided in 13 climatic zones
Discount rates 1% and 3%
Cost estimated in €2008 and as % of GDP

5. Mean Air Temperature
• 2021-2050, SRES A1B : Over Greece
Mean annual air Temperature increase by
1.4 oC.
• 2071-2100: Over Greece Mean annual air
Temperature increase by
2.8 oC (SRES B2) up to
3.9 oC (SRES A2)
• Temperature increase is more significant
during summer and autumn than during
winter and spring.
• Temperature increase is more prominent
over land.
•
SRES A1B: Mean Air Temperature Change
between 2071-2100 and 1961-1990
Mean Air Temperature Change
between 2071-2100 and 1961-1990
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
5
W
est-Central M
acedonia
Eastern
M
acedonia/Thrace
W
est G
reece
Central-Eastern
G
reece
Attica
W
est Peloponnese
Eastern
Peloponnese
Ionian
North
Aegean
East Aegean
Cyclades
Dodekannese
Crete
Greece
TemperatureChange(
o
C)
SRES B2
SRES A1B
SRES A2
SRES A1B: Mean Air Temperature Change
between 2021-2050 and 1961-1990

6. SRES A1B: Mean Annual Precipitation Percentage Change
Between 2021-2050 and 1961-1990
SRES A1B: Mean Annual Precipitation Percentage Change
Between 2071-2100 and 1961-1990
Precipitation
• 2021-2050, SRES A1B:
Over Greece Mean annual
Precipitation is predicted to decrease
by 6.5%.
• 2071-2100:
Over Greece Mean annual
Precipitation is predicted to decrease
by 5% (SRES B2)
and by 18% (SRES A1B, SRES A2)
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
W
est-Central M
acedonia
Eastern
M
acedonia/Thrace
W
est G
reece
Central-Eastern
G
reece
Attica
W
est Peloponnese
Eastern
Peloponnese
Ionian
North
Aegean
East Aegean
Cyclades
Dodekannese
Crete
Greece
PrecipitationPercentageChange(%)
SRES
B2
SRES
A1B
SRES
A2
Mean Annual Precipitation Percentage Change
Between 2071-2100 and 1961-1990

7. Conclusions I
• 2021-2050, SRES A1B : Mean annual air Temperature increase by 1.4
oC.
• 2071-2100: Mean annual air Temperature increase for 2.8 oC (SRES B2)
up to 3.9 oC (SRES A2)
• 2021-2050, SRES A1B: Mean annual Precipitation is predicted to
decrease by 6.5%.
• 2071-2100: Mean annual Precipitation is predicted to decrease by 5%
under SRES B2 and by 18% under SRES A1B and SRES A2
• 2021-2050, SRES A1B: Mean annual Relative Humidity is predicted to
decrease by 2%.
• 2071-2100: Mean annual Relative Humidity is predicted to decrease for
2.5% up to 4% under SRES B2 and for 6% up to 10% under SRES A2

8. Overview of damage estimates
Sector Scenarios Impacts Focus on Metho
d
applied
Damage estimates Remarks
(NPV bil) (%GDP)
Water Α1Β, Α2, Β2 Loss of water
reserves
Drinking services
(housing,
industrial and
tourist uses)
Market
prices
3,3 – 7,3 (i=0)
1,9 – 3,9 (i=1)
0,8 – 1,3 (i=3)
1,4% – 3,16%
(i=0)
0,83% - 1,69%
(i=1)
0,34% - 0,58%
(i=3)
Short discussion
on adaptation
with indicative
cost estimates
SLR SLR of 0,5 και 1
m.
Long term loss of
coastal land and
short term damages
from storm surges
Five land uses:
Urban,
agricultural,
tourist, forests
and wetlands
Market
prices /
Value
transfer
0,3 – 0,6 (i=0)
0,1 – 0,3 (i=1)
0,02 – 0,04 (i=3)
......................... CBA of
adaptation in 4
coastal areas.
B/C ratio: 978 -
2 (i=1%) και 224
- 0,6 (i=3%)
Fisheries
/aquacultu
re
Rise of sea
surface
temperature by
3,3 ºC in 2100
Loss of fish stocks /
loss of biodiversity
Loss of
fishermen
income / social
cost from the
loss of
biodiversity
Market
prices /
value
transfer
0,01 (i=0)
0,006 – 0,005
(i=1)
0,001 – 0,0008
(i=3)
..................

9. Overview (cont)
Agricultu
re
Α1Β, Α2,
Β2
Loss of yield per hectare for
wheat, cotton, corn, olives and
vineyards with or without
desertification
Loss of income Market prices AIB: benefits
3,28%
(without
desertificatio
n) / damages
16,91% (with
desertificatio
n)
A2: benefits
2,92%
(without
desertificatio
n) / damages
17,81% (with
desertificatio
n)
Β2: benefit
13,37%
(without
desertificatio
n) / damages
10,05% (with
desertificatio
n)
Discussion on
adaptation
with indicative
cost estimates
Forest
ecosyste
ms
Α2, Β2 Reallocation of forests, fires,
biomass, water retention
Loss of income
form timber /
loss of non-
timber services
Market prices 4,2 – 9,4
(i=1%)
1,3 – 3
(i=3%)
Discussion on
adaptation
with indicative
cost estimates

10. Overview (cont)
Biodiversity Α1Β, Α2, Β2 Ecosystem
services
TEV Value
transfer
352 – 4,4
(i=1)
130,8 – 1,7
(i=3)
…………………. Discussion on
adaptation
with
indicative
cost
estimates
Tourism Α2, Β2 Arrivals,
overnights and
expenditure
Very low
expected
impacts /
marginally
negative for
the total of
Greek
teritory
Discussion on
adaptation with
indicative cost
estimates
Urban environment Α1Β, Α2, Β2 Higher indoor
temperatures
Quality of life Additional
cost of
cooling
20-21 (i=0) Discussion on
adaptation with
indicative cost
estimates
Transport Α1Β, Α2, Β2 Vulnerability of
transport
infrastructure
Loss of transport
services
Replaceme
nt cost of
networks
and cost of
delays
0,11 – 0,6
annually
Discussion on
adaptation with
indicative cost
estimates
Health Α1Β, Α2, Β2 Rising mortality
rates
Statistical value
of life
Value
ttransfer
0,135 – 0,085
annually
Discussion on
adaptation with
indicative cost
estimates

11. Overview (cont)
Mining and
extractive
industry
Α1Β Destruction of
infrastructure
s, loss of
water
reserves,
rising
particulate
matter
Restoratio
n of
infrastruct
ure
Market prices
/ value
transfer
1,5
% –
1,4
%
Discussion on
adaptation
with indicative
cost estimates

12. A macroeconomic estimate of adaptation cost
 Comparison of costs of inaction, mitigation and
adaptation
 Focus on: water, forests, transport, tourism, urban
environment and coastal zone
 Assumed effectiveness of (hard) adaptation
measures 30%-70%
 Implementation of investments in 2020-2050 and
2050-2070
 Cost of adaptation: 1,5% for 2025-2050 and 0,9%
for 2051-2070 (in GDP 2008)

13. The benefits of coastal adaptation: A case study
• Groins in Lampi beach, Kos
island
• Beach nourishment in
Kardamaina beach, Kos island
• Revetments and geotextiles in
Afantou beach, Rhodes island.
• Bulkheads in Tigaki beach, Kos
Island
-10,000 €
0 €
10,000 €
20,000 €
30,000 €
40,000 €
50,000 €
ΑΣΘ
0,5
m
ΑΣΘ
0,5
m
ΑΣΘ
1 m
ΑΣΘ
1 m
ΑΣΘ
0,5
m
ΑΣΘ
0,5
m
ΑΣΘ
1 m
ΑΣΘ
1 m
ΑΣΘ
0,5
m
ΑΣΘ
0,5
m
ΑΣΘ
1 m
ΑΣΘ
1 m
ΑΣΘ
0,5
m
ΑΣΘ
0,5
m
ΑΣΘ
1 m
ΑΣΘ
1 m
ΜΠ1 ΜΠ2 ΜΠ3 ΜΠ4
χιλ.€
Κόστος κατασκευής Αποφευχθείσα ζημία Κοινωνικό όφελος
Cost and benefit of coastal adaptation measures (discount rate
3%).
Kontogianni A, C. Tourkolias, D.
Damigos, M. Skourtos (2014).
Assessing sea level rise costs and
adaptation benefits under uncertainty
in Greece. Environmental science &
policy 3: 61–78

14. Lessons learned
 The severe expected financial cost of inaction was
confirmed
 The potential for both mitigation and adaptation is high
• But, in times of financial austerity…..
 No stand-alone mitigation or adaptation policies are in demand.
 Mainstreaming climate policies and showcasing ancillary benefits
seems a powerful financial strategy
 Capacity building in the state agencies / local municipalities is
imperative in order to promote a ‘green civil servant’ mentality in
administration

15. …policy uses
How has then CCISC report been used to inform
policy development?
•Several prioritization approaches have been applied (i.e. CEA, CBA, ROV)
•Experts disagree on the best approach; depending on specific policy issues
and data availability
•State administration not wiling to use CBA
•CEA has gained some prominence after WFD and MSFD
•Deliberation with and networking of stakeholders is crucial!
CCISC’s research has also motivated interest for climate adaptation issues
in the Union of Greek Industrialists and is currently backing-up campaigns
by environmental NGOs

16. …and a look ahead
How best could subsequent studies support the implementation of
adaptation at the national level?
By creating a solid knowledgebase for adaptation
By showcasing pros and cons of alterative prioritisation approaches
By organizing and fostering deliberation
By designing robust socio-economic scenarios for the Greek economy
By networking with international partners, especially in the Mediterranean basin
NOTA BENE
The rapid recovery of the Greek economy is a basic parameter in all implemented
policies. This entails that prioritizing adaptation at the national level is currently
possible only as a strategy of ancillary benefits from large scale growth/employment
investments. Mainstreaming par excellence!

17. Thank you for your attention!