The document discusses mainstreaming climate change objectives into sectoral programs and projects in Thailand. It provides an overview of Thailand's climate policy direction and challenges in integrating climate change fully. It then outlines a key stage approach for designing and retooling programs and projects using climate change appraisal methods like cost-benefit analysis to develop budget and financial proposals. The document also presents a case study of applying these methods to the design of a flood management infrastructure program in the Chao Phraya River Basin. It analyzes costs and benefits with and without considering climate change impacts and risks. The analysis finds greater economic benefits when factoring in climate change and helps justify related investments.

1. Using CBA/EbA appraisal outcomes in programme
design and budget proposals
With Case Study of Chao Phraya River Basin
Flood Management Infrastructure Program
Glenn Stuart Hodes, Climate Policy & Finance Specialist
UNDP Bangkok Regional Hub

2. For example, designing a flood management system or reducing emission of methane
in rice paddy require planners & economists to design and implement new measures

3. Key Challenge for Thailand
Policy direction, plan, and strategy at both
national and sectoral levels are in place
BUT…..
“How can we actually mainstream the climate change
objectives into sectoral programmes and projects?”

4. Key Challenges for Thailand
Few programmes are dedicated solely
for Climate Change; Climate Change is
usually a second consideration!!

5. How to Approach: key stages
1. Develop policy and strategy (e.g. CCSPA II)
2. Develop priority actions (e.g., apply MCA)
3. Design/Retool programmes and projects using
appraisal methods (e.g., CCBA, CBA, eBA, CEA)
4. Develop budget and financial proposals (ongoing)
5. Develop M&E Frameworks
6. Field Test
7. Adjust overall plans with ‘reality check’

6. • Vulnerability Assessment
& Adaptation Plans
• Applied Valuation & Cost
Benefit Case Studies
• Monitoring practices to
measure impact
• Training
National
Level
Local
Level
• Stock take of planning
& budgeting processes
• Identifying entry
points
• Methods (e.g., MCA,
ebA, CCBA)
• Case studies
• Lessons learned
applied to sector
adaptation plan &
guidance
• Training
Supporting Thailand to Integrate Agricultural Sectors into
National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) - Implementation Logic
Feedback
Feedback
Feedback
Start

7. 2
การอนุมัติงบประมาณ
(Budget Adoption)
1
การจัดทางบประมาณ
(Budget Preparation)
3
การบริหารงบประมาณ
(Budget Execution)
4
การควบคุมและติดตามประเมินผล
(Budget Control &
Evaluation)
กระบวนการงบประมาณ (Review of Budget Cycle)
จาก CCA -> การจัดทาคาของบประมาณปี 2560
7
มูลนิธิสถาบันวิจัยนโยบายเศรษฐกิจการคลัง

8. Bottom-Up Approach to Climate Budgeting
MoAC
Budget
Submission
Planning
Agencies
Budget/Finance
Agencies
Climate Change
Focal Point
Key Line
Departments

9. The
reveal
The
reforms
The
integration
Budget tagging,
budget guidelines
and call circularsImproving how to
allocate, track and justify
budget resources
UNDP Supported Actions to Date
1. Capacity building on CC-CBA, and walking stakeholders through mainstreaming entry points as
part of budget cycle. NAP-AG supported stock take found only 1 dept in MOAC was
systematically using CBA.
2. Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) indicators and a database being set up as a tool for screening and
prioritizing the action plan and programmatic areas.
3. Strengthening project design and appraisal processes to integrate CC into budgeting guidelines.
Climate budget reforms in Thailand – bigger context

10. 10
1. ความสอดคล้องกับนโยบายรัฐบาล
2. ประชาชนได้ประโยชน์จากโครงการ
3. เหมาะสมตามแผนบูรณาการ 3 มิติ
4. วิเคราะห์ความเหมาะสมของโครงการ
- เหมาะสมเป็นพันธกิจของหน่วยงาน
- สอดคล้องกับศักยภาพของหน่วยงาน
- วิเคราะห์ความครอบคลุมงบประมาณ
- วิเคราะห์ปัญหา อุปสรรค และข้อสังเกต
5. ความพร้อมในการดาเนินการของโครงการ
CCA Guideline
จาก CCA -> คู่มือการจัดทาคาของบประมาณ
มูลนิธิสถาบันวิจัยนโยบายเศรษฐกิจการคลัง

11. Extracting Results from CBA to Proposals
• Indicate whether and what kind of analysis done to
justify project formulation/go-ahead. Is it worth cost of
full FS? What are alternative options/land-use choices?
• Use in project proforma for investment projects
✓ outline set of activities undertaken to achieve predetermined
objectives within set timeframe.
• OUTPUTS/DELIVERABLES KEY LINK CBA to BUDGET
✓ Think/value additional cost and benefits in terms of these:
# of farmers, fishermen receiving extension service; # of ha with
additional irrigation, # of new drought resistant seeds; # m3 of
additional biogas, etc.
• Three Key Metrics BOB wants to see (at least 1)
✓NPV (must be positive in absolute value)
✓BCR (must be > 1.0 to be convincing)
✓IRR (most important when comparing alternatives)
• BOB will also want to see detailed costing and
investment estimates

12. Climate Change Appraisal
Adaptation/
mitigation costs
and benefits

13. Benefit-Cost
Ratio
without
Climate
Change
Benefit-Cost
Ratio with
climate
change
Climate Change
Risks

14. CBA for Climate Appraisal: Key Steps
© UNDP, 2015. “Climate Change Benefit Analysis Guidelines for Thailand”

15. Mitigation vs. Adaptation
• The basic principles of CC appraisal are the same, but …
• Mitigation. Planning and budgeting driven by Marginal
Abatement Cost or Cost Effective Analysis that shows the
cheapest way of delivering on GHG reduction goals.
Sometimes are directly productive projects that pay for
themselves over time, for example, kWs of energy savings

16. Mitigation II
• Marginal Abatement Costs look at incremental net
costs (i.e., costs – benefits of incremental unit) divided
by the total reduction in GHG emissions
• MAC Curve used to decide the ‘pass rate’ for achieving
a set target emissions reduction
• Great care in units (eg tC or tCO2e)
• Costs should include all supporting costs, including all
public and private and all managing institutions
• Costs and benefits are discounted, but GHG emissions
are not (an odd convention, when early emission
reduction should be prioritised)

17. Adaptation: forward planning
• Adaptation. Are activities going to be affected by gradual
CC (ie temp, flood, drought, seasonality, sea-level)?
• Most adaptation investment is capital development spending,
just with changing priorities/design/geographical targeting.
Benefits are often broadly accrued (e.g. irrigation & water
resource management)
• Some supporting activities may be solely dedicated (i.e. climate-
smart seed research, institutional CB). These should probably
not take more than 20% of sectoral CC resources.
✓ CBA would be particularly important to justify these as non-revenue
generating investments i.e., not self-financing! CC happens slowly, so
routine public services will adjust naturally, reflecting changed experience
in recent years
• Climate Related Appraisal is for those
policies/investments that have longer term implications …
• Infrastructure with long term ‘locked-in’ features
• Research that takes years and then longer to apply
• Institution building – often underestimated

18. Model CBA Tree to Value Impacts and Costs

19. Example of Chao Praya
Irrigation Project

20. Context
1975 1983 1995 2002 20061942 20112010
8 yrs 12 yrs 7 yrs 4 yrs 4 yrs 1 yr33 yrs
Flood events in Chao Phraya river basin
25 river
basins
The Great Chao
Phraya river
basin
Total area: 2.03 Mha
Flood risk:
-Moderate [4-5 times/9yrs]
0.16 Mha (8% of total area)
- High [> 5times/9yrs]
0.13 Mha (6.6% of total area)
พื้นที่เสี่ยงภัยน้ำท่วม
เสี่ยงต่า(น้าท่วม1-3ในรอบ10ปี)
เสี่ยงปานกลาง(น้าท่วม4-5ในรอบ10ปี)
เสี่ยงสูง(น้าท่วม6-10ในรอบ10ปี)
Low risk
Moderate risk
High risk
Flood Risk Area

21. Economic areas:
Industrial estates mainly in Ayutthaya, Saraburi
Urban areas:
Bangkok, Nonthaburi, Pathumtani, Samut
Prakarn
Town:
Nakornsawan, Ayutthaya, Nonthaburi
Township
Agricultural
area
65%
City &
Industrial
area
28%
Others
7%
Land use

22. Flood
Diversion
Scheme
1
2
3
Expansion of existing Chainat -
Pasak Canals
Construction of new Rama VI
diversion dams
Construction of new flood
drainage canal
Installation of SCADA and
telemetery
1
2
3

23. CBA – Baseline Situation
Metric Figure
Cost $ 3,257 Million
Benefit $ 410 Million / yr
(from reduced/avoided loss and/or
damage)
EIRR 14.52 %
NPV $ 404 Million
Benefit-to-Cost Ration 1.22

24. CBA – With CC
Climate Change
Data
• Is there any relationship between previous
floods and CC?
• What is the probability of a major flood
occurrence? What is its frequency?
FS
• What will be CBA
when CC is
incorporated into
existing FS?
Indirect
benefit
assessment
• What are indirect
benefits?
• Why do we need
to consider these?
Existing FS Baseline

25. Values of water Costs of water
Ecosystem service value
Non-market value to human
capital
Net benefits from
indirect use
Net benefits from
return flows
Value to
water users
EcologicalEconomicValue
EconomicValue
Market
Value
Diminishment of Ecosystem
Services
Economic Externalities
Opportunity Cost of
Water
Capital Charges
O&M
EcologicalEconomicCost
EconomicCost
Supply
Cost

26. Quantifying Other Benefit Streams
1. Direct benefits from avoided a loss and damage as
a result of the drainage canal/flood diversion in East.
• Property damage, accidents, road blockages, etc.
• FS uses data from consulting firm.
2. Indirect health benefits
• Reduced stress/trauma from psychological effects
• Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) used, not the
actual market value. Surveys used to indicate WTP.

27. Modeling: Flood Risk Analysis
Streamflow simulation (IMPACT-T data)
Near Future (2040-2059) vs. Far Future (2080 – 2099)
at station C.2, Nakhon Sawan
Representative Concentration Pathways
RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5
Flood risk: Result (base year = 1995)
- considered Return Period as index
Return Period without CC
Return Period with CC
43 years
3-7 years
CBA – With CC

28. Flood Damage and
Loss (M USD)
Flood Area (Ha)
Without Climate
Change
734 265,774
With Climate
Change
(Changes of Return
Period)
1,826 341,938
Direct Benefits: Damages and Losses
Indirect Benefits: Anxiety & Stress reduction
43 years
3-7 years
Damage
Contingent
Valuation
Method (CVM)

29. Before & After
Metric Figure
Cost 63,180 Million Baht
Benefit 77,307 Million Baht
EIRR 14.52%
NPV 14,126 Million Baht
B/C ratio 1.22
Shorter
Investment
Return Period
Damages
& Losses
Anxiety &
Stress
Baseline With CC
Metric Figure
Cost 63,180 Million Baht
Benefit 294,973 Million Baht
EIRR 43.91%
NPV 231,793 Million Baht
BCA 4.67

30. Broad Conclusions & General Lessons
1. Climate-related appraisal methods and budget guidelines are evolving in
Thailand. Watch this space! MoAC leadership is appreciated. Piloting work
that UNDP, GiZ and MOAC/RID/DWR have done provide a model way
forward.
2. Mainstreaming CC in appraisals will lead to better policy choices,
institutional co-ordination (because of cross/multi-sectoral reality of CC
impacts) and a qualitatively strengthened NAP & NDC process.
3. Mainstreaming needs champions and pilot programs at sector and line
department level. Good practice to engage Bureau of Budget early on in
the budget formulation processes.
4. Co-benefits in terms of CC adaptation/GHG mitigation can be addressed in
budgeting process as part of routine appraisal of programs.

31. • CC Appraisal for programmes and investment decisions
should build upon existing techniques. It should not be
a major analytical burden to MOAC/RID/DWR/MONRE
• Important to do it during project/programme design, so
that it can influence design, even if more qualitative
• Estimating Costs Far Easier than Benefits
• Knowing and being clear about how CC would generally
affect a project is as important as estimating the values
• Accept that some estimates will be rough and will act as
indicators for monitoring/management. Timeframe key.
• Some key rules of thumb provide a good starting point
(e.g. a doubling of flood/drought return periods)
• Use a combination of techniques and attempt to also
‘triangulate’ results with various studies

32. Disaster
Drought
Thank you / ขอขอบคุณ