The multifaceted relationship between environmental risks and poverty: new insights from Vietnam

Despite complex interlinkages, insights into the multifaceted relationship between environmental risks and poverty can be gained through an analysis of different risks across space, time and scale within a single context using consistent methods. Combining geo-spatial data on eight environmental risks and household survey data from 2010–2014 for the case study of Vietnam, this paper shows: (i) at the district level, the incidence of poverty is higher in high risk areas, (ii) at the household level, poorer households face higher environmental risks, (iii) for some risks the relationship with household-level consumption varies between rural and urban areas, and (iv) environmental risks explain consumption differences between households, but less so changes over time. While altogether these analyses cannot establish a causal relationship between environmental risks and poverty, they do indicate that Vietnam's poor are disproportionally exposed. Given growing pressures due to climate change, addressing such risks should be a focus of poverty reduction efforts

The economics of agrobiodiversity conservation for food security under climate change

Subsistence-based and natural resource-dependent societies are especially vulnerable to climate change. In such contexts, food security needs to be strengthened by investing in the adaptability of food systems. This paper looks into the role of agrobiodiversity conservation for food security in the face of climate change. It identifies agrobiodiversity as a key public good that delivers necessary services for human wellbeing. We argue that the public values provided by agrobiodiversity conservation need to be demonstrated and captured. We offer an economic perspective of this challenge and highlight ways of capturing at least a subset of the public values of agrobiodiversity to help adapt to and reduce the vulnerability of subsistence based economies to climate changeClimate change, adaptation, agrobiodiversity, economic incentives, resilience, Agribusiness, Agricultural and Food Policy, Environmental Economics and Policy, Q18, Q24, Q54,

Decarbonizing development: three steps to a zero-carbon future

This report lays out three steps for a smooth transition to a zero-carbon future and provides data, examples and policy advice to help countries makes the shift. Overview Getting to zero net emissions and stabilizing climate change starts with planning for the long-term future and not stopping at short-term goals. It means getting prices right as part of a broad policy package that can trigger changes in both investments and behaviors, and it requires smoothing the transition for those most affected. A new World Bank report walks policymakers through those three steps with data, examples and policy advice to help put countries on a path to decarbonizing their development in a smooth and orderly way. The solutions exist, and they are affordable – if governments take action today, the report says

Payments for agrobiodiversity conservation services for sustained on-farm utilization of plant and animal genetic resources

This paper discusses the potential application of Payment for Ecosystem Services-like schemes to tackle market failures associated with the public good characteristics of agrobiodiversity conservation services. So called payments for agrobiodiversity conservation services (PACS) would increase the private benefits from utilizing local plant and animal genetic resources on-farm through voluntary reward mechanisms, so as to sustain their on-farm conservation. Theoretical and applied insights about PACS are discussed and attention drawn to some of the challenges to be overcome in implementing PACS. In particular, these relate to the identification of potential buyers, the complex institutional setting in which PACS might operate and the articulation of a meaningful conservation goal based on a safe minimum standard approach. The latter is urgently needed, so as to ensure that additional agrobiodiversity services are generated. Relative to a fixed pricing approach, PACS schemes that seek to overcome information asymmetries through the use of conservation auctions may be associated with significant efficiency gains. However, potential trade-offs between ecological effectiveness, economic efficiency, and social equity considerations need to be carefully evaluated.Payment for environmental services (PES) Incentive mechanisms Agrobiodiversity conservation Conservation goal Economic efficiency Social equity

The economics of agrobiodiversity conservation for food security under climate change

Subsistence-based and natural resource-dependent societies are especially vulnerable to climate change. In such contexts, food security needs to be strengthened by investing in the adaptability of food systems. This paper looks into the role of agrobiodiversity conservation for food security in the face of climate change. It identifies agrobiodiversity as a key public good that delivers necessary services for human wellbeing. We argue that the public values provided by agrobiodiversity conservation need to be demonstrated and captured. We offer an economic perspective of this challenge and highlight ways of capturing at least a subset of the public values of agrobiodiversity to help adapt to and reduce the vulnerability of subsistence based economies to climate chang

Climate constraints on the carbon intensity of economic growth

Development and climate goals together constrain the carbon intensity of production. Using a simple and transparent model that represents committed CO _2 emissions (future emissions expected to come from existing capital), we explore the carbon intensity of production related to new capital required for different temperature targets across several thousand scenarios. Future pathways consistent with the 2 °C target which allow for continued gross domestic product growth require early action to reduce carbon intensity of new production, and either (i) a short lifetime of energy and industry capital (e.g. early retrofit of coal power plants), or (ii) large negative emissions after 2050 (i.e. rapid development and dissemination of carbon capture and sequestration). To achieve the 2 °C target, half of the scenarios indicate a carbon intensity of new production between 33 and 73 g CO _2 /$—much lower than the global average today, at 360 g CO _2 /$. The average lifespan of energy capital (especially power plants), and industry capital, are critical because they commit emissions far into the future and reduce the budget for new capital emissions. Each year of lifetime added to existing, carbon intensive capital, decreases the carbon intensity of new production required to meet a 2 °C carbon budget by 1.0–1.5 g CO _2 /$, and each year of delaying the start of mitigation decreases the required CO _2 intensity of new production by 20–50 g CO _2 /$. Constraints on the carbon intensity of new production under a 3 °C target are considerably relaxed relative to the 2 °C target, but remain daunting in comparison to the carbon intensity of the global economy today

Shock Waves: Managing the Impacts of Climate Change on Poverty

Ending poverty and stabilizing climate change will be two unprecedented global achievements and two major steps toward sustainable development. But the two objectives cannot be considered in isolation: they need to be jointly tackled through an integrated strategy. This report brings together those two objectives and explores how they can more easily be achieved if considered together. It examines the potential impact of climate change and climate policies on poverty reduction. It also provides guidance on how to create a ?win-win?? situation so that climate change policies contribute to poverty reduction and poverty-reduction policies contribute to climate change mitigation and resilience building. The key finding of the report is that climate change represents a significant obstacle to the sustained eradication of poverty, but future impacts on poverty are determined by policy choices: rapid, inclusive, and climate-informed development can prevent most short-term impacts whereas immediate pro-poor, emissions-reduction policies can drastically limit long-term ones