Universal metrics to compare the effectiveness of climate change adaptation projects

Abstract

Adaptation to climate change is increasingly supported through international financing. In contrast to mitigation, where the effectiveness of policy action can be measured through the metric "tonnes of CO2 equivalent reduced", no universally accepted metric for assessment of adaptation effectiveness exists. Without such a metric, adaptation finance vehicles such as the Adaptation Fund under the Kyoto Protocol encounter challenges when trying to compare the adaptive effect of ongoing or proposed projects in order to achieve an efficient allocation of their funds. The first experiences with adaptation funding show a tendency to use intermediate outcome indicators but no final impact metrics, similar to the state-of-art in development funding. This might lead to a backlash against adaptation funding by electorates in the North if the funding cannot show clear results. We assess two possible candidates for generic adaptation effectiveness metrics: 1) wealth saved from destruction through climate change impacts, and 2) disability-adjusted life years saved (DALYs), which are widely used in public health policy analysis. Apart from those two metrics we propose to use no-harm assessments in the environmental and cultural field. We discuss uncertainties encountered in applying these metrics, including the uncertain link between commonly reported outcome indicators and our metrics for saved wealth and health. The two metrics are tested by assessing five adaptation project proposals. Finally, we line out some ideas to handle these uncertainties, e.g. the use of regularly updated sectoral methodologies and agreed climate and economic models