12.07.2015 Views

Climate risks and adaptation in Asian coastal megacities: A synthesis

Climate risks and adaptation in Asian coastal megacities: A synthesis

Climate risks and adaptation in Asian coastal megacities: A synthesis

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Table 4.12 ■ Investment Costs <strong>and</strong> Net Present Value of Benefits Associated withDifferent Flood Control Projects <strong>in</strong> Manila (PHP) us<strong>in</strong>g a 15 percentdiscount rate (Cont<strong>in</strong>ued)1/10 Flood 1/30 Flood 1/100 Flood<strong>Climate</strong> Scenario Investment Cost NPV Investment Cost NPV Investment Cost NPVA1FI A1FI-EX wD NA 14,248,304,696 7,092,797,122 13,640,673,269 12,011,488,435A1FI-EX nD 1,409,166,226 (581,704,127) 11,099,925,438 9,203,568,238 NAA1FI MP wD NA 3,216,390,949 5,509,802,569 139,119,548 10,411,715,022A1FI MP nD NA 68,011,692 7,620,573,684 NASource: Muto et al. (2010).SQ=Status Quo, EX=Exist<strong>in</strong>g Infrastructure, B1, A1FI=<strong>Climate</strong> Change Scenarios, wD=With Marik<strong>in</strong>a Dam, nD=No Dam, NA=not applicable. Costs are 0 <strong>in</strong> certa<strong>in</strong> cases because it isassumed that these costs are <strong>in</strong>corporated <strong>in</strong> the master plan.count rate of 15 percent, which is what is used by thePhilipp<strong>in</strong>es National Economic <strong>and</strong> Developmentauthority to estimate project feasibility. 55Dam construction emerges as aneconomically viable option <strong>in</strong> both climatechange scenarios, followed by embankmentbuild<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the Pasig-Marik<strong>in</strong>a bas<strong>in</strong>Table 4.12 presents the present value of net benefitsfrom different <strong>in</strong>vestments considered. The NPVat12 billion PHP ($269 million) is highest among allthe different scenarios. This suggests that construct<strong>in</strong>gthe Marik<strong>in</strong>a Dam would maximize benefitsrelative to other <strong>adaptation</strong> options <strong>in</strong> the case ofan A1FI or B1 scenario. The <strong>in</strong>vestments that wouldbe required <strong>in</strong> this scenario are build<strong>in</strong>g the Pasig-Marik<strong>in</strong>a River bas<strong>in</strong> embankment, the Marik<strong>in</strong>aDam, <strong>and</strong> some additional embankments along thePasig <strong>and</strong> Marik<strong>in</strong>a rivers. These <strong>in</strong>vestments wouldlargely elim<strong>in</strong>ate floods <strong>in</strong> this part of Metro Manila.However, given that construct<strong>in</strong>g the dam is adecision that may or may not be taken, it is usefulto consider what alternative options emerge. In thiscase, <strong>in</strong> an A1FI scenario it is recommended that thePasig Marik<strong>in</strong>a River embankment be built withsome additional components along the Pasig <strong>and</strong>Marik<strong>in</strong>a rivers, <strong>and</strong> that storm surge barriers beconstructed. This basically means that <strong>in</strong>vestmentsunder the current master plan <strong>in</strong> the Pasig-Marik<strong>in</strong>aRiver bas<strong>in</strong> should be prioritized <strong>and</strong> cont<strong>in</strong>ued <strong>and</strong>some additional <strong>in</strong>vestments need to be made forFigure 4.9 ■ Annual Benefits fromAdaptation Investments <strong>in</strong>Metro ManilaDamage cost (PHP <strong>in</strong> million)120,000100,00080,00060,00040,00020,00000.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10ProbabilityExist<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>frastructure(EX)1990 master plan level(MP)Source: Based on estimations <strong>in</strong> Muto et al. (2010).Full <strong>adaptation</strong>levelfull <strong>adaptation</strong> to an A1FI climate. This is what iscurrently be<strong>in</strong>g undertaken by the government ofthe Philipp<strong>in</strong>es <strong>in</strong> implement<strong>in</strong>g the Pasig-Marik<strong>in</strong>aFlood Control Project Phase II to avoid damages fromP30 floods. The recommendations <strong>in</strong> the context ofa B1 climate change scenario are similar. In sum,the first priority is to control flood<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the Pasig-55It is important to note that the total avoided damages(gross) <strong>in</strong> chapter 3 do not directly feed <strong>in</strong>to the NPV calculations.This is because there are three geographical areas,<strong>and</strong> depend<strong>in</strong>g on the return period <strong>and</strong> <strong>adaptation</strong> <strong>in</strong>vestments,only the relevant benefits are considered for eachscenario. (For example, the embankment for Pasig-Marik<strong>in</strong>aRiver does not affect KAMANAVA <strong>coastal</strong> area <strong>and</strong> thereis thus no benefit <strong>in</strong> that area).68 | <strong>Climate</strong> Risks <strong>and</strong> Adaptation <strong>in</strong> <strong>Asian</strong> Coastal Megacities: A Synthesis Report

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!