Including adaptation costs and climate change damages in evaluating post-2012 burden-sharing regimes

Many studies have been published to evaluate the consequences of different post-2012 emission allocation regimes on regional mitigation costs. This paper goes one step further and evaluates not only mitigation costs, but also adaptation costs and climate change damages. Three post-2012 emission allocation regimes (Contraction & Convergence, Multistage and Common but differentiated convergence) and two climate targets (2°C and 3°C above the pre-industrial level) are considered. This explorative analysis shows that including these other cost categories could lead to different perspectives on the outcomes of allocation regimes. Up to 2050, the poorest regions have negative mitigation costs under all allocation regimes considered, as they benefit from emission trading. However, these regions also suffer from the most severe climate impacts. As such, the financial flows due to emission trading from developed to developing countries created under these allocation regimes could also be interpreted as compensation of climate change damages and adaptation costs. In the longer run, the sum of climate change damages, adaptation costs and mitigation costs are the highest in the poorest regions of Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, for both climate targets and practically all emission allocation regimes.     

Adaptation and mitigation strategies in agriculture: an analysis of potential synergies

As climate changes due to rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, agriculture will be one of the key human activities affected. Projections show that while overall global food production in the coming decades may keep pace with the food requirements of a growing world population, climate change might worsen existing regional disparities because it will reduce crop yields mostly in lands located at lower latitudes where many developing countries are situated. Strategies to enhance local adaptation capacity are therefore needed to minimize climatic impacts and to maintain regional stability of food production. At the same time, agriculture as a sector offers several opportunities to mitigate the portion of global greenhouse gas emissions that are directly dependent upon land use, land-use change, and land-management techniques. This paper reviews issues of agriculture and climate change, with special attention to adaptation and mitigation. Specifically, as adaptation and mitigation strategies in agriculture are implemented to alleviate the potential negative effects of climate change, key synergies need to be identified, as mitigation practices may compete with modifications to local agricultural practices aimed at maintaining production and income. Under future climate and socio-economic pressures, land managers and farmers will be faced with challenges in regard to selecting those mitigation and adaptation strategies that together meet food, fiber and climate policy requirements.     

Climate change adaptation,mitigation and livelihood benefits in coffee production: where are the synergies?

There are worldwide approximately 4.3 million coffee (Coffea arabica) producing smallholders generating a large share of tropical developing countries’ gross domestic product, notably in Central America. Their livelihoods and coffee production are facing major challenges due to projected climate change, requiring adaptation decisions that may range from changes in management practices to changes in crops or migration. Since management practices such as shade use and reforestation influence both climate vulnerability and carbon stocks in coffee, there may be synergies between climate change adaptation and mitigation that could make it advantageous to jointly pursue both objectives. In some cases, carbon accounting for mitigation actions might even be used to incentivize and subsidize adaptation actions. To assess potential synergies between climate change mitigation and adaptation in smallholder coffee production systems, we quantified (i) the potential of changes in coffee production and processing practices as well as other livelihood activities to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions, (ii) coffee farmers’ climate change vulnerability and need for adaptation, including the possibility of carbon markets subsidizing adaptation. We worked with smallholder organic coffee farmers in Northern Nicaragua, using workshops, interviews, farm visits and the Cool Farm Tool software to calculate greenhouse gas balances of coffee farms. From the 12 activities found to be relevant for adaptation, two showed strong and five showed modest synergies with mitigation. Afforestation of degraded areas with coffee agroforestry systems and boundary tree plantings resulted in the highest synergies between adaptation and mitigation. Financing possibilities for joint adaptation-mitigation activities could arise through carbon offsetting, carbon insetting, and carbon footprint reductions. Non-monetary benefits such as technical assistance and capacity building could be effective in promoting such synergies at low transaction costs.     

Adaptation and mitigation: trade-offs in substance and methods

Adaptation to climate change and mitigation of climate change are policy substitutes, as both reduce the impacts of climate change. Adaptation and mitigation should therefore be analysed together, as they indeed are, albeit in a rudimentary way, in cost-benefit analyses of emission abatement. However, adaptation and mitigation are done by different people operating at different spatial and temporal scales. This hampers analysis of the trade-offs between adaptation and mitigation. An exception is facilitative adaptation (enhancing adaptive capacity), which, like mitigation, requires long-term policies at macro level. Facilitative adaptation and mitigation not only both reduce impacts, but they also compete for resources.     

How robust is public support for unilateral climate policy?

Most governments emphasize the need for reciprocal (“give and take”) international commitments in global climate policy. Nonetheless, existing public opinion polls indicate strong support by individual citizens for unilateral climate policies as well. This raises the question of whether governments could, without risking electoral punishment, afford to pursue more ambitious unilateral climate policies, or whether surveys may have overestimated support for unilateralism due to measurement problems. Based on conjoint and framing experiments embedded in representative surveys in the world's two largest democracies, India and the United States, we engage in a critical re-assessment of earlier survey results. We find robust public support for unilateral climate policy in both countries. Such support declines with increasing costs and increases with growing co-benefits and problem solving effectiveness. We also find, however, that policy conditionality and possible institutional design mechanisms against free-riding by other states (which make the policy “less unilateral” by providing for reciprocation) play no significant role when citizens form their preferences with respect to climate policy. Neither is public support affected by whether policies focus on adaptation (which limits benefits to the investing country) or mitigation (which benefits all countries globally). Overall, these findings suggest that, in view of very slow progress in global climate policy, governments of rich and poor countries could politically afford to push ahead with more ambitious unilateral climate policies.     

What is the potential and demonstrated role of non-life insurers in fulfilling climate commitments? A case study of Nordic insurers

Collective actions of stakeholders are required for fulfilling the climate commitments of the Kyoto protocol. The insurance sector's global influence and societal impact is fairly well documented. The sector influences societies based on its interaction with stakeholders, on its products, business and political stance. As such, it is a critical actor in facilitating key climate change actions of mitigation and adaptation, and has already been recognized as a leading sector in terms of climate adaptation. The aim of this paper is to explore the role of non-life insurers in fulfilling the climate commitments of the Kyoto Protocol. This paper is based on a case study on Nordic non-life insurance companies. The study documents that Nordic insurers are responding to climate-related threats and opportunities in a strategic manner by reducing their own impacts, through their core activities, and by influencing others to act. Although Nordic insurers do not classify their actions into mitigation and adaptation, but classify them according to their core activities, they demonstrate through actions their role as potential allies for nations in fulfilling the Kyoto protocol climate commitments. The study also reveals that the commercial reality of the industry is not the same as the expected contribution to climate commitments, for instance as specified in international conventions and treaties and in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and industry reports.     

Balancing China’s climate damage risk against emission control costs

In this study, we incorporate a three-reservoir climate module into our energy-economy-environmental integrated (3E-integrated) system model, in order to estimate the effect of China’s contribution of unilateral emissions on global warming and to weigh the macro-mitigation cost against the risk of damage, and we also explore the role of adaptation in reducing climate change risk. Our results suggest that China’s unilateral emission-control action plays a relatively limited role in mitigating global warming and is not particularly cost-effective, given that the macro-reduction cost is much larger than the benefit in the corresponding climate damage mitigation. Adaptation plays a large role in curbing China’s climate damages and improving the economics of China’s unilateral emission-control actions, and it is little affected by the introduction and option mitigation strategies. To prevent global warming from exceeding critical thresholds, more international collaborations and cooperative efforts are therefore anxiously needed; as for China, bolstering a low-carbon economy and installing an effective mechanism for improving the adaptation level are two feasible options for controlling climate damage risks, given the great uncertainty on the present situation of international cooperation mitigation.     

The perceived psychological distance of climate change impacts and its influence on support for adaptation policy

Factors influencing support for climate mitigation policy in the United States are well researched, however, research regarding individuals’ support for climate adaptation policy is relatively sparse. This study explores how an individual’s perception of climate change impacts may influence their support for adaptation actions. Results of a survey of the U.S. public (n = 653) indicates that individuals who believe climate change impacts are unlikely to happen or will primarily affect other people in other places are less likely to be concerned about climate change impacts and less likely to support climate adaptation. However, an individual’s support for climate change adaptation measures is not influenced by their perception of when climate change impacts will occur even when taking into account concern for climate impacts. Critical for policy-makers, a belief that climate adaptation measures will not be effective attenuates the relationship between psychological distance, concern for climate change impacts, and adaptation policy measures. Our results indicate that to effectively communicate about climate change, policy-makers should emphasize that: (i) climate change impacts are occurring, (ii) that their constituents are being affected now, or will be in the future, and (iii) communicate that adaptation measures can be effective in addressing risks associated with climate change impacts.     

Climate change adaptation in the Sahel

Climate change adaptation now occupies central stage on the agenda of most environmental initiatives in Africa. Our current understanding on the state of adaptation is limited, however, both globally and in Africa in particular. This study examines the status of adaptation in the Sahel by reviewing the primary peer review literature that reports concrete climate change adaptation actions. Based on an analysis of 70 peer review papers that document 414 discrete adaptations, we create a snap shot of adaptations developed between 1975 and 2015, and also calculate the percentages of adaptation. The results show that from a country to country perspective, Kenya has the highest number of reported adaptation actions (75 or 18.1%). The percentages indicate that the adaptive capacity of the entire study area is generally low for all the countries being that the highest country-level percentage is recorded in Kenya and it is 18%. Regionally, West Africa has more adaptation actions (261 or 63%) when compared to other regions of the Sahel. Regional level percentages suggest a higher level of adaptation at the regional level being that the percentage falls within the high scale range. The most commonly used adaptation actions reported are income diversification and water harnessing respectively. When categorized, technically related adaptation actions dominate the adaptation charts. The decade 2008–2016 recorded the highest number of adaptations (65.2%). Adaptation actions are also reported to be triggered by climatic and non-climatic drivers which both record high frequencies but the climatic drivers (98%) of adaptation are slightly dominant relative to the non-climatic drivers (95%). These results should be viewed as proxies of climate change adaptation as much information may be found in grey literature and non-peer review national communications which are left out here because of their relative low standardization and acceptability due to the absence of peer review.     

The Social Costs of Climate Change: The IPCC Second Assessment Report and Beyond

Climate change is expected to have far-reaching impacts. Earlier studies have estimated an aggregated monetised damage equivalent to 1.5 to 2.0 % of World GDP (for 2 × CO₂). According to these estimates, the OECD would face losses equivalent to 1.0 to 1.5 % of GDP, and developing countries 2.0 to 9.0 %. While these figures are preliminary and highly uncertain, recent findings have not, as yet, changed the general picture. As is shown in this paper, estimates that are fully corrected for differences in purchasing power parity do not significantly differ from the initial figures. Newer studies increasingly emphasise adaptation, variability, extreme events, other (non-climate change) stress factors, and the need for integrated assessment of damages. Incorporating these factors has lead to increased differences in estimated impacts between different regions and sectors. Estimates of market impacts in developed countries tended to fall, while non-market impacts have become more important. Marginal damages are more interesting from a policy point of view. Earlier estimates range from about $5 to $125 per tonne of carbon, with most estimates at the lower end of this range. These figures are based on power functions in the level of climate change. The rate of change may be equally important, as are the speed of adaptation, restoration and value adjustment. Furthermore, future vulnerability to climate change will differ from current vulnerability: market impacts could fall (relatively) with economic growth while non-market impacts may rise. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Dynamic equity carbon permit allocation scheme to limit global warming to two degrees

Significant international collaboration is required to limit global temperature increase to below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels. Equity is the foundation of cooperation, and therefore, this study proposed a new dynamic carbon permit allocation scheme based on four principles: equality, historical responsibility, capability, and future development opportunities. Decision makers could have different preferences for allocating carbon permits, therefore, four equity rules or indicators (equality, responsibility, capacity, and sovereignty) were assigned different weights. Based on the global carbon budget of the 2 °C target, emission permits were calculated and relevant economic implications analyzed using the Global Change Assessment Model. Results indicated that developed countries should reduce emissions immediately, while allowances for developing regions could permit an initial increase in emissions until peaking. Applying different weights to the indicators resulted in multifarious regional allowances. Developed regions would benefit from the “preferring sovereignty” scenario and most developing countries would benefit under the “preferring responsibility” and “preferring capacity” scenarios. Compared with the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, this study found that in the short term, developed countries might insist on sovereignty as the preferred indicator. However, preferring sovereignty would place substantial mitigation pressures on developing countries in the long term. Therefore, in addressing global climate change, a dynamic choice in the weighting distribution for different indicators might be conducive to international agreement. Furthermore, a market-based trading instrument could help all participants both mitigate global climate change by reducing regional and global costs and facilitate mitigation capital flow from developed to less developed regions.     

Extended impacts of climate change on health and wellbeing

Anthropogenic climate change is progressively transforming the environment despite political and technological attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to tackle global warming. Here we propose that greater insight and understanding of the health-related impacts of climate change can be gained by integrating the positivist approaches used in public health and epidemiology, with holistic social science perspectives on health in which the concept of ‘wellbeing’ is more explicitly recognised. Such an approach enables us to acknowledge and explore a wide range of more subtle, yet important health-related outcomes of climate change. At the same time, incorporating notions of wellbeing enables recognition of both the health co-benefits and dis-benefits of climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies across different population groups and geographical contexts. The paper recommends that future adaptation and mitigation policies seek to ensure that benefits are available for all since current evidence suggests that they are spatially and socially differentiated, and their accessibility is dependent on a range of contextually specific socio-cultural factors.     

Moving towards ambitious climate policies: Monetised health benefits from improved air quality could offset mitigation costs in Europe

Air quality and related health effects are not only affected by policies directly addressed at air pollution but also by other environmental strategies such as climate mitigation. This study addresses how different climate policy pathways indirectly bear upon air pollution in terms of improved human health in Europe. To this end, we put in perspective mitigation costs and monetised health benefits of reducing PM_2.5 (particles less than 2.5 μm in diameter) and ozone concentrations.Air quality in Europe and related health impacts were assessed using a comprehensive modelling chain, based on global and regional climate and chemistry-transport models together with a health impact assessment tool. This allows capturing both the impact of climate policy on emissions of air pollutants and the geophysical impact of climate change on air quality.Results are presented for projections at the 2050 horizon, for a set of consistent air pollution and climate policy scenarios, combined with population data from the UN's World Population Prospects, and are expressed in terms of morbidity and mortality impacts of PM_2.5 and ozone pollution and their monetised damage equivalent.The analysis shows that enforcement of current European air quality policies would effectively reduce health impacts from PM_2.5 in Europe even in the absence of climate policies (life years lost from the exposure to PM_2.5 decrease by 78% between 2005 and 2050 in the reference scenario), while impacts for ozone depend on the ambition level of international climate policies. A move towards stringent climate policies on a global scale, in addition to limiting global warming, creates co-benefits in terms of reduced health impacts (68% decrease in life years lost from the exposure to PM_2.5 and 85% decrease in premature deaths from ozone in 2050 in the mitigation scenario relative to the reference scenario) and air pollution cost savings (77%) in Europe. These co-benefits are found to offset at least 85% of the additional cost of climate policy in this region.     

Costs and benefits of differences in the timing of greenhouse gas emission reductions

Most modelling studies that explore long-term greenhouse gas mitigation scenarios focus on cost-efficient emission pathways towards a certain climate target, like the internationally agreed target to keep global temperature increase below 2 °C compared to pre-industrial levels (the 2 °C climate target). However, different timing of reductions lead to different transient temperature increase over the course of the century and subsequently to differences in the time profiles of not only the mitigation costs but also adaptation costs and residual climate change damage. This study adds to the existing literature by focussing on the implication of these differences for the evaluation of a set of three mitigation scenarios (early action, gradual action and delayed action), all three limiting global temperature increase below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels, using different discount rates. The study shows that the gradual mitigation pathway is, for these discount rates, preferred over early or delayed action in terms of total climate costs and net benefits. The relative costs and benefits of the early or delayed mitigation action scenarios, in contrast, do strongly depend on the discount rate applied. For specific discount rates, these pathways might therefore be preferred for other reasons, such as reducing long-term uncertainty in climate costs by early action.     

Perceptions of the effectiveness of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in advancing national action on climate change

This paper aims to characterise the ways in which the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is trickling down to affect national level action on climate change. State and non-state actors were interviewed at the 8th UNFCCC Conference of Parties (COP8) during October and November 2002. The interviews revealed that, among interviewees, climate change was already perceived to be, or was becoming a priority issue. In a number of countries substantial legislation is already in place to facilitate climate change preparedness (both adaptation and mitigation), although respondents suggest that in the majority of cases these changes are not being developed in response to the UNFCCC, but to other drivers. While all respondents saw change occurring at the national level, mostly through planning and research, few saw climate change response actions at the local level. Respondents agreed that climate risks must be managed through various mechanisms, from finding ways to participate in the Kyoto Protocol mechanisms to managing the impacts of foreign direct investments. The majority of respondents focussed on in-country actions such as identifying the most vulnerable groups, but few identified the need for greater global cooperation.To conclude, the Convention plays a role in shaping the discourse of climate change and in generating national level responses. These responses are played out differently according to the geographic, environmental, economic, social and cultural conditions of each country. The Convention is clearly important, but perhaps it is not adequate to inspire national action to resolve the problems of climate change. There is scope for many additional initiatives, through collaboration, trade or aid, and through bilateral agreements.     

The effect of different mitigation strategies on international financing of adaptation

Recent proposals at the UNFCCC meeting in Bali in December 2007 suggest that a 2% levy on the CDM could finance adaptation costs in developing regions. Other proposals include extending the scope of the levy to emissions trading. This study applies an Integrated Assessment Model to gain insight in the interactions between adaptation costs, residual damages and mitigation costs and to analyse the effectiveness of a 2% levy on both the CDM and emissions trading from developing countries. We show that adaptation is especially important in lower income regions where damages are higher. The revenues of a 2% levy strongly depend on both the climate mitigation target and the burden-sharing regime. A more stringent climate mitigation target results in more emissions trade and, in the longer run, less need for adaptation. Both factors increase the share of adaptation costs that can be funded. The burden-sharing regime strongly affects the revenues of a 2% levy as well: relatively more stringent targets for developed countries increase the revenues of a 2% levy. However, in the next two decades the share of adaptation that can be financed remains well below 20% in most cases. Additional funding mechanisms are therefore necessary to substantially finance adaptation costs in developing countries.     

The relationship between adaptation and mitigation in managing climate change risks: a regional response from North Central Victoria,Australia

This two-part paper considers the complementarity between adaptation and mitigation in managing the risks associated with the enhanced greenhouse effect. Part one reviews the application of risk management methods to climate change assessments. Formal investigations of the enhanced greenhouse effect have produced three generations of risk assessment. The first led to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), First Assessment Report and subsequent drafting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The second investigated the impacts of unmitigated climate change in the Second and Third IPCC Assessment Reports. The third generation, currently underway, is investigating how risk management options can be prioritised and implemented. Mitigation and adaptation have two main areas of complementarity. Firstly, they each manage different components of future climate-related risk. Mitigation reduces the number and magnitude of potential climate hazards, reducing the most severe changes first. Adaptation increases the ability to cope with climate hazards by reducing system sensitivity or by reducing the consequent level of harm. Secondly, they manage risks at different extremes of the potential range of future climate change. Adaptation works best with changes of lesser magnitude at the lower end of the potential range. Where there is sufficient adaptive capacity, adaptation improves the ability of a system to cope with increasingly larger changes over time. By moving from uncontrolled emissions towards stabilisation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mitigation limits the upper part of the range. Different activities have various blends of adaptive and mitigative capacity. In some cases, high sensitivity and low adaptive capacity may lead to large residual climate risks; in other cases, a large adaptive capacity may mean that residual risks are small or non-existent. Mitigative and adaptive capacity do not share the same scale: adaptive capacity is expressed locally, whereas mitigative capacity is different for each activity and location but needs to be aggregated at the global scale to properly assess its potential benefits in reducing climate hazards. This can be seen as a demand for mitigation, which can be exercised at the local scale through exercising mitigative capacity. Part two of the paper deals with the situation where regional bodies aim to maximise the benefits of managing climate risks by integrating adaptation and mitigation measures at their various scales of operation. In north central Victoria, Australia, adaptation and mitigation are being jointly managed by a greenhouse consortium and a catchment management authority. Several related studies investigating large-scale revegetation are used to show how climate change impacts and sequestration measures affect soil, salt and carbon fluxes in the landscape. These studies show that trade-offs between these interactions will have to be carefully managed to maximise their relative benefits. The paper concludes that when managing climate change risks, there are many instances where adaptation and mitigation can be integrated at the operational level. However, significant gaps between our understanding of the benefits of adaptation and mitigation between local and global scales remain. Some of these may be addressed by matching demands for mitigation (for activities and locations where adaptive capacity will be exceeded) with the ability to supply that demand through localised mitigative capacity by means of globally integrated mechanisms.     

Defining response capacity to enhance climate change policy

Climate change adaptation and mitigation decisions made by governments are usually taken in different policy domains. At the individual level however, adaptation and mitigation activities are undertaken together as part of the management of risk and resources. We propose that a useful starting point to develop a national climate policy is to understand what societal response might mean in practice. First we frame the set of responses at the national policy level as a trade off between investment in the development and diffusion of new technology, and investment in encouraging and enabling society to change its behaviour and or adopt the new technology. We argue that these are the pertinent trade-offs, rather than those usually posited between climate change mitigation and adaptation. The preference for a policy response that focuses more on technological innovation rather than one that focuses on changing social behaviour will be influenced by the capacity of different societies to change their greenhouse gas emissions; by perceived vulnerability to climate impacts; and by capacity to modify social behaviour and physical environment. Starting with this complete vision of response options should enable policy makers to re-evaluate the risk environment and the set of response options available to them. From here, policy makers should consider who is responsible for making climate response decisions and when actions should be taken. Institutional arrangements dictate social and political acceptability of different policies, they structure worldviews, and they determine the provision of resources for investment in technological innovation and social change. The importance of focussing on the timing of the response is emphasised to maximise the potential for adjustments through social learning and institutional change at different policy scales. We argue that the ability to respond to climate change is both enabled and constrained by social and technological conditions. The ability of society to respond to climate change and the need for technological change for both decarbonisation and for dealing with surprise in general, are central to concepts of sustainable development.     

Mitigation needs adaptation: Tropical forestry and climate change

The relationship between tropical forests and global climate change has so far focused on mitigation, while much less emphasis has been placed on how management activities may help forest ecosystems adapt to this change. This paper discusses how tropical forestry practices can contribute to maintaining or enhancing the adaptive capacity of natural and planted forests to global climate change and considers challenges and opportunities for the integration of tropical forest management in broader climate change adaptation. In addition to the use of reduced impact logging to maintain ecosystem integrity, other approaches may be needed, such as fire prevention and management, as well as specific silvicultural options aimed at facilitating genetic adaptation. In the case of planted forests, the normally higher intensity of management (with respect to natural forest) offers additional opportunities for implementing adaptation measures, at both industrial and smallholder levels. Although the integration in forest management of measures aimed at enhancing adaptation to climate change may not involve substantial additional effort with respect to current practice, little action appears to have been taken to date. Tropical foresters and forest-dependent communities appear not to appreciate the risks posed by climate change and, for those who are aware of them, practical guidance on how to respond is largely non-existent. The extent to which forestry research and national policies will promote and adopt management practices in order to assist production forests adapt to climate change is currently uncertain. Mainstreaming adaptation into national development and planning programs may represent an initial step towards the incorporation of climate change considerations into tropical forestry.     

Screening of climatic impacts on a country’s international supply chains: Japan as a case study

Industrial activities are linked through international supply chains, and the impacts that one country experiences can easily influence other countries. Climate change has made it essential for countries to review their supply chains and to prioritize introducing concrete adaptation actions. Therefore, this study aims to demonstrate a method of screening imported products that are highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change by assessing all imported products in a consistent manner throughout the global supply chain to support a country’s adaptation strategy planning. The study focuses on the potential impacts on land use and human health of climate change effects such as floods and heat waves. Japan was selected for a detailed analysis of its imports. A life-cycle assessment technique was applied to evaluate imported products through their supply chains. In Japan’s case, land use results show that agricultural products imported from the United States of America (US) are highly vulnerable to climate change impacts. In relation to imported meat products, feed production processes are most vulnerable. The human health results show in addition to agricultural imports, electronics and textile imports are also vulnerable. The study recommends that the relevant stakeholders impacted by these products scrutinize their supply chains. Especially, Japan is recommended to collaborate with the US, China, and Southeast Asian countries for increasing resilience to climate change. The results include uncertainties due to limitations of data availability and methodology; however, this method is also applicable to assessing the global trade activities of any country and to supporting global adaptation strategies.