84
Risks, Impacts, and Adaptation Menus for Study Countries
but our analysis reflecting local conditions suggests this measure would not be cost-effective. The result of the benefit-cost and other evaluations yielded a ranking of measures. The results of this ranking are presented for national policy measures and for each AEZ in tabular form in table 3.8 with the example of data for the central AEZ. Summary results for adaptation measures at both the national and AEZ level are summarized in table 3.9. The results for Moldova suggest a somewhat greater emphasis on crop insurance and market support for farmers to financially strengthen the sector in order to provide greater resilience to climate change.
FYR Macedonia Climate Risk FYR Macedonia’s climate is highly influenced by the great variance in elevation across this small landlocked country. At one extreme, the nearly Mediterranean
Table 3.8 Moldova: Evaluation of Central AEZ Adaptation Options Ranking criterion
Adaptation measure
Crop and livestock focus
Net economic benefit: ranking in quantitative analysis
Improve crop varieties
Wheat, maize
1
High
Medium to High
Not mentioned
Low
Improve irrigation water efficiency
Maize
2
High
High
3
Low
Rehabilitate irrigation capacity
Apples, maize, vegetables
3
High
High
1
Low
Build new smallscale water storage
All crops, but especially in the Reut basin
Moderate for the Reut basin
Medium—difficult to site, requires integrated water management
High
3
Unknown
Research and improve livestock management, nutrition, and health Optimize agronomic practices
Beef cattle, chickens
Unknown
Medium
Low to Medium
Not mentioned
Low
Wheat, maize
7
Not mentioned
High
5
Medium
Net economic benefit: expert assessment
Potential to aid farmers with or without climate change
Ranking by local farmers
Potential to yield mitigation benefits
Looking Beyond the Horizon • http://dx.doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-9768-8