189 / 218
[
] 187
The benchmarking method has two stages: determining the
benchmarks; and correcting them according to country-specific
characteristics.
Determining benchmarks
In order to estimate benchmarks, we have used various data
and estimates obtained from studies conducted in other coun-
tries alongside estimates from experts working for NMHS. For
the purposes of this study, the following values for principal
benchmarks have been assumed:
1. Average annual level of losses from adverse and dangerous
weather conditions as a percentage of GDP – 0.45 per cent.
The range of annual losses is assumed to be 0.1-1.0 per cent
of GDP. There is no comprehensive database on this impor-
tant parameter, the estimates available in the literature vary
from about 0.1 per cent to over 5 per cent of GDP
2. Average annual level of prevented losses as a percentage
of total losses – 40 per cent (range – 20-60 per cent).
It is also assumed that the country corresponding to these
benchmarks would have the following characteristics:
Georgia, Kazakhstan, Russia and Serbia), has been engaged in
developing and piloting new approaches for estimating addi-
tional economic benefits from the modernization and
development of HMS, as well as for assessing the current
economic benefits from existing HMS. These efforts were
driven primarily by practical considerations in the process of
development modernization initiatives and fostering a better
dialogue between HMS and national economic and fiscal
authorities. As a result of this cooperation, two simplified
methods – benchmarking and sector-specific assessment –
have been developed. These two approaches are independent
and yet complementary.
Why benchmarking?
Benchmarking offers an express method of obtaining results
about damages caused by weather impacts in the absence of
essential information, and with financial and time constraints
for more detailed studies. The method employs the available
official statistics and expert assessment of the weather-depen-
dence of a country's economy, meteorological vulnerability of
its territory, and existing NMHS provision.
Main parameters and results of economic efficiency of HMS delivery and proposed modernization programmes
(economic parameters are in USD of 2000 constant prices)
Albania
Azerbaijan
Armenia
Belarus
Georgia
Kazakhsatan
Serbia
Average Annual GDP, $ million
4,229
7,061
2,579
15, 011
3,620
23,991
9,763
Territory, thousand km
2
28.8
86.6
29.8
207.6
69.7
2,720
89.0
Population, million.
3.1
7.8
3.0
10.3
4.9
15.1
8.1
NMHS funding, $ million
0.44
1.7
0.47
2.96
0.47
4.21
5.15
Share of agriculture in GDP, %
24
12
30
10
25
7.0
17
Weather dependent sectors in GDP, %
65
51
69
43
62
45
44
Meteorological vulnerability
«relatively high» «relatively high» «relatively high» «relatively high» «relatively high» «relatively high» «average»
State of NHMS and HMS delivery
«poor»
«poor»
«poor»
«poor»
«poor»
«poor»
«satisfactory»
Adjusted share of losses incurred, benchmarking
1.00
0.5
1.25
0.38
0.99
0.32
0.44
(% of GDP)
Assessment of economic losses,$ million benchmarking
37.9
35.5
32.2
57.5
35.8
77.9
42.
Assessment of economic losses (direct and indirect),
32.1
54.5
50.1
72.3-83.1
53.6
-
95
$ million sectoral assessments
Assessment of preventable losses, $ million, benchmarking
10.5
13.9
7.0
28.8
9.3
39.0
33.5
Assessment of efficiency of the existing
432
165
277
206
362
198
219
HMS delivery (%), benchmarking
Annual incremental effect of improvement the status of
2.5
3.8
1.6
8.6
2.2
11.5
5.5
NHMS and HMS delivery to “adequate” – benchmarking
assesment, $ million
Annual incremental effect of improvement the status of
1.8-3.9
12.3
9.2
7.9-9.1
8.0
-
4.34
NHMS and HMS delivery to “adequate” – sector-specific
assesment, $ million
Estimated cost of modernization program, $ million
4.0
6.0
5.3
11.5
6.0
14.9
4.4
Investment efficiency, % (across 7 years), benchmarking
630
430
210
530
260
540
880
Investment efficiency, % (across 7 years),
320-680
1440
1070
480 –550
1,050
-*
690
sector-specific assessment
Source: Authors’ estimates based on official statistics and national hydrometeorological and sectoral experts’ assessment