26. As Figure 8 shows, the reported incidence of floods, mudslides, fires, and other such natural disasters is much higher in Tajikistan than Kazakhstan (22.8 vs. 1.4 percent). However, recent meteorological records indicate that changes in average temperatures have been of fairly similar magnitude in the two countries.<sup>16</sup> Furthermore, a much larger share of the population of Kazakhstan lives in areas with harsh winters, so the pattern of reported incidence of adverse impacts of climate related hazards across the two countries is in fact the opposite to what one has expected _a priori_ . A much higher share of respondents in Tajikistan report having suffered extreme hot/cold seasons that were harmful for health than in Kazakhstan (62 vs. 23 percent) or unpredictable and extreme weather that harmed agricultural production (42 vs. 9 percent). The differences in exposure to adverse climate effects alone cannot explain large disparities in respondents’ answers suggesting that there are pronounced differences in sensitivity and adaptive capacity of the two countries. As is widely highlighted in the literature on likely climate-change impacts, countries with higher incomes, stronger institutions, developed infrastructure and public services are more resilient to the negative physical impacts of climate. In 2007, the per capita gross national income (GNI) of Tajikistan ($460) was less than one-tenth the GNI of Kazakhstan ($5,060).

# **Priorities for Additional Spending for Climate-Change Adaptation**

27. Respondents were asked the question: Suppose the government had a sizeable sum of money to soften climate change impact on people in your community, or communities like yours: on which of the following do you think the government should spend more money? More than half the P-LITS 2 sample in Tajikistan identified “improving extension services and providing seeds more resilient to climate extremes” (64 percent of respondents), “providing clean drinking water” (63 percent of respondents), and “investing in increasing availability of electricity” (57 percent) as important priorities for government spending (Figure 9a).

28. As one would expect, peoples’ past experiences with adverse climate change-related impacts play an important role in influencing their views regarding what future course of action should be taken to combat climate change: the P-LITS data clearly show that respondents that reported having experienced unpredictable and extreme weather that harmed agricultural production, or a decline in fresh water available for drinking or irrigation are much more likely to favor increased government spending on improving extension services and providing seeds more resilient to climate change, as well as investing in clean drinking water and irrigation infrastructure respectively, compared to respondents that did not experience such climate change-related hazards.

29. When asked to choose the single-most important priority for additional government spending related to climate change, (i) investing in increasing availability of electricity (22 percent), (ii) improving extension services and providing seeds more resilient to climate extremes (18 percent), and (iii) providing clean drinking water (14 percent) received the highest share of votes from respondents (Figure 9b); (iv) providing more help and relief after natural disasters occur (10 percent), (v) reforestation to prevent soil erosion (8 percent), (vi) providing more reliable weather forecasts (7 percent), and (vii) investing in health facilities and provision of health services (7 percent) received the next highest share of votes.

> 16 For instance, as documented in the two countries’ respective National Communications prepared recently under the United Nation’s Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC).

15