Mapping climate vulnerability and poverty in Africa - CGSpace Home

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3 Framework for the study The literature on vulnerability and vulnerability assessment is very large, and increasing rapidly. Even now, there are still different notions current of what vulnerability is, and how it is related to risk and adaptive capacity. Some of the various definitions of vulnerability are reviewed in Adger et al. (2004) and Vincent (2004). Brooks et al. (2005) point out that even in the IPCC TAR (2001), there is inconsistent use of the term. O’Brien et al. (2004) summarise two competing interpretations of vulnerability in the climate change literature: the first interpretation, or the “end point” approach, views vulnerability as a residual of climate change impacts minus adaptation. The second interpretation, or the “starting point” approach, sees vulnerability as a general characteristic generated by multiple factors and processes. Viewing vulnerability as an end point considers that adaptations and adaptive capacity determine vulnerability, whereas viewing vulnerability as a starting point holds that vulnerability determines adaptive capacity. O’Brien et al. (2005, page 5) consider that “… the end point approach originates from a perception that diagnoses climate change as the main problem; cures entail greenhouse gas emissions reductions and reduction of the sensitivity of various economic, social and environmental sectors and systems to projected changes in particular climate parameters. The starting point approach diagnoses inherent social and economic processes of marginalization and inequalities as the causes of climate vulnerability and seeks to identify ways of addressing these.” They argue that these approaches entail different diagnoses of a problem and different cures. In general, it seems that much current literature on vulnerability is taking more of a starting point approach. If vulnerability to climate change is seen as a state that is governed not just by climate change but by multiple processes and stressors, then there are multiple points for intervention that may go well beyond technological adaptations, to enhance people’s ability to cope with present-day climate variability and long-term climate uncertainty (O’Brien et al., 2004). The basis for the work outlined here (as in many other vulnerability studies) lies in identifying and treating two types of vulnerability: biophysical vulnerability, or the sensitivity of the natural environment to an exposure to a hazard; and social vulnerability, or the 14
sensitivity of the human environment to the exposure. An impact is then seen as being a function of hazard exposure and both types of vulnerability. A framework to illustrate this is shown in Figure 1, taken from Vincent (2004) (which was adapted from Smith (2001)). This marries the notions of vulnerability, coping ability (or range), and adaptive capacity. “Exposure to a hazard such as climate change is a necessary prerequisite for an impact. Whether that exposure translates into a hazard depends on the nature of the vulnerability: if the natural environment is particularly sensitive and the human population is of low economic status with poor preparedness and few social institutions to facilitate coping then the impact will be high. If the social vulnerability is lower due to a more appropriate coping capacity, then exposure of the same nature may result in a lesser or even no impact.” (Vincent, 2004, page 7). As Vincent (2004) notes, many African societies are well-adapted to the climate variability to which they are exposed (Mortimore, 1998), and she considers that this variability is a good proxy for risks associated with future climate change, provided that the rate of change is sufficiently slow (Brooks and Adger, 2003). In the framework of Figure 1, adaptive capacity to climate change can be improved by expanding the coping range and thus reducing vulnerability. Within the spirit of the “starting point “ approach, Figure 2 shows one take on a systems or bottom-up approach to vulnerability assessment that starts at the local or community level, from Huq and Reid (2004). Again, the key points seem to be the need to combine notions of biophysical and social vulnerability with understanding of the risks or hazards faced. These sorts of ideas have been operationalised in many ways, some of which involve mapping. An example is the work of TERI (2003) on defining vulnerability profiles for Indian agriculture at the district level (Figure 3). In this study, adaptive capacity was studied in relation to the sensitivity of areas to both climate and international trade. Note 1 (page 112 below) discusses adaptive capacity and presents more details on the TERI case study. 15
Page 1: Mapping climate vulnerability and p
Page 4 and 5: Citation Thornton PK, Jones PG, Owi
Page 6 and 7: egion of eastern Africa, the coasta
Page 8 and 9: Contents Executive summary 3 1 Back
Page 10 and 11: Tables Table 1. AOGCMs in the TYN S
Page 12 and 13: • Research to reduce uncertainty,
Page 14 and 15: 2 Project objectives and activities
Page 18 and 19: Figure 1. Representation of vulnera
Page 20 and 21: Conceptually, there is still a cons
Page 22 and 23: 4. Climate impacts in sub-Saharan A
Page 24 and 25: Table 1. AOGCMs in the TYN SC 2.0 d
Page 26 and 27: We then prepared similar climate gr
Page 28 and 29: Mapping changes to the probability
Page 30 and 31: confidence in the ability of that G
Page 32 and 33: Figure 5. Length of growing period
Page 34 and 35: Figure 6. Coefficient of variation
Page 36 and 37: Figure 7 (B). Percentage changes in
Page 38 and 39: Figure 7 (D). Percentage changes in
Page 40 and 41: Figure 8 (B). Percentage changes in
Page 42 and 43: • For human population, we now us
Page 44 and 45: Figure 9. Farming/livelihood system
Page 46 and 47: Table 4. Country-by-system breakdow
Page 48 and 49: latter, the highland systems in sou
Page 50 and 51: Table 6. Country-by-system breakdow
Page 52 and 53: Table 8. Positive LGP changes to 20
Page 54 and 55: Figure11. Number of growing seasons
Page 56 and 57: 4.3 Uncertainties in the analysis T
Page 58 and 59: 5. Poverty and vulnerability The se
Page 60 and 61: Table 9. Vulnerability indicators u
Page 62 and 63: datasets (more information on this
Page 64 and 65: political process, civil liberties
Page 66 and 67:
the major development issue facing
Page 68 and 69:
scenarios. For this synthesis, the
Page 70 and 71:
Table 11. Rotated component (or “
Page 72 and 73:
Table 12. Synthesis of possible reg
Page 74 and 75:
climate change-vulnerability hotspo
Page 76 and 77:
contain components that draw far mo
Page 78 and 79:
6.1 A survey of information needs o
Page 80 and 81:
unit; the International Red Cross;
Page 82 and 83:
predominantly in southern Africa. I
Page 84 and 85:
Table 13. Institutional preparednes
Page 86 and 87:
particularly so for government and
Page 88 and 89:
6.2 Prospects for a decision suppor
Page 90 and 91:
Figure 14. Stages of impact assessm
Page 92 and 93:
An ex ante impact assessment might
Page 94 and 95:
A second issue relates to the setti
Page 96 and 97:
A second key point that these resul
Page 98 and 99:
References AchutaRao K, Covey C, Do
Page 100 and 101:
Food and Agriculture Organisation o
Page 102 and 103:
JRL (2005). GLC 2000 (Global Land C
Page 104 and 105:
Roeckner E, Oberhuber J M, Bacher A
Page 106 and 107:
Acronyms ACTS ASARECA CGIAR DFID EN
Page 108 and 109:
Appendix 2. Candidate vulnerability
Page 110 and 111:
Appendix 3. Country by system CV of
Page 112 and 113:
Appendix 4 List of contacted instit
Page 114 and 115:
112 Note 1. Indicators of Adaptive
Page 116 and 117:
Box 1: Source: IPCC, 2001 1. Adapti
Page 118 and 119:
irrigation and quality of infrastru
Page 120 and 121:
Irrigation rate is measured by net
Page 122 and 123:
moisture, especially in southern, N
Page 124 and 125:
Bryman, A and D. Cramer . 1997. Qua
Page 126 and 127:
Note 2. South-South Cooperation (pr
Page 128 and 129:
• Effective policy frameworks in
Page 130 and 131:
vulnerable countries in 12 selected
Page 132 and 133:
130 Note 3. Climate Change and Heal
Page 134 and 135:
impacts (developing nations). These
Page 136 and 137:
most relevant for the case of HIV/A
Page 138 and 139:
emerging infectious diseases; use o
Page 140 and 141:
Within the Sub-Saharan region, the
Page 142 and 143:
geographical shifts and yield reduc
Page 144 and 145:
142 Note 4. The climate, developmen
Page 146 and 147:
Figure 2 Percentage of undernourish
Page 148 and 149:
The Africa Environment Outlook desc
Page 150 and 151:
Figure 5 Total affected in hydro-me
Page 152 and 153:
Figure 5 Present and future freshwa
Page 154 and 155:
Turner B L, Kasperson R E, Matson P
Page 156 and 157:
Note 5. The Sub-Saharan Africa Chal
Page 158 and 159:
Several useful lessons were learned
Page 160 and 161:
Note 6. The ASARECA priority settin
Page 162 and 163:
Figure 1. Development domains and a
Page 164 and 165:
Note 7. The SLP’s food-feed impac
Page 166 and 167:
Figure 2. Domains in Kenya with hig
Page 168 and 169:
Note 8. The SAKSS poverty targettin
Page 170 and 171:
168 Note 9. Simulating regional pro
Page 172 and 173:
Applications (ICASA). The results f
show all

Mapping climate vulnerability and poverty in Africa - CGSpace Home

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

Delete template?

Save as template?