The 21st Century climate challenge

2Climate shocks: risk and vulnerability in an unequal worldBox 2.6The ‘flood of the century’ in Bangladeshextend far into the future. Detailed householdsurvey analysis in Zimbabwe demonstratesthe longevity of human development impactslinked to climate shocks. Taking a group ofchildren that were aged 1–2 years during aseries of droughts between 1982 and 1984,researchers interviewed the same children13–16 years later. They found that the droughthad reduced average stature by 2.3 centimetres,delayed the start of school and resulted in a lossof 0.4 years of schooling. The education lossestranslated into a 14 percent loss of lifetimeearnings. Impacts in Zimbabwe were mostsevere among children in households with fewlivestock—the main self-insurance asset forsmoothing consumption. 41Caution must be exercised in interpretingresults from one specific case. But the Zimbabweexperience demonstrates the transmissionFlooding is a normal part of the ecology of Bangladesh. With climate change,‘abnormal’ fl ooding is likely to become a standing feature of the future ecology.Experience following the flood event of 1998—dubbed the ‘flood of the century’—highlights the danger that increased fl ooding will give rise to long term humandevelopment setbacks.The 1998 flood was an extreme event. In a normal year, around a quarter of thecountry experiences inundation. At its peak, the 1998 flood covered two-thirds ofthe country. Over 1,000 people died and 30 million were made homeless. Around10 percent of the country’s total rice crop was lost. With the duration of the floodpreventing replanting, tens of millions of households faced a food security crisis.Large-scale food imports and government food aid transfers averted ahumanitarian catastrophe. However, they failed to avert some major humandevelopment setbacks. The proportion of children suffering malnutrition doubledafter the flood. Fifteen months after the flood, 40 percent of the children with poornutritional status at the time of the flood had still not regained even the poor levelof nutrition they had prior to the flood.Households adjusted to the floods in several ways. Reduced spending, assetsales and increased borrowing all featured. Poor households were more likely bothto sell assets and to take on debts. Fifteen months after the floods had receded,household debt for the poorest 40 percent averaged 150 percent of monthlyexpenditure—twice the pre-flood level.Management of the 1998 fl oods is sometimes seen as a success story indisaster management. To the extent that an even larger loss of life was averted,that perception is partially justifi ed. However, the fl ood had long term negativeimpacts, notably on the nutritional status of already malnourished children. Theaffected children may never be in a position to recover from the consequences.Poor households suffered in the short term through reduced consumption andincreased illness, and through having to take on high levels of household debt—astrategy that may have added to vulnerability.Source: del Ninno and Smith 2003; Mallick et al. 2005.mechanisms from climate shocks throughnutrition, stunting and educational deprivationinto long-run human development losses.Evidence from other countries confirms thepresence and the durability of these mechanisms.When Bangladesh was hit by a devastating floodin 1998, the poorest households were forced intocoping strategies that led to long-term losses innutrition and health. Today many adults areliving with the consequences of the deprivationthey suffered as children in the immediateaftermath of the flood (box 2.6).From climate shocks today todeprivation tomorrow—low humandevelopment traps in operationThe idea that a single external shock can havepermanent effects provides a link from climateshocks—and climate change—to the relationshipbetween risk and vulnerability set out inthis chapter. The direct and immediate impactof droughts, hurricanes, floods and other climateshocks can be ghastly. But the after-shocksinteract with wider forces that hold back thedevelopment of human capabilities.These after-shocks can be understoodthrough a poverty trap analogy. Economistshave long recognized the presence of povertytraps in the lives of the poor. While there aremany versions of the poverty trap, they tendto focus on income and investment. In someaccounts, poverty is seen as the self-sustainingoutcome of credit constraints that limitthe capacity of the poor to invest. 42 Otheraccounts point to a self-reinforcing cycle of lowproductivity, low income, low savings and lowinvestments. Linked to these are poor healthand limited opportunities for education, whichin turn restrict opportunities for raising incomeand productivity.When climate disasters strike, somehouseholds are rapidly able to restore theirlivelihoods and rebuild their assets. For otherhouseholds, the recovery process is slower. Forsome—especially the poorest—rebuildingmay not be possible at all. Poverty traps canbe thought of as a minimum threshold forassets or income, below which people are88 HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2007/2008