Climate and Change - PreventionWeb

Combining disaster risk reduction, natural resource managementand climate change adaptation in a new approach to the

reduction of vulnerability and poverty

A Conceptual Framework Paper Prepared by the Task Force on Climate Change, Vulnerable Communities and Adaptation

Livelihoodsand

ClimateChange

IUCNThe World Conservation Union

Natural Resource ManagementRural EconomyLocal Governance and Civil Society

cooperation

inter

A Conceptual Framework Paper Prepared by the Task Force on Climate Change, Vulnerable Communities and Adaptation


cooperation

inter


Combining disaster risk reduction, natural resource management and climate change adaptation in a new approach to the

reduction of vulnerability and poverty

Livelihoodsand

ClimateChange

The designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opin-ion whatsoever on the part of IUCN, IISD, SEI, SDC or Intercooperation concerning the legal status of any country, territory, orarea, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN, IISD, SEI, SDC or Intercooperation.

This publication has been made possible in part by funding from IUCN, SDC and Intercooperation.

Published by: The International Institute for Sustainable Development

Copyright: © 2003 International Institute for Sustainable Development, International Union for Conservation of Nature andNatural Resources and Stockholm Environment Institute.

Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written permissionfrom the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged.

Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of thecopyright holder.

ISBN: 1-895536-72-3

Cover photo: Mozambique floods (March 2001). Photo: Christopher Black/International Red Cross

Printed by: Unigraphics (www.unigraphics.mb.ca), Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

Available from:

International Institute for Sustainable Development161 Portage Avenue East, 6th FloorWinnipeg, Manitoba CANADAR3B 0Y4Tel: (204) 958-7700Fax: (204) 958-7710E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.iisd.org

ii

Livelihoodsand ClimateChange


cooperation

interIUCNThe World Conservation Union

This paper has been prepared by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), IUCN –The World Conservation Union and Stockholm Environment Institute – Boston Centre (SEI-B), as partof their joint initiative on Climate Change, Vulnerable Communities and Adaptation. Guided by a multi-disciplinary international Task Force, the project seeks to strengthen the role of ecosystem management andrestoration activities in reducing the vulnerability of communities to climate change and climate-relatedhazards. The writing team consisted of Task Force members Ian Burton, independent scholar and consult-ant, John Soussan from the Water and Development Group at SEI – York Centre, and Project Team mem-ber Anne Hammill from IISD’s Climate Change and Energy Team.

The authors are grateful for the valuable feedback provided by the rest of the Task Force members: LionelHurst, Achim Steiner, Janet Abramovitz, Maria Fernanda Espinosa, Scott Flemming, Pascal Girot, JürgHammer, Saleemul Huq, Terry Jeggle, Richard Klein, Andrew Maskrey, Ajay Mathur and Maria Socorro Z.Manguiat, as well as the extensive input from other Project Team members John Drexhage, Brett Orlando,Carmenza Robledo and Erika Spanger-Siegfried. A special thanks to external reviewers Neil Adger, GerBergkamp, Salvano Briceño, Peter Bridgewater, Kalipada Chatterjee, Mark Sanctuary, Jason Switzer, EmmaTompkins and John Twigg for their useful comments. Financial contributions from IUCN – The WorldConservation Union, the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) and the SwissOrganisation for Development and Cooperation (Intercooperation), made the publication of this paperpossible.

iii

Livelihoodsand Climate

Change

Acknowledgements

From the Co-Chairs of the Task Force on Climate Change, Vulnerable Communities and Adaptation

While government representatives negotiate international policy frameworks to limit greenhouse gas emis-sions, and researchers continue to debate the science and impacts of climate change, climate-inducedchanges to physical and biological systems are already being detected. Retreating glaciers, longer growingseasons, shifting eco-zones and thawing permafrost have all been observed in different regions around theworld. Compounded by human pressures and modifications to the environment, these changes threaten tofurther entrench global inequities, as those with the least stand to suffer the most. There is a pressing needto develop response measures that will address current development disparities and protect vulnerable com-munities from the longer-term impacts of climate change.

In 2001, IUCN – The World Conservation Union, the International Institute for SustainableDevelopment (IISD) and the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) joined forces to launch an interna-tional research and policy initiative on Climate Change, Vulnerable Communities and Adaptation. Guidedby a multi disciplinary Task Force, this initiative represents a confluence of four distinct, yet decidedly rel-evant, communities working on vulnerability reduction in the face of climate change. These experts—fromthe fields of disaster risk reduction, climate change, conservation and poverty reduction—first met follow-ing the release of the IPCC Working Group II’s latest assessment of climate change impacts, adaptation andvulnerability and the conclusion of the Marrakech Accords to the United Nations Framework Conventionon Climate Change (UNFCCC). In view of the expanding body of knowledge on climate change impactsand new funding opportunities for climate change adaptation, the Task Force set in motion a collaborativeeffort to inform and influence how the world undertakes and invests in climate change adaptation.

The Task Force believes that adaptation must be rooted in reducing vulnerabilities, and some of the greatestopportunities for this lie in ecosystem management and restoration activities. By protecting and enhancingnatural services, we help to secure the livelihoods of the world’s most vulnerable communities and improvetheir capacity to deal with the impacts of climate change.

How can activities such as watershed restoration in India, the rehabilitation of mangrove plantations inVietnam, or agroecological practices in Honduras enable local communities to adapt to the impacts of achanging climate? How do they address current gaps in adaptation policies? How do we integrate theseactivities into national climate change adaptation strategies? This publication provides a basis for answeringthese and other questions by articulating the conceptual foundations of the IUCN/IISD/SEI project andthe issues that will be addressed through the work program.

We hope this paper is useful in providing a framework for those researchers, policy-makers and communitygroups seeking to take action on adaptation. The partnering institutions and Task Force members look for-ward to working with all stakeholders in finding innovative and sustainable ways of responding to ourchanging global climate.

H.E. Lionel Hurst, Ambassador of Antigua and Barbuda to the U.S. and Organization of American States

Achim Steiner, Director General, IUCN – The World Conservation Union

March 2003

iv


Preface

Acknowledgements iiiPreface ivExecutive Summary viiI. What Can Adaptation Really Achieve? 1II. The Keystone Concepts 4III. The Current Regime 9IV. Vulnerability, Livelihoods and Climate 12V. Adaptation as a Process: Issues and Challenges 16VI. A Strategic Framework for Adaptation 19VII. Seizing the Opportunity 21VIII. References 22Appendix – Members of the Task Force on Climate Change, 23

Vulnerable Communities and Adaptation

Box 1 – Mangrove Rehabilitation in Vietnam 5Box 2 – Community-based Rangeland Rehabilitation for Carbon Sequestration in Sudan 10Box 3 – Agroecological Roots of Resilience in Honduras, Nicaragua and Guatemala 13Box 4 – Watershed Restoration and Development in Maharashtra State, India 17

v


Change

Table of Contents

The International Institute for Sustainable Development

The International Institute for Sustainable Development contributes to sustainable development by advancing policy recommen-dations on international trade and investment, economic policy, climate change, measurement and indicators, and natural resourcemanagement. By using Internet communications, we report on international negotiations and broker knowledge gained throughcollaborative projects with global partners, resulting in more rigorous research, capacity building in developing countries and bet-ter dialogue between North and South.

IISD’s vision is better living for all – sustainably; its mission is to champion innovation, enabling societies to live sustainably. IISDreceives operating grant support from the Government of Canada, provided through the Canadian International DevelopmentAgency (CIDA) and Environment Canada, and from the Province of Manitoba. The institute receives project funding from theGovernment of Canada, the Province of Manitoba, other national governments, United Nations agencies, foundations and the pri-vate sector. IISD is registered as a charitable organization in Canada and has 501(c)(3) status in the United States.

IUCN – The World Conservation Union

Founded in 1948, The World Conservation Union brings together States, government agencies and a diverse range of non-gov-ernmental organizations in a unique world partnership: over 980 members in all, spread across some 140 countries.

As a Union, IUCN seeks to influence, encourage and assist societies throughout the world to conserve the integrity and diversityof nature and to ensure that any use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable.

The World Conservation Union builds on the strengths of its members, networks and partners to enhance their capacity and tosupport global alliances to safeguard natural resources at local, regional and global levels.

Stockholm Environment Institute

SEI is an independent international research institute, working at local, national, regional and global levels to clarify the require-ments, strategies and policies for a transition to sustainability. The mission of the Institute is to support decision-making and inducechange towards sustainable development around the world by providing integrative knowledge that bridges science and policy inthe field of environment and development. Headquartered in Stockholm, the Institute includes permanent centres in Boston(USA), York (UK), and Tallinn (Estonia), as well as offices in Brussels (Belgium), Bangkok (Thailand) and Oxford (UK), and anetwork structure of permanent and associated staff in over 20 countries.

vi


Whatever happens to future greenhouse gas emissions, we are now locked into inevitable changes to climatepatterns. Adaptation to climate change is therefore no longer a secondary and long-term response optiononly to be used as a last resort. It is now prevalent and imperative, and for those communities already vul-nerable to the impacts of present day climate hazards, an urgent imperative.

Successful adaptation must be accomplished through actions that target and reduce the vulnerabilities poorpeople now face, as they are likely to become more prevalent as the climate changes. This approach calls fora convergence of four distinct communities who have long been tackling the issue of vulnerability reductionthrough their respective activities—disaster risk reduction, climate and climate change, environmental man-agement, and poverty reduction. Bringing these communities together and offering a common platform—and a shared vocabulary—from which to develop an integrated approach to climate change adaptation canprovide an opportunity to revisit some of the intractable problems of environment and development.

The starting point for this convergence is a common understanding of the concepts of adaptation, vulner-ability, resilience, security, poverty and livelihoods, as well as an understanding of the gaps in current adap-tation approaches. Taken together, they indicate a need—and an opening—for adaptation measures basedon the livelihood activities of poor and vulnerable communities. This places the goal of poverty reductionat the centre of adaptation, as the capabilities and assets that comprise people’s livelihoods often shapepoverty as well as the ability to move out of poverty.

This “bottom-up” approach therefore requires an understanding of how livelihoods are conducted and sus-tained—that is, how resources are mobilized to earn an income and meet basic needs. Central to both thedefinition of livelihoods and household resilience are livelihood assets, i.e., the means of production avail-able to a given individual or group that can be used to generate material resources sufficient enough toreduce poverty. The greater and more varied the asset base, the more sustainable and secure the livelihood.There are generally five forms of livelihood assets: natural capital, social-political capital, human capital,physical capital and financial capital. Taken together, these assets largely determine how people will respondto the impacts of climate change, and should therefore form the basis of adaptation strategies.

While all of these assets are important, natural resources are particularly important for the poorest and mostvulnerable communities in the world. The poor are more heavily dependent on ecosystem services andtherefore most severely affected by deteriorating environmental conditions and factors limiting resourceaccess. While climate change is not the only threat to natural resources and livelihoods, climate-inducedchanges to resource flows will affect the viability of livelihoods unless effective measures are taken to pro-tect and diversify them through adaptation and other strategies. For the poorest and most vulnerable, thesestrategies should include ecosystem management and restoration activities such as watershed restoration,agroecology, reef protection and rangeland rehabilitation. In fact, these activities can represent “win-win”approaches to climate change adaptation, as they serve immediate needs and bring immediate benefits tolocal communities while also contributing to longer-term capacity development that will create a basis forreducing future vulnerabilities.

If adaptation strategies should reflect the dynamics of peoples’ livelihoods, then adaptation must be seen asa process that is itself adaptive and flexible to address locally-specific and changing circumstances. Theresponsibility for adaptation lies with those who stand to gain the most. While those with the least capaci-ty to adapt are the most vulnerable, they are also the most likely and most motivated to take conscious adap-tation actions. For the poor and vulnerable, the actions that they take will be constrained by their limitedassets and capabilities, but they will also be the most appropriate given the specific local manifestations ofclimate change impacts. These actions should be supported by external agencies to build up the asset baseof the poor.

vii


Change

Executive Summary

Moreover, adaptation should be mainstreamed into wider development processes rather than separated intoisolated measures funded and executed discretely. Institutional capacity must be strengthened in order tolessen the gaps between local and national processes, and between formal and informal patterns of eco-nomic activity and resource management. Addressing these disconnections will help to ensure the effectiveparticipation and empowerment of poor communities in key adaptation decisions, allowing for the inclu-sion of non-structural approaches rooted in community-based patterns of resource management in thesedecisions.

For poor people and poor countries dealing with many urgent needs and many immediate problems thatdemand attention and investment, we must offer a process for identifying those “win-win” options thataddress current realities and assist with long-term adaptation to climate change. This process can be basedon three general steps: 1) understanding vulnerability-livelihood interactions; 2) establishing the legal, pol-icy and institutional framework through which adaptation measures can be implemented; and 3) develop-ing a national climate change adaptation strategy, including reform measures and investment options.

viii


The debate over climate change has now reached astage where all but the most extreme contrariansaccept that, whatever happens to future green-house gas emissions, we are now locked intoinevitable changes to climate patterns. Many,including the scientists working with theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,(IPCC), have concluded that these changes arealready underway. The emergence of this consen-sus has led to increasing attention being paid tothe issue of how to respond. In the early years ofthe new millennium the idea of adaptation hascaught the attention of scientists, environmentand development specialists, diplomats and nego-tiators, and, increasingly, many civil society organ-izations. The use of adaptation offers a chance tobring a fresh and more successful approach tosome of the key problems of the global environ-ment and the needs and problems faced by theworld’s poorest people. The opportunity must beseized and promoted if any significant part of thispromise is to be realized.

This paper describes and explains this newfoundenthusiasm for adaptation, specifically within thecontext of climate change, and gives clarity to keyconcepts in what is potentially an area where mis-understanding and confusion abound. In doing so,the paper challenges the very macro-perspective thatis implicit in many people’s thinking on these issues.For too long the whole climate change debate hasfocused at the global level, both in terms of globalclimate and in relation to the global economic andpolitical system. When considering adaptation,starting from this perspective misses the point.Adaptation is about—and must build from—theactions of people, especially the poorest people whoare the most vulnerable and most likely to activelyadapt. It is this perspective—the human experi-ence—that drives the analysis in this paper.

The paper itself reflects the discussions heldthrough a Task Force meeting organized inNovember 2001 by IUCN – The WorldConservation Union, the International Institute

for Sustainable Development (IISD) and theStockholm Environment Institute (SEI). The TaskForce was formed as a non-governmental responseto the emergence of adaptation as the leading issuein the global climate change debate. It seeks toinform and challenge conventional wisdom in thisfield, and in particular, to bring together the dif-ferent perspectives needed for successful adapta-tion. These perspectives come from four mainconstituencies—disaster reduction, climatechange action, biodiversity conservation andpoverty alleviation—each with their own under-standings of and responses to the climate changedilemma. Drawing from each of their experiencesand emerging priorities, the Task Force identifiedthe need for an integrated approach to climatechange adaptation based on the livelihoods of vul-nerable communities.

The Task Force specified the following objectives:

1. To make and demonstrate a compelling casefor an alternative approach to climate changeadaptation based on vulnerability reduction.

2. Specifically, to promote natural resource-based approaches for the reduction of vulner-abilities. These approaches should providemultiple benefits: they should generate imme-diate economic returns to poor people, sus-tain and diversify their livelihoods, conserveecosystems and, where possible, sequester car-bon.

3. To offer convincing demonstrations of howon-the-ground livelihood activities can linkwith policy processes to reduce existing andfuture climate-related vulnerabilities thatpoor people face in different parts of theworld.

4. To identify multi-stakeholder, participatoryprocesses that form the basis for the selection,implementation and appraisal of adaptationstrategies. It is assumed that national govern-ments, multilateral and bilateral development 1


Change

IWhat Can Adaptation

Really Achieve?

agencies and banks, the private sector, the sci-entific community, civil society and otherstakeholders will participate in the implemen-tation process.

5. To critique the prevalent policy approach foraddressing adaptation, especially the artificialdistinction between climate change and cli-mate variability, and the assumption thatadaptation needs to focus on global ratherthan local processes.

These objectives will be met through a three-yearwork program involving analysis, consultations,and policy and advocacy efforts. This paper servesas an introduction to the Task Force’s program,elucidating the conceptual underpinnings thatinform its activities. Broadly speaking, we situatethe IUCN/IISD/SEI initiative within the ongoingclimate change adaptation debates and identify theinstitutional niche we seek to fill.

Our starting point for this discussion is adapta-tion, an idea that in itself is not new. The concepthas a long pedigree in the natural sciences goingback at least to Charles Darwin’s The Origin ofSpecies. It has also been used extensively in thesocial sciences as a synonym for response to social,economic and technical as well as environmentalchange. There is therefore a considerable body ofestablished knowledge as well as ongoing researchinto adaptation, although it is not always identi-fied by that name. This knowledge can provide abasis for a new vision of development in whichadaptation is seen not as an unfortunate necessity

in the face of adversity but as a positive embracingof opportunity for beneficial change.

What is new today is the understanding that adap-tation can be used as a key and a lever to help openand drive a new effort with renewed motivation. Italso captures the idea that adaptation for develop-ment and poverty reduction is everybody’s busi-ness. There is a role for international developmentassistance in adaptation, but the fundamentaldrive must come from those who do the adapting.The appeal of adaptation is that it puts the respon-sibility in the hands of those who stand to gain themost, whether that be individuals, families, com-munities or nations. The role of developmentassistance and of global environmental agreementsmust be to facilitate adaptation, to help buildcapacity and to share in the removal of obstacles.Adaptation therefore requires partnerships; capac-ity building; the involvement of a wide range ofstakeholders; motivation at all levels; and, aboveall, political will.

Of course, adaptation itself is a term that has beengiven many different meanings. This is discussedin Section II. The focus of our approach is thatadaptation to climate change must start today,through actions to target and reduce the vulnera-bilities that poor people now face. The concept ofvulnerability itself is also variously used and inter-preted. It is similarly elaborated in the next sec-tion. Suffice it to say here that exposure to climate-related hazards such as the threat of floods,droughts, cyclones and mudslides, as well as theimpacts of variable and unpredictable rainfall,declining access to resources from aquatic ecosys-tems and others, contribute to vulnerability.Vulnerability in the face of climate hazards is wide-spread. The impacts of present day climate hazardsare already considerable, and they pose immediateand formidable challenges. These are likely tobecome even more prevalent as the climatechanges. This sets the context within which adap-tation to climate change must be considered: thewidely-shared and adopted view is that povertyeradication and vulnerability reduction are thepriority concerns. This requires the improvedmanagement and reduction of the risks to whichall people, including the poorest, are exposed.

The current growth of interest in adaptationbegan with the use of the term in the UNFCCCsigned in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. For most of the1990s, the negotiations under the Conventionfocused upon the need to reduce greenhouse gasemissions and the stabilization of greenhouse gasconcentrations in the atmosphere, leading to thesigning of the Kyoto Protocol, which still awaits2


Continuous contourtrenches with

plantation in the drymonth of February

after 2 years ofdrought, Darewadi,

India (2003). Photo:Heike Junger for

WOTR

final ratification before coming into force. Duringthese negotiations, it became increasingly clearthat some climate change cannot be avoided andthat the target of stabilization will be difficult toachieve in the short or medium term even if thetargets of the first commitment period of theKyoto Protocol were to be achieved in full and ontime. At the same time, IPCC reports have con-firmed that climate change is now being detected.The view of adaptation has now thereforechanged. It is no longer a secondary and long-termoption to be used only as a last resort. Adaptationis now everywhere an imperative, and in someplaces an urgent imperative.

From the beginning of the climate negotiations, ithas been accepted that adaptation has some role toplay in reducing vulnerability to climate change.Initially this was thought to be quite small andlimited, but as understanding of the implicationsof climate change has grown, the perceived role ofadaptation has correspondingly increased.Adaptation is not a substitute for mitigation (thestabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations),but it is now understood to include adaptation toclimate variability and extremes as well as long-term change in climate means. It is also recognizedthat, to be effective, adaptation to climate changeshould be integrated into national economic andsocial development, and that it should be harmo-nized at policy and practical levels with other envi-ronmental management activities especially in theareas of land and water management, health, theconservation of biodiversity and the protectionand development of the earth’s wetlands, forestsand drylands.

Such objectives are easy to state but difficult toachieve in practice. The applied research anddevelopment activity formulated in this documentby the IUCN/IISD/SEI Task Force is in directresponse to this need and proposes a “learn bydoing” approach in which policy analysis and theidentification and assessment of climate changeadaptation measures are associated with practicaland ongoing development activities. Thisapproach is shaped by the concepts and relation-ships presented in the subsequent discussion.Accordingly, Section II defines and elaboratessome of the key concepts in the debates, including“vulnerability,” “resilience” and “security.” SectionIII briefly outlines the emerging climate “regime,”that is the institutions, programs and agreementsnow in place and being developed especially atnational and international levels. It is shown thatagreements hammered out at the internationallevel and supported financially and technically

have often fallen short of expectations, and threat-en to continue to undermine the best intentions.Section IV takes up the question of livelihoodsand explains how it can be linked with adaptationto help create empowerment, capacity and moti-vation for development. Section V characterizessome of the main elements in the adaptationprocess and provides a provisional diagnosis of theissues and the obstacles that must be addressed.This is followed by a strategic framework for adap-tation in Section VI, which offers a three-stageprocess for developing adaptation strategies. Wethen end the discussion in Section VII with somefinal thoughts.

Adaptation is not proposed as a panacea for theworld’s ills. We are convinced that it does offer anew opening to revisit some long-standing prob-lems of environment and development in an inno-vative way. The consortium of organizationsinvolved in this initiative is committed to the vig-orous pursuit of this opportunity and invites oth-ers to engage in the effort.

3


Change

Vietnam MakongDelta Floods(November 2000).Photo: VietTank/InternationalRed Cross

In this section, we define the core concepts neededto understand how poor and vulnerable communi-ties are able to adapt to variable and changing cli-mate patterns. Indeed, even this first sentence con-tains several concepts that need to be explained veryclearly if we are to see more light and less heat in thisdebate. As stated earlier, clarity is needed in partbecause the issues we discuss here have traditionallybeen discussed by four distinct communities:

1. Disaster Risk Reduction: people and institu-tions involved in preparedness, mitigationand prevention activities associated withextreme events. These include hazard forecast-ing and immediate relief efforts for major dis-asters resulting from floods, cyclones and, insome cases, pollution events. This communi-ty is being enlarged to include specialists inthe longer-term strategy of disaster preventionby anticipatory actions such as improvedland-use planning, the establishment andenforcement of higher building codes, andmodes of cost sharing such as insurance.

2. Climate and Climate Change: initially thiswas constituted by the world’s meteorologicalcommunity and has now expanded to includea wide range of biological and geophysical sci-entists, social scientists, economists and oth-ers. This community now includes peopleconcerned with current weather variabilityand extremes as well as the projected changesin long-term climate.

3. Environmental Management: this commu-nity includes a wide-ranging set of people andinstitutions that deal with overall environ-mental issues and specific aspects of environ-mental management such as water resourcesand the conservation of forests. One charac-teristic of this set of stakeholders is that it isitself extremely disparate and fragmented.Foresters do not communicate sufficientlywith water managers, and even within a sectorsuch as water, many individuals and institu-tions (within and out of government) oftenhave little contact with each other. It is moreevidence of the well-known phenomena ofthe division of labour and the growth of spe-cialization, which is itself an adaptation to thecomplexity of the contemporary world.

4. Poverty Reduction: also engages a wide anddiverse spectrum of specialists. Recently thegreater focus on poverty in national anddonor policy agendas has led to specific initia-tives such as the Poverty Reduction StrategyPapers that are led primarily by economicagencies and that are instrumental in definingthe context in which many other aspects ofpolicies aimed at the needs and vulnerabilitiesof poor people are set.

All four of these communities are central to theissues being discussed here. Each community hasits own perspectives, its own processes and its ownusage of many of the key concepts involved in anydiscussion of adaptation by poor communities toclimate change. A common conceptual frame-work along the lines of what we propose isrequired to bring them together and, in particular,to help facilitate the key goal of ensuring thatadaptation is mainstreamed into their respectivesets of activities. The framework is one that reflectsthe need to build adaptation from the micro-,human level, rather than from the macro-, struc-turalist perspective that has dominated thinking inmuch of the climate, disaster and resource man-agement fields. This framework is premised on the4


IIThe Keystone Concepts

Continuous contourtrenches, Chincholi,

India (December1998). Photo courtesy

of WOTR

belief that addressing existing vulnerabilities is themost effective way to address the impacts that cli-mate change is likely to bring. The starting pointis a convergence in the common vocabulary forthe keystone concepts of adaptation, vulnerability,resilience, security, poverty and livelihoods.

Adaptation is the ability to respond and adjust toactual or potential impacts of changing climateconditions in ways that moderate harm or takesadvantage of any positive opportunities that theclimate may afford. It includes policies and meas-ures to reduce exposure to climate variability andextremes, and the strengthening of adaptive capac-ity. Adaptation can be anticipatory, where systemsadjust before the initial impacts take place, or itcan be reactive, where change is introduced inresponse to the onset of impacts.

Adaptation takes place at all levels, from changesto global systems through changes at national orregional levels to adaptations made by local com-munities and individuals. The development ofadaptation strategies needs to recognize this anddefine the appropriate mix of actions at these dif-ferent levels. It can be planned, where pre-medi-tated decisions that reflect an awareness of impactsare made, or it can be autonomous, where peopleor natural systems adjust to climate impacts with-out conscious planning decisions. Understandingthese autonomous responses is particularly impor-tant in defining the best approach to adaptation,as in many cases they will significantly change ourexpectations of what will happen in the future.They also represent major policy opportunitiesthat must not be neglected, as policies such asstimuli to markets or the dissemination of tech-nology opportunities can be more effective, lessexpensive and far less demanding on limited insti-tutional capabilities than approaches that solelyrely upon planned interventions.

Holling (2001) introduces the idea of the adaptivecycle, which links different time and spatial frame-works within which adaptation should take place.Holling identifies three core characteristics thatshape the cycle, and can therefore shape theresponses of ecosystems and people to crisis. Theseproperties are:

■ The inherent potential of a system that is avail-able for change. This defines the range of pos-sible options for the future and can be thoughtof as the inherent “wealth” of the system;

■ The internal controllability of the system,which reflects the degree of connectednessbetween internal controlling variables andprocesses, along with the degree of rigidity or

flexibility of these controls. According toHolling, this property determines the degreeto which a system can control its own destiny;and

■ The adaptive capacity: the resilience of thesystem to unpredictable shocks. Holling seesthis as the opposite of the vulnerability of thesystem.

Adaptation strategies should be based on thesethree general properties—wealth, controllabilityand adaptive capacity—as they relate to differentscales and contexts. They should include localactions taken by the poor themselves in responseto changing market or environmental conditions 5


Change

Box 1

Mangrove Rehabilitation in VietnamIn Vietnam, tropical cyclones have caused a considerable loss oflivelihood resources, particularly in coastal communities.Although managing coastal resources has great social and eco-nomic importance, the country has a limited ability to protectcoastal areas against weather hazards. In future decades, cli-mate change may increase the risk of tropical storms as well astheir frequency and severity. The relative uncertainty surround-ing anticipated climate change impact, however, makes it dif-ficult for decision-makers to justify increased costs for protec-tion. Under such circumstances, it is important to adopt pre-cautionary adaptation approaches that minimize future riskand reduce existing vulnerability.

Mangrove ecosystem rehabilitation along much of Vietnam’scoastline represents such an approach. Mangrove wetlandsprovide enhanced physical protection from storms and are areservoir for carbon sequestration; they also provide a resourcebase for local livelihoods and income generation. Since 1994,the Vietnam National Chapter of the Red Cross has workedwith local communities to plant and protect mangrove forestsin northern Vietnam. Nearly 12,000 hectares of mangroveshave been planted. The benefits have been staggering.Although planting and protecting the mangroves cost approx-imately US$1.1 million, it saved US$7.3 million per year in dikemaintenance. During the devastating typhoon Wukong in2000, project areas remained unharmed while neighbouringprovinces suffered huge losses in lives, property and liveli-hoods. The Vietnam Red Cross estimates that some 7,750 fam-ilies have benefited from mangrove rehabilitation. Familymembers can now earn additional income from selling crabs,shrimp and mollusks while increasing the protein in their diets.

Source: International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies 2001. WorldDisasters Report: Focus on Reducing Risk. Geneva: IFRC.

supported by larger-scale, planned responses bygovernment or other institutions that providedadaptation measures that are beyond the controlor capabilities of local communities.

The need for and scale of adaptation reflects thevulnerability of people and natural systems to dis-ruption from changes that reflect the impacts ofclimate conditions. Vulnerability is a term that isused in many different ways, usually describing acondition of susceptibility shaped by exposure,sensitivity and resilience (Kasperson et al. 1995).For poor people, vulnerability is both a conditionand a determinant of poverty, and refers to the(in)ability of people to avoid, cope with or recoverfrom the harmful impacts of factors that disrupttheir lives and that are beyond their immediatecontrol. This includes the impacts of shocks (sud-den changes such as natural hazards, war or col-lapsing market prices) and trends (for example,gradual environmental degradation, oppressivepolitical systems or deteriorating terms of trade).

In relation to climate change, vulnerability relatesto direct effects such as more storms, lower rainfallor sea level rises that lead to displacement, and toindirect effects such as lower productivity fromchanging ecosystems or disruption to economicsystems. With the poor being more directlydependent on ecosystem services and products fortheir livelihoods, the vulnerability of natural sys-tems has profound implications. Any considera-tion of the need for adaptation to help poor com-munities to adjust to the effects of climate changemust take account of all of these different forms ofvulnerability. Of course, exactly how climatechange impacts will affect different people in dif-ferent places is largely unknown—one of themany uncertainties that surround the climatechange debate. This is because of the uncertaintiesinherent in specifying these impacts and becausethe vulnerability of people will be affected bymany things beyond climate change.

This does not mean that nothing can be done untilcertainty replaces uncertainty, for by then it is gen-erally too late. Assessments of the likelihood of someimpacts can be made, with these useful in guidingdecisions on adaptation measures, but in manycases this will not be adequate. Rather than tryingto ameliorate specific impacts, the general principleshould be to reduce the overall vulnerability of poorpeople to the shocks and trends that are the conse-quence of variability in climate conditions.

Central to the understanding of vulnerability is theconcept of resilience. The resilience of poor peoplerepresents their ability to withstand the impact of

the trends and shocks described above, absorbingthem while maintaining function (Folke et al.,2002). Resilience varies greatly from household tohousehold even in one locality. It is determined bytwo characteristics of peoples’ livelihoods: the assetsthey possess and the services provided by externalinfrastructure and institutions. Both the assets andthe services are extremely broad in their scope.Assets include the amount and quality of knowl-edge and labour available to the household, thephysical and financial capital they possess, theirsocial relations and their access to natural resources.External services includes those provided by floodcontrol, coastal protection and other infrastructure,transport and communications, access to creditand financial systems, access to markets, emergencyrelief systems and others.

For many poor people in developing countries,access to these external services is extremely limit-ed, so that their resilience is in large part a reflec-tion of the local asset base. Strategies to strengthenthe resilience of communities, and especially poorcommunities, should be based on the most effec-tive combination of measures to secure andenhance the community’s asset base and measuresto provide improved external services. What is thebest balance in any one place needs to be deter-mined through effective assessments of local needsand capabilities.

Girot (2002) quotes Folke et al. (2002) to identi-fy three defining features of resilience in integratedhuman-ecological systems:

1. The amount of disturbance a system canabsorb and still remain within the state ofdomain of attraction;

2. The degree to which the system is capable ofself-organization versus the lack of organiza-tion, or organization forces by external fac-tors; and

3. The degree to which the system can build andincrease the capacity for learning and adapta-tion (page 12).

This reflects a further characteristic of discussionson resilience. It can be risk-specific: for example,the existence of cyclone shelters or the ability of afarming system to withstand drought. Strategies toenhance such specific resilience have been thefocus of much attention in adaptation, and tend totake place where the severity of the risk can clear-ly be identified and the investments in specificadaptations shown to be worthwhile. Resiliencecan also be general: the ability to withstand theimpacts of shocks and trends that disrupt lives and6


For poor people,vulnerability is

both a conditionand a determi-

nant of poverty,and refers to the

(in)ability of people to avoid,

cope with orrecover from theharmful impacts

of factors that disrupt their lives

and that arebeyond their

immediatecontrol.

The resilience ofpoor people

represents theirability to

withstand theimpact of the

trends and shocksdescribed above,absorbing them

while maintainingfunction.

livelihoods. Examples of this are the overall healthor economic status of households, the diversity oflivelihood sources, access to savings or credit or theexistence of strong social networks that are sup-portive whatever the problem. Targeting improve-ments to general resilience is likely to be mosteffective where either demonstrating investmentsin reducing the threat of specific but unpredictablerisks (such as possible changes to future climate inspecific places) is difficult or where householdsand communities face multiple vulnerabilities,including ones not connected with climate or nat-ural resources. In these cases, it may well be moreeffective to improve overall resilience rather thantrying to reduce specific vulnerabilities.

Taken together, the reduction of vulnerabilitiesand the improvement of resilience of poor peopleto withstand the impacts of climate change willimprove their security: that is, the extent to whichthey can live their lives and conduct their liveli-hoods free from threats. These threats have manyforms. They can be to the very lives of people, withthe incidence of more climate-related disasterslikely to increase in many parts of the world andparticularly an issue in tropical regions where mostof the world’s poor live. Changing climate condi-tions and rising sea levels are also likely to makemany places uninhabitable unless concerted andeffective adaptation measures are taken, whichcould displace many vulnerable people with dev-astating consequences for their livelihoods andsocial relations.

Climate change and associated ecological changesalso pose threats to the viability of many economicand social structures, even where people are notdisplaced or in serious physical risk. This is partic-ularly true where they will lead to decline in theavailability or quality of natural resources such aswater or land on which the livelihoods of manypoor people are based. This is the ultimate goal ofadaptation processes: to provide security to peoplewho face greater threats because of changes to theclimate conditions in which they live.

Adaptation, vulnerability, resilience and securityare core ideas familiar to many in the climate anddisaster communities, but often with differentmeanings. These concepts are further developed inthe rest of this paper. They are discussed below inrelation to the dynamics of the livelihoods of thepoor, with clear definitions given for both liveli-hoods and poverty. These two concepts, povertyand livelihoods, are not normally in the lexicon ofadaptation discussions but are essential if the realmeaning of people-based adaptation is to beunderstood.

Traditional approaches to poverty see it as simplyan economic condition (often expressed in rela-tion to “living on less than $1 or $2 a day for indi-viduals, or as per capita GNP for nations”). Theseviews have been replaced by approaches that seepoverty as something that is complex, variable,multi-dimensional and dynamic. The United

Nations Development Programme’s “HumanPoverty Index” sees poverty as a lack of basichuman capabilities, with the index consisting ofthe following indicators: life expectancy, access tosafe water and to health services, literacy and theproportion of children underweight aged five andunder. A similar vision is reflected in the UN’sMillennium Development Goals, which stresshealth, education, gender and environmental sus-tainability.

The World Bank’s approach since 2000 stressesthe multi-dimensional character of poverty, withboth the material and non-material aspects beingimportant. Key elements of poverty are given asthe inability to satisfy basic needs, lack of controlover resources, lack of education and skills, poorhealth, malnutrition, lack of shelter and access towater supply and sanitation, vulnerability toshocks, and a lack of political freedom and voice.The World Bank’s approach since 2000 stressesthe multi-dimensional character of poverty, withboth the Organisation for Economic Cooperationand Development and Development AssistanceCommittee arguing that “poverty, gender andenvironment are mutually reinforcing, comple-mentary and cross-cutting facets of sustainabledevelopment” (Poverty Guidelines 2001), so that 7


Change

Security: theextent to whichthey can live theirlives and conducttheir livelihoodsfree from threats.

Communitycontribution - plantation of continouscontour trenches,Kauthe Kamleshwar,India (October 1999).Photo courtesy ofWOTR

any poverty reduction strategy must focus on gen-der and environmental issues. Poverty itself isdefined as being rooted in the lack of economic,human, political, socio-cultural and protectivecapabilities. In a joint contribution to the WorldSummit on Sustainable Development preparatoryprocess the European Commission, theDepartment for International Development,UNDP and the World Bank also emphasize thematerial and non-material aspects of povertyincluding the lack of income and material means,poor access to services, poor physical security andthe lack of empowerment to engage in politicalprocesses and decisions that affect one’s life. Theyfocus on livelihoods, health and vulnerability asthree dimensions of poverty reduction.

The new thinking on poverty reflected in theapproach of these and many other internationalagencies and national governments has also placedpoverty reduction at the top of the policy agenda.In almost all cases, actions (including those such asadaptation to climate change) are expected toshow in direct and material ways how they con-tribute to poverty reduction. This is as it shouldbe, for the poor are the hardest hit and the leastable to cope with processes such as climate changeand other forms of environmental jeopardy (just asthey are most vulnerable to negative impacts fromchanging economic and political systems). For thepurposes of this paper, these approaches to pover-ty are consequently important in both the central-ity of concepts such as vulnerability and in theexpectation that any approach to adaptationshould demonstrate how it is able to target theneeds and potentials of poor people as a first pri-ority.

Livelihoods is an idea that has been gainingincreasing currency in recent years and is now seenas fundamental to poverty reduction approachesaround the world. The emergence of livelihoodsapproaches has led to new understandings on howpoverty, and the ability to move out of poverty,reflects the (lack of) capabilities and assets avail-able to the poor. This includes material assets suchas access to land, other natural resources, financialcapital and credit, tools and inputs into productiveactivities and others. It also reflects human capabil-ities (the knowledge and skills of the family), socialand political factors such as contact networks andthe openness of government institutions and, criti-cally for our purposes, the capability to withstandthe effects of shocks such as natural disasters. Formost households, and especially for poor people,these assets are deployed in a series of livelihoodactivities: the means through which a household

gains an income and meets its basic needs. Thisincludes paid employment, but for poor people inparticular it includes the ability to farm and toexploit common property resources for livestock,fishing, gathering fuelwood and many otherthings. Reliable and secure access to theseresources, to land, water and biotic resources, isfundamental to the livelihoods of the poor.Climate-induced changes to resource flows(whether temporary, reflecting variability or struc-tural, reflecting change) can fundamentally affectthe viability of the livelihoods of the poor. Indeed,in many ways this is what climate change impactsare all about: changes to resource flows critical forlivelihood sustainability.

All of these six concepts—adaptation, vulnerabili-ty, resilience, security, poverty and livelihoods—are open to many interpretations. It is hoped thatthe explanations given here will provide a basis forthe identification of the most effective processesthrough which actions to assist the poor and vul-nerable to adapt to climate change can be devel-oped.

8


Approaches topoverty are

consequentlyimportant in both

the centrality ofconcepts such asvulnerability and

in the expectationthat any

approach toadaptation shoulddemonstrate howit is able to target

the needs andpotentials of poor

people as a firstpriority.

Indeed, in manyways this is what

climate changeimpacts are all

about: changes toresource flows

critical for livelihood

sustainability.

Mozambique floods (March 2001). Photo: ChristopherBlack/International Red Cross

Under the UNFCCC, a new regime for the pro-motion of adaptation has slowly been emerging. Itis important to situate the IUCN/IISD/SEI initia-tive in this context since its concerns are central tothe issue of adaptation and development. Gettinga clearer picture of these trends is a considerabletask that will be undertaken in the future, andalthough the final form of this model is far fromset, weaknesses exist.

This paper does not attempt a full analysis of thepraxis of development, but focuses upon two majorshortcomings. These are the wide gulf betweenhigh-level and top-down development work andneeds and actions at the local and community level,and the lack of integration across socio-economicsectors, and especially the delay in addressing theongoing activities in poverty and vulnerabilityreduction in the context of climate change.

The current wave of climate change adaptationactivities started at the first meeting of theConference of the Parties to the FrameworkConvention (COP-1, Berlin, 1995), where a deci-sion was taken (Decision 11/CP.1) to approachadaptation in three stages. These stages weredefined as follows:

Stage I – Planning, which includes studies of pos-sible impacts of climate change, to identify partic-ularly vulnerable countries or regions and policyoptions for adaptation and appropriate capacitybuilding.

Stage II – Measures, including further capacitybuilding, which may be taken to prepare for adap-tation.

Stage III – Measures to facilitate adequate adapta-tion, including insurance and other adaptationmeasures.

Under these provisions, the Global EnvironmentFacility (GEF), which is the financial mechanismfor the Convention, has met the agreed full costsfor the preparation of First NationalCommunications under the Convention. In addi-

tion a number of impacts, vulnerability and adap-tation studies have been carried out includingstudies supported by the World Bank inBangladesh, the Caribbean and the Pacific Islands.Studies of impacts have also been carried out inmany countries as part of the United NationsEnvironment Programme’s country studies, and inthe country study programs sponsored by theNetherlands and the United States. In addition,many independent research institutions andNGOs have begun their own programs on vul-nerability and adaptation. Bilateral developmentassistance agencies are also becoming interested inadaptation.

Most of the early work has focused heavily on thepotential impacts of future climates are describedin climate scenarios derived from GeneralCirculation models (GCMs). A new generation ofresearch is now in the formative stage which pro-vides for much greater attention to adaptation,and which addresses adaptation and vulnerabilityto current climate change and variability andextremes as well as longer-term climate change.The proposed new round of studies will also befocused on the role of adaptation in development.Although this change in perspective is now gener-ally accepted as an appropriate step forward, themethods to be employed and the scope of the 9


Change

IIIThe Current Regime

Check dam,Chincholi, India(February 1999).Photo courtesy ofWOTR.

studies have not yet been established. The UNDPhas developed an Adaptation Policy Framework,which is now being elaborated and tested inCentral America, Mexico and Cuba. TheConference of the Parties has adopted guidelinesfor the conduct of National Adaptation Plans ofAction (NAPAs) for the Least DevelopedCountries, and the World Bank has taken the ini-tiative in establishing an inter-agency cooperationgroup know as the Vulnerability and AdaptationResource Group. (VARG). The World Bank is alsoproposing to develop a methodology for rapidassessments, and to launch its own NationalAdaptation Strategy Studies (NASS).

All of these initiatives are attempting to definetheir own approaches and methodology. In devel-oping these frameworks, there is a recognized dan-ger that a classic top-down approach will emergein which adaptation measures are equated withlarge-scale infrastructure-based interventions asso-ciated with physical protection. There will withoutdoubt be many circumstances where large invest-ments in infrastructure are an essential part of theadaptation process, but more focus is needed onnon-structural alternatives. In particular, “bottom-up” approaches that are rooted in existing com-munity-based patterns of resource managementand that aim at sustaining and enhancing thelivelihoods of vulnerable people have not been suf-ficiently recognized. We believe that these “grass-roots” initiatives should be the point of departurefor the identification and assessment of adaptationstrategies, as they are cheaper, more sustainableand, in many cases, more effective in achieving the

10


Box 2

Community-based Rangeland Rehabilitation forCarbon Sequestration in Sudan

Beginning in 1992 and continuing through 2000, a group of17 villages in the drought-prone Bara Province in WesternSudan took part in a project, funded by the UNDP GlobalEnvironmental Facility (GEF), to rehabilitate overexploited andhighly-vulnerable rangelands through the use of community-based natural resource management (NRM) techniques. Cyclicdroughts had severely degraded grazing areas, reducing theirability to regenerate and provide sufficient fodder for livestock,while cultivation under these arid conditions left the land bareand therefore exposed to wind erosion. The cumulativeimpacts of drought, grassland conversion to cropland and fuelwood gathering (deforestation), severely degraded the localresource base, undermined livelihoods and left communitiesmore vulnerable to the adverse effects of future droughts.

The project had two overall objectives: 1) to create a locally-sustainable NRM system that would both prevent overex-ploitation of marginal lands and rehabilitate rangelands for thepurpose of carbon sequestration, preservation of biodiversityand reduction of atmospheric dust; and 2) to reduce the risk ofproduction failure by increasing the number of alternatives forsustainable production strategies, leading to greater stabilityfor the local population.

Developed through the support of local NGOs and strongcommunity buy-in, the project involved a package of mutually-supportive sustainable livelihood activities to be undertaken byparticipating villages. These included:

• Institution building: mobilizing community groups forplanning and implementation of project activities.

(continued on page 11)

Village watershed committee meeting,

Darewadi, India(February 2003).

Photo: Heike Jungerfor WOTR

core goal of assisting poor communities to adaptto the impacts of climate change. In addition topromoting “vertical” cooperation by linking thesegrassroots initiatives with national and regionalactivities, there is a need for “horizontal” integra-tion, strengthening coordination across socio-eco-nomic sectors and mainstreaming adaptationneeds into existing policies and practices.

These deficiencies have been identified manytimes, and attempts to resolve them are beingadvanced slowly. It is the mission of the programbeing launched by IUCN, IISD and SEI to accel-erate progress by linking climate change adapta-tion to the closely-related issues of natural resourcemanagement, disaster prevention, and people’sdecisions and choices at the local level, especiallythose that affect the livelihoods of the poor and themost vulnerable. Specifically, we are seeking topromote an approach in which adaptation to cli-mate change is rooted in ecosystem managementand restoration activities that reduce risks andstrengthen resilience of these vulnerable commu-nities. It is recognized that adaptation alone is notsufficient and that ultimately, the stabilization ofgreenhouse gas concentrations is essential.

IUCN, IISD and SEI’s mission is particularly rel-evant in light of recent funding opportunities. Inresponse to the evolving nature of the climate issueand the way in which it is perceived, theConference of the Parties has moved to establishtwo new funds that can provide support for adap-tation. The first is the Special Climate Fund, amulti-purpose fund open for voluntary contribu-tions from donors. This fund is not expected tohave significant monies before 2005. Second is theLeast Developed Countries Fund which is cur-rently resourced by voluntary contributions andwhich is supporting the preparation of NAPAs asits first activity. A third fund is also in prospect,but this is a fund dependant upon the ratificationof the Kyoto Protocol. It will be created under theClean Development Mechanism (CDM) of theProtocol and involves a levy on activities under-taken under the CDM. The IUCN/IISD/SEI ini-tiative can help in the development and formula-tion of activities under these three funds by testingout and demonstrating a new integrative approach.

11


Change

Box 2 (continued)• Training: in areas such as community development (e.g.,

soap production and handicrafts), natural resource man-agement (e.g., range management and fodder produc-tion), credit systems, drought mitigation, etc.

• Rangeland Rehabilitation: through activities such as sanddune revegetation, windbreak installation, etc.

• Community Development: through small irrigated veg-etable gardens, water well construction, etc.

Some project activities were not directly related to the purposeof carbon sequestration but instead focused on addressingsocio-economic conditions. The long-term improvement inNRM and land rehabilitation could only be accomplished bymeeting the near-term survival and production needs of vil-lagers.

The results exceeded original expectations. For example, over700 hectares of rangeland was improved and properly man-aged through the project, far exceeding the original goal of100. Notably, the additional land area was improved on thebasis of added community-buy-in and positive leakage,through which additional communities undertook projectactivities after witnessing the benefits. Community develop-ment activities diversified the local production system, therebyeasing pressures on marginal lands. Community mobilizationand training equipped local people with the capacity to copewith drought.

With improved land management and a more secure environ-mental and social asset base, communities were able toincrease their resilience to climate-related shocks, such asdrought. Such resilience-building activities should form thebasis of climate change adaptation strategies, as these com-munities are responding to climate impacts similar to thoseexpected from climate change.

Specifically, we are seeking to promote anapproach in which adaptation to climatechange is rooted in ecosystem managementand restoration activities that reduce risks andstrengthen resilience of these vulnerable communities.

Source: Dougherty, B., A. Abusuwar and K.A. Razik. 2001. Sudan: Community-basedrangeland rehabilitation for carbon sequestration and biodiversity. Report of the TerminalEvaluation, SUD/93/G31. UNDP GEF.

The key goals of adaptation strategies are to reducevulnerability to climate-induced change and tosustain and enhance the livelihoods of poor people.These strategies consequently need to be rooted inan understanding of how the poor and vulnerablesustain their livelihoods, the role of naturalresources in livelihood activities and the scope foradaptation actions that reduce vulnerabilities andincrease the resilience of poor people. This is notas straightforward as it sounds, for the effects ofclimate change are just one of the many factorsthat influence people’s livelihoods. This sectiondevelops these ideas further, relating the dynamicsof livelihoods to the vulnerabilities that climatechange is likely to bring.

What do we mean by livelihoods? This is anincreasingly widely-used concept that, as with theconcepts discussed in section 2, can be open to dif-ferent interpretations. One of the most widely-accepted definitions of livelihoods is:

“A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets(including both material and social resources)and activities required for a means of living. Alivelihood is sustainable when it can cope withand recover from stresses and shocks and maintainor enhance its capabilities and assets both nowand in the future, while not undermining thenatural resource base” (Carney 1998, page 4).

Central to both this definition and determiningthe resilience of households to vulnerabilities is theidea of livelihood assets. These are the means ofproduction available to a given individual, house-hold or group that can be used in their livelihoodactivities. These assets are the basis on which liveli-hoods are built and, in general, the greater andmore varied the asset base the higher and moredurable the level of sustainability and security oftheir livelihoods. There are generally five forms oflivelihood assets identified in most approaches:

1. Natural capital: The natural resource stockfrom which resource flows useful to liveli-hoods are derived. The actual resources avail-able to an individual household reflects thecharacteristics of the local resource base andthe extent to which the household is able togain access to these resources, which in turnreflects issues of ownership and entitlementsas well as the availability of technologies thatmake it possible to use the resource potentials.

2. Social-political capital: The set of social rela-tionships upon which people draw in pursuitof their livelihood. This includes the range ofcontact networks, membership of groups andorganizations, relationships of trust and accessto wider institutions of society that are impor-tant in the actual operation of livelihood activ-ities and that can be determining in terms ofaccess to markets, credit, government servicesand many other factors of production.

3. Human capital: The skills, knowledge, abilityto labour and good health important to theability to pursue livelihood activities. For indi-vidual households, this includes both thequantity (number of productive individuals)and the quality (what these individuals knowand how hard they are able to work) ofhuman resources. It includes knowledge andskills learned from formal education andthrough experience and non-formal learning.

12


IVVulnerability, Livelihoods

and Climate

A stranded ship on thecoast of Mauritania.

Photo: OlivierHamerlynck/IUCN –

The WorldConservation Union

4. Physical capital: The basic infrastructure fortransport, buildings, water management,energy, and communications and productivecapital (tools, machines, etc.) which enablespeople to pursue the livelihoods. It includesboth those that people own and those thatthey have access to (roads, irrigation systems,telephone networks, etc.) whether providedby government or the private sector (andwhether free or paid for).

5. Financial capital: The financial resourceswhich are available to people (whether sav-ings, supplies of credit, regular remittancesand pensions, social security payments orinsurance) and which provide them with dif-ferent livelihood options. This includesfinances (including credit) for investments innew productive assets, for inputs into produc-tion and (importantly for our purposes) forresponding to the effects of different vulnera-bilities, including recovering and reconstruct-ing livelihoods after disasters.

Taken together, these livelihood assets determinemuch about how livelihoods work, and in partic-ular are the basis for understanding how peoplewill respond to climate-induced vulnerabilities.This in turn means they are (or at least should be)the basis for the development of adaptation strate-gies. All of these assets are important, but for thepoorest and most vulnerable of the world (espe-cially the rural poor), natural resources are of par-ticular significance. This poverty-environmentlink has been recognized for some time: “predom-inantly the poor of the world depend directly onnatural resources, through cultivation, herding,collecting or hunting for their livelihoods.Therefore, for the livelihoods to be sustainable, thenatural resources must be sustained” (Rennie andSingh, 1996, page 16).

This recognition is now reflected in internationalprocesses such as the joint submission to the WorldSummit on Sustainable Development prepared bythe World Bank, European Union, UNDP andDFID: “poor people tend to be most dependentupon the environment and the direct use of natu-ral resources, and therefore most severely affectedwhen the environment is degraded or their accessto natural resources is otherwise limited or denied”(page 3). It is even reflected in a number of PovertyReduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs):

The poor in Tanzania are heavily dependenton the environment (Tanzania PRSP).

Climate conditions… degradation of soil andwater resources are major constraints on eco-

nomic growth and contribute massively topoverty and severe food insecurity (BurkinaFaso PRSP).

There is a strong correlation between soundnatural resource management and povertyreduction (Cambodia PRSP).

Environmental protection is of significant rele-vance to poverty reduction… the poor are dis-proportionately exposed to the impact of deteri- 13


Change

Box 3

Agroecological Roots of Resilience in Honduras,Nicaragua and Guatemala

The human and ecological devastation wrought by HurricaneMitch in October 1998 served as a stark reminder of CentralAmerica’s vulnerability to climate-related disasters. Bringingwinds of over 180 km per hour and 127 cm of rain in only aweek, the storm caused massive floods and landslides. Over18,000 people were killed (taking into account the missing),and thousands of homes, bridges, roads, water systems, cropsand animals were destroyed. Mitch impacted an estimated 6.4million people in Central America, and while all sectors of thepopulation were affected, the poorest groups suffered thegreatest losses. Mitch brought worldwide attention to the dis-proportionate vulnerability of these groups, highlighting thecomplex forces that shape their exposure, sensitivity and capac-ity to cope with sudden shocks and trends. Among thesegroups, the most vulnerable were those living and farming onhillsides and near riverbanks, people whose livelihoods werebased on the vital relationship between social and environ-mental sustainability.

Owing to unequal land tenure policies and skewed resourcedistribution, many of Central America’s farmers own small plotsof land on ecologically-fragile, disaster-prone lands. With littleaccess to credit, land titles and technical assistance to diversifyand enhance their livelihoods, these farmers have little incen-tive to invest in sustainable farming practices. Clear-cutting offorestlands for timber, ranching and farming, and widespreadburning have led to massive losses of protective vegetativecover, leaving hillsides barren and unable to absorb or retainwater. During Hurricane Mitch, heavy rainfall led to massiverunoffs on these degraded hillsides, which carried away tons oftopsoil, rocks and vegetation. Debris-choked rivers overflowed


Livelihood assets are the means of productionavailable to a given individual, household orgroup that can be used in their livelihood activi-ties and, in general, the greater and more variedthe asset base the higher and more durable thelevel of sustainability and security of their liveli-hoods.

orating environmental conditions (ArmeniaPRSP).

These quotes reflect the situation today in manyparts of the world, with 3/4 of the poor in devel-oping countries living in rural areas and derivingmuch of their income from natural resources(Bojö and Reddy, 2002). With environmentalresources playing such a crucial role for a large pro-portion of the world’s population, threats toecosystem functioning and integrity underminelivelihood security. All the evidence suggests thatenvironmental vulnerabilities are going to signifi-cantly increase in the future, in part due to climatechange but also because of other forms of resourceand livelihoods pressures, unless effective and sub-

stantial measures are taken to ameliorate themthrough adaptation and other strategies.

How do livelihoods relate to climate change-induced vulnerabilities? The range of vulnerabili-ties that poor people face in different parts of theworld encompasses all aspects of life, with mostnot directly related to climate change (thoughmany are affected in some way by it). There aremany ways to approach the relationship betweenclimate change and vulnerability, but the 2001IPCC Working Group II report on Impacts,Adaptation and Vulnerability gives insights thatare as good a starting point as any. Here we relatethe likely changes to vulnerabilities identified inthe report to the dynamics of the livelihoods ofpoor people in different major types of agroeco-logical zones of the developing world. In doing so,we strongly agree with the Working Group IIstatement that:

Populations are highly variable in their endow-ments [of different capitals] and the developingcountries, particularly the least developed coun-tries… have lesser capacity to adapt and aremore vulnerable to climate change damages,just as they are more vulnerable to other stresses.This condition is most extreme among thepoorest people (IPCC 2001, page 8).

Sea level rises will displace millions of the poor,with the areas least likely to be protected thosewhere people are poorest. Small island states andlow coastal areas and deltas such as southernBangladesh are most at risk. In many cases, thosedisplaced will have few opportunities to re-estab-lish their lives except in urban areas, where liveli-hood opportunities are limited without the skills,capital and contacts needed to cope with urbanlife. Even where people are not physically dis-placed, rising seas will reduce the natural capital inecosystems such as coastal fisheries, mangrovesand wetlands that are essential to the current liveli-hood patterns of many poor communities, whilethe dangers of salination of water supplies willaffect these and other coastal communities.

Changes to temperature and rainfall patterns (bothto averages and to the variability of rainfall) arewidely predicted, with many semi-arid parts of thedeveloping world likely becoming even hotter anddryer with even less predictable rainfall. Thesechanges will both directly affect crop yields and willproduce changes to ecosystem distributions andspecies ranges. This will dramatically affect thelivelihoods of many poor people, particularlythrough declining food security and problems withthe viability of many livelihood activities, including14


Box 3 (continued)their banks, causing extensive damage to human and naturalsystems that lie in their paths.

In the aftermath of Mitch, it seemed that farms using agroeco-logical practices withstood the storm’s impacts better thanthose using conventional farming methods. Using a participa-tory action research method, the international NGO WorldNeighbours sponsored a project to compare the impact ofMitch on these two types of farm plots. Based on data collect-ed from Honduras, Nicaragua and Guatemala, they found thatoverall, farms using agroecological practices such as soil andwater conservation, cover cropping, organic fertilizer use, inte-grated pest management and reduced or zero grazing, weremore resilient to erosion and runoff, and retained more topsoiland moisture. The damage from gullies and landslides wasequally severe on both types of plots, although many gulliesand landslides originated uphill or upstream from the researchsites on poorly managed, degraded or deforested slopes. Thisresult reinforced the importance of conserving entire hillsideand watershed ecosystems rather than individual plots ofland—a holistic approach to resource management that is fun-damental to agroecology.

Moreover, agroecology emphasizes the role of sustainable agri-cultural production in reducing poverty and enhancing liveli-hoods. Rather than focusing on marginal short-term economicgains from conventional farming methods, longer-term strate-gies are emphasized in order to maintain the natural resourcebase and ensure the economic viability of peoples’ livelihoods.With a more sustainable and secure asset base, communitiesare better equipped to deal with sudden shocks and disruptivetrends, including climate-related disasters like Hurricane Mitch.As the incidence and severity of these disasters increase as aresult of climate change, resilience-building activities, such asthose associated with agroecology, will become more impor-tant in helping vulnerable communities successfully adapt totheir changing environments.

Source: World Neighbours, 2000. Reasons for Resiliency: Toward a Sustainable Recoveryafter Hurricane Mitch. Tegucigalpa, Honduras: World Neighbours.

livestock raising, fishing and the use of forest prod-ucts as well as agricultural production. Secondaryimpacts will likely include increases in urban foodprices and greater problems with services such aswater supply and sanitation (exacerbating pressuresthat rapid urbanization will bring) that affect theurban poor.

The changing climate patterns, and especially theincreased frequency and/or severity of extremeevents, will increase vulnerability to natural disas-ters, both slower-onset ones such as droughts andrapid-onset disasters such as floods and cyclones.These will affect many areas, but semi-arid areas(droughts) and coastal and deltaic regions (floodsand storms) are particularly vulnerable. Dangers oferosion, landslides and flash floods will alsoincrease, particularly in many hilly and mountain-ous areas.

Changing climate patterns and more extremeevents will have impacts on new livelihood activi-ties such as from tourism, that will limit diversifi-cation of opportunities which, combined withdamage to infrastructure and other types of phys-ical capital, will affect the wider range of vulnera-bilities (such as limited access to markets) the poorface. The poor social and political capital, alongwith extremely limited access to financial capital,mean that these communities are least likely to beprotected by investments in infrastructure or dis-aster mitigation and relief systems.

Predicted adverse health risks will affect the poor inparticular throughout the developing world.These risks are in particular those associated withwater-borne (such as dysentery or cholera) vector-borne (such as malaria) diseases as well as heatstress morbidity and mortality. These healthimpacts pose a double jeopardy for poor people’slivelihoods: the contribution of key productivemembers of the household is lost and the cost ofhealth care is expensive and time consuming. Suchrisks will be widespread, but the dearth of medicalcare systems in many more remote, poorer areas ofAfrica and Asia in particular mean that the poor inthese areas are the most vulnerable to these risks.The deterioration of the availability or quality ofwater supplies in many areas (again due to widerresource stresses that climate change will exacer-bate) will significantly increase many of thesehealth risks, while poorer nutritional states causedby declining food security will make many poorpeople more vulnerable to the effects of diseaseswhen they do strike.

The increased danger of damage to crops, livestockand gathered plants and animals from pests will be

similar in distribution and impact to those ofincreased health risks, but will be exacerbated bythe risks of physical damage caused by floods,droughts and storms. Although the developmentof more pest-resistant or drought-tolerant cropstrains may limit these risks, many poor rural com-munities are far less able to gain access to such newvarieties (which in any case make them moredependent upon external inputs that can be unre-liable in their availability), placing them at an evengreater disadvantage in agricultural markets.

Finally, the IPCC report stresses the likely impactof climate change on financial and insurance sys-tems. These will indeed be dramatic on a globalscale, but very few poor people are able to gainaccess to these systems so that the direct effectsupon them may be limited. This does not meanthat they will be unaffected, however, as the strainsthese systems will experience, along with thedeclining value of many of their assets, mean thatpoor people are even less likely to be able to gainaccess to the capital and credit systems that they sovitally need. Innovative financial solutions areessential in any program to assist the world’s poorto adapt to the impacts of climate change.

15


Change

Health impactspose a double jeopardy for poorpeople’s livelihoods: thecontribution ofkey productivemembers of thehousehold is lostand the cost ofhealth care isexpensive and time consuming.

Top: China Floods(August 1999). Photo:Jane Martin/International Red Cross

Bottom: Cows grazingin the floodplain of theInner Delta of theNiger in Mali. Photo:Ger Bergkamp/IUCN –The WorldConservation Union

The discussion so far has shown that peoples’livelihoods are dynamic, complex and variable incharacter, with the poor in particular respondingwith the means they have available to the vulnera-bilities they face. The development of adaptationstrategies to reduce the impacts of climate changeon these people should reflect these dynamics ofpeoples’ livelihoods, working in particular toreduce the vulnerabilities they face and tostrengthen their resilience. This can only beachieved where adaptation is seen as a process thatis itself adaptive and flexible to address the locally-specific and changing circumstances that are thereality of the lives of the poor.

What does this mean? The first point is that adap-tation is not something that is “done” to or forpeople; it is something that they do for themselvesand that may (or may not) be supported by exter-nal agencies. This is the heart of the logic present-ed here. Whether or not this is “autonomous” or“planned” adaptation is hard to say, as it is not cen-trally orchestrated, but individuals and communi-ties often take very conscious and planned steps toadapt the patterns of their lives and livelihoods toreflect immediate or anticipated changes to cli-mate conditions (including increases to variabilityand extreme events that can add significantly tovulnerability).

The extent and significance of this varies accord-ing to how vulnerable people are and how signifi-

cant climate, and natural resources affected by cli-mate, is to their livelihoods. As such, while theIPCC (2001) statement that “those with the leastresources have the least capacity to adapt and arethe most vulnerable” (page 8) may be true, itshould also be recognized that those with the leastare the most likely and the most motivated to takeconscious adaptation actions precisely becausethey are the most vulnerable. Moreover, theactions that they take will be constrained by theirlimited assets and capabilities, but they will also bethe most appropriate given the specific local man-ifestations of climate change impacts and poten-tials to respond to them. The point of departurefor any adaptation process must consequently bewhat is already happening (or is likely to happen)among the people who are the target of theprocess: the poor and the vulnerable.

Their actions can and should be supported byexternal agencies, aiming to either increase theirresilience or reduce the vulnerabilities that theyface. This may include major projects, like large-scale infrastructure such as dams or coastal defenses,which are largely financed by others and in whichpoor people are among many stakeholders. It mayalso include changes to the framework of laws andpolicies that govern different aspects of naturalresource management, investment incentives,access to technologies, services or markets, disastermanagement and relief and many (perhaps all)spheres of government. It may include changes toinstitutions and to governance conditions thataffect the lives of the poor and dictate the channelsthrough which they interact with external agen-cies. It almost certainly will include actions tobuild up the asset base of the poor, to sustain exist-ing—and open up new—livelihood opportunitiesand to help forge stronger and more cohesivecommunity-level institutions that are the basis forfuture adaptation measures.

Adaptation should also not be seen in isolation.One of the keys to catalyzing adaptation will be tomainstream it into wider development and other16


VAdaptation as a Process:

Issues and Challenges

Vietnam Mekong Deltafloods (November

2000). Photo: VietTanh/International

Red Cross

processes, rather than separating it into specialmeasures funded separately and executed by sepa-rate agencies. The key to adaptation is to ask whatis being adapted (and why, of course), then to seehow much and in what direction changes to exist-ing development trajectories need to move. Thisneeds a careful analysis of patterns of developmentand natural resource management, with particularfocus on how sensitive these are to existing andpotential future changes to the climate. For largercountries in particular, this needs to be spatiallydisaggregated so that it can be linked effectively toecological variety. It also needs to be targeted forequity: that is, linked to the distinctive needs andpotentials of poor communities. Understandingwhat these are should reflect the livelihoodsapproach set out above, with in particular a focuson sustaining and improving the asset base of poorpeople and strengthening their resilience to exter-nal vulnerabilities.

In developing this approach to adaptation, particu-lar attention needs to be paid to the disconnections:the gaps between local and national processes,between formal and informal patterns of econom-ic activity and management of resources. Thesegaps are characteristic of much of life in manyparts of the world, and are found particularly inmany poor communities where wider institution-al weaknesses are found. It necessitates a strongfocus on institutional capacity development inadaptation process with, in particular, activities toensure the effective participation and empower-ment of poor communities in key decisions in

17


Change

Box 4

Watershed Restoration and Development inMaharashtra State, India

In the semi-arid region of Maharashtra State, India, theWatershed Organization Trust (WOTR) is assisting poor, ruralcommunities to increase their livelihood security by supportingwatershed restoration projects. With rain-dependent livelihoodsystems, these communities survive on limited water suppliesto feed their crop and livestock production and cottage indus-tries. The combination of recurring droughts and human pres-sures on the surrounding land has degraded watersheds.Barren and eroded lands are unable to absorb and retain water,thereby accelerating surface runoff and soil erosion and inhibit-ing ground water recharge. The resulting decrease in soil fertil-ity and water availability has created extremely water-stressedcommunities vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.WOTR’s work seeks to assist these communities alleviate theirpoverty and regenerate the watershed environments uponwhich they depend.

Conducted on a micro-catchment basis, WOTR’s work is com-munity-driven and characterized by participatory planning,implementation, and management and a self-assessment processfor monitoring and evaluation. Upon approaching WOTR with aproposal for action, communities agree to undertake a series ofrigorous watershed restoration measures designed to regenerateand conserve micro-catchments. These include:

1. Soil, land and water management, e.g., trench building tocontrol erosion, improve soil fertility and enhance ground-water recharge;

2. Crop management;

3. Afforestation; rural energy management, e.g., ban on tree-felling; planting shrubs and grasses to meet household fuelneeds; and


Continuous contour trenches,Chincholi, India (December1998). Photo courtesy ofWOTR

these processes. Three particular challenges exist indeveloping institutions to support adaptationprocesses:

1. Changes to laws and policies must enableplace-specific actions, something that theirgeneric character makes particularly challeng-ing. These changes must both direct theactions of government institutions and createpackages of incentives and regulations thatcatalyze actions within society as a whole.

2. How can successful local-level actions, oftendeveloped under controlled conditions andwith intensive external inputs, be scaled up toa level where they can make an impact atnational and global levels?

3. How can we ensure that they are effectivelytargeted at the needs and interests of the poor,and in particular that the emerging institu-tions represent marginalized peoples andenhance equity in the development of adapta-tion processes? The history of the impact ofmany major infrastructure projects on thepoor gives salutary lessons here.

This institutional focus should not be at theexpense of effective action where needed, however.There is always a fear that nebulous and long-termprocesses such as “institutional development” candelay action or be an excuse for inaction. Thismust not be the case, so the approach to adapta-tion advocated here is based on the idea of lookingfor “win-win” solutions: actions that serve imme-diate needs and bring immediate benefits and thatalso contribute to the longer-term process ofcapacity-building and structural change. This maysound optimistic, even unrealistic, but if adapta-tion processes are rooted in the reduction of exist-ing vulnerabilities and increasing the resilience ofpoor people to these vulnerabilities, then this willbring immediate rewards and will also strengthentheir capability to deal with future, even greaterthreats from climate change.

There are many such win-win approaches, withdifferent ones appropriate for different places. Theconservation of mangrove belts, coral reefs, wet-lands and forests through community-based sus-tainable management are examples of whereimmediate benefits and long-term capacity devel-opment go hand in hand, as are sustainableimprovements to water management and avail-ability, improvements to infrastructure such asroads, and even improvements to environmentalhealth conditions that will mitigate potential cli-mate change impacts. There is a need to documentmodels of good practice of such approaches,including barriers to action and conditions fortheir success, and the processes through whichthese lessons can be disseminated on a scale suffi-ciently large to make an impact. Doing so is oneof the objectives of the IUCN/IISD/SEI project,and it is hoped that the approach set out here willcatalyze wider thinking on this relationshipbetween contemporary development, based onsustaining and enhancing the livelihoods of thepoor, and the process of adaptation to climatechange.

18


Box 4 (continued)4. Livestock management; pasture/fodder development, e.g.,

grazing restrictions leading to the natural regeneration ofgrasses and shrubs.

To simultaneously lessen human pressures on the micro-catch-ment, a set of community development measures are under-taken to enhance, diversify and secure livelihoods. Such meas-ures include:

5. Community organization through the formation of“Village Self-Help Groups,” which work with WOTR tobuild “social capital” and guide the restoration process;

6. Micro-lending, supporting cottage industries for supple-mental income; and

7. Human resource development, e.g., training on projectmanagement, new fruit crop or animal husbandry tech-niques.

These measures represent a blending of “new” or “external”techniques with traditional knowledge in order to ensure botheffective and local ownership.

The results of this approach have been laudable. Reduced bar-ren soil cover, improved soil moisture regimes, increased wellwater levels, biomass regeneration, and dramatic increases infodder availability, milk production, and vegetable farming aresome of the results reported by participating villages. Coupledwith micro-enterprise development and an increase in savingsgroups, these results have translated into more secure liveli-hoods, diversified asset bases and reduced exposure to climate-related shocks. In short, drought-prone communities havebeen able to make themselves less vulnerable to drought. Inthe face of projected increases in extreme events, this reducedvulnerability will improve their capacity to adapt to climatechange.

Source: http://www.wotr.org

The approach set out here is that adaptation shouldbe rooted in addressing the climate-induced vul-nerabilities that poor people face. This can beachieved by a combination of structural and non-structural measures that reduce vulnerabilitiesand/or increase the resilience of poor people. A keyis that action is needed now. The poor of the worldare already vulnerable. We cannot afford to wait.

But at the same time, we recognize the problemsassociated with the precautionary principle, wherefuture threats are mitigated by present investments,but at a price that is the opportunity cost of theseinvestments. For poor people and poor countries,there are many urgent needs, many immediateproblems that demand attention and investment.Adaptation approaches should consequently seekout win-win options whereby actions today willmeet immediate needs and will also create the basisfor reducing future vulnerabilities and the capacityfor more effective adaptation as the impacts of cli-mate change bite. For IUCN, IISD and SEI, theseactions should include local-level ecosystem man-agement and restoration activities that promotesustainable livelihoods in poor communities.

How can these measures be identified? What is theprocess through which the world’s poor can beassisted to adapt to the threats of climate change?A three-stage process, each with several steps, canform the basis for developing adaptation strategies:

1. Understanding Vulnerability-Livelihood Int-eractions

■ Identify the main climate-induced vul-nerabilities that affect poor communitiesin different places and relate these to thewider vulnerabilities they face and to thedynamics of their livelihoods and theirassets base, with particular attention paidto environmental resources.

■ Assess the adaptation measures that poorpeople already take and relate this to theirresilience to withstand climate-inducedvulnerabilities.

■ Identify prevailing forces and conditionsthat serve as barriers to action or enablingfactors in the implementation of newpolicy measures.

■ Determine, through participatory pro-cesses, the needs, priorities and capabili-ties of different stakeholder groups inrelation to adaptation to climate-inducedvulnerabilities.

2. Establishing the Legal, Policy and Institut-ional Framework

■ Diagnose existing laws, policies and regu-latory systems in relation to their effects onclimate-induced vulnerabilities, includingagriculture, forestry, disaster management,water and all other relevant sectors.

■ Define the institutional processesthrough which adaptation measures areimplemented, including where decision-making authority lies at national, localand intermediary levels and the linksbetween these levels.

19


Change

VIA Strategic Framework for

Adaptation

Gully plugs, Nagzari,India (October 1999).Photo courtesy ofWOTR

3. Develop a Climate Change AdaptationStrategy

■ Identify potential reform measures andinvestment options to enhance theresilience and reduce the vulnerability ofpoor people to climate variability andchange and enhance their access toecosystem services. This should includeboth structural and non-structural meas-

ures, and the financial means and theinstitutional changes necessary to imple-ment successful adaptation processes.

■ Based on participatory processes, priori-tize the potential reforms and invest-ments taking into account the financial,knowledge, institutional and otherresources available to implement them.

20


Nala Bund, Chincholivillage, India (October1997). Photo courtesy

of WOTR

21


Change

VIISeizing the Opportunity

We have argued the case that there is a new win-dow of opportunity to utilize the concept of adap-tation as a means to bring together, harmonize andreinvigorate the experts, the programs and thestakeholders in the diverse fields of disaster man-agement, climate and climate change, environ-ment and natural resources management, andpoverty reduction. If a strong convergence of theseinterests can be brought together and marshaledinto a new initiative, there is a prospect of signifi-cant payoff, and an important contribution to theintractable problems of sustainable development.

This paper has tried to succinctly elaborate uponsome of the main concepts and processes involved,and provide a conceptual basis for action.Specifically, we have tried to present a rationale foradopting an adaptation approach that reduces cli-mate-related vulnerability through ecosystemmanagement and restoration activities that sustainand diversify local livelihoods. This calls for agreater emphasis on micro-level approaches to vul-nerability reduction and a closer collaborationbetween disciplines, agencies and sectors to scale

up these activities and integrate them into emerg-ing policy frameworks. It is argued here that fur-ther discussion of this type of approach is essentialamong all stakeholders involved in the adaptationdebate. It reflects our conviction that adaptationcan make a vital contribution to poverty reductionnow—indeed, that real, substantial adaptationefforts will only happen when they can and domake such a contribution, as without this priori-ties will (should?) always lie elsewhere. This is whyit is essential to bring together people and organi-zations connected with the four areas of climate,disasters, resource management and povertyreduction, for all have a vital role to play and theircollaboration needs to start with better mutualunderstanding. Of course, there is plenty of scopefor posturing and token gestures (some of whichmay even be quite substantial—the gestures thatis, not the posturing).

But if we are really to see adaptation on the scaleneeded and effectively targeted to the specificneeds and capabilities of poor people, then thislink is essential and the time to act is now.

Vietnam MekongDelta floods(November 2000).Photo: Viet Tanh/International RedCross

22


VIIIReferences

Bojö, J. and R.C. Reddy. Poverty Reduction Strategies and Environment: A Review of 40 Interim and FullPoverty Reduction Strategy Papers. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank, 2002.

Carney, D., ed. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods. London: DFID, 1998.

Folke, C., et al. “Resilience and Sustainable Development: Building Adaptive Capacity in a World ofTransformation.” Scientific Background Paper on Resilience for the process of the World Summit onSustainable Development on behalf of The Environmental Advisory Council to the Swedish Government,2002.

Girot, P. “Scaling up: Resilience to hazards and the importance of cross-scale linkages.” Paper presented atthe UNDP Expert Group Meeting on Integrating Disaster Reduction and Adaptation to Climate Change,Havana, Cuba, June 17–19, 2002.

Holling, C.S. “Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological and social systems.” Ecosystems. 4(2001): 390–405.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation andVulnerability, Summary for Policymakers and Technical Summary of the Working Group II Report.Geneva: IPCC, 2001.

Kasperson, J.X., R.E. Kasperson and B.L. Turner. Regions at Risk: Comparisons of Threatened Environments.New York: United Nations University Press, 1996.

Rennie, J.K. and N. Singh. Participatory Research for Sustainable Livelihoods. Winnipeg: IISD, 1996.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1992.

World Bank, EU, UNDP and DFID. Linking Poverty Reduction and Environmental Management: PolicyChallenges and Opportunities. Joint WSSD submission, January 2002.

23


Change

AppendixMembers of the Task Force on Climate Change,

Vulnerable Communities and Adaptation

Co-Chairs:

H.E. Lionel Hurst, Ambassador of Antigua and Barbuda to the U.S. and Organization of American States

Achim Steiner, Director General, IUCN – The World Conservation Union

Members:

Janet Abramovitz, Independent Consultant

Ian Burton, Independent Scholar and Consultant

Maria Fernanda Espinosa, IUCN Regional Office for South America

Scott Flemming, UNEP Finance Initiatives

Pascal Girot, UNDP Bureau for Development Policy, University of Costa Rica

Jürg Hammer, World Institute for Disaster Risk Management (DRM)

Saleemul Huq, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)

Terry Jeggle, Independent Advisor on international hazards and disaster risk management

Richard Klein, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)

Andrew Maskrey, UNDP Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery

Ajay Mathur, World Bank, Environment Department

Maria Socorro Manguiat, IUCN Environmental Law Centre

John Soussan, SEI – York Centre, Water and Development Group

Project Team:

John Drexhage, International Institute for Sustainable Development

Anne Hammill, International Institute for Sustainable Development

Brett Orlando, IUCN – The World Conservation Union

Carmenza Robledo, Intercooperation

Erika Spanger-Siegfried, Stockholm Environment Institute – Boston Centre

24


From the Preface:

"While government representatives negotiate internationalpolicy frameworks to limit greenhouse gas emissions, andresearchers continue to debate the science and impacts ofclimate change, climate-induced changes to physical andbiological systems are already being detected. Retreatingglaciers, longer growing seasons, shifting eco-zones andthawing permafrost have all been observed in differentregions around the world. Compounded by human pres-sures and modifications to the environment, these changesthreaten to further entrench global inequities, as thosewith the least stand to suffer the most. There is a pressingneed to develop response measures that will address cur-rent development disparities and protect vulnerable com-munities from the longer-term impacts of climate change."



cooperation

inter

Climate Change, Vulnerable Communities and Adaptation

Climate and Change - PreventionWeb

Documents

Transcript of Climate and Change - PreventionWeb