Can linking small- and large-scale Farmers enhance adaptive Capacity? - Climate Change Adaptation and Development: Transforming Paradigms and Practices - page 141

Conceptual framework
To answer the research question, the chapter draws on literatures on CF and
OG schemes, and adaptive capacity. In the literature on climate change, adaptive
capacity, together with exposure and sensitivity to climatic risks, are central
components of vulnerability (Smit and Wandel 2006). Vulnerability varies
between and among individuals, regions, sectors and social groups and over
time due to differences in social, economic, environmental and institutional
conditions, and the distribution of assets, resources and entitlements in society
(IPCC 2007). The term 'adaptive capacity', as applied in this chapter, refers
to the capacity of individuals, households, communities and the wider socio-
ecological systems of which they are a part to adjust to, and thrive, in the face of
uncertainties. It includes the ability to deal with immediate 'surprises' and long-
term risks, climatic and otherwise, as well as the capacity to seize opportunities,
recognizing that people do not respond to climate variability and change in
isolation from other processes of change (IPCC 2014). The interplay between
participation in OG schemes and adaptive capacity is explored in relation to
seven factors: economic resources; risk management; technology; information
and skills; infrastructure; institutions; and equity. These factors are broadly
referred to as 'determinants' of adaptive capacity in the climate change literature
(Keskitalo et al. 2011; Smit and Wandel 2006; Eakin and Lemos 2006; Yohe and
Tol 2002; Smit and Pilifosova 2001). They also resonate with the literature on
CF and OG schemes, which suggests that successful OG schemes promote
local development and smallholder welfare by increasing household incomes
(Bellemare 2012; Barrett et al. 2012; Miyata et al. 2009; Warning and Key 2002);
by enhancing access to agricultural markets, inputs, technology and training
(Abebe et al. 2013); by reducing production and marketing risks (Glover
and Kusterer 1990); by strengthening equity, transparency and trust in OG
relationships (Kirsten and Sartorius 2002; Glover 1987); and by contributing
to local development through investments in jobs, infrastructure and services
(Tyler and Dixie 2013; Poulton et al. 2008). Below I outline these factors in more
detail and describe the ways in which they are operationalized in this chapter.
Access to economic resources can enhance households', communities' and
societies' abilities to withstand and recover from climatic shocks and undertake
investments to adapt to climate change (Eakin and Lemos 2006). I operationalize
this determinant by assessing whether and how OG production contributes to
or undermines the stability, diversity , and flexibility of participating households'
agricultural incomes. 'Risk management' refers to the process of managing
and spreading risks, and includes both formal (e.g. commercial insurance) and
informal channels (Yohe and Tol 2002). In OG schemes, the estate (the buyer)
normally assumes the marketing risks while the smallholder producer assumes
the production (including climate) risks (Glover and Kusterer 1990). I assess
how OG schemes are affecting smallholders' adaptive capacity by discussing
how participation in OG schemes affects the agricultural production and the