Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
than ever, making adaptation an imperative for local communities (IUCN,
IISD, SEI & SDC 2003). Without careful consideration of the factors that
underlie the perception and response to vulnerability in these regions, efforts
to reduce climate risk might ignore valuable lessons from earlier development
efforts.
How then should the vulnerability, including coping and adaptation, of
ASAL communities be conceptualized, and how would this conceptualization
influence policy and development response to it? Some authors (Kelly and
Adger 2000; Wisner 2004) have drawn a distinction between physical and social
vulnerability, whereby the former refers to exposure to stress and crises resulting
from physical hazards, and the latter refers to the capacity of individuals and
communities to respond to physical impacts. Those who adhere to the former
concept often see vulnerability as an 'outcome process', which then requires
physical adaptation measures (O'Brien et al. 2007). In this chapter, we adopt a
definition that conforms to the Sustainable livelihood approach framework (IFAD
2013), which places people rather than the resources they depend on in the
centre of the analysis. How people create their livelihoods depends on the
resources and livelihood assets that they have access to and use, which in turn
depends on their vulnerability context , as well as prevailing social, institutional and
political environment. According to this framework, the vulnerability context is
made up of trends, shocks (such as drought) and seasonality. Thus, vulnerability
to climate variability and change occur in the context of political, institutional,
economic and social structures and changes, which interact dynamically. This
has been referred to as 'contextual vulnerability' (O'Brien et al. 2007; Eriksen and
Silva 2009), as opposed to 'outcome vulnerability' manifested through physical
processes. With this conceptualization, marginalization and its resultant poverty
in the ASALs are as important as the biophysical environment in contributing
to the vulnerability of different communities, and addressing them should be a
core part of the adaptation process.
Charcoal production - taken here to encompass the process of (small-scale)
fuel wood production and/or harvesting, and conversion of the fuel wood into
charcoal through carbonization - has been widely documented as a drought-
coping measure in ASALs (Eriksen et al. 2005; Getachew et al. 2008), but has
not been considered as a means of adaptation. Quite the contrary, development
efforts towards adaptation have discouraged the practice in an effort to promote
good environmental management in ASALs. However, we argue that charcoal
production could actually be a climate adaption measure, and that banning it
may in fact increase the vulnerability of ASAL communities. Taken further, this
case illustrates that it is indeed possible for development measures, also those
aimed at promoting climate-change mitigation and adaptation, to contribute to
vulnerability.
Here we draw on literature that conceptually distinguishes coping from
adaptation; and empirical findings from a case study in Kenya that compares
community drought responses with those of development agencies.
 
Search WWH ::




Custom Search