Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
The case study revealed that the production of charcoal was one of a range
of coping measures used in the community (Ochieng and Yitambe 2012). The
initial conclusion of the work was that most community members were coping
with climate change rather than adapting to it - a view supported by previous
studies of the region (Nelson 2000; Ifejika et al. 2008; Speranza et al. 2010).
For illustrative purpose, here we focus our analysis on one activity, charcoal
production, amongst the range of coping measures identified. This is to enable
a clear perspective on how different perceptions on vulnerability, coping
and adaptation can influence policy action, leading to conditions that might
themselves also result in vulnerability. We do not attempt to generalize this
study to all other coping measures, but a similar analysis could be applied to
other coping strategies in assessing whether they act to undermine adaptation.
Results and discussion
Household-level coping strategies
Figure 3.1
shows the primary household-level strategies for reducing drought
impact among the study households in Makueni. The responses were drawn
from household heads, most of whom (79 per cent) had lived in the region
all their lives. Many were middle-aged, although 14 per cent were above 55
years and could therefore describe how they perceived local climatic conditions
to have changed over several decades. Despite the reported unreliable rainfall
patterns, the main source of livelihood for most households was small-scale
subsistence farming: crops and livestock production (61 per cent). Many farmers
had low levels of education and no formal employment.
To cope with drought, the households employed various coping measures
either concurrently or in sequence, whereby different sets of options were tried
and abandoned whenever they failed.
As can be seen from
Figure 3.1
, a large proportion of the households changed
their food consumption patterns and sold their assets, in addition to borrowing
from existing social support systems. In these situations the households also
needed to purchase all their food items, which required additional income.
Additional income sources were not easily available, however, forcing people
to sell important livelihood assets. Such loss of livelihood assets meant that the
drought recovery process was prolonged and left them increasingly vulnerable
to the impacts of future droughts. Furthermore, the choice of coping strategies
varied during the phase of drought. Activities that were weather-dependent
were quickly abandoned as the drought period became prolonged, with many
switching to non-farm measures. These findings illustrate the important role
of income diversification, not just for coping but also adaptation. Successful
income diversification can eliminate the need to sell off productive assets.
Increased income is therefore critical not only in the short term, but also for
drought recovery and longer-term ability to manage droughts. In this sense,
Search WWH ::
Custom Search