38
3.3 Adaptation, Adaptive Capacity, Vulnerability and Resilience
39
The process through which people reduce the adverse effects of climate on their health and well-being and take advantage of the opportunities that their climatic environment provides
Burton (1992)
Responses or actions taken to enhance resilience of vulnerable systems, thereby reducing damages to human and natural systems from climate change and variability
Scheraga and Grambsch (1998) All changes in a system, compared to a reference case, that reduce the
adverse effects of climate change Füssel and Klein (
2002) Ways in which local individuals, households and communities have
changed their mix of productive activities, and modified their community rules and institutions in response to vulnerabilities, in order to meet their livelihood needs
Rennie and Singh (1996)
Any adjustment, whether passive, reactive or anticipatory, that is proposed as a means for ameliorating the anticipated adverse consequences associated with climate change.
Stakhiv (1993)
Comprises both individual and collective decisions made and actions taken, in response to current – or in anticipation of projected –climate impacts
Hill, 2008
Adjustments in individual, group and institutional behaviour in order to reduce society’s vulnerabilities to climate
Pielke (1998) responses to climate change that may be used to reduce vulnerability Burton et al.
(1998)
Those are just a few sources with different definitions. In all definitions, much as differences occur, several similarities are clear, adaptation involves the following:
both human and ecological systems (they co-exist and depend on each other);
adjustment/changes from what is known to be common/normal to something that responds to stimuli through which the common practice cannot guarantee survival; and
decision-making process.
Climate change adaptation is viewed as a package of actions through which individuals or communities adjust themselves to the impacts or threats posed by climate change (Nyong, et.
al., 2007). It refers to adjustments at a system level, be it ecological, social or economic (Smit, et. al., 1999). Therefore, climate change adaptation is a process through which individuals, communities, societies or systems adjust their common ways of doing things in response to climate change stimuli, regardless of the purpose, timing, temporal and spatial scope, location, effects, form and performance (Smit, et. al., 1999).
These adjustments are a response to either impacts of climate change or threats- possibility of being impacted by climate change. Depending on the economic activity, the human system or an individual will have several options to go for and therefore, one is supposed to evaluate each of the options and choose one deemed to be viable at that particular time. Adaptation should not be viewed as an independent process. It normally takes place dependent on the role and influence of different factors ranging from socio-economic, cultural, political, geographical, and ecological to institutional, each of which independently and/or collectively influences the human-environment interactions (Eriksen, et. al., 2011). Some scholarly works have attempted to suggest forms of adaptation, namely, reactive vs anticipatory; planned vs natural; substitute vs complement (Fankhauser, 1999; Fankhauser and Tol, 1997) and on short-term vs long-term (Eriksen, et. al., 2011; Adger, et. al., 2003). In each case, there can be a thin line between each one in the nomenclature sense because they are interlinked in practical sense.
40
There are different purposes of adaptation analyses (Smit and Wandel, 2006). This argument is very important in linking sustainability discussion to climate change adaptation. Adaptation analyses can be carried out for the purpose of the following aspects:
a) Estimating the degree to which impacts of climate change, identified through modelling, could be minimised by adaptation interventions as exemplified by works of Parry (2002) as well as Mendelsohn and colleagues (2000a). This approach of analysis is top-down and does not take into account the real or practical situation of a particular area or case but rather, it takes some variables and then run into models to simulate the expected results. Mendelsohn et al., (2000b), for example, developed what they call an intermediate (to the top-down and the bottom-up approach) Global Impact Model (GIM) entailing distinct modules for climate, sectoral features, and climate response functions for each sector and uses spatial simulations to generate country-specific climates, which are then used to estimate and project country-specific market impacts (ibid.). However, this is done amidst a lot of complexities and unpredictability at specific local situations. The work of Parry and others (2002), on the other hand, makes an analysis of what they call millions of people with potential risks resulting from different amounts of global warming taking into account climate as well as non-climate factors. Considered climate factors are higher temperatures for two time periods, 2050s and 2080s, while the other factors (non-climate) include growth in population, and income as well as technology (Parry, et. al., 2001). Again, this is top-down and does not consider such aspects as specific non-predictable and un-simulated aspects like changes in human consumption and preference behavior, which are also very important.
In addition, the predicted changes in temperature may not necessarily provide an actual prediction because the global climate system is so complex that it may be impossible to ascertain what and how it is going to behave or change in future (American Climate Choices, 2010).
b) Assessing alternative adaptation options, their merits and demerits, which one suits where and how. The idea for this type of analysis is to identify the most appropriate options. The analysis is normally done through a top-down approach for that matter.
Scholarly works like those by Fankhauser and co-workers (1999) and Niang-Diop and Bosch (2004) are good examples in this case. In their analytical paper, for example, Fankhauser and colleagues (1999) discuss features of efficient adaptation strategies to climate change and argue that such strategies must have a reflection of timeframe and possible uncertainties.
c) Analysing vulnerability of countries, regions or communities through comparative evaluation guided by criteria determined by the researcher. The analysis by O’Brien and co-workers (2004); Adger and colleagues (2004); and Brooks and others (2005) are good examples. The main focus is to influence where adaptation efforts and interventions, including resources, should be directed to.
d) Practical analysis of adaptation needs with focus on a particular system (an area, community or region) aiming at contributing to practical and strategic adaptation intervention, mainly through bottom-up approach after investigating specific adaptation needs, available capacity and existing gaps in order to identify means for implementing adaptation initiatives or enhancing adaptive capacity. According to Smit and Wandel (2006), this kind of analysis is focused such that it is useful in a particular system, region or community context and does not consider issues from the researcher’s
41
perspective. But it takes into account specificities and contexts of a very specific area including policies; local experiences, technological, institutional bases, knowledge bases; cultures and traditions; and political as well as governance factors including decision-making process and the like. Works by Keskitalo, (2004); Sutherland and colleagues (2005); Pahl-Wostl (2002); and Morduch and Sharma (2002) are good examples of such kind of adaptation analysis.
Emergence of the discussions on mainstreaming climate change adaptation into sector plans and budgets in the developing countries, as part of negotiations in the UNFCCC context, is a reflection of the practical, bottom-up approach of analysis. The reason is that addressing adaptation needs to be undertaken through a project-based approach in short-term and does not contain sustainability aspects. Planning and budgeting of government and non-governmental actors as well as local institutions have to reflect adaptation aspects. It is only possible if there are well analyzed, documented, practically undertaken studies indicating adaptation needs of specific localities, which take into account all key local variables. Much as the broad-based models and simulations may be useful to predict what is to happen in future using available information, localized studies are necessary to take into account the social-ecological system context and identify needs as well as the kind of support needs, when and how.
Adaptive capacity
IPCC defines adaptive capacity as the ability or potential of a system to respond successfully to climate variability and change, which includes adjustments in both, behaviour and resources as well as technologies (IPCC, 2007d). It depicts the ability of the system to prepare and adjust to stress for the purpose of addressing the adverse impacts while taking advantage of any opportunities brought by stresses for survival of the system (Smit, et. al., 2001; Adger, et. al., 2007). It means that adaptive capacity does not only save as a precondition for successful adaptation interventions alone but also enables sectors, institutions as well as individuals to take advantage of opportunities or benefits from climate change (IPCCd, 2007). Smit and colleagues (2001) outlined determinants of adaptive capacity, that is, availability of economic resources, the level of technology, availability and access to information and skills, various forms of infrastructure, availability and functioning of institutions, and equity.
In their contribution to the IPCC TAR, Smit and co-workers (2001) demonstrated with vivid examples from various researches, why and how economic condition (of a nation or a community) is a clear determinant of adaptive capacity. Various research works have also found that poverty is directly related to vulnerability (Chan and Parker, 1996; Fankhauser and Tol, 1997; Rayner and Malone, 1998). For example, developed countries demonstrate to be in an advantaged position when it comes to adapting to adverse impacts of climate change compared to poor nations because they possess financial and other forms of resources to enable them not only bear costs of adaptation and risks posed but also ameliorating side effects rather than poorer nations (Goklany, 1995; Burton, 1996). While distribution of wealth within the population is also one other important issue, economic condition has a bearing on access to food and nutrition, information, education, technology and infrastructure development, just to mention a few.
When one talks of climate change adaptation today and even in future, the centre of the discussion is normally on technology availability and access. This is because in most cases, potential adaptation interventions identified in almost all sectors involve use of a particular technology (Smit, et. al., 2001). For example, in the agricultural sector, use of interventions such as new crop varieties, early warning systems, new as well as sustainable irrigation systems
42
and so forth are widely discussed at different levels but all seem to involve either access to or development of technologies relevant to support their implementation. Therefore, lack of access or inability to develop appropriate adaptation technologies is a clear barrier to adaptation and defines adaptive capacity at different levels.
The role of information and skills in explaining adaptive capacity cannot be overemphasized.
For a population to take initiatives to adapt it has to be aware of risk posed and perceive that something is not right and there is need for changes so as to be able to adapt. For this to happen, people must have access to various pieces of information. Access to information can help to assess the magnitude of the challenge, possible options and those feasible within a relevant context (Fankhauser and Tol, 1997). The skills are important in so far as they can help in executing the identified adaptation options. It is from this view point that countries with limited skills related to adaptation in some aspects are in a disadvantaged position when it comes to analyzing adaptive capacity and executing particular adaptation strategies (Scheraga and Grambsch, 1998). Capacity to adapt is also defined by availability of relevant infrastructure, that is, physical, technological and so on. Availability of infrastructures to support early warning systems, weather forecasting, transport, communication, drainage systems as well as forms of relevant networks are all important aspects that have both a role in addressing potential impacts of climate change and respond to risks posed such as floods and droughts.
In terms of availability of strong and responsible institutions as one of important aspects defining adaptive capacity, it is argued that countries or communities with well-developed social institutions are considered to have greater adaptive capacity than those with less effective institutional arrangements (Smith and Lenhart, 1996). Social capital, social networks, values, customs and traditions can affect the ability to adapt to adverse impacts of climate change (IPCC, 2007d). Ahmed and colleagues (1999) maintain that having weak institutions with poor managerial capacities to cope with stresses makes it difficult for a country or community to address issues related to climate change vulnerability. In addition to institutional capacities, access to resources and their equitable distribution within the population facilitates adaptive capacity. It means that much as the country or community can have resources available to support adaptation, the extent to which such resources are accessible and how they are distributed to people within the country or community matters most when it comes to analysing adaptive capacity (Kelly and Adger, 1999). In some countries or communities, resources may be available but some people are denied access to such resources like land and other opportunities, making such people not only highly vulnerable but also have low adaptive capacity to the adverse impacts of climate change. This is also true at the international level where developed countries possess much wealth while the developing world has little thereby making them not only the most vulnerable but also incapable of adapting to climate change (Ribot, et. al., 1996; Mustafa, 1998; Adger, 1999; Handmer, et. al., 1999; Kelly and Adger, 1999; Rayner and Malone, 1998; Toth, 1999).
Resilience
A varying degree of conceptualization of resilience is a common phenomenon since it is used in different fields of knowledge and contexts. It is used to mean the capacity a system has to absorb shocks, that is, to undergo changes in response to stress, yet continue to provide the required functions (Nelson, et. al., 2007). As quoted from the IPCC, it is the ability of a social or ecological system to absorb disturbances while retaining the same basic structure and ways of functioning, the capacity for self-organization, and the capacity to adapt to stress including change (IPCC, 2007e). However, other scholars look at resilience as the level or degree of stress that a system can take up as it undergoes transformation into a different state; including
43
the capacity to reorganise itself for taking up other new stresses (Carpenter, et. al., 2001;
Berkes, et. al., 2003; Folke, 2006). It is important to take up sustainability concept into resilience. In this context, Gunderson and Holling (2002); Berkes and co-workers (2003); and Carpenter and others (2001) view resilience as the capacity of the system to rejuvenate, re-organize and undergo development, that is, having capacity to sustain itself despite any stresses into it.
Adger (2006) for example, contends that while many may see resilience only as a capacity to withstand shocks and still maintain system function, it can also be seen as an opportunity to undergo transformation for better including new inventions in terms of policies, technologies, knowledge and even development pathways that are much more adaptable than the previous one. Therefore, resilience can provide much better opportunities than probably as it was thought before. It is from this point that Walker and colleagues (2002) summarize resilience to mean level and extent of stress the system withstands and yet maintain its functional capacity and even structure; its level and ability to reorganize itself; and the level to which it is ready to adapt as well as maintain its development course sustainably.
The conceptual framework of this research was formulated based on works by Nelson and colleagues (2007); and Chambers (1989). Nelson and colleagues’ (2007) work is so instrumental in explaining and analysing social ecological system adaptation in the context of the social ecological resilience framework and hence, provides a substantive impetus on adaptation within the social ecological resilience framework taking into account sustainability component. Chambers (1989) work is crucial because it explains, in detail, vulnerability and adaptation issues at a local level, which was the interest of this research. The work by Chambers (1989) captures many details on vulnerability and adaptation for smallholder farmers of which this research work focused on.