Livelihood vulnerability: Environment and local knowledge linkages

33

34

make up the framework for analyzing vulnerability as conceptualized in this study. These include environmental change, local knowledge and livelihood outcome (sustainability).

Environmental change is taken as the starting point in this conceptual framework. Earlier on, I discussed environmental change as a factor that affects livelihoods at local levels. I pointed out that environmental change (deforestation, land and soil degradation, and rainfall variability) adversely impact livelihoods in northern Ghana and the Volta Basin as a whole. In this framework environmental change and the risks arising from shocks, stressors and perturbations are taken as given. Thus, households have to figure out a way of dealing with these risks in their livelihoods. The model presents households as resorting to their local knowledge systems for moderating their exposure to the risk⁹ arising from environmental change. Although I am aware of on-going discourses on risk as a social science concept with application across many disciplines, I do not intend to do an extensive discussion of the literature here for three reasons. First, I have conceptualized this study using „vulnerability‟ as the research concept and risk is an essential component of „vulnerability‟ itself. Second, the discussion on „vulnerability‟

earlier on in this chapter also addresses some issues on risk. Third, I presume that a brief explanation of risk as a concept here is adequate for supporting a better explanation of

„vulnerability‟ as conceptualized for my analysis in this study.

Local knowledge is represented by risk management strategies comprising a wide range of localized farming techniques and systems, kinship and social mechanisms of support

9Risk is a social science concept with predominant applications and discourses in the fields‟ of economics, finance and management, including disaster management. According to the Encyclopaedia of Global Warming and Climate Change (2008), risk captures the probability, and in some instances, the potential severity of the occurrence of a negative outcome, such as in the case of exposure to a natural hazard. Discourses on risks associated with global warming and climate change, especially those related to the environment, ecosystem, human health and the world economy are underscored in the Encyclopaedia. For economists, risk captures the situation in which the probability of an outcome is not precisely known (Todaro, 1981:547; in, Evers and Mehmet, 1994:1). For Sociologists, risk is the unintended consequence of rational action (Evers and Mehmet, 1994). In a study on risk and and its consequences in the Indonesian informal sector, Evers and Mehmet (1994:4) found that many businesses, especially petty traders failed because of several risk factors:(1) fluctuations in markets; (2) profit erosion resulting from social obligations to kin, neighbours and government officials; (3) limited understanding of such key concepts as income, cost and profit by traders themselves; (4) failure to impute costs of own labour or un-paid family labour, and; (5) inadequate depreciation of working capital.

35

and strategic management of productive assets. The applications of local knowledge systems here have a „dual effect‟ in the management of risk arising from environmental change. First, local knowledge systems of risk management have the effect of moderating the exposure of risk to environmental shocks, stressors or perturbations in livelihoods.

Thus, the degree to which livelihoods are exposed and vulnerable to environmental shocks or perturbations is greatly reduced. This can be described as preparedness and or

„pre-hazard‟ phase local risk management. The model presents this as a first line of defence against livelihood vulnerability. Second, the framework presents local knowledge systems of risk management as having the effect of also enhancing capacity for adaptation (coping) to environmental shocks in household livelihoods. This is the second line of defence as conceptualized in the framework. This phase however, benefits enormously from the first line of defence. This is because by moderating exposure to risk in the first line of defence, the level of risks or impacts (vulnerability) that has to be dealt with in the second line of defence is minimized. This also have the effect of enhancing adaptive capacity in the second line of defence. Furthermore, when shocks and perturbations occur, local knowledge systems also manifest in response measures, such as risk management strategies that enable adaptation of livelihoods to the environmental hazards. For instance, when shocks occur, a series of local risk management¹⁰ systems of adaptation to uncertainties (e.g., diversified livelihoods sources, entitlements, kinship and social support systems) are either automatically helpful or are triggered to enhance adaptation. Collectively, both preparedness and adaptive phases to environmental shocks and perturbations work in tandem to enhance adaptive (coping) ability of the household.

10Power (2004) suggests that there has been an explosion of risk management practices since the mid-1990s across a wide variety of organizational contexts. Risk management is a primary objective of all firms (Miller, 1992; Froot et al., 1993). Major uses of risk have been in reference to unanticipated variation or negative variation (i.e., “downside of risks”) in business outcomes such as revenues, costs, profit and market share (Miller, 1992:311). The need for risk management by firms arises from uncertainties categorized by Miller into: (1) general environmental uncertainties including political, policy and macro-economic uncertainties; (2) industry related uncertainty including input market uncertainty, product market uncertainty and competitive uncertainty and ; (3) firm specific uncertainties arising from operations, liability, research and development, credit and behavioural uncertainties (Miller, 1992: 313-320). Miller outlines two approaches namely, financial risk management and changes in firm strategy as potential firm responses to deal with exposure to environmental uncertainties. The principal financial risk-reduction techniques include purchasing insurance, and buying and selling financial instruments. Strategic management relates to five „generic‟ responses to environmental uncertainties which include avoidance, control, cooperation, imitation and flexibility (Miller, 1992: 320-325)

36

The overall result of all these interlinked components and processes is the livelihood outcome, which the model presents as the final output. Livelihood outcome could be one of two ways. A livelihood may be successful as represented by reduction in livelihood vulnerability, resilience and or sustainability. On the other hand, a livelihood could also be a failure as represented by total livelihood vulnerability and or total failure. As households engage in local knowledge systems for addressing environmental challenges in their livelihoods, the ultimate goal is to secure a livelihood. As pointed out in earlier discussion, “the core of a livelihood can be expressed as a living” (Chambers and Conway, 1992:9). They also point out that the portfolio of tangible and intangible assets are the most complex in terms of components and relationships. The important role of local knowledge in securing livelihoods is underscored in relation to intangible assets.

They assert that, “out of these tangible and intangible assets people construct and contrive a living, using physical labour, skills, knowledge, and creativity. Skills and knowledge may be acquired within the household, passed on from generation to generation as indigenous technical knowledge, or through apprenticeship, or more formally through education or extension services, or through experiment and innovation”( Chambers and Conway, 1992:11).

Although the ultimate goal of every household is to secure a livelihood, the outcome as mentioned could either be successful or a failure. Irrespective of the outcome, the experience of the household is drawn on for evaluation and review of local knowledge application as a response measure. On the one hand, a successful livelihood serves as an incentive and increases commitment to the application of local knowledge at the household level. On the other hand, a failure drives the household to step up its effort in the application of local knowledge in subsequent production cycles. The essence is to reduce exposure to risk and to enhance adaptive capability. This feedback of livelihood outcome is represented in the framework by two feedback loops. One loop links livelihood outcome to local knowledge. The other links local knowledge to environmental change. As a result, the framework captures a cyclical and continuous process of household local knowledge utilization towards sustaining their livelihoods under environmental change in the Atankwidi basin.

37 1.7 Summary and emerging issues

In this chapter, I have explored environmental change, livelihood, vulnerability and local knowledge as the theoretical concepts that guided this study. The discussions reveal some pertinent issues, which I now summarize here.

First, I conceptualized environmental change at two levels - global environmental change or regional environmental change. Global environmental change is systemic in that environmental change at any locale can affect the environment anywhere else. This conceptualization underlines the transnational and global nature of the change and may require global effort to deal with. On the other hand, regional environmental change denotes the regional impact of global environmental change – which people easily observe because it affects their livelihoods at the local level. Environmental change may also be systemic or cumulative. Systemic change turn to have a direct impact on globally functioning systems as exemplified by the impact of industrial and land use emissions of green house gases on global climatic systems. Cumulative change underpins impact of the worldwide distribution of the change as exemplified by deforestation and soil depletion. Relative to my discussions on livelihoods in this study, „regional‟ and

„cumulative‟ environmental changes as evidenced in the Volta Basin of West Africa are more important because of their direct bearings on peoples livelihoods.

Secondly, I have shown in my discussions that livelihoods depict the phenomenon of households striving to make a living through the management of existing resources, coping with uncertainties and exploring new opportunities. Thus, a household livelihood comprises four components: a) people and their livelihood capabilities; b) what they do for a living; c) assets, both tangible and intangibles and; d) the living they make out of what they do. In the quest for livelihood sustainability, there is a distinction between environmental sustainable livelihood and socially sustainable livelihood. First, a livelihood is environmentally sustainable when it maintains the assets on which it depends. Second, a livelihood is socially sustainable when it demonstrates capability of coping and recovering from stress and shocks arising from environmental change in this

38

context. Overall, both are important for household livelihood sustainability. This is because while environmental sustainability may be important for minimizing exposure to risk, social sustainability will be important for coping or recovery should shocks impact adversely on livelihoods. Thus, building capacity in both is consistent with addressing risks arising from both external and internal sides of vulnerability. This will be important for sustaining household livelihoods under difficult environments. I have pointed out already in the introduction that I am linking vulnerability with sustainability in this study.

Thus, reducing livelihood vulnerability is coterminous with enhancing livelihood sustainability.

Thirdly, this study adopts the „double structure‟ of vulnerability as a theoretical approach to analysis. In this context, vulnerability has two sides (external and internal sides) of risk that households encounter in their livelihoods under difficult environments. The external side in the context of this study is the exposure to risks, including contingencies, stressors and shocks arising from environmental change. The internal side comprises risks from defencelessness or the lack of means to cope with shocks, which can lead to total livelihood failure. In this regard, I have pointed out in the conceptual framework that strengthening capabilities to deal with risks associated with both sides is crucial for sustaining rural household livelihoods under environmental change. This is because the two reinforce each other. For instance, if exposure is minimized (external side) through local knowledge it will certainly minimize the risk of lacking ability or means to deal with shocks (internal side) arising from environmental change. Even if shocks occur, the impact may be minimal and within the limits of existing coping ability.

Fourth, a pluralistic view of local knowledge is adopted for this study. This view first, embraces indigenous knowledge as unique knowledge of a community that evolved and accumulated through years of experiential practice. This knowledge may have changed as manifest in innovations that result from „internal re-evaluation‟, experimentation or incorporating external elements. Secondly, local knowledge is also taken to mean drawing on external knowledge and adapting it to local situations for the purpose of solving community development problems. As pointed out in my discussion, local

39

knowledge is a driver of innovation and a strategic resource for development as acknowledged by many scholars. Given the daunting challenges arising from environmental change, local knowledge will be central for community development. In the quest for sustaining rural livelihoods where environmental change is pronounced, such as in the Atankwidi basin of northern Ghana, the role of local knowledge will be crucial. As a result, the subject of local knowledge flows and sharing attract my attention as an important subject in this research. This is because access to local knowledge will influence vulnerability of livelihoods to environmental change. Understanding the patterns and drivers of local knowledge flows and innovations will therefore be important for guiding appropriate policy interventions in rural development in the context of environmental change.

Finally, I formulated a conceptual framework drawing on the „double structure‟ of vulnerability. I used „vulnerability‟ for conceptualizing „environmental change‟ – „local knowledge‟ linkages for analyzing the efforts of households towards reducing livelihood vulnerability in the Atankwidi basin. It presents household response to „vulnerability‟ as a sequence of local risk management strategies as part of local knowledge of households.