Living and responding to multiple stressors in South Africa—Glimpses from KwaZulu-Natal

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Global Environmental Change 16 (2006) 195–206 www.elsevier.com/locate/gloenvcha

Living and responding to multiple stressors in South Africa—Glimpses from KwaZulu-Natal$ Paul Reid, Coleen Vogel School of Archaeology, Geography and Environmental Studies, University of the Witwatersrand, Post Bag 3, 2050, Johannesburg, South Africa Received 11 March 2005; accepted 10 January 2006

Abstract Rural, resource-poor communities currently face a number of stressors that curtail livelihood options and reduce overall quality of life. Climate stress in southern Africa could potentially further threaten the livelihoods of such communities. Inappropriate response and adaptation options to risks, including climate stress, could further undermine development efforts in the region. The design and effective implementation of strategies to improve coping and adaptation to possible future risks cannot be undertaken without a detailed assessment of current response options to various risks. By using the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework, this pilot study identifies some of the strategies and constraints to secure livelihoods that are currently being used by small-scale farmers in the Muden area of KwaZuluNatal. The role and perception of climate risks in relation to a variety of other constraints and risks in the area are also examined. Health status, lack of information and ineffective institutional structures and processes are shown to be some of the key factors aggravating current response options and overall development initiatives with potential negative outcomes for future adaptation to periods of possible heightened climate stress. r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Sustainable livelihoods; Vulnerability; Development; Climate stress

1. Introduction Resource-poor communities, such as those residing in many parts of southern Africa, currently live with a range of stresses and risks including climate risks, HIV/AIDS and insecure land access (e.g. Mano et al., 2003). Periods of climate stress, including prolonged drought periods, usually unveil a host of factors that contribute to heightened vulnerabilities to environmental change such as deteriorating social networks linked to HIV/AIDS, poor access to basic amenities and resources and a range of wider, structural and governance factors that further accentuate local-scale vulnerabilities. Probing the range of factors that shape vulnerability and adaptive capacity to various stresses, including climate $ Opinions expressed and conclusions are those of the authors and not necessarily to be attributed to the Water Research Commission (WRC), South Africa. Corresponding author. Tel.: +27 11 7176510. E-mail address: [email protected] (C. Vogel).

0959-3780/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.01.003

stresses, is difficult. One framework of investigation that enables understanding of some of the interacting factors that shape how communities respond and interact with climate variability and other stresses is the sustainable livelihoods framework (SLF). The SLF is primarily concerned with people and how their assets in the form of various ‘capitals’ (e.g. social, physical, natural) enable them to achieve positive livelihood outcomes (DFID, 1999; Carney, 1998; Chambers et al., 1981; Chambers and Conway, 1992; Scoones, 2000). Using the framework one is able to focus on some of the key factors that currently configure livelihoods in an area as well as identify some of the factors constraining or enhancing access to various assets. This research is similar to that undertaken by the Project on ‘‘Climate Change, Vulnerable Communties and Adaptation’’ undertaken by IUCN, iiSD, SEI and the Swiss Organisation for Development (2004) that also investigated how sustainable livelihood activities may enhance or reduce vulnerability to climate hazards. KwaZulu-Natal (KZN, 2004), the area chosen for this pilot research, represents a similar risk-profile to that

ARTICLE IN PRESS P. Reid, C. Vogel / Global Environmental Change 16 (2006) 195–206

196

example, particularly for agriculture is one area of concern. Using the HADCM3-A1F1 scenario, Fischer et al., show that

observed in the wider region (Le Gal, 2003; Dlamini and Schulze, 2004). As is shown below, KZN is currently experiencing multiple stresses including climate stress and, in some cases, stresses occasioned by poor agricultural extension, health problems and poor governance. The pilot case we highlight here draws from experiences in a rural community in Muden, KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) which is part of the Thukela catchment. The research undertaken was part of a much wider study on climate change and water resource impacts in South Africa (Reid et al., 2005). Despite this risk-prone environment, we argue that a focus on climate-risk alone does not enable a full understanding of the host of factors that combine to configure risks and heighten vulnerability to periods of climate stress. The findings and possible interventions that are discussed in this pilot study, we suggest, could be used to inform further research, climate adaptation and other response options and development in the region. Before addressing the case study, we provide some theoretical background including the various ways in which certain concepts such as ‘vulnerability’, ‘coping’ and ‘adaptation’ and other being used in the literature and in the wider policy and practice arena to better manage risks to environmental changes.

In Northern Africa, three quarters of suitable rain-fed land is lost as compared to reference climate conditions y. Decreases are also noted in southern Africa, mainly affecting Mozambique, Botswana and South Africa (Fischer et al., 2002, p. 120). A region’s capacity to cope, respond and adapt to climate-risk will be determined by its overall vulnerability to climate variability. Potential regional and sectoral impacts of climate variability in Africa have been described (e.g. IPCC, 2001) together with vulnerabilities, adaptive capacities and responses (e.g. Table 1). For many years the focus of much of the research on climate change has been on impacts associated with climate stress (e.g. drought). Traditionally, the focus has been on the exposure of systems, both human and physical, to a risk or hazard. The impacts and changes induced by stresses have usually been examined in isolation, either from a biophysical or socio-economic perspective (as critiqued by Chambers, 1989; Blaikie et al., 1994; Bohle, 2001; Hilhorst and Bankoff, 2004, among others). Attention to vulnerability, shaped by multiple causes, that aggravate and may enhance impacts to climate stress, is becoming an important research arena requiring more data informed from local studies, particularly in those countries where climate change may limit development activities (e.g. Pielke, 1998; Huq and Reid, 2004; Institute of Development Studies (IDS), 2004; UNDP, 2004). Combined exposure to ‘double’ risk factors, for example, climate change and globalisation, are shown to further aggravate stress in a region (e.g. O’Brien and Leichenko, 2000; Leichenko and O’Brien, 2002). Understanding and distinguishing between the various ‘drivers’ or causes of both ‘chronic and transitory vulnerability’ are also important when trying to understand and manage overall risks to global environmental change. Social factors such as access

1.1. Vulnerability In general, it may be argued that the livelihood resources and response options of the poor are usually narrower and usually are more climate-sensitive than the non-poor (African Development Bank and others, 2003). With this in mind, ‘‘ythe most pressing challenge is to strengthen the social, economic, and environmental resilience of the poorest and the most vulnerable against climate change and variability’’ (Fischer et al., 2002, p. 9). Assessments, using models such as General Circulation Model output (GCMs) (e.g. Fischer et al., 2002), show that several parts of southern Africa may be negatively affected by future changes in climate. Changes in land suitability, for

Table 1 Impacts of climate variability, vulnerability and adaptive capacity in Africa (after IPCC, 2001) Likely impacts of climate vulnerability

Vulnerability and adaptive capacity


Increase in droughts, floods and other extreme events will add stress to
Adaptive capacity is low due to low GDP per capita, widespread poverty,





water resources, food security, human health and infrastructure thus, constraining development Changes in rainfall and intensified land use will increase desertification (e.g. southern Africa, Western Sahel) Sea level rise will affect coastal settlements, flooding, coastal erosion especially along the south-eastern coast of Africa Major rivers are highly sensitive to climate variations: decreases in surface runoff and water could affect agriculture and hydro-electric power schemes thus increasing cross-boundary tensions Increase in extreme events in some places, e.g., flooding, rainfall and drought

inequitable land distribution and low education levels


Absence of safety nets, particularly after harvest failures
25% of the population lives within 100 km of the coast. Africa’s largest




cities are along coasts, vulnerable to extreme events, coastal erosion and sea level rise Individual coping strategies for desertification are already strained thus leading to further poverty Dependence on rain-fed agriculture is very high, and Adaptive capacity will be highest in countries with civil order, political openness and sound economic management

ARTICLE IN PRESS P. Reid, C. Vogel / Global Environmental Change 16 (2006) 195–206

to information, for example, can often aggravate local vulnerability particularly at times of heightened climate stress (e.g. O’Brien and Vogel, 2003). More recent assessments are also drawing attention to social justice dimensions as contributing factors to vulnerability to climate and other stresses (e.g. Adger et al., 2003; Bohle et al., 1994; Bohle, 2001; Girot, 2002; Kelly and Adger, 1999, 2000; Watts and Bohle, 1993; Wisner, 1993, 1995, 2004; Polsky et al., 2003) as well as the role of social networks and the influence of varying forms of social capital (see Pelling and High, 2005 for a recent critique on such themes). When examining vulnerability to a particular stress it remains essential to explore both the ‘internal’ and ‘external’ dimensions that are contributing to vulnerability. Blaikie et al. (1994), for example, view the physical and the social aspects shaping vulnerability as two separate entities. For this study, we have viewed both the ‘external’ and ‘internal’ aspects of vulnerability as crucial in the definition + and adopt what Fussel and Klein (2005), term secondgeneration vulnerability assessments. Here second-generation vulnerability assessments are used to estimate realistically the vulnerability of certain sectors to climate change, in concert with other stress factors. Here adaptation options are coupled to the capacity of people to actually implement options that will actually determine their vulnerability to climate change (e.g. UNEP, 1998, 2001). The cumulative affect of various additional stresses on a system, already strained, therefore becomes heightened. A system or group’s capacity to anticipate, cope with and resist stress, as well as the ability to recover from stress, have all been highlighted as factors that configure vulnerabilities in various settings (Kasperson and Kasperson, 2001a, b). Various additional components of vulnerability, for example, have been identified, including access to resources, weakening social patterns, degradation of the environment, and lack of access to information (e.g. Aysan, 1993; Scoones, 2004). Cannon (2000), for example, has identified five key ‘components of vulnerability’:








initial well-being, livelihood resilience, self-protection, societal protection, social capital (co-operating groups, social cohesion).

One approach of making some sense of these various interacting variables is to use what some have termed the ‘Situational Approach’ (Wisner, 2004) that focuses on everyday life and the situations in which people find themselves much like the SLF framework. This approach does not, therefore, see disasters and climate stress or shocks as extraordinary events but rather as ‘normal’ circumstances to which communities have to respond (Wisner, 1993; Cannon, 2000). Wisner (2004), for example, suggests that all people have capabilities of self-protection and group action even though these capabilities are often

197

not used to their fullest extent, if at all, and that these capabilities go beyond what was previously described as ‘coping’ and ‘adaptation’: Such capabilities should be seen as going beyond what used to be called ‘coping’, ‘adjustment’ and ‘adaptation’ (Wisner, 2004, p. 191). Devereux and Edwards (2004) expand on this notion of building on inherent, daily capacities that can be used to enhance adaptive capacity when they state that: The people who will be worst affected are unlikely to be passive victims of climate change. Most already live in marginal environments and face weather variability, against which they have developed strategies that are resilient against all but the most severe or protracted shocks (Devereux and Edwards, 2004, p. 27). 1.2. Adaptive capacity Adaptation and coping with climate variability and climate change are also key themes in current global climate discussions and policy initiatives (e.g. IPCC1, IHDP2, UNEP, 1998, 2001; Downing and Patwardhan, + 2003; Fussel and Klein, 2005) often used, however, with different interpretations and different purposes (Downing, 2004). Debate on the varied use and meaning of these terms is not the focus of this article but some clarity on the use of adaptation in this paper is required. Adaptation can be reactive (after impact takes place) or anticipatory (before impact takes place), and can therefore be carried out in response to or in anticipation of changes within existing situations (IPCC, 1995). In social systems, adaptation decisions, moreover, are often made by a variety of actors including private decision-makers, public agencies, governments and civic society (IPCC, 2001) with groups and individuals being drawn from varied backgrounds, economic sectors, settlements, communities, cultures and ecosystems. How does one then articulate and profile ‘adaptation’ in such a multi-faceted setting? We argue here, that more detailed assessments of these complex interactions and relationships is required if any planned adaptation policy or interventions are to be designed in the future. Adaptive capacity also refers to the degree to which adjustments are possible in practices, processes, or structures of systems to projected or actual changes of climate (IPCC, 1995, Fig. 1). Adaptive capacity, usually, cannot be easily measured as it is directly connected to levels of sustainable development including human and social dimensions, economic and political stability and various physical characteristics e.g. climatic conditions (UNFCCC, 2002). Adaptive capacity is also influenced by the resilience within the system or community (Berkes and 1

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change. 2

ARTICLE IN PRESS P. Reid, C. Vogel / Global Environmental Change 16 (2006) 195–206

198

Increasing Resilience and Security

Objective

Single Household

Group Based

Adaptation

-preventative health -successful migration -more secure income sources

-collective action for infrastructure -common property resources

Risk Diversification

-crop diversification -income diversification -investment in human and physical capital

-occupational associations -savings and credit associations

-marriage and extended family -buffer stocks

investment in social capital

-intensify labour inputs -draw on savings -sale of assets -cut down on consumption -migration to marginal lands

-mutual support networks

Coping with Shocks

Market Based

Publicly Provided -good macro-economic policy -environmental, health and labourpolicy

-savings accounts -micro finance

-Insurance

-Old age annuities -accident insurance -sale of financial assets -loans from banks

-Agriculture extension -Liberalisation of trade -Protection of property rights -Pension scheme -mandated insurances

SOCIAL PROTECTION -Social assistance -workforce -subsidies -social funds -cash transfers

Fig. 1. Adaptation and coping mechanisms (after UNFCCC, 2002).

Folke, 1998; Carpenter et al., 2001) including how robust a system is to various shocks and stresses. There is arguably as much uncertainty in adaptive capacity as there is in climate change science (Adger and Vincent, 2005). The capacity to adapt is a critical element of the process of adaptation but this varies, depending on various factors including scale (e.g. global, national, local scales) and context. One of the key issues is also trying to determine future adaptive capacity (Adger and Vincent, 2005). Despite this need to peer into the future, several may well ask, whether we have any knowledge of ‘current’, ‘chronic’ vulnerabilities to even begin to frame discussions about the future? Vulnerability to climate change and adaptation, is highly variable and is strongly tied to local places and local contexts (e.g. Leichenko and O’Brien, 2002). Parts of South Africa, for example, may rank positively when assessing overall vulnerability to climate stress in terms of access to resources and livelihoods, but there are areas where adaptive capacity is currently extremely stressed and where future adaptive capacity is at risk of being further weakened by the growing HIV/ AIDS pandemic and other stressors (see for example Midgely et al., 2005). With these approaches and variety of perspectives on climate stress, vulnerability, coping and adaptive capacity, we turn to the Muden area in KZN, in South Africa and present the pilot study that highlights the role that various livelihood activities play in adaptation to current and future stresses, including climate stress (Reid et al., 2005). The area has a long history of past climate stress events and could be an area that may experience climate stress in the

future. Agricultural and other livelihoods are resource dependent in the area with many requiring water for smallscale farming activities. The area is also characterised by high levels of poverty and other stresses e.g. HIV/AIDS (an estimated 37.5% prevalence of HIV among antenatal clinic attendees, www.doh.gov.za). 2. Case study: the Muden farmers 2.1. The Muden area Muden is situated approximately 35 km northwest of Greytown in the KZN midlands. The area of Muden is within the Mooi River Valley (Fig. 2). The area is characterized by commercial cane lands, irrigated ‘smallscale farming’3 agriculture within the Muden Irrigation Scheme (MIS), as well as severely degraded rangeland areas being used for grazing. The majority of the community lack any formal water supply service4. The Muden valley is in the lower part of the Thukela Catchment (altitude about 800 m, and annual rainfall of 630 mm, see Dlamini and Schulze, 2004 for additional background details). The area is semi-arid with high potential evaporation, strong seasonality and inter-annual variability of rainfall5 (Dube and Jury, 2003). Biophysically 3 In this case the term small-scale farming has been used to differentiate it from the larger, commercial farming practices in the area. 4 Formal water supply services refer to tapped water and sanitation, not the irrigation scheme. 5 Due to the orography of the area rainfall data would contain errors, there are no complete data sets for the Muden area

ARTICLE IN PRESS P. Reid, C. Vogel / Global Environmental Change 16 (2006) 195–206

the area is prone to drought and flooding (Fig. 3). Rainfall and discharge below 120 million m3/year are considered a drought period and those periods of over 350 million m3/ year denote flood events. The vast majority of households are situated on the west bank of the river. In 1967, the government built a 21 km canal that intercepted water from the Mooi River, upstream of Muden, for the irrigation of 15 blocks of rural agricultural land. These blocks are of different sizes with each block containing a number of plots. The plots are all approximately 1000 m2 (10 m  100 m). The total area of the scheme is 601 ha. The infrastructure (water off-take, canals, pipes and dams) are owned and maintained by the Department of Agriculture (DoA) in the form of extension

technicians and engineers who supply agricultural and technical assistance to the local farmers in the community. Climate-related risks, as listed by the IPCC (Table 1) are real threats to livelihoods in southern Africa as well as those within the Muden community. Rainfall events it is claimed are now shorter and more intense than was experienced previously with some suggesting that drought and other extreme events may become more severe and more frequent under the certain climate change scenarios (Joubert and Mason, 1997). Periods of climate stress, such as droughts and floods are not ‘new’ to the area and the community. Recurrent droughts have resulted in a number of impacts in KZN in the past. During 2004, for example, the area around Muden was gripped by a severe drought period:

C

The rural areas of northern KwaZulu-Natal have been most affected and are currently in a hydrological situation. A recent local government needs’ assessment revealed that over 700,000 people are without clean drinking water after boreholes, rivers and springs in KwaZulu-Natal dried up. Areas worst hit by the drought are the district municipalities of Zululand, Umkhanyakude, Sisonke and Umzinyathi (KZN, Drought Report, February 2004, pp. 1 and 2).

Muden

Other previous periods of droughts and impacts, recorded in the press and other sources include:

Schematic Layout of the Muden Area in KwaZulu-Natal

Keate's Drift

Muden Farmers

Irrigation Canal

South Africa

199

l Plots Agricultura land Farm l a i erc omm

Drought drives KwaZulu farmers out (Pietermaritzburg News, 14/08/1979) Drought cost KwaZulu R6 million (Star, 21/08/1980) Cash crops failed KwaZulu (Star 29/03/1983) During 1992–1993 drought, boreholes drilled and water supplied (Gilham, 1997).

Mooi River

Greytown

Fig. 2. Simplified schematic layout of the Muden area showing the position of the agricultural plots in relation to the irrigation canal and commercial farmland.

Despite living in a climate-risk area (semi-arid, high potential evaporation and periods of repeated variable

1400

800

1200

700

1000

600 500

800

400

600

300

400

200

200

100

Yearly Rainfall (mm)

Discharge (mill cubic m)

Relationship between Rainfall and Discharge 900

0

19 69 19 /70 71 19 /72 73 19 /74 75 19 /76 77 19 /78 79 19 /80 81 19 /82 83 19 /84 85 19 /86 87 19 /88 89 19 /90 91 19 /92 93 19 /94 95 19 /96 97 19 /98 99 20 /00 01 /0 2

0

Years Discharge (V2H004)

Yearly Rainfall (V2E002)

Fig. 3. Relationship between the yearly cumulative discharge for the Mooi River upstream of the Muden Irrigation Scheme (Catchment area 1546 km2) and Rainfall Station V2H004 (DWAF) showing the yearly cumulative rainfall for the area near Muden (V2E002). Shaded area represents cycles of drought that have been recorded (Source: DWAF, Pretoria).

ARTICLE IN PRESS 200

P. Reid, C. Vogel / Global Environmental Change 16 (2006) 195–206

rainfall, Fig. 3), varying climate does, however, not appear to be the only concern or stress constraining the ‘quality of life’ in the area. Other livelihood issues, as have been identified in this study, are more critical. A wide range of factors, as indicated at the outset of this paper, are enhancing or constraining adaptive capacity to periods of climate stress in the area. To adapt to climate-risks communities need to be able to draw on a range of resources and options. From this analysis a set of other ‘stressors’ have been identified and are described below. Infrastructure, financial resources, technology, knowledge, the policy environment and access to resources are all factors considered in such an approach. Coping and adaptive strategies, we argue, are being strongly influenced by the dynamics of a variety of social and institutional systems and the ‘capacity’ of the community and households to use available resources and assets at their disposal. These assets, using the SLF approach, are viewed in terms of five basic groups (human, social, financial, physical and natural) and are examined with reference to the Muden case below. 2.2. Muden vulnerability assessment Using the SLF, a number of multiple stressors that served to enhance vulnerability and constrain adaptive capacity to climate-risk were identified in the Muden area. These included factors such as institutional organisation, lack of access to information and broader governance issues between the DoA and the farmers in the area. During this research, three focus groups were consulted. These groups included ‘block committee’ chairpersons, farmers, agricultural extension officers and local residents. Each focus group met on three separate occasions. Ten semi-structured interviews were conducted with groups of farmers that were working their fields. These groups consisted of between 8 and 14 farmers. A transect walk was conducted across one of the farming blocks with farmers from the block as well as with agricultural extension officers and technicians. From these interviews and interactions, the following themes or issues relating to the ‘situational’, ‘everyday’ constraints to livelihoods and their capacity to adapt and cope with climate stress emerged. While not representative of the entire community the results we highlight here begin to point to certain areas that require further detailed investigation. 2.2.1. Livelihood assets 2.2.1.1. Human capital. Human capital in the form of available labour and human resources is key for the Muden community to achieve positive livelihood outcomes. Human capital, we argue, is required in order to make use of the other four types of capital (social, physical, financial and natural). In this study human capital was investigated at the household level where the amount and quality of labour within the household was shown to be critical.

Available labour to work the fields presents a possible problem within the Muden community for the future. In total women make up 91% of the participative workforce in the area with the majority in the age group of 40 years and older (Le Gal, 2003). There are also fewer people working in the fields, with many of the plots apparently abandoned. These observations were confirmed by the focus group discussions. When asked about the lack of numbers of people in the fields, the farmers stated that many people were ‘under the ground’6. The health of the Muden community is a primary concern facing people’s livelihoods in the area. The prevalence of HIV/AIDS in KZN is having a devastating affect on all communities. Sicknesses in the area also include water borne diseases due to the lack of services available to the community. All these factors in turn influence the quantity and quality of labour for the primary focus in the area, i.e. farming. The farmers see education of the youth in Muden as an important factor in increasing knowledge bases. Education is ranked second in terms of outgoing expenses each month, with food being the highest expense. Due to the expense of education and its perceived long-term benefit, it is highly valued. The lack of knowledge regarding farming and markets is seen by the farmers as another key constraint in order to sustain and better their livelihoods. Currently there are no participatory processes of knowledge generation that build upon and complement local knowledge regarding farming. The farmers want more information and assistance regarding seed types, planting dates and fertilizer types specifically. The results presented here were for a pilot assessment. More details about the wider area and the links between water poverty in general are available in the work undertaken by Dlamini and Schulze (2004) and in the report by Schulze (2005). 2.2.1.2. Social capital. Social capital can be seen as the social resources upon which people draw on in order to pursue livelihood activities (e.g. DFID, 1999):






networks and connectedness, memberships of formalised groups, relationships of trust, reciprocity and exchange.

Each of the blocks of farmland in Muden has a Block Committee that ‘oversees’ the ‘running’ of the block. The committees each have a chairperson who belongs to a ‘scheme-wide’ committee. This committee is supposed to meet with the DoA extension technicians weekly to discuss various issues, e.g. fencing of blocks, maintenance issues, water management and problems with goats, etc. This forum now rarely meets as the farmers argue that it wastes time; and that nothing is ever done about issues raised at 6

‘Under the ground’ reference to people dying and being buried.

ARTICLE IN PRESS P. Reid, C. Vogel / Global Environmental Change 16 (2006) 195–206

the meetings and that they receive no help from the DoA. Some issues raised at these meetings include:






water management issues (top priority), goats getting into fields and eating crops, scheme infrastructure maintenance.

Farmers within blocks often do get together to buy seed in bulk in order to reduce the overall transaction cost. There are also farming ‘stokvels’7. These informal groups occur within blocks. In addition funeral societies exist in the community. Despite these ‘social structures’, in terms of agricultural output, there is very little inter-block and intra-block assistance or co-operation. No co-operation seems to exist in terms of shared farming labour i.e. groups of plot owners helping each other. This can possibly be attributed to the decreasing numbers of farmers working in the fields and that farmers do not have the capacity to assist fellow farmers. This trend, however, some argued, has always existed. Crop losses in the area often occur due to goats entering into the blocks and eating crops as well as losses resulting from severe storms. The goat issue is a real, daily concern for the farmers. When households lose crops there is no assistance from local farmers, in any form that could assist in the re-establishment of lost capital. The importance of re-establishing a strong scheme committee is essential in helping the farmers to ensure that their interests are reflected in DoA decisions that are made, particularly with the handing over of the management of the scheme to the community in the future, as well as possible water-related conflicts in the future. 2.2.1.3. Natural capital. Natural capital refers to natural resource stocks that are useful for livelihoods. Natural capital is closely related to ecological dimensions of vulnerability. Many of the shocks that are detrimental to livelihoods are themselves natural processes that destroy natural capital. Types of natural capital include: land, forests, water, erosion protection and biodiversity. In the case of the Muden community, the allocation of plots is performed by the local Indunas8 in the area. The local Indunas inherited ‘ownership’9 of the land when the DoA constructed the irrigation system in the late 1960s. There is no charge to obtain a plot. Once a person has been allocated a plot, that plot ‘belongs’ to the family and ownership can be passed on to succeeding generations. The Induna9 can remove ownership of a plot if the plot is not utilised properly. Often, for example, it is the chief who is contacted first regarding issues of conflict regarding water. The perception among the farmers is that the local chief 7

‘Stokvel’, farm savings group that some farmers are involved in. An Induna is an older person, in authority in a community, who in some cases may report to the local Chief. 9 Ownership in this regards refers to custodianship as the land is owned by the Department of Agriculture. 8

201

owns the land they farm. In reality, however, DoA owns the farmland. The number of plots allocated is not done in relation to the number of people in a household. Data collected by Le Gal (2003), indicates that no relationship exists between the number of people in a household and the number of plots a person can be allocated. Ownership of land, as elsewhere in the region, appears to be a central concern. The constant availability of water through the irrigation scheme is possibly the ‘life-blood’ of the community and enables the majority of households to sustain a livelihood. The lack of formal services, e.g. piped water and sanitation results in the river water being largely used for domestic use as well as irrigation. It is here that health issues occur due to the poor quality of the water, especially in times of low flow. In this case, natural capital is having a detrimental affect in terms of decreasing the productivity of farmers when they fall ill. Possible conflict in the future could arise from a lack of water management that is practiced in the area. This dilemma should fall to the scheme committee and DoA. The canal is managed by Water Bailiffs who police the use of water from the canal. Each block has a specified day when they are able to take water from the canal. This process, however, does not work effectively as there is no way to manage the off-take points from the canal into the fields (e.g. sluice gates have padlocks attached but these are often forcibly removed). Farmers do not adhere to the scheduled watering days thus affecting the availability of water to the lower blocks. An additional, important natural asset that is being used to sustain local livelihoods is crop production. In the past, farmers have planted a variety of crops. This diversity, however, is now being diminished due to the introduction and ‘high’ financial value received by garlic. A number of farmers are now planting a large proportion of this crop. As a result of this switch in crops grown a number of ‘knock-on’ problems are emerging that could further enhance the risk environment in which farmers are operating:





there is now a decrease in crop diversity that in turn has a detrimental affect on overall livelihoods, farmers can only have one crop cycle due to the 8-month growing cycle of garlic.

The lack of diversity in some households means that there are no ‘fall-back’ plans if the garlic crop fails, thus making the farmers more vulnerable. A crop failure in this case would therefore cause a decrease in the level of livelihood for a household as their financial capital would be diminished and their purchasing power drastically reduced. The introduction of garlic is a relatively new activity in the region. It was, however, introduced into the area by local Indian vegetable traders from Pietermaritzburg. The introduction of garlic was financially driven due to the

ARTICLE IN PRESS 202

P. Reid, C. Vogel / Global Environmental Change 16 (2006) 195–206

return per kilogram produced. The resilience of garlic to endure longer periods of drier weather was not a consideration when farmers decided to change cropping techniques. The traders thus control the market and price of garlic. In this regard the farmers are reliant on the traders which in turn may make them more vulnerable: there is no other market for garlic except for the vegetable traders, the farmers do not have any negotiating power in terms of price and they have gone from two cropping cycles to one which may heighten their risk to the vagaries of climate. As a result of good quality soil within the Muden valley and the availability of water throughout the year, a large proportion of the farmers, however, are able to produce two crops a season. 2.2.1.4. Physical capital. Physical capital is made up of basic infrastructure and producer goods that are needed to support livelihoods. The producer goods include those tools and equipment that are needed to function more productively. In the case of the Muden farmers, the scheme’s infrastructure, e.g. canal, pipes, weirs, tractor and dams are owned and maintained by the DoA. In some respects this relationship is advantageous to the farmers in that the DoA is responsible for all capital expenditure with respect to maintenance and installation of new facilities. It does, however, make the farmers reliant on the services proved by DoA. The relationship between the farmers and the DoA has been tainted, however, by the perceived ‘non-delivery’ of the DoA by the farmers. This in turn has resulted in a lack of constructive communication between the two parties thus resulting in issues not being resolved e.g. anti-goat fencing around blocks, tractor breakdowns, etc. The availability and affordability of transport in order to take produce to markets would ensure a positive livelihood outcome. Currently the farmers have no access to markets due to the lack of transport. This failure to access markets further constrains financial capital resources that could be used to purchase seed or equipment to enable farmers in turn to be more productive. There are few water and sanitation services in the area. Time allocated for the collection of water and fuel also decreases the overall time budget for other activities. The collection of water, for example, was ranked third as the most important daily job, usually undertaken by women. Energy is mainly provided by the collection of firewood, this task was ranked the fourth most important job of the day for the women, after collecting water. All these activities are taking a large proportion of the day for the women, who account for 93% of the farm labour (Le Gal, 2003). The constant availability of water in the canal (extracted from the Mooi River) is a priceless commodity to the farmers. It is used for both farming and domestic use. The canal infrastructure is the only way the farmers currently have of delivering water to the fields. The canal, however,

needs to be managed and maintained to a level where disruption to the flow of water is eliminated. 2.2.1.5. Financial capital. Financial capital and financial resources are used by people in order to sustain or better their livelihood. Financial capital can be seen as flows of cash and stocks, e.g., cows, car, house, etc. For this study, financial capital was assessed as on-farm income, off-farm income and stocks of resources. On-farm income averages R1265/year10 derived from crop farming (small-scale agriculture). The average offfarm income is R7400/year (n ¼ 53 households). The amount is made up of the sale of crops to external traders and supermarkets in the area. A large proportion of household heads are between the ages of 61–70 years of age. Old-age pensions contribute a significant amount to off-farm incomes, on average R650/month (Le Gal, 2003). Diversification activities are also included to raise income. The women, when not farming, for example, use local grasses and reeds to make baskets, brooms, sleeping mats and doormats. They also sell locally produced bead and art crafts. This diversification in income generation decreases a household’s vulnerability to financial shortfalls when there may be a crop failure or when other external remittances are lost e.g. pensions. In terms of expenditure, the households with young school-going children seem to be more pressured financially due to the high cost of school fees. During the focus group meeting, for example, food and school fees were stated as the biggest expenses for households each month. 2.2.1.6. Enhancing adaptive capacity—the possible role of institutions. Institutions (both formal and informal) (e.g. Young, 2002) and various forms of environmental governance (see for example Devereux 2003), can provide ways of building adaptive capacity and to enhance resilience to environmental changes. Within Muden, three primary organisations emerge as critical to ensure possible resilience to changes:






farmers and local community groups, DoA and public and governmental institutions, Indunas and local ‘organisations’.

Each block has a chairperson that is part of a scheme committee that is responsible, with the DoA, for the running of the scheme. Currently the scheme committee is an ‘empty shell’. Roles and responsibilities have never been formally recognised by the DoA and/or by the block farmers, who they represent. Their rights11 and responsibilities as the scheme committee are probably also misunderstood thus resulting in a sense of inability to encourage and facilitate change within the scheme. If 10

The Rand at the time of writing was R5.78 to the US$. Rights include political, human and rights that come with responsibility, e.g., rights to collect revenue, etc. 11

ARTICLE IN PRESS P. Reid, C. Vogel / Global Environmental Change 16 (2006) 195–206

improved, the scheme committee could be a powerful forum in which to bring about change and action within the scheme. As mentioned previously the DoA own and maintain the scheme. The DoA provides extension technicians to the scheme to help the farmers in making decisions and in facilitating discussion around issues raised by the farmers. In recent months however, it would seem that ‘trustworthy’ communication between the DoA and farmers has broken down, resulting in the crumbling of the scheme committee structure. The farmers suggest that this has been caused by the DoA’s non-delivery on issues that have been tabled repeatedly at scheme committee meetings. The scheme committee, however, remains the farmers’ only conduit to the DoA and, in the interests of the long-term sustainability of the scheme ways need to be found to improve the dialogue and interactions between the DoA and farmers. One possible local agency or intermediary (a form of boundary institution, Cash, 2001) is the Farmer Support Group, who assists in finding ways to improve the livelihoods of local farmers in the area. A detailed investigation of the services by such an agency was not undertaken for this study, but further research on this group and their activities would be informative to any expanded research. Such interactions could prove useful particularly if the proposed handover of the scheme, to the farmers, is to be a success. The DoA plans to hand the management and maintenance over to the farmers. This transfer process and the issues associated with it are out of the scope of this research, however, there are some important characteristics, we argue, that would need to be understood and addressed:







an understanding by the farmers of the current ownership and rights that they have over the scheme, the perceived need for additional knowledge for the farmers themselves, the lack of faith the farmers have in the DoA that currently exists would need to be addressed, the lack of communication that currently exists between the DoA, farmers and local chief.

2.2.1.7. Perceptions of climate change. Finally, the perceptions of climate risks were also probed. The perception of climate variability by the farmers in the scheme that emerged was one where climate stresses are not seen to be of key importance to their daily livelihoods, despite the fact that a drought existed during field research (2004). The farmers have not noted any changes in the pattern and intensity in climate in the past 5 years. They have only experienced one severe weather-related crop failure in the last 5 years because of a hailstorm. They are aware though, of the reduction in water supplies during drier periods but this, they argue, is not uncommon. These perceptions may

203

be offset by the apparent ‘continuous’12 supply of water in the Mooi River, even during dry periods. 3. Discussion The vulnerability context, or ‘situational’ context described here clearly draws attention to the range of factors configuring the local context or ‘development environment’ in which people live. Climate is not the only stress on livelihoods in Muden. Rather we have shown that many are living ‘daily’ with a host of other stressors that may combine to heighten their vulnerability to future climate risks. This is not to say that they have not been affected by extreme climatic events. There have been crop losses associated with past extreme climate events. These, however, have not been seen as extraordinary. Rather farmers and the community seem to deal with them as they occur and take the necessary actions needed to move on. Factors that appear to be enhancing local livelihoods and that may provide options for future development, adaptation and enhance resilience (e.g. Walker et al., 2002) to possibly guide future interventions to reduce vulnerability include asset building, improved institutional capacity and better understanding of social relations and the role of social capital in the area. Access to assets and a ‘stock’ of existing capabilities and improved understanding of situational vulnerabilities are essential when trying to enhance resilience to a range of environmental risks (Wisner, 2004). Links to institutional and organisational structures also critically shape and determine a household’s livelihood. Structures include organisations, public and private, formal and informal, that may implement policy, deliver services, and create markets and trade. All these impact on livelihoods in some way. The issues and constraints to reducing vulnerability to climate stress and other stresses in the area that have been identified in this case, are not new. During the 1992–1993 drought period for example, a team working with the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, organised several Crisis Committees. These committees identified similar factors heightening vulnerability to drought in KZN: Many areas in a water-stressed situation resulted more from long-term neglect than from the prevailing drought (Gilham, 1997, p. 417). Factors enhancing resilience and effective interventions during the 1992–1993 drought situation included partnerships and social arrangements. These arrangements and networks, we argue, are essential if development and drought management are going to be effective. Baseline data and information is, moreover, also critical for effective intervention: 12 The farmers interviewed could not recall the Mooi River ever being totally dry.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 204

P. Reid, C. Vogel / Global Environmental Change 16 (2006) 195–206

Through the partnerships formed, coordination and community involvement, the correct areas were targeted (Gilham, 1997, p. 417). These relationships do not, however, occur in ‘neutral settings’ and are highly contested. Power relations, that can hamper decision-making, e.g., who gets ‘what say’ during scheme committee meetings, also appear to be key factors shaping livelihoods in the area. The extension technicians are all male and this appears to have an impact on the outcomes of meetings, i.e., women have very little say in such meetings. Markets are also driven by complex power relationships that are often configured according to gender. Female farmers, for example, are dealing with male Indian buyers who drive prices down, thereby exerting a monopoly on the farmers because they are unable to transport their own crops to market. Improved understanding of local community governance structures and relationships within a community emerge as key findings in this case and require much more detailed investigation. Local chiefs and Indunas are pivotal in the distribution of plots to local households that lead to people being able to sustain their livelihoods in the area. Access by households to Indunas is an important dynamic within the scheme. These local leaders could hold the key to the improved governance and functioning of the ‘scheme committee’ issue, as well as playing a possible role in the transfer of the scheme. This dynamic could be important in bringing together cooperation and trust for the future management of the scheme. Access to infrastructure and transport are further compounding factors to overall improved livelihoods. The lack of transport in the area does not enable farmers to get their produce to markets thus limiting them to the immediate area to sell produce. There is also a need to get roads into the fields to get the produce from the fields to the ‘markets’. Access to transport would indeed increase the livelihood opportunities in the area. Decreases in available labour, coupled to deteriorating health of workers, may also decrease the productivity of blocks thus potentially increasing the vulnerability of those households that do not have sufficient labour to work the fields. Currently the farmers have ‘un-limited’ supply of water from the scheme. Due to the lack of water management within the scheme and the problems of unequal access, blocks do not get equal opportunity to use water and several differential vulnerabilities are exposed. Some blocks, for example, further down the scheme cannot irrigate their crops. In this case, owing to the lack of institutional support and appropriate governance structures, a number of farmers are benefiting at the expense of farmers further down the scheme. In the future, and in times of possible severe climate stress, these differential vulnerabilities could be aggravated by ‘water conflict’ and reduced capacity to procure livelihoods.

From this work we suggest areas that require further research and attention:









Knowledge and access to information. Investigating the complex relations with DoA. Health and care e.g. how are these aggravated by water borne diseases and HIV/AIDS? Farm labour opportunities. Access to markets (transport to markets to sell produce). Water governance (current lack of water management within the scheme).

The findings from this preliminary work echo those found in the IUCN study (IUCN, iiSD, SEI-B and Intercooperation, 2004) who argue that a thorough understanding of local livelihoods, including a detailed knowledge of the assets that comprise peoples’ livelihoods and the factors (including climate risks) that shape vulnerability, are essential components of a comprehensive vulnerability assessment. 4. Conclusion Periods of drought and floods have always occurred in KZN. Such periods of climate stress are expected to occur, possibly with greater frequency and magnitude, in the future (Joubert and Mason, 1997; Schulze, 2005). As this research has shown, however, it is not only stresses associated with climate that are factors undermining community- and household-adaptive capacity and undermining local development in KZN. A number of other factors, including institutional organisation, access to information and governance in the area, are also reducing the ability of farmers to secure sustainable livelihoods. This pilot case study has shown that the factors driving responses and adaptation to risks, including possible climate risks in KZN, are complex and variable. Local complexity and changing ‘situational’ contexts are therefore key when designing intervention strategies to enhance adaptive capacity to various changes. The limitations of ‘normal’ or ‘daily’ life impose certain constraints on community livelihoods and these cannot be easily disentangled from processes that make the same people vulnerable to a range of additional risks (Wisner, 2004). ‘One size’ will not ‘fit all’ when designing future institutional and local response interventions to enhance adaptation to climate variability. Contrary to the mechanisms called for by UNFCC (Fig. 1), that highlight discrete activities to reduce vulnerability, we would also profile institutional dimensions and governance, in addition to social capital, as key elements that require substantial further investigation if resilience and overall adaptive capacity to climate-risk is to be enhanced. The effects of future climate risks can severely undermine critical resources required for development. Finding ways to ‘twin’ climate adaptation and development

ARTICLE IN PRESS P. Reid, C. Vogel / Global Environmental Change 16 (2006) 195–206

activities and what this means for the various planning spheres of various institutions are all critical areas requiring further detailed research. In particular, research on multiple stressors, and how these govern the flow of various capitals ‘in’ and ‘out’ of communities, such as those in Muden, is needed. Failure to take cognisance of such ‘complex’ local dynamics, could derail well-intentioned regional and global climate change initiatives. Acknowledgements This work formed part of a Water research Commission project 1430/1/05 that was funded by the South African Water Research Commission (WRC). Opinions expressed and conclusions are those of the authors and are not those of the Water Research Commission. The assistance of the South Africa/Norway Programme on Research Co-operation is also acknowledged. Part of this work was presented, and useful comments received, at a meeting organized through support from this programme as well as by two anonymous reviewers. References Adger, W.N., Huq, S., Brown, K., Conway, D., Hulme, M., 2003. Adaptation to climate variability in the developing world. Progress in Development Studies 3 (3), 179–195. Adger, W.N., Vincent, K., 2005. Uncertainty in adaptive capacity. Compus Rendus Geoscience 337, 399–410. African Development Bank, and others, 2003. Poverty and Climate Change, Reducing the Vulnerability of the Poor through Adaptation. Presented at the Eighth Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in New Delhi, 2002. Aysan, Y., 1993. Keynote paper: vulnerability assessment. In: Merriman, P., Browitt, C. (Eds.), Natural Disasters: Protecting Vulnerability Communities. Telford, London. Berkes, F., Folke, C., 1998. Linking Social and Ecological Systems. Cambridge University Press, London. Blaikie, P.M., Cannon, T., Davies, I., Wisner, B., 1994. At Risk: Natural Hazards, Peoples Vulnerability and Disasters. Routledge, London. Bohle, H., 2001. Vulnerability and criticality: Perspectives from social geography. IHDP Update 2 1, 3–5. Bohle, H., Downing, T.E., Watts, M., 1994. Climate change and social vulnerability: the sociology and geography of food security. Global Environmental Change 4 (1), 37–48. Cannon, T., 2000. Vulnerability analysis and disasters. In: Parker, D., (Eds.), Floods, vol. 1. Routledge, London, pp. 45–55. Cash, D.W., 2001. ‘‘In Order to Aid in Diffusing Useful and Practical Information’’: Agricultural Extension and Boundary Organizations. Science Technology Human Values 26, 431–453. Carney, D., (Eds.), 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods: What contributions can we make. Papers presented at DFID’s Natural Resources Advisers’ Conference, July 1998. London. Department for International Development (DFID). Carpenter, S.R., Walker, B., Anderies, J.M., Abel, N., 2001. From metaphor to measurement: Resilience of what to what? Ecosystems 4, 765–781. Chambers, R. (Ed.), 1989. Editorial Introduction: vulnerability, coping and policy, IDS Bulletin 21, 1–7. Chambers, R., Conway, G., 1992. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21st Century. IDS Discussion Paper 296, Brighton. IDS. Chambers, R., Longhurst, R., Pacey, A., 1981. Seasonal Dimensions to Rural Poverty. Frances Pinter, London.

205

Devereux, S., 2003. Policy options for increasing the contribution of social protection to food security. Forum for Food Security in Southern Africa. Devereux, S., Edwards, J., 2004. Climate change and food security. Climate Change and Development. IDS Bulletin 35 (3), 22–30. DFID, 1999. Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets, London, www.livelihoods.org Dlamini, D.J.M., Schulze, R.E., 2004. Meso-scale indicators of water poverty in the Thukela catchment, South Africa, under baseline land cover conditions. In: Schulze, R.E. and Pike, A., 2004. Development and Evaluation of an Installed Modelling System, WRC Report 1155/ 1/04. Water Research Commission, Pretoria, SA. Downing, T.E., 2004. What have we learnt from vulnerability science? Paper presented at a Side Event of the 10th Session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 7 December 2004. Downing, T.E., Patwardhan, A., 2003. Vulnerability Assessment for Climatic Adaptation. APF Technical Paper 3, United Nations Development Programme, New York City, NY. Dube, L.T., Jury, M.R., 2003. Structure and precursors of the 1992/93 drought in KwaZulu-Natal. South Africa from NCEP reanalysis data. Water SA 29, 208–210. Fischer, G., Shah, M., van Velthuizen, H., 2002. Climate Change and Agricultural Vulnerability. A special report, prepared by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis under United Nations Institutional Contract Agreement No. 1113, a contribution to the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, 2002. + Fussel, H.-M., Klein, R.J.T., 2005. Climate change vulnerability assessments: an evolution of conceptual thinking, Climatic Change, pp. 1–29, in press. Gilham, S.W., 1997. Drought relief in rural KwaZulu-Natal. In: Twentythird WEDC Conference, Durban, South Africa, pp. 415–417. Girot, P., 2002. Scaling up: resilience to hazards and the importance of cross-scale linkages. Paper presented at the UNDP Expert Group Meeting on Integrating Disaster Reduction and Adaptation to Climate Change, Havana, Cuba, 17–19 June 2002. Hilhorst, D., Bankoff, G., 2004. Introduction: Mapping Vulnerability. In: Bankoff, G., Frerks, G., Holhorst, T. (Eds.), Vulnerability, Disasters, Development and People. Earthscan, London, pp. 1–24. Huq, S., Reid, H., 2004. Mainstreaming adaptation in development. IDS Bulletin 35 (3), 15–21. Institute of Development Studies, (IDS), 2004. Climate Change and Development, vol. 35(3). IDS and WWF. IPCC, 1995. Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate variability. Scientifi-Teaching Analysis. Contribution of Working Group II to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate variability. IPCC, 2001. Climate variability 2001. In: McCarthy, J.J., Canziani, O.F., Leary, N.A., Dokken, D.J., White, K.S., (Eds.), Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Cambridge Press, Cambridge. IUCN-The World Conservation Union, International Institute for Sustainable Development (iiSD), Stockholm Environmental Institute – Boston Center (SEI-B) and the Swiss Organisation for Development and Cooperation (Intercooperation), 2004. Sustainable Livelihoods and Climate Change Adaptation. A Review of Phase One activities for the Project on ‘‘Climate Change, Vulnerable Communities and Adaptation’’. Joubert, A., Mason, S., 1997. Simulated changes in extreme rainfall over southern Africa. Journal of Climatology 17, 291–301. Kasperson, R.E., Kasperson, J.X., 2001a. Climate variability, Vulnerability and Social Justice. Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm. Kasperson, R.E., Kasperson, J.X., 2001b. International Workshop on Vulnerability and Global Environmental Change: A Workshop Summary. Stockholm Environment Institute, Report 2001–2001, Stockholm.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 206

P. Reid, C. Vogel / Global Environmental Change 16 (2006) 195–206

Kelly, P.M., Adger, W.N., 1999. Assessing Vulnerability to Climate variability and Facilitating Adaptation. Working Paper GEC 99-07, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University of East Anglia, Norwich. Kelly, P.M., Adger, W.N., 2000. Theory and practice in assessing vulnerability to climate variability and facilitating adaptation. Climate Change 47, 325–352. KZN, 2004. KwaZulu-Natal Drought Report, South Africa. Le Gal, P., 2003. Water and farm management in a small-holder irrigation scheme : From individual diversity to collective action. Presentation to the Department of Agriculture, 28 July 2003, Colenso, KwaZuluNatal. Leichenko, R., O’Brien, K., 2002. The dynamics of rural vulnerability to global change: the case of southern Africa. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 7, 1–18. Mano, R., Isaacson, B., Dardel, P., 2003. Identifying policy determinants of food security response and recovery in the SADC Region: The case of the 2002 food emergency. FANRPAN Policy Paper, Keynote paper prepared for the FANRPAN Regional Dialogue on Agricultural Recovery, Food Security and Trade Policies in Southern Africa, Gaborone, Botswana, 26–27 March 2003. O’Brien, K., Leichenko, R., 2000. ‘Double exposure’: assessing the impacts of climate change within the context of economic globalisation. Global Environmental Change 10, 221–232. O’Brien, K., Vogel, C. (Eds.), 2003. Coping with Climate Variability: the Use of Seasonal Climate Forecasts in Southern Africa, Ashgate Press, Aldershot. Pelling, M., High, C., 2005. Understanding adaptation: What can social capital offer assessments of adaptive capacity? Global Environmental Change 15, 308–319. Polsky, C., Schroter, D., Patt, A., Gaffin, S., Martello, M.L., Neff, R., Pulispher, A., Selin, H., 2003. Assessing Vulnerabilities to the Effect of Global Change: An Eight-Step Approach. Belfer Center for Science & International Affairs, Harvard University. Pielke Jr., R.A., 1998. Rethinking the role of adaptation in climate policy. Global Environmental Change 8, 159–170. Reid, P., Massey, R., Vogel, C., 2005. Climate and development: experiences of farmers in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. In: Schulze, R., (Ed), Climate Change and Water Resources in Southern Africa: Studies on Scenarios, Impacts, Vulnerabilities and Adaptation, Water

Research Commission, Pretoria, RSA, WRC, Report 1430/0/05, Chapter 25, pp. 395–414, www.wrc.org.za Schulze, R., (Ed.), 2005. Climate Change and Water Resources in Southern Africa: Studies on Scenarios, Impacts, Vulnerabilities and Adaptation, Water Research Commission, Pretoria, RSA, WRC, Report 1430/0/05, www.wrc.org.za Scoones, I., 2000. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods. A Framework for Analysis, IDS Working Paper 72, IDS, Brighton. Scoones, I., 2004. Climatic change and the challenge of non-equilibrium thinking. IDS Bulletin 3, 114–119. UNDP, 2004. Reducing disaster risk, a challenge for development. Global Report, Bureau for crisis Prevention and Recovery, New York. UNEP, 1998. Handbook on Methods for Climate Impact Assessment and Adaptation Strategies. In: Feenstra, J., Burton, I., Smith, J., Tols, R., (Eds.), United Nations Environment Program, Institute for Environmental Studies, Amsterdam. UNEP, 2001. Assessing Human Vulnerability to Environmental Change: Concepts, Issues, Methods and Case Studies. A report on work in progress, United Nations Environment Program, Nairobi. UNFCCC, 2002. Poverty and Climate variability. Reducing the Vulnerability of the Poor: A Contribution to the Eighth Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate variability. Consultation Draft, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate variability. Walker, B., Carpenter, S., Anderies, J., Abel, N., Cummings, G., Janssen, M., Lebel, L., Norberg, J., Peterson, G.D., Pritchard, R., 2002. Resilience Management in Social-ecological Systems: A Working Hypothesis for a Participatory Approach. Conservation Ecology 6 (1), 14(online), http://www.consecol.org/vol16/iss1.art14/main.html Watts, M.J., Bohle, H.G., 1993. The space of vulnerability: the causal structure of hunger and famine. Progress in Human Geography 17 (1), 43–67. Wisner, B., 1993. Disaster vulnerability: scale, power and daily life. GeoJournal 30 (2), 127–140. Wisner, B., 1995. Bridging expert and local knowledge for counter-disaster planning in urban South Africa. GeoJournal 37 (3), 335–348. Wisner, B., 2004. Assessment of capability and vulnerability. In: Bankoff, G., Frerks, G., Holhorst, T. (Eds.), Vulnerability, Disasters, Development and People. Earthscan, London, pp. 183–194. Young, O.R., 2002. The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Interplay, and Scale. MIT Press, Cambridge.