Download PDF, 176 KB - Global Change System for Analysis, Research and

THE DYNAMICS OF RURAL VULNERABILITY TO GLOBAL
CHANGE: THE CASE OF SOUTHERN AFRICA
ROBIN M. LEICHENKO1 and KAREN L. O’BRIEN2
1 Department of Geography and Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, 33
Livingston Ave., Suite 400, New Brunswick, NJ, USA 08901-1982
2 CICERO, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1129 Blindern, 0318 Oslo, Norway
(∗ Author for correspondence; Fax: +47-22-85 87 51; E-mail: [email protected])
(Received 18 September 2000; accepted in final form 27 April 2001)
Abstract. Research on the agricultural impacts of global change frequently emphasizes the physical
and socioeconomic impacts of climate change, yet global changes associated with the internationalization of economic activity may also have significant impacts on food systems. Together, climate
change and globalization are exposing farmers to new and unfamiliar conditions. Although some
farmers may be in a position to take advantage of these changes, many more are facing increased
vulnerability, particularly in the developing world. This paper considers the dynamics of agricultural
vulnerability to global change through the example of southern Africa. We demonstrate that the
combination of global and national economic changes is altering the context under which southern
African farmers cope with climate variability and adapt to long-term change. We find that farmers
who formerly had difficulty adapting to climatic variability may become less vulnerable to droughtrelated food shortages as the result of trade liberalization. At the same time, however, removal of
national credit and subsidies may constrain or limit adaptation strategies of other farmers, leaving
them more vulnerable to climate variability and change.
Keywords: agriculture, climatic change, economic globalization, vulnerability
1. Introduction
Global economic changes and climate change are affecting the context under which
farmers throughout the developing world participate in the agricultural sector. Economic globalization has brought about such changes as liberalization of trade and
investment, formation of regional economic agreements, implementation of structural adjustment programs (SAPS), and removal of subsidies and price supports
(Castells 1998). While some farmers may benefit from economic globalization by
shifting to production of export commodities, accessing niche markets, or finding alternative sources of income related to emerging consumer economies, many
others are threatened by low crop prices, removal of subsidies, competition with
cheaper imports, changes in credit availability, inability to gain access to international markets, and a lack of access to inputs such as high-yielding seeds, fertilizers,
and irrigation (Mittelman 1994; McLaughlin 1996). Likewise, changes in climate
are also affecting agricultural production through droughts, floods, heavy winds,
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 7: 1–18, 2002.
© 2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
2
ROBIN M. LEICHENKO AND KAREN L. O’BRIEN
frosts, or other extreme events, in addition to increased temperatures and altered
patterns of precipitation (Ribot et al. 1996; Watson et al. 1996).
These changes are exposing farmers to new and in many cases unfamiliar conditions (Watts and Goodman 1997). While some farmers may be in a position to
take advantage of these changes, many more are facing increased vulnerability.
Farmers will have to adapt to both climate change and economic changes at the
same time, and thus vulnerability must be considered from a comprehensive rather
than restricted perspective. In this paper, we first argue that vulnerability must
be understood as a dynamic characteristic that is influenced by larger scale economic and environmental changes. We then illustrate this argument by examining
intersections between globalization, climatic change, and agricultural production
in southern Africa.
Vulnerability as a measure of the degree to which an entity may be hurt or
influenced by an object or event is not a new concept. For example, it has been used
in relation to food security assessments, poverty mapping, natural hazard exposure,
and climate impact studies (Liverman 1990; Downing 1991; Comfort et al. 1999;
UNEP 2000). Within the context of climate studies, conceptualization of vulnerability has mostly focused on marginality, susceptibility, adaptability, fragility, and
risk (Dow 1992; Liverman 1994), where the most vulnerable are considered to be
those who are most exposed to perturbations, who possess a limited capacity for
adaptation, and who are least resilient to recovery (Bohle et al. 1994). In terms of
agriculture, Reilly and Schimmelpfennig (1999) differentiate among yield vulnerability, farmer or sector vulnerability, regional economic vulnerability, and hunger
vulnerability. They see vulnerability of farmers to climate conditions as a measure
influenced by the capacity to take anticipatory actions – such as planting drought
resistant seeds, cultivating the least flood-prone areas, changing the crop mix, or
seeking off-farm income – as well as to recover from losses or damages.
Vulnerability has been assessed at many different levels, including household,
community, region, and nation – although most studies emphasize either the microlevel (household) or the macro-level (nation). The micro-level studies typically
focus on household vulnerability to either natural events such as droughts or floods,
or deterioration in the macroeconomic environment (Webb and Reardon 1992;
Teklu 1992; Glewwe and Hall 1998; Dershem and Gzirishvili 1998; and Moser
1998). Data aggregation and disaggregation are used to shift between or combine
levels of analysis. For example, household and community surveys have been compiled into data sets that allow for disaggregated analyses by broad categories, such
as administrative regions, urban and rural areas, household types, educational backgrounds, and so forth (Henninger 1998). Composite vulnerability indices, based
on a linear combination of a set of standardized variables, either weighted or averaged, to create a single numeric index have also been developed (see review
by Ramachandran and Eastman 1997 and UNEP 2000). The vulnerability indices
developed for Africa, described by Ramachandran and Eastman (1997), rely on
national and international statistics, often supplemented by local level household
THE DYNAMICS OF RURAL VULNERABILITY TO GLOBAL CHANGE
3
surveys and field reports. While composite indices and other methods of aggregation or disaggregation capture the multi-dimensionality of vulnerability in a comprehensible form, they are still unable to capture the direct linkages between local,
national, and global processes (Dow 1992; Wilbanks and Kates 1999).
Thus, while traditional approaches to vulnerability assessment provide valuable
insight into current patterns of physical and socioeconomic vulnerability, they are
unable to incorporate changes in the larger economic and institutional context.
Several recent studies, including Adger (1999), Adger and Kelly (1999), Handmer,
Dovers and Downing (1999), and Reilly and Schimmelpfennig (1999) recognize
this limitation. Adger (1999) and Adger and Kelly (1999) identify factors that
shape vulnerability, including trends in these factors, rather than simply measuring
the state of vulnerability itself. They emphasize that vulnerability is in a process
of continual evolution, as the technological and institutional factors that shape vulnerability are in a state of constant flux. Adger and Kelly (1999, p. 259) stress that
‘it is this dynamic aspect of vulnerability that is most important to capture, rather
than any measure of vulnerability, any snapshot, taken at a particular point in time.’
Handmer, Dovers and Downing (1999) also emphasize that vulnerability should be
seen as a process – where globalization of markets is an important theme, one that
both increases and decreases vulnerability. Reilly and Schimmelpfennig (1999)
concur, and point out that trade effects, which are manifest through changing world
crop prices, may overwhelm the climatic effects. That is, even if climate change
leads to lower yields in a specific region, the net economic effect on that region
might still be positive, if climate change is accompanied by rising world prices for
that region’s crops.
In proposing a more dynamic approach to vulnerability, we extend upon the
above arguments by suggesting that patterns of vulnerability have become increasingly dynamic as the result of rapid, ongoing economic and institutional changes.
Economic globalization in particular is exposing many rural regions to global markets, leaving many areas, sectors, and social groups doubly exposed to the impacts
of globalization and climate change, with new sets of winners and losers emerging in the process (O’Brien and Leichenko 2000). Because trade liberalization
patterns are uneven, certain regions may become more integrated in the global
economy, while others remain or become increasingly marginalized, thus changing
vulnerability in both absolute and relative terms.
In light of these arguments, we propose a working definition of dynamic vulnerability: the extent to which environmental and economic changes influence the
capacity of regions, sectors, ecosystems, and social groups to respond to various
types of natural and socio-economic shocks. Dynamic vulnerability incorporates
traditional notions of vulnerability, but places these notions within a rapidly changing socioeconomic and environmental context – a context that transforms the
static ‘snapshots’ of vulnerability. In other words, dynamic vulnerability considers
how global and macro-scale changes are being played out at regional and local
scales, including the effects that these changes have on traditional measures of
4
ROBIN M. LEICHENKO AND KAREN L. O’BRIEN
TABLE I
Selected variables used in vulnerability assessments and a sample of proposed variables for characterizing dynamic vulnerability (Ramachandran and
Eastman 1997)
Traditional indicators of vulnerability
Share of drought resistant crops
Agroclimatic zones
Average NDVI1 for last three seasons
Rainfall index
Frequency of drought by watershed
Percentage crop area
Percentage cash crop
Variability of agricultural production
Access to infrastructure
Per capita livestock units
Per capita staple food production
Average cash income
Population density
Infant mortality index
Percentage female headed households
Female literacy rate
Avg. cost to travel to district market
Avg. cost to travel to nearest urban market
Civil insecurity
Indicators of dynamic vulnerability
Change in access or levels of investment in transportation and other
infrastructure (e.g. construction of new roads or new port facilities)
Change in availability of marketing facilities
Change in access to credit
Change in crop subsidy policies
Change in national trade or investment policy stance
Change in levels or shares of international trade or investment
Changes in national or regional industrial structure
Change in soil fertility
Change in climate variability
Large-scale internal movement of population (e.g., rural-urban migration)
Change in rates of HIV/AIDS among rural households
Escalation of civil war or other military conflict
1 NDVI = Normalized Differential Vegetation Index
THE DYNAMICS OF RURAL VULNERABILITY TO GLOBAL CHANGE
5
vulnerability. This is not to suggest that traditional notions of vulnerability are
entirely static, but that they have tended to hold global trends constant, thus missing
some of the key driving forces that alter patterns of vulnerability. Table I compares
some traditional indicators of vulnerability with indicators that express the more
dynamic aspects of vulnerability.
In addition to considering global economic and environmental changes, dynamic vulnerability can also incorporate new social dimensions of vulnerability
that are emerging as the result of ongoing national and regional-scale changes.
One example of a new dimension of vulnerability is the rapid growth of human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection rates in developing regions, including
southern Africa. The spread of HIV is having a dramatic impact on agricultural
production through decimation of household labor, disruption of traditional security nets, loss of indigenous farming methods, and morbidity and mortality among
rural institutions (Topouzis and du Guerny 1999).
Because dynamic vulnerability takes into consideration the linkages between
global-scale processes and local processes, both in terms of impacts and interactions, we can now look at how the combination of globalization and climate change
may affect agricultural producers in southern Africa and how processes operating
at multiple scales may interact to influence the dynamics of rural vulnerability.
2. Exploring Dynamic Vulnerability in Southern Africa
The potential for intersections between ongoing global and national economic
changes and patterns of agricultural vulnerability to climate variability and change
is of particular concern in southern Africa, defined here as the fourteen member countries comprising the Southern African Development Community (SADC):
Angola, Botswana, the Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire), Lesotho,
Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland,
Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. Southern Africa is a region where agriculture
plays a predominant role in the lives of 75 percent of the population (World Bank
2000c). Nevertheless, the region is heterogeneous, and the agricultural share of
employment varies substantially by country (Figure 1). In Tanzania, Mozambique,
and Malawi, for example, more than 80 percent of the population was employed
in agriculture in 1990. By contrast, in South Africa and Mauritius, less than 20
percent of the population worked in agriculture in 1990 (World Bank 2000a). The
majority of southern Africa’s farmers rely on traditional agricultural methods, in
contrast to the minority involved in high-input commercial farming.
2.1. C LIMATE VARIABILITY AND CHANGE IN SOUTHERN A FRICA
Approximately two-thirds of the African continent is made up of drylands and
considered to be highly vulnerable to climate variability (Watson et al. 1996). As
6
ROBIN M. LEICHENKO AND KAREN L. O’BRIEN
Figure 1. Agricultural share of total employment in Southern African Development Community
countries (excluding Mauritius and Seychelles): 1990 (World Bank 2000a).
a semi-arid tropical region, southern Africa is among the most drought-vulnerable
regions in the world (Parry 1990; Hulme 1996; Ribot et al. 1996; Dilley 2000).
In such regions, inter- and intra-annual variability of rainfall are considered key
climatic elements that determine the success of agriculture (Sivakumar 1998). In
southern Africa, for example, two severe droughts occurred during the 1990s, one
in 1992 and the other in 1995. As illustrated in Table II, total cereal production in
the region was cut nearly in half during the 1992 drought, and by nearly one-third
during the 1995 drought (World Bank 2000a).
With regard to future climate change, the dominant effect of climate change in
southern Africa will likely be altered water balances, which will change hydrological regions and alter cropping patterns (Hulme 1996; Downing et al. 1997).
Temperatures are projected to increase across southern Africa, speeding up plant
growth and reducing the length of the growing season. However, if growth is accelerated during the grain filling period, woody content may increase, thus the
quality of yields (i.e., the percent of Nitrogen in the grain) is likely to decrease,
even if the actual crop yields increase (Hulme 1996). Water availability is critical to
THE DYNAMICS OF RURAL VULNERABILITY TO GLOBAL CHANGE
7
TABLE II
Incidence of drought and cereal production
totals in southern Africa: 1989 to 1998 (World
Bank 2000a)
Year
Incidence of
drought
Cereal production
(metric tons)
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
no
no
no
yes
no
no
yes
no
no
no
28,589,437
23,076,669
22,847,797
12,554,607
26,216,219
27,837,978
19,191,821
28,840,965
25,711,546
22,513,982
plant growth, thus changes in precipitation will also strongly influence agricultural
productivity. Furthermore, increased levels of greenhouse gases may have positive
effects on plant growth through the carbon dioxide enrichment effect (although
this will benefit some crops more than others). Finally, the frequency distributions
of temperature and rainfall may change as a result of climate change, including
changes in climate variability and the intensity of extreme events. This may lead
to more severe droughts or flooding, depending on the timing and distribution of
rainfall.
Vulnerability to climate change varies greatly between regions, sectors and social groups in Africa (Downing et al. 1997). For example, drought-prone areas
of Namibia, Botswana and Zimbabwe are likely to be more vulnerable to climate change than the more humid areas of Tanzania or Zambia. In some areas,
commercial ranching may marginally improve as the result of increased rainfall,
whereas communal ranching might be disadvantaged because of increased erosion
and the incursion of woody weeds (Hulme 1996). However, current patterns of
vulnerability are also being reshaped as economic changes alter the conditions for
agricultural production in southern Africa.
2.2. E CONOMIC CHANGE IN SOUTHERN A FRICA
Southern Africa is undergoing dramatic economic changes as a result of globalization of economic activity and continuing implementation of national-level structural adjustment programs. Nevertheless, it is often the lack of globalization that
8
ROBIN M. LEICHENKO AND KAREN L. O’BRIEN
TABLE III
Southern African Development Community country shares of world exports, foreign direct
investment, and production in 1998 (World Bank 2000a)
All Africa
SADC countries
Angola
Botswana
Congo, Dem. Rep.
Lesotho
Malawi
Mauritius
Mozambique
Namibia
Seychelles
South Africa
Swaziland
Tanzania
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Share of
world
exports
Share of
world
foreign
direct
investment
Share of
world
production
Ratio of
world
export
share to
world
production
share
Ratio of
world
foreign
direct
investment
share to
world
production
share
2.357
0.854
0.060
0.042
0.023
0.004
0.009
0.041
0.008
0.028
0.006
0.542
0.018
0.018
0.016
0.041
1.024
0.140
0.145
0.008
NA
0.031
0.006
0.004
0.034
0.018
0.005
–0.189
0.002
0.027
0.035
0.014
1.876
0.643
0.023
0.020
0.024
0.003
0.006
0.015
0.014
0.011
0.002
0.463
0.004
0.027
0.012
0.020
1.26
1.33
2.61
2.11
0.94
1.43
1.48
2.81
0.62
2.63
3.10
1.17
4.26
0.65
1.33
2.02
0.55
0.22
6.29
0.41
NA
11.32
0.95
0.28
2.54
1.70
2.43
–0.41
0.38
0.97
3.04
0.69
receives the most attention in this region (Mittelman 1994; Easterly 1996; Edoho
1997; Agnew and Grant 1998; Castells 1998). In 1998, the countries of southern
Africa exported only USD 54.1 billion worth of goods and services, of which more
than 63 percent (USD 34.3 billion) consisted of exports from South Africa (World
Bank 2000b). Despite these relatively small aggregate figures, southern Africa, as a
whole, actually exports more than its relative share of world production (Table III).
In 1998, the SADC countries produced 0.64 percent of total world GDP but accounted for 0.85 percent of total world exports (World Bank 2000a). Among the
14 SADC countries, only Mozambique, Tanzania, and the Democratic Republic of
Congo had world export shares that were lower than their world production shares
THE DYNAMICS OF RURAL VULNERABILITY TO GLOBAL CHANGE
9
TABLE IV
Southern African Development Community country shares of world production
and world population (World Bank 2000a)
All Africa
SADC countries
Angola
Botswana
Congo, Dem. Rep.
Lesotho
Malawi
Mauritius
Mozambique
Namibia
Seychelles
South Africa
Swaziland
Tanzania
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Share of world
production
Share of world
population
Ratio of share of
world production to
share of world
population
1.876
0.643
0.023
0.020
0.024
0.003
0.006
0.015
0.014
0.011
0.002
0.463
0.004
0.027
0.012
0.020
12.918
3.221
0.203
0.026
0.817
0.035
0.179
0.020
0.287
0.028
0.001
0.700
0.017
0.545
0.164
0.198
0.15
0.20
0.11
0.75
0.03
0.08
0.03
0.74
0.05
0.38
1.40
0.66
0.25
0.05
0.07
0.10
in 1998 (World Bank 2000a). The SADC country with the largest relative share of
world trade (i.e., the largest ratio of world trade share to world production share)
is Swaziland, which has a share of world trade that is more than four times its total
production share. The higher than expected shares of world exports of most SADC
countries may be explained largely by the natural resource-based orientation of
these economies. Most SADC countries specialize in the production of raw and
processed agricultural products that are sold in export markets.
In the area of foreign direct investment (FDI), southern Africa is not faring
nearly as well relative to the rest of the world (Table III). Southern Africa received
less than 0.14 percent of world FDI in 1998 (World Bank 2000a). Among the individual SADC countries, nine had shares of world FDI that were far less than their
share of world production, while South Africa incurred a net loss of FDI during
1998 (World Bank 2000a). This net loss of FDI in South Africa partly reflects a
shift of investments from South Africa into other SADC countries.
10
ROBIN M. LEICHENKO AND KAREN L. O’BRIEN
TABLE V
Percentage change in foreign exports in southern African Development Community countries:
1989 to 1997 (World Bank 2000a)
Value of total foreign
exports (in real dollars):
1989 to 1997 (%)
Angola
Botswana
Congo, Dem. Rep.
Lesotho
Malawi
Mauritius
Mozambique
Namibia
Seychelles
South Africa
Swaziland
Tanzania
Zambia
Zimbabwe
103
22
–51
34
71
41
101
23
43
5
27
107
–5
91
While these export and FDI figures suggest that southern Africa’s pattern of
involvement in the global economy is somewhat mixed, it is important to bear in
mind that no country in southern Africa (except Seychelles) accounts for a share
of world production commensurate with its share of world population (Table IV).
The SADC region as a whole contains 3.2 percent of the world’s population, but
as noted above, accounts for only 0.64 percent of world production (World Bank
2000a). Even South Africa, the region’s most advanced economy, produces only
0.46 percent of total world output; its world share of population is 0.70 percent
(World Bank 2000a). As just mentioned, only the tiny island country of Seychelles
produced a larger share of world production than its population share: Seychelles’
world production share is .0019 percent while its population share is .0013 percent (Table IV). By contrast, a typical advanced country such as France produces
approximately 4.95 percent of world output, but contains only 0.99 percent of the
world’s population (World Bank 2000b).
Notwithstanding the above patterns, southern African countries are currently
making significant efforts to promote international trade and to open their doors
to foreign investment (Collier et al. 1997; Bigsten 1999). Export-led growth is, in
fact, increasingly regarded as a feasible strategy for growth and development of
THE DYNAMICS OF RURAL VULNERABILITY TO GLOBAL CHANGE
11
countries throughout the African continent (Onafowora and Owoye 1998). Table V
illustrates the percentage change in the value of real exports between 1989 and
1997 in the SADC countries. In percentage terms, all of the SADC countries except the Democratic Republic of Congo and Zambia experienced export growth
over the period. The most dramatic export increases occurred in Lesotho, Angola,
Mozambique, and Tanzania, all of which more than doubled their foreign exports
during this period.
Because agriculture is the key industry in southern Africa, the effects of economic internationalization will be felt profoundly within this sector (DeRosa 1997;
Aboum-Ongaro 1999). Potential agricultural impacts of a shift toward greater export-orientation in southern Africa include shifts in cultivation patterns toward
cash-crop exports, improved access to advanced technologies such as droughtresistant seeds, and better access to credit for some farmers. In terms of effects
on specific types of farmers, agricultural export promotion efforts are argued to
be particularly beneficial for poorer, subsistence-oriented farmers because rising
exports will increase incomes by fostering production and sales of cash crops in
many regions (Jacques 1997). Yet, as noted below, increased involvement in the
international economy may also leave small farmers vulnerable to fluctuating world
prices and changing terms of trade (World Bank 2000c).
In addition to efforts by individual nations to promote trade and investment,
there are also several ongoing efforts aimed at regional economic integration across
the countries of southern Africa (Sidaway and Gibb 1998). These include formation
of the Southern African Customs Union (SACU), the SADC Trade Agreement,
the Common Monetary Area, and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern
Africa (COMESA). The general aims of these various initiatives are to increase
intra-country trade throughout the region and to foster economies of scale in production that would increase the global competitiveness of the southern African
region. In conjunction with these institutional trading arrangements, a number of
regional industrial collaborations have also occurred. Noteworthy examples from
the agricultural sectors include the citrus industry across Zimbabwe, South Africa,
Swaziland, and Mozambique and the cut-flower industry across Malawi, South
Africa, Zambia, and Zimbabwe (Dixie 1999; Malter et al. 1999).
Concurrent with the above changes, countries throughout southern Africa are
also continuing to implement national-level economic policy changes in the form
of structural adjustment measures (Jayne and Jones 1997; Hernandez-Cata 1999;
Mkandawire and Soludo 1999). Structural adjustment programs, which have been
implemented since the early 1980s, are typically aimed at controlling inflation,
eliminating current account deficits, alleviating balance-of-payment problems due
to currency overvaluation, and so forth (Mohan et al. 2000). Among the adjustment
measures most relevant to the agricultural sector are efforts to liberalize and privatize agricultural markets. These measures have been initiated in SADC countries
including South Africa, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, and Malawi. Like globalization, structural adjustment programs are thought to contribute to food security in
12
ROBIN M. LEICHENKO AND KAREN L. O’BRIEN
Figure 2. Changes in terms of trade for selected Southern African Development Community
countries, 1989 to 1998 (World Bank 2000a).
southern Africa. Yet, the record is quite mixed on this issue (Jayne and Jones 1997;
Marquette 1997; Mkandawire and Soludo 1999). In particular, national-level price
reforms that eliminate price controls on agricultural commodities have allowed
some farmers to earn higher profits, but, at the same time, the reforms have left
many farmers vulnerable to both price instability (see Figure 2) and drought (Jayne
and Jones 1997; Marquette 1997).
2.3. DYNAMIC VULNERABILITY AND SOUTHERN A FRICAN AGRICULTURE
Taken as a whole, these global and national economic processes may have a substantial impact on southern African farmers. Liberalization of trade allows farmers
to sell to export markets, while at the same time it introduces cheaper imports that
compete with local production. Meanwhile, national market liberalization eliminates price support and input subsidies, resulting in more efficient agriculture,
but it also constrains production possibilities for some farmers. Even if economic
changes lead to higher incomes for farmers, an increased reliance on exports may
also make farmers more vulnerable to shifts in the terms of trade or to disruption
of export markets due to financial crises in other regions (e.g., the disruption that
accompanied the recent Asian economic crisis) (Harsch 1999). Shifts in terms of
trade were particularly problematic in the smaller SADC countries such as Malawi
and Namibia between the late 1980s and the late 1990s (Figure 2). In larger countries such as Tanzania and South Africa, terms of trade tended to be more stable
during this period (World Bank 2000a). These types of shifts in terms of trade may
also have differential impacts on southern African farmers. Small-scale farmers in
THE DYNAMICS OF RURAL VULNERABILITY TO GLOBAL CHANGE
13
particular may lack access to agricultural credit, fertilizers, alternative seeds, and
other factors indispensable for succeeding in international agricultural markets.
The links between economic changes, climate change, and vulnerability can be
seen by examining farmers’ responses to climate variability in southern Africa.
Seasonal climate forecasts have been distributed in recent years to help farmers
mitigate losses or optimize yields (Stern and Easterling 1998; NOAA Office of
Global Programs 1999). Nevertheless, a survey of forecast use among small-scale
farmers in Namibia and Tanzania showed that, among the minority of farmers that
received the information, most were unable to take actions because of constraints
such as lack of credit, the lack of government tractors, or other limitations that
could be exacerbated or reduced through ongoing reforms associated with economic globalization (O’Brien et al. 2000). National policies and global economic
trends (including structural adjustment programs, availability of credit, or technological changes) thus can have a strong impact on response options, acting as a
dynamic influence on vulnerability (O’Brien and Vogel 2001).
In considering changing patterns of vulnerability in southern Africa, it is important to emphasize that the effects of economic changes and climate changes are
unevenly distributed both between and within countries. For example, although
Mozambique achieved dramatic economic growth in the 1990s, the benefits of
this growth have been unequally distributed, and much of the rural population
remains in extreme poverty (Fauvel 2000). While the manufacturing and mining
sectors have experienced remarkable growth during this period, the agricultural
sector has been relatively stagnant: agricultural exports grew by less than 7 percent
between 1989 and 1997, which translates into an average growth rate of less than
one percent per year (World Bank 2000a). Furthermore, increased competition
as the result of trade liberalization has devastated Mozambique’s once dominant
processed cashew industry (Fauvel 2000).
Just as economic changes have had uneven effects across Mozambique, the
impacts of climate change are also expected to vary across the country. According
to simulations based on general circulation models (GCMs), northeastern Mozambique may experience increases in rainfall, whereas the rest of the country may
experience decreases of up to 5 percent (Hulme 1998). These changes in mean
precipitation are likely to be accompanied by increased climatic variability and
increased frequency of extreme events. The floods in 2000 provide an example
of how extreme events can affect Mozambique’s agricultural sector: over 113,000
small farm households lost their livelihoods in the floods; about 20,000 head of
cattle were destroyed; and 90 percent of Mozambique’s irrigation infrastructure
was damaged (Fauvel 2000). In this case, the recent growth and change in Mozambique’s economy did little to reduce agricultural vulnerability to this extreme event.
In fact, the recent floods may actually help to accelerate Mozambique’s shift toward
a more manufacturing and mining-based economy. Nevertheless, because so much
of the country continues to rely on agriculture for its livelihood, it is important
to monitor the influence of economic changes, particularly agricultural policies
14
ROBIN M. LEICHENKO AND KAREN L. O’BRIEN
that either promote or limit agricultural growth among small-scale farmers, on the
resilience and future vulnerability of this sector.
As these examples suggest, the combination of global and national economic
changes is altering the context under which southern African farmers cope with
climate variability and adapt to long-term change. Indeed, in combination with
other larger socio-economic processes that have not been touched on here, such as
the rapid spread of AIDS and problems of civil war, one can argue that patterns of
vulnerability have become increasingly dynamic in southern Africa. Farmers who
formerly had difficulty adapting to climatic variability may become less vulnerable
to drought-related food shortages as the result of trade liberalization. At the same
time, adaptation strategies may be constrained or limited for other farmers as a
result of economic changes, thus they may become more vulnerable.
3. Conclusions
The effects of ongoing global economic changes on rural vulnerability are visible throughout the world. Economic changes associated with globalization processes are altering conditions for the production and marketing of agricultural
products (McMichael 1994; Watts and Goodman 1997; Thompson and Cowan
2000). Changes associated with integration into global agricultural markets typically entail national-level reforms in agricultural policies, such as elimination of
subsidies and price supports or changes in agricultural research and extension.
These types of shifts toward a free market system, many of which are mandated
by structural adjustment programs, may have differentiated impacts on developing world farmers. While some farmers may benefit from these changes, others
may have difficulty adapting to these new conditions (McLaughlin 1996). These
changes also mean that the context under which farmers cope with climate variability and long-term change is shifting.
The concept of dynamic vulnerability suggests that traditional vulnerability
indicators may be insufficient in capturing the nature of global change, including its many dimensions and its diverse effects at different scales of analysis.
These changes may make certain groups vulnerable who were not previously in
this category, whereas traditionally vulnerable groups may become more (or less)
vulnerable. In either instance, it is important to understand how and where vulnerability is changing most dramatically, so that the regions, sectors and social groups
that are experiencing the greatest changes in vulnerability can be identified and
targeted for potential intervention or mitigation.
In southern Africa, one possible strategy for addressing dynamic vulnerability
via a multi-scale method of analysis would be to combine macro-level vulnerability mapping using dynamic indicators (as described in Table I), with locallevel survey-based investigations of how changing economic policies are affecting farmer and institutional response to climate variability. Dynamic vulnerability
THE DYNAMICS OF RURAL VULNERABILITY TO GLOBAL CHANGE
15
maps could be created for the entire region to pinpoint the subnational regions
that are doubly exposed to both climatic and economic change. Local surveys,
carried out in a number of different countries, would then enable assessment of
which macro (or regional) economic changes matter most in influencing climatic
vulnerability at the local level, and how these changes are affecting the coping
strategies that farmers use in responding to climatic variability.
Understanding the dynamics of rural vulnerability is essential for securing adequate food for the Earth’s growing population under changing environmental and
economic conditions. Adaptation strategies for climate variability and long-term
climate change in developing world regions will depend to a large extent on the
flexibility of production systems and the scope of available strategies. The convergence of climate change and economic changes suggests that any investigation of
adaptation strategies for climate change must be considered within the context of
economic globalization, and how it continuously reshapes rural vulnerability.
Acknowledgements
We thank Santiago Olmos, Lynn Nygaard, Siri Eriksen, two anonymous reviewers,
and the editor for helpful comments and suggestions on earlier drafts of this paper.
References
Aboum-Ongaro, W.: 1999, ‘Agriculture, policy impacts and the road ahead’, in Kayizzi-Mugerwa,
S. (ed.), The African Economy: Policy, Institutions and the Future, New York, Routledge, pp.
248–263.
Adger, N.: 1999, ‘Social vulnerability to climate change and extremes in coastal Vietnam’, World
Devel. 27, 249–269.
Adger, N. and Kelly, M.: 1999, ‘Social vulnerability to climate change and the architecture of
entitlements’, Miti. Adap. Strat. Gl. Change 4, 253–266.
Agnew, J. and Grant, R.: 1998, ‘Falling out of the world economy? Theorizing ‘Africa’ in world
trade’, in R. Lee and J. Wills (eds.), Geographies of Economies, London, Arnold.
Bigsten, A.: 1999, ‘Looking for African tigers’, in S. Kayizzi-Mugerwa (ed.), The African Economy:
Policy, Institutions and the Future, New York, Routledge.
Bohle, H.G., Downing, T.E. and Watts, M.J.: 1994, ‘Climate change and social vulnerability’, Gl.
Envir. Change 4(1), 37–48.
Castells, M.: 1998, End of Millenium, Malden, MA, Blackwell.
Collier, P., Greenaway, D. and Gunning, J.W.: 1997, ‘Evaluating trade liberalization: A methodological framework’, in A. Oyejide, I. Elbadawi and P. Collier (eds.), Regional Integration and
Trade Liberalization in Sub-Saharan Africa, New York, St. Martin’s Press, Inc.
Comfort, L., Wisner, B., Cutter, S., Pulwarty, R. et al.: 1999, ‘Reframing disaster policy: the global
evolution of vulnerable communities’, Envir. Hazards 1, 39–44.
DeRosa, D.A.: 1997, ‘Regional integration and the bias against agriculture and “disadvantaged” sectors in sub-Saharan Africa’, in A. Oyejide, I. Elbadawi and P. Collier (eds.), Regional Integration
and Trade Liberalization in Sub-Saharan Africa, New York, St. Martin’s Press, Inc., pp. 256–305.
16
ROBIN M. LEICHENKO AND KAREN L. O’BRIEN
Dershem, L. and Gzirishvili, D.: 1998, ‘Informal social support networks and household vulnerability: Empirical findings from Georgia’, World Devel. 26, 1827–1838.
Dilley, M.: 2000, ‘Reducing vulnerability to climate variability in southern Africa: the growing role
of climate information’, Climatic Change 45, 63–73.
Dixie, G.: 1999, ‘Summer citrus: The role and prospects for Southern Africa’, in S. Jafee (ed.),
Southern African Agribusiness: Gaining through Regional Collaboration World Bank Technical
Paper No. 424, Washington, D.C., The World Bank, pp. 88–138.
Dow, K.: 1992, ‘Exploring differences in our common futures(s): The meaning of vulnerability to
global environmental change’, Geoforum 23, 417–436.
Downing, T.E.: 1991, ‘Vulnerability to hunger in Africa: a climate change perspective’, Gl. Envir.
Change 1(5), 365–380.
Downing, T.E., Ringius, L., Hulme, M. and Waughray, D.: 1997, ‘Adapting to climate change in
Africa’, Miti. Adapt. Strat. for Global Change 2, 19–44.
Easterly, W.: 1996, ‘Why is Africa marginal in the world economy?’, in G. Maasdorp (ed.), Can
South and Southern Africa Become Global Competitive Economies?, New York, St. Martin’s
Press, pp. 19–30.
Edoho, F.M.: 1997, ‘Overview: Africa in the age of globalization and the new world order’, in F.M.
Edoho (ed.), Globalization and the New World Order: Promises, Problems and Prospects for
Africa in the Twenty-First Century, Westport, CT, Praeger, pp. 1–25.
Fauvel, P.: 2000, ‘Mozambique: Growth with poverty’, Africa Recovery 14(3), 12–19.
Glewwe, P. and Hall, G.: 1998, ‘Are some groups more vulnerable to macroeconomic shocks than
others? Hypothesis tests based on panel data from Peru’, J. Devel. Econ. 56, 181–206.
Handmer, J.W., Dovers, S. and Downing, T.E.: 1999, ‘Societal vulnerability to climate change and
variability’, Miti. Adapt. Strat. for Global Change 4, 267–281.
Harsch, E.: 1999, ‘Africa, Asia and anxieties about globalization’, Rev. Afr. Polit. Econ. 26(79),
117–123.
Henninger, N.: 1998, Mapping and Geographic Analysis of Human Welfare and Poverty – Review
and Assessment, Washington, D.C., World Resources Institute.
Hernandez-Cata, E.: 1999, ‘Sub-Saharan Africa: Economic policy and outlook for growth’, Finance
and Devel. 36(1), 10–12.
Hulme, M. (ed.): 1996, Climate Change and Southern Africa: An Exploration of Some Potential
Impacts and Implications in the SADC Region, WWF International and Climate Research Unit,
UEA, Norwich, UK.
Jacques, G. (ed.): 1997, Structural Adjustment and the Poverty Principle in Africa, Brookfield, VT,
Ashgate Publishing.
Jayne, T.S. and Jones, S.: 1997, ‘Food marketing and pricing policy in eastern and southern Africa:
A survey’, World Devel. 25(9), 1505–1527.
Liverman, D.M.: 1990, ‘Drought impacts in Mexico: Climate, agriculture, technology, and land
tenure in Sonora and Puebla’, Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 80(49–72).
Liverman, D.M.: 1994, ‘Vulnerability to global environmental change’, in S.L. Cutter (ed.),
Environmental Risks and Hazards, New Jersey, Prentice Hall.
Malter, A., Reijtenbagh, A. and Jaffee, S.: 1999, ‘Profits from petals: The development of cut flower
exports in southern Africa’, in S. Jaffee, S. (ed.), Southern African Agribusiness: Gaining through
Regional Collaboration World Bank Technical Paper No. 424, Washington, D.C., The World
Bank, pp. 39–87.
Marquette, C.M.: 1997, ‘Current poverty, structural adjustment, and drought in Zimbabwe’, World
Devel. 25(7), 1141–1149.
McLaughlin, M.M.: 1996, ‘Food security in a globalizing economy’, Development 1996(4), 51–55.
McMichael, P.: 1994, ‘Introduction: Agro-food system restructuring – Unity in diversity’, in P.
McMichael (ed.), The Global Restructuring of Agro-Food Systems, Ithaca, Cornell University
Press, pp. 1–17.
THE DYNAMICS OF RURAL VULNERABILITY TO GLOBAL CHANGE
17
Mittelman, J.H.: 1994, ‘The globalization challenge: Surviving at the margins’, Third World Quart.
15(3), 427–443.
Mkandawire, T. and Soludo, C.: 1999, Our Continent, Our Future: African Perspectives on Structural
Adjustment, Trenton, NJ, Africa World Press.
Moser, C.O.N.: 1998, ‘The asset vulnerability framework: Reassessing urban poverty reduction
strategies’, World Devel. 26(1), 1–19.
NOAA Office of Global Programs: 1999, An Experiment in the Application of Climate Forecasts:
NOAA-OGP Activities Related to the 1997–98 El Niño Event. Office of Global Programs,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, January
1999.
O’Brien, K.L. and Leichenko, R.M.: 2000, ‘Double exposure: Assessing the impacts of climate
change within the context of economic globalization’, Global Envir. Change, 10, 221–232.
O’Brien, K.L., Sygna, L, Næss, L.O., Kingamkono, R. and Hochobeb, B.: 2000, Is Information
Enough? User Responses to Seasonal Climate Forecasts in southern Africa, CICERO Report
2000:3, CICERO, University of Oslo, Norway.
O’Brien, K.L. and Vogel, C.H (eds.): 2001. Coping with Climate Variability: User Responses to Seasonal Climate Forecasts in Southern Africa, Brookfield, VT, Ashgate Publishing (Forthcoming).
Onafowora, O. and Owoye, O.: 1998, ‘Can trade liberalization stimulate economic growth in
Africa?’, World Devel. 26(3), 497–506.
Parry, M.: 1990, Climate Change and World Agriculture, London, Earthscan Publications Limited.
Ramachandran, M. and Eastman, J.R.: 1997, ‘Applications of GIS to vulnerability mapping: A west
African food security case study’, in Applications of Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
Technology in Environmental Risk Assessment and Management, UNEP and the Clark Labs for
Cartographic Technology and Geographic Analysis.
Reilly, J.M. and Schimmelpfenning, D.: 1999, ‘Agricultural impact assessment, vulnerability, and
the scope for adaptation’, Clim. Change 42, 745–748.
Ribot, J.C., Magalhães, A.R. and Panagides, S.S. (eds.): 1996, Climate Variability, Climate Change
and Social Vulnerability in the Semi-arid Tropics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Sidaway, J. and Gibb, R.: 1998, ‘SADC, COMESA, SACU: Contradictory formats for regional integration in southern Africa?’, in D. Simon, (ed.), South Africa in Southern Africa: Reconfiguring
the Region, Oxford, James Currey Ltd.
Sivakumar, M.V.K.: 1998, ‘Climate variability and food vulnerability’, Global Change Newsl.
(IGBP) 35, 14–17.
Stern, P.C. and Easterling, W.E.: 1998, Making Climate Forecasts Matter, Panel on the Human Dimensions of Seasonal-to-Interannual Climate Variability, National Research Council,
Washington D.C., National Academy Press.
Teklu, T.: 1992, ‘Household responses to declining food entitlement: The experience in western
Sudan’, Quart. J. Int. Agric. 31(3), 247–261.
Topouzis, D. and du Guerny, J.: 1999, Sustainable Agricultural/Rural Development and Vulnerability
to the AIDS Epidemic, Geneva, UNAIDS.
UNEP: 2000, Climate Change Vulnerability: Linking Impacts and Adaptation, United Nations
Environment Programme, with: Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, UK;
Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies, Dhaka, Bangladesh; Adaptation and Impacts Research
Group, Environment Canada; Sustainable Development Research Institute, University of British
Columbia, Vancouver BC, Canada; Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Washington, D. C.,
U.S.A.; and ENDA, Dakar, Senegal.
Watson, R.T., Zinyowera, M.C., Moss, R.H. and Dokken, D.J.: 1996, Climate Change 1995: Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific-Technical Analyses, Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
Watts, M. and Goodman, D. (eds.): 1997, Globalising Food: Agrarian Questions and Global
Restructuring, London, Routledge.
18
ROBIN M. LEICHENKO AND KAREN L. O’BRIEN
Webb, P. and Reardon, T.: 1992, ‘Drought impact and household response in east and west Africa’,
Quart. J. Int. Agric. 31(3), 230–246.
Wilbanks, T. and Kates, R.W.: 1999, ‘Global change in local places: How scale matters’, Clim.
Change 43, 601–628.
World Bank: 1999, World Development Indicators, Washington, D. C., The World Bank.
World Bank: 2000a, World Bank African Development Indicators 2000, Washington, D.C.: The
World Bank.
World Bank: 2000b, World Bank Development Indicators Database (http://simaext.worldbank.org/data-query/).
World Bank: 2000c, Can Africa Claim the 21st Century? Washington, D.C., The World Bank.