* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download PDF, 176 KB - Global Change System for Analysis, Research and
Climate change feedback wikipedia , lookup
Citizens' Climate Lobby wikipedia , lookup
Climate resilience wikipedia , lookup
Climate governance wikipedia , lookup
Economics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on human health wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Tuvalu wikipedia , lookup
Attribution of recent climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in the United States wikipedia , lookup
Media coverage of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Scientific opinion on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change adaptation wikipedia , lookup
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on Australia wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and agriculture wikipedia , lookup
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report wikipedia , lookup
Public opinion on global warming wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on humans wikipedia , lookup
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.