Climate Change Adaptation, Disaster Risk Reduction and Social Protection: Complementary Roles in Agriculture and Rural Growth?

Abstract

Reliance on subsistence agriculture means the impact of stresses and shocks (such as droughts or floods) are felt keenly by rural poor people, who depend directly on food system outcomes for their survival, with profound implications for the security of their livelihoods and welfare. However, such stresses and shocks will not necessarily lead to negative impacts, as risks and uncertainties, often associated with seasonality, are embedded in the practice of agriculture and there is considerable experience of coping and risk management strategies among people working in this sector. With climate change, the magnitude and frequency of stresses and shocks is changing and approaches such as social protection, disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation (CCA) will be needed to bolster local resilience and supplement people's experience. This study examines the opportunities for linking social protection, CCA and DRR in the context of agriculture and rural growth, exploring whether linking these three approaches together will help enhance resilience to shocks and stresses in agriculture-dependent rural communities. The study does this by (i) reviewing conceptual and policy-related similarities and differences between the three disciplines, by (ii) collecting evidence from case studies where climate change-resilient social protection approaches have been trialled and by (iii) developing an adaptive social protection framework that highlight opportunities better coordination. This paper suggests social protection and DRR measures designed to limit damages from shocks and stresses may not be sufficient in the longer term. For social protection to be resilient to climate change impacts, it will need to consider how reducing dependence on climate sensitive livelihood activities can be part of adaptive strategies. Similarly, CCA and DRR cannot effectively address the root causes of poverty and vulnerability without taking a differentiated view of poverty, something that further integration with social protection can help with.

A Qualitative Evaluation of CSA Options in Mixed Crop-Livestock Systems in Developing Countries

“…These resources can be in the form of feed biomass such as crop residues, animal manure, draught power, and cash. Resource-poor farmers depend directly on the food production system for livelihood security, and thus, mixed systems offer key livelihood diversification options, as smallholders in developing countries aim to minimise risk associated with agricultural production, liquidity constraints, high transaction costs, that can all result in income and consumption fluctuations (Dercon 1996;Davies et al 2009;Barrett et al 2001).…”

Social Protection and Climate Change: Emerging Issues for Research, Policy and Practice

“…Donors and researchers have become increasingly interested in the idea of using asset transfers, cash transfers and other forms of 'social protection' to reduce poverty and vulnerability to climate change (for example, Davies et al, 2008;Tanner et al, 2009;Johnson and Krishnamurthy, 2010;Béné, 2011;Wood, 2011;Kuriakose et al, this volume). Social protection (SP) has been shown to provide an important means of reducing vulnerability to climate-induced poverty spirals during periods of acute environmental stress (Awokuse, 2011;Béné, 2011;Devereux, 2009;Devereux and Sabates-Wheeler, 2004;Doocy et al, 2006;Heltberg et al, 2009;Johnson and Krishnamurthy, 2010;Todd et al, 2010;Maluccio, 2010;Sabates-Wheeler and Devereux, 2007;Wood, 2011;Niño-Zarazua et al, 2012).…”

“…However, the ability of SP to build livelihoods and resilience in advance of longerterm climatic changes is still poorly understood, reflecting the fact that few (if any) SP programmes are explicitly designed to address the kinds of scenarios being described by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (Davies et al, 2008;Wood, 2011;Béné, 2011). Moreover, questions have been raised about the ability of asset and cash transfers to address longer-term, inter-generational patterns of poverty and vulnerability to environmental change (Heltberg et al, 2009;Barrientos and Niño-Zarazua, 2010;Johnson and Krishnamurthy, 2010;Béné, 2011;Wood, 2011).…”

“…By and large, the vast majority of donor-supported SP programmes are social-assistance programmes aimed at providing cash and asset transfers to beneficiaries who meet a particular poverty or vulnerability criterion (Béné, 2011;Davies et al, 2008;Doocy et al, 2006;Farrington and Slater, 2006;Prowse, 2008;Slater et al, 2008;Tanner et al, 2008;Teichman, 2007;Heltberg et al, 2009;Todd et al, 2010;Maluccio, 2010;Wood, 2011;Niño-Zarazua et al, 2012). A key difference between cash and asset transfers concerns the extent to which the transfer in question may be used for productive purposes, as opposed to consumption aimed at meeting immediate 'day-to-day' needs.…”

Adoption of Small-Scale Irrigation Farming as a Climate-Smart Agriculture Practice and Its Influence on Household Income in the Chinyanja Triangle, Southern Africa

“…More so, this often makes economies in the region (SSA) the most vulnerable to climatic variability and changes [3,4,5].…”