Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Climate Change Impact and Vulnerability Assessment for Socio-Economics of LMB

2,907 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

Climate Change Impact and Vulnerability Assessment for Socio-Economics of LMB

  1. 1. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC SYSTEMS IN THE LOWER MEKONG BASIN John Sawdon and Paul Wyrwoll, International Centre for Environmental Management Hanoi, 1st November 2012
  2. 2. Contents• Part 1: Key trends, drives and overall approach – Overview of socio-economic trends and drivers in the LMB: food and commodity price, demographic change, agricultural commercialization, continuing importance of agricultural livelihoods – Rural poverty livelihoods and productive sectors – Analytical approach understanding livelihoods in the basin• Part 2: Assessing climate vulnerability in Mondulkiri – Linking livelihoods to productive sectors – Key health and infrastructure impacts in Mondulkiri – Linking productive sectors through livelihoods – Concluding remarks
  3. 3. PART 1: KEY TRENDS, DRIVERS ANDOVERALL APPROACH
  4. 4. Key demographic trends• The countries of the LMB are under-going dramatic socio 206 million economic change 177 million• This is having dramatic demographic consequences – Rapidly falling fertility rates – Rural-urban migration (falling rural populations in the Mekong Delta and NE Thailand) – Rural-rural migration (Cambodia and Lao PDR) – Intra regional migration
  5. 5. Food and commodity pricePopulation growth, urbanization, higher living standards, productivity changes in bigagricultural exporters in Asia and globally are driving large increases in the demand foragricultural commodities Source: FAO 2012, WDI 2012
  6. 6. Increasing importance of commercial agriculture Industrialization, urbanization, commodity trade Small holdings Commercial Labour Increased intensive Land consolidation capital farms and intensity plantations Low capital intensitySubsistence Intermediate Commercial
  7. 7. Increased value of trade in agricultural commodities Source: WDI 2012
  8. 8. Land concessions Cambodia • 57 concessions granted by 2007 of 500,000 Ha in total • Up to 85 concessions in 2010 of 957,000 Ha in total (could be as high as 2 million Ha) Lao PDR • 330,000 ha granted ( around 25% of agricultural land) Source: IIED 2012Source: MRC 2010
  9. 9. Response to socio-economic change in rural areas Population pressureOpen access Employment natural Rural population in urban resources areas Reduction in Reduction in access to employment land through: opportunities in 1. Land conversion to rural areas other uses 2. Land consolidation 3. Granting of land concessions
  10. 10. Small-holder and subsistence production isessential for rural livelihoods – and will be for decades to come.
  11. 11. POVERTY, LIVELIHOODS AND FOODSECURITY
  12. 12. Population in Proportion of Proportion of LMB (million) LMB national population population (%) (%)Cambodia 12.4 20 88Lao PDR 6.2 10 >95Thailand 23.3 36 34Viet Nam 21.7 34 25Total LMB 63.5 100 37
  13. 13. Poverty• Rates of severe poverty (<$1.25) have declined significantly• Significant proportions of the population remain below the $2 threshold• Still greater number remain vulnerable to poverty: - Cambodia – approx. 65% < $2.5 - Lao PDR – approx. 78% < $2.5 - Viet Nam - approx. 58% < $2.5
  14. 14. Continuing chronic food insecurity Weight for age Height for age Cambodia 70 70 Lao PDR Thailand 60 60 Viet Nam 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 Malnutrition rate in under-fives in LMB countriesSource: WDI 2012
  15. 15. Food source by occupation in Lao PDR 2007 Highest incidence of food insecurity Highest number of food insecure households Source: WFP 2007
  16. 16. Importance of fisheries: Cambodia
  17. 17. ANALYTICAL APPROACH TOLIVELIHOODS AND FOOD SECURITY
  18. 18. Livelihood zonesEcological zones Population
  19. 19. Livelihood zones Selected provinces Flood plain Lowland/ Intensive Forested plateau Upland Upland Province Delta ✖ ✖ Mondulkiri - - - ✖ ✖ ✖ Khammouan - - ✖ ✖ - ✖ Chiang Rai - ✖ ✖ ✖ Gai Lai - - CC Hotspots Kien Giang ✖ - - - -
  20. 20. PART 2: MONDULKIRI IMPACT ANDVULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
  21. 21. Mondulkiri province
  22. 22. Socio-economic overview of Mondulkiri• Population: ~ 47,000 (2004); ~ 62,000 (2010)• Poverty: Poorest province in Cambodia: 37% by national standards• Education: 10 lower secondary schools; 1 high school• Ethnicity: Phnong (52%); Khmer (35%); Other (13%)• Food security: Classified as chronically food insecure by World Food Programme in 2009• Livelihoods: – Mix of subsistence and commercial activities – Reliance on natural resources – Multiple activities
  23. 23. Household livelihood activities in communities adjacent to Mondulkiri Protected Forest 100 engaged in livelihood ac vi y Percentage of households 80 60 40 20 0 Agriculture Fisheries NTFPs LivestockSource: WWF (2007)
  24. 24. Agricultur NTFPs eFisheries Livelihoods Livestock Health Infrastructure
  25. 25. Vulnerability and impact assessment (CAM):Health and Infrastructure• Inadequate health limits the capacity of individuals to engage in livelihood activities• Infrastructure: Physical, stationary infrastructure such as roads, bridges, housing, irrigation infrastructure, and grain storage• Infrastructure enables households and communities to pursue and benefit from livelihood activities
  26. 26. Socio-economic CAM criteriaExposure Sensitivity Adaptive capacityLocation of people/assets Human health Assets (e.g. tenure, housing, livestock, motorised transport)Severity of threat Strength of key infrastructure Education and skillsDuration of threat Demographic composition Physical infrastructure (e.g. roads, health centres, electricity) Poverty Access to markets (e.g. credit markets, proximity to market-place) Food security
  27. 27. Sensitivity• Poor health: High infant mortality and malnutrition; high rate insect- borne disease; high rate of water- borne disease from poor hygiene and water access• Weak infrastructure: Traditional housing; unsealed roads• Demographic composition: High proportion of ethnic minorities; ~50% of population < 17 years• High poverty• Highly food insecure
  28. 28. Adaptive capacity• Assets: rural land tenure often informal; livestock key assets (i.e. cattle); ~1 motorbike per 10 people• Education and skills: Low level (non- traditional)• Physical infrastructure: 1 sealed road; poor access to electricity; 1 major health centre: 66% births without modern medical care• Access to markets: Poor have no or limited access to credit; communities have access to district markets
  29. 29. Community perceptions of past extreme events inMondulkiri districts (2009) – Frequent and SignificantDistricts Droughts Reported flash floodsORang 1967, 1996, 2004, 2005, 1996, 1997, 2007 2007, 2008Keo Seima 1998, 1999, 2005, 2006, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2008 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008Pechreada 1991, 1994, 2003, 2004, 1993, 1994, 2007, 2008 2005, 2006, 2008Koh Nheak 1996, 1998, 1999, 2002, 1973, 1980, 1983, 1992, 1993, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 1994, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008 2007, 2008
  30. 30. RESULTS
  31. 31. Very High Vulnerability – Health (Uplands and Lowlands)Threat: FloodingImpact: Greater incidence ofdisease• Post-flood stagnant water pools provide disease vector breeding ground• Contaminated water during flood events – 65% villages highly exposed flooding – 70% villages rely on rivers and streams for drinking
  32. 32. Very High Vulnerability – Infrastructure (Lowlands)Threat: Flooding and flashfloodingImpact: Destruction anddegradation of infrastructure• Many dwellings highly exposed due to village proximity to rivers and streams (e.g. Srepok)• Destruction/inundation of roads cuts off communities from markets• Poor current infrastructure magnifies losses
  33. 33. Very High Vulnerability – Health (Uplands and Lowlands)Threat: Higher maximumtemperatureImpact: Heat stress• Days exceeding 35°C to rise from 5% to 25% on annual basis• 35°C (sustained) threshold for heat stress; 37-38°C potentially lethal• Outdoor livelihoods• Lack of shelter to recover
  34. 34. Very High Vulnerability – Health (Lowlands)Threat: DroughtImpact: Water scarcity(Dry season)• Higher evaporation and less surface water• Water-use for hygiene a lower priority• Diarrhoea is a key health issue• Communities revert to less safe water sources during times of scarcity
  35. 35. Agricultur NTFPs eFisheries Livelihoods Livestock Health Infrastructure
  36. 36. Linkages between livelihood sectors and climate change (Mondulkiri)Agriculture: Insect damage reduces rice yield NTFP Rice Poverty use Poverty Food Food Production Insecurity NTFP Insecurity availabilityNTFPs: Fall in resin production Sensitivity to Resin Cash income climate change production Poverty impacts in all sectors
  37. 37. Linkages between livelihood sectors and climate change (continued)Livestock: Flash flooding causes livestock deaths Livestock NTFP reliance Poverty following extreme assets events
  38. 38. Higher dry season temperatureEels and Trapeangs Buffalo Fish Livelihoods Recession Vegetation Rice Wildlife
  39. 39. CONCLUSION
  40. 40. Conclusion- A huge economic and social transition is going on in the basin, but rural livelihoods will continue to be directly reliant on natural resources for many decades and will therefore be highly exposed to climate change- Mondulkiri is one of the poorest provinces in the basin and is projected to be under extreme threat from climate change- The province provides an illustration of how poverty and climate change vulnerability combine in the basin as a whole- The impacts on health and infrastructure of more serious flood and drought events would have large welfare impacts- BUT, an understanding of the full impacts requires an analysis of how all productive sectors (e.g. Agriculture, Fisheries, etc.) interact through livelihoods
  41. 41. THANK YOU

×