Are women more vulnerable to climate change in rural South Africa?

Are women more vulnerable to climate change and other interacting stressors in the rural Eastern Cape, South Africa?
Sheona Shackleton
Department of Environmental Science,
Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa
1
With acknowledgement to the entire IDRC project team, particularly Leigh Cobban, Georgina Cundill and Marty Luckert who contributed specifically to this paper

Gender and Climate Change: Women, Research and Action
Introduction Purpose of this paper
•
To illustrate that the question “are women more vulnerable?” is not necessarily easy nor straightforward to answer.
•
In fact, it is a complex question with complex answers given:

the range of interacting stressors and shocks that people and the ecosystems they depend on face;

the heterogeneity that exists locally amongst individuals, households and communities; and

different conceptual understandings and framings of vulnerability and gender.
•We have a tendency to make assumptions and rely on stylised views, while the notion of vulnerability requires more nuanced exploration. 3

Introduction and conceptualisation Gender, multiple stressors and vulnerability 4
FRAMING OF VULNERABILITY
In this paper I use both a risk-hazard and entitlements-livelihoods/ political ecology framing (Ribot, 2014).
The combination of underlying cause and susceptibility in the conceptualisation of vulnerability makes it important to analyse the socially constructed factors that influence exposure to stresses and ability to respond.
Gender is an important one of these.

Introduction and conceptualisation Gender, multiple stressors and vulnerability
•
Climate change does not occur in isolation from a host of other social, political, economic and biophysical factors across scales that affect livelihoods and vulnerability, such as:
–
poorly conceived policies and weak governance
–
poverty and inequality
–
HIV/AIDS
–
institutional breakdown
–
crime
–
ecosystem degradation
•
These multiple risks and stressors have differential impacts across different communities, social groupings and households, with each also having differential ability to respond based on their context, livelihood activities, assets and capabilities.
•Gender differences are often particularly stark. 5

Introduction and conceptualisation Gender, multiple stressors and vulnerability
Gender is often treated in a simplistic binary fashion. There is a need for studies that:
•
Consider gender in terms of its interactions with other intersecting social categories (age, income, ethnicity).
•
Move beyond simple male and female headed HH, to capture the heterogeneity that exists in these.
Households vary in terms of the gender and ages of other members, with implications for production and adaptive capacity.
•Consider women less as helpless victims but as active agents with some influence on their own lives.
•Recognise men may also be vulnerable in different ways and how this intersects with women’s vulnerability. 6

More subtle and nuanced treatment of gender in this study 7
EXAMPLES OF INFLUENCE OF GENDER OF HH MEMBERS BEYOND HEAD Some external gendered constraints faced by female-headed HH, e.g. limited property rights, may be alleviated by the presence of an adult male in the household. Conversely, adult males in female-headed HH may impose internal constraints on innovation through reinforcement of restrictive gender-related norms. Male only HHs may face a unique set of constraints related to, for example, food production and, in SA, access to grants.
In recognition of this, we considered four gender categories of HH:
•
only male adults,
•
male-headed with adult females (typical family structure),
•
female-headed with adult males (widowed, divorced or single women with a son, brother or other adult male in the HH)
•
only single, widowed or divorced female adults.
•
We also considered aspects related to men and women as individuals.

Introduction Aim and research questions
Aim:
•
To investigate differentiated vulnerability and responses among men and women and households with different gender structures paying attention to the many interacting stressors that influence local livelihoods.
Embedded in this are the following questions:
•What makes rural women more/less vulnerable, i.e. what determines or influences their vulnerability?
•How are rural women responding?
•What role do ecosystem services play in women’s responses?
8

Approach to the study
Questions answered through a gendered analysis of:
•Household livelihoods and asset holdings (indicators of sensitivity and adaptive capacity).
•Perceptions and ‘lived experiences’ of vulnerability in relation to multiple stressors (exposure).
•Types of responses employed when faced with risk, and how these may be impacted by CC. 9
Shackleton et al. 2014. AGENDA

Gender and Climate Change: Women, Research and Action 11
Study site location

Worked in two settlements (Willowvale/Gatyana and Lessyton) in the Eastern Cape of South Africa
Willowvale – remote, rural, NR dependent, wetter. poorer
Lesseyton, peri-urban, formal layout, dry, near Queenstown
Study area

Methods
•
Multiple studies and mixed methods (10 student dissertations from larger IDRC funded project).
•HH survey of 340 hh (demographics, livelihood assets, HIV proxies, welfare perceptions, shocks and responses, livelihood activities, income – cash and in kind)
•Focus group discussions linked to a social learning process (in-depth discussions of vulnerability – stories - and means of coping)
•Participatory workshops with different gender groups (mental maps of stressors, choices for responses)
•20 life histories narrated by vulnerable men and women 13

Livelihoods and income sources (sensitivity and adaptive capacity) 15

Livelihoods and income sources 16
Differences in mean (± standard error) quarterly household income (ZAR) of gender headship types in Lesseyton
Lesseyton
Only male adults
(N = 47)
Male headed with female adults
(N= 45)
Female headed with male adults
(N= 53)
Only female adults
(N = 25)
P value
Total quarterly income
6952±
735
7869 ±
770
7926±
794
4905 ±
660
0.077
Formal employment
1433± 324
3566 ±725
1928 ±458
573 ±298
0.007
Lower income and formal employment
Self- employment
214 ± 109
350 ±157
168±88
504 ±285
0.852
Higher self- employment – shows ability to adapt

Livelihoods and income sources 17
Differences in mean (± standard error) quarterly household income (ZAR) of gender headship types in Gatyana/Willowvale
Only male adults
(N = 36)
(N= 41)
(N= 43)
Only female adults
(N = 48)
P value
Total quarterly income
9157.35 ± 1776.84
8162.87 ± 629.12
7005.67 ± 851.91
5505.06 ± 521.79
0.012
Formal employment
2630.33 ± 1553.35
526.83 ± 275.95
837.21 ± 565.41
1000.00 ± 399.50
0.431
Only HH with adult males only have high employment in Willowvale

Livelihood and income sources by HH gender structure 18
Willowvale
Natural resources9% Formal employment29% Casual employment2%Self- employment1% Grants 44% Remittances3% Crops1%Livestock11% Figure 8.2.2 e: Average livelihood portfolio of households with only adult males in GatyanaNatural resources7% Formal employment6%Casual employment2% Self- employment4% Grants 64% Remittances1% Crops2% Livestock14% Figure 8.2.2 f: Average livelihood portfolio of male headed households with adult female in GatyanaNatural resources8% Formal employment12% Casual employment4% Self- employment4% Grants 54% Remittances8% Crops2% Livestock8% Figure 8.2.2 g: Average livelihood portfolio of female headed households with adult males in GatyanaNatural resources10% Formal employment18% Casual employment1% Self- employment3% Grants 51% Remittances6% Crops1%Livestock10% Figure 8.2.2 h: Average ilivelihood portfolio of households with only adult females in Gatyana
Remittances higher in female HH
More reliance' on NRs in female HH
Gants similar across gender groups
Stadler 2012

Livelihood and income sources by HH gender structure 19
Natural resources3% Formal employment21% Casual employment11% Self- employment3% Grants 50% Remittances3% Crops0% Livestock9% Figure 8.2.2 a: Average livelihood portfolio of households with only adult males in LesseytonNatural resources3% Formal employment45% Casual employment8% Self- employment5% Grants 29% Remittances4% Crops0% Livestock6% Figure 8.2.2 b: Average livelihood portfolio of male headed households with adult females in LesseytonNatural resources7% Formal employment24% Casual employment4% Self- employment2% Grants 50% Remittances8% Crops0% Livestock5% Figure 8.2.2 c: Average livelihood portfolio of female headed households with adult males in LesseytonNatural resources5% Formal employment12% Casual employment6% Self- employment10% Grants 59% Remittances7% Crops1% Livestock0% Figure 8.2.2 d: Average livelihood portfolio of households with only female adults in Lesseyton
Employment highest in Males with adult female HH
Self-employment highest for female only HH
Highest grants in female only HH
Lesseyton
“I cannot afford to build a decent dwelling for my family due to financial constraints. And to raise children on a social grant is very hard for me. It was better when my husband was alive” (Gatyana, female, 52 years).
Stadler 2012

Assets - access and stocks (adaptive capacity) 20

Asset access, stocks, adaptive capacity 21
Lesseyton
Gatyana
Male
only
M+F adults
F+M adults
Female
only
Male
only
M+F adults
F+M adults
Female
only
Demo. (4)
Most adults
Most pensioners
Fewest pensioners
Fewest in total
Most in total
Fewest adults
Most adults
Most pensioners
Fewest adults
Fewest pensioners
Human (4)
Skills high
Lang. high
Content high
low
low
low
Social (5)
High trust/ cohesion
Natural (7)
More land
More river and medicinal plants
More land
Less bushmeat
Less land (than male)
Less bushmeat
Less land (than male)
Physical (3)
Most kraals
Least kraals
Less hh items than male
Kraals most
fewest
Financial (2)
Less savings and debt (than male)
Less savings (than male)
Stadler 2012

Asset access, stocks and adaptive capacity 22
Social Capital
Table 9: Mean (± standard error) cognitive social capital scores of different groups in Lesseyton and Gatyana
Lesseyton
Gatyana
Only male adults
Mean
20.9±0.5
22.2±0.4
N
47
37
Mean
20.7±0.5
22±0.5
N
45
41
Mean
20.9±0.7
22.7±0.5
N
53
43
Only female adults
Mean
21.2±0.7
22±0.5
N
25
48
P = 0.007
P = 0.699
Higher social capital
20.00
20.50
21.00
21.50
22.00
22.50
23.00
Male headed households
(n=170)
Female headed households
with adult male (n=83)
Female headed households
without adult male (n=85)
Social Capital
Stadler 2012

Asset access, stocks and adaptive capacity 23
Natural capital: Land
Table 2: Differences in mean (± standard error) area of garden (m2) of households in different groups in Lesseyton and Gatyana
Lesseyton
Gatyana
Only male adults
Mean
N
259.3±78.3
46
6018.5±1644.4
35
Mean
N
123.9±31.9
45
6303.48±765.04
40
Mean
N
119±33.7
50
3885.05±646.5
40
Only female adults
Mean
N
47.1±18.7
25
4418.49±678.39
47
P = 0.053
P = 0.095
About ½ land area

Shocks and stresses experienced and local perceptions of what makes people vulnerable (exposure to risk) 24

Perceptions and experiences of stressors and vulnerability
25
People’s own understandings of what makes them vulnerable - social-learning process
Lesseyton, Lukanji Municipality
Gatyana, Mbashe Municipality
Education and capacity
If you cannot do anything for yourself /dependency; not having skills to deal with opportunities
Lack of education
Crime
Women fear rape when walking alone
Women being vulnerable, rape
theft and crime – takes away, affects farming
Socio-economic/ development
Access to police stations, distance to clinics and not getting medication, lack of knowledge about socio-economic rights, social grants
Unemployment, HIV/AIDS, Poverty
Household dynamics
Lack of parental care and guidance for children, relying on remittances that do not come on time or at all
Lack of parental care, infidelity, rrugs and alcohol
Climate
Drought effect on livestock/vegetables
The weather is changing

Perceptions and experiences of stressors and vulnerability 26
Social learning story
Women used to rely on their crops for food and remittances. But can no longer do this because of > drought, > variability in the weather and increasing unemployment.
Structural and social drivers of vulnerability - lack of education, low levels of skill, corruption, job loss, dependence on others and grants, lack of electricity, and drug and alcohol consumption by men.
Social Learning Stories
•
HIV: Women susceptible of sudden loss of income through death of breadwinners.
•
Shoulder responsibility for orphaned children and have difficulty in maintaining authority
•
Home based care groups – child headed households and elderly
Social learning story Trend toward buying food Less self-reliance

Perceptions and experiences of stressors and vulnerability: Multiple stressors 27
Mental map: Women in Lesseyton

Gender and Climate Change: Women, Research and Action 28
Mental map - men in Lesseyton
Perceptions and experiences of stressors and vulnerability: Multiple stressors

Perceptions and experiences of stressors and vulnerability: HIV/AIDS 29
Table 7: Percentages of households experiencing different types of HIV/Aids impacts across gender headship types and differences in mean (±standard error) number of HIV/Aids impacts
Lesseyton
Only male adults
(N = 47)
(N= 45)
(N= 53)
Only female adults
(N = 25)
P Value
Type of HIV/Aids impact
Non affected
40.4
66.7
28.3
32
0.001
Chronic illness and receiving free care
46.8
28.9
58.5
48
0.034
Illness-related death in previous 10 years
17
8.9
26.4
20
0.164
Presence of de facto orphans
25.5
13.3
30.2
28
0.242
Total
Mean (±standard error)
0.89±0.133
0.51±0.126
1.15±0.136
0.96±0.158
0.007
High % of female headed hh with each of the HIV proxy indicators
-
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
Male headed
households
(n=170)
Female headed
households with
adult male (n=83)
Female headed
households
without adult
male (n=85)
Household Health
Index
Adult Health Index

Perceptions and experiences of stressors and vulnerability: Food security 30
Table 5: Differences in mean (± standard error) weighted perceptions of food security for households in different groups in Lesseyton and Gatyana
Lesseyton
Gatyana
Only male adults
Mean
0.91±0.121
0.65±0.124
N
47
37
Mean
0.91±0.122
0.70±0.120
N
45
40
Mean
1.00±0.111
0.69±0.138
N
53
42
Only female adults
Mean
1.08±0.162
0.75±0.121
N
25
48
P = 0.810
P = 0.108
Female headed hh despite having lower income saw themselves as more food secure than other hh types
Dietary studies showed that only young men were not obtaining their full calorific needs (lowest perception of food security).

Responses to shocks and stressors and reliance on climate sensitive sectors 31

Responses 32
•
All HHs experienced greater than one shock in the previous two years (>20 % had death in the hh; 2010 drought; loss of job, etc.)
•
Financial assets (average savings < R500) cannot generally provide a safety net.
Regarding responses:
•
A lower % of female only HH reported doing nothing. Female only HH had more self-employment – more innovation.
•
More female only HH turned to kin for support compared to other gender categories.
•
Women in general took in orphans, and started care and gardening groups.
•
A large proportion of FHH indicated natural resource gathering as a response.
Shackleton et al. 2014, Clarke 2012

Responses – NR as a safety net
Pair-wise ranking* of coping strategies by women in Gatyana
Coping strategies using assets
Assistance (S)
Change role (H)
Harvest NR (N)
Sell assets (P)
Loan (F)
Assistance (S)
Change role (H)
Harvest NR (N)
Sell assets (P)
Assistance (S)
Assistance (S)
Harvest NR (N)
Sell assets (P)
Change role (H)
Harvest NR (N)
Change role (H)
Harvest NR (N)
Harvest NR (N)
*Items in columns are compared against items in rows and the better of the two indicated in the table
Pair-wise ranking* of coping strategies by men in Gatyana
Coping strategies using assets
Assistance (S)
Change role (H)
Harvest NR (N)
Sell assets (P)
Loan (F)
Loan (F)
Loan (F)
Loan (F)
Loan (F)
Assistance (S)
Assistance (S)
Assistance (S)
Sell assets (P)
Change role (H)
Change roles (H)
Change roles (H)
Harvest NR (N)
Harvest NR (N)
*Items in columns are compared against items in rows and the better of the two indicated in the table
5
2
Stadler 2012

What does this all mean? Conclusions and implications

Key conclusions – re women in general
•
Women’s higher reliance on ecosystem services and their greater use of natural resource safety nets in response to shocks may make them more susceptible to CC.
•Women’s higher exposure to multiple risks in relation to crime, violence, rape and HIV undermines their adaptive capacity.
•Women take on the burden of caring for the sick and children – erodes assets.
•Women are susceptible to sudden loss of income due to the death of breadwinners.
•This may be countered by women’s greater levels of collective action in response to stressors – care groups, gardening groups.
35

Key conclusions – re different female headed HH
•
Lower income and inability to access to formal employment makes them FHH’s (esp female only) more vulnerable, and more reliant on local climate sensitive safety nets.
•Low access to land may threaten food security in the future esp for female only HH.
•Female only HH’s slightly lower human capital, higher child dependence, and lower health scores affects their adaptive capacity.
•FHH’s lower savings limits their responses.
•FHHs use more child labor, may be inter-generational costs.
•Female only HH’s higher reliance on social grants undermines their resilience as these are not permanent.
•Some of this vulnerability may countered by female only HH’s higher food security and cognitive (bonding) social capital. 36
Main gender differences in terms of livelihoods relate to flow or income rather than assets. Female only HH clearly have lower adaptive capacity.

Key conclusions – re men and male headed HH
•
Men also vulnerable – job loss, impacts on livestock production.
•Male only HHs are food insecure and lack access to social grants.
•Male headed HH consume more alcohol with associated social ills. 37
CONTEXT MATTERS
Seeing heterogeneity within and between different areas/contexts. Different contexts can result in the reverse of findings across gender groups.

How do local people see it? 38
Men and women cope differently
Lesseyton %
Willowvale %
Examples
Yes
74
46
Men are stronger, more active
No
20
54
Women are more caring, look after money, weaker, less skills
Women are more vulnerable to shocks
Lesseyton %
Willowvale %
Examples
Yes
50
46
Men bring home the income
No
44
54
Women left to look after family
Men and women are both seen as vulnerable by community members
Almost ½ - ½
Clarke 2012

What does this mean for vulnerability and adaptation policy?
•
Need to recognise multiple sources of shocks and stress and vulnerabilities. Facilitate ‘learning how to be prepared’.
•
Address basic development, services and infrastructural needs (education!). Can’t separate CCA from development and structural inequalities.
•Recognise different contexts have different pros and cons for vulnerability and adaptive capacity – different strengths to build on; understand background of long term changes .
•Need profiling and targeted support for different types of individuals and households
–Recognise that the youth are the dominant demographic.
–Recognise men and women may respond differently and have different assets
–Recognise where men can be involved in reducing women’s vulnerability (gender based violence, health care).
–Provide support to women where they have taken initiative.
•Need to support longer term asset building and improved access to assets – issues of justice wrt to land, loans, insurance, so assets aren’t eroded following shocks. 39

What does this mean for vulnerability and adaptation policy?
•
Build local agency and community institutions/ support systems. Many of the stressors highlighted are social and behavioural – partly within the hands of people themselves. Find opportunities for intergenerational and inter-gender communication. More involvement of women in decision-making.
•
Improve natural resource governance.
•
Address social concerns like alcoholism, rape, domestic violence, corruption Social workers need to get more involved in adaptation.
•
New forms of social protection.
•
Provide information and extension. Currently extension services not working optimally. Support women’s agricultural groups and home gardens.
•
Identify barriers to responses and adaptation and seek ways to overcome these - especially the less obvious barriers such as cognitive/cultural that could increase vulnerability of specific groups. 40

Thank you! Acknowledgements
•
IDRC Ecohealth Programme
•
The IDRC project team
•Communities of Willowvale and Lesseyton and specifically members of our two social learning groups
•Ross Shackleton for the beautiful portraits of the women of Willowvale (all given back to them)
•Rhodes University, SA National Research Foundation and CIFOR for making it possible for me to be here today 41

Are women more vulnerable to climate change in rural South Africa?

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Are women more vulnerable to climate change in rural South Africa?

Similar to Are women more vulnerable to climate change in rural South Africa? (20)

More from CIFOR-ICRAF

More from CIFOR-ICRAF (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Are women more vulnerable to climate change in rural South Africa?