Vulnerability, Coping and Loss and Damage from Climate Events

Abstract

"Loss and damage" is an emerging concept in the fields of climate-change adaptation and disaster risk reduction. It results from inadequate efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and insufficient capacity to adapt to climatic changes and cope with impacts. This chapter uses original data from study sites in four African and Asian countries that were surveyed in the context of the first ever multisite study of loss and damage in vulnerable communities. National researchers conducted fieldwork in rural areas, looking at impacts of drought (Gambia), floods (Kenya, Nepal), and cyclones (Bangladesh). Methods included a household survey (n ¼ 1,431) about climate-related stressors, vulnerability, impacts, coping strategies, and residual loss and damage. The survey data are used to investigate how rural households attempt to cope with impacts of climatic stressors and how successful they are in avoiding loss and damage. A multidimensional vulnerability index (MDVI) is created to analyze differences between more and less vulnerable households in the uptake and effectiveness of seven types of coping strategies. The study reveals that vulnerable households used a more diverse portfolio of coping measures. They were more likely to reduce expenses, modify food consumption and rely on social networks to cope with impacts of climatic stressors. No significant differences were found between more and less vulnerable households in the uptake of migration, asset sales and reliance on relief. The impacts of climate-related stressors in vulnerable communities are beyond the majority (69 percent) of households' capacity to cope. This is especially true for more vulnerable 1. The data presented in this chapter were gathered in the context of the Loss and Damage in

State of Climate Law∵The Third Pillar of International Climate Change Law: Explaining ‘Loss and Damage’ after the Paris Agreement

“…If it is possible to adapt to an avoidable impact so that it is avoided, this is a case of adaptation. However, if an avoidable impact is not avoided, it is unclear on this view whether it is to be categorized as (non) adaptation or L&D. 25 Consider the case of a small-island state threatened by sea-level rise. The state decides to build protective dikes-a form of adaptation.…”

Cyclone, Salinity Intrusion and Adaptation and Coping Measures in Coastal Bangladesh

“…The terms 'adaptation' and 'coping' are sometimes used interchangeably, despite differences between them (van der Geest & Warner, 2015;Warner et al, 2012;Monnereau & Abraham, 2013;van der Geest & Dietz, 2004;CARE International [CI], 2009). Adaptation refers to 'longer-term adjustments to more permanent changes in the climate' while coping refers to 'short-term responses to the impacts of sudden or unusual events' (van der Geest & Warner, 2015, p. 126).…”

“…Hence, it can be argued that the measures of adaptation help people to moderate harm or exploit beneficial opportunities, whilst coping measures aid people to face and manage adverse conditions, emergencies, or disasters by using available skills and resources (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction [UNISDR], 2009). Coping measures can be categorised as either non-erosive or erosive coping measures (Warner et al, 2012;van der Geest & Warner, 2015). Non-erosive coping measures do not jeopardise long-term or future livelihood security of households while erosive coping measures, despite the possibility of having short-term benefits, jeopardise long-term or future livelihood security of households (Warner et al, 2012;van der Geest & Warner, 2015).…”

“…Coping measures can be categorised as either non-erosive or erosive coping measures (Warner et al, 2012;van der Geest & Warner, 2015). Non-erosive coping measures do not jeopardise long-term or future livelihood security of households while erosive coping measures, despite the possibility of having short-term benefits, jeopardise long-term or future livelihood security of households (Warner et al, 2012;van der Geest & Warner, 2015). Thus, coping measures are successful when households allocate resources to overcome a crisis without compromising the long-term livelihood security, though coping measures are unsuccessful when households employ measures to overcome a crisis that undermine their long-term livelihood security.…”

“…Adaptation and coping measures adopted by households are dependent on many factors, such as the social, cultural, and economic background of the households; physical location; the nature of the hazards; and household's level of vulnerability and ability to absorb shock (Parvin, Takahashi, & Shaw, 2008;Paul & Routray, 2011;Saha, 2016). Although this paper does not deal with variations in adopting adaptation and coping measures based on the aforementioned factors, it is worth mentioning that-based on these factors-measures undertaken by households vary within a community, between communities within a coastal region, as well as among the three coastal regions of the coastal Bangladesh (Paul & Routray, 2011;van der Geest & Dietz, 2004;van der Geest & Warner, 2015).…”