Search

Highlights • El Nino impacts on six socio-ecological systems are described. • Diverse experiences of 2015–16 El Nino event across these systems. • System resilience shaped by interaction of short and long term processes. • El Nino experiences provide window for analysing long term resilience. Abstract In a context of both long-term climatic changes and short-term climatic shocks, temporal dynamics profoundly influence ecosystems and societies. In low income contexts in the Tropics, where both exposure and vulnerability to climatic fluctuations is high, the frequency, duration, and trends in these fluctuations are important determinants of socio-ecological resilience. In this paper, the dynamics of six diverse socio-ecological systems (SES) across the Tropics – ranging from agricultural and horticultural systems in Africa and Oceania to managed forests in South East Asia and coastal systems in South America – are examined in relation to the 2015–16 El Niño, and the longer context of climatic variability in which this short-term 'event' occurred. In each case, details of the socio-ecological characteristics of the systems and the climate phenomena experienced during the El Niño event are described and reflections on the observed impacts of, and responses to it are presented. Drawing on these cases, we argue that SES resilience (or lack of) is, in part, a product of both long-term historical trends, as well as short-term shocks within this history. Political and economic lock-ins and dependencies, and the memory and social learning that originates from past experience, all contribute to contemporary system resilience. We propose that the experiences of climate shocks can provide a window of insight into future ecosystem responses and, when combined with historical perspectives and learning from multiple contexts and cases, can be an important foundation for efforts to build appropriate long-term resilience strategies to mediate impacts of changing and uncertain climates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper we examine conditions that underlie vulnerability and resilience possibilities for households and communities that face and respond to climate- and other changes, in nine East and West African countries. We base our analysis on a unique integrated qualitative and quantitative dataset composed of household surveys and village focus group studies carried out across a wide range of environments and agricultural systems. We identify human population growth, commercialization of the economy, and natural resource use policies, in addition to weather, as key drivers of change. We compare the agricultural and livelihood systems of male and female respondents, as well as their productive resources, organization and access to services. Women have less access than men to common property resources, as well as to cash to obtain goods or services. Women control less land than men, the land they control is often of poorer quality, and their tenure is insecure. Women engage in mutual insurance and risk-sharing networks, and benefit from non-agricultural services provided by social support institutions external to the village. Formally registered, public and private external organizations that foster agriculture and livestock production have tremendous anti-women biases, and tend to provide support primarily to men. Policies and strategies are needed to eliminate those prejudices so that men and women increase their resilience and manage well their changing environments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

[Display omitted] • Prioritizing the most vulnerable countries is a key goal of global climate change finance. • For the first time, we comprehensively assess whether the biggest climate fund, the GCF, achieves this goal. • Many of the most vulnerable countries have not been able to access GCF funds, particularly LDCs in Africa. • Institutional capacity is a major factor in determining a country's access to funding. • Capacity development and simplified approval tracks need to be strengthened in the emerging climate finance architecture. The evolving architecture of global climate change adaptation finance is shifting towards fund mechanisms with competitive application and allocation principles. At the same time, prioritization of the most vulnerable countries is a key goal within this emerging architecture. The paper analyses whether the Green Climate Fund (GCF), by far the largest climate change fund, has so far delivered on its promise to prioritize the most vulnerable countries. For our analysis, we consider the USD 2.5 billion GCF funding allocated until the end of the first mobilization phase and disaggregate it project-by-project into its mitigation and adaptation related amounts. We then analyze the adaptation flows in terms of the recipient country's level of vulnerability and institutional capacity. We further analyze whether funds are being accessed through independent national entities or international intermediaries and whether recipient countries have developing country priority status. The results show that funds-based adaptation finance creates an ambiguous picture: On the one hand, the GCF is on track in allocating its funds largely to country groups which its statutes aim to prioritize, particularly LDCs, African countries and SIDS. At the same time, the proposal process results in the fact that many countries with the highest climate vulnerability but weak government institutions and fragile state-bureaucracies have missed out and not been able to access project funding, mostly LDCs in Africa and conflict-ridden countries. Further, most countries have not yet been able to access project funds independently through their national entities, limiting direct access and country ownership – the strengthening of which is a major goal of the fund. The findings suggest that simplified approval tracks need to be strengthened in the emerging climate finance architecture so that populations in countries with the lowest institutional capacity but highest vulnerability are not being left behind in the long-run. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Understanding different adaptive capacities is a prerequisite for targeting interventions to reduce the adverse impacts of climate change. Indicators and indices are common tools in this process, but their construction embodies many uncertainties, not least of which is their scale specificity. This paper describes the development of two empirical adaptive capacity indices for use at different scales of analysis: a national index for cross-country comparison in Africa and a household index for cross-household comparison in a village in Limpopo province, South Africa. Explaining the decisions made at each stage of construction illuminates the degree of uncertainty involved when assessing adaptive capacity, and how this uncertainty is compounded when looking across different scales of analysis. It concludes that the central elements of adaptive capacity, based on institutional collective response and the availability of and access to resources, are common at different scales, although the structure of each index is scale-specific. Hence the findings of these apparently irreconcilable scales of analysis converge to demonstrate points of leverage for policy intervention to raise resilience and the capacity to adapt to the risks posed by climate change. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

• By 2100, without UHI, over 300 million urban Africans may be exposed to 15-day heat waves >42 °C. • Of those exposed approximately 27% may be sensitive to heat (<5 and >64 years old). • Including UHI could raise exposure to 950 million, with 38.7% projected to be sensitive. • In the worst case scenario ~ 2 billion urban Africans may be exposed to such heat. Urbanization and climate change are among the most important global trends affecting human well-being during the twenty-first century. One region expected to undergo enormous urbanization and be significantly affected by climate change is Africa. Studies already find increases in temperature and high temperature events for the region. How many people will be exposed to heat events in the future remains unclear. This paper attempts to provide a first estimate of the number of African urban residents exposed to very warm 15-day heat events (>42 °C). Using the Shared Socio-economic Pathways and Representative Concentration Pathways framework we estimate the numbers of exposed, sensitive (those younger than 5 and older than 64 years), and those in low-income nations, with gross national products of $4000 ($2005, purchasing power parity), from 2010 to 2100. We examine heat events both with and without urban heat island estimates. Our results suggest that at the low end of the range, under pathways defined as sustainable (SSP 1) and low relative levels of climate change (RCP 2.6) without including the urban heat island effect there will be large populations (>300 million) exposed to very warm heat wave by 2100. Alternatively, by 2100, the high end exposure level is approximately 2.0 billion for SSP 4 under RCP 4.5 where the urban heat island effect is included. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This paper uses a content analysis of the published literature to take stock of current understanding of key social and policy drivers of migration to cities in 11 Asian and African mega-deltas and identifies commonalities and differences among them. The analysis shows that migration to urban centers in mega-deltas is an outcome of many forces: economic policies and incentives, local and destination institutions, government policies to develop small towns, and the geographic concentration of investments. Massive influx of capital to many deltas has transformed the local economic base from a primarily agricultural one to a manufacturing and processing economy. This has created uneven spatial economic development which is the underlying driver of migration to cities in the mega-deltas regardless of geographic context or size. Going forward to 2060, one critical challenge for all the deltas is to increase the labor skill of their workforce and foster technology innovation. Continued economic growth in these regions will require substantial investments in education and capacity building and the ability of urban centers to absorb the migrant labor pool. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]