Vulnerability of livestock based communities to climate variability and change: insights from Mid-Benin Donald HOUESSOU /

Outline  Introduction  Research objectives  Concept of vulnerability  Methodology  Results  Implications  Conclusion & suggestions

Introduction  The sub-Saharan Africa is one of the most vulnerable regions to the effects of climate change due to the strong dependence between rural communities and natural resources (IPCC, 2007)  In Benin, these climate changes are already evident and will negatively impact agriculture in general (Afouda, 1990 ; MEPN and PNUD, 2008; MEHU, 2011)  In livestock sector, due to higher temperatures, we could notify a profound disturbance in the physiology of cattle, particularly in milk and meat production

Introduction  In addition, livestock may be affected by the decline in pasture productivity due to climate change induced degradation, through overgrazing for example (MEHU, 2011)  Now, livestock contribution to GDP in West Africa is estimated between 8 et 15% (Kamuanga et al., 2004)  In Benin, it contribute at 5,8% to GDP (INSAE, 2007)  Although the vulnerability of livestock based communities to climate change is accepted, there is very little quantitative evidence on the impacts of climate variability and change on livestock based communities.

Research objectives  This study aims to assess the vulnerability of livestock based communities to climate variability and change.  Specifically, it aims:  To develop a vulnerability index of livestock based communities to climate variability and change;  To compare and explain the different levels of vulnerability between municipalities and livestock systems.

Concept of vulnerability  Recently, the vulnerability is understood as not only function of biophysical variations but also function of environmental and human systems that build communities sensitivity and adaptive capacity (Vincent, 2004 and Gbetibouo et al., 2010).  This approach uses then the vulnerability as « starting point » of the analysis and considers it as a state that exists within a system before it undergoes a climatic stress (Piya et al., 2012).  The vulnerability is function of the character, magnitude, and rate of climate variation to which a system is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity” (IPCC 2001 ; 2007).  Thus as per this definition, vulnerability has three components widely used in this research: exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity.

Methodology Developing an index of vulnerability Data collectionData normalization Weightening indicators Exposure Sensitivity Adaptive capacity Taking into account functional relationship between Indicator and Vulnerability Between 0 and 1 Calculating sub- index Calculating vulnerability index Test t of Student Investigating significance Eij = Factorial weight of indicator i on component j Pi = Weight of indicator i Vi = Mean of indicator i p = Length of indicators

Results

Dassa-Zoumè Tchaourou Results

Results  Gradual changes in climate (temperature and rainfall) and extreme manifestations of climate change (long droughts and excessive heat) are keys elements of exposure.  The sensitivity of these livestock based communities to climate variability and change is determined by their dependence on livestock activities.  The difference between their sensitivity is significantly explained by the size of the camp, the time spent in the activity and the share of livestock in annual revenue (p< 0,001).  Adaptive capacity depends on the context of each herder and the community.

Results  The herder gains in experience with age increasing allowing him to well cope with extreme events of climate change. This factor is further strengthened when there are indigenous climate prediction systems that facilitate the planning of livestock activities.  Diversification in animals and the use of veterinary care are two other important factors that also strengthen adaptive capacity. For example, vaccination is an effective solution in early drought to fight against diseases caused by excessive heat.  Thus, age, diversification in animals, the use of veterinary care (all p<0.001) and existence of indigenous climate prediction systems (p<0.01) explained the difference between the adaptive capacity of the livestock based communities.

Implications  This research revealed that climate change has different impacts on livestock based communities. For example, those who are the most exposed are not necessarily the most sensitive or the least able to adapt.  The findings also highlight how socioeconomic inequalities may influence vulnerability to climate variability and change (Dyson 2006; Laska and Morrow, 2006). This implies then the need to support the communities in diversifying their livelihoods, through off-farm or farm income generating activities.

Implications  Policies should also focus first on sensitivity and adaptive capacity where they have great influence than exposure in a short term. This policy option is consistent in the fact that the communities that are already practicing agriculture (agropastoralism) are less sensitive/more able to adapt (therefore less vulnerable) compared to those practicing pastoralism.  Finally, efforts to reduce the vulnerability must be integrated to act simultaneously on exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity.

Conclusion & suggestions  This research has allowed the quantification of the vulnerability of livestock based communities to climate variability and change.  Understanding how the three components of vulnerability influence the vulnerability is a starting point for future research and policies development that could support these communities.  This study has suggested:  The fostering of future research on the subject;  The strengthening of data and information collection systems;  The diversification of livestock based communities livelihoods.

Thanks Follow ACED on: Facebook: acedong Flux rss: