Sustainable Natural Resource use and Climate Change Adaptation

OUR AIM: Work with counterpart agencies and other stakeholders to ensure sustainable use of natural resources and that livelihoods adapt to the impacts of climate change amongst targeted communities in Kenya.

The Economic impacts of weather-related extremes are already being felt in the country – and the costs of these to the growth and development in Kenya – are already significant.

• Extreme floods and drought events are estimated to reduce long-term growth in Kenya by about 2.4% of GDP per annum.
• Future elements of climate change may lead to a change in the frequency or severity of such extreme weather events, potentially worsening impacts.
• Increased average temperatures and changes in annual and seasonal rainfall will be felt across key economic sectors, possibly affecting agricultural production, health status, water availability, energy use, infrastructure, biodiversity, and ecosystem services (including forestry and tourism).
• Impacts are likely to have disproportionately strong effects on the poor as such vulnerable groups have fewer resources to adapt to climatic change.

The total costs arising from 1997/98 floods, from damage to infrastructure and communications, public health hazard, and loss of crops, have been estimated at Ksh 70 billion (~USD 1.0 billion) by the World Bank. The recent 1999/2000 La Niña-related drought particularly affected the agriculture, livestock, energy, industrial production, and tourism sectors, with costs estimated at Ksh 220 billion (~USD 3.2 billion) by the World Bank. The repeated pattern of periodic droughts and floods leads to longer lasting effects. On average, every seven years Kenya experiences a flood that costs about 5.5 percent of GDP (Ksh 37 billion; ~USD 0.5 billion), and every five years experiences a drought that costs about 8 percent of GDP (Ksh 53 billion; ~USD 0.8 billion). This translates to a direct long-term fiscal liability of about 2.4 percent GDP (Ksh 16 billion; ~USD 0.23 billion) per annum. Whatever happens to future greenhouse gas emissions, we are now locked into inevitable changes to climate patterns.

Adaptation to climate change is therefore no longer a secondary and long-term response option only to be used as a last resort. It is now prevalent and imperative, and for those communities already vulnerable to the impacts of present-day climate hazards, an urgent imperative. Successful adaptation must be accomplished through actions that target and reduce the vulnerabilities poor people now face, as they are likely to become more prevalent as the climate changes. This approach calls for a convergence of four distinct communities who have long been tackling the issue of vulnerability reduction through their respective activities—disaster risk reduction, climate and climate change, environmental management, and poverty reduction. Bringing these communities together and offering a common platform— and a shared vocabulary—from which to develop an integrated approach to climate change adaptation can provide an opportunity to revisit some of the intractable problems of environment and development.

The starting point for this convergence is a common understanding of the concepts of adaptation, vulnerability, resilience, security, poverty, and livelihoods, as well as an understanding of the gaps in current adaptation approaches. Taken together, they indicate a need—and an opening—for adaptation measures based on the livelihood activities of poor and vulnerable communities. These places the goal of poverty reduction at the centre of adaptation, as the capabilities and assets that comprise people’s livelihoods often shape poverty as well as the ability to move out of poverty. This “bottom-up” approach therefore requires an understanding of how livelihoods are conducted and sustained—that is, how resources are mobilized to earn an income and meet basic needs. Central to both the definition of livelihoods and household resilience are livelihood assets, i.e., the means of production available to a given individual or group that can be used to generate material resources sufficient enough to reduce poverty. The greater and more varied the asset base, the more sustainable and secure the livelihood. There are generally five forms of livelihood assets: natural capital, social-political capital, human capital, physical capital, and financial capital. Taken together, these assets largely determine how people will respond to the impacts of climate change and should therefore form the basis of adaptation strategies. While all of these assets are important, natural resources are particularly important for the poorest and most vulnerable communities in the world.

At IAF we have taken cognisant of the fact that the poor are more heavily dependent on ecosystem services and therefore most severely affected by deteriorating environmental conditions and factors limiting resource access. While climate change is not the only threat to natural resources and livelihoods, climate-induced changes to resource flows will affect the viability of livelihoods unless effective measures are taken to protect and diversify them through adaptation and other strategies. For the poorest and most vulnerable, these strategies should include ecosystem management and restoration activities such as watershed restoration, agroecology, reef protection and rangeland rehabilitation. In fact, these activities can represent “win-win” approaches to climate change adaptation, as they serve immediate needs and bring immediate benefits to local communities while also contributing to longer-term capacity development that will create a basis for reducing future vulnerabilities.

We believe that If adaptation strategies should reflect the dynamics of peoples’ livelihoods, then adaptation must be seen as a process that is itself adaptive and flexible to address locally specific and changing circumstances. The responsibility for adaptation lies with those who stand to gain the most. While those with the least capacity to adapt are the most vulnerable, they are also the most likely and most motivated to take conscious adaptation actions. For the poor and vulnerable, the actions that they take will be constrained by their limited assets and capabilities, but they will also be the most appropriate given the specific local manifestations of climate change impacts. These actions should be supported by external agencies to build up the asset base of the poor.

Moreover, adaptation should be mainstreamed into wider development processes rather than separated into isolated measures funded and executed discretely. Institutional capacity must be strengthened in order to lessen the gaps between local and national processes, and between formal and informal patterns of economic activity and resource management. Addressing these disconnections will help to ensure the effective participation and empowerment of poor communities in key adaptation decisions, allowing for the inclusion of non-structural approaches rooted in community-based patterns of resource management in these decisions. For poor people and poor countries dealing with many urgent needs and many immediate problems that demand attention and investment.

In the 2021- 2025 strategic planning period, IAF aims to work with other stakeholders to offer a process for identifying those “win-win” options that address current realities and assist with long-term adaptation to climate change. This process will be based on three general steps: 1) understanding vulnerability-livelihood interactions; 2) establishing the legal, policy and institutional framework through which adaptation measures can be implemented; and 3) developing a national climate change adaptation strategy, including reform measures and investment options