Adaption of farmers to Climate Change Impacts

Last week’s blog assessed agricultural impacts inflicted by climate change.  This week’s blog aims to analyse the ability of farmers to adapt to climate change impacts.  This will be evaluated, by looking at Ethiopia as a case study.

Local farmers observed an increase in temperatures and a decrease in precipitation over time (Deressa et al 2009).  Some farmers were able to assess changes in rainfall seasons, suggesting that rain in many cases may have occurred later than expected.  Therefore highlighting the observation of climate changes occurring in Ethiopia and the influence on farming (Deressa et al 2009). However, Bryan et al (2009) suggests that in most cases, these observations were variable depending on the age of farmers, farm and non-farm income and the degree of services.  Hence, questioning farmer’s degree of understanding on climatic change in the long run.

Wealth as a factor in climate change adaptation

In Ethiopia, the main source of wealth occurs from agriculture.  Deressa et al (2009) suggests that agriculture in Ethiopia contributes 85% of the foreign exchange earnings, employs 80% of the population and increases GDP by 35%.  Hence, agriculture provides economic security for many people.  However, this security is threatened due to environmental impacts forcing farmers to adapt to different agricultural processes.  Poor farmers tend to have less machinery and a smaller amount of land, hence are more willing to adapt (Bryan et al 2009).  Hence, due to not having a lot to loose in terms of economic benefits, poor farmers are willing to adapt their farming strategies to become more tolerant to climate change impacts.  Unfortunately they are unable to do so, as long-term measures against climate change impacts are costly (Deressa et al 2009).  Controversially, middle-income farmers are reluctant to agricultural adaptation, as a loss of agricultural yield may affect their food security and lower their standard of living (Bryan et al 2009).  Furthermore, wealthier farmers are more able to adapt.  They have more money, more machinery and their own radio (for telecommunication). Therefore, allowing them to adapt to a higher degree compared to other social groups.  Additionally, wealthier farmers with larger areas of land adapt more easily as a small decline in yields will not affect their income substantially (Bryan et al 2009).  Moreover, they are able to obtain credits from the bank and adapt better to climate change, as there is more cash flow to invest in machinery and increasing agricultural efficiency (Deressa et al 2009). 

Conversely, Conway and Schipper (2011) argue that there is no apparent correlation between changes in GDP and rainfall (Figure 1). This relationship is only apparent after the year 2000, as there is an intensification of climate change impacts and rainfall patterns change substantially. Hence, the slower the degree of change of climate, the less impact this will have on GDP (Conway and Schipper 2011).  This highlights that wealthy farmers have the opportunity to adapt but are not willing to adapt to new agricultural practises except if there are significant losses in agricultural yield. Their main incentive will be making a profit unless they are substantially affected by climatic events.

Figure 1: The relationship between rainfall and GDP in Ethiopia
Note: There is a relatively week correlation also highlighted by the correlation number of  0.1, suggesting no statistical significance
Source: Conway and Schipper 2011

Agricultural adaption due to extreme events

Furthermore, the most apparent relationship seen in Figure 1 occurs with extreme climatic events such as droughts.  Therefore, changes in the hydrological cycle caused by climate change will be vital when regarding changes in the economy of Ethiopia (and also many other countries).  Deressa et al (2009) draw the conclusion that farmers who had experience of extreme droughts or floods, are willing to adapt compared to farmers with less experience.  This may be highly correlated with experiencing losses in agricultural yield.  Bryan et al (2009) suggests that 14% of the people experiencing intense events are likely to change their farming practises.  This is achieved by: selling livestock, migrating, borrowing more money and receiving food aid.  However, Conway and Schipper (2011) suggest these measures are short-term and will not help in resolving long-term climate change impacts.  Hence, questioning to what degree Ethiopians are able to adapt due to climatic changes and economic constraints.

Climate change adaptation according to knowledge

Lastly, many farmers are willing to adapt their agricultural practises when having more knowledge about climate change.  The higher the understanding and awareness of environmental impacts on agriculture and water supplies, the higher the willingness of adaptation (Bryan et al 2009).  In many cases, wealthier and middle class farmers, find that knowledge is the best incentive and feel it is a key factor to being persuaded to change their agricultural skills and techniques (Figure 2). 

 

Figure 2: Various Factors influencing farmer's adaption
Note: Lack of Knowledge being one of the largest incentives for wealthy and middle class farmers to adapt against climate  change as they already have land
Source: Bryan et al 2009

Conclusions

Therefore, it is evident that farmers are willing to adapt to climate change for various reasons, extreme weather and knowledge being the most important.  However, policy makers must acknowledge the type of adaption required.  Policy makers need to ensure the long-term climate adaption for all farmers, as short-term adaptation creates false security (Conway and Schipper 2011). When adapting to short-term climatic changes, farmers will think that the measures they are taking are enough to withstand extreme events, even though this is not the case (Bryan et al 2009).  Although poorer farmers are willing to adapt, they are less able to take long-term adaptions, due to high costs, underlining a major barrier. Hence, guidance and some form of subsidy may be essential to achieve this goal for poor farmers.

Agriculture and Climate Change impacts...

This blog aims to assess agricultural production and how it may be impacted due to decrease in water availability imposed by climate change.  Thorton et al (2010) assessed the agricultural system of Eastern Africa using the Hadley Centre Coupled Model version 3.  This model identifies 3 main scenarios about how the overall agricultural yield (specifically maize and beans) is impacted.  Firstly, crop yield will decrease, but farmers will still be able to have some output through specific processes.  Secondly, there will be an increase in yield production due to the gradual warming caused by climate change for a certain period of time, until warming would become more excessive.  Thirdly, crop yields may decline drastically which may force substantial changes in agricultural systems.   This is likely to occur, as there will be a shift in rainfall and an intensification of drought periods will occur more frequently due to climate change impacts.

Moderate yield decrease due to climate change

If there are moderate crop yield declines, due to climate change impacts, it is expected that agricultural production will decrease by around 25-40% (Thorton et al 2010).  However, farmers can use more sufficient management processes when growing crops and adapt to using more drought tolerant crops to resolve this problem (Jones and Thorton 2003).   However, it is important to acknowledge that public investment may be essential in the maintenance of crop yields.  This may be problematic due to the Sub-Saharan countries being developing countries and not having the economic ability to provide sufficient machinery to increase crop production. 

Yield Increase due to warming

It is suggested that assuming temperatures increase gradually agricultural production may benefit, due to having enough water and more days of sunlight for the crops to prosper (Jones and Thorton 2003).  This may influence domestic agricultural production.  Hence a family in the village of Vilhiga Kenya, may need approximately 250kg of maize per person per year to sustain themselves.  Unfortunately, this would not be met under normal circumstances.  However, if the crop yield increases due to climate change, they could be producing more crops than needed to sustain themselves and have surpluses which they can sell for an income (Thorton et al 2010).  This may be beneficial as it increases economic security for farmers.  Nonetheless, this may not last long, for example in Tanzania it is projected that bean production will increase by 4% until 2030 and decline by 5% to 2050 due to the average temperatures increasing beyond the threshold of 20-22^oC (Thorton et al 2010).  This is likely to occur in all sub-Saharan countries, hence having some economic benefits for a short period of time and then suffering a decrease of agricultural yield.

Maize in Sub-Saharan Africa
Credits: http://www.mainsailmfb.com

Drastic yield decreases due to intense droughts

Depending on the geology of the area and also the intensity and frequency of drought events agriculture may decline substantially.  The growth of crops and beans may stop completely and alternative crops that are very drought tolerant, may be adapted such as sorghum and cassava.  Although these plants are considered very drought tolerant and adaptive to climate change it is important to acknowledge that rainfall is essential for subsidence and drought conditions may be so severe that not even these crops may survive (Thorton et al 2010). Consequently, farmers may adapt to a shift in dependence in livestock.    Farmers may prefer to grow cattle, sheep or goats for subsidence and an income, as it is more reliable and not heavily dependent on rainfall events (Giordano 2006).

Use of groundwater

 It may be argued that groundwater is highly available in Sub-Saharan Africa and thus with increasing climate change impacts there can be a shift of water use from more surface water and rainfall events to groundwater with increasing climate change impacts.  In many semi-arid and arid regions of Sub-Saharan Africa (including Eastern Africa), people are highly reliant on groundwater.  However, groundwater abstraction can be very costly and abstraction may be highly variable on the geology of the area, as most groundwater is found under hard rock (Giordano 2006).  Additionally, applying new modern technology for agricultural use may be costly.  Hence, due to being developing countries, many farmers will be unable to buy groundwater pumps for irrigation, unless subsidised by the government or NGOs (Giordano 2006).  Lastly, over half of the Sub-Saharan African rainfall occurs in 4 main countries: The Democratic Republic of Congo, The Republic of Congo, Camerron and Nigeria (Giordano 2006).  Thus most of groundwater recharge occurs in this area, allowing for more agriculture to take place in these countries compared to any other region.   Therefore, it is essential to acknowledge that although groundwater exists and many countries are highly reliant on aquifers, with an increase in climate change impacts, it will be harder to take advantage of this resource, due to geological characteristics, water distribution and high costs.

Thoughts

It is emphasised that some short-term agricultural benefits may occur with increasing climate change impacts.  However, in the long-term there will be high loses of agricultural production in Eastern Africa.  This is problematic due to agriculture being the main source of food security and also providing high economic security.  I fear the trickle down effects of a decrease in agricultural yield with increasing climate change impacts, will lead to malnourishment and a decrease in economic growth and livelihood.  Would you not agree? 

Livestock in Timbuktu
Credits: The Guardian 

Water and diseases

As indicated in previous blogs, various changes in climate change have major implications on groundwater and surface water, which leads to a degradation in water quality.  This blog aims to analyse how water quality and sanitation are handled to reduce diseases, which may worsen with climate change.

In Sub-Sahara Africa 42% of the population lives without improved water (Montgomery and Elimelech 2007).  Improved water includes households being connected to boreholes, a protected dug well, a sealed spring or a rainwater collection.  Furthermore improved water includes public sewers and a septic system such as sealed pit latrines (Montgomery and Elimelech 2007).  A lack of improved water decreases sanitation and increases mortality rates due to diseases spreading such as diarrheal (Figure 1).  The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are attempting to increase the amount of people having access to safe water and better sanitation.   If water quality and sanitation is not improved, it is expected that there will be approximately 135 million deaths by 2020 due to water diseases (Gleick 2002).

Figure 1: A comparison of lack of access of sanitation and safe water compared to mortality
Source: Montgomery and Elimelech 2007

Understanding exposure to diseases

Many diseases in Sub-Saharan Africa are caught by a lack of clean water provision and people not undertaking hygiene principles; such as washing their hands and drinking clean water (not contaminated by excreta).  Water treatment is difficult to provide in rural areas, due to the population living more sparsely thus people are more vulnerable to water diseases.  Yet, in urban areas, water treatment is more accessible.  However, high capital costs and a lack in water maintenance deteriorate water quality and people are still under risk of catching viruses (Montgomery and Elimelech 2007). Thus, to decrease the level of diseases a domestic, local approach should be implemented.

 

An emphasis on lack of water safety: A child collecting dirty water for drinking
Source: ACET

Effectiveness on disease treatment

POU treatment is a local approach, creating a boundary for pathogen exposure immediately before water utilization.  If POU treatment is implemented correctly it will create a safer water supply and decrease water viruses.  However, the performance of POU treatment is highly reliant on the source water quality and some production costs are inevitable. Although costs are relatively low and this process is highly effective, in developing countries in Sub-Saharan Africa it is difficult for poor individuals to pay these costs, as seen in Tanzania, where water was free and then charges were implemented (Montgomery and Elimelech 2007).

Although POU treatment reduces pathogens to a higher degree compared to chlorine, chlorine is cheaper, easier to use and manufactured locally therefore preferred by people.  Another advantage when using chlorine is that it leaves a chlorine residual in water which prevents re-contamination when obtained in households. Hence chlorine is more effective due to being used more than POU treatment, therefore decreases diseases to a higher degree.  As seen in Kenya and Guatemala where POU treatment reduced 40% of diarrheal whereas chlorine reduced 85% (Montgomery and Elimelech 2007). 

Furthermore, sewage systems are essential in holding excreta.  An improvement in sanitation processes suggests that waste is stored in a safe, enclosed environment.  This suggests that faecal matter will be unable to leak in groundwater or surface water (Montgomery and Elimelech 2007).  Hence, reducing the risk of freshwater contamination.  Therefore, suggesting a decrease in the ability of viruses spreading due to higher hygiene levels. 

Thoughts

In the future climate change impacts and increasing population rates in Sub-Saharan Africa will make people more vulnerable to diseases, if actions are not taken to prevent water deterioration. This may cause great epidemics repeating historical events such as the great cholera (Great Stink). In the future, Sub-Saharan Africa needs to apply strict policies and investments to manage water quality and sanitation, to reduce major influxes of diseases.  Even though Sub-Saharan Africa consists of developing countries and a large economic gap between social groups may be prevalent; governments, NGOS and investors need to provide safe access to water and stop people suffering and dying.  I believe it is essential to improve water sources and take actions to protect people from water diseases.  Looking forwad to hearing your comments.

Saline Water in Wetlands and Aquifers

The highest degree of certainty about future climate change is that temperatures will increase.  One of the implications may be melting of glacial ice, leading to sea level rises and an increase in intense changes in the hydrological cycle, causing coastal hazards such as storm surges and an increase in erosion.  This may consequently have substantial impacts on coastal aquifers and wetlands.  Coastal aquifers may be intruded by saline water due to high levels of evapotranspiration, abstraction, sea level rises or storm surges (Ranjan et al 2006).    An increase in sea levels and storm surges may cause saline water to enter from coastal wetlands causing substantial long-term impacts on people, agriculture, fisheries, ecosystems and the economy.

Influences due to increases in salinity

Developing countries of high poverty in low coastal elevation areas are susceptible to sea level rises, as they are unable to adapt or protect themselves from these impacts.  Hence, an increase in salinity levels in the long run, may destroy natural ecosystems such as mangroves, which could act as a natural barrier protecting areas against extreme events, such as storm surges (Barbier 2015).  Many semi-arid and arid regions of Sub-Saharan Africa are reliant on groundwater resources for domestic use.  However, due to salinity intrusion, less freshwater will be available for cooking, drinking and sanitation, creating a decrease in livelihood (Barbier 2015).

Less wealthy households are highly reliant on agriculture and fisheries for their provision of food and income.   In Tanzania and Zanzibar around 34% of people are reliant on fisheries and 38% on farming, to provide an income for their families (Barbier 2015).  With an increase in sea-levels there may be a shift in fish population.  The destruction of near-shore ecosystems, such as mangroves and wetlands will destroy the natural habitat of some fish, forcing them to migrate.  Hence, decreasing fish availability for people (Barbier 2015).  Furthermore, many agricultural landscapes may inundate and crops may be destroyed, such as rice.  It is suggested that in Nigeria all agricultural produce will be destroyed due to sea inundation (Barbier 2015).   This is a concern as it may cause a poverty-environment trap (Figure 1).  A degradation in agriculture and fisheries may lead to more people searching for other types of occupations.  Therefore, the availability of labour will increase dramatically, leading to high unemployment rates and a high reliance on government benefits.

Figure 1: The Poverty- Environment Trap Cycle
Source: Barbier 2015

Impacts on groundwater quality

Conversely, there is high uncertainty on how groundwater quality may change in coastal Sub-Saharan African aquifers.  According to Ranjan et al 2006, groundwater levels may decrease by 0.002%.  As such, a low decrease in groundwater levels, may not be a substantial intrusion of sea-water in aquifers, suggesting minimal impacts to people who are highly reliant on groundwater resources.  However, this is variable on abstraction rates and the geology of an aquifer. 

Look forward to your thoughts on the matter!