Report on the international conference Climate Change and Vulnerability: social science perspectives 17./ , Kassel University

Transcription

1 Report on the international conference Climate Change and Vulnerability: social science perspectives 17./ , Kassel University The conference on Climate Change and Vulnerability was organized by the department of environmental governance at Kassel University (Christoph Görg, Sybille Bauriedl). It began with an evening of public lectures, followed by a one-day workshop with thirty-five participants from disciplines as varied as political science, geography, environmental psychology, economics and sociology. The aims of the conference were to strengthen the social science perspective in conceptualizations of the interrelations between climate risks, vulnerability and adaptation capacity and to clarify the theoretical and methodological contribution made by social scientists to the study of climate vulnerability. Social scientists are becoming more and more involved in climate impact research due to the increasing focus on the vulnerability and adaptive capacity of regions, social groups and individuals. Regional capacities to adapt to climate change differ due to the specific social vulnerabilities of their inhabitants. At the same time, regional vulnerabilities are themselves affected by broader societal conditions, such as the position of a region in global markets, as well as by national or European regulatory conditions. Whereas for some time research focused solely on so-called developing countries and their specific social vulnerabilities, more recently research has been emerging on the vulnerability of regions in industrialized countries (as in the German BMBF-KLIMZUG projects). This re-orientation provides additional stimulus for conducting in-depth discussions about the concepts of vulnerability and adaptation and their interrelationships, issues which are crucial to social science adaptation research. The conference generated several lines of argument regarding the links between adaptation research and practice in ongoing transdisciplinary networks and the impacts of such research on vulnerability studies. It also produced insights into the interconnections between social science approaches to vulnerability and those of the natural sciences, as well as highlighting the points of demarcation between the two. The main objective of the conference was to intensify the exchange of theoretical perspectives and empirical experience between those working in vulnerability and adaptation studies and thus to contribute to an approach to climate adaptation research that takes into account the complex socio-ecological interconnections in which climate vulnerability is embedded. PUBLIC LECTURES ON CLIMATE VULNERABILITY Christoph Görg (University of Kassel & UFZ Leipzig) gave an introduction to the key conference issues. He highlighted the need to face climate change as an ongoing reality and underlined the different challenges of mitigation and adaptation. Among other issues, he pointed out that there is no single key indicator for adaptation targets and successful adaptation strategies similar to the carbon emission indicator for mitigation. Climate change has highly varied regional and sectoral impacts, and scientific predictions are characterized by high levels of uncertainty. For this reason, appropriate adaptation strategies face the challenge of estimating the degree of vulnerability of a sector, region, social group or human individual. Hazard researchers deduce this degree of vulnerability from the measurable impacts of natural hazards, whereas development researchers address all aspects of a person s livelihood. Görg argued that these two approaches could be fruitfully combined in vulnerability and adaptation research and that the focus should be on coupled socialecological systems. Timothy Forsyth (London School of Economics and Political Science) discussed a number of key questions facing social scientists in climate research. These included: who defines global problems? Who experiences risk? Who wins and who loses? He differentiated 1

2 between two types of adaptation: a systemic approach from a pollutionist perspective (adaptation focused on infrastructure, sea walls, water storage) and a cumulative approach from a development perspective (adaptation strategies focused on livelihoods, economic opportunities, access to markets). Global climate models based on biophysical data dominate the analytical findings of studies on local adaptation to climate change. The local has disappeared from environmental concern and climate scientists in general seem to be searching for global solutions. Recent UN climate policy has been based on a systemic approach to climate change. No mechanisms exist to address vulnerability or adaptation, as they do in the case of mitigation. Forsyth identified a need to formulate broader definitions of risk and to include a wider range of actors in vulnerability and climate change research. He argued that vulnerability studies have to recognise access to resources and social relationships as crucial criteria for adaptive capacity. Jorge Rojas (Universidad de Concepción) addressed the specific challenges of climate change within Chile and compared them with the natural hazards experienced after the huge earthquake in southern Chile a year ago. He presented the outline and initial results from a research project being conducted at the University of Concepción on the socio-economic impacts of climate change in the Bio-Bío region. The project is looking at the potential impacts on society and is also analysing levels of awareness, perceptions, knowledge and activities in rural areas, in both public and private spheres. Rojas also noted that lower levels of precipitation (in terms of both days and intensity), coupled with rising temperatures, indicate that the biggest climate impact for Chile and the Bio-Bío region will be the availability of water resources. Introduction to workshop issues WORKSHOP ON CLIMATE VULNERABILITY In her introduction to the workshop, Sybille Bauriedl (Kassel University) highlighted a number of key issues in climate vulnerability studies from a social science perspective. A lack of analytical clarity exists regarding the intersection of these issues and underlying framings and discourses of vulnerability as well as the potential role of social scientists in deliberating on and participating in shaping new framings. Areas in which social scientists can make important contributions include climate change issues (hazard risks), structural issues (control over climate change knowledge), contextual issues (global justice discourses), and dominant responses to climate vulnerability (adaptation management). Perspectives from social sciences on climate change and vulnerability Vulnerability is conditioned by multiple factors, not all of them having to do directly with climate change. Adaptation strategies are related to multiple potential conflicts, not least due to uneven access to natural, social and economic resources. These conditions have different effects at different scales. In order to develop ideas with regard to sustainable regional adaptation strategies, the causes and implications of individual vulnerability, vulnerability of social groups, and sectoral vulnerability need to be integrated. As yet, however, no 2

3 methodological programme exists to study these complex vulnerabilities from a multi-scale perspective. Recent climate vulnerability studies are characterized by the tendency to see people (especially in developing countries) as passive victims of climate change and to neglect subjective and intersubjective interpretations and perceptions of disastrous events and risks. From a social science perspective, it is not so much natural conditions as power relations that limit the scope of action to adapt to climate change. Thus the question arises: is climate vulnerability even the right starting point to look for answers in the quest to avert the growing harmful impacts of climate change? Key note lectures on implications of vulnerability studies for climate research Kristina Dietz (FU Berlin) described from a development perspective climate vulnerability as being socially and spatially embedded, arguing that the interactions and interrelations between social, political and institutional change need to be depicted more accurately and that case studies should be conducted within a multi-scale framework. Andrea Santelices Spikin (Universidad de Concepcion) gave an overview of climate vulnerability in the Bio-Bío region (central Chile) and argued for a triangulation of social, biophysical and cultural factors using quantitative studies on risk, vulnerability and the impacts of climate change along with qualitative studies on risk perception and adaptive capacity. Christian Kuhlicke (UFZ Leipzig) presented a case study of the 2002 flood in the City of Eilenburg (Saxony), in which he identified the dynamics of vulnerability within different knowledge milieus and argued for an understanding of vulnerability as a relational construct. Back row: Jörn Birkmann, Carsten Felgentreff, Peter Schmidt, Sisira Saddhamangala Withanachchi, Jorge Rojas Hernández, Christoph Görg, Michael Flitner, Tim Forsyth, Karl-Heinz Simon. Middle row: Sarah Hackfort, Silke Beck, Marta Soares, Dörte Segebart, Jana Werg, Jeanette Schade, Timmo Krüger, Anett Steinführer, Simone Beichler, Anke Schwarz, Heike Köckler. Sitting row: Lisa Waegerle, Nicolás Muñoz Saldaña, Sybille Bauriedl, Christian Kuhlicke, Kristina Dietz, Ines Dombrowsky, Vanessa Aufenanger. Additional Participants: Stefanie Baasch, Andrea Santelices Spikin, Joachim Otto, Lisa Suessbauer, Heidi Wittmer. Three parallel sessions 1. Session on mapping and assessing climate vulnerability, with inputs by Jörn Birkmann (United Nations University) and Marta Bruno Soares (University of the West of Scotland) How can we assess vulnerability? Is it possible to identify the most vulnerable regions using vulnerability indicators? What are the benefits and impacts of identifying vulnerable regions in terms of categories such as food-insecure areas, water-scarce regions, and so on? There are problems associated with mapping social criteria. Maps are based on census data. The extent of availability of such data poses limits of their use and may give rise to misleading information and a lack of differentiation across scales. Do not take the information as a starting point: often it is taken as truth and can close down discussions. Communicate limitations and 3

4 make it clear that not everything can be accurately known. Draw maps but validate them with those concerned and discuss them with people considered vulnerable. Develop scenarios for socio-economic development as a starting point in order to increase flexibility and reflexivity in decision making and to increase quality of life, instead of limiting / reducing expectations. Assessment practices: Could we address climate impacts with the concept of coupled socialeconomic systems? What is the purpose of assessments? What is the time scale? How and why is each indicator linked to vulnerability? How can we deal dynamically with livelihoods and the implications of second-order adaptation in relation to assessing and mapping? It is a misleading idea that social-ecological systems depend on a place. They are coupled. They are linked in a broad and dynamic perspective and not limited to a specific space. Exposure and maybe susceptibility too can be mapped relatively well, but coping capacity cannot. Vulnerability mapping needs to go beyond the analysis of exposure to hazards. Exposure mapping might privilege structural measures. Vulnerability assessment requires the consideration of exposure, susceptibility, coping and adaptation as well as spatial and temporal dynamics. Position the research carefully in the theoretical context. Consider and be aware of the fine line (especially in mapping) between academic research and advocacy. 2. Session on framing climate vulnerability in the context of dominant discourses, with inputs by Michael Flitner (Research Center for Sustainability Studies artec) and Tim Forsyth (London School of Economics and Political Sciences) Discourses result from specific time-space paths (narratives) and they define which knowledge claims, methods and rationalities are accepted and reproduced by actors as a basis for policy development and implementation (framing). What are the impacts of climate discourses for vulnerability awareness? The climate discourse of developed countries is framed by growth and welfare narratives that argue for the need for adaptation. The climate discourse of developing countries is framed by a development narrative that argues for the risks of vulnerability. These fragmented discourses contain contested concepts of climate vulnerability. The discursive practice of securitizing climate policy is linked to a natural empowerment of the military and a disempowerment of local actors, and serves to draw attention away from the North s political responsibility for climate change. While the use of discourse analysis is suitable for understanding framings of international and national climate policies, a more materialist perspective is needed as well to develop arguments about political implications. This makes marginalized arguments, voices and actors more visible. Does climate vulnerability really exist? Yes, but it coexists with hegemonic discourses, materiality, narratives and the advancement of knowledge. It is an epiphenomena and a genuine thing. Why are certain narratives dominant and more commonly reproduced than others? Climate vulnerability is an expression and discursive transformation of social and socio-ecological problems, including that of denying political responsibility for climate change. Session on vulnerability and climate justice Session on climate discourses 4

5 3. Session on climate vulnerability as a highly contested dimension of climate politics, with inputs by Heike Köckler (Kassel University) and Jeanette Schade (Bielefeld University) Climate vulnerability is closely connected to social vulnerability. The impacts of climate change reinforce social problems and economic inequalities. In what ways does social inequality influence people s power to cope with climate change? Two concepts of environmental justice are relevant for vulnerability studies: distributional justice (distribution of harms and benefits over a population) and procedural justice (participation in environmental decision-making). The main methodological tasks for vulnerability studies from a climate justice perspective are: How can climate justice be integrated into studies on regional development and inequalities? What are useful methodologies for applying the concept with communities? How can human rights approaches contribute? How can the global and local dimensions of climate justice be linked? What is environmental / climate justice (distributional and procedural justice)? How relevant are power relations to the issue of coping with climate vulnerability? Some suggestions for using human rights as additional entry point: (a) relate the vulnerability of certain groups to structures of inequality in society (Hurricane Katrina and its consequences); (b) include indigenous people s knowledge as a factor in people s capacity and improve procedural justice as part of environmental justice; (c) examine perceptions of environmental problems held by the groups affected (highly complex issues relating to psychology, culture, ignorance and indifference); (d) integrate human rights dimension e.g. through Kothari guidelines on development-based evictions / voluntary guidelines on internally displaced persons (IDP) (assuming that resettlement measures will be supported). Environmental justice is a broad and open-ended concept capable of encompassing different approaches and disciplines. What do we mean by justice? How do we interpret a historical perspective? Multi-scale perspectives are difficult to render operational (e.g. international carbon footprints). More detailed work / discussions are needed! Final discussion The three working groups identified the key challenges of vulnerability studies for social scientists: to understand, analyse and describe social systems as dependent on or coupled with ecological systems; to create scenarios for socio-economic structures and development in order to achieve greater flexibility in decision making; to integrate the knowledge and perceptions of vulnerable people in vulnerability studies, especially with regard to validating vulnerability maps. It was agreed that further activities such as further workshops are needed to address these challenges. Issues for further discussion include climate justice, conceptualization of climate vulnerability and adaptation, methodologies for multi-scale perspectives. As a first concrete step, it was suggested that some of the results from this first workshop could be published in a special issue of an international journal. Sybille Bauriedl, December 2010 For details of conference presentations and programme, see the conference website: The conference was organized in the context of the research network Klimzug-Nordhessen, funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), and was co-funded by the Competence Centre for Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation at Kassel University (CliMA) and the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD). 5