THE ROLE OF SOCIAL CAPITAL IN BUILDING ADAPTIVE CAPACITY TO CLIMATE CHANGE.
AllaBerberyan
Aygestan 7thStr, 1st b, 47 apt, Yerevan, 0070, Armenia
Phone: +37491638571
E-mail:
ABSTRACT.Climate change impacts continue to exacerbate the situation of the world’s vulnerable populations mostly belonging in low- and middle-income countries, mainly due to scarcity of resources and low adaptive capacity of those countries and their vulnerable groups, particularly the urban poor (Satterthwaite, 2011). In recent years community-based adaptation (CBA) has risen in popularity to compete with the failing top-down approaches to the needs of vulnerable communities (Ayers and Forsyth, 2009). This article shows that social capital (both horizontal and vertical) is a vital resource for shaping the adaptive capacity of communities to climate change. Social relationships based on reciprocity, trust and cooperation form the core of social capital. Self-organizing communities that effectively use their social capital become more sustainable, effective, and resilient than those with adaptation mechanisms designed and imposed by external entities. This article presents case studies from East Africa and Vietnam where social capital is central to building the adaptive capacity to climate change.
Keywords: Social Capital, Climate Change, Community-Based Adaptation.
Introduction
It has been widely recognized that climate change is one of the most serious challenges facing humanity today. Despite this broad recognition the severe impacts of climate change continue to exacerbate the situation of the world’s vulnerable populations. The largest share of vulnerable population groups belongs in low-income and middle-income countries, mainly due to the profound lack of resources and low adaptive capacity of the countries as a whole and the vulnerable population groups, in particular (Dodman and Mitlin, 2011).
Today more than half of the world’s population lives in urban settings. Large cities of low- and middle-income countries contain a large proportion of people that are most at risk for climate change impacts. The continuing urbanization exhausts the carrying capacity of urban settlements in terms of availability and distribution of vital resources such as infrastructure, housing, healthcare, and others. This situation is further exacerbated by climate change and ever-increasing exposures of the urban populations, particularly the urban poor, to a variety of hazards. Thus, the risks posed by climate change upon the most vulnerable urban settlements in low- and middle-income countries deserve attention (Satterthwaite, 2011).
Since the concept of adaptation came to the international policy agenda two decades ago, community-based adaptation (CBA) has been among the most popular approaches (Ayers and Forsyth, 2009). Its emergence is often seen as a response to the failure of top-down approaches to the needs of vulnerable communities (Dodman and Mitlin, 2011). The importance of considering the local knowledge and community experience in the development of climate change adaptation strategies and respective policy-making is often stressed in climate change discourse. However, in doing so it is vital to identify and exploit the right resources that can help communities to self-organize, build their adaptive capacity, enhance resilience and security, and make themselves properly heard to gain external support and establish partnerships with public authorities and organizations.
Moser et al. (2010) mention that the amount and diversity of assets in the community’s possession determine the degree of vulnerability or resilience to climate change. An asset is defined as a “stock of financial, human, natural or social resources that can be acquired, developed, improved and transferred across generations. It generates flows or consumption, as well as additional stock” (Moser, et al., 2010, p. 60). Larger amounts and diversity of assets increase the resilience of the communities to climate change. In the climate change asset adaptation framework, Moser, et al. (2010) mentions the following classes of capital assets of communities, households, and individuals: physical capital, financial capital, human capital, social capital, and natural capital.
This paper focuses on the social capital asset and is aimed at demonstrating that social capital is a vital resource with an important role in shaping the adaptive capacity of the communities to climate change. The first part of the paper provides a general review of the concept of “social capital” and discusses it in relation to the adaptive capacity. The second part of the essay offers examples of social capital’s role in building the adaptive capacity of communities in the face of climate change impacts. Besides discussing the social capital in the framework of community-based adaptation to climate change, the paper also recognizes the synergetic or networking social capital that assures collaboration between communities, and other entities.
Building a Rationale for Social Capital to Shape Adaptive Capacity
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as part of its mission, assesses the possible options for adapting to the consequences of climate change or mitigating its effects. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007) gives the following definition foradaptation: “adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities”. Adaptive capacity is a necessary condition for planning and implementing effective adaptation strategies in order to decrease the negative impacts of climate change (IPCC, 2007). The report gives the following definition for adaptive capacity: “the ability or potential of a system to respond successfully to climate variability and change.”
“Adaptation can considerably reduce many potentially dangerous impacts of climate change and the risk of many key vulnerabilities" (IPCC, Chapter 19, 2007). However, in many regions of the world, particularly in low and middle-income countries adaptive capacity is limited by weak technical, financial, institutional mechanisms and resource base, poor infrastructure, inadequate housing, and poor governance. This largely hinders the implementation of effective adaptation (Kithiia, 2010; IPCC, Chapter 19, 2007). In addition, the development and adaptation needs are often considered by national or municipal planning authorities in separation from each other. In reality, development problems often overlap with those that increase the vulnerability of people to climate change. A more development-focused approach to adaptation calls for the synergy of these needs (Kithiia, 2010; Ayers and Forsyth, 2009). As mentioned by Ayers and Forsyth (2009), the approach of adaptation as development is reflected in community-based adaptation.
It is the inherent capacity of the communities to adapt to climate change; individuals and communities have been able to adapt throughout history (Adger, 2003). The community action, however, is limited as it lacks financial resources and organization to create or operate large-scale infrastructure and services, nor can it develop or enforce building codes or land use regulations (Satterthwaite, 2010). Thus, it becomes important to explore what enhances the inherent adaptive capacity of communities and how this capacity could be improved and strengthened until it is able to achieve additional external support.
Adger (2003) argues that this inherent capacity to adapt is interlinked with the ability to act in a collective way. Environmental management has witnessed numerous examples of collective resource management for the common good. Central to such management of resources and collective action have been the social relationships, the networking, the information exchange as well as “social learning”, i.e., building knowledge and skills for eco-system management and for developing adaptive expertise (Adger, 2003; Folke, et al., 2005). This form of common decision-making and networks used for the collective good has thus been recognized as an asset and has been named as “social capital” (Adger, 2003; Moser, et al., 2010).
Over the recent twenty-five years, the concept of “social capital” has gained a large momentum among scientists and practitioners of social science disciplines (Brunie, 2009). The multiplicity of definitions for social capital, and the pluralism of interpretations and approaches existing around the concept is due to its context- and history-specific nature. Different case studies have put the concept of social capital into different analytical frameworks. Scientists have called for the specification of the concept, and for building a common ground for it in order to increase its usefulness in policy-making (Brunie, 2009; Pelling and High, 2005).
The definition of social capital proposed by Putnam (one of the originators of the concept) has become one of the most popular in literature: “…features of social life – networks, norms and trust – that enable participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives” (Pelling and High, 2005, p. 310).
Moser, et al. (2010, p. 7) gives the following definition: “Social capital is an intangible asset, defined as the rules, norms, obligations, reciprocity and trust embedded in social relations, social structures, and societies’ institutional arrangements. It is embedded at the micro-institutional level (communities and households) as well as in the rules and regulations governing formalized institutions in the marketplace, political system and civil society”. As explained by Kithiia (2010), any community or group of people that can self-organize to work together towards a new common challenge is endowed by the social capital resource.
However, extensive debates on the definitions of the concept are outside the scope of this paper. In order to define the role of social capital in shaping adaptive capacity, it is important to look at the common elements of social capital in relation to adaptive capacity that is emerging from the bottom-up, and eventually engaging other actors.
Despite the variety of definitions and dimensions of social capital, several elements of it are common in literature relating social capital to adaptive capacity. It has already been implicitly stated in the above discussion that these are social trust, reciprocity, and interpersonal relationships (Pelling and High, 2005). The strength of social capital largely depends on trust and reciprocity. Mutual trust supports cooperation and information flow, and it derives from reciprocity norms and networks (Brunie, 2009). Trust allows participants to cooperate more effectively as they work towards a common objective (Leonard and Pelling, 2010, etc.).
According to Pelling and High (2005), interpersonal relationships that shape the social capital and derive from reciprocity can fall under two categories: bridging and bonding. These categories that help to understand the direction and level of strength of the social capital have been explored by a number authors in the literature related to social capital and adaptive capacity (Pelling and High, 2005; Jones, et al., 2012; Brunie, 2009; Adger, 2003, Leonard and Pelling, 2010, etc.). Bonding social relationships are defined as intra-community relations (Brunie, 2009). Bonding is a feature of a defined socioeconomic group, for instance common ethnic or religious identity group where the relationships are based on kinship and friendship (Pelling and High, 2005; Adger, 2003). Bridging social capital refers to inter-community ties (Brunie, 2009). It means an exchange among those people or groups who have a common goal but different identities.It is the different arrangements of the bridging and bonding ties that can facilitate the adaptive capacity of the communities. Nevertheless, in practice it becomes complex to distinguish between bridging and bonding social capitals (Pelling and High, 2005).
There is a large potential for social capital in the communities to shape their adaptive capacity particularly in times of crisis and generate bottom-up adaptation measures. This paper brings forward a number of examples to demonstrate this point.
However, before referring to particular case-based examples it is important to note that social capital does not operate in a politically isolated space (Adger, 2003). Social capital can be embedded not only in horizontal collaboration, i.e. at the communities or households level, but also at the vertical level (Folke, et al., 2005). A sub-category of the “bridging ties” called “linking ties” (ties between different social classes) is often used to describe the vertical relationships (Leonard and Pelling, 2010). Social capital helps to understand how communities engage in these networks of relationships with other actors/stakeholders such as the state, or local and external civil society organizations, such as the media, NGOs, academics, etc. that operate based on trust, cooperation, and reciprocity (Leonard and Pelling, 2010). Adger (2003) argues that such networks can give rise to new forms of institutions such as co-management. This is often referred to as networking social capital or synergy, meaning that synergistic relationships between the communities and other actors can be mutually reinforcing and thus, can build the adaptive capacity of the communities in a more sustainable way (Leonard and Pelling, 2010; Brunie, 2009; Adger; 2003).
Trust and reciprocity are extremely important for the networking social capital to build adaptive capacity. One of the most crucial reasons is the following. There are a number of uncertainties related to the predictions of climatic impacts and thereby risks particularly in relation to community-based adaptation activities that remain unconceptualized by CBA practitioners. Communities can undertake adaptation responses that might turn out to be wrong because of the incorrect predictions of climate change. Thus, social relations and communication based on trust and reciprocity between communities and community leaders or other actors should be established to reveal the level ofdifficulty of the matter and to allow the communities to build trust with those actors that support their adaptation strategies (Dodman and Mitlin, 2011).
Thus, for the purposes of this essay, social capital is a building block, or an essential component, of adaptive capacity and, therefore, an asset that the societies, communities, or individuals should have in order to enhance their resilience.
Building Adaptive Capacity through Social Capital
The published literature contains ample examples that demonstrate not only the ability of social capital to provide the needed power for the management of common community property or resources (e.g. water resources, pastures, forests), but also to build an adaptive capacity to better tolerate climate variability as well as climatic hazards and extreme events (Kiithia, 2010). Many of these examples pertain to the coastal urban areas of developing countries as these are known to be especially vulnerable to the risks coming from climate change (Kiithia, 2010). Some of these examples are discussed below.
Social capital can emerge in a variety of ways and contexts. It can also come out quite spontaneously (Leonard and Pelling, 2010). Adger (2003) brings a telling example of social capital coming forward to replace the withdrawn role of a state authority. In this example, the social capital suddenly became evident in Vietnam in the middle of 1990s, i.e., in the period of decentralization and economic liberalization. The local hazard planning and coastal defense system, which was previously centralized and under the socialist state’s responsibility, suddenly got decentralized; besides, the agricultural cooperatives, which were responsible for the management of these defenses, were at the same time disbanded. Sea defenses were not managed anymore, thus deepening the vulnerability of the coastal populations to climatic events such as coastal storms. As a result of economic liberalization, social capital initially emerged in community networks and informal associations to build credit and insurance schemes, assuring some protection for the households in the face of economic crisis and stress. At the same time, these new measures brought about by the social capital also facilitated adaptation strategies as the state planning of coastal defense resumed. This case shows how in the time of crisis the dormant social capital was suddenly awakened by the communities themselves.
The potential of social capital to build adaptive capacity of the vulnerable urban communities have been brightly demonstrated in some coastal cities of East Africa such as Mombasa and Dar es Salaam. Both port cities represent national and regional economic development centers and commercial hubs. However, they face rapid rate of urbanization, high levels of poverty, and high risks from climate change impacts such as frequent and intense flooding, storms, etc. The urban poor reside in areas of these cities that are subject to the highest level of risks. National and city governments in East Africa, as in many other low-income countries, do not possess sufficient resources to build appropriate infrastructure to mitigate the climate change impacts, or to otherwise reduce the vulnerability of the population groups (Kithiia, 2010).
The collective group actions in Dar es Salaam and Mombasa demonstrate the presence and the capabilities of social capital. There is a strong level of collaboration among community groups and federations, particularly among the poor, in these cities. These strong social relationships are reinforced by trust and reciprocity. For instance, the MtoniKijijini Conservation Group in Dar es Salaam monitors the illegal logging of mangrove trees as well as replants more mangrove trees for the protection of the coastal eco-system. The local Beach Management Units work in a cooperative system to make sure that the coastal resources are used in a sustainable manner (Kithiia, 2010).