learning for an uncertain future vulnerabilities of agricultural production to flood in the sangkae...
TRANSCRIPT
Learning for an uncertain futureVulnerabilities of agricultural production to flood in the Sangkae river basin, Northwest Cambodia
Jean-Christophe Diepart – Sotheavin Doch
Learning Institute, Cambodia
20.06.2013
Context
• Research program on Climate Change, Food Security and Natural Resources Management in Cambodia
• Eight research projects with 3 cross-cutting themes :
– Vulnerability
– Socio-economic differentiation
– Reconfiguration of State-Smallholders relations
Overview• Battambang, an agricultural
province
• Flood management in Tonle Sap plain is a long-time concern
• Flood as constraint and opportunity
• Future uncertainties
– Land use changes
– Rainfall pattern changes
→Objective: design/implement a methodology to understand the vulnerability of agricultural production to flood in main river basin
Theoretical framework
• Inadequacies of Risk-Hazards (RH) and Pressure-And-Release (PAR) Models
• “Global environmental” approach to vulnerability (Turner et al, 2003; Vogel et al, 2004)
• Vulnerability as the degree to which a coupled human-environmental system is influenced due to hazards and/or perturbation– Multi-dimensional– Cross-scale– Socially differentiated– Place-based– Dynamic
Human conditions
Environmental conditions
SensitivityExposure Resilience
Socio-ecological System
Coping
Impact
Adaptation (adjustment)
Adapted from Turner et al, 2004
Change in Human
condition
Interactions of hazards
Change in Environmental
condition
Human influences outside the place
Environmental influences outside the place
Vulnerability
Adaptation (adjustment)
Charact. of exp.
ImpactResponse
Place
World
Region
Methods
Multi-level vulnerability analysis
• Sangkae river watershed (3,708 km2)
• Commune
• Household
115 km
Methods
Watershed level→Correlation between
rainfall, forest cover change and main river water level
Methods
Watershed level→Analysis of recent flood
patterns based on participatory mapping– Minor (2010) and Major
(2011) flood– 3 types of flood (central
area, river overflow and run-off)
Methods
Commune level (n=31)→Indicator-based
vulnerability assessment
→Primary input data: commune survey (incl. mapping)
→Secondary input data: commune socio-economic statistics
Major Flood Area Size
Minor Flood Area Size
Major Flood Area SizeWeighted by flood duration
% agricultural area in commune
% population involved in agriculture
% cultivated area during rainy period
Major Flood Area SizeWeighted by impact on production
Institutional capacity% population living above poverty Density of road networkLiteracy rate
Expo
sure
Sens
itivi
tyRe
silie
nce
Exposure index
Sensitivity index
Resilienceindex
Indicators Index
Functional Typology of Commune
Vulnerability
Typology
Hierarchical Cluster Analysis
Methods
Household level (n=192)→Villages [5] selected
according to commune vulnerability types
→Survey on production activities and “exp.-sens.-resil.” to flood
→Analysis of differential vulnerability according to type of production system
Preliminary findings: watershed level
Flood types
Agriculture flooded area (Km2) % of
increaseminor flood
major flood
Central areas (Tonle Sap) 188.45 249.94 24.6
River overflow + Run-Off 64.38 120.22 54.08
River overflow + Run-off floods are significant, though off the records
Variation between minor-major event is more important upland
Preliminary findings: watershed level
No clear correlation between deforestation and water level fluctuation
Better correlation with rainfall patterns
YearsForest Cover
Change
Water level (m.asl) of Steung Sangkae river
Mean Max Min
Range (Max-Min)
Mean St. Dev.
1997-2002 10.3% 8.2 13.4 4.9 2.27 1.43
2002-2006 9.7% 7.4 13.3 4.8 2.07 1.80
2006-2010 24.6% 7.8 13.7 5.1 2.23 1.55
2010-2012 NA 7.6 13.9 4.8 2.09 1.34
Preliminary findings: commune level
Preliminary findings: household level
Important differences of vulnerabilities within “region”
Drivers of vulnerability are mostly associated with socio-economic differentiation processes between households (different resources endowments, labor management and inclusions/exclusions processes)
Work in progress…
Conclusions and implications
• The one-size-fit-all vulnerability is not suitable (Hinkel, 2011)
• Vulnerability is produced through different scalar configurations of human-environment interactions
• Indicator-based approaches are useful to categorize vulnerability, not to understand it
• Science & Policy dialogue– Natural Disaster Management – Spatial Planning – Watershed Management
Horizontal and vertical
integration !