Assessing vulnerability of rural communities to climate change: A review of implications for forest-based livelihoods in South Africa

The reality of climate change is increasingly gaining acceptance in scientific and political communities (Dube and Phiri, 2013; Fisher et al., 2010). The direct and indirect impacts of climate change are envisaged to have severe consequences for African societies and economies (Dube and Phiri, 2013; Somorin, 2010; Ajani et al., 2013). Rural communities are believed to be particularly vulnerable to climate change (Dubois, 1999; Holmes, 2007; Turpie and Visser, 2013). This vulnerability of rural households in Africa is caused not only by exposure to climate change but also by a combination of social, economic and environmental factors that interact with it (David et al., 2007). Therefore, by implication, climate change poses environmental, social and economic challenges for South African societies, particularly rural communities with high dependence on natural resources (Turpie and Visser, 2013; Fairbanks and Scholes, 1999).

The understanding of the vulnerability of rural communities has been a subject of concern over the years (Dlamini, 2014). The second assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) conceptualized vulnerability as the impact on a system after a hazard event. This concept puts hazard at the centre of vulnerability analysis, focusing on biophysical drivers such as temperature, precipitation and extreme climatic events (Nelson and Agrawal, 2008). However, in recent years, there has been growing recognition that vulnerability is not only because of biophysical drivers, that is, the characteristics of the hazards, but is also a function of the system’s sensitivity and adaptive capacity (Shah et al., 2013). This evolution in the conceptualization of vulnerability has significant implications for our understanding of rural communities’ vulnerability to climate change. As a step towards a comprehensive understanding of forest-based rural communities’ vulnerability to climate change in South Africa, the authors provide a review of literature related to this concept. Although several studies have analysed the impact of climate change on local livelihoods (Chinara et al. 2013; Turpie et al., 2002; Turpie and Visser, 2013), there is little literature that is dedicated to understanding the impact of climate change on forest-based livelihoods at rural community level in South Africa.

In this review, the authors view vulnerability as a function of the character, magnitude and rate of climate variation to which a community is exposed; the people’s livelihood sensitivity; and their adaptive capacity (Adger et al., 2007; Turner et al., 2003). They expand the IPCC vulnerability assessment framework to four critical dimensions, namely, the climate risk and impacts to which a community is exposed; livelihood security; underlying causes of vulnerability; and existing coping strategies and adaptation potential. These are illustrated in Figure 1.

This paper is subsequently grouped in four sections. In each section, the findings and evidence from the literature are described. Section 1 discusses the exposure of forest-based rural communities to the risk of climate change. Section 2 examines the sensitivity of forest-based livelihoods and communities to the impact of climate change. Section 3 explicates existing coping strategies and adaptation potential at the rural community level. The concluding Section 4 summaries the finding from the three cases and makes appropriate recommendations.

Climate variability and change challenges are expected to manifest in various forms, which include changes in rainfall pattern and regime, and in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events such as drought and flooding (Davis, 2011). The occurrence of these climatic events would vary in magnitude, frequency and duration across the country. However, the extent of their impact would depend largely on the socio-demographic characteristics of the communities (Davis et al., 2010; Davidson et al., 2004). Climate change impact on forest ecosystems and natural capital would almost certainly alter the economic and physical factors that determine their livelihood strategies and resilience (Chia et al., 2013). Rural communities in South Africa are widely and differentially exposed to degrees and types of climate variability and extreme weather events.

In South Africa, climate change is predicted to result not only in higher temperatures but also in sporadic rainfall patterns and frequent droughts (Turpie and Visser, 2013). These severe weather events, coupled with the country’s already scarce water resources, are expected to have a significant effect on the forestry and agricultural sectors, which are substantial components of the country’s rural livelihoods and economies (Turpie and Visser, 2013; Quinn et al., 2011). These trends have serious implications for water management in the country, particularly for regions that rely on large storage dams, which are sensitive to changes in rainfall, runoff and evaporation rates (DEAT, 2004). Although access to water in rural areas in the country has increased to 71 per cent since 2006, approximately 8.2 million people, who live mostly in rural areas, have inadequate or no access to piped water (DEA, 2011). In addition, many of the environmental and socioeconomic challenges that are affecting rural communities in South Africa are likely to be exacerbated by climate change (Chia et al., 2013; Baez et al., 2013).

Climate change manifestations in the form of rising temperatures, changes in water availability and increased levels of carbon dioxide are expected to affect farming and forest-based livelihoods in various ways (Sonwa et al., 2012). Impacts facing the agricultural sector include a reduction in the amount of land that is suitable for arable and pastoral agriculture, a shortened growing season and a decrease in yields, particularly along the margins of semi-arid areas (Turpie et al., 2002). Erratic rainfall is perceived to be a potential trigger of increased food insecurity and impoverishment in most communities that rely on rain-fed agriculture. South African rural communities are no exceptions, and this may eventually exacerbate poverty (DEA, 2011). Droughts and floods are recurring environmental challenges in several rural communities across the country (DEAT, 2004). In 2000, severe floods affected northern South Africa, causing multiple deaths and severely damaging many infrastructures (David et al., 2007; Linkd Environmental Services, 2013b).

In the case of forest-based livelihoods in rural communities, changes in temperature and rainfall patterns imply alterations to the structure and functionality of the forest ecosystems, which would have several implications for these communities (Fairbanks and Scholes, 1999; Kyei, 2011; Naidoo et al., 2013). Increased frequency and intensity of forest fires would have severe consequences not only for rural communities dominated by commercial tree plantations but also the South African forestry sector, which contributes about 2 per cent of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) (Williamson et al., 2005; Chamberlain et al., 2005). According to FSA (2009), fire is one of the major risks that negatively affect the sustainability of plantation forests in South Africa. The Department of Water and Forestry (DWAF) (2009) reported that fires pose the highest risk to the sustainability of the forestry sector, with grave consequences for the well-being and livelihoods of rural households. It was similarly reported that about 579 to 728 ha of plantations were damaged by fires from 1980 to 2011 (DWAF, 2005; Rudzani and Amani, 2013). Changes in the intensity and incidence of fire are also likely to have strong indirect effects on rural communities, because of the importance of seasonal burns in maintaining savannah ecosystems and provisioning good grassland for livestock grazing (Turpie and Visser, 2013). Furthermore, Turpie et al. (2002) reported that climate change would probably significantly reduce areas suitable for plantation forests, which provide direct and indirect employment to between 200,000 and 260,000 people (about 1.4 per cent of a rural population of about 16 million) in the country (Chamberlain et al., 2005).

The impacts of climate change on forest ecosystems would have serious implications for the country’s nature conservation and tourism sector, a significant contributor to rural livelihood in most of the rural communities. The South African tourism sector has been estimated to contribute 10 per cent of national GDP (Turpie et al., 2002). Overall, Turpie et al. (2002) anticipated that the effect of potential climate change on this sector would have serious negative consequences for rural livelihoods and it could lead to a decrease in tourism income, for which up to 3 per cent of GDP is at risk. In addition, the implications, for example, of increased temperatures for pests and pathogens that affect key species in natural and plantation forests are important areas of concern (Naidoo et al., 2013).

In general, South Africa’s forest-based rural communities are disproportionately exposed to risks of climate variability and change (Davis, 2011). The extent of the implications of these exposures remains uncertain, partly because of the uncertainties in climate change projections and insufficient understanding of forest ecosystem responses to changing climatic factors (Davis et al., 2010; Davis, 2011).

In South Africa, as elsewhere in Africa, the majority of rural households and a large proportion of urban households depend on forest resources for subsistence and income generation (Chamberlain et al., 2005; Dlamini, 2014; Sonwa et al., 2012; Chaudhury et al., 2011). The long-term contributions of forests and forest products to the livelihood strategies of the rural poor have long been appreciated (Salafsky and Wollenberg, 2000; Belcher et al., 2015; Vedeld et al., 2004; VBR, 2012). Climate change poses a risk to the composition and functionality of forest ecosystems (Locatelli et al., 2010). South African forest ecosystems and forest-related sectors, however, are unevenly exposed to various types and magnitudes of climate-related hazards (Davis, 2011; Sonwa et al., 2012). These are likely to disproportionately affect forest-based communities, depending on the people’s livelihood strategies and the socio-demographic characteristics of their community (Wittman and Caron, 2009; Tschakert, 2007). “Livelihoods” here refers to the ways in which people make a living (Somorin, 2010). Livelihood is at the heart of all studies that analyse the impact of climate change at rural community level in Africa (Tembo, 2013).

Forest-based livelihood strategies are influenced by forest type. Thus, differential vulnerability of forest types would have different implications for forest-based livelihood strategies (Sonwa et al., 2012). Therefore, some livelihood strategies may incur more climate risk (Somorin, 2010). To a moderate extent, non-wood forest products are likely to be affected by the direct impact of climate change more than woody products (Wan et al., 2011). However, woody and non-woody forest products are both vulnerable to direct and indirect impacts of climate change (Sonwa et al., 2012). The ability of forest ecosystems to continuously provide goods and services that are vital for rural welfare and livelihoods is highly dependent on climatic conditions and human interference (IPCC, 2007; Sonwa et al., 2012). In addition, climate change impact on the forest and agricultural sectors might have severe consequences on other sectors of rural economy that are either directly or indirectly linked to the forestry sector. Thus, volatility in one sector may cause other sectors to be highly unpredictable through backward and forward linkages (Birkmann, 2008).

The vulnerability of forest-based rural communities is not related merely to the direct and indirect effects of climate variability and change (Quinn et al., 2011). Complex interrelations between forest and human systems imply that the susceptibility of one system could lead to the sensitivity of others (Osbahr et al., 2010; Isaacs and Mohamed, 2000; Shah et al., 2013; Linkd Environmental Services, 2013a). As observed by Tschakert (2007), poor socioeconomic development and weak infrastructures and facilities can lead to unsustainable local forest use and management practices, resulting in the vulnerability of forest ecosystems and associated livelihood strategies.

The vulnerability of households to climate risk may be linked closely to socioeconomic conditions, which correlate with the people’s adaptive capacity (David et al., 2007). Although South Africa has experienced long-term urbanization, almost 39 per cent of the country’s population currently live in rural areas (Linkd Environmental Services, 2013a). The overwhelming majority of the rural population are poor and reliant on social grants, remittances from urban areas and farming- and forest-based livelihood strategies (Linkd Environmental Services, 2013b; Turpie and Visser, 2013). Owing to their geo-climatic conditions, forest-based rural communities in South Africa are also faced with a high degree of socioeconomic vulnerability, making them susceptible to climate risk. Poor socioeconomic conditions can reduce the ability of households to deal with climate risks, shocks and stresses (Shah et al., 2013). Socioeconomic conditions that make households in forest-based communities prone to climate change are elaborated in this section.

Most rural communities in South Africa are typically underdeveloped in terms of infrastructure, provisioning of government services and employment opportunities, and are consequently highly dependent on forest resources for income and subsistence (Naidoo et al., 2013; Turpie and Visser, 2013). In addition, dependence on climate-sensitive forest resources and livelihood activities such as rain-fed agricultural practices makes these communities susceptible to climate variability and change. Moreover, current processes of forest resource exploitation and utilization in these communities are unsustainable, which is evident in the growing rates of deforestation and forest degradation. In addition, deforestation and forest degradation are now at such a scale that they are a major threat to economic development and progress in rural well-being. As reported by Robledo et al. (2012), households that are highly dependent on earnings from forests, subsistence rain-fed farming and livestock rearing are exposed to climate change risk. Fisher et al. (2010) observed that households that are most reliant on forests have low income per person, are located close to forests, are more risk-averse, are less educated and thus have low adaptive capacity to climate change.

Rural household incomes are constrained mostly because rural economies are not sufficiently vibrant to provide the people with remunerative jobs. Consequently, most rural communities are characterized by high poverty levels (Naidoo et al., 2013). Furthermore, 69 per cent of all South Africans that live in poverty are located in rural areas (Barjis et al., 2013), which are characterized by multiple stresses such as high unemployment and low economic development opportunities (VBR, 2012; Madzwamuse, 2014). Lack of or poor employment opportunities in rural areas often cause people to engage in seasonal income-generating activities, informal trade in agricultural and forest products and over-dependence on governmental support, for example, social grants (Barjis et al., 2013; Naidoo et al., 2013). These often lead to perpetuation of poverty in the rural areas, thereby weakening people’s capacity to respond to climate and socioeconomic challenges (Dube and Phiri, 2013; Turpie and Visser, 2013).

Population pressure is another factor that contributes to the low capacity of rural communities to cope with adverse effects of climate change. South Africa’s rural population grew by 1.4 per cent in 2012 (Barjis et al., 2013). It is not surprising that in South Africa today, forest conservation areas and forest resources are under threat from population pressure and systems of land use in many rural communities (Turpie and Visser, 2013). Population growth in rural communities has created an imbalance between population density and available facilities and infrastructure, which has amplified the people’s vulnerability to climate change (Turpie and Visser, 2013). With increasing populations, there is higher demand for harvesting of forest resources and for clearing of new farmland. In addition, more than 85 per cent of the lands in rural areas are settled by commercial farmers, which also limits land availability to rural households for subsistence farming (Madzwamuse, 2014). All these factors lead to increased land degradation, thus reinforcing vulnerability to climate change (Calzadilla et al., 2009).

Despite recent improvements in access to healthcare facilities in South Africa, imbalances in the coverage of health services persist (Tansera et al., 2006). Many rural communities still have poor access to healthcare facilities and rural hospitals and clinics are often poorly equipped and understaffed (Barjis et al., 2013; Madzwamuse, 2014). Most local communities do not have the medical facilities and infrastructure to handle the outbreak of disease. Many depend on traditional medical methods, which may not be effective in addressing new diseases and infections. Inhabitants of rural communities often travel long distances to visit clinics and hospitals. As reported by Tansera et al. (2006), proximity is an important factor that affects health outcomes and adaptive capacity of households in rural South Africa. In addition, many rural households are struggling with the HIV/AIDS pandemic and may have to battle with an additional stressor of climate change (Madzwamuse, 2014). Hosegood et al. (2007) observed that households in which multiple adult deaths have occurred in the past two years are at higher risk of dissolution, migration and reduced economic status. The status of healthcare facilities in many rural communities, coupled with people’s socioeconomic conditions, could constrain proper well-being and rural development. The result would probably be heightened vulnerability to climate change.

Most rural people in South Africa have limited education and inadequate skills to engage in alternative sustainable off-farm and off-forestry income-generating activities. This leads to most community members depending on forest activities such as the collection of firewood and other forest products, and the production of charcoal, which in turn lead to forest degradation.

Effective adaptation to climate change can take place only when there is adequate capacity in terms of knowledge, information, infrastructure and skills, enabling policies and strategies at various levels including at grassroots for sustainable forest management. One of the major contributors to the vulnerability of rural communities is inadequate capacity and institutional support for sustainable community forest management (Hachileka, 2009). Most rural communities have limited access to markets, credit opportunities and formal education (David et al., 2007) with few resources at their disposal and limited access to quality social services, and most of the community tend to be vulnerable when natural and anthropogenic hazards occur.

Responding to climate change at rural community level in South Africa is a major development challenge, which is considered in the context of wider development pressures, which includes poverty and sustainable management of forest and land resources (Lemos et al., 2013; Arnall, 2012). Rural households, however, have been observed to use various coping strategies in response to climate change-induced environmental challenges (Arnall, 2012). However, as reported by Arnall (2012), their traditional coping mechanisms might not be sufficient to deal with the new challenges brought about by climate change.

The evidence indicates that communities in South Africa and Africa in general have adopted various coping mechanisms. From traditional practice to modern procedures, communities have used various strategies to deal with the effects of climate variability and change (Chigavazira, 2012). Several researchers have reported the strategic role of indigenous knowledge and utilization of natural resources such as non-timber forest products in rural households’ coping strategies in Africa (Locatelli et al., 2010; Pramova et al., 2012; Shackleton et al., 2008; Wilk et al., 2013; Valdivia et al., 2005). In the same vein, households often switch to cultivating drought-tolerant crops in coping with drought and erratic rainfall.

For example, Chigavazira (2012) observed that small-scale farmers in Dzindi community in the province of Limpopo, South Africa, used a variety of strategies to handle climate variability and change. These include irrigating, and switching from maize cultivation to sorghum, a more drought-resistant crop. Thus, Gbetibouo (2009), in a study of adaptation practices used by farmers in the Limpopo basin, observed that farmers’ main adaptation practice entailed switching to more drought-tolerant crops, such as millet, and to different varieties of the same crop, such as more drought-tolerant maize.

Other adaptation practices used by rural households included changing planting dates, increasing irrigation, harvesting water, buying livestock feed supplements, planting and retaining trees on farms and around homes and selling livestock (Bryan et al., 2010). However, despite widespread adoption of coping practices at community level, the evidence shows that people do not always respond in the same manner to similar climatic stimuli. As noted by Bryan et al. (2009), farmers’ responses to the same climate stimulus often vary, even in the same geographic area.

While a range of coping strategies used by households (Gbetibouo, 2009; Valdivia et al., 2005) have been identified, there is equally need to understand factors that drive households to adopt these strategies. This understanding would provide further awareness of ways in which to develop appropriate adaptation programmes for household livelihood resilience and sustainable rural development (Baez et al., 2013).

Several factors influence people’s decisions to adjust their livelihood strategies in response to climate variability and change. Berman et al. (2013), Adeniji-Oloukoi et al. (2013) and Chigavazira (2012) observed a correlation between population socioeconomic characteristics and adoption of coping strategies. For example, Berman et al. (2013) reported that access to resources, credit and agricultural extension services and behavioural factors such as risk perception are core elements that influence a household’s choice of coping stratagem. Similarly, Bryan et al. (2009) and Gbetibouo (2009) noted that entrepreneurial capacity and prevailing market systems have effects on households’ choice of coping strategy. For example, markets for millet were found to influence people’s choice of millet cultivation as a preferred drought-resistant crop in coping with climate change (Bryan et al., 2009).

Factors that influence household choices of coping strategy and coping capacity can sometimes be a constraint to adaptation. For example, access to credit was reported as the major constraint to coping and adapting at rural community level in several African countries (Tembo, 2013; Chigavazira, 2012; Bryan et al., 2010). In the same vein, Bryan et al. (2010) observed that social support programmes sometimes hinder the adoption of coping strategies. For example, access to food emergency relief was shown to negatively influence the decision to plant trees as a coping strategy in Kenya. Similarly, Berman et al. (2013) and Quinn et al. (2011) reported lack of technical knowledge and of access to markets as major constraints to adoption of coping strategies at rural community level. For example, in regions where only maize is eaten, lack of markets for sorghum might limit the adoption of sorghum cultivation as a drought-resistant plant. In addition, lack of technical knowledge of and expertise in processing and consuming the new product could be limiting factors. Other commonly reported constraints include lack of information, lack of access to land and lack of access to inputs.

This review has considered the real and imminent impacts of climate change on South African forest-based rural communities. The discussions have highlighted the potential of forest use and management to reduce or increase the vulnerability of rural households to climate change. Although households use a range of measures to manage risks and shocks associated with climate variability and change, these coping and adaptation practices are often insufficient to maintain resilient sustainable development and household welfare in the face of climate shocks. An important and encouraging finding from this study is that the effectiveness and efficiency with which households adopt a coping practice is strongly linked to their socioeconomic and demographic characteristics. This implies that adaptation programmes that improve households’ socio-demographic condition might be effective in improving rural communities’ resilience to climate change challenges.

A critical challenge that adaptation initiatives may have to deal with in these communities will be how to ensure that individuals and communities are able to sustain their adaptation after adaptation intervention has ended. To this end, an understanding of the linkages between exposure to climate risk, household coping practices and adaptive capacity is imperative. The study revelation on how issues such as poor forest use and management capacity, poverty, unemployment, population growth and poor healthcare service facilities underlies rural communities’ vulnerability to climate change and therefore present an important insight for resilience building. Incorporating these issues when designing adaptation programme would help in guiding against maladaptation. This will help in target enhancement of the functionality of available assets, institutions and facilities for improvement of individual and community resilience and adaptive capacity.

Based on these submissions, the following recommendations are made for improvement of household’s resilience and adaptive capacity to challenges of climate change in South Africa’s forest-based rural communities:

• It is vital to build capacity at rural community level for sustainable forest management, implementation and sustenance of adaptation programmes.

• Given that unsustainable forest use and farming practices are salient factors that influence the vulnerability of forest ecosystems and rural communities to climate change, promoting sustainable forest use and management should pervade all adaptation strategies and policy options at rural community level.

The authors are grateful to the National Research Foundation of South Africa for funding this study through the innovation doctoral scholarship programme, Grant UID: 82942. The fund enabled the first author to undertake this research as part of his doctoral study.