Are women more vulnerable to climate change in rural South Africa?

Are women more vulnerable to climate change and other interacting stressors in the

rural Eastern Cape, South Africa?

Sheona Shackleton Department of Environmental Science,

Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa

1

With acknowledgement to the entire IDRC project team, particularly Leigh Cobban, Georgina Cundill and Marty Luckert who contributed specifically to this paper

Introduction

Gender and Climate Change: Women, Research and Action

Introduction Purpose of this paper

• To illustrate that the question “are women more vulnerable?”

is not necessarily easy nor straightforward to answer.

• In fact, it is a complex question with complex answers given: the range of interacting stressors and shocks that people and the

ecosystems they depend on face; the heterogeneity that exists locally amongst individuals, households and

communities; and different conceptual understandings and framings of vulnerability and

gender.

• We have a tendency to make assumptions and rely on stylised views, while the notion of vulnerability requires more nuanced exploration. 3


Introduction and conceptualisation Gender, multiple stressors and vulnerability

4

FRAMING OF VULNERABILITY In this paper I use both a risk-hazard and entitlements-livelihoods/ political ecology framing (Ribot, 2014). The combination of underlying cause and susceptibility in the conceptualisation of vulnerability makes it important to analyse the socially constructed factors that influence exposure to stresses and ability to respond. Gender is an important one of these.



• Climate change does not occur in isolation from a host of other social, political, economic and biophysical factors across scales that affect livelihoods and vulnerability, such as: – poorly conceived policies and weak governance – poverty and inequality – HIV/AIDS – institutional breakdown – crime – ecosystem degradation

• These multiple risks and stressors have differential

impacts across different communities, social groupings and households, with each also having differential ability to respond based on their context, livelihood activities, assets and capabilities.

• Gender differences are often particularly stark.

5



Gender is often treated in a simplistic binary fashion. There is a need for studies that: • Consider gender in terms of its interactions with

other intersecting social categories (age, income, ethnicity).

• Move beyond simple male and female headed HH, to capture the heterogeneity that exists in these. Households vary in terms of the gender and ages of other members, with implications for production and adaptive capacity.

• Consider women less as helpless victims but as

active agents with some influence on their own lives. • Recognise men may also be vulnerable in different

ways and how this intersects with women’s vulnerability.

6


More subtle and nuanced treatment of gender in this study

7

EXAMPLES OF INFLUENCE OF GENDER OF HH MEMBERS BEYOND HEAD Some external gendered constraints faced by female-headed HH, e.g. limited property rights, may be alleviated by the presence of an adult male in the household. Conversely, adult males in female-headed HH may impose internal constraints on innovation through reinforcement of restrictive gender-related norms. Male only HHs may face a unique set of constraints related to, for example, food production and, in SA, access to grants.

In recognition of this, we considered four gender categories of HH: • only male adults, • male-headed with adult females (typical

family structure), • female-headed with adult males

(widowed, divorced or single women with a son, brother or other adult male in the HH)

• only single, widowed or divorced female adults.

• We also considered aspects related to men and women as individuals.


Introduction Aim and research questions

Aim: • To investigate differentiated vulnerability and responses among

men and women and households with different gender structures paying attention to the many interacting stressors that influence local livelihoods.

Embedded in this are the following questions: • What makes rural women more/less vulnerable, i.e. what

determines or influences their vulnerability? • How are rural women responding? • What role do ecosystem services play in women’s responses?

8


Approach to the study

Questions answered through a gendered analysis of: • Household livelihoods and asset holdings

(indicators of sensitivity and adaptive capacity).

• Perceptions and ‘lived experiences’ of

vulnerability in relation to multiple stressors (exposure).

• Types of responses employed when faced with risk, and how these may be impacted by CC.

9

Shackleton et al. 2014. AGENDA

Study area and methods

Gender and Climate Change: Women, Research and Action 11

Study site location


Worked in two settlements (Willowvale/Gatyana and Lessyton) in the

Eastern Cape of South Africa

Willowvale – remote, rural, NR dependent, wetter. poorer

Lesseyton, peri-urban, formal layout, dry, near Queenstown

Study area


Methods • Multiple studies and mixed methods (10

student dissertations from larger IDRC funded project).

• HH survey of 340 hh (demographics,

livelihood assets, HIV proxies, welfare perceptions, shocks and responses, livelihood activities, income – cash and in kind)

• Focus group discussions linked to a social

learning process (in-depth discussions of vulnerability – stories - and means of coping)

• Participatory workshops with different gender

groups (mental maps of stressors, choices for responses)

• 20 life histories narrated by vulnerable men

and women 13

Findings

Livelihoods and income sources (sensitivity and adaptive capacity)

15


Livelihoods and income sources

16

Differences in mean (± standard error) quarterly household income (ZAR) of gender headship types in Lesseyton Lesseyton Only male

adults (N = 47)

Male headed with female

adults (N= 45)

Female headed with male adults

(N= 53)

Only female adults (N = 25)

P value

Total quarterly income

6952± 735

7869 ± 770

7926± 794

4905 ± 660

0.077

Formal employment

1433± 324

3566 ±725

1928 ±458

573 ±298

0.007 Lower income

and formal employment

Self-employment

214 ± 109

350 ±157

168±88

504 ±285

0.852 Higher self-employment – shows ability to

adapt


Livelihoods and income sources

17

Differences in mean (± standard error) quarterly household income (ZAR) of gender headship types in Gatyana/Willowvale Only male adults

(N = 36)

Male headed with female

adults (N= 41)


(N= 43)

Only female adults

(N = 48)

P value

Total quarterly income

9157.35 ± 1776.84 8162.87 ± 629.12

7005.67 ± 851.91

5505.06 ± 521.79

0.012

Formal employment 2630.33 ± 1553.35 526.83 ± 275.95

837.21 ± 565.41 1000.00 ± 399.50

0.431

Only HH with adult males only have high

employment in Willowvale


Livelihood and income sources by HH gender structure

18

Willowvale Natural

resources9%

Formal employment

29%

Casual employment

2%Self-employment

1%

Grants 44%

Remittances3%

Crops1% Livestock

11%

Figure 8.2.2 e: Average livelihood portfolio of households with only adult males in Gatyana

Natural resources

7%Formal

employment6% Casual employment

2%

Self-employment

4%

Grants 64%

Remittances1%

Crops2%

Livestock14%

Figure 8.2.2 f: Average livelihood portfolio of male headed households with adult female in Gatyana

Natural resources

8%Formal

employment12%

Casual employment

4%

Self-employment

4%Grants 54%

Remittances8%

Crops2%

Livestock8%

Figure 8.2.2 g: Average livelihood portfolio of female headed households with adult males in Gatyana

Natural resources

10%

Formal employment

18%

Casual employment

1%

Self-employment

3%

Grants 51%

Remittances6%

Crops1% Livestock

10%

Figure 8.2.2 h: Average ilivelihood portfolio of households with only adult females in Gatyana

Remittances higher in female

HH

More reliance' on NRs in female

HH

Gants similar across gender

groups

Stadler 2012


Livelihood and income sources by HH gender structure

19

Natural resources

3%

Formal employment

21%

Casual employment

11%

Self-employment

3%

Grants 50%

Remittances3%

Crops0%

Livestock9%

Figure 8.2.2 a: Average livelihood portfolio of households with only adult males in Lesseyton

Natural resources

3%

Formal employment

45%

Casual employment

8%Self-

employment5%

Grants 29%

Remittances4%

Crops0%

Livestock6%

Figure 8.2.2 b: Average livelihood portfolio of male headed households with adult females in Lesseyton

Natural resources

7%

Formal employment

24%

Casual employment

4%

Self-employment

2%

Grants 50%

Remittances8%

Crops0%

Livestock5%

Figure 8.2.2 c: Average livelihood portfolio of female headed households with adult males in Lesseyton

Natural resources

5%

Formal employment

12%

Casual employment

6%

Self-employment

10%

Grants 59%

Remittances7%

Crops1%

Livestock0%

Figure 8.2.2 d: Average livelihood portfolio of households with only female adults in Lesseyton

Employment highest in Males with adult

female HH

Self-employment highest for female

only HH

Highest grants in female only HH

Lesseyton

“I cannot afford to build a decent dwelling for my family due to financial constraints. And to raise children on a social grant is very hard for me. It was better when my husband was alive” (Gatyana, female, 52 years).

Stadler 2012

Assets - access and stocks (adaptive capacity)

20


Asset access, stocks, adaptive capacity

21

Lesseyton Gatyana

Male only

M+F adults

F+M adults

Female only

Male only

M+F adults

F+M adults

Female only

Demo. (4) Most adults Most pensioners

Fewest pensioners Fewest in total

Most in total

Fewest adults

Most adults Most pensioners

Fewest adults Fewest pensioners

Human (4) Skills high Lang. high Content high

low low low

Social (5) High trust/ cohesion

Natural (7) More land More river and medicinal plants More land

Less bushmeat Less land (than male)

Less bushmeat Less land (than male)

Physical (3) Most kraals Least kraals Less hh items than male

Kraals most fewest

Financial (2) Less savings and debt (than male)

Less savings (than male) Stadler 2012


Asset access, stocks and adaptive capacity

22

Social Capital Table 9: Mean (± standard error) cognitive social capital scores of different groups in Lesseyton and Gatyana

Lesseyton Gatyana Only male adults Mean 20.9±0.5 22.2±0.4 N 47 37 Male headed with female adults Mean 20.7±0.5 22±0.5 N 45 41 Female headed with male

adults Mean 20.9±0.7 22.7±0.5

N 53 43 Only female adults Mean 21.2±0.7 22±0.5 N 25 48 P = 0.007 P = 0.699

Higher social capital

20.00

20.50

21.00

21.50

22.00

22.50

23.00

Male headed households(n=170)

Female headed householdswith adult male (n=83)

Female headed householdswithout adult male (n=85)

Social Capital

Stadler 2012


Asset access, stocks and adaptive capacity

23

Natural capital: Land

Table 2: Differences in mean (± standard error) area of garden (m2) of households in different groups in Lesseyton and Gatyana Lesseyton Gatyana Only male adults Mean

N 259.3±78.3 46

6018.5±1644.4 35

Male headed with female adults

Mean N

123.9±31.9 45

6303.48±765.04 40


Mean N

119±33.7 50

3885.05±646.5 40

Only female adults Mean N

47.1±18.7 25

4418.49±678.39 47

P = 0.053 P = 0.095 About ½ land area

Shocks and stresses experienced and local perceptions of what makes

people vulnerable (exposure to risk)

24


Perceptions and experiences of stressors and vulnerability

25

People’s own understandings of what makes them vulnerable - social-learning process

Lesseyton, Lukanji Municipality Gatyana, Mbashe Municipality

Education and

capacity

If you cannot do anything for yourself

/dependency; not having skills to deal with

opportunities

Lack of education

Crime Women fear rape when walking alone Women being vulnerable, rape

theft and crime – takes away, affects farming

Socio-economic/

development

Access to police stations, distance to clinics

and not getting medication, lack of

knowledge about socio-economic rights,

social grants

Unemployment, HIV/AIDS, Poverty

Household

dynamics

Lack of parental care and guidance for

children, relying on remittances that do not

come on time or at all

Lack of parental care, infidelity, rrugs and

alcohol

Climate Drought effect on livestock/vegetables The weather is changing


Perceptions and experiences of stressors and vulnerability

26

Social learning story Women used to rely on their crops for food and remittances. But can no longer do this because of > drought, > variability in the weather and increasing unemployment.

Structural and social drivers of vulnerability - lack of education, low levels of skill, corruption, job loss, dependence on others and grants, lack of electricity, and drug and alcohol consumption by men.

Social Learning Stories • HIV: Women susceptible of sudden loss of

income through death of breadwinners. • Shoulder responsibility for orphaned

children and have difficulty in maintaining authority

• Home based care groups – child headed households and elderly

Social learning story

Trend toward buying food Less self-reliance


Perceptions and experiences of stressors and vulnerability: Multiple stressors

27

Mental map: Women in Lesseyton

Gender and Climate Change: Women, Research and Action 28

Mental map - men in Lesseyton

Perceptions and experiences of stressors and vulnerability: Multiple stressors


Perceptions and experiences of stressors and vulnerability: HIV/AIDS

29

Table 7: Percentages of households experiencing different types of HIV/Aids impacts across gender headship types and differences in mean (±standard error) number of HIV/Aids impacts

Lesseyton

Only male adults

(N = 47)

Male headed

with female adults

(N= 45)

Female headed

with male adults

(N= 53)

Only female adults

(N = 25)

P Value

Type of HIV/Aids impact Non affected 40.4 66.7 28.3 32 0.001

Chronic illness and receiving free care

46.8 28.9 58.5 48 0.034

Illness-related death in previous 10 years

17 8.9 26.4 20 0.164

Presence of de facto orphans 25.5 13.3 30.2 28 0.242

Total Mean (±standard error) 0.89±0.133

0.51±0.126

1.15±0.136 0.96±0.158 0.007

High % of female headed hh with each of the HIV proxy

indicators

-

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

Male headedhouseholds

(n=170)

Female headedhouseholds with

adult male (n=83)

Female headedhouseholds

without adultmale (n=85)

Household HealthIndex

Adult Health Index


Perceptions and experiences of stressors and vulnerability: Food security

30

Table 5: Differences in mean (± standard error) weighted perceptions of food security for households in different groups in Lesseyton and Gatyana Lesseyton Gatyana Only male adults Mean 0.91±0.121 0.65±0.124 N 47 37 Male headed with female

adults Mean 0.91±0.122 0.70±0.120

N 45 40 Female headed with male

adults Mean 1.00±0.111 0.69±0.138

N 53 42 Only female adults Mean 1.08±0.162 0.75±0.121 N 25 48 P = 0.810 P = 0.108 Female headed hh despite

having lower income saw themselves as more food

secure than other hh types

Dietary studies showed that only young men were not obtaining their full calorific

needs (lowest perception of food security).

Responses to shocks and stressors and reliance on climate sensitive sectors

31


Responses

32

• All HHs experienced greater than one shock in the previous two years (>20 % had death in the hh; 2010 drought; loss of job, etc.)

• Financial assets (average savings < R500) cannot generally provide a safety net.

Regarding responses:

• A lower % of female only HH reported doing nothing. Female only HH had more self-employment – more innovation.

• More female only HH turned to kin for support compared to other gender categories.

• Women in general took in orphans, and started care and gardening groups.

• A large proportion of FHH indicated natural resource gathering as a response.

Shackleton et al. 2014,

Clarke 2012


Responses – NR as a safety net

Pair-wise ranking* of coping strategies by women in Gatyana

Coping strategies using assets

Assistance (S)

Change role (H)

Harvest NR (N)

Sell assets (P)

Loan (F) Assistance (S)

Change role (H)

Harvest NR (N)

Sell assets (P)

Assistance (S)

Assistance (S)

Harvest NR (N)

Sell assets (P)

Change role (H)

Harvest NR (N)

Change role (H)

Harvest NR (N)

Harvest NR (N)

*Items in columns are compared against items in rows and the better of the two indicated in the table

Pair-wise ranking* of coping strategies by men in Gatyana Coping strategies using assets

Assistance (S)

Change role (H)

Harvest NR (N)

Sell assets (P)

Loan (F) Loan (F) Loan (F) Loan (F) Loan (F) Assistance (S)

Assistance (S)

Assistance (S)

Sell assets (P)

Change role (H)

Change roles (H)

Change roles (H)

Harvest NR (N)

Harvest NR (N)

*Items in columns are compared against items in rows and the better of the two indicated in the table

5

2

Stadler 2012

What does this all mean? Conclusions and implications


Key conclusions – re women in general

• Women’s higher reliance on ecosystem services and their greater use of natural resource safety nets in response to shocks may make them more susceptible to CC.

• Women’s higher exposure to multiple risks in

relation to crime, violence, rape and HIV undermines their adaptive capacity.

• Women take on the burden of caring for the sick and children – erodes assets.

• Women are susceptible to sudden loss of income due to the death of breadwinners.

• This may be countered by women’s greater

levels of collective action in response to stressors – care groups, gardening groups.

35


Key conclusions – re different female headed HH

• Lower income and inability to access to formal employment makes them FHH’s (esp female only) more vulnerable, and more reliant on local climate sensitive safety nets.

• Low access to land may threaten food security in the future esp

for female only HH. • Female only HH’s slightly lower human capital, higher child

dependence, and lower health scores affects their adaptive capacity.

• FHH’s lower savings limits their responses.

• FHHs use more child labor, may be inter-generational costs.

• Female only HH’s higher reliance on social grants undermines

their resilience as these are not permanent. • Some of this vulnerability may countered by female only HH’s

higher food security and cognitive (bonding) social capital.

36

Main gender differences in terms of livelihoods relate to flow or income rather than assets. Female only HH clearly have lower adaptive capacity.


Key conclusions – re men and male headed HH • Men also vulnerable – job loss, impacts on

livestock production. • Male only HHs are food insecure and lack

access to social grants.

• Male headed HH consume more alcohol with associated social ills.

37

CONTEXT MATTERS Seeing heterogeneity within and between different areas/contexts. Different contexts can result in the reverse of findings across gender groups.


How do local people see it?

38

Men and women cope differently Lesseyton % Willowvale % Examples

Yes 74 46 Men are stronger, more active

No 20 54

Women are more caring, look after money, weaker, less skills

Women are more vulnerable to shocks Lesseyton % Willowvale % Examples

Yes 50 46 Men bring home the income

No 44 54 Women left to look after family

Men and women are both seen as vulnerable by community members

Almost ½ - ½

Clarke 2012


What does this mean for vulnerability and adaptation policy?

• Need to recognise multiple sources of shocks and stress and vulnerabilities. Facilitate ‘learning how to be prepared’.

• Address basic development, services and infrastructural needs (education!). Can’t separate CCA from development and structural inequalities.

• Recognise different contexts have different pros and cons for vulnerability and adaptive

capacity – different strengths to build on; understand background of long term changes . • Need profiling and targeted support for different types of individuals and households

– Recognise that the youth are the dominant demographic. – Recognise men and women may respond differently and have different assets – Recognise where men can be involved in reducing women’s vulnerability (gender based

violence, health care). – Provide support to women where they have taken initiative.

• Need to support longer term asset building and improved access to assets – issues of justice wrt to land, loans, insurance, so assets aren’t eroded following shocks.

39


What does this mean for vulnerability and adaptation policy?

• Build local agency and community institutions/ support systems. Many of the stressors highlighted are social and behavioural – partly within the hands of people themselves. Find opportunities for intergenerational and inter-gender communication. More involvement of women in decision-making.

• Improve natural resource governance.

• Address social concerns like alcoholism, rape, domestic violence, corruption Social workers need to get more involved in adaptation.

• New forms of social protection.

• Provide information and extension. Currently extension services not working optimally. Support women’s agricultural groups and home gardens.

• Identify barriers to responses and adaptation and seek ways to overcome these - especially the less obvious barriers such as cognitive/cultural that could increase vulnerability of specific groups.

40


Thank you! Acknowledgements • IDRC Ecohealth Programme • The IDRC project team • Communities of Willowvale and

Lesseyton and specifically members of our two social learning groups

• Ross Shackleton for the beautiful

portraits of the women of Willowvale (all given back to them)

• Rhodes University, SA National Research

Foundation and CIFOR for making it possible for me to be here today

41

Are women more vulnerable to climate change in rural South Africa?

Environment

Transcript of Are women more vulnerable to climate change in rural South Africa?