reducing vulnerability of an individual/community. Leichenko and Silva (2014), argued that considering only income poverty to understand vulnerability to climate change does not give a holistic view as vulnerability is a combinations of multi dimensions of poverty including income, social exclusion, lack of assets and capabilities, and policies which are context-specific.
From the above discussions it can be inferred that to identify the determinants of vulnerability, it is important to look beyond the income poverty into multidimensional nature of poverty. Taking this as the basis, the relationship between multidimensional poverty and vulnerability, and the gaps in the present vulnerability assessment frameworks are examined in the next sub-section.
authors Sapkota et al. (2016) describes vulnerability as a largely socially produced phenomenon, shaped by complex interactions between social, cultural, economic and political processes. Sapkota et al. (2016) laid emphasis on the temporal and spatial dimension of contextual vulnerability by suggesting that vulnerability varies with places, and time scales. This indicates that multidimensional nature of poverty adds dynamism and complexity to vulnerability. It also reinforces the need to assess the contextual vulnerability to strategize adaptation process and building resilience of individuals and communities to shocks and change. According to these studies the multidimensional poverty increases the vulnerability of the poor community to change, and makes it very difficult for the poor families or communities to break the poverty trap and ‘ bounce back’ from impacts of climate variability in the short term and climate change in the long term. Hence climate change poses a serious threat on the individuals and communities facing multidimensional poverty. These studies argue that to reduce the vulnerability of individuals and communities through enhancing their resilience, it is important to plan for pro-poor interventions, considering multidimensional nature of poverty.
Despite a lot of advancement in research on vulnerability to climate variability and change, there is no general agreements on the indicators of vulnerability (Adger et al., 2004). Further, the research to a large extent has focused on lack of resources. Constraints such as income, access to school, health facilities, road connectivity, and infrastructure are the main focus to describe the component of ‘lack of adaptive capacity’ in vulnerability assessment (see section 1.1). There has been a lack of sufficient attention on the inherent capacity of individuals/communities which can be termed as means to convert the resource into an achievement or a functioning3 i.e. for example ‘able’ to use
3 Functioning are the valuable activities and states that make up people’s well-being – such as a healthy body, being safe, being educated, having a good job, being able to visit loved ones etc. It is the beings (existence) and doings (accomplishments) of a particular individual.
the land (resource) to reduce vulnerability. The inherent capacity is an outcome of the set of opportunities these individuals/communities had, and the choices they made (Murphy et al., 2015).
In agreement to this, Robeyns (2016) argues that having access to resources is not sufficient to know whether she/he is able to use the resources as desired. For instance, if a farmer is from an underprivileged group, uneducated, a female, then in spite of having access and right over the resource, may still be incapable to convert the resources into productive functioning due to socio-cultural construct of the society he/she lives in. This is because the socio-cultural construct of the society governs the gendered and social norms and put this individual in a disadvantageous situation by limiting the capacity to convert the resources available to him/her hence reinforcing vulnerability. Therefore, there is a need to move beyond “access” to look into more complex issues such as
“prevalence of discrimination”, “quality of schooling and health facilities” etc., i.e. the real ability to attend schools and utilize health facilities (Unterhalter et al., 2007, Unni, 2009b, Thorat et al., 2016). According to Robeyns (2005), the ability to convert the resources available depends on the characteristic of the society, communities, as well of the individual. Hence, it is important to understand the institutional constraint that are placed on the members of the society (such as gendered discriminations, lower caste, or religious groups), which prevent them from assessing education and jobs with better returns (Unni, 2009b). For example, a study conducted by Unni (2009b) in India, shows how despite primary schools in almost every village, the capacity to stay within the formal educational system to acquire higher levels of educations are limited for lower caste (ST/SC), minority communities as well female members due to economic constraints, social and cultural norms. According to Thorat et al. (2016), children of upper caste household in India had never suffered discrimination in the society leading
to better achievements (within the same villages) to education/knowledge than compared to those children of Dalit/ST household who have suffered historical deprivation/isolation in the society. Similarly, Unterhalter et al. (2007) mentioned “the same level of resources may be quite inadequate for children who are shy, hungry, with poor concentration, always sit at the back of the class and talk a minority language”.
Hence while school, as a resource is available or accessible but to assume that having access to resource will lead to an outcome such as being educated, able to access information, able to get a job, become financially independent etc. is not assured, and if such functioning are not achieved then having access to resource will not reduce vulnerability. This is because, their effective opportunities to undertake the actions and activities that they want to engage in, may be restricted due to factors such as societal hierarchies, discriminating practices, norms etc.
Vulnerability also results from a lack of freedom to make a choice, specifically poor and marginalized are vulnerable as they have constrained freedom. This aspect has not received adequate emphasis in the vulnerability assessment although it is a significant contributor to vulnerability. The freedom to make a choice is linked with capability, a lack of this freedom leads to a lack of adaptive capacity. Studies shows that large number of people in rural areas lack the freedom to choose a profession and are engaged in farming not by choice but because it is a traditional occupation (Birthal et al., 2015, Agarwal and Agrawal, 2017). It is important to mention here that although occupations are no longer determined by the institution of caste and tribes, it is still influenced by the historically-acquired capital. The acquired capital is in tangible forms (land, money, and other assets) and intangible forms (particularly networks) (Kumar, 2013). Further, Prof.
Amartya Sen in ‘Development as Freedom’ argues that human development can be viewed as a process of expanding the freedoms people have and enjoy (Sen, 1999). The
Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) which are a ‘ universal call to end poverty, protect the planet and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity’ are intended to contribute to human development in the wake of climate change (UNDP, 2017b). It aims to end poverty and improve well-being through access to education, employment and information, better health and housing, reduced inequality while moving towards sustainable consumption and production. These factors are crucial to build adaptation to the impacts of climate change. Therefore to break the vicious cycle of multidimensional poverty and thereby reduce vulnerability to climate variability and change, it is important to take a human development approach to enhance people’s resilience and expanding their adaptive capacity. This is only possible if the focus of vulnerability assessments moves away from means or resource to achievements and functioning, i.e. on the human development aspects.
The next sub-section dwells on the human development approach to vulnerability