Household Adaptation Strategies
Households were also asked about actions that they took or might take to cope-with the loss of crops, income or livestock due to weather or environmental changes. The possibilities included changing production technologies such island preparation, sowing or weeding; changing crop choices, increasing crop variety,or adopting drought or flood resistant crops; changing the percentage composition of crops versus livestock; increasing the use of fertilizer or pesticides;seeking or increasing off-farm employment; and receiving occupational training for nonfarm employment. Households were also asked whether compared to five years ago, they used more stored water or consumed more stored grains and stored animal products. They were asked whether they were aware of people moving out of their community as a result of weather or environmental changes,and whether in the last five years people moved into their community. Finally,they were asked if in the past five years they experienced conflict over agricultural land or livestock, or water for household use or cultivation due to weathers or environmental changes.The results for those questions and most of the options available in the questionnaire are provided in table 6.3. For the sample as a whole, and for most ofthe alternatives presented in the questionnaire, only a minority of household shave implemented any single one of the adaptation strategies. This is explained in part by the fact that many of the alternatives apply mostly to farming households,and not all households are involved in farming (this is evident in the fact that the proportion of households using the various adaptation strategies are higher among households who own land, many of whom farm their land).Between one in four and one in five households have relied more on stored grains/products and stored water, have sought off-farm work, have used fertilisers or pesticides, or have made a change in their farm production technology.The proportion of those who have received training or changed their crop mix or the varieties they use is at about 15 percent. Only nine percent of household'shave changed their mix of crops and livestock for their livelihood.On the other hand, more than 4 in 10 households say that they know people who have moved out of their community due to the climate pressures, and 14percent declare that some people have moved in, which may at time generate-conflict over water, land, or livestock. There are some large differences between countries in the use of adaptation strategies, with households in Egypt and Syria making fewer changes in their modes of livelihood than households in Algeria,the Republic of Yemen, and to some extent Morocco. It also appears that household sin the bottom quintiles, which tend to be affected by climate change the most and have limited means to cope with weather shocks and changing conditions,also have made more changes in their livelihood strategies. But this may also be in part because a larger share of those households is involved in farming.As before households with international remittances who tend to also be better off tend to rely less on those adaptation strategies than other households.In a similar way to the analysis presented in the previous section on the correlates of coping mechanisms, an analysis of the correlates of the adaptation strategies used by households can be provided. This is done in table 6.4 prohibit models for the main adaptation strategies. As for coping mechanisms,country effects are still at work, but among those affected by shocks, and in many cases the likelihood of using various adaptation strategies does not seem to be affected by the quintile of wealth of the household. There are exceptions though,with statistical significance in the case of the first quintile, as compared to the reference category of the top quintile. In many cases, the poorest households are more likely to use adaptation strategies, probably because they are also those affected the most by climate change, as documented in chapter 4. But in a few cases, households in the bottom quintile are less likely to adopt a strategy, and this is especially the case for terracing the land, increasing the use of pesticide'sand fertilizers, and (knowing people who are) moving out, three options that are often costly and may therefore be out of reach for the very poor (the fact that the very poor are less likely to witness conflict over water could possibly signal their lack of access or property rights over water).
No comments