Socio-economic impacts: vulnerability, global patterns, most vulnerable groups

Climate Change Impacts, Vulnerability & Governance (Cambridge 9696 – Paper 4)

Objective

To develop a comprehensive understanding of the socio‑economic impacts of climate change, focusing on:

• the concept of vulnerability (exposure, sensitivity, adaptive capacity)
• global patterns of impact and the drivers behind them
• the groups most at risk
• key mitigation measures and international policy frameworks
• real‑world case‑studies with evaluation of management responses
• governance and adaptive‑capacity strategies (AO3 evaluation)

1. What is Vulnerability?

Vulnerability describes the likelihood that a system (people, communities, ecosystems, economies) will suffer harm from climate‑related hazards.

Key components (with real‑world examples):

• Exposure – degree of contact with a hazard (e.g., 30 % of Bangladesh’s population lives below 5 m above sea level).
• Sensitivity – how strongly the system is affected (e.g., 80 % of Sub‑Saharan farmers rely on rain‑fed crops).
• Adaptive Capacity – ability to adjust, mitigate or recover (e.g., the Netherlands’ dike network reduces flood risk by >99 %).

Vulnerability varies with scale (local‑regional‑global) and changes over time as exposure, sensitivity and capacity evolve.

2. Global Patterns of Socio‑Economic Impacts

Regional differences arise from the interaction of climate exposure, development level, governance quality and natural‑resource endowments. The table below aligns with the Cambridge 9696 syllabus and adds quantitative climate projections.

3. Groups Most at Risk (Cambridge Required List)

1. Small‑holder farmers – rain‑fed, limited credit, high sensitivity to drought/flood.
2. Urban poor – live in informal settlements on flood‑prone or heat‑island sites; often lack basic services.
3. Women and children – experience greater health impacts, reduced access to resources and decision‑making power.
4. Elderly populations – higher susceptibility to heat stress and limited mobility.
5. Indigenous peoples – depend on ecosystem services, often have insecure land tenure and limited political voice.
6. Coastal communities – exposed to sea‑level rise, storm surge, salt‑water intrusion.

These groups face intersecting vulnerabilities that amplify exposure and reduce adaptive capacity.

4. Mitigation – Reducing the Root Cause of Climate Change

While the syllabus focuses on impacts and governance, a brief overview of mitigation is required for AO1.

• Carbon budgets – the IPCC defines a 1.5 °C budget of ~420 GtCO₂ remaining from 2020; staying within it requires rapid emissions cuts.
• Policy instruments
  • Carbon pricing (EU Emissions Trading Scheme, Canada’s carbon tax)
  • Renewable‑energy targets (China’s 20 % renewable electricity by 2030; EU 40 % by 2030)
  • Energy efficiency standards (building codes, appliance labeling)
  • Afforestation & reforestation programmes (e.g., Africa’s Great Green Wall)
• Sectoral examples
  • Transport – electric‑vehicle incentives, low‑emission zones.
  • Industry – carbon capture & storage pilots in Norway and the UK.
  • Agriculture – climate‑smart practices (zero‑till, improved livestock feeds).

5. International Policy Frameworks

These frameworks provide the overarching context for national and local actions.

• UNFCCC (1992) – establishes the global treaty on climate change.
• Paris Agreement (2015) – aims to limit warming to well below 2 °C and pursue 1.5 °C; requires nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and a global stocktake every 5 years.
• SDGs (Goal 13 – Climate Action) – integrates mitigation, adaptation and finance with sustainable development.
• Green Climate Fund (GCF) – channel for climate finance to developing countries; supports both mitigation and adaptation projects.
• Loss & Damage – Warsaw International Mechanism (2022) recognises compensation for unavoidable impacts, especially for SIDS and vulnerable communities.

6. Detailed Case‑Study Illustrations (One per Region)

6.1 Sub‑Saharan Africa – 2016‑2017 East African Drought (Kenya & Ethiopia)

• Impact: Maize yields ↓ ≈ 40 %; >5 million people faced acute food insecurity; livestock losses ≈ 30 %.
• Governance response: Kenya’s Drought‑Early‑Warning System (DEWS) – satellite‑based rainfall forecasts; “Cash for Work” scheme to build water‑conservation structures.
• Evaluation: Early warnings saved lives, but cash transfers were delayed and missed remote pastoralists, limiting equity and overall effectiveness.

6.2 South Asia – 2017 Bangladesh Monsoon Floods

• Impact: >5 million displaced; crop & livestock losses US$1.2 bn; water‑borne disease outbreaks.
• Governance response: Bangladesh Flood Forecasting and Early Warning Centre (FFEW) issued river‑level alerts; World Bank‑funded community‑based embankment reinforcement.
• Evaluation: Early warnings reduced mortality, but embankments failed in extreme events, highlighting trade‑offs between hard‑engineering and community solutions.

6.3 Small Island Developing States – Maldives Sea‑Level Rise

• Impact: Projected 0.5 m sea‑level rise by 2100 threatens >80 % of land area; tourism revenue at risk.
• Governance response: National Climate‑Change Adaptation Programme – pilot “floating islands”, coastal reclamation, legal framework for “climate migration”.
• Evaluation: Innovative engineering shows promise, yet high costs and limited funding raise sustainability and equity concerns.

6.4 Northern Europe – “Room for the River” (Netherlands)

• Impact: Increased winter precipitation raises flood risk for low‑lying provinces.
• Governance response: Spatial planning that widens floodplains, relocates dikes, restores wetlands; integrates climate projections into land‑use policy.
• Evaluation: Combines hard and soft measures, enhances adaptive capacity while preserving ecosystems; requires substantial public investment and inter‑agency coordination.

6.5 Andean Latin America – Glacier Retreat in the Peruvian Andes

• Impact: 30 % glacier volume loss since 1970 reduces dry‑season irrigation water by ~15 % and cuts hydro‑electric generation.
• Governance response: “Water‑Security for Andean Communities” project – high‑altitude rain‑water harvesting, climate‑smart crops (e.g., quinoa varieties).
• Evaluation: Community‑based storage improves resilience, but scaling is limited and technical assistance remains externally dependent.

6.6 North America – 2020 California “August Complex” Wildfire

• Impact: >1 million ha burned; economic losses >US$12 bn; >10 000 homes destroyed.
• Governance response: Statewide “Fire‑Adapted Communities” initiative – grants for defensible space, home‑retrofit subsidies, public education.
• Evaluation: Improves household preparedness, yet uptake is uneven and rising insurance premiums keep low‑income homeowners vulnerable.

7. Governance & Adaptive‑Capacity Strategies (Concrete Examples)

• Risk‑Based Planning – EU Cohesion Policy (2021‑2027) earmarks €30 bn for climate‑resilient infrastructure; flood‑risk maps are mandatory in regional development plans.
• Social Protection Schemes – Mexico’s “Progresa/Oportunidades” cash‑transfer programme was adapted in 2018 to include climate‑risk criteria, helping rural families cope with drought.
• Community‑Based Adaptation (CBA) – Nepal’s “Community Forest User Groups” empower villages to manage forests, reducing landslide risk and enhancing livelihoods.
• International Climate Finance – GCF projects in Tanzania fund climate‑smart agriculture (drought‑tolerant seeds, micro‑irrigation), boosting smallholder adaptive capacity.
• Policy Coherence – New Zealand’s “Zero Carbon Act” aligns mitigation targets with the “He Kaihanga Oranga” health‑equity framework, ensuring climate actions support vulnerable groups.
• Legal & Institutional Arrangements – Bangladesh’s National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) establishes a dedicated Ministry of Disaster Management and a multi‑sectoral Climate Change Secretariat.

8. Evaluation of Governance Approaches (AO3)

When answering exam questions, compare and evaluate responses using the following criteria:

1. Effectiveness – Does the measure reduce exposure, lower sensitivity, or increase adaptive capacity?
2. Equity – Are the most vulnerable groups benefiting proportionally?
3. Sustainability – Can the solution be maintained over the long term without depleting resources?
4. Cost‑Benefit – Do avoided damages outweigh implementation and maintenance costs?
5. Flexibility – Can the approach be adjusted as climate projections or socio‑economic conditions change?

Example prompt: Compare hard‑engineering flood defences (e.g., Dutch dikes) with community‑based flood‑risk management (e.g., Bangladesh early‑warning and household sandbag programmes). Evaluate each against the five criteria.

9. Summary

Climate change creates uneven socio‑economic impacts worldwide. Vulnerability results from the interaction of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity, and is amplified for specific groups such as small‑holder farmers, the urban poor, women, the elderly, Indigenous peoples and coastal communities. Recognising regional patterns, quantitative climate projections and the drivers of vulnerability enables targeted governance actions—from risk‑based planning and social protection to community‑based adaptation and international finance. Effective responses must be evaluated for effectiveness, equity, sustainability, cost‑benefit and flexibility to build resilient societies while supporting the broader mitigation agenda.