1. Maladaptation and Vulnerability in the Solomon Islands Ioan Fazey School of Geography and Geosciences ioan.fazey@st-andrews.ac.uk

2. ‘Maladaptation’ e.g. when responses: –Increase greenhouse gases –Disproportionately burden the most vulnerable (Barnett and O’Neill 2010) But also when responses increase vulnerability to future change: –Don’t reduce/reinforce drivers of change; –Reduce future opportunities for responses; –Reduce ability to take-up response options. (Fazey et al 2010. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment) Maladaptation and Vulnerability

3. Responses to environmental change often exacerbate problems or create new ones…

4. Outline Aim: To understand human responses to change and how this can increase vulnerability to future (possibly unforeseen) change 1.Context 2.Methods 3.Results/Discussion

5. 1. Context

6. Solomon Islands Cultural diversity 90% customary land ownership Economic isolation Aid dependency Vulnerable to? Climate change Global economic change Conflict

8. Why Kahua? –‘Bounded’ system –Traditionally subsistence affluent –Moving to monetary economy

9. Research in Kahua Human-environment interactions Participatory/collaborative Students from UK I. Latham 2007 Livelihoods L. Burton 2008 Education (Oxford) D. Schuett 2010 Bridging Organisations T. Davies 2010+ Poverty and Ecosystems J. Kenter 2009 Valuing Ecosystem Services

10. Social Learning Participatory research increases robustness of results Contributes to social learning (Fazey et al. In Press. Global Environmental Change) Sometimes profound outcomes Kenter et al. Under Review

11. Key Questions from work in 2007/08 What is changing? What are the key drivers of change? How does this influence long term vulnerability to future change?

12. 2. Methods

13. 12 local RAs trained in basic research & facilitation; 38 communities, 76 detailed focus groups, 24% Kahua people directly involved in focus groups. All households surveyed; Large participatory workshops, including understanding links between aspects of change; Development of conceptual models of feedback in social- ecological system Perceptions and drivers of change

14. 3. Results/Discussion

15. 1. What is changing?

16. Environmental change Garonna et al 2009. Environmental Conservation 36: 253-260

17. Population and income opportunities 4500 people in 2007 3.52% growth, doubles every 20 years Income opportunities

18. Items of change 1826 statements, 224 separate items Most statements about same key items –32 most frequently identified items are 53.9% of all 1826 statements High consistency in direction of change Most changes perceived to be undesirable

19. Item N Direc change % Same Direc Good/ Bad? Number of people 75 ↑ 1002.1 Females wearing shorts 55 ↑ 932.0 Availability of sea fish and shellfish 55 ↓ 1001.7 Yield or availability of food crops 51 ↓ 961.5 Use of modern domestic items (e.g. lamps, baskets, axe, umbrellas) 42 ↑ 1002.8 Respect (e.g. to kastom, leaders, elders, strangers) 41 ↓ 1001.3 Number single mothers 38 ↑ 1001.3 Availability of building or canoe making materials 38 ↓ 1001.5 Use of imported kitchen utensils instead of traditional utensils 38 ↑ 1002.6 Number of people being educated 37 ↑ 974.3 Availability of river fish 37 ↓ 1001.8 Prices (e.g. bride price, pigs, education, local food, imported products) 36 ↑ 1001.8

20. Types of change 48 broad categories, top nine are 69.1% of all 1826 statements Same types ranked top in different regions Less frequent items (e.g. gambling, reduced law and order) differ between regions Type of change EastCentralWestAll areas %% N % Culture and kastom 12.415.58.2227 12.4 Cultivated capital 12.69.614.8222 12.2 Natural capital 8.412.213.5199 10.9 Money 8.68.810.5166 9.1 Attitude 5.56.35.5105 5.8 Population 5.45.06.6101 5.5 Marital issues 5.45.83.492 5.0 Use of imported goods 6.03.33.080 4.4 Drug use 3.24.14.369 3.8

21. 2. What are the key drivers of change?

22. Drivers of change Link identified by 3 groups Link identified by 4 groups Link identified by 5 groups Link identified by 6 groups

23. System Feedbacks 1

24. System Feedbacks 2

25. System Feedbacks 2 & 3

26. System Feedbacks Population growth, stress and cash crops Desire for prosperity, cash crops, income Social cohesion, individualism and ability to address problems Variable influences of increasing income Most external influences are enabling income generation Key opportunity: the Kahua Association

27. Drivers: Key findings Population growth and desire for prosperity are two key drivers of change Key factors are increasing access to markets Responses to change reinforce problems Little option other than to continue to follow existing path?

28. 3. How does this influence long term vulnerability to future change?

29. What happens on other islands? In Bellona – no environmental change –people migrate to capita & send money –No change in Number people & per capita impact Can’t migrate from Kahua – instead use local resources (timber, land) to make money and buy food.

30. Value of food gardens vs cash crops Program AProgram BProgram C Gue Water quality Food gardens Cocoa gardens Cost$500$300$0 Valuing ecosystem services People willing to pay very high sums to maintain services Gardens worth SBD$13,149 p.a. (US $877) Cocoa production similar value, but imported food is expensive So cash crops don’t fully compensate for loss food gardens Kenter et al. Under Review

31. Trajectory of Vulnerability Result of current responses: –No decrease in key endogenous drivers –Increasing per capita impact on environment/resources; –Some increase in money (but not enough to replace subsistence food); –Increasing conflict, loss social cohesion; –Decreasing capacity to govern environmental resources; –Becoming locked in to high costs fossil fuel dependency; Vulnerability to future global change (economic and climate) is increasing Potentially reinforced by aid/development

32. Wider Implications ‘Snapshot’ of vulnerability; Context of vulnerability is not static; Responses/adaptations can increase vulnerability; Solomon Islands highlights how much of human behaviour is about displacing environmental impact; Key question: How can we link understanding from historical case studies & contemporary case studies to better inform adaptive strategies?