and developmental mechanisms, such as economic, human and social capital, and is critical to developing policies and programmes to build adaptive capacity. Too often, global adaptation and disaster risk reduction programming targets geography, the built environment and technical solutions, while simultaneously thinking deterministically and superficially about social vulnerability. Incorporation of population dynamics into both exposure and adaptive capacity can help to bridge the persistent programmatic divide between the physical and social dimensions of vulnerability and adaptation. Yet there are a series of additional challenges to bridging physical and social approaches to adaptation. A host of political and institutional challenges stand in the way of better programming, only a very short selection of which can be mentioned here. Policymaking and technical communities are divided both internally and from each other. The politics and priorities of different local, national and international communities in development, economic growth and climate change can result in imbalanced and potentially maladaptive consequences. Short-term thinking is also a critical problem in the context of impacts that extend far into the future and imperatives for action that are immediate and reactive. The answers to these problems are for the most part not technical, and incorporating population dynamics can generate movement in the right direction. A focus on population dynamics can help to push the time horizon of decision-making, focusing attention on the long term. Decisions made now with regard to planning for urbanization, support for migration, reproductive health and other population policies have impacts that will become most apparent in a span of decades. The same is true for climate change, both for mitigation and for creating the foundation for effective and developmental adaptation. Taken together, these two agendas can help lead to better future planning by governments and international agencies.
Notes 1. Alber (2009) and Bartlett (2009), for instance, describe and address these shortcomings with regard to women and children, respectively. This kind of common mistranslation has in some ways been associated with the adoption of climate change within development and humanitarian aid communities as a driving issue, without sufficient consideration of the nature of linkages and the resulting impact on development and humanitarian aid agendas (Inomata, 2008). 2. See, for instance, Mitchell and van Aalst (2008), UNISDR (2008), the coverage of climate change in the Hyogo Framework for Action (United Nations, 2005), and the inclusion of disaster risk reduction in the Bali Action Plan (UNFCCC, 2008). 3. The widespread incorporation of the term ‘vulnerability’ into discussion of climate change has been in large part due to the predominance of natural scientists involved in the initial development of climate change policy and practice. The concept of risk – as used in disaster risk reduction, and as used more frequently by social scientists – often has vulnerability as one of its sub-components, as indicated by the oft-used equation risk = hazards x vulnerability x exposure.
References Agrawala, S., and M. van Aalst. 2008. “Adapting Development Cooperation to Adapt to Climate Change.” Climate Policy 8(2): 183-193. Alam, M., and M. D. G. Rabbani. 2007. “Vulnerabilities and Responses to Climate Change for Dhaka.” Environment and Urbanization 19(1): 81-97. Alber, G, 2009. “Gender and Climate Change Policy” Pp. 149-163 n: Population Dynamics and Climate Change, edited by J. M. Guzmán, et al. 2009. New York and London: UNFPA and IIED.
20
The De mogra ph y of Ada ptation to C l imate Ch ange
Demography and Climate Change-text.indd 20
1/25/13 1:59 PM