Table of Contents 1 Chapter 7: Vulnerability of People and the Environment: Challenges and Opportunities 2 Main messages 3 Introduction 4 Global Context of Vulnerability 4.1 Poverty 4.2 Health 4.3 Globalization, Trade and Aid 4.4 Conflict 4.5 Changing Levels of Governance 4.6 Science and technology 5 Human Well-Being, Environment And Vulnerability 5.1 Development challenges 5.1.1 Improvements in well-being – for some 5.1.2 Investing in human and social capital reduces vulnerability 5.2 Aspects of vulnerability 5.2.1 Inequalities, equity and vulnerable groups 5.2.2 Export and import of vulnerability 5.2.3 Vulnerability, environment and conflict 5.2.4 Vulnerability, well-being and natural hazards 5.3 Patterns Of Vulnerability 5.3.1 Exposing people and the environment to contaminants 5.3.2 Global relevance 5.3.3 Vulnerability and human well-being 5.3.4 Responses 5.4 Disturbing the fragile equilibrium in drylands 5.4.1 Global relevance 5.4.2 Vulnerability and human well-being 5.4.3 Responses 5.5 Misusing the global commons 5.5.1 Global relevance 5.5.2 Vulnerability and human well-being 5.5.3 Responses 5.6 Securing energy for development 5.6.1 Global relevance 5.6.2 Vulnerability and human well-being 5.6.3 Responses 5.6.4 Coping with multiple threats in Small Island Developing States 5.6.5 Global relevance 5.6.6 Vulnerability and human well-being 5.6.7 Responses 5.7 Taking technology-centred approaches to water problems 5.7.1 Global relevance 5.7.2 Vulnerability and human well-being 5.7.3 Responses 5.8 Rapidly urbanizing the coastal fringe 5.8.1 Global relevance 5.8.2 Vulnerability and human well-being 5.8.3 Response 6 Challenges Posed By Patterns of Vulnerability 7 Opportunities for Reducing Vulnerability 7.1 Integrating governance across levels and sectors 7.2 Improving health 7.3 Resolving conflict through environmental cooperation 7.4 Strengthening local rights 7.5 Promoting freer and fairer trade 7.6 Securing access to and maintaining natural resource assets 7.7 Building and bridging knowledge to enhance coping capacity 7.8 Investing in technology for adaptation 7.9 Building a culture of responsibility 7.10 Building institutions for equity 7.11 Building capacity for implementation 8 Conclusion 9 Contributors 10 Notes

---

---

Many people, individually and
collectively, contribute, often
inadvertently, to the suffering of
others while improving their own
well-being. This can result from
environmental changes which are
linked across scales and between
geographical regions through both
biophysical and social processes.

Chapter 7: Vulnerability of People and the Environment: Challenges and Opportunities

Main messages

Vulnerability depends on exposure, sensitivity to impacts and the ability or inability to cope or adapt. It needs to be seen within a global context of demographic change, patterns of poverty, health, globalization, conflict and governance. Broad representative patterns of vulnerability to environmental and socioeconomic changes are identified in this chapter. This provides a basis for an analysis of the interacting pressures. It shows opportunities for reducing vulnerability and increasing human well-being, while protecting the environment. The following are the main messages:

Significant improvements in human wellbeing have been achieved over the last 20 years. However, there are more than 1 billion poor people. They are found in all regions. They lack essential services, making them vulnerable to environmental and socioeconomic changes. Many countries will not meet the Millennium Development Goals' 2015 targets. But, dealing with vulnerability provides opportunities to meet these goals.

Analysis of patterns of vulnerability shows the unequal distribution of risks for specific groups of people. The most vulnerable groups include the poor, indigenous populations, women and children in both developing and developed countries.

Improving human well-being – the extent to which individuals have the ability to live the kind of lives they value, and the opportunities to achieve their potential – is at the heart of development. This is not just a moral imperative, but is also a critical aspect of human rights. It is essential for reducing vulnerability and achieving sustainable use of the environment.

Gains in life expectancy and per capita health expenditures, as well as declines in child mortality have been systematically greater in those countries with more equitable income distribution and access to medical treatment. It is, however, paradoxical that opulence and consumerism, as well as relative poverty, contribute to ill health in many wealthier societies.

International trade has helped increase income, and has helped millions of people out of poverty, but it is also sustaining unequal patterns of consumption. Outsourcing the extraction of natural resources, as well as production and manufacturing to developing countries, means they must struggle to deal with their resulting hazardous wastes and other environmental impacts.

Conflicts, violence and persecution regularly displace large civilian populations, forcing millions of people into marginal ecological and economic areas within countries and across international boundaries. This undermines, sometimes for decades, sustainable livelihoods and economic development as well as the capacities of societies and nations. The resulting poverty, often tied to shortages or degradation of natural resources, contributes directly to lower levels of human well-being and higher levels of vulnerability.

Exposure to natural hazards has increased as a result of climate change and such actions as the destruction of mangroves that protect coasts from tidal surges. Risks are also increasing as a result of the continuing concentration of people in highly-exposed areas. Over the past 20 years, natural disasters have claimed more than 1.5 million lives, and affected more than 200 million people annually. More than 90 per cent of the people exposed to disasters live in the developing world, and more than half of disaster deaths occur in countries with a low human development index. Capacity to adapt is being eroded through, for example, reduced state social protection schemes, undermining of informal safety nets, poorly built or maintained infrastructure, chronic illness and conflict.

Poverty must be addressed in all countries if vulnerability to both environmental and socioeconomic changes is to be reduced. Relative poverty is increasing in many countries despite general affluence. Improved access to material assets at the household level (income, food, drinking water, shelter, clothing, energy, natural and financial resources) and at the societal level (physical and service infrastructure) can help break the cycle of impoverishment, vulnerability and environmental degradation. This means that being poor need not mean staying poor.

To achieve sustainable development, governance must be integrated from the local to the global levels, across a range of sectors, and over a longer time frame for policy making. Over the past 20 years, governance has become increasingly multi-level, with more interaction and interdependence. Local governments, community-based groups and other non-governmental actors now engage more widely in international cooperation, contributing to a better grounding of global policy in experiences of local vulnerability.

Integrating development, health and environment policies provides an opportunity, since health and education are the cornerstones of human capital. Continued investment remains critical for increasing the capacity to adapt to environmental and other changes. While under-five mortality rates have improved considerably, large regional differences still exist.

Empowering women not only contributes to the widely-shared objective of equity and justice, but also makes good economic, environmental and social sense. Practice shows that finance schemes that especially target women can have higher than usual payoffs. Better access to education increases maternal health, creating a better starting point for the next generation. Gender-sensitive poverty alleviation in both rural and urban settings is a central component of strategies to address environment and health issues.

Environmental cooperation creates an effective path to peace by promoting sustainable resource use and equity within and between countries. Investing in cooperation is an investment in the future, because both scarcity and abundance of environmental resources can exacerbate existing tensions, and contribute to conflict between groups, especially in societies that lack the capacity to effectively and equitably manage competition for control over resources.

Official development assistance must be stepped up to meet the agreed global target of 0.7 per cent of GNI. The decline in support for agriculture and infrastructure investment must be reversed if developing countries are to build their economies and increase their capacity to adapt to environmental and socio-economic change. Making international trade fairer, and including environmental concerns will also increase such adaptive capacity.

The potential for science and technology to reduce vulnerability is still very unevenly distributed worldwide. Partnerships that deliver, and increased investments could improve this situation. However, science and technology have also undoubtedly added to the risks faced by people and the environment, particularly by driving environmental change.

There are strong synergies between improving human well-being and reducing vulnerability from environment, development and human rights perspectives. The call for action to protect the environment needs to be strongly focused on human well-being. It also underlines the importance of implementing existing obligations made by governments at the national and international levels.

Introduction

There are strong causal relationships among the state of the environment, human well-being and vulnerability. Understanding how environmental and non-environmental changes affect human wellbeing and vulnerability is the critical foundation for addressing challenges to and the opportunities for improving human well-being while also protecting the environment.

Box 7.1 The concept of vulnerability[31]

Vulnerability is an intrinsic feature of people at risk. It is multidimensional, multidisciplinary, multisectoral and dynamic. It is defined here as a function of exposure, sensitivity to impacts and the ability or lack of ability to cope or adapt. The exposure can be to hazards such as drought, conflict or extreme price fluctuations, and also to underlying socio-economic, institutional and environmental conditions. The impacts not only depend on the exposure, but also on the sensitivity of the specific unit exposed (such as a watershed, island, household, village, city or country) and the ability to cope or adapt. Vulnerability analysis is widely used in the work of many international organizations and research programmes concerned with poverty reduction, sustainable development and humanitarian aid organizations. These include FAO, the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, UNDP, UNEP and the World Bank. This kind of work helps to identify the places, people and ecosystems that may suffer most from environmental and/or human-induced variability and change, and identifies the underlying causes. It is used to develop policy relevant recommendations for decision-makers on how to reduce vulnerability and adapt to change. The concept of vulnerability is an important extension of traditional risk analysis, which focused primarily on natural hazards. Vulnerability has become a central aspect of studies of food insecurity, poverty and livelihoods and climate change. While earlier research tended to regard vulnerable people and communities as victims in the face of environmental and socio-economic risks, more recent work increasingly emphasizes the capacities of different affected groups to anticipate and cope with risks, and the capacities of institutions to build resilience and adapt to change. The complementary concept of resilience has been used to characterize a system’s ability to bounce back to a reference state after a disturbance, and the capacity of a system to maintain certain structures and functions despite disturbance. If the resilience is exceeded, collapse can occur.

Vulnerabilities are often driven by actions taken at a great distance, highlighting worldwide interdependencies. Within the context of vulnerability, the chapter illustrates how current policies on mitigation, coping and adaptive capacity support the contribution of environmental policies to internationally agreed development goals, particularly the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). This analysis also evaluates whether environmental governance adequately links with other relevant policy domains, such as poverty alleviation, health, science, and technology and trade. It underlines the need for mainstreaming environment into these domains to reduce vulnerability. This provides strategic directions for policy making to reduce vulnerability and enhance human well-being (see Chapter 10).

As the World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Commission) stated in Our Common Future, "A more careful and sensitive consideration of their (vulnerable groups) interests is a touchstone of sustainable development policy"^[32]. The vulnerability approach applied here shows the potential for strong negative consequences for well-being of, for example, reduced access to resources, such as food and drinking water, and the existence of thresholds beyond which health and survival are severely threatened. Patterns of vulnerability to environmental and socio-economic changes, here referred to as "archetypes," describe the impacts of these changes on human well-being.

Global Context of Vulnerability

A number of factors shape the vulnerability of people and the environment, including poverty, health, globalization, trade and aid, conflict, changing levels of governance, and science and technology.

Poverty

Poverty (see Chapter 1) reduces the ability of individuals to respond and adapt to environmental change. Although the multidimensional nature of poverty is widely recognized, income and consumption remain the most common measures. Most regions have made progress in meeting the first Millennium Development Goal (MDG 1) on reducing extreme poverty and hunger (see Figure 7.1), although many will not achieve the 2015 targets. In developing countries, extreme poverty (those living on less than US$1/day) fell from 28 per cent in 1990 to 19 per cent in 2002. Actual numbers decreased from 1.2 billion to just over 1 billion in 2002^[33]. The percentage of people in the world with insufficient food to meet their daily needs has declined, but actual numbers increased between 1995 and 2003^[34], when about 824 million people suffered chronic hunger. Sustained growth in China and India has contributed to sharp decreases in extreme poverty in Asia^[35]. Where inequity is high, including in some of the transition countries of Europe and Central Asia, economic growth does not necessarily translate into less poverty^[36]. In many countries, relative poverty is increasing despite general affluence. In the United States, for example, the number of people living below the national poverty line has risen since 2000, reaching almost 36 million in 2003^[37]. Structural economic adjustment, ill health, and poor governance affected progress in some regions, including sub-Saharan Africa^[38].

Health

Health is central to the achievement of the MDGs because it is the basis for job productivity, the capacity to learn, and the capability to grow intellectually, physically and emotionally^[39]. Health and education are the cornerstones of human capital^[40]. Ill health reduces the capacity to adapt to environmental and other changes. Under-five mortality rates have improved considerably, though there are still large regional differences (see Figure 7.2), and more than 10 million children under five still die every year – 98 per cent of them in developing countries. Some 3 million die due to unhealthy environments^[41].

WHO identified the major health risks for developing and developed countries, as shown in Table 7.1. They include traditional risks associated with underdevelopment (such as underweight, unsafe water and lack of sanitation), and those associated with consumptive lifestyles (such as obesity and physical inactivity).

Health gains are unequal across regions and within population groups. In the least favourable health situations, people suffer persistent communicable diseases associated with deficient living conditions, including poverty and progressive environmental degradation. AIDS has become a leading cause of premature deaths in sub-Saharan Africa, and the fourth largest killer worldwide^[42]. By the end of 2004, an estimated 39 million people were living with HIV/AIDS. The epidemic has reversed decades of development progress in the worst-affected countries, contributing to strong increases in vulnerability.

Globalization, Trade and Aid

The rapid growth of trade and financial flows is creating more global interdependence. The trade and development agendas have so far not been reconciled, and the gulf between the rich and the poor is still growing. Poor countries are moving to market solutions and pragmatic arrangements for increasing trade and foreign direct investment (FDI) to create more jobs and alleviate poverty^[43]. The outcomes are highly uneven (see Figure 7.3). The failure of the Doha round of the WTO talks continues to hurt the poorest of the poor who often depend on agricultural markets.

With the growing interest in markets, the aid agenda has also changed. Most of the recent increases in aid have been used to cancel debt, and meet humanitarian and reconstruction needs following emergencies^[44]. The share of total official development assistance (ODA) going to basic human needs has doubled since the mid-1990s, but the share going to agriculture and physical infrastructure has diminished. These two sectors need support if countries are to feed their own people, build their economies^[45], and increase their adaptive capacity. Africa remains the most aid dependent region by far, while West Asia’s dependence on aid has varied considerably over the past 20 years (see Figure 7.3). Together the figures suggest a bleak reality. FDI, which is productive capital, is a great deal lower than aid in many regions. In 2005, the 191 million migrants worldwide (up from 176 million in 2000) contributed in excess of US$233 billion to productive capital of which US$167 billion went to developing countries^[46].

Conflict

The end of the Cold War in the late 1980s has reduced the threat of nuclear war from great power rivalry, although fears of continued nuclear proliferation among states and non-state actors remain^[47]. Civil conflicts continue to be the biggest threat, although incidences have decreased dramatically in recent years (see Figure 7.4). International involvement in civil wars, primarily in peacemaking and peacekeeping capacities, is at an all-time high due to humanitarian pressures. The increase in the number of formal democracies is unprecedented; this trend may contribute to the decreasing incidence of civil wars, although the transition to democracy is often a highly unstable period^[48]. All regions of the world have seen a decrease in armed violence except for sub-Saharan Africa and West Asia^[49].

Box 7.2 A less violent world[50]

Fig 7.4 Number of armed conflicts by type.[5] Since World War II, the number of interstate armed conflicts (conflicts between states) has remained relatively low, and no such conflict has been recorded since 2003. Extra-systemic armed conflicts (colonial conflicts and other conflicts between an independent state and non-state groups outside its own territory) had disappeared by the mid-1970s. Intrastate armed conflicts (civil conflicts or conflicts between a government and an organized internal rebel group) rose steadily until 1992, after which they declined steeply. Internationalized intrastate conflicts (intrastate conflicts with armed intervention from other governments) have been frequent since the early 1960s. The lower threshold for conflicts recorded here is 25 battle-related deaths in a given year. The graph does not include state violence against unorganized people (‘one-sided violence’ or genocide and politicide) or violence between groups where the government is not a party to the fighting (‘nonstate violence’ or communal violence). It is a stacked graph, meaning that the number of conflicts in each category in a given year is indicated by the height in that year of the area of a particular colour.

Despite the positive global trends in armed violence, persistent conflicts have very negative impacts on well-being. More than 8 million people have died directly or indirectly as a result of war in Africa since 1960^[51]. Conflicts, violence and fear of persecution regularly displace large civilian populations, forcing millions of people into marginal ecological and economic areas within countries and across international boundaries. The UNHCR estimates that there were 11.5 million refugees, asylum seekers and stateless persons, and 6.6 million internally displaced persons globally in 2005^[52]. The forced movement of people into marginal areas undercuts, sometimes for decades, sustainable livelihoods, economic development, and societal and state capacities. The resulting poverty, often tied to shortages or degradation of natural resources, contributes directly to lower levels of well-being and higher levels of vulnerability.

Changing Levels of Governance

Over the past 20 years, governance has become increasingly multi-level, with more interaction and interdependence between different levels. The effectiveness of national policies (see Figure 7.5) remains mixed, but the capacity and political will of governments to take action has increased. In combination, these trends increase opportunities to reduce vulnerability. The early years after the end of the Cold War witnessed a renewed optimism in multilateralism and global governance. In parallel, regional cooperation made significant progress around the world, even if its forms and intensity differ.

There has also been a trend towards political and fiscal decentralization from national to sub-national levels, including in countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)^[53] and in Africa and Latin America^[54]. This may not necessarily mean that local authorities have been empowered, as decentralization without devolution of power can be a way to strengthen the presence of the central authority^[55]. Local governments, community-based groups and other non-governmental actors now engage more widely in international cooperation, contributing to a better grounding of global policy in experiences of local vulnerability. Global corporations’ influence has extended beyond the economic arena^[56], and many choose to develop voluntary environmental codes, and to increase self regulation^[57].

Science and technology

Developments in science and technology have helped reduce human vulnerability to environmental and non-environmental change, although the pace and levels at which different regions achieve progress vary widely^[58]. Expenditures on research and development in OECD countries between 1997 and 2002 were 2.5 per cent of GDP compared to 0.9 per cent of GDP in developing countries^[59]. While the number of researchers was 3,046 per million people in OECD countries between 1990 and 2003, it was 400 per million in developing countries^[60]. The potential for science and technology to reduce vulnerability remains very unevenly distributed worldwide (see Figure 7.6). This illustrates the need to improve technology transfers between regions.

For example, new farming technologies and practices since 1960 increased food production, and decreased food prices, addressing undernutrition and chronic famine in many regions, but access to these technologies remains unevenly distributed. In the 1980s, oral rehydration therapies and vaccines suitable for use in developing countries were critical in reducing under-five mortality. New information and communication technologies give unprecedented opportunities for early warning systems, and for generating local entrepreneurship. However, science and technology have undoubtedly also added to the risks faced by people and the environment, particularly by driving environmental change.

Human Well-Being, Environment And Vulnerability

Development challenges

Improving human well-being – the extent to which individuals have the ability to live the kind of lives they value, and the opportunities they have to achieve their potential – is at the heart of development. This is not just a moral imperative, but also a critical aspect of fundamental human rights^[61], and is essential for reducing vulnerability and achieving sustainable use of the environment.

Since the 1987 Brundtland Commission report emphasized the environment-development link, different policy statements and multilateral environmental agreements, including the 1992 Rio Declaration (Principle 1) and the conventions on biological diversity and climate change, have highlighted the opportunities the environment holds for development (see Chapter 1). Increased convergence between these international approaches and those at national level is evident from the highest-level recognition of environmental rights as human rights^[62]. Importantly, environmental rights approaches have moved from a focus on environmental quality to incorporating basic needs, development, and intergenerational and governance concerns^[63]. However, progress in meeting development objectives has been uneven.

Improvements in well-being – for some

Despite significant improvements in well-being over the last 20 years, with gains in income, nutrition, health, governance and peace, there are many ongoing challenges^[64] (see global context section and Chapters 1–6). Millions of people across all regions are poor, and lacking essential services that are now common among the wealthy. Many countries will not meet the MDGs’ 2015 targets^[65]. But the environment provides opportunities to meet these goals, and to enhance well-being through the various goods-and-services it provides.

The link between environment and well-being is complex, non-linear and influenced by multiple factors, including poverty, trade, technology, gender and other social relations, governance, and the different aspects of vulnerability. Global interconnectedness – through a shared natural environment and globalization – means that achieving human well-being in one place may be affected by practices elsewhere.

How people actually live and the opportunities they have are closely connected to the environment^[66] (see Chapters 1–6). As the Brundtland Commission warned, environmental degradation contributes to "the downward spiral of poverty" and amounts to "a waste of opportunities and of resources"^[67]. Good health, for example, is directly dependent on good environmental quality^[68] (see Chapters 1–6). Many national constitutions now recognize a healthy environment as a fundamental human right. Despite some improvements, pollution continues to be a problem, sometimes spurred on by factors outside the control of its victims (see global commons and contaminated sites archetypes). Associated risks and costs are unevenly distributed across society (see Figure 7.7). Although the incidence of ill health has been reduced globally, the costs remain monumental.

Notwithstanding improvements in access to water and sanitation (see Figure 4.3), the poorest people suffer the greatest water deficit as a result of location, poor infrastructure and lack of financial resources (see Figure 7.8). Consequently, they experience ill health and indignity^[69]. In many developing countries, poor people in cities pay more for water than wealthier inhabitants.

Poor access to material assets at the household level (income, food, water, shelter, clothing, energy, natural and financial resources) and at the societal level (physical and service infrastructure) is part of a cycle of impoverishment, vulnerability and environmental change. It is part of a sequence of becoming poor and staying poor^[70]. In developed countries too, relative poverty, age and gender are critical factors in the distribution of benefits. The energy archetype illustrates the vulnerabilities that arise through lack of access to energy, as well as those related to dependency on energy imports. Investing in physical and service infrastructural development can improve well-being by increasing marketing opportunities, security, and access to energy, clean water and technologies for efficient and sustainable natural resources use.

In countries with a low human development index, people also live shorter lives (see Figure 7.9), because they have reduced health, due to hunger, unsafe water, sanitation and hygiene (lack of water), and suffer from other environmental problems, such as indoor and outdoor air pollution (see Figure 2.12 in Chapter 2), lead exposure, and climate change. Gains in life expectancy, child mortality and per capita health expenditures have been systematically greater in those countries with more equitable income distribution and access to medical treatment^[71]. Costa Rica, for example, has a higher average life expectancy than the United States. In many wealthier societies, opulence and consumerism, as well as relative poverty, contribute to ill health.

Investing in human and social capital reduces vulnerability

Environmental assets can provide important opportunities for improving well-being but, as shown in the archetypes, too often the benefits from these resources do not reach the most vulnerable. The distribution of environmental benefits is affected by access to networks (for example NGOs, governments and the private sector) and relations of trust, reciprocity and exchange^[72]. Development processes that arbitrarily extinguish local rights (see technological approaches archetype) and degrade the environment, as well as global trade regimes are also important factors influencing distribution. Several policy interventions respond to these challenges, but slow progress in achieving the MDGs in many countries suggests that not enough has been done. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), for example, emphasizes the importance of more equitable sharing of conservation benefits. Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration, and the CBD all prioritize public participation as essential for sustainable development. Increasing income from benefit sharing may strengthen efforts to meet MDG 1, and as household resources increase, the education and health-related MDGs may be more achievable. Countries with low access to improved drinking water have lower equity in access to education. Worldwide, girls and women spend about 40 billion hours collecting water – equivalent to a year’s labour for the entire workforce in France^[73]. In many developing countries, women and girls spend more than 2 hours a day collecting water^[74]. There are strong positive linkages between progress on the different MDGs, with, for example, improved access to water (MDG 7), resulting in girls spending less time collecting water, and increasing their opportunities to attend school (MDG 3)^[75]. For many countries, effectively implementing an interlinkages approach is challenging (see Chapter 8).

Meeting basic needs, such as education and health, provides the basis for valued choices, and enhances the day-to-day capacity of individuals, including that for environmental management^[76]. Education and access to technology are particularly important in poor communities, where they provide a potential route to a better situation and reduced vulnerability^[77].

Basic capabilities and rights to be treated with dignity, to have access to information, to be consulted and to be able to give prior informed consent where one’s livelihood or assets are affected, are increasingly recognized as social and economic rights^[78]. The 1986 UN Declaration on the Right to Development represents a global consensus, but for many, these rights are inaccessible as a result of weak national and regional governance systems, undercutting capacity and opportunities. Women remain particularly disadvantaged. Notwithstanding improvements in maternal health (MDG 5) resulting, for example, from improved access to technologies and energy in rural hospitals, and access to education (MDG 3) in all regions since 1990, women continue to be among the most disadvantaged. They are under-represented in the economy and decision making^[79].

Women are under-represented in important parts of society, due to a combination of factors. Sociocultural attitudes, education, employment policies, and a lack of options for balancing work and family responsibilities and for family planning affect opportunities for employment and participation in community affairs^[80].

Personal security – being protected from or not exposed to danger, and the ability to live a life one values^[81] – may be threatened by declining social cohesion, poor living standards, inequity, unfair distribution of benefits and environmental change^[82]. In some circumstances, environmental change creates a security challenge for entire cultures, communities, countries or regions^[83]. Where (cultural) identities are closely associated with natural resources, as in the Arctic and many Small Island Developing States (SIDS), social conflict and breakdown may be directly linked to habitat destruction or decreasing availability of environmental services. Other contributing factors include low levels of rural growth, high income inequity, ill health (especially HIV prevalence), climatic factors, such as drought, and environmental degradation (see Chapters 3 and 6).

Conflict also affects food security because of its long-lasting disruption of the productive base, and its impact on overall human well-being^[84]. In many cases, countries involved in conflict, and those with high levels of inequity, experience higher than expected levels of food emergencies^[85] (see Figure 7.10).

Investing in good social relations, building social capital through better governance, improving cooperation, and empowering women not only supports conservation efforts, but builds opportunities for peace, development and improving well-being. Developed countries’ experiences suggest a number of factors that help hedge the impact of disasters: a well-financed government, an insurance industry, transport and communication infrastructure, democratic participation and personal affluence^[86]. Improving capacity and access to technology, as envisaged under the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI) and the Bali Strategic Plan for Technology Support and Capacity Building (BSP), can improve coping capacity. However, progress towards developing the global partnership to support this access remains slow (see Figure 7.27). More far-sighted and equitable approaches to the movement of resources, goods and people are critical to address the new levels of stress the most vulnerable communities will face as a result of environmental change (see the archetypes on drylands, SIDS and global commons).

Box 7.3 Environmental justice

Over the last three decades, a substantial environmental justice movement has emerged, although not always under that name. It was propelled by community struggles against unequal treatment and discrimination in the distribution of adverse environmental effects. The demand for environmental justice is closely linked to environmental rights: the right of every individual to an environment adequate for his/her well-being. A just system requires policies that protect people from harm, counter the tendency to maximize profits at the environment’s expense, and distribute opportunities, risks and costs in a fairer way. It requires accessible institutions (courts), and fair processes. Governments have responded to this need by broadening laws and policies to include the polluter-pays-principle, environmental impact assessments, principles of good neighbourliness, environmental taxes, redistributive mechanisms, participatory and inclusive processes, access to information and right to know provisions, and compensation (see Chapter 10).

Aspects of vulnerability

Although vulnerability is context and site specific, certain common elements can be observed across various regions, scales and contexts. Overarching vulnerability issues, such as equity, the export and import of vulnerability from one place or generation to another, and the causal relationships with conflict, hazards and the environment, deserve special attention, since they represent strategic entry points for effective vulnerability reduction and policy making.

Inequalities, equity and vulnerable groups

Vulnerability varies across categories, including among men and women, poor and rich, and rural and urban, as can be observed in all archetypes. Refugees, migrants, displaced groups, the poor, the very young and old, women and children are often the groups most vulnerable to multiple stresses. Factors such as ethnicity, caste, gender, financial status or geographical location underlie processes of marginalization and disempowerment, which all lower the capacity to respond to changes. For example, the access of women and children to health care is often inequitably distributed, resulting in unfair and unjust outcomes that entrench disadvantage. Gender inequalities, reflected, for example, in male and female differences in wages, nutrition and participation in social choice, are illustrated in the contaminated sites archetype. Addressing MDG 3, to promote gender equality, empower women and eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education, is essential for increasing women’s opportunities, reducing their vulnerability, and improving their ability to create sustainable and sufficient livelihoods.

One response by communities and governments to the unequal distribution of vulnerability and the impacts of multiple stressors on human well-being has been to focus on issues of environmental justice.

Export and import of vulnerability

Vulnerability is created or increased remotely, in many cases, through cause-and-effect relationships that persist over long distances in space or time. Many vulnerability archetypes demonstrate the phenomenon of "vulnerability export." Decreasing the vulnerability of some, for example through provision of shelter, increases the vulnerability of others far away, for example through land degradation and contamination around mining areas for building materials^[87]. At the same time, many people in industrialized nations, and the new consumers in the developing countries do not feel most of the impacts on the environment that result from their behaviour. These negative effects on the environment and well-being (especially health, security and material assets) are felt most strongly by those, especially the poor, living where the resources are extracted or the waste is dumped. This is illustrated in Figure 7.11, which shows the declining mineral extraction in the European Union, and the increasing import of minerals. The emissions and land degradation associated with extraction and processing of the materials are increasing in developing countries, while the high-value end products are consumed in industrialized countries. Similarly, food imports often mean that environmental degradation and social impacts occur in the producing land, rather than where the goods are consumed^[88].

Vulnerability is imported where, for example, there is agreement to import waste and hazardous materials to locations where it cannot be safely disposed of or managed (see Chapters 3 and 6). The vulnerability of local populations is created or reinforced by poor governance and a lack of capacity to deal with the hazardous materials. Inadequate storage and poor stock management often result from insufficient storage capacity for pesticides, inappropriate storage conditions, insufficient training of responsible staff in stock management, poor distribution systems, inappropriate handling during transport, and unavailability of analytical facilities^[89].

While international trade can lead to increases in income, and has helped millions of people out of poverty, it is also sustaining unequal patterns of consumption, and in outsourcing the extraction of natural resources, much of the production and manufacturing, and also the generation and disposal of their hazardous wastes^[90].

Recently, however, there have been some attempts to include the external impacts of trade policies into decision making processes, for example, through sustainability impact assessments in the European Union.

Vulnerability, environment and conflict

Many of the patterns of vulnerability represent a potential for or have already led to conflict. The relationship between environmental problems and international and civil conflict has been the subject of a great deal of academic research in the post-Cold War period^[91]. Both scarcity and abundance of environmental resources can exacerbate existing tensions, and contribute to conflict between groups, especially in societies that lack the capacity to effectively and equitably manage competition for control over resources^[92]. These dynamics tend to be most common in the developing world. However, the export of vulnerability (see above) from developed to developing countries, can mean that even conflicts that appear localized have critical external connections.

A combination of environmental change, resource capture and population growth decreases the per capita availability of natural resources, and can threaten well-being for large segments of societies, particularly the poorest who depend on these natural resources for survival. The resulting social effects – migration, intensified unsustainable behaviour and social sub-grouping – strain the state’s ability to meet its citizens’ demands, and can contribute to violent outcomes^[93]. In the dryland archetype, conflict potential is related to unequal access to scarce water, forest and land resources, exacerbated by desertification and climate variability. Migration, a traditional coping strategy, sometimes heightens conflict when migrants create new competition for resources, or upset tenuous cultural, economic or political balances in the receiving area^[94]. In other cases, the scarcities heighten tensions between nomadic and pastoralist communities. Where this migration occurs across international boundaries, it can contribute to interstate tension and new civil strife. Even when a state’s natural resource base is high, conflict can erupt over control of these valuable resources, if the potential cost of waging war is lower than the potential gains associated with securing access to the resources for export.

In the archetype on technological approaches to water problems, conflicts and tensions surrounding the distribution, access and quality of water resources arise. Megaprojects, such as dam construction, often carry considerable costs, including forced displacement for riparian dwellers, who may receive few of the resulting benefits^[95]. These costs may include tensions between the state and riparian users, as well as between upstream and downstream riparian groups. The overexploitation of global commons, such as fisheries, the focus of another archetype, brings smaller-scale fisher groups and their governments into conflict with transnational or foreign-flagged ships that venture into exclusive economic zones from the depleted commons. Future energy generation and climate change directly link to security concerns for both oil-importing and oil exporting countries. In rapidly urbanizing coastal zones and SIDS, conflicts emerge over competition for the environment for tourism-related activities, or for its environmental services associated with marine ecosystems and local livelihoods. Greater attention to proper management of ecosystems and valuable resources promises lower vulnerability to violence and greater overall well-being.

Vulnerability, well-being and natural hazards

Over the past 20 years, natural disasters have claimed more than 1.5 million lives, and affected more than 200 million people annually^[96]. One of the main drivers of increased vulnerability to hazards is global environmental change. Natural hazards, such as earthquakes, floods, droughts, storms, tropical cyclones and hurricanes, wildfires, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions and landslides threaten everyone. Proportionally, however, they hurt the poor most of all. Global datasets on extreme events indicate that the number of natural hazards is increasing^[97]. Two-thirds of all disasters are hydrometeorological events, such as floods, windstorms and extreme temperatures. Between 1992 and 2001, floods were the most frequent natural disaster, killing nearly 100,000 and affecting more than 1.2 billion people worldwide^[98]. More than 90 per cent of the people exposed to disasters live in the developing world^[99], and more than half of disaster deaths occur in countries with a low human development index^[100]. Figure 7.12 shows the global distribution of highest-risk hot spots.

The consequences of disasters can have a lasting impact, threaten achievements in development and undermine resilience. Natural hazards affect food security, water supply, health, income and shelter^[101]. These impacts are illustrated in several of the archetypes. Insecurity is driven by a multiplicity of environmental, political, social and economic factors, and is also closely related to issues of material access and social relations. Inefficient and poor governance, as well as inadequate or inefficient early warning and response systems, exacerbate vulnerability and the risks associated with environmental change and natural disasters. In some cases, short-term disaster relief even contributes to increasing long-term vulnerability.

Exposure to hazards has increased as a result of climate change and, for example, destruction of mangroves that protect coasts from tidal surges, but also through the continuing concentration of population in highly exposed areas. Adaptive capacity is also being eroded through, for example, reduced state social protection schemes, undermining of informal safety nets, poorly built or maintained infrastructure, chronic illness and conflict^[102].

Patterns Of Vulnerability

Recurring patterns of vulnerability can be found in numerous places around the world, including industrialized and developing regions, and urban and rural areas. With the recognition of the relevance of multiple pressures, and the close interlinkages among local, regional and global scales, vulnerability analyses become increasingly complex. For detailed local vulnerability case studies, there is the question of their relevance for other parts of the world, but it is possible to recognize some similarities between cases and to draw policy-relevant lessons from them.

A limited number of typical patterns or so-called "archetypes of vulnerability" are distinguished in this chapter (see Table 7.2 for an overview). An archetype of vulnerability is defined as a specific, representative pattern of the interactions between environmental change and human well-being. They do not describe one specific situation, but rather focus on the most important common properties of a multitude of cases that are "archetypical." The approach is inspired by the syndrome approach, which looks at non-sustainable patterns of interaction between people and the environment, and unveils the dynamics behind them^[103]. The archetype approach is broader, as it includes opportunities offered by the environment to reduce vulnerability and improve human well-being^[104] (see Table 7.4).

The archetypes presented here are simplifications of real cases, to show the basic processes whereby vulnerability is produced within a context of multiple pressures. This may allow policy-makers to recognize their particular situations in a broader context, providing regional perspectives and important connections between regions and the global context, and insights into possible solutions. The patterns of vulnerability are not mutually exclusive. In some ecosystems, countries, sub-regions, regions and globally, a mosaic of these and other patterns of vulnerability may exist. This makes policy response a complex challenge.

The archetypes of vulnerability have been identified through the GEO-4 assessment, ensuring regional relevance and balance. The seven archetypes presented here are not meant to provide an exhaustive overview of all possible patterns of vulnerability. However, they provide a good basis for identifying challenges and exploring opportunities for reducing vulnerability while protecting the environment.

Exposing people and the environment to contaminants

The archetype concerns sites at which harmful and toxic substances occur at concentrations:

• above background levels and pose or are likely to pose an immediate or long-term hazard to human health or the environment; or
  
• exceed levels specified in policies and/or regulations^[105]. As shown in Chapters 3 and 6, people and ecosystems are exposed to widespread contamination due to persistent organic pollutants and heavy metals, urban and industrial sites, military activity, agro-chemical stockpiles, leaking oil pipelines and waste dumps.

Global relevance

Much work is still needed to quantify the extent of contamination due to toxic and hazardous substances, and to make governments and civil society aware of the problems. However, a considerable amount of contamination has been documented. In addition to contamination generated in particular locations, transport and deposition of waste is a major threat. More than 300 million tonnes of waste, including hazardous and other wastes, were generated worldwide in 2000, of which less than 2 per cent was exported. About 90 per cent of the exported waste was classified as hazardous, with about 30 per cent believed to be persistent organic pollutants (POPs)^[106]. The principal waste export (see Figure 7.13) by volume was lead and lead compounds, bound for recycling^[107].

Contaminated sites are also legacies of past industrial and economic development, and a heritage of present production and consumption patterns that affect both current and future generations. Abandoned industrial sites can present a serious risk to people and the environment. Governments face problems of holding polluters accountable for site clean-ups. Therefore, clean-up costs are imposed on state budgets, or on people from surrounding areas exposed to health risks and environmental deterioration.

Sometimes, abandoned industrial sites are in relatively isolated areas around former factories or mines, and, sometimes, whole regions are affected by the problem. Short-term profit interests, lack of regulations or corruption, and weak law enforcement are among the factors that have led and may still lead to the creation of present and future environmental hazards from contaminated sites^[108].

Vulnerability and human well-being

In developing countries, chemical mixtures in the vicinity of small-scale enterprises, such as smelters, mines, agricultural areas and toxic waste disposal sites, are often a human health hazard^[109]. For example, about 60 per cent of the smelters of the world are located in developing countries, while developed countries import the metals^[110]. Health effects, such as cancer and neuropsychological disorders, have also been reported around smelters^[111]. For example, in Torreon, Mexico, 77 per cent of the children living closest to a lead smelter had lead levels twice as high as the reference level^[112].

Box 7.4 Contamination in Central Asia’s Ferghana-Osh-Khudjand area[113]

The Ferghana-Osh-Khudjand area in Central Asia (also referred to as the Ferghana Valley) is shared by Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan (see Figure 7.14). The region is a typical example of former centrally planned economies, where development plans paid little attention to local conditions (especially environmental), and social progress was planned to be achieved through large-scale industrial projects. In the Ferghana Valley, the construction of enormous irrigation schemes made the region a major cotton producer. It also became a heavy industrial area, based on mining and oil, gas and chemical production. Discoveries of uranium ore led to extensive mining, and it became an important source of uranium for the former Soviet Union’s civilian and military nuclear projects. Fig 7.14 Radioactive, chemical and biological hazards in central Asia.[15] Several factors – population density in disaster-prone areas, high overall population growth, poverty, land and water use, failure to comply with building codes, and global climate change – make the region particularly vulnerable to natural as well as human-made hazards. Cumulative risks from different industrial facilities, deteriorating infrastructure and contaminated sites threaten not only the inhabitants living directly in the polluted zones, but also have transboundary impacts in the three countries that share the valley. Even though past spills and accidents have created tensions among the countries, officials do not consistently regard environmental pollution by existing facilities as a security problem. In the immediate wake of the breakup of the Soviet Union, pollution and, particularly, shared water resources in this newly internationalized river basin, created tensions among the new states. Officials point to the potential this area has to serve as an example of international cooperation in addressing legacies of the past. However, without extensive international aid, this task is impossible for the local governments. Also, in the absence of alternative development plans and access to environmentally-friendly technologies and management practices, some of the abandoned facilities may be reopened.

Mercury contamination associated with small-scale gold mining and processing presents a major hazard for environment and human health in at least 25 countries in Africa, Asia and the Pacific, and Latin America and the Caribbean^[114]. Harmful health effects have been reported for individuals exposed to mercury in gold mining areas^[115].

Pesticides can contribute to water pollution, and seriously threaten the health of both rural and urban residents, especially the poorest people. Organochlorine compounds, such as DDT, dieldrin and HCH, which have been withdrawn or banned for human health and/or environmental reasons^[116], are still found in dumps, particularly in developing countries. Long-term exposure to pesticides can increase the risk of developmental and reproductive disorders, disruption of the immune and endocrine systems, and can impair the function of the nervous system, and is associated with the development of certain cancers. Children are at higher risk from exposure than are adults^[117].

The international traffic in hazardous wastes exposes local populations to health risks. For example, in 1998, about 2,700 tonnes of industrial waste, containing high levels of toxic compounds such as mercury and other heavy metals, were shipped illegally to Sihanoukville, Cambodia. An estimated 2,000 residents were exposed to the waste and at least six deaths and hundreds of injuries were associated with the incident^[118].

An emerging issue is the great volume of electronic waste exported to developing countries, where it is recycled by workers who often lack protection. They are exposed to mercury, lead, cadmium and other toxic chemicals (see Chapter 6). In one Chinese city where electronic waste is recycled, sediment samples had heavy metal concentrations far above the guidelines of the US Environmental Protection Agency^[119]. Similarly, workers are exposed to contaminants that pose serious risks to their health in locations where ships are broken up for recycling^[120].

Abandoned factories and industrial sites are most likely to be found in poor communities, which can be home to marginalized newcomers. Contamination of air, water and land decreases land productivity, making agricultural products unsuitable for markets. Children are particularly at risk from contaminated sites (as places of play and work), and women are especially at risk for physiological reasons. A survey conducted in the United Kingdom^[121] about the social status of people living close to integrated pollution control sites (IPC), confirmed that in England there is strong evidence of a socially unequal distribution of IPC sites and their associated potential impacts. Out of about 3.6 million people living in one-kilometre radius of an IPC site, there were six times more people from the most deprived groups than from the least deprived groups.

Responses

Over the years, a series of measures have been adopted to deal with the risks that hazardous materials and chemicals pose for both people and the environment. Principle 14 of the Rio Declaration, calls on countries to "effectively cooperate to discourage or prevent the relocation and transfer to other States of any activities and substances that cause severe environmental degradation or are found to be harmful to human health." The UN Commission on Human Rights has appointed a special rapporteur on adverse effects of the illicit movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes on the enjoyment of human rights.

Responses to the problem of contaminants now include 17 multilateral agreements (see Chapter 3), together with numerous intergovernmental organizations and coordination mechanisms. They include the 1989 Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Waste and Their Disposal, the 1998 Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals, the 2001 Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, as well as the 2006 Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management.

Other responses to contamination have created opportunities for building trust in post-conflict societies. For example, joint scientific assessment of threats from radioactive contamination in the Russian northwest provided an opportunity for Russian, Norwegian, and American exchange as the Cold War ended and the superpowers began to develop links for confidence building among scientists and military personnel. The low politicization of environmental issues actually facilitated face-to-face dialogue among military foes in a highly militarized and sensitive region.

The success of the existing instruments for dealing with contamination depends strongly on institutional capacity and political will (see Chapter 3). Important areas for future action include:

• strengthening the ability of international organizations to monitor and enforce multilateral agreements, such as the Basel and Rotterdam conventions;
  
• promoting global environmental and social standards to avoid dumping;
  
• investing in technology and technology transfer for improved risk assessment, monitoring, information and communication, and clean-up;
  
• increasing corporate social and environmental responsibility;
  
• investing in assets, especially skills and knowledge, to avoid exposure or to mitigate health effects from exposure to hazardous material;
  
• improving state capacity to monitor and enforce laws, as this may reduce risk, and improve local coping capacity;
• providing opportunities for participation, and addressing the social situation of people affected by contaminated sites; better incorporation of established international legal principles – including the precautionary approach, producer liability, polluter pays, prior informed consent and right to know – into national, regional and global frameworks;
  
• increasing support for research on causes and effects (especially cumulative effects) of industrial production and chemicals;
  
• and increasing support for life cycle analyses and environmental impact assessments

In situations of contaminated sites, formal institutions, better laws at national and international levels, and better enforcement of existing laws are crucial for reducing vulnerability. This requires strong and well-functioning states, with law-making, implementation and enforcement branches working towards the same goals^[122]. Measures that strengthen the capacity of states can also help strengthen coping capacity at local levels, if this is supported by higher levels of governance.

Increasing the participation of the most vulnerable groups in planning and governance, and giving both local and higher levels of governance opportunities to articulate their challenges is a major factor in strengthening their coping capacity. Giving the vulnerable a voice requires that they be actively empowered to raise their voices, for example by having access to relevant environmental information – as enshrined in Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration – and capacity building for taking part in the governance process. The 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) provided the basic institutional change for increasing participation in environment-related decision making. This has been reinforced, for example, in the Aarhus Convention^[123]. The Basel and Rotterdam conventions are important for giving countries a voice in the context of vulnerability to contamination.

Disturbing the fragile equilibrium in drylands

In this archetype, current production and consumption patterns (from global to local levels) disturb the fragile equilibrium of human-environment interactions that have developed in drylands, involving sensitivity to variable water supplies and resilience to aridity. The result is new levels of vulnerability. For thousands of years, drylands populations have been dependent on the proper functioning of these ecosystems for their livelihoods^[124]. These resilient ecosystems have considerable productive potential – supporting, for example, 50 per cent of the world’s livestock^[125] – but are increasingly at risk. Moreover, governance and trade patterns mean that much dryland wealth remains hidden or poorly used, constituting missed opportunities for improving well-being.

Global relevance

Drylands are widespread, occur in developed and developing countries, and support significant populations (see Chapter 3). Worldwide, 10–20 per cent of drylands are degraded, directly affecting well-being of drylands populations, and indirectly affecting people elsewhere through biophysical (see Chapter 3) and socio-economic impacts. Globally-driven processes, including climate change, have direct impacts on well-being in drylands^[126].

Vulnerability and human well-being

There are a number of factors that influence the vulnerability of dryland communities, including:

• biophysical features, especially water availability;
• access to natural and economic resources, levels of development, and conflict and social instability;
• interlinkages between dryland and non-dryland areas through migration, remittances and trade; and
• global governance regimes^[127].

Box 7.5 Analysing different types of vulnerability in drylands[128]

Fig 7.15 Spatial distribution of typical forms of dryland archetype.[16] Systematic analysis of the diverse socio-economic and natural conditions in drylands enhances understanding of the specific patterns of vulnerability. The global distribution of vulnerability is investigated here using a cluster analysis. The following indicators were used to characterize the main underlying processes of vulnerability: water stress, to show the relationship between water demand and availability; soil degradation; human well-being as indicated by infant mortality; availability of infrastructure, indicated by road density; and the climatic and soil potential for agriculture. The table legend to the map shows the qualitative values of the indicators that are typical for the eight clusters: + = high value for the specific indicator – = low value for the specific indicator 0 = intermediate value for the specific indicator Together these indicators cluster into eight constellations, or "clusters of socio-economic and natural conditions" in drylands, depicted by colours ranging from bright red for the most vulnerable, to neutral grey for the least vulnerable cluster (see Figure 7.15). Humid regions are shown in white. The analysis shows a need for the wise and efficient use of resources, based on best available knowledge and technological options: Clusters 1 to 6 are all vulnerable (with low to medium levels of well-being). Clusters 1 and 2 are most problematic, with high water stress, soil degradation and infant mortality, low agricultural potential, and intermediate infrastructure. Clusters 3 and 4 are large areas, which exhibit a better level of human wellbeing compared to clusters 1 and 2 under very similar levels of exploitation of the water and, in some places, even more severe overuse of soil resources. This shows that the worst expressions of vulnerability are not a necessary fate. Clusters 5 and 6 illustrate that improved water use on its own does not guarantee improved well-being. Clusters 7 and 8, in contrast, are the least vulnerable regions, with only intermediate infrastructure restrictions and infant mortality.

People in the drylands of industrialized countries – such as in Australia and the United States – typically have a diversity of livelihood options, and can adapt more to land degradation and water scarcity more easily than can rural people in drylands in developing countries who directly depend on environmental resources for their livelihoods. They are most vulnerable. Although high land productivity and a strong manufacturing sector, such as in North America, can decrease vulnerability, the distribution of access to natural and economic resources, and participation in decision making trigger the vulnerability pattern.

Desertification (see Chapter 3) is a challenge for development and improving well-being. Globally, some 60,000 square kilometres of productive land and about US$42 billion in income are lost annually, due to declining agricultural productivity^[129]. Since 1975, the incidence of drought has increased fourfold from 12 to 48 episodes^[130]. Where there is high agricultural dependency, droughts may undercut food security and economic performance, lessening the opportunity to meet MDG 1 (see Figure 7.16). In Pakistan, for example, drylands are increasingly threatened by declining soil fertility and flash floods – early warnings of a looming crisis^[131].

The seemingly low production potential of drylands has made them less favoured for the systematic investments (in water and land) needed to offset negative effects of land use and sustain their productive capacity (see Chapter 3). Freshwater availability in drylands is projected to be further reduced from an average of 1,300 cubic metres/person/year in 2000, which is already below the threshold of 2,000 m³ required for minimum human well-being and sustainable development^[132]. In arid and semi-arid areas, water shortages are predicted to be the most significant constraint for socio-economic development^[133](see Chapter 4). In some countries, the reduced supply of potable water will mean women and girls will be forced to travel longer distances to collect water.

The high number of transboundary aquifers under stress^[134] may, in some instances, add a regional dimension to the risk of tensions related to water scarcity. In some situations, adaptation strategies, such as irrigation of water-intensive crops, lead to clashes between rural and urban users, as well as between agriculturalists and pastoralists. In the US southwest for example, multistakeholder dispute resolution mechanisms, including judicial systems and significant technological and financial resources, keep most of these conflicts from turning violent. In areas with higher vulnerability, such as the Sahel, shortages of arable land and water, particularly in drought periods, have sometimes led to violent conflicts along a number of lines of division: rural-urban, pastoralist-agriculturalist and ethnic group-ethnic group^[135].

Movement of "dryland refugees" to new areas, including cities, has the potential to create local and regional ethnic, social and political conflict^[136]. Seasonal and cyclic migrations are important coping strategies for pastoral dryland peoples. Pastoral societies (found in all regions) are critically exposed to ecosystem change, which can increase their vulnerability, affect their capital stocks, hinder coping strategies, decrease the productive performance of livestock and generate tensions with other herder and host farmer communities^[137].

Responses

Given the extent of drylands, the roughly 2 billion people they support and the biological diversity they hold, the maintenance and restoration of their ecosystem functions is essential for achieving the CBD 2010 biodiversity targets and the MDGs. The UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) provides the overall framework for addressing land degradation (see Chapter 3). It is complemented by the CBD, UNFCCC, Agenda 21, WSSD and other multilateral agreements.

The UNCCD supports national action to combat desertification and improve opportunities from land management. This includes the development of national (NAP), sub-regional (SRAP) and regional (RAP) action programmes. By 2006, a significant number of countries had developed NAPS, with 34 in Africa, 24 in Asia, 21 in Latin America and the Caribbean, and eight in Europe. The CBD provides for management based on equitable benefit-sharing, whic