Livelihood trajectories and the shaping of current distributions in adaptive

A household’s current adaptive capacity is largely shaped by past livelihood actions, and access to the necessary natural resources and ecosystem services required to respond to SES change (Nyamwanza, 2012). Exploring the livelihood trajectories of households provided a way of assessing adaptive capacity through identification of the factors that have contributed to the current distribution of mangrove ecosystem services over time. Aquaculture was identified as a key aspect of mangrove change that significantly shaped three distinct livelihood trajectories (i.e. consolidator; accumulator; marginalised trajectories). Briefly revisiting the findings from chapter 4, we can identify the factors that have shaped the resilience and vulnerability of household livelihoods. First, the factors found to increase resilience of consolidator and accumulator livelihood trajectories were: access to aquaculture market opportunities (e.g. employment, knowledge, networks, finance); access to more secure tenure rights; high levels of labour and human capital;

166

access to support networks to buffer disturbance; and access to MSPG to buffer disturbance. Second, the factors found to increase vulnerability within the marginalised livelihood trajectory were: loss of access to MSPG reducing buffer to disturbance; low incomes and susceptibility to poverty (e.g. sickness, debt, asset selling); negative environmental impacts from aquaculture (e.g. alteration in ecological processes, exposure to climatic shocks and stress); discrimination; and elite capture reducing options to respond to disturbance.

Using a livelihood trajectory approach provided the opportunity to explore environmental justice through the dynamics of mangrove ecosystem service access and use in livelihoods, while increasing our understanding of current variations in the distribution of adaptive capacity in the MSES. Although Vietnam has experienced rapid economic growth at the national level, results indicate that local level livelihood trajectories differ significantly from one another. Observations from the three study sites suggest that livelihood trajectories are diverse and follow various paths. Sikor (2001) states that changes in national level structures combine with local level responses to shape multiple livelihood trajectories, and that development gains at the national level ignore crucial environmental justice issues at the local level. The conversion of mangroves to aquaculture has resulted in mutually reinforcing feedbacks involving increased aquaculture intensity, over exploitation of mangrove system commons, vegetation and biodiversity loss, and subsequent loss of ecosystem services. Past livelihood responses to these SES changes were shaped by interconnected social, political, economic and environmental factors that influenced household access to resources (e.g. finance, knowledge, social networks, physical capital, natural resources). These prior conditions shaped the current distribution of adaptive capacity through access to the resources (i.e. finance, secure tenure rights, skills, technology, networks, markets).

McDermott et al. (2013) use the term context equity to expand upon the notion of ‘access’ and take into account “…the uneven playing field created by the pre-existing political, economic and social conditions under which people engage in and benefit from resource distributions – and which limit or enable their capacity to do both” (p420). Differentiation in adaptive capacity was observed between households, with those households having greater resource access depriving marginalised households from the same access. This concurs with Pellow (2000), who argues that environmental injustice

167

divides communities, and exploring issues of power helps us to understand how and why people suffer from this injustice. Wealthy households were able to take advantage of their powerful and influential position and had access to resources (i.e. finance, secure tenure rights, skills, networks, markets) to appropriate mangrove ecosystem services, establish aquaculture farms and attain resilient livelihood trajectories through consolidation of their advantageous position. Conversely, marginalised households faced growing livelihood constraints due to lack of resource access and increased privatisation of tenure rights, reducing the mangrove commons they rely on for their livelihoods and consigning them to trajectories characterised by vulnerability. This corresponds with findings from Gunawardena and Rowan (2005) in their study of the Rekawa Lagoon system of Sri Lanka, where aquaculture developments was found to have disproportionately large impacts on traditional livelihoods and social welfare.

These results have implications for environmental justice due to the inequitable distribution of adaptive capacity, with wealthy households securing most of the benefits of SES change whilst marginalised households are disproportionately burdened with the negative environmental impacts (mostly from aquaculture). Walker (2009) suggests that when negative environmental impacts emanating from the actions of more advantaged households are disproportionately experienced by the already vulnerable, then claims of injustice become particularly powerful as they impinge on livelihood security. This is because the pre-existing conditions (e.g. political power and resource access) that shape environmental justice are essential for livelihood security in communities that are directly dependent on natural resources. Issues of distribution may also be intensified by the potential irreversibility of observed biodiversity loss, raising intergenerational concerns between present demands and future needs (Martin et al., 2013). Findings suggest that the lack of equality in prior social, political, economic and environmental conditions that enable environmental justice in the distribution of adaptive capacity exacerbates inequality and social differentiation by locking marginalised households into vulnerable trajectories. Although the livelihood trajectories of various groups differ significantly, they are interconnected, and thus, in order to assess the environmental justice aspects of adaptive capacity in SES, the livelihood trajectories of all groups must be acknowledged (Murray, 2002). Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged that livelihood trajectories are context specific, and the factors that constrain livelihood options and decisions in one situation will not necessarily be the same in a different context (Murray, 2002).

168

Integrating ecosystem service and livelihood trajectory approaches has provided the opportunity to explore the distribution component of environmental justice in adaptive capacity of MSES, and how resource access shaped past livelihood decisions to result in current distributions. In doing so attention has been drawn to those groups that have lost out from SES change, better defining who loses out from change processes, and providing explanation as to why. Focusing on winners and losers is an aspect of adaptive capacity in SES that is often missing from academic analyses. However, environmental injustice is not simply an issue of distribution. It also involves a lack of recognition of group identity and difference, which shall be discussed next.

7.3 Objective 2: Assess the impacts of key aspects of MSES change (i.e.