Vulnerability Context

Of all the components of the SL Framework, the Vulnerability context is a very critical aspect which can negate and undermine efforts made by human capital or human ingenuity in achieving desirable goals of self sufficiency in livelihood strategies. There are various aspects of vulnerability. In fact, (DFID, 1999) categorises the vulnerability context into shocks, trends and seasonality. It has been reported that people with more options or varied access to assets or more diversified strategies (Ellis, 1998, 2000) will be less vulnerable than the poor. Thus, having many options of undertaking livelihood strategies can reduce vulnerability.

42

Therefore, the lack of choice and inability to make a living, increases one’s vulnerability to risk and other social, economic and environmental variabilities and stresses (Twyman, 2000).

Weather-related shocks and natural unforeseen calamities in the form of earthquakes, flood, tsunami, droughts, extreme heat waves and climate change may render livelihoods vulnerable. Pest and disease epidemics such as insect attacks, diseases affecting animals, crops and human beings (Oerke, 2006) are another. Rural farmers are exposed to a lot of stress that is associated with climate change. Climate change has been cited as one of the global phenomena which needs international strategy for disaster reduction and management as well as a global review for living with risks by way of mitigating the negative impacts of these disasters. See (Fussel, et al., 2006; O’Brien, 2004; United Nations, 2004) for vulnerabilities caused by climatic changes and disaster reduction and management systems. Thus, in evaluating successful livelihood adaptation to climate variability and change in Southern Africa, Osbahr et al., (2010) argue that when people are confronted with vagaries of weather and other perils, they tend to choose between production, consumption and ecological systems in which they find themselves.

Often, the weather conditions do not favour the food crop production undertaken. According to Rakodi (2002) it is challenging for households to support themselves on a single business activity whether it is farming or not, hence increasing the individual’s risk since there is limited capital or profit to develop another venture. Ellis (1998) contends that subsistence farming without irrigation, even in the absence of HIV infection, has exposed most African households to shocks such as droughts, floods and stress-induced seasonality. Seasonal stresses such as the lean and hungry season compounds the fragile food security situation and puts the poor and those on the margins of survival into more chaos of finding food. Furthermore, environmental stresses due to soil erosion, land degradation (Singh, 2008), and bush fires are other critical factors that can impact both the ability to have good yields of crops grown and also the risk of them being destroyed by fire.

A great difficulty is encountered when long term illness/HIV infects someone within a household. The long gestation period of people with HIV/AIDS puts close relatives into a lot of stress. In pursuit of seeking medical or herbal cure and care, the family often depletes resources and borrows wherever they can. The emotional problems the HIV/AIDS subjects families to are very complex. The shock is felt when in the event of all the utmost care that is

43

taken to salvage life of the afflicted still ends up in death. The burden of care and responsibility posed by the HIV/AIDS pandemic is enormous. The extended family and other traditional social safety nets are also confronted with mammoth pressures, even breaking up at a time when state support systems seem to be dwindling within the two countries. In her discussion of the impacts of HIV/AIDS, Seeley (2002) emphasised how the HIV/AIDS pandemic creates financial problems and challenges of accessing credit and high interest rates, provision of care and coping with the death of loved ones, all create social problems to be solved. In addition to all the various aspects or elements of vulnerability context, is the long term illness/HIV/AIDS impact. According to Gillespie (2003:2) “HIV risk in a community is somewhat related to the susceptibility of the livelihood system upon which they depend and the HIV’s severity once it enters a community the way it impacts on assets and institutions depends on the vulnerability of the system”.

Masanjala (2007) asserts that HIV/AIDS creates a much more overwhelming vulnerability context than all other shocks such as droughts, erratic weather and other series of stresses put together. It is in this light that I situate the HIV/AIDS pandemic as a line of serious weakness, in that it occupies a very important part of the vulnerability context, a vicious circle that negatively impacts on the livelihood strategies of the Ghana-Togo border residents. Thus far, due to oscillating income flows caused by seasonality of the livelihoods of rural people, most household needs are not adequately met. The AIDS pandemic therefore compounds the problems faced by households within the rural environment by increasing the incidence of their vulnerability. Hence, households with members suffering from long term illness/HIV/AIDS often suffered what can be termed “multiple vulnerabilities” (Vig, et al., 2005).

Economic shocks emanating from severe changes in both the national and local economy can bring about inflation for example, and by so doing harshly affects prices, markets, employment possibilities and purchasing power of the people especially rural dwellers. This is often the type of macro-economic vulnerabilities (Basdevant et al., 2012) that governments face. Idiosyncratic shocks such as long term illness or death in family, job retrenchment, job loss and theft of personal property coupled with structural vulnerability which consists of lack of voice or power to make claims or decisions. This is because among the women and the landless are potential sources of creating both poverty, marginalisation of the vulnerable and factors that prevent others from taking decisions that affect their own well-being.

44

Finally, the vulnerability context is often outside rural people’s control. Most often, the institutions, seen as the unwritten laws guide and subscribe possibilities to be found in terms of inheritance of property/assets. They are at the same time instrumental in determining the type of livelihoods one can carry out due to the available assets at the disposal of the individuals/households. Thus, both formal and informal institutions such as customary laws and laws of inheritance help or constrain the mediation access to livelihoods; consequences of which could be dire particularly among HIV/AIDS affected individuals or households within which HIV assumes a lot of stress until the afflicted dies, a shock often many households barely come out of. The next section discusses diversification which serves as a measure that works against vulnerability and other risks associated with carrying out single livelihood strategies.