全球粮食安全与营养论坛 (FSN论坛)

We are working on enhancing livestock productivity in arid areas of Pakistan (Northren Punjab) as a tool to improve farmers resiliance to adverse weather condition and climate change. Wheat Livestock farming system is practiced in the area. We are sucessful in improving livestock productivity. Beef enterprise is more resiliance to climate change in the areas with medium fodder forage availability. Goat (Mutton) enterprise is successful in low foodder forage areas with low rainfall (about 200mm). Farmers consider livestock as a lender of last resort in these communities. with the development of urbanisation, milk enterprise development is added to farm household income. farmers with milk enterprise are more prosperous than other farmers. with the passage of time resiliance increasing in the area. Major threat to farmer resilance are human population and family sturucture.

What Makes Resilience Worthwhile and How to Enhance it

Going back to my previous note, resilience would be worthless to us unless it serves some purpose that is important to us. Topology of the visible side of the moon changes everyday because it is bombarded by thousands of meteorites of varying sizes. So, lunar topology is not resilient, but we are not concerned because it does not matter.

But when we talk of the resilience of something, it does not make sense to examine a discreet inanimate object for this quality. For example, it is difficult to see what somebody means if a person begins to talk about the resilience of one’s family jewels. But I am sure everybody would agree that it makes sense to talk about the resilience of a system that is useful to us, for instance, a food system.

Here we face the very serious danger of perverting a concept unless we are extremely careful in what we see as a system. In theory and practice, any single living thing can be seen as a ‘living system’, but if this is extended to embrace a group of individuals, most terrible results can ensue. Please recall that every dreadful dictatorship of the past wittingly or unwittingly saw their populations as systems that should be made resilient enough to tolerate every criticism or threat from inside and outside by using demagogic propaganda, so that the leadership may benefit from people’s resilience while it cost them their freedom and priceless cultural heritage.

I think this caution applies with equal force to things like food systems that are a collection of people, animals, plants and physical objects like various machines, because before we try to find out how we may make a system resilient, it is crucial to ascertain the overall desirability of it. For instance, intensive mono-culture may seem desirable from the reductive view point that everything that increases global food production is good. But weighed against its environmental consequences, its own vulnerability, cost, and failure to significantly promote rural unemployment, etc., it is clear that it is undesirable to promote its resilience.

I think this preamble is necessary as a frame of reference to any discussion of resilience, because unless it is firmly anchored in one of our justifiable needs, eg. nutrition, a discussion on how one may enhance the resilience of a system would prove quite unmanageable. Consider now, made in general terms, this discussion could justifiably include how the head quarter’s staff can make XVIth Army Corp resilient enough to withstand  persistent enemy attacks on a broad front at Z.

This military illustration brings out another point, i.e., we need to have a clear idea of the likely threats to the resilience of our system before we can reasonably begin to think about how to deal with them to enhance the system’s resilience. True, it is not always possible to know in advance all emerging threats to a system’s resilience, nevertheless apart from appropriate use and deployment of its non-living elements, strengthening the innate robustness and flexibility of the living elements of a system seems to be the best choice open to us to enhance a system’s resilience.

I know this may seem too general.  But as I said before, we need to know clearly what system we wish to make  resilient, what are the qualitative and quantitative aspects of its output,  will the present quality and quantity of its output remain sufficient for the foreseeable future, does the system and its present output needs changes in them, etc. Once we know the answers to these questions, we can then begin to anticipate threats to its adequate operation, and then undertake steps to ensure its resilience.

Best wishes!

Lal Manavado.

Hello Walter Mwasaa.



My community is ever increasing on its capacities to respond to shocks. We are a beekeeping group in Zimbabwe and as we look backwards, the past few years we have been improving in the way we respond to shocks. We really acknowledge our resilience capabilities that has enabled the households and community to remain functional. Our desire and passion to keep bees as a livelihood option has increased in the community and a number of households are getting some honey for their own consumption, are making sales to generate income that enables them to send children to school and also schools are running clubs under the beekeepers Association and this has enabled the club members to pay for their fees and also the generated income at the school has also been used to buy stationary at the school. The model of schools getting into beekeeping is also attracting many schools who are likely to join the Association soon. We have also as beekeepers encouraged one another to establish trees that go with crops in the same area and also those that can be planted on the same farm with crops but on an area that is not good for crops. Such trees include avocado, peaches, mangoes, citrus and apples. Some exotics planted on other areas included Eucalyptus species , acacia species etc and these are multipurpose trees which are bee friendly. Also crops are being inter-cropped near apiaries with sunflower, sugar beans, cow peas, soya beans okra, water melons, butter nuts and pumpkins being the most favored. Edible weeds such as black jack is also left to thrive in areas which are closer to apiary sites as this is an important source of bee food. The attached photos show areas closer to apiary sites that are being used to produce crops, fruits and honey at the same time. This model that we are using integrates crop production and bee farming and provides several livelihoods options to our community.

From ROBERT

I again thank all those who have so far provided input to the discussion. The participants pointing to variables to be measured, capacities to be developed and the introduction of gender and women dimensions and outcomes all reaffirm how complex this conversation and resilience as a whole is.

I would like to request members to share any successes that they have witnessed indicative of improving capacities to respond to shocks. The examples need not be scientific or quantitative. Focusing on time may be misleading, yet only after a definite period has lapsed we can look back and acknowledge that the resilience capacities are withstanding shocks and are not being eroded.

There are a divergent realities in households, communities and systems. However, it also must not be lost on us that our ability to (closely to accurately) predict and model outcomes of shocks and stresses in households in the context of their changing capacities is going to be necessary to ensure that the right investments are made. Such a model could address the temporal resilience issue and further predict critical support and / or moments in which communities or individuals become vulnerable.

Dear all,

The role of time is a hot topic for the literature on resilience measurement. By definition resilience to food insecurity is a dynamic concept. Therefore the time frame of the analysis matters for identifying resilient households.

According to the conceptual framework of the FAO-Resilience Index Measurement and Analysis (RIMA II) approach, resilient households, when affected by a shock at time 1, suffer a reduction in their food security at time 2 but are able to (partially or totally) recover the loss in food security between time 2 and 3. Please see http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5665e.pdf at page 35 as a reference.

The dynamics of the food security is not easily addressed by an empirical point of view. There is still much to know on the role of: (i) the time span between the shock occurrence and the recovery, namely the time when the household bounce back to its previous food security level; (ii) the time span between the recovery and the occurrence of another shock; (iii) the effect of the second shock on food security reduction with respect the effect of the first shock.

In my view, the “test of time” matters in terms of understanding (i) the speed of recovery after the occurrence of the shock; (ii) the persistence on the comfortable level of food security after the shock occurrence; (iii) the learning capacity with respect to the history of the past shocks.

Households with a similar resilience capacity (based on observable characteristics as level of education, productive and non-productive assets, income-generating activities, etc.) may show heterogeneous speed of recovery, persistency in the comfortable zone after the shock occurrence and learning capacity.

Furthermore, the “test of time” matters for identifying households resilient over a long time period.

The household characteristics may explain why some households remain resilient over year while other households are not able to do that. An interesting working paper adopting the FAO-RIMA II methodology (http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5473e.pdf ) explores this topic in the case of Uganda. The analysis shows that a higher level of education of household members as well as the participation into self-enterprises characterize the households able to maintain a high resilience capacity over time.

Identifying the household characteristics that ensure long-lasting resilience capacity may have dramatically important implications for the policy makers!

Best,

Rebecca Pietrelli

Dear all,

This conversation clearly exposes the complexities of resilience-building interventions and puts at the center of the debate a key objective of rural development which is sustainability.

In this sense, I wish to add an important perspective, which is gender and empowerment.

We all agree that women and men have specific and complementary roles in agricultural development. We all acknowledge that persistent gender inequalities in access to resources, services, information and knowledge are a key impediment to sustainable rural development. As a result, in relation to resilience, women and men might be exposed to different kinds of shocks and stressors and their coping strategies might differ as well. Bearing this in mind, it is crucial that development interventions are designed in a way that address these inequalities in a sustainable way. If we think about the temporal aspects of resilience, specific strategies and measures need to be put in place to prevent and respond to GBV as this extreme manifestation of gender inequality has devastating consequences (food insecurity, stigma, illness, collapse of social structures) which severely limits efforts in building resilience. Strategies should not solely consider women and men’s immediate vulnerabilities, but also addressing their specific needs and priorities. This often implies transforming gender relations and tackling power imbalances within households, communities and organizations. In this way resilient interventions become empowerment interventions, from survival to thrive: the more empowered women and men will be, the more resilient livelihoods they will be able to build.

FAO has longstanding experience in promoting participatory approaches that contribute to rural people’s empowerment, gender equality and resilience. The community-based and gender transformative approach of the FAO-Dimitra Clubs, is a good example of how rural women and men and entire rural communities take their development in hands and promote social cohesion and resilient livelihoods for all.

Dear all,

I would like to share with you a FAO publication that might be of interest in the context of our current online discussion.

The publication titled "Africa Regional Overview of Food Security and Nutrition 2016: the Challenges of Building Resilience to Shocks and Stresses" introduces a new tool for the understanding of the food security and nutritional status.

This Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) is an experience-based metric of food insecurity severity that relies on people’s direct responses to questions regarding their access to adequate food.

In addition to providing information on this tool, the publication delivers a snapshot of the current situation in Africa and analyses resilience in the context of climate change and conflicts.

You can download the publication in English here: http://bit.ly/2moylep 

All the best

Max

FSN Forum 

FAO

‘Beyond “temporal” resilience: results that withstand the test of time

Communities, individuals and systems experience shocks/stressors at different levels and magnitude. Some of these shocks/stressors are sporadic and difficult to mitigate such as acts of God while others are progressive over time like the vagaries of climate change. These shocks/stressors may emanate from within the affected communities or systems and are considered easy to address as the causal factors are predetermined. However, there are factors outside the realm of the affected individuals, communities or systems that are often complex and unfamiliar. In the short term, the more complex a need and resultant intervention, the less resilient the beneficiary community. Put otherwise, it may take longer for the beneficiary community to become less vulnerable if their stressors are complex and the intervention even more complex. Regardless, the impact of an intervention on the beneficiaries will determine their resilience.

Resilience is built over time. Long term interventions (programs) would be the best yard stick for measuring vulnerability levels. Nonetheless, there are other considerations in determining how resilient an individual, community or system is.

1. The duration an intervention has stood relevant to its course. Resilience is fostered around sustained knowledge gathering and dissemination, empowerment and preparedness. Done over time, a community is able to overcome its shocks and bounce back faster and stronger.
2. A resilient community should be innovative to the changing nature of the existing shocks be it climate change, global security, trade or disasters.
3. A resilient community thrives amid shocks/stressors. It is one that is able to understand the nature of its shocks, predict occurrence, mitigate effects, and lead an almost normal life bearing in mind the presence of stressors.
4. Resilience is best described by a community/system that is self-sustaining in the presence of shocks. Effectives systems are put in place to ensure minimum external help is required during pre and post occurrence of shocks.
5. A resilient system is able to support weaker systems experiencing similar stressors through sharing success stories and support models.

There is no minimum time frame in which a community, individual or system should remain resilient to be regarded as "resilient". Even the most stable and formidable entities buckle to shocks and stressors at some point. Constant reevaluation and strengthening of systems is the surest way of ensuring preparedness, mitigation of effects, fast recovery and bounce back. That is a lifelong endeavor.

English translation below

La resiliencia es una característica social que se construye históricamente y se renueva permanentemente, según los riesgos a los que se enfrenta un colectivo social amplio. Sin embargo, la reflexión de un hecho convertido en problema social, y la previsión de su repetición, no implica necesariamente que se haya logrado alcanzar un grado de resiliencia adecuado. Es necesario identificar los ciclos históricos para prever un adecuado abordaje de un problema que se repite constantemente. Se requiere asumir decisiones institucionales, por lo que el Estado además debe prever los índices de la vulnerabilidad a los que se expone una población identificando acciones de corto, mediano y largo plazo, que lleven a una situación en la que la vulnerabilidad disminuye a su mínima expresión.

La resiliencia no implica unicamente una reacción temporal o esporádica a una situación de riesgo. Implica la acumulación de capacidades humanas, de infraestructura adecuada, de recursos suficientes: capital humano y físico, que logren constituir una cultura de la prevención. Planteo que los proyectos deben orientarse en dos sentidos: las acciones con las personas más expuestas al riesgo y las acciones con las entidades creadas para la atención del riesgo. 

Resilience is a social feature that is built up over time and continuously renewed, according to the risks faced by a broad social group. However, discussing this social problem and forecasting its recurrence does not necessarily imply the accomplishment of an adequate level of resilience. Identifying the historical cycles is necessary to adequately address a recurrent problem. Institutional decisions must be adopted. Governments must also predict the vulnerability indexes of the population, identifying short, medium and long term actions leading to their minimization.

Resilience does not only entail a temporary or sporadic reaction to a risk situation. It involves building up human capacities, adequate infrastructures, sufficient resources: human and physical capital creating a culture of prevention. Projects should be oriented in two directions: interventions targeting those who are most at risk and involving organizations created to address risks.

I have worked on the food security, vulnerability, and resilience of farm households in Ethiopia. While I was working, I came to know that resilience status of farm households to climate variability was really a surprise even to me. I defined resilience into seven components. As you might know, that resilience is not captured per se. Through the components, it is very easy to capture and measure the resilience status of farm households.

Factors that make households resilient to shocks and stresses include social safety nets, basic services particularly public services, food and income access, agricultural productivity and production boosting technologies, asset and wealth accumulation mechanisms, adaptive capacity and the stability of the system for a certain time. These components are also latent variables which can not be observed per se; hence, collect variables that define the latent variables.

When we talked about resilience, we need to see the possibilities to have well defining components in detail. Let me take one example that clearly defines how strong the components related to the resilience status of farm households in case of Ethiopia. Inter-household interdependence is high and therefore it is good for social protection and social safety nets program to flourish. This variable is one component among others that define resilience. Social lives interdependence encourages socio-economic and cultural protection that increase boldness of the communities and enable to build the strong bond among inter households who are members among themselves. Anything happens to one member of the group other members react very quickly to their members’ difficult situation.

In my paper entitled “Econometric Analysis of Rural Households’ Resilience to Food Insecurity in West Shoa, Ethiopia” I found out that for instance social safety net increase the resilience of farm households. Informal social organization namely Equib and Eddir serve to tie social interaction and bond. Any non-member out of Equib or Eddir is isolated from the social interaction, ceremonies like wedding, farming activities, left to ditches, have no visitors when the family head/members are sick and remain poor.

The wrong way to frame resilience brought about undesirable result. In any case, the time required to define resilience is crucial.