FIGURE 3.1 RESILIENCE AS THE RESULT OF ABSORPTIVE, ADAPTIVE, AND TRANSFORMATIVE CAPACITIES
Resilience Change
Transformative capacity
(transformational responses)
Flexibility
Adaptive capacity (incremental adjustment)
Strengths of a Resilience Framework Adopting resilience as an analytical framework could help in the fight against food and nutrition insecurity for several reasons. Resilience helps frame problems coherently and holistically. Linking interrelated short-term shocks and long-term systemic change gives us a more com- plete view of the factors that lead people to drift into poverty, food and nutrition insecurity, or both. By giving greater weight to the significance of negative shocks than earlier development frameworks did, this con- cept of resilience highlights how an inability to cope with shocks makes it hard for the poor to escape poverty and explains why others fall into it in the first place (McKay 2009; World Bank 2006).1 A resilience framework has practical implications, as well. It
Absorptive Stability Source: Authors.
coping capacity (persistence)
Mild Moderate Severe Intensity of shock/stressor impact
When the shock or stressor exceeds this absorptive capacity, however, individuals and communities will then exercise their adaptive resilience, which involves making incremental changes to keep functioning with- out major qualitative changes in function or structure. These adjust- ments can take many forms. Examples include adopting new farming techniques, diversifying one’s livelihood, taking out loans, and connect- ing to new social networks. These adaptations can be individual or col- lective, and they can take place at multiple levels, such as among or between households, individuals, or communities. If, however, those incremental changes associated with adap-
tive capacity are not enough to prevent a household, community, or system from avoiding dire circumstances, a more substantial transfor- mation must take place. These changes permanently alter the system or structure in question. For example, droughts in the Horn of Africa may push people out of pastoralism and into sedentary agriculture or urban occupations, because they can no longer rebuild their herds (Lyb- bert et al. 2004; Box 3.2). Importantly, these changes may not always be positive in the long run, even if they prevent people from falling into acute poverty that puts their access to basic necessities such as food and shelter at risk. In the example described in Box 3.2, those who transition out of pastoralism may fare worse than active pastoralists, since sedentary agriculture is highly risky in arid conditions.
may serve as a “mobilizing metaphor” (Béné et al. 2012) to integrate traditionally disparate sectors—particularly the relief and development sectors —and encourage them to work together (USAID 2012). It may also help bolster support for interventions, such as safety-net programs, that bridge relief and development. More integrated multisectoral pro- grams and collaborations could adopt a more systemic and holistic approach to fighting both chronic and transient poverty compared with many of today’s piecemeal approaches. Another practical advantage of using a resilience framework is that it has focused more attention on understanding the welfare and behavioral dynamics of vulnerable pop- ulations, including better measurement of transient poverty as well as food and nutrition insecurity. The analysis and understanding of local dynamics are key to
identifying existing and potential self-help competencies and capaci- ties. It is essentially those competencies and capacities that must be built up to increase individuals’, households’, local communities’, and states’ ability to absorb, to adapt, and to transform. The “resilience lens” thus reaffirms the importance of identifying and strengthening local structures and supporting them in performing their roles effec- tively and working together. These structures include organizations as diverse as central or decentralized administrations, health centers, disaster risk management committees, and associations of small-scale producers.
Challenges of Applying a Resilience Framework While the resilience framework seems to offer many benefits in theo- ry, it faces many challenges in practice. First and foremost, experts in development and humanitarian circles have yet to agree on a common definition of resilience. Too often the definitions adopted tend to emphasize a return to initial states, which hardly seems consistent with promoting transformation and development.
1
Inequality also shapes vulnerability and makes it harder for poor people to escape and manage risk, thus undermining their resilience capacities (Oxfam 2013).
2013 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 03 | Understanding Resilience for Food and Nutrition Security 21
Intensity of responses
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66