What, then, are the key issues that arise when one tries to measure resilience in the context of food and nutrition insecurity? A distinguish- ing feature of resilience and vulnerability is the potential for complex dynamics. In vulnerable socioeconomic environments, individuals, households, and communities are likely to experience dynamic fluctu- ations in well-being, including a mix of long-term trends, cyclical and seasonal shocks, and major covariate shocks. Moreover, the transitions from one state, such as chronic poverty, into either better or worse states are likely to be characterized by a range of threshold effects or tipping points, such as when a drought reduces herd sizes below a threshold of recovery (Box 3.2; Lybbert et al. 2004). Finally, resilience requires a multilevel or systemic measure-
ment approach. This includes measurement at different levels—indi- vidual, household, community, (eco)system—and among different socioeconomic and ethnic groups. This also requires an understanding of how these different identities and factors interact. Beyond the house- hold level, systemic factors, such as health conditions, social and polit- ical relationships, culture, agroecological factors, and macroeconomic conditions, may affect resilience. These basic principles have important implications for mea-
surement in practice. Table 3.1 provides a general list of proposed indi- cators that could be used to measure resilience for food and nutrition security. Perhaps the most important prerequisite for resilience mea- surement is higher-frequency surveys (Barrett 2010; Headey and Eck- er 2013). Though still surprisingly rare, high-frequency measurement is a necessary condition for understanding vulnerability and resilience, because it helps identify (1) “dynamic initial states,” such as season- ality, cyclicality, and exposure to idiosyncratic shocks; (2) differences between pre-shock and post-shock states; (3) the complex dynamics of coping and adaptation mechanisms; and (4) the key thresholds that may arise in the transitions between initial and subsequent states (Bar- rett and Constas 2012). The more standard program evaluation based on two to three rounds of a survey (typically conducted several years apart) will rarely if ever suffice to make sense of the complexities of highly vulnerable people's lives. The most pertinent examples of high-frequency resilience sur-
veys are the nutritional surveillance system surveys conducted by Hel- en Keller International (HKI) in Bangladesh and Indonesia.5
The World
Food Programme (WFP) also uses the nutritional surveillance system approach in some of its high-priority countries, such as South Sudan. These surveys are typically conducted every two months—more often than standard household surveys—in order to pick up the effects of both seasonal shocks and “one-time” natural disasters. Moreover, while
5
See Bloem, Moench-Pfanner, and Panagides (2003) and Shoham, Watson, and Dolan (2001) for an introduction to the approach.
2013 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 03 | Understanding Resilience for Food and Nutrition Security 27
Guillermo Pacotaype Chuschi District, Peru
“I started with a project to rehabilitate the springs and creeks by setting stones around them to protect them from animal excrement and the drying sun, and by plant- ing putaqa [Peruvian plant], which is a species that catches water well. At the community level, we have im- plemented the legal guidelines to protect our water sources. For example, we prohibit the drawing of water with dirty utensils or the use of soap in the water hole.”
Villagers of Dukum Rayagada District, India
“We have been living in forests for generations, but our rights to the land have yet to be registered. The fact that we do not have legal ownership over much of the land on which we have been living and depend on for our food and livelihood makes us feel insecure. The lack of proper demarcation of the plots of land allocat- ed to us … is leading to the shrinking of our land un- der cultivation in the forest....”
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