43
the capacity to reorganise itself for taking up other new stresses (Carpenter, et. al., 2001;
Berkes, et. al., 2003; Folke, 2006). It is important to take up sustainability concept into resilience. In this context, Gunderson and Holling (2002); Berkes and co-workers (2003); and Carpenter and others (2001) view resilience as the capacity of the system to rejuvenate, re-organize and undergo development, that is, having capacity to sustain itself despite any stresses into it.
Adger (2006) for example, contends that while many may see resilience only as a capacity to withstand shocks and still maintain system function, it can also be seen as an opportunity to undergo transformation for better including new inventions in terms of policies, technologies, knowledge and even development pathways that are much more adaptable than the previous one. Therefore, resilience can provide much better opportunities than probably as it was thought before. It is from this point that Walker and colleagues (2002) summarize resilience to mean level and extent of stress the system withstands and yet maintain its functional capacity and even structure; its level and ability to reorganize itself; and the level to which it is ready to adapt as well as maintain its development course sustainably.
The conceptual framework of this research was formulated based on works by Nelson and colleagues (2007); and Chambers (1989). Nelson and colleagues’ (2007) work is so instrumental in explaining and analysing social ecological system adaptation in the context of the social ecological resilience framework and hence, provides a substantive impetus on adaptation within the social ecological resilience framework taking into account sustainability component. Chambers (1989) work is crucial because it explains, in detail, vulnerability and adaptation issues at a local level, which was the interest of this research. The work by Chambers (1989) captures many details on vulnerability and adaptation for smallholder farmers of which this research work focused on.
44
and flooding; duration of rain seasons; and onset of rains (Lal, 2013) affecting production in the farm thereby compromising food security.
Economic conditions and developments have a lot of influences on both social and ecological sub-systems (Jodha, 1985). These conditions operate from both within and outside the system.
For example, changes in the market demands have all along influenced production in many sectors. Market pressures have been driving systems progressively faster toward environmental degradation (Agrawal and Yadama, 1997). Many forest resources are being degraded due to market pressures for timber world-wide (Jodha, 1985). The high demand of timber from some tree species has led to almost extinctions of such species (WCED, 1987). The demand for coffee in the developed world has ever since influenced the production of this crop world-wide and hence, determine use of land made by people in the developing world. Demand for some fish species has also influenced significantly on how such species are exploited. From experience, it has been observed that high demands in ivory almost threaten extinction of elephants in the developing world, forcing stringent measures for international conventions to protect such resources. There are many examples explaining the power of markets and how it can influence changes in the way people behave, produce, consume, manage and utilize available resources in the ecological sub-system.
Technological innovations and developments have facilitated changes as well as developments in the economies today world-wide. In terms of smallholder farming, for example, acquisition of a tractor could change the size of land to be cultivated by farmers, the amount of forests to be cleared for farming, the amount of species lost over crop production and so forth. Even when technologies are considered at a very local level, the invention of animal ploughing not only simplified tilling land but also stimulated crop production and an increase in land under cultivation (Meertens et al., 1996). Other factors such as governance systems, political changes, cultural changes, institutional developments, knowledge and information all have a lot to offer to the social ecological system. They influence not only markets but also consumption behaviour, resources management, economic policies, production as well as information and knowledge, just to mention a few. Therefore, characteristics of the social ecological system are the major attribute of system change and adaptation for that matter.
Thus, stresses (factors motivating change) and characteristics (of the system) not only influence changes within the social ecological system itself but also define many other attributes related to changes or adaptation process including the adaptive capacity, level of vulnerability, type and magnitude of change or adaptation, change or adaptation options and resources as well as investments required for adaptation or change to take place.
In the context of smallholder farming, decision to change farming practices might be a function of multiple elements. They may include changes and variability in climatic conditions that are necessary for farm production such as timing of the onset rains, rain distribution and effectiveness in each precipitation event (Lema and Majule, 2009; Kurukulasuriya and Mendelsohn, 2006; Gbetibouo, 2009; Legesse et al., 2013); economic aspects (Paavola, 2008) such as income necessary to afford making changes in the farming practice and availability of markets which may motivate farmers to change from, for example, one crop to the other in response. Others include reliable infrastructure stimulating production and selling of particular crops, high demands for personal/family needs and financial capital that can facilitate a farmer to invest in a new farming practice; social factors like knowledge and skills, influence of neighbours, education and information access (Deressa et al., 2008; Wood et al., 2014); and governance issues (Mandemaker et al., 2011) such as influence of leaders at all levels as well
45
as policies. Farmers may opt to switch to new or different farming practices from what they are used to in response to either one or a combination of such factors. For example, recurrent drought due to changes in the local climate will definitely act as a stressor to farmers who in response, they may make decisions to either change crops or crop varieties and so forth.
Another example may be changes in agriculture policy where farmers are motivated to cultivate particular types of crops or are given incentive(s) to pursue a particular farming technique, soil conservation method and so forth. Policies like those related to credits to farmers, extensions services, farmers’ income diversification, sustainable land management and incentives, just mention a few, may be very instrumental in changing farming practices by farmers (Thiombiano and Meshack, 2009). The factors operate within the social ecological system dependent on each other. To understand their influence, consideration is on a system perspective because there are always constant interactions within the system and any changes taking place in the agricultural system have a lot to influence in the entire system, good or bad.
These considerations are important especially in ensuring long-term resilience and system sustainability. Examples of other possible factors important to mention in this contexts are the individual and social psychology; cultures and traditions; social norms and farmers’ awareness level, leading to farmers’ decisions to change farming practices in response.
Adaptation within the social ecological resilience framework is viewed as a continuous process because there is no permanent state of adaptedness (Nelson, et. al., 2007). This is because the system is taken to be a flexible entity all the time experiencing shocks and constantly in a state of change to absorb the shocks and maintain functions as well as ensure development (ibid.).
In terms of changes or adaptation options, the system has a level of thresholds, the allowable level of options for change (Nelson, et. al., 2007). Some of the changes are undertaken within the allowable level but other changes require going beyond such allowable level, that is, outside the system thresholds. The thresholds have meaning on the type of changes/adaptations, which the system will make in response to stress or factors influencing the changes.
According to Nelson and colleagues (2007), one form of adaptation in the social ecological resilience framework is system adjustments. In this case, changes are within the social ecological sub-systems’ thresholds. The changes do not require transforming the system but adjust what exists so as to ensure that adaptation is achieved at that moment of change and accommodate the current stress because the two subsystems still have allowable space to accommodate them in the system (Nelson et al., 2007). Examples may include changes in the farming system such as introducing new crops (may be they are tolerant to dry conditions the system is experiencing as a result of changes in the climate); shifting from rain-fed to irrigation agriculture, from surface water irrigation to ground water irrigation, from only crop production to mixed form of production, that is, to include small-scale animal husbandry for trade off as a result of changes in the local climate; small-scale fishing to aquaculture; and the like. All these are adjustments within the same economic activity and do not necessitate transforming from agriculture to another economic activity, just improving the agricultural systems available to either respond to the climatic changes or even take advantage of any social economic opportunity within or outside the system.
Apart from system adjustment, the other form of adaptation is system transformation. This type of change is undertaken as a result of subsystems reaching thresholds and hence, it requires no more adjustments but transformation from one economic activity to the other, for example, from agriculture to fishing, agriculture to pastoralism or pastoralism to agriculture, agriculture to tourism, agriculture to mining or agriculture to working in industries for labour. The major
46
basis for this type of adaptation to happen is that there are some cases when the social or ecological subsystems can no longer support adjustments but complete transformations are required (Nelson, et. al., 2007). For example, until 1990s, the Maasai community in Tanzania was a pastoralist community practicing transhumance banking on abundance of land for pasture and good climate for availability of water during different seasons (Haller, et. al., 2013;
Mung‘ong’o and Mwamfupe, 2003). However, in recent years, as a result of changes in land policies, which have led the Maasai community to lose most of their land to other land uses, for example, large scale farming and conservation, and changes in the climatic conditions (recurrent droughts) causing massive deaths of cattle, have both led many Maasai to either abandon pastoralism at the expense of small-scale crop production or resort to engage in casual labour in cities and even doing other small-scale businesses to earn their living (Mung‘ong’o and Mwamfupe, 2003). This means that some of the Maasai have undergone transformation, changing from the pastoral social subsystem (using the ecological subsystem for grazing) into farming, or migrating into cities and labouring because the social and the natural sub-system can no longer support their form of livelihoods but have to go for a different form of activities.
Other examples from literature are such as changing from agriculture to tourism or industrial community to tourism as well (Nelson, et. al., 2007).
Adaptation process involves actions, which are implemented for a particular aim, mainly to avert the impacts of stress or disturbance if not taking advantage of an emerging opportunity.
However, sometimes there is little thinking on what will exactly be the feedback of the interventions implemented for the system in future. In the social ecological resilience framework perspective, the relationship between components, that is, adaptation interventions, how they are connected to the other system components and the results of their interactions to the entire system, on short-term and long-term, are important to consider (Nelson, et. al., 2007).
Some basic issues must be considered to determine the kind of outcomes to be expected as a result of the adaptation interventions such as: the kind of adaptation activities or interventions;
technologies used; expected feedbacks (positive or negative); spatial and temporal aspects; the kind of political, social, cultural as well as governance systems; and the kind of system flexibility levels taken into account or maintained. The answers will indicate the kind of outcomes expected from the adaptation process. Depending on the answers, there are three possibilities: unsustainable short-term outcomes; sustainable outcomes and resilient social ecological system.
In light of this discussion, the conceptual framework of this research constitutes a combination of three key elements, namely, possible factors motivating changes in the farming practices (vulnerability-stresses and disturbances); changes in the farming practices (adaptation strategies) and socio-economic implications of the changes (outcomes of the changes). The influence of factors triggers motivation for changes in the farming practices. The implication can be positive or negative while the ultimate outcomes mostly depend on how factor(s) and/or changes interact with the environment. However, the outcomes are either sustainable or unsustainable. Figure 3.1 illustrates the interactions.