Resilience and Adaptation

The other side of vulnerability is the capacity of individuals/social groups or social systems to cope with stress or/and resilience to bounce back when a disaster unfolds. The development

55 In fact Wisner (2004:188) recognized the contribution of post-structuralist approach, particularly in the area of environmental social science.

56 For its application in different disciplines see Alwang et al., 2001.

of vulnerability analysis thus draws on the concepts such as entitlement, coping through diversity, and resilience (Turner et al., 2003).

Different social systems have different level of sensitivities to shocks or stresses. This characteristic of individuals or social groups is linked to entitlements (i.e. legal and customary rites to exercise command over food or other necessities). This is evidenced that modern famines (new famines)⁵⁷ occurred not due to insufficient food stock, but because of inability of certain groups of people to command food access through legal or customary means (i.e. in Sen’s word lack of access to bundles of entitlements). The implication of this is that understating entitlement helps explain why certain groups are differentially at risk or vulnerable to specific disaster. In general the concept of entitlement enables us to understand socially differentiating causes and outcomes of vulnerability.

On the other hand social groups or communities at risk are not passive receivers of effects of adverse events or shocks. They have different capacities to respond to harms or avert the potential harm of a hazard via myriads of strategies which may include mobilizing entitlements, social capitals (societal safety nets), certain endowment (assets), diversification of livelihood systems, etc. These strategies form coping mechanisms or adaptive responses to normal constraints and/or extreme events. Individual coping or adaptive strategies emerge with different constraints provided by the natural environment, or economic systems or political systems or both, and the concomitant opportunities and constraints available within them.

Social vulnerability is the exposure of groups of people or individuals to stress as a result of the impacts of environmental changes, socio-economic-situations (lack of income and resources), war, civil strife and other factors. Stress encompasses disruption to groups’ or individuals’ livelihoods and forced adaptation to the changes and uncertainties (Adger, 2000).

Social groups or systems experience various stresses and disturbances emanated from the increased environmental changes and socio-political processes. Vulnerable social groups are not passive recipients of stress, external disturbances and changes (Blaikie et al., 2004;

Wisner, 2004:189, 191). Communities or social groups have their own inherent capacity to adapt, cope with stresses and to bounce back. Thus it is here that resiliency is important to absorb disturbances and to continue functioning without showing qualitative change or compromising future sustainability.

The concept of resilience emerged in interdisciplinary research mainly via component of

‘adaptive capacity’ (i.e. the flexibility of economic systems and the ability of social systems to learn in response to disturbances). In ecology the resilience concept was used in the analysis of ecosystems in order to understand the capacity of natural systems (properties) to function without showing qualitative change in the face of external disturbances (Bolling et al., 1995 cited in Adger, 2000:349). Then the analogy from the ecological systems is being applied to understand the resilience of communities and their social institutions to physical and social stresses emanating from external disturbances and environmental changes. The resilience concept has been adopted in social sciences which are engaged in vulnerability

57 The history of 1984-1985 and 2002 famines in Ethiopian and the 1984 and 2002 famine in Sudan are instances of such famines as some studies documented about them (Devereux et al., 2002).

researches. It has found space across disciplines, especially in the 1980s where the concept of vulnerability has turned up as a rich tool for analysis of social vulnerability.

Resilience increases the capacity to cope with stress and hence a loose antonym of vulnerability (Adger, 2000:348). But resilience is about people’s capacity far beyond the minimum of being able to cope. This suggests the need for looking beyond capacity to respond or to absorb the negative impacts and thus considering the essential and non-essential elements of community systems able to adapt to survive shocks (Manyena, 2006). The concept of (social) resilience is sensitive to the institutional context to be observed in a meaningful manner. Because of this social resilience is defined at the community level rather than being a phenomenon pertaining to individuals. Hence it is related to social capital of societies and communities (Adger, 2000:349). The social capital of communities is here to mean the existence of integrating features of social organization such as trust norms and networks.

In some case studies (e.g. Bollig, 2003:9) it is stated that “the concept of resilience is analytically useful, but difficult to handle in complex socio-cultural, historically embedded settings”. Therefore, finding convincing indicators for resilience in human systems, which allow a comparison of communities, and of different time horizons within a given community, are needed. In relation to this, exploring institutionalized buffering mechanisms to lower vulnerability is suggested (Bollig, 2003). Then a result of analyzing buffering mechanisms is that resilience is a socially generated, collective good. In this case Bollig (2003:9) concluded that “it is exactly this social process (the creation of resilience) that should become a formidable field for comparison”. Bollig considered three buffering mechanisms in analyzing resilience in two African herder societies (the Himba of Namibia and the Pokot of Kenya). These included economic diversification (herd diversification), network of livestock exchange, and institutionalized resource protection and management.

In recent works there is a tendency to define resilience into two broad ways- “as a desired outcome (s)” and “as a process leading to desired outcomes” (Kaplan, 1999 cited in Manyena, 2006). Resilience is now gradually conceptualized as process-oriented, as it suggests focusing on building something rather than just reducing something, which is the case when talking about poverty or vulnerability reduction. A close look at the definitions in the box 2.4 above reveals the gradual refinement of conceptualizing disaster resilience from more outcome-oriented to more process-outcome-oriented. Accordingly disaster resilience is seen as the shock-absorber or buffer that moderates the outcome to ensure benign or small scale negative consequences (Manyena, 2006).

Nowadays resilience is being applied in a number of fields, especially in disaster management, and increased attention is paid to what affected communities can do for themselves and how best to strengthen them (IFRC, 2004). There is a new move to focus on resilience as a new way of tackling disaster. Cases in point are the “Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015, known as Hyogo Declaration” (UNISDR, 2005) and the “IFRC Report on World Disaster: Focus on Community Resilience” (2004). These agencies call for shift in disaster relief thinking from identifying what is missing in a crisis (needs, hazards and vulnerability) to identifying the strengths, skills and resources that are already in place within the communities. Building resilience through nurturing diversity, self-organization, adaptive

learning and constructive positive feedback loops is consistent with these calls (Tidbll and Krasny, 2007).

In general concerning the concepts of vulnerability and resilience, two views emerged. One sees them as factors for each other, while the other sees them as more separate entities.

Vulnerability signifies a low level of (rather than lack) of disaster resilience, limiting capacity to recover. Each system has some degree of resilience. This suggests that disaster resilience could be viewed as the intrinsic capacity of a community or a society predisposed to a shock or stress, and survives by changing its non-essential attributes and rebuilding itself (Manyena, 2006:442-4). Many definitions given in the box 2.4 above show that resilience is not the opposite of vulnerability. Therefore, it is important for development and relief industry to identify and map resilience. Further more increased awareness of and emphasis on resilience does not necessarily mean abandonment of support for infrastructure. It rather suggests the need to mainstream resilience building through people at the centre of disaster risk and recovery (Manyena, 2006).

2.6.4 Summary

The concept of vulnerability has been used as a key to understanding disaster risk and identifying responses to risk reduction. The traditional view that ‘disasters are purely physical happenings requiring technological solutions’ has been challenged and has given ground to the alternative notion that ‘disaster events are primarily the results of human action’. In other words while hazards are natural, disasters are not (Blaikie, et al., 2004; Cannon, 1994). This suggests that social systems or arrangements matter in facing low or high exposure to disaster risks, than the mere happening of hazards. This is because social systems generate unequal exposure to risks by making individuals or social groups more prone to disaster risk than others. These variations in proneness to risks, and opportunities to cope or recover are determined by power relations operating in every society. Therefore, understanding of the ways in which human systems place people or groups at more or less risk in relation to others and to their environments is critical for discerning the nature of disasters. This can be best understood in terms of individuals’ or groups’ or societies’ vulnerability. Vulnerability is a

‘complex characteristics produced by a combination of factors derived from social relations (class, gender, and ethnicity, occupation, health age, social networks, etc) and economic and environmental processes. In general the concept of vulnerability has been an important analytical tool to understand disasters⁵⁸.

The use of concept, however, is not limited only to understanding or explaining disasters; it is also employed by disaster response agencies to analyze processes and conditions which lead to disasters and to identify disaster responses (Heijmans, 2001:1). Nowadays, the increasing number and impacts of disaster has given rise much concern about vulnerability reduction.

Vulnerability assessment has been recognized as essential tool to analyze various factors and processes underlying the impacts of disasters on society.

58 Though some writer claimed that the concept of vulnerability is too broad encompassing everything and would be unusable for analytical purposes, it is engaged more and more in disaster researches and disaster management across various disciplines.

The appropriateness and effectiveness of disaster responses also depends on proper conceptualization of analytical tools. In this case, the concept of vulnerability has been the key to analyze disaster causation and identify response. However, as stated in section 2.2 (iv) it does mean that all stakeholders (researchers, disaster response agencies, people at risk) share a common understanding or definition of vulnerability. Heijmnas (2004:116-117) identified the existing three views on causes of disaster and the supposed strategies for vulnerability reduction. These are summarized as follows:

i. Nature as a cause: This view blames nature and natural hazards as causes of people’s vulnerability which results from hazards (intensity) and risk (exposure to events). According to this view strategy to reduce vulnerability is ‘technological, scientific solutions (prediction of hazards and technology to enable human structures to withstand disaster impacts)’.

ii. Cost as cause: ‘In spite of increasing technological and scientific capacity, people continue to suffer because prediction and mitigation technologies are so costly. This view suggests

‘economic and financial solutions, in that vulnerability will be reduced if national governments adapt safety nets, insurance, calamity funds, and provide financial assistance to build up people’s assets’.

iii. Social structures as a cause: This view recognizes socially differentiated vulnerability, and it argues that ‘it is not only the exposure to hazards that put people at risk, but also socio-economic and political processes in society that generate vulnerability. This view suggests political solutions (changing the processes that put people at risk) i.e. ‘transforming the social and political structures that breed poverty and the social dynamics and attitudes that serve to perpetuate’.

In practice, however, more than one of these three views can be held by policy makers and implementers working for an organization. Most disaster agencies combine the first two in their analysis and actions, while the third is supported by activists and environmentalists (Heijmnas, 2004:116). Vulnerability reduction is related to social order and politics. If disaster risk has to be reduced, the social and political origins of disasters have to be addressed. For many countries and donors, ‘vulnerability reduction is too political’ (Bender 1999 cited in Heijimnas, 2004:117).

The above description presents how external actors (researchers and disaster response agencies) view disaster risk and vulnerability reduction. It is also important to examine how people at risk understand disasters and their vulnerability. Though local people are unfamiliar to concepts such as ‘disaster’ and ‘vulnerability’, ’they have their own way of disaster risk perception and communication. Many authors argue that without theorizing and conceptualization, the local people can analyze risk, and identify solutions using their own capabilities (experience, skills and traditional knowledge and techniques). The local people have knowledge about their locality, history of local disasters, and how vulnerability to disasters has changed over time. Understanding people’s perception of risk and their vulnerability is essential for effective disaster risk reduction. Therefore, vulnerability assessment (analysis) can be an important tool to explore people’s perception of disaster risk and vulnerability conditions. Equally important are community resilience and adaptation systems in vulnerability analysis.

In this chapter I have presented general discussions on concepts, theories, and frameworks/perspectives used in disaster studies and vulnerability researches. Drawing on insights from literature review, this study adopts a broad theoretical orientation (i.e. political economy) which considers socio-political processes in creating vulnerability situations.

Accordingly in the next chapter, I attempt to identify and examine the social, cultural, political and environmental processes that create vulnerability to famine in the pastoral societies of East Africa.