3 Concepts and approaches for analysing adaptation to climate change
3.5 The resilience check – an analytical and operational tool
Based on the definition of social ecological resilience by Carpenter et al.
(2001), Milestad and Darnhofer (2003) and Milestad (2003) developed the concept of farm resilience to analyse the resilience of organic farming systems in Austria. This study builds on these achievements and integrates other insights from the preceding sections to develop further the principles of resilience into an analytical tool and operational instrument for as-sessing adaptation and resilience to climate change in SSA agriculture.
The components are
1. Buffer capacity: At the farm-level the question would be whether buffer capacities exist and whether adaptation strategies enhance the buffer capacity that allows the farmer to adapt to climate change (Holling 2001). This can be related to
a. Endowments (livelihood capitals) and entitlement (access through production, exchange and trade),
b. Diversity of system components and diversity of livelihood op-tions that are able to offer farmers a choice (flexibility) of adapta-tion and livelihood strategies (cf. Chambers / Conway 1992). In terms of ecological resilience, mixed cropping can reduce the risk of drought-induced crop loss since not all crops are susceptible to drought to the same degree. In terms of soil management, soils
with more humus can absorb and retain more moisture than soils without.
c. Site specific knowledge refers to an actor’s knowledge of the SES within which adaptation is carried out.
d. Institutions, that is, the norms and rules of society (Ostrom 1990) as well as formal institutions like groups, organisations and gov-ernment bodies and how they enhance or limit farmers’ adaptive capacities;
e. Stewardship, that is, an ethic that embodies co-management of environmental resources to achieve long-term sustainability, as in many indigenous knowledge and management systems (cf. Berkes / Colding / Folke 2000).
2. Self-organisation: According to Milestad (2003), self-organisation of farming systems refers to the ability of a group of farms to form flexible networks as well as the ability to be involved with the social, economic and institutional environment on other scales than the local.
Self-organisation includes
a. Opportunity for self organisation which relates to the question of whether the SES offers opportunities for farmers to organise themselves.
b. Cooperation and networks among farmers can decrease depend-ence on external actors for information, innovations, and capital.
Lack of cooperation among farmers can in turn lead to lack of trust (or vice versa), which is a poor basis for self-organisation.
c. Reliance on farm’s own resources and farmer’s own knowledge reduces dependency on external inputs and saves time for prompt action at the farm-level. It needs to be noted here that depending on how the SES is defined, subsidies are external to the SES but can have both positive and negative effects on farm resilience.
3. Capacity for learning and adaptation: This refers to a farmer’s man-agement approach and openness for learning (learning ability). Since an SES is dynamic, in temporal and spatial terms, farmers are con-stantly adjusting their activities and learning from what other farmers are doing to maintain and increase production. Adaptive management is seen as the key management approach as it emphasises the impor-tance of understanding feedback from the social and ecological
sys-only for changing the system but also for learning about the system (Milestad / Darnhofer 2003). Learning requires
a. Existing learning platforms/mechanisms – that create opportuni-ties for combining different types of knowledge.
b. Functioning feedback mechanisms: Milestad (2003) notes that feedback mechanisms are crucial for learning as they allow farm-ers to receive (monitor) signals from the ecosystem, which they process and interpret and subsequently respond with relevant changes in farm management. At a cross scale level, an examina-tion of the feedback between the various levels of actors (for ex-ample between farmers, extension officers, ministry directors and politicians) provides information on how feedbacks shape the re-silience of a farming system.
Certain sub-components of the three main features of resilience could well fit under other components (e. g. endowments – livelihood capital like the level of education or skills can contribute to capacity for learning; they also provide buffers to farmers to take on off-farm income earning activi-ties). However, knowledge from empirical research can help refine this construct. It is important that each resilience factor is considered only once in an assessment.
The resilience building components described above are summarised un-der a framework, called "a resilience check" (Table 4), which can be used for evaluating adaptation strategies at farm-level (Table 4) and at the level of institutions/support services (Figure 7), a goal being to monitor progress towards resilience. Since the principles of resilience apply in many cases, several potential users can use the check, while giving the various compo-nents different weighting. With modifications, a farmer that has functional literacy can use this to evaluate own practices. An extension officer can use it to evaluate services and recommendations to the farmers. A CBO/NGO can use it to evaluate own activities. Permanent secretaries and Ministers – the decision-makers – can use it to evaluate their policies and implementation, while international organisations and development coop-eration agencies can use it to evaluate the contributions of international agreements, policies and programmes to building resilience. Table 5 can be used to assess the ways and the extent to which support services (for example government extension, NGOs or research organisations) posi-tively or negaposi-tively influence the resilience of smallholder agriculture, a possible aim being to identify entry points for improving adaptation
inter-ventions. This check (Table 4 and Table 5) will be used for a future em-pirical research, in interviews and workshops. This practical test of a method based on the farm resilience concept extends the work of Milestad and Darnhofer (2003) and Milestad (2003). As an initial step, this study will assess identified adaptation strategies based on the aforementioned criteria of resilience, two major question being; in what ways and to what extent are such factors or processes identified as resilience factors or ser-vices provided, do they reduce vulnerability and foster adaptation; and – in what respects do the adaptation strategies strengthen the resilience of SSA agriculture to climate change?
A weighting based on different sustainability dimensions has been chosen to analyse how well such a tool can be used also in capturing the contribu-tions to sustainability. Sustainability dimensions can be in terms of eco-nomic, social, and ecological gains achieved through an adaptation or services to support the adaptation. Depending on the indicator, a positive (+) or negative (-) contribution can be either in one, two or all three di-mensions. For purposes of analysing empirical data (which this study does not cover), a potential weighting scheme of the contributions could be for example, in using the signs + Positive or – Negative, with a weighting scheme of the contributions to resilience in both directions, starting with N: None, Very Low (+VL or -VL), Low (+L or -L), Medium (+M or -M), High (+H or -H), Very High (+VH or -VH). Alternatively or in comple-ment, such a scheme could also range from zero for none to + or -1 to + or -5. Thus a positive and high contribution could be depicted as "+H" or
"+4" while a negative but high contribution could be depicted as H" or "-4". Important to note is that the indicators and questions phrased in Table 4 and Table 5 provide coarse frames that need to be refined after pilot testing them.
An appraisal of Table 4 shows that achieving buffer capacity lays the foundation for and provides the critical mass to achieve a basic level of resilience for building self-organisation and increasing adaptive capacity.
Since current adaptation measures can turn out in future to be mal-adapta-tions. Capturing the time dimension in resilience is important for dealing with uncertainty. To do this, the Resilience Check can be used periodi-cally, such as every 3 to 5 years, or according to identified dynamics of the adaptation measure and its context. Such a periodical assessment can help
ascertain whether adaptations are changing to mal-adaptations, so that countermeasures can be implemented early enough.
Various tools exist or are in development (for example the "Climate Check" of GTZ or the ORCHID of DFID) to mainstream adaptation to climate change into development cooperation. At their current levels of design, these tools screen various development projects for climate risks, based upon which relevant adaptation and mitigation actions are taken.
The resilience tool is complementary to such climate risk-screening tools, in that it can link up to analyse how effective (by maintaining resilience and reducing vulnerability) the adaptation measures are in reducing cli-mate change impacts, thereby highlighting which aspects of an adaptation strategy should be improved.
Finally, the resilience check analyses adaptation measures to see whether they promote resilience based on the assumptions that
a. Adaptation practices and strategies already exist.
b. Evaluating how effective these practices are to maintain or in-crease resilience in the face of climate change and other stressors provides information on necessary improvements and adjust-ments.
c. Increasing resilience shapes the capacity to adapt and implement adaptation measures.
d. A resilient livelihood or activity is less vulnerable to climate change, that is, it is less likely to suffer climate impact on the same magnitude like a non-resilient livelihood.
By focussing on concrete strategies or activity lines, the resilience check provides information/insights on which dimensions to improve on in order to achieve progress in adaptation.
Table 4: A resilience check at farm-level: Assessing the contributions of farm practices to resilience of smallholder agriculture to climate variability and change
Components of Resilience Indicators Resilience check Ecological Economic Social
In what ways and
Incentives In what ways and how much do policies promote (at least not hinder) the adaptation option (incentives)?
Buffer capacity (robustness to uncertainty)
Diversity In what ways and how much does the adaptation promote diversification or diversity?
Table 4 continued
Components of Resilience Indicators Resilience check Ecological Economic Social
Stewardship In what ways and how much is the adaptation geared towards steward ship (in contrast to exploitation/mining resources) rather than just management?
Buffer capacity (robustness to uncertainty)
Environmen-tal protection
In what ways and how much does the adapta-tion practice benefit the environment? adapta-tion depend on locally available resources? much does the farmer rely on own resources in practicing the adaptation?
Source: Based on literature / own design
Table 4 continued
Components of Resilience Indicators Resilience check Ecological Economic Social
Farmer knowledge
In what ways and how much does the farmer rely on own knowledge in practicing the adaptation?
Self-organisation
Flexibility In what ways and how much does the farmer have the freedom to decide?
Source: Based on literature / own design
Table 4 continued
Components of Resilience Indicators Resilience check Ecological Economic Social
Feedback adaptation build on or transmit local
How much is the cost-benefit ratio of the adaptation practice or strategy?
Source: Based on literature / own design
Table 4 continued
Components of Resilience Indicators Resilience check Ecological Economic Social
Costs-benefits (Non-market values)
In what ways and how much are the social benefits relative to the costs?
Efficiency
Right timing of adaptation
Is the timing right?
Gender Gender posi-tive / negaposi-tive
In what ways and how much does the adapta-tion reduce existing gender inequalities?
Source: Based on literature / own design