Applying Resilience Thinking to Questions of Policy for Pastoralist Systems: Lessons from the Gabra of Northern Kenya

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to explore the relevance of a systematic application of resilience thinking to questions of pastoralist policy, a task that requires taking the concept of resilience beyond the level of a metaphor and operationalizing it. One approach to accomplishing this is the components-relationships-innovation-continuity framework , which, in this paper, we apply to analysis of the social-ecological system of the Gabra people in north-central Kenya. While some types of indicators, such as those monitored by humanitarian information systems, can help to identify when the resilience of a system has been eroded, indicators of the components, relationships, and sources of innovation and continuity help o make clear the dynamics of how resilience is being lost. In the case of the Gabra, our analysis suggests that there is a need to envision a third alternative-a stability domain that is distinct both from traditional pastoralism whose viability has been undermined and from the perversely resilient poverty trap that is coming to dominate. While this kind of conclusion may not be new, a resilience-based analysis helps to uncover specific details regarding what such a third alternative might entail and what kinds of policy levers might help to make it possible.

Understanding social-ecological change and transformation through community perceptions of system identity

“…These tools were inspired by community dashboards developed by Beńé et al (2011) and participatory diagnostic approaches used by Robinson and Berkes (2010), although we note that other approaches such as scenarios could also have been used to address desirability of system identities. By combining the expertise of Canadian and Vietnamese researchers, the focus group activities were tailored to be suitable for local culture and appropriate for the interests of the research participants, i.e., based on local knowledge.…”

“…We appreciate the conceptual basis of approaches that attempt to track potential thresholds for individual system elements (e.g., governance arrangements, landscape patterns) as a basis for ultimately determining if the system identity has transformed (e. g., Huong 2010, Robinson and Berkes 2010, Blythe 2014. However, there remain significant challenges and limitations in attempting to determine which are the controlling, slow-changing variables that determine resilience.…”

“…Our approach draws on fishers' perceptions of system identity to consider long-term SES change (Cumming et al 2005, Robinson andBerkes 2010). We apply this approach in the Cau Hai lagoon in central Vietnam to reflect on the ways that local fishery-based livelihoods both contribute to and are impacted by a socialecological transformation.…”

Resilience of small-scale societies: a view from drylands

“…The viability of mobility and migration strategies over the long term is in turn related to the existence of (1) organizations and institutions internally regulating the mobile way of life, such as the distribution of functions among members of coexisting migration groups (Agrawal 2003); (2) formal and informal mechanisms or institutions to manage interactions with external resource users and owners, enabling negotiation and conflict resolution (Nori et al 2008, Hussein 1998and (3) higher institutional settings that frame land tenure and movement patterns across large areas (Galvin 2009, Nori and Davies 2007, Robinson and Berkes 2010, Oteros-Rozas et al 2013. Sahelian droughts have been described as some of the largest ongoing climate changes (Bates et al 2008).…”

Toward Operationalizing Resilience Concepts in Australian Marine Sectors Coping with Climate Change

“…The first set of challenges includes developing the commonplace acceptance of SES as complex adaptive systems (Walker and Salt 2006), definitional problems resulting from the ambiguity of the 'resilience' term (Brand and Jax 2007), its dynamic context (Nelson et al 2007, Bohensky 2008, and constraints on further conceptual development by high levels of system complexity and dynamism . The second set of challenges involves the practical difficulties of resilience measurement (Carpenter et al 2005), such as determining which variables to measure , developing standard metrics (Cutter et al 2008), making resilience observable (Nyström et al 2008, Robinson andBerkes 2010), locating and finding measures for thresholds Meyers 2004, Eakin andLuers 2006), acquiring sufficient data (Malone and Brenkert 2008), and measuring resilience in a context of multiple fast-and slowmoving drivers of change (Nelson et al 2007). …”