Resilience Topic Working Group IFWF3


Published on

Presented at the Third International Forum on Water and Food
Tshwane, South Africa
November 14-17, 2011

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • What is in it for the CPWF? Not just get inspired from resilience thinking, but also help build the theory…
  • Change rather than stability is underlying resilience theory - sees change as both potentially detrimental (without resilience in the system) and as potentially creative and transformative)
  • What is in it for the CPWF? Not just get inspired from resilience thinking, but also help build the theory…
  • What is in it for the CPWF? Not just get inspired from resilience thinking, but also help build the theory…
  • What is in it for the CPWF? Not just get inspired from resilience thinking, but also help build the theory…
  • What is in it for the CPWF? Not just get inspired from resilience thinking, but also help build the theory…
  • What is in it for the CPWF? Not just get inspired from resilience thinking, but also help build the theory…
  • What is in it for the CPWF? Not just get inspired from resilience thinking, but also help build the theory…
  • What is in it for the CPWF? Not just get inspired from resilience thinking, but also help build the theory…
  • Resilience Topic Working Group IFWF3

    1. 1. Elin Enfors & Line Gordon Tshwane, South Africa, 17 November 2011 RESILIENCE TWG MEETING IFWF3
    2. 2. Agenda 14.00-14.15 Welcome + introductions 14.15-14.35 Resilience insights from Arizona meeting + IFWF3 14.35-15.15 Explore resilience interests in TWG 15.15-15.35 Explore potential TWG activities 15.35-15.45 BREAK 15.45-16.25 Thematic group discussions + reporting back 16.25-16.55 Visioning exercise 16.55-17.00 Closing
    3. 3. Deals with the tension between persistence and change Change and variability is normal, stability is not Incorporates uncertainty, surprise and shocks in analysis Truly interlinked social-ecological systems (role of learning, adaptation, diversity in social-ecological systems) Emphasizes interactions small to large scales, and between fast and slow processes What we like about resilience
    4. 4. Insights from TWG meeting in Arizona • The challenge is often not to build resilience of existing system states but rather to enable transformation towards better pathways. In any case, it is not about going back..   • There are different kinds of social traps that are important to understand, in order to understand why certain systems end up on undesirable paths   • Resilience is difficult to measure, but resilience thinking can still be used to improve understanding of system dynamics and thereby to guide interventions
    5. 5. Questions emerging in Arizona • How to deal with the diversity within the basins, and what to put our focus on (what is supposed to be resilient and at what scale?)   • How to deal with overwhelming drivers, such as population growth, and future game changers such as new emerging drivers and changing disturbance regimes   • What is really a “stable” state? It seems as sustained inputs often are needed to stay on a certain trajectory..   • What are the minimum requirements to assess resilience? / How to identify key system variables in a “quick and dirty” way?   • How to simplify these ideas enough to be able to communicate to people who like silver bullets?
    6. 6. INSIGHTS FROM IFWF 3 - MONDAY PLENARIES <ul><li>Quadrupple squeeze on the planet – pushes ecosystems across thresholds </li></ul><ul><li>Live in Antropocene with unprecedented changes, need to identify “safe operating space” for humanity </li></ul><ul><li>To build resilience we need to: a) be active stewards of our landscapes, b) sustainable intensification on current croplands, and c) turning crises into opportunities </li></ul><ul><li>Need to “think outside the box” – what are water dimension of current crises (food prices, financial collapses etc) </li></ul><ul><li>Key questions: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>how to get farmers to shift from production optimisation to long-term resilience building? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Improve understanding of how resilient different interventions are? </li></ul></ul>
    7. 7. <ul><li>Resilience approaches help us understand agro-ecosystem dynamics, including alternative stable states, tipping points, and pathways for transformation </li></ul><ul><li>We need to shift mindset from optimizing yields to building resilient landscapes that provide multiple ecosystem services </li></ul><ul><li>Agricultural water management interventions may provide leverage for transformation, but the change process may entail risks (marginalization of certain groups, loss of ES) </li></ul><ul><li>To navigate the transformation towards a desirable outcome we need to consider key system variables, mindsets and emotions of people which influence their willingness and ability to change, and institutional factors across scale </li></ul>INSIGHTS FROM IFWF 3 – RESILIENCE SESSION PRESENTATIONS
    8. 8. <ul><li>Do we have examples of agro-ecosystems that have changed their </li></ul><ul><li>character substantially over a short period of time, i.e. can we </li></ul><ul><li>identify alternative regimes in these systems? </li></ul><ul><li>Southern Cape: wheat  canola due to changing economic incentives </li></ul><ul><li>Blue Nile: wetland grazing  rice monoculture early 1990s </li></ul><ul><li>Nile, Tanzania & Sahel smallholder farming: fundamental change in productive potential of the system </li></ul><ul><li>Bangladesh: 60's/70's single cycle rice to double cycle rice, 80s to aquaculture and shrimp, and in 80s/90s to multiple crops and fish </li></ul><ul><li>Mekong: hydropower development and inter-basin transfers strongly affecting hydrology and livelihoods of downstream communities </li></ul><ul><li>Australia: Salinization of farmland as a consequence of deforestation </li></ul><ul><li> While systems without a buffer can change abruptly, with devastating </li></ul><ul><li>consequences, there is rarely an economic incentive to in such a buffer </li></ul><ul><li> General pattern of a tension between planning for the long term under pressing </li></ul><ul><li>short-term conditions </li></ul>INSIGHTS FROM IFWF 3 – RESILIENCE SESSION ROUND TABLE DISCUSSIONS
    9. 9. <ul><li>Can we identify different types of traps in agro-ecosystems, </li></ul><ul><li>meaning development trajectories that are undesirable but </li></ul><ul><li>difficult to break free from? </li></ul><ul><li>RISK TRAPS: High risk situations reduces incentives to invest </li></ul><ul><li>CONSUMPTION/PRODUCTION TRAPS: Consumption of bio-resources too close to production  resource mining </li></ul><ul><li>VARIABILITY TRAPS (Perhaps combination of the two above) </li></ul><ul><li>RESOURCE ACCESS TRAPS – too small land lots  cap at revenues </li></ul><ul><li>POLICY TRAPS – Got resources and markets, but cant grow because of disenabling policies, political power that prevents change  </li></ul><ul><li>CULTURAL TRAPS: Mindsets prevent change </li></ul>INSIGHTS FROM IFWF 3 – RESILIENCE SESSION ROUND TABLE DISCUSSIONS
    10. 10. <ul><li>Under what conditions can AWM lead to substantial positive change in </li></ul><ul><li>a catchment / a basin, i.e. what issues need to be addressed to make </li></ul><ul><li>AWM investments work? </li></ul><ul><li>Interventions that contribute to agro-ecological productivity </li></ul><ul><li>Purpose of interventions clear, single solutions never the answer </li></ul><ul><li>Visions of pathways to change, and associated trade-offs </li></ul><ul><li>Water combined with other farm-level investments </li></ul><ul><li>Coordination of investments across scales (markets, connected institutions etc.) </li></ul><ul><li>Interventions correspond to farmers needs / capacities </li></ul><ul><li>Identify acceptable short/long term trade-offs, offer alternatives </li></ul><ul><li>Getting the mindsets right for relevant groups (part of complex systems) </li></ul>INSIGHTS FROM IFWF 3 – RESILIENCE SESSION ROUND TABLE DISCUSSIONS
    11. 11. What aspects of resilience are you interested in?  thresholds / tipping points / sudden shifts  traps & transformations  adaptive governance multi-level institutions  coping/adapting to change/disturbances (identify disturbance regimes, uncertainties, nurturing diversity, human assets/capacities etc)  scenarios, anticipating change  resilience assessments / systems analysis  ecosystem services  social-ecological linkages
    12. 12. What activities would you like the TWG to pursue? <ul><li>Harmonization of research questions and approaches </li></ul><ul><li>Feedback on projects </li></ul><ul><li>Joint papers </li></ul><ul><li>Sharing literature </li></ul><ul><li>Training courses </li></ul><ul><li>Etc. </li></ul>
    13. 13. Main themes <ul><li>What is the value of resilience thinking for Agricultural research for development? </li></ul><ul><li>- Concept paper </li></ul><ul><li>Communication messages </li></ul><ul><li>2) What are resilience indicators? </li></ul><ul><li>-Social (IK, local adaptive capacity etc) </li></ul><ul><li>-ecological </li></ul><ul><li>3) Theory (figure out what concepts such as scales, thresholds, desirable vs non-desirable traj. Adaptation vs transformation mean) </li></ul><ul><li>4) Turning crises to opportunities (reorganization etc) </li></ul><ul><li>5) Taking stock on resilience work in CPWF (homogenize, while keeping diversity) </li></ul>
    14. 14. Group discussions What questions do you want to answer? What activities can help you do that? What outputs can those activities generate? How do you want this group to support that?
    15. 15. Visioning exercise It is 2014, the 2 nd phase of the CPWF is coming to and end. You are feeling very proud over the resilience topic working group, in which you have actively participated. What have we accomplished together to make you feel this way?