Resilience
Resilience is frequently described as the ability of a system to return
to its initial state after a shock or perturbation (Holling, 1973). This
implies the system – in our case the farm or the village with their
physical and social components – to be adaptive, subject to change, and
consisting of interacting subsystems (Rammel, Stagl, & Wilfing, 2007).
Each subsystem directly responds to external shocks or other changes,
but since subsystems interact, one may also respond to modifications of
another subsystem. Resilience thinking thus moves away from
‘traditional’ analytical assumptions such as linearity and
predictability (Darnhofer, Fairweather, & Moller, 2010; Scoones et al.,
2007), towards dynamics of complexity within a system. Therefore, a
paradigm shift is required from an emphasis on efficiency or production
of a (farming) system, to adaptability, capacity development and
evidence-based learning (Darnhofer et al., 2010).
Resilience within the PIP approach implies focusing both on physical
aspects of farming, as well as coping capacities of households and
villages. Diversification of crops, income sources and practices are
particularly important, given land scarcity for agriculture and
vulnerability to climatic risks. Including non-farm income sources,
high-quality cash crops and livestock in the farming system as an income
source, is therefore always stressed during PIP creation. Concerning
social resilience, coping strategies and adaptive capacities of families
are particularly crucial, in terms of education, skills, knowledge,
health and organisation (Ellis, 1998; Keck & Sakdapolrak, 2013). The
PIP approach continuously stresses these elements of social resilience,
and also builds with its activities social cohesion within families and
in villages.