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.