ADAPTATION VERSUS RESILIENCE GRAPHS:
The case for needing to build resilience to all
stressors, not just disasters
1. Post-disaster management –
coping with the after effects of
a disaster
W
ell
be
in
g
Coping
Disaster
2. Not the real world: disaster risk
reduction when no other stressors,
such as climate change, exist
W
ell
be
in
g
Reducing risk
Disaster
Time
Time
3. The real world: disaster risk
reduction if other stressors, such as
climate change, exist
4. Building resilience to all
stressors
Increasing resilience
W
ell
be
in
g
Decreasing ability to cope
W
ell
be
in
g
Decreasing vulnerability to
disasters
Disasters
Time
Time
Credit: These graphs were developed through informal conversations between Oxfam and
Tearfund staff: particularly Mike Wiggins, Nigel Timmins Oenone Chadburn
Tearfund
and
Disaster of
(with
reduced
Catherine Pettengell of Oxfam.
vulnerability to disasters
as resilience improves)
Disaster Risk Reduction work that fails to consider other long-term stressors will not help communities
get off the downward development slope caused by climate change and other stressors. Climate change
alone means the ‘normal’ situation is not certain, and that even without disasters, the lives of poor
people in developing countries are very likely to get harder.
The above graphs are used during CEDRA workshops to help show the need for climate change
adaptation above and beyond disaster risk reduction (DRR) alone (see graph 3). They show too that
DRR does not have the intended development outcome of improved wellbeing, but rather wellbeing at
the same level as it was prior to a disaster.
Graph 4 was previously called ‘Adaptation’ – but Tearfund’s emerging thinking is that adapting to the
negative impacts of climate change is only one facet of increasing ‘Resilience’ that results in improved
wellbeing.
Other stressors on top of climate change could include: conflict, negative impacts of a global capitalist
economy and financial crisis, the related peak oil crisis, environmental degradation and the collapse of
ecosystems, and destructive cultural norms that result in gender inequalities. The list is endless.
The emerging response, initiated by Marcus Oxley of the Global Network for Disaster Reduction, and
supported by the ‘Adaptation Working Group’ in Tearfund, is to form a common local resilience
framework. This would allow local communities, NGOs and government agencies to develop locally-led
solutions to all identified stressors.
Awareness raising, information sharing and technology sharing is necessary in order that communities
and other local actors can make informed decisions. This is where CEDRA fits in. It is one tool that helps
address two stressors – climate change and environmental degradation. Many of the poorest and most
vulnerable communities need external knowledge about the projected impacts of climate change and
environmental degradation if they are to increase their resilience and face a future where their wellbeing
is improved. CEDRA helps local NGOs to access the science and analyse local knowledge; these local
NGOs in turn help communities to prioritise now in order to build a resilient future.
Awareness raising needs to be undertaken with caution, however, as it can easily lead to expectation
raising in communities, that new funds may be coming their way. This should be managed well, rather
than be a reason for keeping citizens in the dark.
Funds are most definitely needed, and developed countries are obliged to provide funds to compensate
for climatic and environmental damage caused by years of overconsumption and abuse of the planet.
But it doesn’t ‘all come down to money’. What it all comes down to is justice, equity and freedom –
voices need to be raised at local, district, national and international levels, and raising awareness in
communities helps to build the capacity of those voices. It is possible to carry out awareness raising
while being explicit from the start that funds will not be available, but that actions can be taken with
little or no financial outlay eg local advocacy work, or diverting costs from destructive agricultural
practices to more sustainable ones.