Evan and Andy
Proposed Paper on Adaptability in Africa
Wednesday, 17 February 2016
Assessing Vulnerability in Dryland Agricultural Systems in Sub-Saharan Africa:
applying the panarchy framework to livelihood strategies and adaptability
Draft 3 from Andy
Thursday, 08 January 2004
Abstract
This paper will present a theoretical framework from assessing assess community adaptability of
dryland agricultural systems to major global changes caused by land use intensification and/or
climate change. This will be based around interdisciplinary field work done on dry-land
agricultural communities in Sub-Saharan Africa and will make three contributions to the literature
on global change and adaptation. First, this paper will make a theoretical contribution by
applying the panarchy framework developed to assess whether ecosystems are vulnerable to
disturbances from human communities. This framework characterizes vulnerable systems
according to the wealth and diversity in the system and the degree to which individuals in the
system are connected to one and other. Second, this paper will provide local empirical case study
information based on dryland agricultural regions in Southern Africa. This will build on a
growing body of case studies that link global change with local vulnerability. Third, this paper
will assess how farming systems that react to economic changes may make themselves vulnerable
to environmental changes; thus far the literature tends to evaluate market and environmental
changes in isolation without assessing how they interact. Results from the case studies suggest
that market forces and Government policies have resulted in farmers specializing in cattle
production, reducing livestock diversity reducing plant biodiversity in savanna rangelands. The
biological wealth of this system has increased with grazing induced environmental changes
transforming ecosystems from being dominated by slow-growing perennials to a dominance of
thorny shrub species and faster growing and water/nutrient demanding annuals grasses. Market
changes have led to extensive regions of intensively grazed rangelands that increase the
connectivity of the landscape. Together these changes in ecosystem wealth, diversity and
connectivity have increased the vulnerability of pastoral agricultural systems to the three main
types of ecological disturbance common in drylands: drought, overgrazing and fire. Appropriate
policy responses need to re-establish traditional pastoral management practices that would
increase the diversity and mobility of grazing animals, by working with communities to establish
ways of allowing farmers to share grazing rights, thereby reducing the risk that a drought will
devastate any one locality, and to establish mechanisms to ensure poorer members of society
have access to economic opportunities. In conclusion, the characteristics of vulnerability
outlined by the panarchy framework help explain how farmers who exploited market
opportunities have increased the vulnerability of dryland landscapes to environmental
disturbances. However, when we examine the policy responses, we need to promote wealth in
the community and social connectedness to increase the human adaptive capacity. This is the
reverse of what the landscape ecology literature suggests are characteristics of vulnerable systems.
As such, when we apply the panarchy framework to human systems, it is necessary to re-define
the role of wealth and connectivity in specific localities.
Introduction
The science of global change is contested. In terms of climate change, most scholars are
unwilling to predict future regional weather patterns based on current global circulation models.
The impact of changing weather patterns on communities is even less clear (Adams, Fleming,
Chang, McCarl, & Rosenzweig, 1995; Adams et al., 1990; Mendelsohn, Nordhaus, & Shaw, 1994;
Pimentel, 1999; Rosenzweig & Hillel, 1995). This is especially difficult in dryland systems that
are typified by great spatial and temporal variability resultant from the highly dynamic nature of
changes in rainfall, fire and grazing regimes (Behnke, Scoones & Kerven., 1993; Ludwig, Walker
1
Evan and Andy
Proposed Paper on Adaptability in Africa
Wednesday, 17 February 2016
& Holling, 1997; Scheffer, Carpenter, Foley, Folke & Walker, 2001). Similarly, there is little
agreement on the future outcome of economic globalisation on global agricultural systems, and
scholars continue to debate whether global trade leads to better environmental management and
reduced poverty or the reverse (Chung & Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development. Environment Directorate., 1998; Ervin, 1997; Halweil, 2002; Reilly, Hohmann, &
Kane, 1994; Robertson & Kellow, 2001).
In light of this uncertainty, one approach to understand the effect of global changes is to assess
the capacity of individual communities to adapt to environmental changes. A number of scholars
propose characteristics of “resilient” communities, or communities that have the ability to adapt
(Bryant et al., 2000; Smit, Burton, Klein, & Wandel, 2000; Smit & Skinner, 2002; Watson, 1996).
There are two challenges in this approach. First, work on adaptation has led to many definitions
of resilient communities and characteristics of communities that possess social capital (Berkes &
Folke, 1998; Boggs, 2001; Carpenter, Walker, Anderies, & Abel, 2001; Pretty, 2003; Putnam,
2000). Although academically interesting, this approach seems to create long lists of traits
implying everything social and political must be considered (Yohe & Tol, 2002). These are too
complex to be useful policy making tools (Fraser, Mabee, & Slaymaker, 2003). Second, the way a
community adapts to one set of threats might make it more vulnerable to other threats. For
example, in adapting to changing market conditions, a farmer may specialize on a particular cash
crop for export. This may make a harvest more vulnerable to environmental changes such as
droughts or floods than a more diverse subsistence agro-ecosystem. The interaction between
threats posed by environmental and economic changes lead some scholars to propose that there
is a “double exposure” where communities face multiple threats and may adapt in ways that
inadvertently create hidden vulnerabilities (Leichenko & O'Brien, 2002; O'Brien & Leichenko,
2000). Thus far, however, assessments of multiple risk expose have been done at the national
level. Problems, however, are expected to occur at sub national or regional levels. This is
because regional problems usually occur due to interactions between specific management
practices and local environmental conditions (Dalgaard, Hutchings, & Porter, 2003; Risbey,
Kandlikar, & Dowlatabadi, 1999).
To meet these two challenges, this paper will present a preliminary framework for evaluating
whether a system is vulnerable to shocks or disturbances that is based on just three overarching
characteristics, and then apply this framework to a number of dryland case studies drawn from
across Southern Africa to evaluate how communities that adapt to market change made
themselves vulnerable to environmental changes. This will then conclude with a discussion on
how policy can help reduce vulnerability.
Panarchy Framework
Landscape ecologists are particularly interested in a framework that helps establish the
vulnerability of systems (Adger & O'Riordan, 2000; Berkes & Folke, 1998; Carpenter et al., 2001;
Holling, 1986). This small group of scholars has developed tools that can help us analyse how
ecosystems adapt to shocks and disturbances (Holling, 2001; Holling, Gunderson, & Peterson,
2002). Shocks are defined as discrete events (in either space or time) that disrupt the structure of
an ecosystem, and are a common occurrence (Attwill, 1994; White, 1985) especially for dryland
systems.
Drawing on such diverse ecosystems as the everglades and the boreal forest, some landscape
ecologists propose that the impact of a disturbance on an ecosystem is based on three key
characteristics. The first characteristic is the “inherent potential of a system that is available for
change” (Holling, 2001 p. 393), which can be defined loosely as “wealth.” In a terrestrial
ecosystem, a rich foliage or high biomass that indicates a mature system would represent the
“wealth” of this system. A wealthy system is more liable to be affected by a disturbance than a
non-wealthy system, largely because it has more resources that may be affected by the
disturbance. The second characteristic is the degree to which a system can control external
forces. This can be measured by assessing how connected the components of the system are to
each other and to the external world. The third characteristic is the adaptive capacity or
resilience of a system, which can be measured as the diversity in that system. This is key as
2
Evan and Andy
Proposed Paper on Adaptability in Africa
Wednesday, 17 February 2016
diverse systems are better able to tolerate a wide range of environmental conditions than simple
systems (Altieri, 1999; Benbrook, 1990; Gliessman, 1998; Mannion, 1995).
Using this terminology, ecosystems recover after a disturbance by accumulating wealth (in this
case biomass). As wealth builds up, connectivity increases as ecological niches are filled in, and
resilience drops as the more successful species out-compete less successful species. After a
period, the system becomes so well connected, so wealthy, and so specialized that an external
event (such as a wind storm, fire, or pest outbreak) may trigger a quick release of the accumulated
capital, and cause the system to revert to a less organized state. When this happens the system
may collapse entirely and enter a new phase of reorganization that leads again to wealth
accumulation, increased connectivity and reduced diversity. Where disturbances are frequent, as
in rangelands typified by grazing disturbances, episodic fire events and regular droughts it is
unlikely that a constant (equilibrium) state is ever reached (Illius & O’Connor, 1999). Alternative
‘state and transition’ ecological models have been provided for savanna ecosystems to
conceptualise the changes associated with various disturbances, thresholds and recovery patterns
(Westoby, Walker & Noy-Meir, 1989; Friedel, 1991; Dougill, Thomas & Heathwaite, 1999; Oba,
Weladji, Lusigi & Stenseth, 2003). These models show that biomass accumulation (or wealth) is
only one factor, of many, affecting ecosystem resilience to disturbance (Walker & Abel, 2002).
This description of wealth accumulation, decline in resilience, release of capital and system
recovery has been formalized as the Panarchy framework by Gunderson and Holling (2002) and
preliminary discussions for rangelands provided by Walker & Abel (2002). The Panarchy
framework has been effectively utilized to examine the impacts of disturbance between nested
spatial scales, from the local to the global level. This framework suggests that disturbances may
cascade up and down landscape scales, precipitating further disturbances and triggering collapses
in neighbouring systems. This may be particularly true if higher levels in the Panarchy “…have
also accumulated vulnerabilities and rigidities…” (Holling, 2001, p. 398). An ecological example
is when a small ground fire spreads to the crown of a tree, which then can cascade up to the
patch, forest and landscape depending on the connectivity, wealth, and diversity of each scale in
the landscape.
While the majority of the scientific work done with the Panarchy framework relates specifically to
natural or managed ecosystems, preliminary evidence suggests that these three characteristics
(wealth, connectivity and diversity) may also help illuminate vulnerability in social systems
(Holling, 2003). There are a number of published studies that explain the effect of historic
disturbances on communities in terms of wealth, connectivity and diversity. The Irish Potato
Famine, for instance, resulted when a large number of communities depended entirely on an
agro-ecosystem that was biologically wealthy, connected and had low diversity (Fraser, 2003).
Similarly, Berkes and Folke use this model to draw parallels between the Hindu caste system and
the evolution of ecosystems (Berkes & Folke, 2002). As yet the move from theory to practice in
terms of contemporary sustainability and resilience assessments remains limited to a number of
regional case studies (e.g. Walker & Abel, 2002; Gunderson, Holling & Peterson, 2002) which
this paper aims to add to with a re-evaluation of studies assessing ecological changes and
community adaptive strategies from three study locations across the Kalahari sandveld of
Southern Africa.
Applying Panarchy to Sub-Saharan Africa
Market changes such as the EU subsidies on cattle production led to increased cattle production.
This affected the landscape in three ways. First, diversity went down as reflected in two statistics:
the increase in cattle and commensurate decrease in sheep and goats, and reductions in the
diversity of plants available for forage. Second, this became a wealthier system (biologically
speaking): biomass increased on pastures as farmers switched from slow-growing perennials to
water-thirsty annuals that supported high stocking densities. Third, the connectivity of the
landscape increased, as marginal pastureland was brought into use, and bushland/savannah was
converted into pasture (table 1). Therefore, the characteristics of this agro-ecosystem match the
trajectory described by the panarchy framework of a system becoming more and more vulnerable
3
Evan and Andy
Proposed Paper on Adaptability in Africa
Wednesday, 17 February 2016
to environmental changes such as droughts and fires. Indeed, preliminary evidence suggests that
droughts and fires are more common in this region now than they were a generation ago (****)
and that the duration and intensity of these disturbances has also increased. In light of long-term
climate change models, which predict increasing drying of this region, these landuse changes are
especially worrying.
Table 1 Summary of land use changes and resulting vulnerabilities to environmental change
Case Study 1
Case Study 2
Changes in
Diversity
15 ha of mixed
perennial grassland
converted to high
yielding annuals
Changes in
Connectivity
10% loss in forest
cover,
commensurate
increase in pasture
land
Changes in
Wealth
Stocking density
increased from
10 LU/ha to 15
LU/ha
5 ha of mixed
perennial grassland
converted to high
yielding annuals
15% loss in forest
cover,
commensurate
increase in pasture
land
Stocking density
increased from
5 LU/ha to
10 LU/ha
Results
Increased
vulnerability to fire
– preliminary
evidence suggests
that there has been
an increased in the
number of annual
hectares burned.
Increased
vulnerability to fire
– preliminary
evidence suggests
that there has been
an increased in the
number of annual
hectares burned.
There have been a number of key policy responses to this situation. Programmes have been
established to increase social connectedness. This includes bringing farmers together over large
areas so that if one experiences a drought, they can use grazing lands belonging to farmers who
still have abundant grass. Other simple measures to promote social connectivity are disturbing
mobile phones to allow communities communicate over large areas, and ensuring that farmers
have access to cattle trucks to allow them to move livestock out of drought stricken regions.
Another appropriate group of policy responses is to engage in poverty reduction strategies to
ensure that low income communities have access to income generating opportunities. Finally,
strategies to reduce vulnerability would be to encourage farmers to diversify livestock types and
the grass/forage species livestock are fed.
Discussion
The panarchy framework suggests that homogenous, connected and wealth systems are most
vulnerable to collapse. This is confirmed by the assessment of how market changes led to
landuse changes that do indeed seem to have created a more vulnerable landscape in Sub-Saharan
Africa. Although wealth and connectivity are characteristics of ecologically vulnerable systems,
they are not characteristics of vulnerability within the human populations. For the communities
in question, increasing their social connectivity and the wealth they have access to are key
methods of reducing vulnerability. The difference lies in the roles of wealth and connectivity in
human and ecological systems. In ecosystems, wealth, measured by biomass, is fixed until
released by a disturbance. In a human system, however, wealth has the potential to change forms
based on the needs of the person who owns it. A wealthy person can use their capital and invest
it in ways that reduce their vulnerability. Similarly, in an ecosystem, connectivity allows for
disturbances to move quickly from one region to another, allowing contamination to spread.
While this is true for human systems, connectivity also has the effect of allowing communities to
spread risks around: trading food means that if one region experiences a drought then they can
import food from other regions. As a result, the direct comparison of human and ecological
systems begins to break down when we apply these specific characteristics to communities, and
we need to examine the different roles that connectivity and wealth play in these different types
of systems.
4
Evan and Andy
Proposed Paper on Adaptability in Africa
Wednesday, 17 February 2016
`
Works Cited
Adams, R., Fleming, R., Chang, C., McCarl, B., & Rosenzweig, C. (1995). A Reassessment of the
Economic Effects of Global Climate Change in U.S. Agriculture. Climatic Change(30),
146-167.
Adams, R., Rosenzweig, C., Pearl, R., Ritchie, J., McCarl, B., Glyer, J., Curry, R., Jones, J., Boote,
K., & Allen, L. (1990). Global Climate Change and U.S. Agriculture. Nature, 345, 219224.
Adger, N., & O'Riordan, T. (2000). Population, adaptation and resilience. In T. O'Riordan (Ed.),
Environmental Science for Environmental Management. Esses, UK.: Prentice Hall.
Altieri, M. (1999, April 26-30). Enhancing the Productivity of Latin American Traditional Peasant Farming
Systems. Paper presented at the Sustainable Agriculture: An Evolution of New Paradigms
and Old Practices, Bellagio Centre.
Attwill, P. (1994). The disturbance of forest ecosystems: the ecological basis for conservative
management. Forest Ecology and Management, 63, 247-300.
Benbrook, C. (1990). Society's Stake in Sustainable Agriculture. In C. Edwards & R. Lal & P.
Madden & R. Miller (Eds.), Sustainable Agricultural Systems (pp. 68-76). Ankeny, IO: Soil
and Water Conservation Society.
Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (2002). The Hindu cast system and the hierarchy trap. In L. Gunderson &
C. Holling (Eds.), Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems (pp. 9798). Washington D.C.: Island Press.
Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (Eds.). (1998). Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and
Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Boggs, C. (2001). Social capital and political fantasy: Robert Putnam's Bowling Alone. Theory and
Society, 30(2), 281-297.
Bryant, C., Smit, B., Brklacich, M., Johnston, T., Smithers, J., Chiotti, Q., & Singh, B. (2000).
Adaptation in Canadian agriculture to climate variability and change. Climatic Change, 45,
181-201.
Carpenter, S., Walker, S., Anderies, J., & Abel, N. (2001). From Metaphor to Measurement:
Resilience of What to What? Ecosystems, 4, 765-781.
Chung, C., & Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Environment
Directorate. (1998). Globalisation and the environment : perspectives from OECD and dynamic
non-member economies. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development.
Dalgaard, T., Hutchings, N. J., & Porter, J. R. (2003). Agroecology, scaling and interdisciplinarity.
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 100(1 SU -), 39-51.
Ervin, D. (1997). Agriculture, trade and the environment: anticipating policy changes. Paris: Organization
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
Fraser, E. (2003). Social vulnerability and ecological fragility: building bridges between social and
natural sciences using the Irish Potato Famine as a case study. Conservation Ecology, 7(1), 9:
on line.
5
Evan and Andy
Proposed Paper on Adaptability in Africa
Wednesday, 17 February 2016
Fraser, E., Mabee, W., & Slaymaker, O. (2003). Mutual dependence, mutual vulnerability: the
reflexive relation between society and the environment. Global Environmental Change, 13,
137-144.
Gliessman, S. (1998). Agroecology. Ann Arbour Press: Chelsea.
Halweil, B. (2002). Home Grown. Washington D.C.: Worldwatch Institute.
Holling, C. (1986). The Resilience of Terrestrial Ecosystems: local surprise and global change. In
W. Clark & R. Munn (Eds.), Sustainable Development of the Biosphere. Cambridge: University
of Cambridge.
Holling, C. (2001). Understanding the Complexity of Economic, Ecological, and Social Systems.
Ecosystems, 4, 390-405.
Holling, C. (2003). From Complex Regions to Complex Worlds (Working Paper). Gainsville, FL:
University of Florida.
Holling, C., Gunderson, L., & Peterson, G. (2002). Sustainability and panarchies. In L.
Gunderson & C. Holling (Eds.), Panarchy: understanding transformation in human and natural
systems (pp. 63-103). Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Leichenko, R., & O'Brien, K. (2002). The dynamics of rural vulnerability to global change: the
case of southern Africa. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 7, 1-18.
Mannion, A. (1995). Agriculture and Environmental Change. Toronto: John Wiley and Sons.
Mendelsohn, R., Nordhaus, W., & Shaw, D. (1994). The impact of global warming on agriculture:
a Ricardian analysis. The American Economic Review, 84(4), 753-771.
O'Brien, K., & Leichenko, R. (2000). Double Exposure: assessing the impacts of climate change
with the context of economic globalization. Global Environmental Change, 10, 221-232.
Pimentel, D. (1999). Predicting global change: Climate Change and the Global Harvest: Potential
Impacts of the Greenhouse Effect on Agriculture by C. Rosenzweig and D. Hillel, and
The Terrestrial Biosphere and Global Change: Implications for Natural and Managed
Ecosystems edited by B. Walker, W. Steffen, J. Canadell and J. Ingram. Trends in Ecology
& Evolution, 14(11), 454-455.
Pretty, J. (2003). Social Capital and the Collective Management of Resources. Science, 302(5652),
1912-1914.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone : the collapse and revival of American community. New York r:
Simon & Schuste.
Reilly, J., Hohmann, N., & Kane, S. (1994). Climate change and agricultural trade : Who benefits,
who loses? Global Environmental Change, 4(1), 24-36.
Risbey, J., Kandlikar, M., & Dowlatabadi, H. (1999). Scale, context and decision making in
agricultural adaptation to climate variability and change. Climatic Change, 4, 137-165.
Robertson, D., & Kellow, A. J. (2001). Globalization and the environment : risk assessment and the WTO.
Cheltenham, UK. ; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Pub.
Rosenzweig, C., & Hillel, D. (1995). Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Agriculture and
Food Supply. Consequences, 1(2), on-line.
Smit, B., Burton, B., Klein, R., & Wandel, J. (2000). An Anatomy of Adaptation to Climate
Change Variability. Climatic Change, 45, 223-251.
Smit, B., & Skinner, M. (2002). Adaptation options in agriculture to climate change: a typology.
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 7, 85-114.
Watson, R. T., Zinyowera, M. C. and Moss, R. H. (1996). Climate change, 1995 : impacts, adaptations
and mitigation of climate change. New York.: Cambridge University Press.
6
Evan and Andy
Proposed Paper on Adaptability in Africa
Wednesday, 17 February 2016
White, P. S., and S.T.A. Pickett. (1985). Chapter 1. Natural disturbance and patch dynamics: an
introduction. In S. Pickett & P. White (Eds.), The ecology of natural disturbance and patch
dynamics (pp. 3-13). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Yohe, G., & Tol, R. (2002). Indicators for social and economic coping capacity moving toward a
working definition of adaptive capacity. Global Environmental Change, 12, 25-40.
7