|
|
DISCUSSION No. 137 • FSN Forum digest No. 1287
|
|
|
Beyond “temporal” resilience: results that withstand the test of time
|
|
until 24 March 2017
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Members,
Please find below the summaries of the first contributions to the discussion
Beyond “temporal” resilience: results that withstand the test of time and feedback from Walter Mwasaa, facilitator of the discussion.
In his message, Walter shares a publication on resilience measurement tools, which addresses the aspects of time and space
in assessing resilience. Walter also stresses the need for an increased focus on the aspects of temporal dynamism and uncertainty in resilience measurement.
Participants to the discussion are sharing very interesting ideas regarding the question of whether or not a minimum time
frame exists in which an individual, community or system should remain resilient to actually qualify as “resilient”.
To read the contributions received so far, for the introduction to the discussion and to post your contribution, please
visit the discussion page in
English,
French or
Spanish.
We look forward to receiving your input on this important topic!
Your FSN Forum team
|
|
|
|
Walter Mwasaa, facilitator of the discussion
|
I would like to thank the current contributors to this debate for their thought provoking reflections on the challenges
of ensuring more sustained outcomes in a very unstable context that is the world we all live in. This instability is potentially more complex among the disaster- and shock- prone communities and individuals that the work we do seeks to support out of the perpetual
cycle of inadequate readiness for the shocks.
|

|
That said, I have come across some literature that I believe captures some of the salient points in an analysis of resilience
measurement tools that is relevant to this discussion. This is in a paper by Sharifi A. 2016 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X16302588).
The paper is a stock take of tools for assessing community resilience.
In the paper he references to the need to acknowledge cross-scale relationships of shocks and capturing the temporal dynamism
of in abilities of communities and individuals to respond to shocks Sharifi A (2016:631). The two dynamics introduce time and space aspects in measuring resilience. He continues to introduce the subject of uncertainties which is at the heart of this discussion.
With this the need for iterative assessments and scenario development is brought to the forefront.
The temporal dynamism and uncertainties in resilience measurement are in my opinion easily the two specific areas that
need more focus. Complex as they may be, they point to the obvious need for deeper analysis across multiple shocks in both time and impact, past, current and future.
As we keep talking, it would be interesting to hear of any practical examples out there that have modelled out specific
potential resilience outcomes in a dynamic and unpredictable context.
Walter Mwasaa
CARE Bangladesh
|
|
|
|
|
|
CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED
|
|
Emile
Houngbo, National University of Agriculture, Porto-Novo (UNA), Benin
|
|
Emile refers to the literature, which identifies a period of five years as reasonable for determining if a person or
a community is resilient. He mentions the following reasons for this: 1) five years is perceived as a long period of time in the life of an individual in many cultures; 2) five-year periods typically break down the data collecting exercises for temporal analyses,
and 3) the available empirical results indicate that people who remain poor during five years or more will most probably stay poor for the rest of their lives.
Read
the contribution
|
|
|
Thomas
Amougou Obama, Croix Rouge Camerounaise, Cameroon
|
|
Thomas highlights the complexity of resilience building. He argues that preventing, confronting and overcoming a crisis
situation are crucial to resilience building and raises several questions related to the topic of the discussion.
Read
the contribution
|
|
|
Stephen
Omondi Okoth, Elison Decision Support Services and Institute of Logistics and Supply Chain Management, Kenya
|
|
Stephen agrees with Walter, the facilitator of the discussion, that temporarily overcoming threats cannot be qualified
as ‘being resilient’. Instead, he argues that resilience should cover the entire lifespan of an individual, and that predicting possible future shortcomings, and identifying and implementing solutions in a timely manner are essential for resilience building.
Read
the contribution
|
|
|
Richard
Ofwono, Action Africa Help International, South Sudan
|
|
Richard stresses that the context is crucial in determining how much time is required to build resilience; in this regard,
he refers in particular to the existence of state institutions. In South Sudan for instance, where people face chronic vulnerability and where governance structures are weak, much more time and many more steps are needed to deal with shocks as compared to
more stable contexts with adequate governance structures in place.
Read
the contribution
|
|
|
Jan
Eijkenaar, Independent, Sudan
|
|
According to Jan, a person’s resilience starts from conception, and resilience-building efforts may be a non-starter
if personal growth and development opportunities are missed out of very early on in life. Jan also raises the question for whom ‘resilience’ may be a true or useful concept. Some approaches to resilience mainly focus on those who may ‘bounce back’ and pursue
their ‘development’, excluding people who actually had nothing left to ‘bounce back from’ from the beginning. He argues that if ‘resilience’ can address the inherent questions of power that underlie permanent chronic states such as chronic malnutrition, then
perhaps the temporal outlook may positively change and ‘resilience’ isn’t a poor ‘technical’ surrogate for fundamental just cooperation and comprehensive governance.
Read
the contribution
|
|
|
Mandar
Vaidya, Grassroots Initiative, India
|
|
Mandar argues that the nature of resilience is rather complex as stresses and shocks are the combined result of natural
and human-made systems, which makes it difficult to develop a framework with comprehensive indicators for short- or long-term resilience as outcome. However, he thinks that it is possible to design a comprehensive framework with process-oriented indicators
for measuring the state of resilience, which should be adaptable to different contexts.
Read
the contribution
|
|
|
|