Thanks for the question and apologies for the delay, I have been hit or miss with internet access while on travel.
The question, reworded slightly, is whether spreading plots across the landscape is one means to buttress resilience of individual farmers. This is a fascinating question for a number of reasons.
First, I would give a qualified yes, and say that in some cases having plots in different locations within a watershed could potentially improve resilience for individual farmers. Thinking in terms of strategies at the individual level, this could be one of several potential approaches for managing risk. Likewise, we would need to simultaneously consider complimentary issues such as specific crop choices, land management practices and the like. All of these have the potential to be part of the portfolio of individual-level management strategies.
By way of example, at the Fogera site, there are a number of plots located in very sensitive portions of the watershed. There are two farmers in particular with the majority of their holdings in a portion of the watershed that is potentially very sensitive to the upstream decisions of others. In one case, the farmer’s holdings are fairly substantial. This farmer has an adequate land base such that he has been able to allocate the most vulnerable portion of his lands to less sensitive activities such as grazing. Another famer in the same area has a significantly less land and the vast majority of his holdings are allocated to subsistence and market driven agriculture. If there were a major disturbance in this system (e.g., heavy rains and high levels of sedimentation), the farmer with the larger holdings and thus more flexibility in terms of management decisions will fair far better then the farmer with little choice as to what practices he can implement where.
The “portfolio” approach to individual land management decisions has a great deal of potential. One of the challenges, as the above example illustrates, is that the ability of individual smallholders to create a portfolio of different practices is limited by their holdings. This issue is further exacerbated by the fact that individual holdings are, more often then not, shrinking and increasingly fragmented over time due to population growth, unstable land tenure systems, in migration, etc.
Another reason this is an interesting question is that it gets at the issue of scale. When we think in terms of policy, it is necessary to consider how the assemblage of individual actions serves to collectively influence the resilience of the broader area. In some ways, this is a version of Garrett Hardin’s “Tragedy of the Commons,” in that what is good for the individual is not necessarily the best choice for the system as a whole. At the watershed level, we know that different practices are often advisable for different portions of the watershed. However, while these practices may be useful for promoting water infiltration and soil retention at the system level, they may actually result in lower levels of food production for those with plots located in areas better suited to alternative non-food practices.
When we’re thinking in terms of resilience of the system, we need to think both about individual resilience and system resilience and, especially, these concepts over time. The choice between individual and system level resilience is not clear-cut by any means, but when we incorporate time into the equation, the need for focusing on system-level properties quickly becomes evident.
Again, however, I would assert that all of these systems are set within broader social contexts (cultural, political, economic, other). It is thus critical to consider these contexts when thinking in terms of larger scale policy and the specific actions required at the local level to achieve these policy aims.
I think that both Mamun’s and Caren’s examples speak to the fundamental necessity of considering these broader contexts. There is no disentangling individual action from the broader context. Caren’s point that defining resilience in relation to the problem(s) and system(s) at hand is directly relevant here; if we wish to orient BOTH policy decisions and local/individual actions toward increasing resilience, we need to specifically define what it is we want to accomplish and how specific actions and indicators serve to measure success in that regard.
Comment from Steven Prager:
Alain,
Thanks for the question and apologies for the delay, I have been hit or miss with internet access while on travel.
The question, reworded slightly, is whether spreading plots across the landscape is one means to buttress resilience of individual farmers. This is a fascinating question for a number of reasons.
First, I would give a qualified yes, and say that in some cases having plots in different locations within a watershed could potentially improve resilience for individual farmers. Thinking in terms of strategies at the individual level, this could be one of several potential approaches for managing risk. Likewise, we would need to simultaneously consider complimentary issues such as specific crop choices, land management practices and the like. All of these have the potential to be part of the portfolio of individual-level management strategies.
By way of example, at the Fogera site, there are a number of plots located in very sensitive portions of the watershed. There are two farmers in particular with the majority of their holdings in a portion of the watershed that is potentially very sensitive to the upstream decisions of others. In one case, the farmer’s holdings are fairly substantial. This farmer has an adequate land base such that he has been able to allocate the most vulnerable portion of his lands to less sensitive activities such as grazing. Another famer in the same area has a significantly less land and the vast majority of his holdings are allocated to subsistence and market driven agriculture. If there were a major disturbance in this system (e.g., heavy rains and high levels of sedimentation), the farmer with the larger holdings and thus more flexibility in terms of management decisions will fair far better then the farmer with little choice as to what practices he can implement where.
The “portfolio” approach to individual land management decisions has a great deal of potential. One of the challenges, as the above example illustrates, is that the ability of individual smallholders to create a portfolio of different practices is limited by their holdings. This issue is further exacerbated by the fact that individual holdings are, more often then not, shrinking and increasingly fragmented over time due to population growth, unstable land tenure systems, in migration, etc.
Another reason this is an interesting question is that it gets at the issue of scale. When we think in terms of policy, it is necessary to consider how the assemblage of individual actions serves to collectively influence the resilience of the broader area. In some ways, this is a version of Garrett Hardin’s “Tragedy of the Commons,” in that what is good for the individual is not necessarily the best choice for the system as a whole. At the watershed level, we know that different practices are often advisable for different portions of the watershed. However, while these practices may be useful for promoting water infiltration and soil retention at the system level, they may actually result in lower levels of food production for those with plots located in areas better suited to alternative non-food practices.
When we’re thinking in terms of resilience of the system, we need to think both about individual resilience and system resilience and, especially, these concepts over time. The choice between individual and system level resilience is not clear-cut by any means, but when we incorporate time into the equation, the need for focusing on system-level properties quickly becomes evident.
Again, however, I would assert that all of these systems are set within broader social contexts (cultural, political, economic, other). It is thus critical to consider these contexts when thinking in terms of larger scale policy and the specific actions required at the local level to achieve these policy aims.
I think that both Mamun’s and Caren’s examples speak to the fundamental necessity of considering these broader contexts. There is no disentangling individual action from the broader context. Caren’s point that defining resilience in relation to the problem(s) and system(s) at hand is directly relevant here; if we wish to orient BOTH policy decisions and local/individual actions toward increasing resilience, we need to specifically define what it is we want to accomplish and how specific actions and indicators serve to measure success in that regard.