Climate change brings unprecedented challenges for livelihoods in developing countries. Development and humanitarian assistance, research for development and our whole conception of equity and risk need to factor in climate change. On 18 February, the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) is organising a seminar which will explore the social dimensions of climate change. This presentation 'Resilience for Whom in Swedish Development Programing' by Ian Christoplos, will be delivered as part of that seminar. Watch the live video stream at http://ccafs.cgiar.org/videostream

1. Resilience “for Whom” in
Swedish Development
Programming
Ian Christoplos
Research programme on Climate Change and
Rural Institutions
DIIS ∙ DANISH INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

2. Resilience and the development
agenda
 Catchword, confusion or content?
 Sida reviewing experience and
considering options for the future
 But hard to identify actual results, and
their implications for a stronger resilience
focus
 Also unclear what the ownership is for
„yet another mainstreaming agenda‟
 Discourse on definitions not very helpful
DIIS ∙ DANISH INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

3. Basic challenges
 Resilience: Is it about systems or
people?
 Can a development agency question
linear development?
 Can resilience fit into the results
agenda?
 Can resilience efforts reflect a human
rights based approach?
DIIS ∙ DANISH INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

4. Findings on resilience at Sida
 Many projects with potentially relevant
activities (strong on capacity
development and networking)
 Plausible theories of change, but
untested
 Lack of clarity regarding the nature of
climate risk, and who it is that is
vulnerable
 Oddly enough, food security (as a key
aspect of resilience) is stronger in the
water portfolio than in agriculture
DIIS ∙ DANISH INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

5. Resilience and rights
 Striving for resilient ecosystems may
create goal conflicts for those living on
the margins
 Resilience can justify green-grabbing if
there is an undifferentiated perspective
on vulnerability -safeguards not yet in
place!
 Targeting for rights-based resilience
requires more rigorous approaches to
testing theories of change related to
inclusive (gender, poverty, etc.)
development
DIIS ∙ DANISH INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

6. Resilience and results
 Often noted that the complex, dynamic
and uncertain nature of resilience makes
it very hard to evaluate
 But, if resilience is not translated into
concrete indicators and outcomes in
results frameworks, the prospects for
transcending mere clichés are grim
 „Resilience for whom‟ implies defining
results with a critical stance on the
landscape of risk and differing forms of
vulnerability
DIIS ∙ DANISH INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

7. Entry points for clarifying whose
resilience counts
 Differentiated risk and vulnerability
analyses
 Analysing local resource scarcity and
food security problems before proposing
solutions („best practices‟ are not
enough)
 Priority on outcomes related to adaptive
capacities, and not just adaptive actions
 Plausible and tested theories of change
DIIS ∙ DANISH INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDIES