CONTAMINACIÓN MULTINACIONAL Y CAMBIO CLIMÁTICO

The concept of resilience originates in ecology (Folke, 2006). After studying the relationships between species, Holling (1973) concluded that ecosystems do not operate in an equilibrium state. Instead, species and ecosystems are complex systems pursuing multiple patterns within theoretical boundaries (or domains of attraction) that, once breached, can tip systems into a different state. Therefore, ecosystem resilience can be said to represent the ability of a system to fluctuate within the domain of attraction, and the magnitude of disturbance that can be absorbed without the system being tipped outside this domain, changing the structure, variables and processes that control its behaviour (Gunderson, 2000). The idea of multiple stable states in ecosystem resilience presents ecosystems as constantly stressed and changing systems (Engle, 2011). This understanding of resilience diverges from engineering resilience, where the term is used to describe the ability of and time taken by materials to bounce back after shocks and resume a certain original state (Pimm, 1984). The focus in engineering resilience is on efficiency, control and predictability, while ecological resilience considers adaptiveness, variability and unpredictability (Nyamwanza, 2012). More recently, resilience research has increasingly incorporated social dimensions and acknowledges the urgent challenges facing SES

19

resulting from increased human activity (Carpenter and Brock, 2008; Pahl-Wostl, 2009). In light of recent recognition and integration of social dimensions, resilience is defined in this study as “….the capacity of social, economic, and environmental systems to cope with a hazardous event or trend or disturbance, responding or reorganizing in ways that maintain their essential function, identity, and structure, while also maintaining the capacity for adaptation, learning, and transformation” (IPCC, 2014). The SES literature considers adaptive capacity to be a positive component of SES resilience, referring to the capacities of actors in the system to manage and influence resilience through interactions between human and environmental components of the system (Walker et al., 2006). Hence, the greater the adaptive capacity of a system, the greater likelihood the system will be resilient (Engle, 2011).

The institutions and processes through which SES are managed influence household level resilience by shaping access to the resources required to buffer and respond to disturbance (Walker et al., 2006). Institutions and processes are linked across and within levels, and the dynamics of a system at one level cannot be fully understood without due consideration of the dynamics of other levels in which it is embedded (Gunderson and Holling, 2002). It is necessary to understand these dynamics within SES in order to understand how resilience is built and eroded (Turner et al., 2003). This is also important when considering how institutions and processes, occurring at higher levels of governance, shape household resilience to disturbance through the distribution of adaptive capacity (e.g. via access to the ecosystem services used to respond and buffer households from SES change). Governance processes must be flexible enough to manage these challenges (Garmestani and Benson, 2013). Flexibility is important because it can accommodate the uncertainties of complex SES dynamics by: reducing the fragile rigidities associated with systems that focus on economic growth and efficiency; and providing SES with a wider range of options to buffer, absorb and self-organise in response to change (Garmestani and Benson, 2013). Governance institutions can manage SES and interactions in such a way that either maintains the system’s state (status quo), or facilitates transitions and transformations (Folke et al., 2006). Transitions represent incremental SES changes within the existing domain of attraction, while transformation describes a move to a new system state when the current state becomes undesirable (Pelling, 2011). Vietnam has a long history of preparedness for, and active response to, natural disasters. Early warning systems, extensive dike and sea walls systems, effective house construction, land use

20

planning and mangrove planting are all evidence that citizens and leaders over the centuries have recognized the country’s vulnerability to the consequences of typhoons and other tropical storms. However, the rapid rate of MSES change threatens to reduce resilience, as mangrove systems that buffer coastal communities from climatic events and provide provisioning goods to respond to MSES change are degraded and lost at an alarming rate.

Criticisms of the resilience concept argue that more attention has been paid to the ecological components of SES (Fraser, 2003), overlooking issues of power (Armitage and Johnson 2006; Nadasdy 2007; Duit, Eckerberg et al. 2010). This is important because power is a vital aspect regarding the processes that shape environmental justice and the distribution of adaptive capacity within SES (Ernstson, 2013). The resilience literature also often fails to consider that a resilient SES does not always equate with a socially-preferred ecological or socio-economic state; nor does it give explicit recognition to the power dynamics of who gets to decide what the desirable state is (Armitage, Béné et al. 2012). For example, in Vietnam, the transformation from a command and control economy to a more market-orientated system has been implemented in such a way that the state retains control in deciding the desirable state. This will have implications for the resilience of Vietnam’s SES and the distribution of adaptive capacity at the local level. Furthermore, the resilience of a particular resource within a SES may be desirable, but lead to a loss of general resilience of the whole SES in which the resource is only one part (Folke et al., 2010). These conceptual challenges raise two key issues (Armitage et al., 2012): (1) resilience is often interpreted as a “good” thing when it is merely a concept; (2) lack of acknowledgement of social values that determine a desirable SES state leads to an uneasy fit with the social world. These issues are grappled with in this research which integrates livelihood, social network and institutional analysis to support a richer and more balanced understanding of vulnerability and resilience in the analysis of adaptive capacity in SES. By engaging with power dynamics it introduces a justice lens to the analysis of SES change and adaptive capacity.

Vulnerability and resilience are often depicted as being opposite sides of the same coin, but this is not often the case. Although a resilient system will be less vulnerable overall, a resilient system may still contain vulnerable components, and a vulnerable system may or may not be resilient (Gallopin, 2006). This is partly because, unlike

21

vulnerability, resilience does not explicitly consider exposure, but rather refers to the response of the system when it is exposed to change. Holling (1973) suggests that a history of past exposures may be important in building system resilience, while Levin et al (1998) state that “…every natural system is subject to regular disturbance; those that have survived, indeed must have built up some degree of resilience” (p228). For example, a household’s livelihood may have low vulnerability due to a coastal dike providing protection and reduced levels of exposure and sensitivity to change, but at the same time they may lack experience in responding to and learning from change. Therefore the household may have limited flexibility and diversity of options to respond when the thresholds of the dike are breached.

Vulnerability approaches typically assess the effects on society of a particular disturbance at a single spatial scale (Vincent, 2007), providing a ‘snapshot’ in time (Engle, 2011). Conversely, resilience approaches tend to focus on multiple disturbances and their interactions, processes and feedbacks that influence SES (Nelson et al., 2007). Hence, when applied independently, vulnerability and resilience frameworks are inadequate for analysing changes and responses. Consequently, in this research, focus is instead placed on adaptive capacity. Adaptive capacity incorporates considerations of both vulnerability and resilience, being a key positive system attribute within both (i.e. increased adaptive capacity will both reduce vulnerability and increase resilience) (Gupta et al., 2010; Engle, 2011; Berman et al., 2012). Harnessing vulnerability and resilience perspectives through studies of adaptive capacity provides the opportunity to consider both more socially focussed, short-term issues at the local level, and broader, longer-term ecosystem processes. Doing so provides a deeper and richer analysis of SES, the shocks and stresses they face, and the responses that are taken in order to deal with change.