World Food Policy Volume 3, No. 2/Volume 4, No. 1, Fall16/Spring17 | Page 132

World Food Policy pian and unattainable, since there are so Sahelian contexts and programs. Since it naturally places an emphasis on local many conditions to be met. If the responsibility for resilience capacities, resilience provides an oppor- is not simply incumbent on local com- tunity to take proper account of these munities, where does the onus fall? This capacities, in all their complexity and historical depth. In this way, it can be leads us to a vital debate, in both West considered as an extension, in terms of Africa and elsewhere: the governance risks, of the capabilities approach (Lal- of pro-resilience actions. Yet, this gov- lau 2008). As such, Gondard-Delcroix ernance is often highly paradoxical. The and Rousseau (2004) consider it to be first paradox is that a large number of a synthesis capability, to the extent that current initiatives are poorly coordi- it is the consequence of people’s over- nated, and primarily designed to meet all capabilities. Based on the active and the priorities imposed by each funding reactive behavior of people in relation body, whereas the notion assumes, by to their environment, resilience is ex- definition, better integrated actions. pressed through strategic choices. From The second paradox is that national a capability point of view, resilient per- public authorities (particularly local au- sons are those who are not only aware thorities) and civil society organizations of the risks they run and of their agency often feel deprived of the ability to take but also capable of concrete action in decisions, or at least the ability to pro- response to these risks. vide guidance on these issues, whereas In agriculture, resilience also al- resilience programs are supposed to be lows for the extension of risk analysis based on endogenous dynamics and beyond that usually practiced by econo- local leadership. In this regard, there is mists, that is, beyond the technical and obviously a lack of a clearly identified commercial risks. The scale at which and legitimate leader for “resilience” the resilience analysis is applied is more programs in the sub-region. that of the household than the holding, Of course, the injunction of good which would also include life risks. In practices, the tendency to circumvent addition, the resilience approach re- local authorities and the segmentation quires perceptions to be taken into ac- of programs are constant features of aid count, since what matters is less the risk sector history. But, since the resilience as probabilized by the economist than approach is supposed to be about tack- the risk as perceived by the farmer, and ling these errors, this leaves them all the the way in which, as a result, it influ- ences this farmer’s practices. Rather more open to criticism. than risks, what is at stake is adversity, a notion that refers to all events, more Potentialities of Resilience or less sudden, with the potential to sig- espite the seriousness of these nificantly impact a person’s livelihood criticisms, resilience does offer and living conditions, even though they advantages for the analysis of do not occur. These events could just D 132