Working Paper on Social-Ecological Resilience SeriesNo. 2011-013

Resilience as a Way of Life in Gwembe Valley
By

Elizabeth Colson
April 2011

Vulnerability and Resilience of Social-Ecological Systems
RIHN Research Project E-04

Research Institute for Humanity and Nature (RIHN)Inter-University Research Institute Corporation, National Institutes for the Humanities

大学共同利用機関法人 人間文化研究機構
総合地球環境学研究所

Working Paper on Social-Ecological Resilience SeriesNo. 2011-013

Resilience as a Way of Life in Gwembe Valley
By

Elizabeth Colson
E-mail: gwembe@berkeley.edu
April 2011

Vulnerability and Resilience of Social-Ecological Systems
RIHN Research Project E-04

Research Institute for Humanity and Nature (RIHN)Inter-University Research Institute Corporation, National Institutes for the Humanities

大学共同利用機関法人 人間文化研究機構
総合地球環境学研究所

Abstract
Harsh environments test human ingenuity. Survival requires adaptability which means thatpeople must be flexible, innovative, versatile and self-reliant. For the last millennium, Tongaspeaking people have inhabited Gwembe Valley in southern Zambia and nearby Zimbabwe.
Over the years they created a mixed economy that allowed them to survive drought, floods,
and other challenges. Survival techniques included multi-cropping, development of droughtresistant strains of crops suitable to local conditions, and the cultivation of social ties thatgave access to the resources of adjacent regions.
Key words: Environmental Stress, Drought, Survival Techniques, Innovation, Resettlement,
Experimentation, Social Networks, Trade, Gwembe Tonga,

要約
厳しい環境は人間の創造力を試している．生存には適応能力が必要とされ，人々は柔軟で，革新的で，融通が効き，自立的でなくてはならない．過去千年の間，トンガの人々はザンビア南部のグウェンベ渓谷とジンバブウェに暮らしていた．長い年月をかけて，彼らは複合的な経済を作り出し，干ばつや洪水，その他の困難を生き抜いてきた．彼らの生存技術には，複数の作物を栽培することや，地域の状況に適し耐乾性の強い作物を栽培すること，そして近隣地域の資源にアクセスするための社会的紐帯の構築などが挙げられる．
キーワード：環境ストレス，干ばつ，生存技術，イノベーション，実験，社会ネッ
トワーク，交易，グウェンベトンガ，再定住Gwembe Valley is a harsh environment – this is true throughout its extent despite
differences in elevation, soils, water resources and biota. It was so prior to 1958 (Scudder1962) when the building of Kariba Dam on the Zambezi River flooded much of the lower
levels of the Valley. It is probably even more so in the 21st century. Rainfall is low,temperatures during the hot season are blighting, droughts have become increasingly
frequent, fertile soils were largely to be found along the Zambezi’s meanders or in thedeltas of the Zambezi’s tributary rivers and are now under the waters of Kariba Lake,erosion is depleting the remaining arable soils and makes difficult the maintenance ofroads, malaria and other insect-vector diseases are common as is tuberculosis, while today
HIV/AIDS probably infects at least 16% of the population. To survive and sometimes
even prosper in such an environment takes intelligent observation, flexibility, foresight,
versatility, opportunism, and above all both the knowledge that humans can recover evenfrom such things as starvation periods or the loss of kith and kin and the determination tosurvive whatever the odds.
Despite its difficulties, the Valley has been occupied by humans for millennia andby Tonga-speakers since probably around 1,000 AD. In 1949, I found residents in large
villages associated with delta or meander soils close to the Zambezi proudly proclaiming
themselves People of the River (basimulongo) and pleased with the fact that they had theirown way of life whose exuberance spilled out on occasions into dances that drew in all thepeople of a neighbourhood. Even those settled in smaller enclaves in the hills often seemed
content with their lot. Many had tried life on the Plateau where they had kin but decided
that life in Gwembe Valley was better, difficult as it was. Labour migrants abandoned
town clothes and town ways when they settled back into village life. In the 1940s
permanent outmigration reflected population pressure on available arable land, endemic
since the early 1930s. By then, areas depopulated by raiding parties in the latter half of the
19th century (Makololo, Lozi, Chikunda and Ndebele) and by various epidemics again
faced land shortages fueled by birth rates that more than compensated for high death rates(Clark et al. 2001). Competition intensified for delta or meander zone fields or for fields on
the Zambezi banks whose soils were capable of almost continuous cultivation. Those wholost out moved into the escarpment hills or to the tsetse-free Plateau where plough
agriculture introduced by missionaries in the 1910s replaced shifting slash-and-burn
agriculture when a market for maize developed with the opening of the Northern1

Rhodesian copper mines in the 1920s and 1930s.

Then men ambitious to undertake

cash-cropping moved westward to take advantage of new possibilities associated with thecoming of the railroad, the highway, trading hamlets, and growing urban centres.
Versatility and Willingness to Innovate
Those who chose to stay in Gwembe Valley then acquired a reputation of being
backward adherents to earlier life styles, prepared to endure hunger and other deprivations
rather than change. Their willingness to accept changes that seemed advantageous was
masked by their refusal to abandon proven survival techniques that had carried themthrough bad years as well as good. This was one aspect of their resilience, i.e., their ability
to maintain themselves over the long run under conditions that tested human ingenuity andtoughness (Colson 1979).
Self-Reliance and Resilience
Life in the Valley required flexibility, the exercise of judgment, and a willingness
to use any available resource if people were to survive and recover from bad times.
Gwembe people learned to respond to particular circumstances rather than follow
unchanging routines. Their freedom to choose and to shift from one possibility to another,
however, was linked to the expectation that individuals were free to make choices
according to what they see as their own best interests.

This was linked to the lack ofhierarchy so characteristic of their society and to the autonomy given to individuals to planand take responsibility for ensuring survival. The egalitarian social order the Tonga had
evolved put a premium on self-reliance. The priority they gave to individual freedom todecide and act with a minimum of external control was summed up in their adage, Each
person, (his or her) own law. People did not like to be told what to do and withdrew
cooperation if they thought themselves under coercion. The reverse of this lack ofhierarchy was the absence of authorized leaders who could organize people for some joint
effort. When asked to whom they looked for guidance, the usual answer was, ‘It would
depend on what I wanted advice about’. They recognized and respected expertise andlooked to those with special skills to see what they were doing but adopted only what suitedthem.

Even late into the 20th century they looked on the chiefs first appointed by the

British South African Company at the beginning of the century as government chiefs andsaw no reason why such persons should have the right to tell them what to do. Rarely2could someone expect to be able to direct the activities of others than his immediate family:
a man’s most secure work force lay in his wives and immature children. The mobilizationof larger work groups depended upon reciprocity in labour or the provision of bountiful
hospitality.
Despite the emphasis on self-reliance, it was common knowledge that even themost independent needed to be able to turn to others for assistance in some activities or indifficult times. They preferred to cultivate individual links through kinship or otherdevices that gave them claims on selected people in their own vicinity who could besummoned for house building or help on other occasions. As individuals they also
cultivated links with a scatter of kin or bond friends living elsewhere who might be able toprovide support in a bad year or if they ran to escape difficulties at home. Dispersal rather
than community mobilization was a preferred survival technique.
Communal activities were largely ritual in nature and incumbent only on thepeople of a neighbourhood, each neighbourhood having its own ritual shrines and ritualleaders (Colson 2006). These regulated activities of the agricultural year (especially those
associated with the growing of millets and sorghums, the harvesting of certain wild crops,
the initiation of certain kinds of hunting and fishing) and also provided for the maintenanceof good relations with the land on which all depended. The last included protection ofcommunal shrines from encroachment. Rituals stressed the need to maintain continuities
with the past but individuals were still free to experiment with new crops and otherproductive activities without consulting others. An innovator was threatened only if anaction was diagnosed as angering the spirits that watched over the land whose displeasure
was indicated by bad rains, insect infestations, or other calamities that affected thoseresidents in the locality. Otherwise their fellows preferred to observe, on occasion withridicule, but usually with a willingness to be convinced if a new activity brought desirable
results. Since most activities basic to subsistence were learned in preparation for normal
adulthood, fellow villagers considered themselves good judges of the desirability ofinnovations, taking into account available resources including labour, alternative sourcesof supply and environmental conditions that made for great uncertainty. On the other hand,
the innovator usually felt no compulsion to share a discovery. Often enough, knowledge
was passed on only to a chosen successor or only for a substantial payment. I have heard
Gwembe men bemoan lost knowledge: ‘we experiment and make wonderful discoveries
3but then we don’t want to share these with others’. This they said differentiated them fromthe Europeans who thought knowledge gained should be taught to others.
Versatility
Gwembe Tonga willingness to innovate has been demonstrated many times. The
rapid spread of cattle herds and resort to ox-ploughing in the 1950s when cattle could beprotected against trypanosomiasis is one evidence of this. So is the equally rapid spread in
the 1980s and 1990s of domestic guinea fowl once these had been introduced into Zambia.
Cropping patterns also reflected this mixture of the experimental and the tried.
Gwembe farmers did not abandon the old staple crops of sorghums and millets,
associated with much of the ritual of the agricultural cycle, when Plateau farmers switchedto maize as their primary crop, but this was not because of the ritual importance of thesecrops. Farmers knew it was risky to depend on maize as a staple, given their soils and theuncertainty of the rains and the difficulty of importing food when local supplies failed. It
was wiser to give priority to crops that had more certain outcomes under a variety of
weather conditions. Maize was a luxury, a welcome addition to their cropping system as it
had been since its introduction via the Portuguese in the 16th or 17th century, but it also gavethem added protection.

So, after resettlement in 1958 and against the advice of thecolonial agricultural service, they continued to grow maize both because they liked its taste
and the ease with which it could be processed into meal and because maize ripened earlier
than the more drought resistant sorghums and millets. This shortening of the hunger
period, for many, was reason enough in itself to plant maize. Over the years they selected
seed to develop quick ripening drought resistant maize varieties adapted to their soils andrainfall, just as they continued to develop their own breeds of sorghums and millets. But
they knew that they could not depend upon maize as the primary subsistence crop nor
would an abundant maize harvest be disposable given the limited local market whenharvests were good.
This openness to the new without abandoning proven practices resulted in acomplex agricultural system based on the expectation that in any one year one or more
staples might fail. Men and women observed, evaluated, and often adopted what they saw
others doing and then experimented further. Travelers to other areas looked for andbrought home new seeds or plants to see how these fared under local conditions and how
4their requirements of soil and water competed with other uses of the land. Novelty in itself
was attractive but no guarantee that an innovation would prove advantageous in the longrun and some possible crops were rejected without a trial because they took too many years
and required too much care before they produced a crop. Fruit trees and other trees that
require years of care before producing were rarely planted, whereas people willingly foundroom to plant a few seeds of a new variety of grain, pulse or cucurbit. If the first trial
produced poor results, the variety was unlikely to be planted again. Crops viewed as
possible cash crops were also dropped if an efficient market failed to materialize in the firstyear. The limited resources of the small production/consumption teams responsible forprovisioning a homestead left little margin for evaluating potential returns over a sequenceof years. Crops had to prove themselves to remain in the repertoire, being evaluatedagainst such things as productivity and acceptability to local consumers or to externalbuyers who could be relied upon to buy and to buy at a price competitive with other usesof land and labour.
Tonga-speakers were agriculturalists when they first moved into Gwembe but
they never relied on agriculture even when this included small stock and later cattle.
Instead they kept their options open and refused to become specialists dependent on asingle activity. Hunting and fishing and the collection of honey provided foodstuffs year
round but were especially important in years when crops failed. Later the sale of honey,
dried fish, bush meat, hides, and elephant ivory supplemented cash incomes. The great
variety of wild plants used as food (leafy greens, fruit, nuts, seeds, tubers and roots),
medicines or for other purposes are evidence that years of close study and experimentation
had produced detailed botanical appraisals of the various plants available locally. Scudder(1971) found the Tonga using a wider range of plants than the San of Botswana, including
plants requiring much processing to remove toxins before they became safe for humanconsumption. The Tonga thought of the last, along with wild grass seeds, as famine foods:
only when faced with hunger were they willing to undertake the laborious processes
associated with their conversion to food.
Uncultivated bush provided other requisites, including building and craftmaterials. In their appraisal of resources, Tonga therefore weighed the advantages of amultitude of possible alternative uses of land and labour.
5ForesightPlanning for the future was often short-term, but people expected to husband foodresources from harvest to harvest. Seed had to be selected and stored. Surplus food wasprocessed for use when fresh food was in short supply. To ensure supplies of relish during
the dry season, Gwembe women dried the leaves of cucurbits and some trees and otherwild plants. They also dried okra, cucurbits, mushrooms, termites, meat and fish. These
were stored in granaries along with grain or in pots in the dwelling house. Smoke from thedwelling hearth or from cooking fires placed underneath granaries helped keep down
insect infestation. Tobacco cones were interspersed with foodstuffs, again as an insect
deterrent. In general, however, grain, and especially maize and sorghums, became insect
infested after a year or so of storage. Only in southern Gwembe, in the Mweemba area waslong-term storage attempted.

Here, where population pressure was greatest, people

molded large clay bottle granaries that were sealed after filling and opened only when othergrain supplies had been exhausted. Grain so contained was expected to remain edible fortwo years or more. After resettlement, such grain stores were no longer constructed. Some
said their fields after resettlement produced too little grain to last until the next harvest andlong-term storage containers lost their purpose. They may also have preferred to invest
their labour elsewhere now that road transport was available for the import of grain or
meal.
Besides food stores, people had other forms of saving that could be traded forfood in times of emergency. Prior to 1958, most Gwembe Tonga appeared to have few
possessions other than stock. Many were wealthy in their own eyes. It was common
practice for instance to invest extra cash or produce in purchasing hoe and axe blades andiron pots. These had long-term value because they could always be sold or traded for grain,small stock, or cash. Officials planning the logistics of the 1958 resettlement wereconfounded as granaries and sleeping huts gave up their contents of grain, dried produce,
medicines, tobacco, clay pots of different dimensions calibrated to different uses, iron pots,baskets, fish traps, hoe blades, scraps of metal, spears, shields, drums, pipes, beads, lengthsof wood for hafts, etc.
Such things gave people assurance that they had resources to see them overdifficult times, but they trusted more to their acquired skills than to possessions, knowingthat if necessary they could start again if they had access to arable land and to seeds.
6Responsiveness to Markets: Appraisal and Choice
In allocating time and other resources, Gwembe Tonga took into considerationsuch things as marginal utility and comparative advantage as they did when they enteredcash markets in the 20th century. This has not always been appreciated by strangers intent
on ‘developing’ the area who have usually been ignorant of local assumptions about what
is profitable and acceptable and unaware of important aspects of the local economy.
During the first half of the 20th century, for instance, Gwembe Tonga capitalized on thecomparative advantage given them by their isolation from close supervision by colonial
officials who rarely visited them and knew little of what they were doing to develop an
export trade in locally grown tobacco and cannabis to nearby regions.
By then tobacco was an old crop among the Tonga, both in the Valley and on the
Plateau, as evidenced by the number of local varieties and differences in cultivation
techniques. It was probably introduced via the Portuguese in the 16th or 17th century. Like
cannabis, an earlier introduction from the East Coast, it was smoked in clay pipes, reeds
and water pipes or made into snuff. Both crops were grown throughout the region withlocal production meeting local demand until the imposition of colonial rule at the end of
the 19th century. Then both cultivating and trade in cannabis were declared illegal. The
prohibition worked best in areas where administrative supervision meant that cannabis
could no longer be grown without considerable risk to the grower. The result was a
growing market for imported cannabis, a lucrative niche filled by Gwembe growers.
In Gwembe Valley, rarely visited by administrators prior to the 1950s, chanceswere good that growers could harvest a cannabis crop undetected. Export was feasible
despite the absence of roads or wheeled transport given the sales value of a load transported
to the railway line on the backs of men visiting kin or of labour migrants who marketed
their load in their places of destination, often the new towns of Zambia and Zimbabwe.
Or growers disposed of their crop through established systems of bond friendships
negotiated with Tonga on the Plateau or with traders from the west through which tobaccoand cannabis flowed in a form of gift exchange (Colson 1962). Frequently the trade in
cannabis was combined with the trade in tobacco, the tobacco serving as a cover to theillegal cannabis. Tobacco was marketed in the towns or to workers on the European farms
near the railway line or disposed of among Plateau Tonga after these abandoned tobacco
cultivation to concentrate on maize agriculture when a market for maize, at a price7

guaranteed early in the growing year, became established in the 1930s.

Many tobaccousers continued to prefer tobacco grown and processed in Gwembe to the commercial
tobacco produced by European growers: it was cheaper, it was stronger, and it could be
stored for long periods and then if necessary be resold. Both tobacco and cannabis weresold for cash, or, if disposed of through bond friends, for payment in kind. When left witha Tonga bond friend, multiple deliveries might eventually bring a return gift of a cow.
Cattle so acquired were usually left on the tsetse-free Plateau with kinsmen or bond friends
to be available when needed. Such holdings were the source of the rapid build up of cattle,
especially ploughing oxen, in the Valley beginning at the end of the 1940s when it became
possible to immunize cattle against trypanosomiasis and the building of roads encouraged
people to grow bulk crops for now reachable markets.
Gwembe producers regarded cannabis and tobacco as equally acceptable crops
although cannabis was less labour intensive and it became more profitable after thecolonial administration prohibited its growth. Both crops could be grown since they did
not compete for field space given their different soil requirements and both were in demand
locally. Moreover, cannabis was a rains crop while tobacco was grown during the dry
season in fields moistened by river water. The illegality of cannabis was considered anadministrative foible of the Europeans of no particular importance so long as one could
escape detection. In the same spirit Gwembe villagers also dealt in other now illegal
commodities: elephant ivory, lion and leopard skins, and dried meat of many kinds indemand in areas on the Plateau where game had disappeared due to population growth andthe spread of guns. Ivory and skins found their market among European and Indian traders
settled along the railway line while dried meat sold well in the villages, often being tradedfor maize, as were cannabis and tobacco, the maize then being carried back into Gwembe
in hunger years or sold for cash on the railway line.
Conditions varied enough throughout Gwembe Valley for a degree of
specialization to emerge across localities. By the mid-1950s, tobacco had been largely
abandoned in Mwemba Chieftaincy in southern Gwembe where the dense population madeit difficult even in a good year to grow enough food on the available soils. Maize andtobacco competed for space in the small fields of the dry season and people preferred to
grow food that sustained them through the hunger months rather than grow an export crop
given the difficulties they faced in importing grain or meal. Elsewhere tobacco continued8to be grown for export until 1958 when the flooding of the valley eliminated the soils along
the river where it had once been a prime dry season crop.

Thereafter, producers

experimented with new fields cut from the bush and with the possibilities of growing
hybrid maize or cotton as newly exportable commercial crops whose cultivation was
supported by government services or by corporations interested in obtaining commodities
in demand by urban consumers or suitable for international markets. Tobacco cultivation
was abandoned over much of the Valley, smokers now relying on Plateau traders who
visited them with loads of leaf tobacco bought from the large-scale tobacco farms of the
Plateau. The Lusitu area in northern Gwembe was exceptional in that a few men withaccess to river soils continued to grow a little tobacco for sale though suitable soils werelargely preempted by women to grow vegetables sold in the small population centres thatbegan to appear in the Valley in the 1960s and 1970s. In 2010, a rapid rise in tobacco
prices paid to the few remaining tobacco growers convinced Lusitu farmers that tobaccobrought a better return than vegetables or the labour intensive cotton (that also required
costly inputs and so increased the risk of loss) and tobacco once again became a preferred
crop.
After resettlement, cannabis too became a less preferred crop in many areas ofGwembe when the Valley became more exposed to outside inspection and supervision. A
little continued to be grown almost everywhere, usually interplanted with other crops
where it might escape notice. A few areas rarely visited by officials expanded cultivation
as external demand increased and it became feasible to export by lorry. By the 1970s,
much of their produce was said to reach European markets via the airlines. There it foundfavour because of its high quality. It continues to do so and cannabis continues to make a
substantial contribution to Gwembe’s hidden economy, along with other ‘illegal
activities’, including some that have emerged in the last 50 years.
These include trade in gemstones mined by diggers who have no license or
purloined from amethyst and garnet mines capitalized by foreigners, trade in poached dried
game meat (sometimes obtained in Zimbabwe), theft and export of stolen livestock, or thesmugglers’ trade that profits from Gwembe’s proximity to Zambia’s internationalboundary with Zimbabwe. Not everyone participates in such activities even in areas thatoffer the best opportunity for profiting from them, but probably few would disapprove of
those who so profit.
9

Men and women turn from one to another possibility, legal or illegal, according towhat they see as advantageous under existing foreseeable circumstances. This is one
reason why the Gwembe real economy is not subject to quantification but it also provides
a partial explanation of how and why Gwembe people have been able to continue tosurvive in the Valley despite the increasing frequency of bad harvests.
Triage and Survival
Bad years have been common enough to Gwembe life and the worst ones meantthat despite their toughness and local knowledge and their skill at using those upon whomthey had some claim, not all survived. When severe hunger hit, people were prepared totriage. In the early years of the 20th century, small children might be traded for food, whileat the end of the 20th century girls were sent as wives to men who could support the familywith food. Able bodied men and boys left the area in search of work and food. Elderly
dependents were told to find refuge elsewhere with other kin so that the able-bodied andthe children might eat. Sometimes elderly or disabled dependents were denied food andleft to starve. Men, women, and children stole food wherever they could, ignoring theprivation this caused their kin and neighbours. The survivors lived with the knowledge thatthey themselves or those with whom they interacted daily had kept alive by their own
determination to survive whatever the consequences for other people. Hunger periods thus
left behind bitter memories of actions taken by oneself and others that had to be suppressed
if people were again to live together as members of a community, but these same memories
gave knowledge of ultimate survival techniques that made survival possible when famine
struck again.
With the coming of better times, people knew, they would recover strength. They
would build new homesteads. They would have more children. Life would go on. This is
the ultimate test of resilience.

10

Acknowledgements:
I have been involved in research first among Plateau and then among Gwembe Tonga ofZambia since 1946, but most of the data for this article are drawn from the long-term studyof the Gwembe Tonga initiated by Thayer Scudder and myself in 1956. The study was first
supported by the Rhodes-Livingstone Institute (now the Institute for Economic and Social
Research in the University of Zambia), and later by the Social Science Research Council,
the Guggenheim Foundation, the National Science Foundation. Over the years we havebecome indebted to many people in Gwembe and elsewhere in Zambia, including the many
who have served as village research assistants. Mary Elizabeth Scudder and Lisa Cliggett,who have also worked in Gwembe, gave access to their own field notes. I am grateful toThayer Scudder, Eugene Hammel, and Anya Royce for reading and commenting on an
earlier draft.

11References
Clark, Sam, et al. 1995. Ten Thousand Tonga: A Longitudinal Study from Southern
Zambia: 1956-1991. Population Studies 49:91-109.
Cliggett, Lisa, et al. 2007. Chronic Uncertainty and Momentary Opportunity: A Half
Century of Adaptation among Zambian Gwembe Tonga. Human Ecology
35:19-31.
Colson, Elizabeth. 1962. Trade and Wealth among the Tonga. pp. 601-616 in Markets in
Africa. Paul Bohannan & George Dalton, eds. Evanston, IL: Northwestern
University Press.
----------- 1979. In Good Years and in Bad: Food Strategies of Self-Reliant Societies.
Journal of Anthropological Research 35(1):18-29.
----------- 2006. Tonga Religious Life in the Twentieth Century. Lusaka: African Book
World.
Scudder, Thayer. 1962. The Ecology of the Gwembe Tonga. Manchester: Manchester
University Press.
------------ 1971. Gathering among African Woodland Savannah Cultivators. London:
Butler & Tanner.

12

List of Working Paper

No. 2008-001

Moses Mwale, Synthesis of Soil Management Options for Better
Targeting of Technologies and Ecological Resilience under Variable
Environmental Conditions

No. 2008-002

Thamana Lekprichakul, Impact of 2004/2005 Drought on Zambia’s
Agricultural Production and Economy: Preliminary Results

No. 2008-003

Gear M. Kajoba, Vulnerability and Resilience of Rural Society in
Zambia: From the View Point of Land Tenure and Food Security

No. 2008-004

Lawrence S Flint, Socio-Ecological Vulnerability and Resilience inan Arena of Rapid Environmental Change: Community Adaptation to
Climate Variability in the Upper Zambezi Floodplain

No. 2008-005

Tetsuya Nakamura, The Livelihood of ‘Escarpment Tonga’: A Case
Study of One Village, Southern Zambia

No. 2008-006

Chihiro Ito, Re-thinking Labour Migration in Relation to Livelihood
Diversity in African Rural Area: A Case Study in Southern Province,
ZambiaNo. 2009-007

Matheaus Kioko Kauti, Rural Livelihood Security Assessment for
Smallholders Undergoing Economic Changes and Agro-Climatic
Events in Central Kenya

No. 2009-009

Gear M.Kajoba, Vulnerability of Food Production Systems of SmallScale Farmers to Climate Change in Southern Zambia: A Search for
Adaptive Strategies

No. 2009-010

Chileshe L. Mulenga, Resilience of Rural Households andCommunities to Economic Shocks, HIV/AIDS and Recurrent
Droughts: The Case of Households and Communities in the Mwami
Area, Chipata, Zambia

No. 2009-011

Bennett Siamwiinde Siamwiza, An Historical Analysis ofVulnerability and Resilience in a Semi-Arid Region of Zambia

No. 2009-012

Chewe M. Chabatama, Ecological Adversity and Food Supply inNorthwest Zambia

No. 2011-013

Elizabeth Colson, Resilience as a Way of Life in Gwembe Valley

Vulnerability and Resilience of Social-Ecological Systems
Resilience Project Home Page: www.chikyu.ac.jp/resilience

社会・生態システムの脆弱性とレジリアンス
レジリアンスプロジェクトHP: www.chikyu.ac.jp/resilience

Research Institute for Humanity and Nature (RIHN)Inter-University Research Institute Corporation, National Institute for the Humanities

457-4 Kamigamo Motoyama, Kita-ku, Kyoto, 603-8047, Japanwww.chikyu.ac.jp

大学共同利用機関法人 人間文化研究機構
総合地球環境学研究所〒603-8047 京都市北区上賀茂本山 457-4

www.chikyu.ac.jp