"You keep using that word...": Disjointed definitions of resilience in food systems adaptation

Abstract

What does resilience mean when it's applied to adapting the food system to climate change? The term is a "boundary object": it has multiple definitions which do not necessarily correspond. While this slippery state can serve to unite different actors, it can also be co-opted by government to twist transformative adaptation into maintaining the status quo. We compared the definitions of resilience between two datasets: the conclusions and responses to the Canadian government's recent inquiries into climate change and agriculture, and semi-structured interviews with small-scale farmers in the Canadian Maritimes (n = 37). The differences between the two suggest that government institutions may be creating policy which perpetuates status quo industrial agriculture without acknowledging farmers’ differing conceptions of climate resilience for the food system. The findings highlight the need for the definition of resilience in climate and agriculture policy to be problematized and diversified. It corroborates the calls in adaptation theory for resilience to be understood as a normative term rather than a politically neutral one; and for broader inclusion of concerned stakeholders in consultations.