Why should we not establish the truth about climate change too conveniently
Why should we not establish the truth about climate change too conveniently?
Asia Pacific Human Development Network. UNDP. [http://www2.undprcc.lk/ext/HDRU/ECC_research.php]
Since 2008, we are witnessing the dramatic proliferation of climate change-related efforts in the Mekong region where high profile organizations are proposing various projects to deal with this hot and lucrative issue.
Although many types of climate change activities are carried out, I find a similar trend for all of them: centralization and technocratization of environmental conservation and livelihood improvement works under the climate change and adaptation themes.
According to the Mekong River Commission’s report (2009), the countries of the Lower Mekong Basin (LMB) are recognized as among the most vulnerable to climate change in the world. Their economies, ecosystem sustainability and social harmony are at risk.
Notably, most of the affected communities are not living in the urban and modernized cities; they are living in rural areas rich in cultural and traditional ways of life. Under globalization, where the concept of modernity permeates every aspect of life, traditional knowledge, skills, and, ultimately, worldview could be seen as incompetent and backward.
Empty participatory process
At some project sites in Lao PDR, where international organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), UN and government agencies are implementing “adaptation” projects, communities and local authorities are systematically being disempowered through the “distorted” practice of participatory process. In various adaptation workshops, although being invited, villagers and local government officers are constantly reminded that the climate change impact assessment and the adaptation option selection process are highly technical processes and what they can do in this “participatory” activity is simply to provide information that the specialists may need for their reports.
This is a disturbing phenomenon, which is in contrast to the progressive trend of many NGOs and UN agencies’ efforts to ensure sustainability of the projects and increase the communities’ sense of ownership. Empowerment is also promoted by recognizing and respecting the importance and contribution of their traditions and cultures. At the same time, however, communities are equipped with skills in livelihoods improvement that aim at increasing income, conserving the surrounding environment, and reducing social problems.
According to the MRC Secretariat’s Chief Executive Officer, Jeremy Bird, no-one knows exactly how rising world temperatures will impact on the Mekong basin. The absence of information on climate change vulnerability within countries and across various classes of societies is a major cause of concern. To Bird, “By improving the knowledge on the potential impacts, it will be possible to increase the ability to help the people of the region with capacity to confront such impacts” (MRC 2009).
Obsession with modelling
Everyone seems to agree that scientific research on climate change and its impacts is vital to the effort to deal with the issue. In response, international organizations employ modelling techniques as means to project climate change impact scenario. I agree that research is crucial, but, in my opinion, we must not solely focus on this computer generated document too obsessively. Time and again, critical academics and the civil society point out that the inherent simplification aspect of models and the richness and diversity of living nature always create debates on how to interpret ecological and social complexities adequately.
We should avoid creating a perception that climate change impact assessment and adaptation options selection process are highly technical and only qualified modellers are good enough to tell us how we should respond to climate change. Instead, initially, I would propose at least two ideas as possible means to reverse the trend:
1) Promoting community-led participatory research
Community-led participatory research such as Vijai Tai Baan (villagers’ research) or Sala Pum (the Cambodia version of Tai Baan) (**) must be supported, funded, and disseminated. Also, researchers, especially from the community, should be supported to present their findings at local, national, regional, or international venues.
Possible research that would take the strategic advantage of the community include review of local adaptation experiences and knowledge, adaptation actions, sex disaggregated data collection on vulnerability to climate change, etc. Ultimately, through this empowerment process of participatory research, the villagers who have participated in the project would then become the excellent advocates. They should be invited and supported to participate in events, forums, and stakeholder consultation meetings.
2) Supporting a constructive and functioning Track III diplomacy
We should initiate and seek to support the arrangement of constructive Track III (***) exchanges such as the NGOs organized parallel meeting where climate change adaptation issues can be discussed openly and the marginalized groups can make their voice heard. For example, at the climate change parallel meeting in Bali, civil societies from around the world gathered to discuss reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries (REDD) and Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) in a critical and constructive manner and raise awareness of the issues to the public.
As Phillip Hirsch, Director of the Australian Mekong Resource Centre at the University of Sydney, puts it, “The politics of science versus indigenous research is thus based not only on the quality or reliability of information, but also on questions of ownership” (Hirsch 2004).
I see the importance of policy advocacy which also targets structural changes. In my view, these two levels of work are not separated but intertwined and must be implemented in collaboration to improve effectiveness. In terms of climate change, any organization that implements policy advocacy must aspire to empower and mobilize groups of people who are affected by climate change to raise their voice and be active as agents for social change, not merely doing it on their behalf.
Clearly, many aspects of climate change knowledge findings require scientific expertise but it is not sufficient. Over-emphasis on pure science-oriented mentality can lead to unwanted consequences as I have described. Therefore, I propose that a more participatory and empowering approach are employed as well, especially in the field of vulnerability assessment, study of adaptation options, and implementation of adaptation activities.
Notes
(*) The views expressed in this contribution are those of the author in his personal capacity.
(**) Tai Bann means villagers in Thai-northeast dialect (Lao). The name of villagers’ research in Thai/Lao is Vijai Tai Bann. Vijai means research. Sala Pum means village school in Khmer. It is what the villagers’ research work is called in Cambodia.
(***) Track III diplomacy is essentially “people to people” diplomacy undertaken by both individuals and private groups from non-governmental international organizations that are dedicated to promoting specific causes and enacting systematic social change. This type of diplomacy often involves organizing meetings and conferences, generating media exposure, and political and legal advocacy for people and communities who are largely marginalized from political power centres.
References
Hirsch, Philip. 2004. “The politics of fisheries knowledge in the Mekong River Basin”. In Robin L. Welcomme, and T. Petr, eds. Proceedings of the second large rivers symposium on the management of large rivers for fisheries. Volume 2”. Phnom Penh: FAO and Mekong River Commission. [http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/ad526e/ad526e0a.htm]. Last accessed on 26 May 2010.
Kakonen, Mira, and Hirsch, Phillip. 2009. “The anti-politics of Mekong knowledge production”. In Francois Molle, Tira Foran, and Mira Kakonen, eds. Contested waterscapes in the Mekong Region: Hydropower, livelihoods, and governance. London: Earth Scan.
MRC (Mekong River Commission). 2009. Report on the regional forum on the Mekong River Commission Climate Change and Adaptation Initiative: 2-3 February Bangkok, Thailand. Vientiane, Lao PDR: MRC. [http://www.mrcmekong.org/download/Reports/CCI_Forum_Notes_Final_Revised24Jun09_2.pdf]. Last accessed on 6 May 2010.
Sretthachau, Chainarong. 2007. “The concept of Tai Baan research (villagers’ research): Local wisdom for resources management”. In IUCN, TEI, IWMI, and M-Power eds. Exploring water futures together: Mekong Region waters dialogue. Resource papers from regional dialogue. Vientiane, Lao PDR. [http://www.mpowernet.org/download_pubdoc.php?doc=4059]. Last accessed on 26 May 2010.
Sretthachua, C. 2006. “Localised knowledge production through Tai Baan research”. Paper presented at the Fourth World Water Forum: 16-22 March, Mexico City.
Asia Pacific Human Development Network. UNDP. [http://www2.undprcc.lk/ext/HDRU/ECC_research.php]
Since 2008, we are witnessing the dramatic proliferation of climate change-related efforts in the Mekong region where high profile organizations are proposing various projects to deal with this hot and lucrative issue.
Although many types of climate change activities are carried out, I find a similar trend for all of them: centralization and technocratization of environmental conservation and livelihood improvement works under the climate change and adaptation themes.
According to the Mekong River Commission’s report (2009), the countries of the Lower Mekong Basin (LMB) are recognized as among the most vulnerable to climate change in the world. Their economies, ecosystem sustainability and social harmony are at risk.
Notably, most of the affected communities are not living in the urban and modernized cities; they are living in rural areas rich in cultural and traditional ways of life. Under globalization, where the concept of modernity permeates every aspect of life, traditional knowledge, skills, and, ultimately, worldview could be seen as incompetent and backward.
Empty participatory process
At some project sites in Lao PDR, where international organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), UN and government agencies are implementing “adaptation” projects, communities and local authorities are systematically being disempowered through the “distorted” practice of participatory process. In various adaptation workshops, although being invited, villagers and local government officers are constantly reminded that the climate change impact assessment and the adaptation option selection process are highly technical processes and what they can do in this “participatory” activity is simply to provide information that the specialists may need for their reports.
This is a disturbing phenomenon, which is in contrast to the progressive trend of many NGOs and UN agencies’ efforts to ensure sustainability of the projects and increase the communities’ sense of ownership. Empowerment is also promoted by recognizing and respecting the importance and contribution of their traditions and cultures. At the same time, however, communities are equipped with skills in livelihoods improvement that aim at increasing income, conserving the surrounding environment, and reducing social problems.
According to the MRC Secretariat’s Chief Executive Officer, Jeremy Bird, no-one knows exactly how rising world temperatures will impact on the Mekong basin. The absence of information on climate change vulnerability within countries and across various classes of societies is a major cause of concern. To Bird, “By improving the knowledge on the potential impacts, it will be possible to increase the ability to help the people of the region with capacity to confront such impacts” (MRC 2009).
Obsession with modelling
Everyone seems to agree that scientific research on climate change and its impacts is vital to the effort to deal with the issue. In response, international organizations employ modelling techniques as means to project climate change impact scenario. I agree that research is crucial, but, in my opinion, we must not solely focus on this computer generated document too obsessively. Time and again, critical academics and the civil society point out that the inherent simplification aspect of models and the richness and diversity of living nature always create debates on how to interpret ecological and social complexities adequately.
We should avoid creating a perception that climate change impact assessment and adaptation options selection process are highly technical and only qualified modellers are good enough to tell us how we should respond to climate change. Instead, initially, I would propose at least two ideas as possible means to reverse the trend:
1) Promoting community-led participatory research
Community-led participatory research such as Vijai Tai Baan (villagers’ research) or Sala Pum (the Cambodia version of Tai Baan) (**) must be supported, funded, and disseminated. Also, researchers, especially from the community, should be supported to present their findings at local, national, regional, or international venues.
Possible research that would take the strategic advantage of the community include review of local adaptation experiences and knowledge, adaptation actions, sex disaggregated data collection on vulnerability to climate change, etc. Ultimately, through this empowerment process of participatory research, the villagers who have participated in the project would then become the excellent advocates. They should be invited and supported to participate in events, forums, and stakeholder consultation meetings.
2) Supporting a constructive and functioning Track III diplomacy
We should initiate and seek to support the arrangement of constructive Track III (***) exchanges such as the NGOs organized parallel meeting where climate change adaptation issues can be discussed openly and the marginalized groups can make their voice heard. For example, at the climate change parallel meeting in Bali, civil societies from around the world gathered to discuss reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries (REDD) and Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) in a critical and constructive manner and raise awareness of the issues to the public.
As Phillip Hirsch, Director of the Australian Mekong Resource Centre at the University of Sydney, puts it, “The politics of science versus indigenous research is thus based not only on the quality or reliability of information, but also on questions of ownership” (Hirsch 2004).
I see the importance of policy advocacy which also targets structural changes. In my view, these two levels of work are not separated but intertwined and must be implemented in collaboration to improve effectiveness. In terms of climate change, any organization that implements policy advocacy must aspire to empower and mobilize groups of people who are affected by climate change to raise their voice and be active as agents for social change, not merely doing it on their behalf.
Clearly, many aspects of climate change knowledge findings require scientific expertise but it is not sufficient. Over-emphasis on pure science-oriented mentality can lead to unwanted consequences as I have described. Therefore, I propose that a more participatory and empowering approach are employed as well, especially in the field of vulnerability assessment, study of adaptation options, and implementation of adaptation activities.
Notes
(*) The views expressed in this contribution are those of the author in his personal capacity.
(**) Tai Bann means villagers in Thai-northeast dialect (Lao). The name of villagers’ research in Thai/Lao is Vijai Tai Bann. Vijai means research. Sala Pum means village school in Khmer. It is what the villagers’ research work is called in Cambodia.
(***) Track III diplomacy is essentially “people to people” diplomacy undertaken by both individuals and private groups from non-governmental international organizations that are dedicated to promoting specific causes and enacting systematic social change. This type of diplomacy often involves organizing meetings and conferences, generating media exposure, and political and legal advocacy for people and communities who are largely marginalized from political power centres.
References
Hirsch, Philip. 2004. “The politics of fisheries knowledge in the Mekong River Basin”. In Robin L. Welcomme, and T. Petr, eds. Proceedings of the second large rivers symposium on the management of large rivers for fisheries. Volume 2”. Phnom Penh: FAO and Mekong River Commission. [http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/ad526e/ad526e0a.htm]. Last accessed on 26 May 2010.
Kakonen, Mira, and Hirsch, Phillip. 2009. “The anti-politics of Mekong knowledge production”. In Francois Molle, Tira Foran, and Mira Kakonen, eds. Contested waterscapes in the Mekong Region: Hydropower, livelihoods, and governance. London: Earth Scan.
MRC (Mekong River Commission). 2009. Report on the regional forum on the Mekong River Commission Climate Change and Adaptation Initiative: 2-3 February Bangkok, Thailand. Vientiane, Lao PDR: MRC. [http://www.mrcmekong.org/download/Reports/CCI_Forum_Notes_Final_Revised24Jun09_2.pdf]. Last accessed on 6 May 2010.
Sretthachau, Chainarong. 2007. “The concept of Tai Baan research (villagers’ research): Local wisdom for resources management”. In IUCN, TEI, IWMI, and M-Power eds. Exploring water futures together: Mekong Region waters dialogue. Resource papers from regional dialogue. Vientiane, Lao PDR. [http://www.mpowernet.org/download_pubdoc.php?doc=4059]. Last accessed on 26 May 2010.
Sretthachua, C. 2006. “Localised knowledge production through Tai Baan research”. Paper presented at the Fourth World Water Forum: 16-22 March, Mexico City.
posted by sukthawee | 12:00 AM
<< Home