Shangri-La Hotel, Kathmandu, Nepal, 3 September 2010
International Alert along with the Delegation of the European Union to Nepal hosted a dialogue on climate change, security and governance. The meeting brought together national and regional experts from Nepal and from the South Asia Network on Security and Climate Change (SANSaC) to discuss processes to tackle the dual challenge of climate change and security at regional and national levels. This meeting, part of an ongoing process to foster critical debate on addressing the climate and security risks, was the third to take place in Nepal since 2007, and the fifth in the South Asia region.
Issues Discussed:
Accepting that international processes on climate change may not be sufficient to drive progress in the South Asia region, participants explored how inter-linked issues of climate change, governance and resilience can be addressed within existing national and regional processes, the opportunities, and possible pitfalls specific to South Asia. Climate change is not a new, discrete issue. It is an overlay on existing governance and human security challenges. The challenge is to understand what this means for development. The discussion explored these issues and raised some of the main challenges to effective responses to climate change in fragile contexts:
One major challenge in this area is the lack of empirical evidence to shed light on the interactions between climate change and security at the local level. Presentations were shared by Major General Muniruzzaman from the Bangladesh Institute for Peace and Security Studies, Dr Anirban Ganguly from The Energy and Resources Institute, India, Kiran Mahajan from Swiss National Center of Competence in Research (NCCR), Nepal, and Neera Padhan Shestha from ICIMOD. These presentations[1] highlighted the nature of some of the knock-on consequences of climate impacts and climate responses at a sub-national level, and flagged some of the possible trans-boundary aspects of these risks. Given the lack of donor financial support and attention to this area of research, empirical evidence and thus understanding is thin and there is little that goes beyond assumptions, hypotheses and the posing of relevant questions. Increased research, information sharing, and dialogue on this issue is thus an urgent priority.
It’s not solely climate change but poor governance responses to climate change which can be destabilising: In the wake of the devastating floods in Pakistan and also closer to home in Nepal, community tensions have been rising. These individual events cannot definitively be attributed to man-made climate change. But to see how climate change will play out in people’s daily lives, we needn't only look to the science. Instead, we must also look to the efficacy of local dispute resolution mechanisms, the enabling environment for andolans (people’s movements) and existing dimensions of livelihood insecurity. These are amongst the background factors which must be understood to see what happens when natural phenomena interact with unjust economic systems and weak governance structures. For example, in the Nepali Terai, local dissatisfaction towards the government’s responses to floods has been mobilized by competing political parties and manipulated by criminal gangs. The destabilising factor is not the floods per se, but the marginalisation and political economy which develops around flood responses.
Climate change funding and policy can do harm: We know from over forty years of development, that ill-conceived interventions in vulnerable communities can do harm. Therefore with the uncertainties in current climate change predictions, poorly planned and un-joined up approaches could not only set back development progress, but also could in some cases increase political tensions and the risk of violent conflict. By inadvertently reducing the resilience of some communities in an attempt to address another critical challenge faced by others, climate response efforts could in and of themselves pose a threat to peace. For example, efforts to reduce fossil fuel consumption through increased biofuel consumption has been linked to reduced food production, the hike in food prices in 2007 and 2008, and numerous violent clashes around the world. Similar challenges will arise when handling conflicting interests like the promotion of renewable energy through hydropower versus forest preservation and the rights of forest communities in India. Sufficient understanding of the knock-on consequences of any course of action is required to ensure these paths do not fuel violence or instability.
Whilst inappropriate responses to can increase the risk of conflict, positive responses to climate change can promote peace and cooperation. In Khabre, Nepal, in the absence of government assistance, endemic water scarcity was addressed through positive community management. Accepting that individual responses would not suffice, the local community coordinated a collective response by getting together to dig new wells for community use according to a community managed rota. Anecdotal evidence from the Terai also points to responses to climate change promoting tolerance and cooperation across a political manufactured ethnic divide. Growing tensions between Madhesi (people from the plains) and ‘Pahari’ (hill people) communities (which was being fuelled by political parties in the lead up to the 2008 elections) abated following the 2008 floods. The Madhesis felt that it was the financial assistance from the Pahari community from across Nepal rather than the Madhesi political party representatives - whom the Madhesi’s of the Terai had just elected into government – that helped them cope with the flood impacts. Positive responses to climate change have the potential to build social cohesion, peace and resilience. Where the government plays a positive role, this provides an opportunity to rebuild a potentially weak social contract between citizens and the state.
As well as knowledge gaps around these issues, there is also weak institutional capacity to address them in the relevant institutions. Science may not be able to tell us exactly what to do, but in the meantime, institutions need to be able to adapt and be flexible to variability and uncertainty. Social exclusion, weak governance and the ability of elite groups to capture resources intended for supporting adaptation to climate change are also significant obstacles to peaceful responses to climate risks. Many issues such as migration and river management cross state borders and cannot be dealt with at the state level alone. Yet South Asia lacks strong political leadership at a regional level to ensure effective use of resources and integrated approaches. These issues need to be met with appropriate institutional capacity – within donors, implementating agencies and local and national government, along with enhanced scope and capacity for regional analysis of trans-boundary issues and cross-border sharing of knowledge and experiences.
Conclusion:
Climate change will not affect communities in a political and economic vacuum. Policy responses need to look beyond the specific environmental impacts, to also address the broader context of failures of governance. The challenge then is to identify the gaps and weak points in key institutions, mechanisms and processes responsible within fragile states and explore how to reform, reinforce or create them such that they can deal with changes in a peaceful manner, in spite of climate variability.
The discussion raised some important questions for further thought:
- How does climate change, variability and uncertainty affect governance and security at all levels?
- How do we ensure climate adaptation policies and financing mechanisms do no harm in fragile contexts?
- How can we avoid climate financing becoming a new resource for elite capture?
- How can we maximise the potential for climate responses to build social cohesion and peace?
Responses to these questions are critical to promote understanding of the complex inter-linkages between climate change and security implications and to address these links through appropriate policy response in South Asia.
The starting point is the strong and urgent need for support to promote:
Localised research at the sub-national level in the region,
Dialogue and capacity building to strengthen the knowledge and capacities of national governments and responsible institutions in the region,
Improved knowledge sharing across borders around current best practice and lessons learned.
Security and Resilience Roundtable, Kathmandu, 3rd September 2010: Participant’s list
Name
|
Organisation
|
Ajaya Dixit
|
Director, ISET-Nepal
|
Anil Pokrel
|
Consultant, ADB
|
Anirban Ganguly
|
SANSaC Representative: Heads of Forestry and Biodiversity Area under the Climate Change Division in TERI
|
Batu Krishna Upreti,
|
Joint Secretary, Climate Change Management Division, Ministry of Environment
|
Berend de Groot
|
Director Programme Operations, ICIMOD
|
Bhasker Kafle
|
International Alert
|
Chandini Thapa
|
International Alert
|
Deependra Joshi
|
Equal Access, Country Director
|
Giap Dang
|
Cooperation Head, EU Delegation to Nepal
|
Janani Vivekananda
|
International Alert
|
Jaypal Shrestha
|
Regional Environmental Affairs Specialist, Embassy of the United States of America
|
Kiran Maharjan
|
SANSaC Representative: Swiss National Center of Competence in Research (NCCR)
|
Laura Seraydarian
|
ISET
|
Major General Muniruzzaman
|
SANSaC Representative: Bangladesh Institute of Peace and Security Studies
|
Marcus Moench
|
Director, ISET
|
Neera Shrestha Pradhan
|
Hazard and Community Adaptation Specialist, ICIMOD
|
Purushottam Ghimire
|
Joint Secretary, Country Director – NAPA, Ministry of Environment
|
Ranjan Shrestha
|
EU Delegation to Nepal
|
Rebecca Crozier
|
Country Manager, International Alert
|
Sadhana Ghimire Bhetuwal
|
International Alert
|
Simon Lucas
|
Climate Change and Inclusive Growth Adviser, DFID Nepal
|
Sylvia Lee
|
The World Bank Nepal Country Office
|
Vijay Khadgi
|
Network Officer, ICIMOD
|
