by Janani Vivekananda
During a recent field trip to mid-monsoon
Nepal, stories of floods affecting vulnerable communities across the country
dominated the daily headlines. At the same time, international donors are
pouring in funds in an attempt to help the vulnerable cope with the impacts of
climate change we are already feeling. Last week, the Adaptation Fund, a fund
set up by the UN to help poor countries cope with the impact of climate change,
has became operational. But are these funds helping – or are they contributing
to the problem?
With less than two months to go until the
next global summit on climate change in Mexico, the issues for agreement are
about reducing carbon emissions and – more importantly for poor countries - how
much money the developed countries, who have the main responsibility for global
warming, will put on the negotiating table to help people in poorer countries
cope with the consequences. But these are not the only important issues.
One issue that is barely acknowledged is
the heightened risk of political instability and conflict related to climate
change. Factors linking climate change to an increased potential for
instability and conflict include water scarcity, accelerated land degradation,
decreased food production, and indeed the management of the climate funds
themselves.
The risk will be greatest where
governance is weak. Nobody will dispute that this is the case in Nepal.
‘A Climate of Conflict’, a report by International
Alert, estimates that just under three billion people live in 56
conflict-affected countries, where climate change could increase the risk of
political instability. Nepal is one of the 56 at risk.
Climate policy makers, however, are
largely silent on the matter. International Alert’s latest research finds that
new funds, already coming into the country’s coffers with more still in the
pipeline, could make the situation worse if they don’t take account of the
complex linkages between environmental change, security and governance.
What should inform climate responses?
Responses to climate change have to respond to the political and
social realities of fragile contexts such as Nepal or they will not work.
Climate change is not only a climate
issue. Climate change will affect political
stability, development, government, equity, trade and the national economy. And
these issues all affect the ability of people and the governments to respond
constructively to the challenges climate change generates. The problems are
interlinked, so the responses must be too.
At a meeting of the South Asia Network on
Security and Climate Change (SANSaC) co-hosted by International Alert and the
EU on 3rd September, SANSaC recommended that in post-conflict situations like
Nepal, adaptation strategies should address the broader dimensions of community
resilience.
Resilience is multi-dimensional. Adaptation strategies should be defined not only by the nature of
the natural hazard that is faced, but also on the basis of understanding the
systems of governance and power. This must involve a deep understanding of the
local context, and avoid pitting groups against each other. They must also
address broader risks to resilience such as security. For example, a new
Government of Nepal pilot project to address energy security and reduce
deforestation through promotion of biogas plants is being rolled out in nine
districts. The switch to biogas aims to curb deforestation for fuel wood thereby
decreasing risks of soil erosion and landslides. But the pilot implementation
was halted in three districts - Saptari, Udayapur and Siraha - due to the
security situation in those places. Such decisions leave these communities
doubly vulnerable: to the lack of sustainable energy sources, and to
pre-exisitng insecurity.
Who are the ‘most vulnerable’? Donors often speak about targeting the ‘poorest and most
marginalised’ but base their programming on a generalised conception of who
these people are. Speak to people in the villages and they’ll tell you. ‘A poor
person is a poor person, regardless of whether he is Brahmin or Janjati.
Ethnicity is a political construct. The local context is socially and
culturally complex. It is social and cultural factors that determine economic
activity – not ethnicity’ a local from Sunsari explained. ‘It’s not so simple
that because you are a Brahmin you have all the resources and rights, and
because you are a janjati you don’t’. Local organisations must understand the
local reality and they must make central governments and international actors
aware of this complex reality.
A further problem already giving rise to
local community level grievances is a culture of dependence on funds.
‘Everyone’s happy to get funds from donors but when they run out of donor
funding, they come back to local government’ stated a local municipality
employee in Dhankuta. This dependence on donor assistance usurps local
authorities’ roles and responsibilities and undermines the social contract
between communities and local government. This relationship between government
and the governed is already fraught and may not be able to take the strain of
well intended but ill-advised interventions.
Likewise, peace and reconstruction
efforts need to be climate-proofed by paying attention to the availability of
resources for livelihoods such as agriculture or returning ex-combatants or
people displaced by conflict. These could be under pressure because of climate
change. For example, possible future plans to reintegrate ex-combatants from
cantonments into villages where they may hope to make a living from agriculture
could cause and face future problems. Farmers struggling with changing rainfall
patterns and only getting one harvest per year rather than two are seeing their
rice yields falling. The prospect arises of returned fighters becoming
resentful unemployed farmers, and thus potential recruits, with their combat
experience, in instability.
More broadly, direct access to
large-scale adaptation funding combined with low capacity and high corruption
within government will limit the ability effective use. It is highly likely
that funds will be diverted into the hands and pockets of one faction or
another in the political elite. With public awareness of these funds coming in,
people’s expectations for support - for example compensation for flood victims
- are rising, and where they are not met, we are likely to see an increase in
protests and political instability. In Nepal’s Koshi basin, recent experience
shows that community protests are easily hijacked by political and criminal
gangs who promote violence for their own ends. Misuse of funds may thus be the
primary factor exacerbating instability.
If responses to climate change take
account of the broad dimensions of what makes people resilient – not just
drought-resistant crops and embankments to protect them from floods - but also
the interlinked factors of livelihoods options, good infrastructure, social
inclusion and effective governance, there’s a good chance that responses to
climate change could yield a double dividend: increasing resilience to both
climate change and conflict.
Failure to take account of the linkages
however could result in the billions of dollars of funding for adaptation
actually becoming part of the problem.
______________________
Janani Vivekananda is a senior advisor on climate change and security at international
peacebuilding organisation International Alert.
No comments:
Post a Comment