Unintended Consequences and REDD+

December 2020

Earth's greatest landscapes are threatened by increased development, climate change impacts, and abuse of a finite supply of natural resources. We have a mandate to protect the planet from inappropriate development and anthropogenic causes of environmental degradation.

We also have a responsibility to own the unintended consequences of our seemingly altruistic actions. Development brings with it change, but not all of it is good, and it is not always for the benefit of everyone. Often the very groups we are looking to support are the ones that fall victim to our best intentions.

A core tenet of my work for the past 15 years has been on the unintended consequences of environmental programming. I’ve worked with Pacific Island Nations, the World Bank, USAID, and local counterparts since 2010, helping to build an evidence-base that explores some of the unintended consequences of environmental programming and how they can be addressed.

I previously worked with the Government of Fiji, Fiji REDD+, and the World Bank to design a mechanism for conflict resolution that could track patterns and trends, curb corruption, identify exploitation, empower vulnerable and marginalized populations, and enhance REDD+ projects legitimacy amongst all stakeholders - providing greater accountability and transparency. This feedback, grievance, and redress mechanism (FGRM) became a blueprint that can be replicated to help mitigate unintended consequences from payment for ecosystem services (PES), one that should be used for all development programming.

Currently, I am exploring the linkages between gender-based violence and the access, management, and use of natural resources with USAID and Fiji REDD+. Across the Pacific, women have historically had little control over resource allocation and income from resource commodities (i.e., logging). The income generated from these efforts consequently resulted in increased alcoholism, over-use of kava, and spikes in domestic violence, and/or unwillingness by men to focus on sustainable forms of forest management. Enter payment for ecosystem services (PES) schemes, like REDD+… and the myriad of challenges it will bring.

The FGRM is an iterative mechanism, designed to be continuously improved based on evidence, feedback, and need. My current work will now improve the design of the FGRM, so that it can be more responsive and better equipped to handle cases of GBV and gender-based risks, a FGRM+.

So you think your water pump will save lives...

Water for People is an amazing organization based out of Denver, Colorado. Small, but dynamic and they want you to rethink how we (development practitioners) are "fixing" the water crisis.

Transparency, sustainability, accountability are great buzzwords; only a few of the many that are tossed around the development world - and they don't hold water. I want you to think about the projects with which you have been involved; the millions of dollars invested by multi-lateral and development agencies. Think about the tangible products or "solutions" that have been implemented around the world to help those in need lead healthier lives. Think about the self-congratulating and back patting that occurs when I project is deemed successful and the marketing campaigns that follow. 

Now, give it five years after close-out, eh... give it two, and go back to those projects.  What do you see... another broken pump, another over flowing latrine, broken technologies, and people that are returning to ways that they were promised would be long past. So is this now broken project still considered a success?

Now this type of failure is not always the case and the world is not filled with evil development workers that are intentionally trying to bring about these unfortunate situations. The reality is funding does run out, the areas where these projects are implemented are often in conflict or difficult to reach, and there are competing priorities. However, we need to start accepting the reality that we are not always creating sustainable projects, we in fact are just moving on to the next intervention.

“We in fact can often exacerbate or create problems with the projects we implement... and we know it.”

There is not a one-size solution, in fact there may not be a solution at all because development is often trial and error and no one has all the answers, or else this industry would have worked itself out of existence (debate for another posting). However, I hate when people announce a problem without offering ideas for transforming it (commonplace in academia). 

I would like to introduce a tool that may be helpful called FLOW. A mobile-based phone system for survey use developed by Akvo and Water for People. I encourage you to check it out and listen to Ned Breslin's (CEO) presentation on "Fixing the Water Crisis", quite powerful. Share with me your ideas and enjoy the video!

Traditional Knowledge holds the Key to Future Climate Change

The Summary for Policymakers of the Working Group II contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report was approved, and the full report accepted, by the IPCC yesterday (30 March 2014). 

This contribution focused on impacts, adaptations, and vulnerabilities associated with climate change. While a great deal of the report's conclusions were expected, there was noteworthy mention of the impact of community-based approaches to climate change, coupled with scientific and traditional knowledge as being mitigators for change with high confidence.  

While traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) has long been thought a valuable tool when working to make communities more climate resilient and in the protection of natural resources, it is still widely underutilized and [I argue] viewed by many practitioners/donors in development as "second hand" science.

The IPCC report acknowledges the importance of parallel approaches to adaptation planning and project implementation.

“Indigenous, local, and traditional knowledge systems and practices, including indigenous peoples’ holistic view of community and environment, are a major resource for adapting to climate change, but these have not been used consistently in existing adaptation efforts. Integrating such forms of knowledge with existing practices increases the effectiveness of adaptation.”

— WGII AR5 Phase I Report Launch

So why are development projects still slow at incorporating and taking advantage of this important knowledge sharing mechanism? Using community-based approaches to NRM and climate change adaptation are not novelty, however they seem to still be viewed by many donors as too costly, time consuming, and inadequate. While there has been more interest as of late in merging more participatory approaches to development, conservation, and climate change adaptation, we are still lagging behind... in spite of the known positive result that could be attained from these partnerships.

The report highlights several examples, to include (p.9):

• In the Arctic, some communities have begun to deploy adaptive co-management strategies and communications infrastructure, combining traditional and scientific knowledge.

• In Central and South America, ecosystem-based adaptation including protected areas, conservation agreements, and community management of natural areas is occurring. Resilient crop varieties, climate forecasts, and integrated water resources management are being adopted within the agricultural sector in some areas.

• In small islands, which have diverse physical and human attributes, community-based adaptation has been shown to generate larger benefits when delivered in conjunction with other development activities.

Indigenous peoples "low carbon" traditional ways of interacting with the environment have contributed little to climate change. In fact, development practitioners could learn a lot from the inextricable link that these populations have to their surrounding environment. With collective knowledge of the land, sky and sea, these peoples are excellent observers and interpreters of change in the environment. It's time to bridge the gap between climate science and TEK, giving traditional knowledge a role in the global climate change discourse.