Posts Tagged ‘Politics’

Climate Change Information Mismanagement

December 6, 2009

Momentum is building in the development and environmental management sectors to integrate climate change considerations into programme design and implementation. In Nepal, the focus is firmly on building adaptation capacity, across sectors and at all administrative levels.

The Nepal government, in consultation with the United Nations and other stakeholders, is working on their National Adaptation Plan of Action (NAPA), which promises to be a much more capacity-building exercise than the process in other Less Developed Countries. International Non-Governmental Organisations (INGOs) with their local partners are also mainstreaming climate change adaptation into their high-profile programmes, and some are considering new adaptation-specific interventions. These INGOs include WWF, Practical Action, Oxfam, Concern International and Care International, and local partners include Resource Identification and Management Society Nepal (RIMS-Nepal) and Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research and Development (LI-BIRD).

Knowledge generation in the form of information gathering and management is playing a central role in these early days of climate change action in Nepal. Most of the current INGO projects are impact assessments. The NAPA process is similarly oriented, although also puts a strong emphasis on building institutional capacity for future intervention.

Most impact assessments take a participatory approach, stressing the importance of identifying socio-economic vulnerability to possible climate change impacts. Little time or effort is expended on considering the physical hazard context. There are many valid, practical reasons for this. In the case of localised scientific studies, such as regional hydrological and atmospheric simulation experiments and local ecological field assessments, these require technical expertise and financial resources often not available in Nepal.

However, there is substantial scope and feasibility for synthesis research of available information. The Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an obvious starting point for information on past climatic trends and future projects, and can be complemented by the wealth of disaster risk reduction and natural resource management knowledge available. Some such synthesis research is being carried out, by the NAPA team in particular, but it is not widespread enough. Synthesis of climate change-specific information such as that which is available from the IPCC is especially lacking, as the evidence of currently available impact assessments, and published presentations from important stakeholders, reveals. Reports often only begin with a short section on climate change in the context of Nepal, making unsupported statements about present and future hazard context changes, with only general reference to the IPCC, if any citation is included at all.

This exposes serious methodological weaknesses. Firstly, the onset of climate change is generally assumed as a starting point of impact assessments rather than confirmed as part of the assessment. This leads assessment teams to begin their participatory socio-economic assessments without a firm grasp of data-confirmable historical trends. The result is that trends in physical hazard context are assessed using inappropriate approaches such as participatory tools.

Secondly, consideration of downscaled simulation models is omitted, their assumed limitations at the local level used as a convenient excuse to avoid exploring what value they might have despite weaknesses. This is no doubt driven by a lack of confidence on the part of assessment teams to invest into understanding the complex and diverse uncertainties of numerical modelling.

Lastly, because of the two issues above, reports find themselves with precious little to report in the introductory sections that are meant to provide a concrete basis for their assessments. The IPCC is broadly referenced as a stop-gap, leading to the mystification of the Panel, and only adding to the confusion that shapes the climate change debate in the public and political spheres.