At a time when the developing world has failed to convince the industrial world to increase the financing for climate issues, one of the lead negotiators from Nepal was in fact heard making paradoxical remarks. Krishna Gyawali, the then Secretary of the Ministry of Environment (one of the lead negotiators in the 18th Convention of Parties to UNFCCC) categorically expressed at a meeting in Kathmandu that he would not mind if the international funding for climate adaptation in Nepal does not immediately surge. [break]
He went on to elaborate that Nepal is yet to craft the right institutional mechanism and process for the wise use of entailed funds. He of course implied that it was imperative for us to champion climate intervention before the country witnesses an increased flow of resources to manage climate intervention. I could not agree more with his honest opinion, and quickly moved to express my admiration as soon as the deliberation ended and people queued for tea.
I endorsed Gyawali’s idea that inflow of money without the right type of attitude, governance system, process and approach can be counterproductive; we would only trigger another chapter of frustration among climate-hit communities in far-flung villages of Nepal already reeling under the impacts of harsh climatic conditions. I took my hats off in honor of Gyawali, who dared to speak his heart despite the risk of going against the mainstream.
Call for championing
I reiterate that it is too risky, and even counterproductive, to receive a flood of money for climate intervention when the right mechanism and approaches are lacking. We probably need cautious piloting based on ‘participatory action research’ to see what works and what doesn’t before we can implement full-fledged projects. This is aptly indicated by our history in community forestry. For decades we spent hefty sums of loan money towards village council-centric community forestry. A lot of money went down the drain merely to illustrate that a village council is not the right institution to be entrusted with forest resources. It also taught us that too much emphasis on technical blueprint was counterproductive.
No wonder, the government decided to revoke all the forests handed over to village councils, in favor of User Group-centric community forests when it realized that user groups were the most appropriate entities to govern those resources. Nepal now boasts of some 18,000 community forest user groups managing roughly 1.7 million hectares of forests. The legacy comes from ‘learning by doing’ in small scale rather than larger intervention in the spirit of ‘one size fits all.’ Obviously, ‘learning by doing’ in a case by case basis was the key to the success of our much acclaimed community forestry, and the legacy needs to be extended to climate intervention.
PHOTO: GREENPROPHET.COM
Welcome move
DFID and EU, through Climate Change Support Program (CCSP), are investing 14.6 million Euros to piloting what has been called Local Adaptation Program of Action (LAPA). The initial focus is on five Village Development Committees in fourteen districts in Mid and Far-West with a total of 70 LAPAs. The whole program is carried out through service providers, for which District Energy and Environment Sections (DEES) of DDCs act as nodal agencies to carry out the interventions through contracts. DEES and VDCs are jointly supposed to oversee actual implementation. As far as the central level is concerned, the Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development (MoFALD) has been assigned a monitoring and supervisory role, and the Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment (MoSTE) is given the functions of coordinating, monitoring and reporting. While this is a welcome move, some lacunas are evident, as discussed below.
Impending challenges
The well intended endeavor lacks the modus operandi of institutional ‘learning by doing.’ The government institutions that theoretically lead this completely new task (MoFALD as a monitoring agency and MoSTE as coordinating agency) largely lack the human resource and willpower to do so. Likewise, at the district level, DEES—the nodal agency supposed to ensure smooth implementation of the program—is more like a functional entity that assigns the work to other agencies on contract, with little built up mechanism of its own. The situation of Village Development Committees supposed to collaborate with DEES for the smooth implementation of the program is not any better. Lack of elected bodies in the VDCs, combined with lack of enough vision to perform the task, means that the VDCs may become more like formal witnesses to what the contracted out service providers do on their behalf. The likelihood of them owning the overall task is rather slim.
Besides, other aspects of climate change itself may come in the way. Climate might hit watersheds in specific ways, with impact domains not necessarily limited to VDC boundaries determined by political decisions. The nexus of Koshi Flood of 2008, for instance, was not just a single VDC or district, but the entire catchment on its way. Flooding followed by prolonged droughts in Jugedi Khola catchment in Chitwan, and Baulaha Khola catchment in Nawalparasi in the last few decades are also examples of this phenomenon. No wonder, Practical Action aptly found more sense in intervening in specific catchments instead of in districts or VDCs. CCSP’s choice of VDCs as an intervention unit may be at odds with the territorial domain of climatic impacts.
Piloting imperative
All this calls for holistic piloting to champion climate intervention. Though a detailed recipe for such piloting is beyond the scope of this article, I will try to indicate some normatic principles to be followed. One small micro-watershed, or a few of them at most, need to be taken up for the said piloting. The areas where climate-born problems are already evident should be a priority both for practical and ethical reasons. Given that climate change tends to have many diverse implications on local livelihoods, livelihood improvement needs to be the focus of such endeavors. This calls for all sectoral service providers being ‘fused’ at the local level than working in isolation. Good and decentralized governance should be the guiding principle.
It is important to put the local people in the driver’s seat. DDCs and VDCs should be part and parcel of the overall planning process, so that the nation’s legacy of decentralization is not compromised. MoFALD and MoSTE should jointly steer the process from the centre, supporting the overall endeavour with an aim to eventually replicate the learning in the rest of the watersheds. In essence, the program should not focus merely on program implementation, but also in learning from the mistakes that may be made in the process. Championing climate intervention should go in tandem with our effort to garner external funding if we want to make sure that we can make best use of the resources we may procure for climate intervention.
The author is former Joint Secretary, Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation
baraljc@yahoo.com
Related story
Nepal's Energy Leap in NDC 3.0
