I have not taken a great deal of time in analyzing meteorological data to see how climate change has changed the world over the years. Neither have I been able to traverse the globe to see the impact first-hand. But what I have been able to do is closely follow developments in places like Ghoksila, Sindhuli (my native village) where climate change is already showing its ugly face.
Torrential rains in some years, followed by virtual droughts, have had a devastating impact on the lives and livelihoods of the people. Most of the productive khet-lands have been swept away by recurring floods. Recurrent poor monsoons mean that virtually all traditional ponds are dry, including vital drinking water holes. Repeated crop failure has further exacerbated the problem, making many desperate villagers leave the area. Those who have decided to stay back are leading miserable lives. I could not help being sentimental about what Pudke Sarki, once my ploughman, had to say just a few months before he died: “Saheb, I have no option but to wait for death to come and rescue me from my sorrow.” [break]
People there do not know terms like ‘climate change’, ‘global warming’ and Green House Gas(GHG).’ Nor are they aware about those really responsible for their misery. How the world is attempting to address their problems is also beyond their comprehension.
I must say my participation at some of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meetings only added to my frustration. Instead of really addressing the problems, they were dominated by blame games where jargons like ‘historical responsibility,’ ‘equitable space for development,’ ‘common but differentiated responsibility,’ were routinely exchanged and meaningful negotiations were few and far between.
Nero played the violin while Rome burnt! Bizarre ideas ran through my head when I tried to juxtapose the reality of my village with the level of seriousness in climate negotiations. Sometimes I wished I could drag negotiators from the industrial world by their nose to show how they have destroyed the very base of livelihood in our community. Sometimes I even dreamt of replacing all our official negotiators with people from Ghoksila, whereby the victims could themselves fight for justice.
Emotions vs logic
These emotions are a result of my frustration. In reality, there is no option other than to allow chosen negotiators to speak on behalf of the people who face the real threat. However, I strongly feel their text-book based knowledge is plainly inadequate. This is not to say that knowledge is immaterial during negotiation, but knowledge without sentiments has proven inadequate to convince adamant negotiators. The business guru Zig Ziglar went as far to say, “People do not buy for logical reasons, they buy for emotional reasons.” I agree. This reminds me of how emotions outweigh other human traits.
Yeb Sano, the lead negotiator from the Philippines during COP18 in Doha, broke down in the course of deliberations when he realized that negotiations were not taking the desired course. This was a time his country had just borne the brunt of typhoon Bopha that left 500 dead and 250,000 homeless. He was making an impassioned plea for seriousness in negotiations. It was then that commitments to sort out outstanding issues and to draw a new climate agreement by 2015 started emerging thick and fast.
Here I do not want to undervalue the role of reasoning but only to suggest that plain reasoning without emotional back up is inadequate. Having elucidated the role of emotions during negotiations, I now highlight how there is a need to penetrate the layers that hinder meaningful communication even within our own country.
Reflective shield
From over three decades of experience at different levels of government, I detect a ‘layer’ between the center and the grassroots, what I like to call a ‘reflective shield’. As the name suggests, this shield is reflective in nature and works like an impervious layer that hinders free flow of information from the grassroots to the centre and vice versa.
There might be valuable knowledge, ideas and possible way ahead on either side of the shield. The grassroots will be the best placed to articulate their own plight as well as their indigenous knowledge. The centre, on the other hand, is well informed on climate change science, international and national policy. However, the absence of right communication channels means information cannot penetrate the grassroots that is the most affected. Intermittent interactions by civil societies in the capital are grossly inadequate and not of much help to the grassroots.
Whose fault?
The role of the centre is more important as compared to the role of the grassroots to deliver desired outcomes. The latter’s limited spatial occupancy combined with prevailing power structure inherently put them in the periphery. Besides, absence of election has curtailed their access to the centre, which has reduced the likelihood of getting problems addressed through their elected representatives.
There seems to be considerable gap of local knowledge among policymakers at the center, although, theoretically, locals are well represented in policy formulation and during international negotiations. “I know what you know and what is best for you” syndrome prevails despite the fact that our National Adaptation Program of Action (NAPA) and the Local Adaptation Plan for Action (LAPA) framework look to go much beyond this conventional dogma. The national negotiators need to be better informed about local realities than rely exclusively on academic knowledge.
Breaching the ‘reflective shield’ is the first step towards correcting this imbalance. However, this is not enough. There is a need to inculcate meaningful emotions among all relevant stakeholders in tandem.
The author is former Joint Secretary, Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation
Related story
Civilian jet breaks sound barrier during historic test flight o...
-1776353206.webp)
