Adaptación y mitigación del cambio climático: ¿cuál es el papel del CCM?

[Articulos Individuales de la edicion de Intersecciones de Verano de 2017 se publicaran en este blog cada semana. La edicion completa puede ser encontrada en MCC’s website.]

El cambio climático ya ha producido impactos negativos significativos en las personas y en el medio ambiente, incluyendo el aumento del riesgo de catástrofes relacionadas con el clima. Las comunidades, gobiernos y organizaciones no gubernamentales emplean estrategias de adaptación y mitigación para responder a los riesgos del cambio climático, tratando de limitar los impactos negativos futuros y haciendo posible que las comunidades le hagan frente a los efectos adversos. ¿Cuál es la responsabilidad de las agencias de alivio, desarrollo y construcción de paz tales como el CCM que trabajan en las comunidades afectadas por el cambio climático para responder al mismo mediante la adaptación y mitigación?

Peligros, riesgo y vulnerabilidad al desastre son conceptos que se entrecruzan, pero son fundamentales para entender los enfoques más amplios de la adaptación y mitigación del cambio climático. Los peligros, en este caso, se refieren a eventos adversos naturales tales como sequías, temperaturas extremas, deslizamientos de tierra o huracanes. Vulnerabilidad es un término utilizado para describir las características o circunstancias de una comunidad que la hacen susceptible a los efectos perjudiciales de un peligro, incluyendo la exposición al peligro y la capacidad de adaptarse a sus efectos. La vulnerabilidad está influenciada por una variedad de factores, tales como el género, edad, desigualdades en la distribución de los recursos, acceso a la tecnología e información, patrones de empleo y estructuras de gobernanza. El riesgo de desastre se basa en la ocurrencia de peligros y la vulnerabilidad a esos peligros. El cambio climático no sólo aumenta la frecuencia y gravedad de muchos peligros naturales, además los impactos del cambio climático aumentan la vulnerabilidad al disminuir la capacidad de las comunidades para hacerle frente a estos eventos adversos debido a la mayor imprevisibilidad de los fenómenos climáticos, aumento del desplazamiento, degradación de la tierra y otros impactos.

La mitigación y adaptación al cambio climático son dos estrategias complementarias para reducir y gestionar el riesgo asociado con el cambio climático. La mitigación consiste en reducir las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero causadas por el ser humano en un esfuerzo por limitar el cambio climático futuro. Las estrategias de mitigación incluyen cambiar de combustibles fósiles a fuentes de energía renovables, mejorar la eficiencia energética y de transporte y aumentar los “sumideros” de carbono mediante la reforestación. La adaptación es el proceso de ajuste al cambio climático real o esperado y sus efectos. Dentro de las comunidades, la adaptación significa evitar o disminuir el daño causado por los impactos del clima o aprovechar las oportunidades beneficiosas asociadas con el cambio climático. La adaptación incluye una variedad de actividades para reducir la vulnerabilidad, incluyendo la diversificación de los ingresos y medios de subsistencia, conservación de los suelos y agua, ordenación de los recursos naturales y provisión de redes de seguridad social. Además, la reducción del riesgo de desastres es una estrategia clave para reducir el riesgo mediante esfuerzos para analizar y manejar los factores que causan situaciones de desastre tales como reducir la exposición a los peligros, disminuir la vulnerabilidad de las personas y bienes y mejorar la preparación para los desastres.

El CCM está principalmente involucrado en actividades de adaptación al cambio climático apoyando a las comunidades afectadas actualmente por el mismo. Las actividades de adaptación tienen por objeto reducir el riesgo de desastres abordando diferentes aspectos de la vulnerabilidad dentro de las comunidades y fomentando la resiliencia para resistir, absorber, acomodar y recuperarse de los efectos de los peligros relacionados con el clima. El trabajo de adaptación del CCM incluye capacitación para las personas agricultoras en agricultura conservacionista, construcción de refugios resistentes a peligros y mejor acceso a agua potable.

El CCM también está involucrado en el trabajo de mitigación, incluyendo abogar por las políticas gubernamentales que abordan el cambio climático, alentar a los constituyentes a vivir de manera sencilla, expandir los esfuerzos para implementar iniciativas de sostenibilidad dentro de las operaciones del CCM en Canadá y Estados Unidos y asociarse con la Universidad Menonita del Este y Goshen College en la fundación del Centro de Soluciones Climáticas Sostenibles para avanzar el pensamiento y acción sobre la mitigación dentro de las comunidades de fe. A nivel internacional, parte de la programación del CCM incluye esfuerzos de mitigación tales como reforestación y educación sobre el cambio climático y sostenibilidad ambiental.

El cambio climático está debilitando los esfuerzos de las organizaciones no gubernamentales (ONG) en el sector del desarrollo a medida que trabajan para la reducción de la pobreza, seguridad alimentaria, acceso mejorado al agua potable y otros objetivos del desarrollo. Las ONG de desarrollo están reconociendo la importancia de las estrategias de adaptación en la programación a medida que experimentan el impacto del cambio climático en la vulnerabilidad y riesgo de desastres. Si bien la adaptación es clave para reducir el riesgo asociado con los impactos del cambio climático, no aborda la causa fundamental del mismo. Tanto la mitigación como la adaptación son esenciales para una estrategia integral de reducción del riesgo climático.

Considerando la importancia de limitar los impactos futuros del cambio climático para apoyar el desarrollo sostenible, ¿qué papel deben desempeñar las ONG en los esfuerzos de mitigación? Como ministerio de iglesias en Canadá y Estados Unidos, el CCM representa a congregaciones en países que contribuyen significativamente al cambio climático y es en sí mismo un contribuyente de emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero. ¿Hasta qué punto el CCM es responsable de la mitigación, tanto en lo que respecta a sus operaciones internas como a sus constituyentes ubicados en Canadá y EE.UU.?

Si bien la responsabilidad del CCM para la adaptación al cambio climático es inherente a sus prioridades de alivio en caso de desastre y desarrollo comunitario sostenible, el CCM continúa explorando su papel en la mitigación y oportunidades para un mayor compromiso en asuntos de cambio climático. A pesar de que el CCM emprende una serie de iniciativas para proteger sus operaciones, el CCM debe discernir cómo equilibrar el énfasis en los esfuerzos internos de mitigación con el deseo de implementar el programa de manera efectiva y asignar recursos eficientemente. El CCM se pregunta cómo puede asociarse mejor con otras organizaciones de ideas afines para involucrar y movilizar a las congregaciones para reducir sus emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero. Como sugieren las recientes conversaciones convocadas por el Centro de Soluciones Climáticas Sostenibles, el CCM tiene la oportunidad de unirse a otras organizaciones para abogar por políticas que aborden el cambio climático, movilizar a sus constituyentes para reducir las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero y utilizar su trabajo internacional de adaptación como plataforma para propulsar la acción relacionada con el clima conectando a los constituyentes norteamericanos con las comunidades afectadas por el cambio climático.

El trabajo del CCM está cada vez más conectado con el impacto del cambio climático en los peligros y vulnerabilidad dentro de las comunidades de todo el mundo. Para ser fiel en su misión de alivio, desarrollo y construcción de paz en el nombre de Cristo, el CCM debe considerar cuidadosamente la mejor manera de responder a los riesgos del cambio climático, al tiempo que evalúa su papel en los esfuerzos de adaptación y mitigación.

Amy Martens es investigadora asociada en el departamento de Planificación, Aprendizaje y Respuesta a Desastres del CCM.

Aprende más

Fay, Marianne, et al. Decarbonizing Development: Three Steps to a Zero-Carbon Future. Climate Change and Development Series. Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 2015. Available for download at https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/21842.

Martens, Amy. MCC and Climate Change: Responding to Climate Change Risks. MCC, 2016. Available at https://mccintersections.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/mcc-and-climate-change-working-paper-june-20171.pdf.

Hallegatte, Stephane, et al. Shock Waves: Managing the Impacts of Climate Change on Poverty. Climate Change and Development Series. Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 2016. Available at https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/22787/9781464806735.pdf.

Hallegatte, Stephane, et al. Unbreakable: Building the Resilience of the Poor in the Face of Natural Disasters. Climate Change and Development Series. Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 2017. Available for download at https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/25335.

Lavell, A., Oppenheimer, M., Diop, C., Hess, J., Lempert, R., Li, J., Muir-Wood, R., and Myeong, S. “Climate Change: New Dimensions in Disaster Risk, Exposure, Vulnerability and Resilience.” In Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2012. Available at http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/report/report-graphics/ch1-figures/.

UNISDR. Terminology. 2009. Available online at https://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology.

 

Climate change adaptation and mitigation: What is MCC’s role?

Featured

[Individual articles from the Summer 2017 issue of Intersections will be posted on this blog each week. The full issue can be found on MCC’s website.]

Climate change has already wrought significant adverse impacts on people and the environment, including increasing the risk of climate-related disasters. Communities, governments and non-governmental organizations employ adaptation and mitigation strategies to respond to climate change risks, seeking to limit future negative impacts and to enable communities to cope with adverse effects. What is the responsibility of relief, development and peacebuilding agencies like MCC that work in climate change-affected communities to respond to climate change through adaptation and mitigation?

The intersecting concepts of disaster risk, hazards and vulnerability are key in understanding the broader approaches of climate change adaptation and mitigation. Hazards in this case refer to natural adverse events such as droughts, extreme temperatures, landslides or hurricanes. Vulnerability is a term used to describe the characteristics or circumstances of a community that make it susceptible to the damaging effects of a hazard, including exposure to the hazard and ability to cope or adapt to its effects. Vulnerability is influenced by a variety of factors, including gender, age, inequalities in the distribution of resources, access to technology and information, employment patterns and governance structures. Disaster risk is based on the occurrence of hazards and vulnerability to those hazards. Not only is climate change increasing the frequency and severity of many natural hazards, but climate change impacts are increasing vulnerability by diminishing the capacity of communities to cope with these adverse events because of greater unpredictability of climatic events, increased displacement, land degradation and other impacts.

Climate change mitigation and adaptation are two complementary strategies to reduce and manage the risk associated with climate change. Mitigation involves reducing human-caused greenhouse gas emissions in an effort to limit future climate change. Mitigation strategies include switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, improving energy and transportation efficiency and increasing carbon “sinks” through reforestation. Adaptation is the process of adjusting to actual or expected climate change and its effects. Within communities, adaptation means avoiding or diminishing harm from climate impacts or exploiting beneficial opportunities associated with climate change. Adaptation includes a variety of activities to reduce vulnerability, including income and livelihood diversification, soil and water conservation, natural resource management and the provision of social safety nets. In addition, disaster risk reduction is a key strategy for reducing risk through efforts to analyze and manage the factors causing disaster situations, including reducing the exposure to hazards, lessening vulnerability of people and property and improving preparedness for disaster events.

MCC is primarily involved in climate change adaptation activities by supporting communities currently affected by climate change. Adaptation activities aim to reduce disaster risk by addressing different aspects of vulnerability within communities and building resilience to resist, absorb, accommodate and recover from the effects of climate-related hazards. MCC’s adaptation work includes training for farmers in conservation agriculture, construction of shelter resistant to hazards and providing improved access to safe water.

MCC is also involved in mitigation work, including advocating for government policies that address climate change, encouraging supporters to live simply, expanding efforts to implement sustainability initiatives within MCC operations in Canada and the U.S. and partnering with Eastern Mennonite University and Goshen College in the founding of the Center for Sustainable Climate Solutions to advance thinking and action within faith communities on mitigation. Internationally, some of MCC’s programming includes mitigation efforts such as reforestation and education on climate change and environmental sustainability.

Climate change is undermining the efforts of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the development sector as they work towards poverty reduction, food security, improved access to clean water and other development goals. Development NGOs are recognizing the importance of adaptation strategies in programming as they experience the impact of climate change on vulnerability and disaster risk. While adaptation is key in reducing risk associated with climate change impacts, it does not address the root cause of climate change. Both mitigation and adaptation are essential to a comprehensive climate risk reduction strategy.

Considering the importance of limiting future climate change impacts to support sustainable development, what role should NGOs play in mitigation efforts? As a ministry of churches in Canada and the United States, MCC represents congregations in countries that contribute significantly to climate change and is itself a contributor of greenhouse gas emissions. To what extent is MCC responsible for mitigation, both with regards to its internal operations and its constituents located in Canada and the U.S.?

While MCC’s responsibility for climate change adaptation is inherent within its priorities of disaster relief and sustainable community development, MCC continues to explore its role in mitigation and opportunities for greater engagement on climate change matters. Even as MCC undertakes a number of initiatives to green its operations, MCC must discern how to balance an emphasis on internal mitigation efforts with a desire to implement program effectively and allocate resources efficiently. MCC asks itself how it can best partner with other like-minded organizations to engage and mobilize congregations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. As recent conversations convened by the Center for Sustainable Climate Solutions suggest, MCC has the opportunity to join other organizations to advocate on policies that address climate change, to mobilize its supporters to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to use its international adaptation work as a platform to propel climate action by connecting North American supporters with climate change-affected communities.

MCC’s work is increasingly connected to the impact of climate change on hazards and vulnerability within communities around the world. To be faithful in its mission of relief, development and peacebuilding in the name of Christ, MCC must carefully consider how best to respond to climate change risks, while also assessing its role in adaptation and mitigation efforts.

Amy Martens is research associate in MCC’s Planning, Learning and Disaster Response department.

Learn more

Fay, Marianne, et al. Decarbonizing Development: Three Steps to a Zero-Carbon Future. Climate Change and Development Series. Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 2015. Available for download at https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/21842.

Martens, Amy. MCC and Climate Change: Responding to Climate Change Risks. MCC, 2016. Available at https://mccintersections.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/mcc-and-climate-change-working-paper-june-20171.pdf.

Hallegatte, Stephane, et al. Shock Waves: Managing the Impacts of Climate Change on Poverty. Climate Change and Development Series. Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 2016. Available at https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/22787/9781464806735.pdf.

Hallegatte, Stephane, et al. Unbreakable: Building the Resilience of the Poor in the Face of Natural Disasters. Climate Change and Development Series. Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 2017. Available for download at https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/25335.

Lavell, A., Oppenheimer, M., Diop, C., Hess, J., Lempert, R., Li, J., Muir-Wood, R., and Myeong, S. “Climate Change: New Dimensions in Disaster Risk, Exposure, Vulnerability and Resilience.” In Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2012. Available at http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/report/report-graphics/ch1-figures/.

UNISDR. Terminology. 2009. Available online at https://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology.

 

Reanudando el trabajo del CCM en el Vietnam de posguerra

[Articulos Individuales de la edicion de Intersecciones de la Primavera del 2017 se publicaran en este blog cada semana. La edicion completa puede ser encontrada en MCC’s website.]

Desde 1976 (un año después de concluir la guerra) hasta 1989, los envíos anuales de ayuda y las visitas de las delegaciones del CCM a Vietnam continuaron a pesar de la ausencia de personal del CCM expatriado en el país. A principios de los años 80, un representante de CCM con sede en Bangkok trabajó a través de la organización vietnamita Aidresep para realizar viajes trimestrales a Vietnam, prestando asistencia en la selección de proyectos. En 1990, 15 años después de la guerra estadounidense en Vietnam, el CCM fue una de las primeras organizaciones no gubernamentales (ONG) norteamericanas en recibir permiso para abrir una oficina en Hanói, supervisada por el Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de Vietnam. Poco después de nuestra llegada a Hanói, estaba de compras en el mercado cuando una vendedora me preguntó: “¿Eres soviética o francesa?”. Le dije que era americana y que trabajaba para una organización de ayuda. Una amiga la llamó, preguntándole quién era yo. “Ella está reparando el daño de la guerra” fue su respuesta. Luego me dijo: “Las bombas estadounidenses mataron a mucha gente”, lo que implicaba, con una sonrisa, que era apropiado que yo estuviera ayudando a reparar el daño. Esta conversación y otras similares nos revelaron el debate interno en Vietnam y en el Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores sobre cómo tratar a las personas y ONGs extranjeras. Rápidamente aprendimos que, para el CCM, una ONG asociada con el país del antiguo enemigo, trabajando en una era de posguerra, necesitaría redefinir su papel en el país y re-conceptualizar cómo la organización mediría el éxito.

En este contexto, el CCM no podría asociarse con iglesias locales como lo hace típicamente. Se nos aconsejó, por la seguridad de la iglesia local, ser muy cautelosos en cualquier contacto con las iglesias. En ese momento, no había ONG vietnamitas. Todas las organizaciones vietnamitas recibieron su mandato y apoyo del gobierno, por lo que “no gubernamental” era un concepto extranjero. El CCM continuó discutiendo con nuestros contactos del gobierno vietnamita nuestro deseo de asociarnos con organizaciones de base. En ausencia de esa posibilidad, el gobierno nos ayudó a establecer relaciones con varias universidades, oficinas del gobierno local, la Unión de Mujeres, departamentos de salud y hospitales. Dentro de estas entidades, a menudo encontramos líderes visionarios que estaban dispuestos a asumir riesgos para mejorar las vidas de aquellas personas a quienes estaban sirviendo. Algunas personas dentro y fuera del CCM criticaban nuestros vínculos con el gobierno vietnamita, pero esta era la forma en que teníamos que trabajar si queríamos estar en Vietnam con una presencia restauradora en solidaridad con el antiguo “enemigo” de nuestro país.

El CCM fue visto como un “viejo amigo” de Vietnam, que no había apoyado la guerra americana. Esto, a menudo, significaba que se nos veían como favorables al Norte; era difícil comunicar que éramos pacifistas, deseosos de atender a las necesidades humanas en ambos lados del conflicto. El CCM desempeñó tres papeles principales durante este período.

En primer lugar, el CCM proporcionó asistencia financiera, lo que legitimó la presencia del CCM ante los ojos del gobierno. Más allá de la ayuda tangible, el dinero también simbolizó la solidaridad con un pueblo sufriente y trajo esperanza para el futuro. Las cantidades de dinero eran relativamente pequeñas, y nuestros contactos gubernamentales a menudo presionaban por más.

En segundo lugar, el CCM buscó fortalecer los recursos humanos y proporcionar oportunidades profesionales. Durante los años de la guerra, las personas profesionales en Vietnam habían sido aisladas de los desarrollos en sus campos. Pudimos vincularlas con viajes de estudio, cursos cortos y oportunidades de estudios de postgrado, especialmente en Asia, pero también en Occidente.

Tercero, el personal del CCM funcionó como un puente para las comunidades norteamericanas, contando a los norteamericanos las historias del pueblo vietnamita que conocíamos y, explicándole a nuestros grupos asociados vietnamitas que representábamos a personas cristianas norteamericanas que querían ayudar a reparar el daño causado por la guerra. El CCM fue único entre las ONG internacionales que operaban en Vietnam en ese momento en tener un fuerte grupo de personas que sentían propiedad de la organización y la apoyaban financieramente.

Cuando volvimos a Vietnam en 2012, encontramos un grupo de jóvenes vietnamitas que habían estudiado desarrollo y estaban aplicando sus conocimientos a la situación en Vietnam. (En nuestros primeros años, ese grupo de personas aún no existía). También pudimos reunirnos con algunos de los primeros grupos asociados en los proyectos del CCM que nos dijeron: “Nunca olvidaremos que el CCM nos ayudó cuando estábamos en extrema necesidad después de la guerra”. Se refirieron a un viejo proverbio: Un grano de arroz cuando tienes hambre es más que un plato de arroz cuando tienes suficiente.

Janet Reedy, junto con su esposo, Stan, sirvió como representante de CCM supervisando el (re) establecimiento del programa de Vietnam en 1990. Los Reedys continuaron sirviendo en Vietnam hasta 1992.

Aprende mas

Bush, Perry. “Vietnam and the Burden of Mennonite History.” Conrad Grebel Review 17/2 (Spring 1999): 5-27.

Karnow, Stanley. Vietnam: A History. London: Penguin Books, 1997.

Rekindling MCC work in post-war Vietnam

Featured

[Individual articles from the Spring 2017 issue of Intersections will be posted on this blog each week. The full issue can be found on MCC’s website.]

From 1976 (a year after the war concluded) until 1989, annual MCC shipments of aid and visits of MCC delegations to Vietnam continued despite the absence of expatriate MCC workers in the country. Beginning in the early 1980s, an MCC representative based in Bangkok worked through the Vietnamese organization Aidresep to make quarterly trips to Vietnam, providing assistance to select projects. In 1990, 15 years after the American War in Vietnam, MCC was one of the first North American non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to receive permission to open an office in Hanoi, with oversight from Vietnam’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Shortly after our arrival in Hanoi, I was shopping in the market when a vendor asked, “Are you Soviet or French?” I told her I was an American working for an aid organization. A friend called to her, wondering who
I was. “She’s repairing war damage,” was the answer. Then she said to me, “American bombs killed lots of people,” implying, with a smile, that it was appropriate that I should be helping to repair the damage. This conversation and others like it revealed to us the internal debate within Vietnam and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs over how to handle foreigners and foreign NGOs. We quickly learned that for MCC, an NGO associated
with the country of the former enemy, working in a post-war era would necessitate redefining its role in the country and reconceptualizing how the organization would measure success.

In this context, MCC could not partner with local churches as it typically does. We were advised, for the security of the local church, to be very cautious in any contacts with the churches. At that time, there were no Vietnamese NGOs. All Vietnamese organizations received their mandate and support from the government, so “non-government” was a foreign concept. MCC continued to discuss with our Vietnamese government contacts our desire to partner with grassroots organizations. In the absence of that possibility, the government helped to broker relationships with several universities, local government offices, the Women’s Union, health departments and hospitals. Within these entities, we often found visionary leaders who were willing to take risks to bring about improvement in the lives of those they were serving. Some people within and outside of MCC were critical of our ties with the Vietnamese government, but this was the way we had to work if we wanted to be in Vietnam as a restorative presence in solidarity with our country’s former “enemy.”

MCC was seen as an “old friend” of Vietnam, who had not supported the American War. This often meant that we were seen as supportive of the North; it was difficult to communicate that we were pacifists, desiring to minister to human need on both sides of the conflict. MCC played three main roles during this period.

First, MCC provided financial assistance, which legitimized MCC’s presence in the eyes of the government. Beyond the tangible assistance, the money also symbolized solidarity with a suffering people and brought hope for the future. The amounts of money were relatively small, and our government contacts often pressed for more.

Second, MCC sought to strengthen human resources and provide professional opportunities. During the war years, professionals in Vietnam had been cut off from developments in their fields. We were able to link them with study tours, short courses and graduate study opportunities—particularly in Asia, but also in the West.

Third, MCC workers functioned as a bridge to North American communities, telling North Americans the stories of the Vietnamese people we had come to know and explaining to our Vietnamese partners that we represented North American Christians who wanted to help repair the harm done by the war. MCC was unique among the international NGOs operating in Vietnam at the time in having a strong constituency of people who felt ownership in the organization and supported it financially.

When we returned to Vietnam in 2012, we found a cohort of young Vietnamese who had studied development and were applying their knowledge to the situation in Vietnam. (In our early days there, such a group of people did not yet exist.) We also were able to meet with some of MCC’s early project partners who told us, “We will never forget that MCC
helped us when we were in extreme need after the war.” They referred to an old proverb: A grain of rice when you are hungry means more than a bowl of rice when you have enough.

Janet Reedy, together with her husband, Stan, served as MCC representative overseeing the (re)establishment of the Vietnam program in 1990. The Reedys continued to serve in Vietnam until 1992.

Learn more

Bush, Perry. “Vietnam and the Burden of Mennonite History.” Conrad Grebel Review 17/2 (Spring 1999): 5-27.

Karnow, Stanley. Vietnam: A History. London: Penguin Books, 1997.

The difference faith makes (Fall 2016)

[Individual articles from the Fall 2016 issue of Intersections will be posted on this blog each week. The full issue can be found on MCC’s website.]

What difference does faith make in disaster relief, community development and peacebuilding? In this issue of Intersections authors answer this question from multiple perspectives and contexts. This framing question could also be stated thus: do faith-based organizations and local faith communities bring distinctive strengths to food security initiatives, conflict prevention efforts, maternal and child health and nutrition projects and more?

The term faith-based organization, or FBO, refers here to organizations with a predominant or exclusive focus on disaster relief, development and/or peacebuilding and with varying degrees of religious self-identification and rootedness in faith communities: some, like MCC, are international, while others, like the Comisión de Acción Social Menonita (CASM) in Honduras, are country-specific. In his article, Ray Vander Zaag sketches a typology of FBOs in the development sphere, introducing readers to the different types of actors grouped under the label. The term local faith communities, or LFCs, in contrast, points to groupings like congregations, synagogues and communities around mosques.

From its inception, MCC has been committed to partnerships with Anabaptist and other churches. Some actors in the international development sphere, however, raise a variety of skeptical concerns about FBOs and LFCs. A study commissioned in 2014 by Lutheran World Relief of senior development professionals working for USAID and international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) regarding their perceptions of FBOs found ambivalent attitudes. On the one hand, respondents generally affirmed FBOs as a positive force in international development efforts, thanks to their connectedness to local networks and their responsiveness to beneficiaries. At the same time, respondents voiced multiple concerns. Some of these worries revolved around the effectiveness of FBO efforts: respondents rated FBOs lower than non-faith-based NGOs and for-profit development contractors regarding responsiveness to governmental donors, ability to implement and scale-up quickly and relative levels of professionalism and technical expertise. A significant number of respondents also expressed concerns about FBOs tying their services to religious identification and to proselytizing efforts: in this issue, Bruce Guenther discusses humanitarian principles of independence and impartiality and examines how FBOs like MCC work with such principles.

Recognizing the negative perceptions some development actors hold of FBOs, several organizations (including Christian Aid, Islamic World Relief and Tearfund) have formed the Joint Learning Initiative on Faith and Local Communities (JLIFLC) to promote and share evidence-based assessments of the positive difference FBOs and LFCs make in disaster relief, development and peacebuilding. In its evidence briefs, the JLIFLC echoes points made by other development actors and scholars (e.g.,GiZ, 2015; Barnett and Stein, 2012) about the particular strengths and contributions FBOs and LFCs bring to humanitarian efforts. The points include the following:

  • FBOs have networks of connection and partnership with LFCs that give initiatives carried out by FBOs and their LFC partners greater geographical reach (offering access to remote areas) and longer-term sustainability.
  • LFCs are often a source of volunteers who are highly motivated to care for their
    neighbors and who can ensure the durable impact of particular initiatives. The care groups described by Beth Good in her article are composed of such church based
    volunteers, volunteers who promote vaccination, breastfeeding and other health behaviors among pregnant and new mothers in order to improve maternal and child health and nutrition outcomes.
  • In contexts in which government institutions are weak and lack popular legitimacy, religious leaders and institutions often retain authority and trust within targeted communities. Working with LFCs is thus often essential to the success of project interventions.
  • Churches, mosques and other LFCs are often best positioned to be first responders in times of disaster or other crises, investing their own resources in such responses, and can be mobilized as part of larger, longer-term disaster preparedness and risk reduction efforts.
  • LFCs foster hope and resilience in communities devastated by disaster and violent conflict (Ager, 2015).
  • Trusted religious leaders are often better placed than governmental or other actors to help shape and change community norms. So, for example, pastors, imams and other religious leaders can play essential roles in campaigns against gender-based violence by articulating religious arguments for why violence against women is wrong and why respecting the dignity of women is theologically mandated (Le Roux, 2011). Similarly, religiously-grounded arguments can often prove more persuasive in local communities than arguments made in supposedly universalist language. In this issue Vurayayi Pugeni and Dan Wiens offer an example of this dynamic in their article analyzing how presenting conservation agriculture practices as “farming God’s way” helps overcome farmer resistance to adopting non-traditional, labor intensive methods.
  • While religion is often deployed as a frame to justify various types of conflict, religious leaders can, as Wade Snowdon and Mark Tymm explore in their articles, prove essential to conflict prevention and peacebuilding efforts. At the same time, as Lindsey Frye shows in her article, practical efforts like kitchen garden promotion that bring members of different religious groups together around concrete projects can foster and strengthen bonds across religious divides, in turn contributing to longer-term conflict prevention.

Does faith make a difference? As an organization that has served for nearly a century “in the name of Christ,” MCC is convinced that the answer to the question is yes. The articles below reflect ongoing attempts by MCC and other FBOs to reflect on and articulate the what and the how of that difference.

Alain Epp Weaver directs strategic planning and learning for MCC.

Learn more:

Ager, Joey, et al. “Local Faith Communities and the Promotion of Resilience in Contexts of
Humanitarian Crisis.” Journal of Refugee Studies 28/2 (2015); 202-221.

Barnett, Michael and Janice Gross Stein. Sacred Aid: Faith and Humanitarianism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.

GiZ. More than Anything: The Contribution of Religious Communities to Sustainable
Development. Bonn: Deutsche Gesellschaft für internationale Zusammenarbeit, 2015. Available at https://www.giz.de/expertise/downloads/giz2016-en-religion-contributiondevelopment.pdf.

JLIFLC. Evidence for Religious Groups’ Contributions to Humanitarian Response. Evidence Briefs Submitted to the World Humanitarian Summit, May 2016, by the Joint Learning Initiative on Faith and Local Communities. Available at http://jliflc.com/resources/key-messages-evidencereligious-groups-contributionshumanitarian-response/.

Le Roux, Elisabet. Silent No More: The Untapped Potential of the Church in Addressing Sexual Violence. Teddington, UK: Tearfund, 2011. Available at http://files.unaids.org/en/media/unaids/contentassets/documents/document/2011/20110321_Silent_no_more.pdf.

The awkward complexities of community-corporate partnerships

Disadvantaged communities are often forced into David-and-Goliath-style battles with large companies over resource rights and the impact of those companies’ actions on local resources. But increasingly that narrative takes an unexpected turn: David and Goliath are teaming up. Instead of trying to run over community resource management rights, some companies are winning local cooperation in ways that essentially subsume community management regimes within mega-development scenarios. As hydropower development in northern Manitoba attests, such cooperation is fraught with complexity.

Northern Manitoba is home to a legacy of bitter antipathy between ten Cree Indigenous communities and the government-owned electric utility, Manitoba Hydro. Over the past 60 years, Manitoba Hydro has constructed hydropower projects which have fundamentally altered the five largest rivers in the province and six of the twelve largest lakes. For many years, discussion of community-based resource management was overshadowed by the fact that Manitoba Hydro had imposed changes that significantly undermined traditional trapping, hunting, fishing and gathering activities, both for domestic and commercial uses. Beginning in the 1970s, the Interchurch Task Force on Northern Flooding, which included MCC, played an important role in advocating for fair treatment of affected Indigenous people and lands. With Indigenous communities nearly unanimous in their opposition to the dams, the task force’s narrative early on was one of standing with marginalized communities and giving voice to the voiceless.

Starting around 1999, Manitoba Hydro began approaching affected communities in the vicinity of three new hydropower dams the company had long wanted to build. The provincial government said it would not proceed with the three projects without the approval of five First Nations in the vicinity. What followed was a community engagement process that cost the utility millions. In time, some Indigenous leaders revised their community narratives away from the longstanding story of grievance with Manitoba Hydro. They said they could not remain stuck in the past and they needed to rely on the rivers in a new way. Of course, other Indigenous people said there could be no justification for further damage to lands and waters. To some extent it was a choice between maintaining traditional patterns of community-based natural resource management and replacing that resource base through alignment with the financial interests of an outside corporation. The interchurch advocacy group was caught between Indigenous people on either side of the issue, some of them aggressively pushing churches to stop raising concerns about hydropower projects. Eventually, five First Nations—representing roughly one-third of the affected population—signed partnership agreements with the utility.

While Manitoba Hydro got the community approvals it wanted, the price was high. Over 15 years the utility transferred $241 million to First Nations to cover costs of lawyers, consultants, travel, meeting participation and community engagement. While this served in some sense to level the playing field, it also created a largely unaccountable and arguably biased mini-industry. Numerous well-paying jobs in impoverished Indigenous communities were dependent on continuing along the path toward partnership with Manitoba Hydro. People responsible for “consulting” their fellow community members had a direct self-interest in a particular outcome. The lines between consultation and promoting a pro-development agenda were often blurred. And while total expenditure figures are available, Manitoba Hydro has denied all requests for breakdowns of its spending on the grounds of confidentiality agreements between the utility and the First Nations. Accounts of inappropriate expenditures abound, allegedly used to provide direct personal benefit to people supporting partnership with Manitoba Hydro. Reportedly, those in favour of dams got perks while those opposed did not. Families and communities were split, leaving long-term scars. This form of community engagement also created tensions between different communities, as Manitoba Hydro’s much touted “new era” of northern relations really only extended to communities near proposed new projects, not communities still suffering from the impact of existing projects.

First Nations were also saddled with the greatest risk. Partnership agreements centered around First Nations being offered the opportunity to invest in the dams. In the case of the first dam, Wuskwatim (completed in 2013), the nearby Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation invested over $100 million—most of that borrowed from Manitoba Hydro—to leverage a 33-percent share in the $1.8 billion dam. The dam was supposed to make between $5 and 25 million annually in its early years, but instead it has lost over $100 million to date. Partly for that reason, the four First Nation partners in the $6.5-billion Keeyask dam currently under construction are expected to obtain a much smaller share in the dam than what was touted at the time the communities voted on the partnership. The utility itself faces little risk as rate increases can cover losses.

On the plus side, hydropower construction has created significant and desperately needed employment. The catch, of course, is that the employment is temporary. At last report, only two members of the local First Nation were employed permanently at the Wuskwatim dam. Hydropower dams are by nature capital rather than labour intensive. Few people are required for ongoing operation. That makes them a poor match for communities that are capital poor with high levels of available labour.

Part of the problem with the hydropower engagement process is that communities were in essence forced to choose between poverty and ill-suited mega-projects. Arguably, a third option could have involved a diverse suite of possibilities, including maximum Indigenous employment at existing northern hydropower facilities and a range of smaller ventures based in part on emerging social enterprise models, with capital inputs from the utility. Such enterprises could have included small-scale logging, energy retrofits for homes, local food production, thrift stores or maximization of traditional harvesting. Generally these types of third options are ignored.

Several learnings about community-corporate partnership in natural resource management can be gleaned from the northern Manitoba example:

  • Society owes disadvantaged communities a creative range of economic options;
  • According to the emerging concept of free, prior and informed consent, communities should be brought into open-ended processes about natural resource management early on. In this Manitoba example, the utility and its parent government were clearly seeking their desired outcome right from the start;
  • Full accountability for all spending is essential;
  • An independent study should look at the real costs and benefits of such mega-projects for impacted communities over time.
  • Any benefit-sharing arrangements should minimize community risks; and
  • The higher the stakes, the greater the inherent potential for tension.

As for NGOs like MCC seeking to support disadvantaged communities, they must accept the complexity of such situations and discard simplified narratives. Given the very high stakes in such situations, NGOs, which have far less vested interest than other parties, can create space for candid, non-polarized discussion. To the extent possible they should maintain rapport with all parties while maintaining their own independent voice. They must also be willing to absorb criticism from community leaders. NGOs can serve as a needed counterweight to corporate interests which bring an innate bias to these situations. The bottom line for communities and NGOs is to embrace the complexity; to candidly consider pros, cons and trade-offs of different options; and to find healthy ways to navigate the tensions that arise when community-based values collide with the dependence we all have on the sorts of mega-projects that threaten Indigenous communities and their traditional resources.

Will Braun lives in Morden, Manitoba and works for the Interchurch Council on Hydropower. He has previously worked on issues related to hydropower for MCC and Pimicikamak Cree Nation.

Learn more:

Thibault, M., and Hoffman, S.M. Eds. Power Struggles: Hydroelectric Development and First Nations in Manitoba and Quebec. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press, 2009.

Waldram, James B. As Long as the Rivers Run: Hydroelectric Development and Native Communities. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press, 1993.

Braun, Will. “Keeyask Dam on Shaky Political Foundation: Split Lake Residents Have Good Reason to Wonder What Became of Promised Millions.” Winnipeg Free Press (July 3 2012). Available at http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/analysis/keeyask-dam-on-shaky-political-ground-161181735.html

Braun, Will. “Dam Deal Loses Shine: First Nations Gambled on Bold Talk of Prosperity.” Winnipeg Free Press (April 24 2014). Available at

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/analysis/dam-deal-loses-shine-256479261.html

Spinning a safety net: community-based natural resource management in Laos

In the heart of southeast Asia lies Communist Laos, a landlocked country of seven million people, a country of 49 ethnic groups and as many native tongues, with an ever-changing geography unified by the mighty Mekong River flowing down from China and Thailand and out into Cambodia. Most Laotians are paddy rice farmers, relying heavily on the pulse of the river and the timing of the monsoon season. When conditions are favourable, villagers grow paddy and upland rice, the country’s all-important crops, and raise chickens, ducks, pigs, buffaloes and frogs. Women also make an income from weaving done in the shade of stilted houses. During seasonal food shortages villagers turn to communally-managed pieces of forest and hillside to fill food gaps. This article will explore how these community-managed resources have been negatively impacted by the presence of developers and argue that increased knowledge of legal land rights and community conflict resolution are necessary in order to strengthen the ability of communities to protect and once again manage their own resources.

In the average Lao meal, reliance on forest products is abundantly evident: fat, crispy fried insects, fermented river fish paste, steamed and boiled greens and bamboo shoots, wild mushrooms and small game. These dishes are all eaten with scoops of one of the 15,000 varieties of fragrant sticky rice grown throughout Laos. In homes, bamboo is used for traps and building materials, rattan creates baskets and brooms, and barks, leaves and roots are dried to make medicine.

Use of forest areas are traditionally negotiated among different villages and are generally managed through light harvesting and the delineation of forest territory into land for production, conservation and protection. In some forests food may be gathered, but trees may not be cut, hillsides may not be cleared and fires may not be lit. In this way, village authorities control the extent of harvesting and ensure the forest environment is not degraded.

On the banks of the Nam Xan River, the small village of Ban Thitnoon recently had the visit that changes the lives of so many villages: the arrival of developers in shiny black SUVs. Before their eyes, village leaders saw their seasonal food shortages disappear in a haze of promises for a luxury tourist resort that would lead to education, a market for villagers’ goods and a financial safety net for hard years. The contract between the developers and village authorities was signed and work began. Villagers awakened too late to the painful realization that the developers had misrepresented their intentions and had instead dug an open-pit mine in a fast grab for mineral resources that resulted in flooding and chemical runoff into the surrounding water.

During a visit from representatives from Laos’ National Assembly, the village mediation unit of Ban Thitnoon reached out for help. A government representative was dispatched to investigate, and the sham developer took the profits and left. With that victory under their belts, the small village of Ban Thitnoon was left to survey the damage: 70% of their paddy lands were permanently flooded and unusable, the water was polluted and degraded and the forest cover eroded away in a number of places. A village that had been seasonally food insecure was now in crisis. Ban Thitnoon’s story is all-too-common in Laos.

MCC has worked to address the threat posed by developers to traditional Laotian community-based natural resource management by raising awareness of villagers’ legal land rights. So, for example, since 2009 MCC has worked on a food security project with the Xaysomboun Provincial Department of Agriculture. MCC staff have explained to village authorities in the area their right to refuse contracts with developers, their rights to negotiate contracts and their options for legal recourse in the case of disputes over contracts. In Tha Thom district, MCC works with elected Village Mediation Units (VMUs) to strengthen their capacity to defend villagers’ legal rights and their ability to take recourse when developers fail to obtain permission or go beyond the bounds of negotiated contracts. MCC also works with local government officials to obtain land certificates for individual families, helping them prove their right to use specific land and thus increase their legal ability to retain their land. As the Landesa Rural Development Institute observes, “secure rights to land are a critical, but often overlooked, factor in achieving household food security and improved nutritional status” (Landesa Rural Development Institute, 1). Secure long-term land tenure is essential before farmers can invest time in agricultural development training on matters such as soil improvement, animal forage, techniques for better rice yields, fruit tree cultivation and animal raising.

In a period of unprecedented development in Laos, villagers are relocating throughout the country to make way for hydroelectric development, plantations, mines and other economic development projects. Such mass internal migration can result in serious disputes, especially as different ethnic groups come into contact for the first time, knowing little about each other’s customs. MCC assists in training VMUs to help solve conflicts that arise in both of these situations. As a result, VMUs deal with a variety of concerns, ranging from serious land boundary conflicts to disputes of the “your-cow-ate-my-vegetable-patch” variety. If these disputes can be solved locally, and in culturally-appropriate ways, it relieves the overburdened justice system and contributes to social cohesion. Laos has been described as having “the resource curse,” the seeming blessing of abundant natural resources undermined by weak regulation and powerful neighbours. With perseverance and the increasing interest of government and civilians, legal education about villagers’ land rights can protect this vital set of resources and keep the shelves of these natural food cupboards stocked for generations to come.

Emily Nigh is agricultural advisor for MCC Laos, based in Vientiane.

 Learn more:

 Landesa Rural Development Institute. “Landesa Issue Brief: Land Rights and Food Security.” 13 (March 2012). Available at https://www.landesa.org/wp-content/uploads/Landesa-Issue-Brief-Land-Rights-and-Food-Security.pdf

Baird, Ian G. and Bruce Shoemaker. “Unsettling Experiences: Internal Resettlement and International Aid Agencies in Laos.” Development and Change 38/5 (September 2007): 865–888.

Ministry of Justice Law Research and International Cooperation Institute. “Customary Law and Practise in Lao PDR.” (July 2011). Available at http://www.la.undp.org/content/lao_pdr/en/home/library/democratic_governance/customary-law.html