El concepto de “género” según la historia del cine

studies was designed by a donor organisation and implemented in partnership with regional organisations in multiple communities, with the assistance of local governments, across six PICs. On Abaiang Island, the three recipient communities (two of which were the focus for this research) were chosen originally based on their location on the island: “the selection of the village is not really done properly I can say… they were asking us to select the villages from the far end and from the middle” (interview #16). This represents a framework of funding and implementation for adaptation whereby project components are derived and driven by outside stakeholders’ perspectives and worldviews without accounting for the local systems and structures that drive vulnerability (Barnett and Campbell 2010; Dean, Green and Nunn 2016; Inderberg, Eriksen, O’Brien and Sygna 2015). This funding and implementation framework, which mirrors a traditional top-down development approach, has been shown

consistently to be ineffective in achieving positive outcomes for communities as it does not allow for understanding the context in which climate change impacts occurs (including social structures, economies, culture, and geography) which are inextricably linked to how climate change will be experienced (O’Brien et al 2007; McCubbin, Smit and Pearce 2015). As such, community level planned adaptation must acknowledge and integrate factors of local context if it is to be truly meaningful in reducing the vulnerability of affected people.

Looking to this case study, we can draw out examples of how the local context was not effectively or appropriately accounted for. For example, all members of the community were not given equitable access to participate (as described in section 4.2). This challenge of inequity in access to both information and decision-making is pervasive, being documented in 32% of projects in a review of CBA grey literature implemented in the Global South (Piggott-McKellar et al 2019b) and noted specifically in Pacific-based studies (Buggy and McNamara 2016; Clarke et al 2019). The decision-making structures in both villages in this research are representative of wider Kiribati and many other PICs, through largely hereditary gender-exclusive and hierarchical decision-making processes. This social and cultural aspect results in an inherent challenge of integrating different groups, and people into the adaptation project and was experienced in both villages. For example, in regards to the training, while the invitation was for everyone to participate, it was mainly the men who went as women were busy with other household and community responsibilities: “The invitation for everyone, but during that day mostly men came along but only a few women joined” (Tuarabu Women FG).

When working with communities, there often exists a false assumption that by providing equal and fair access and distribution, then all parties will be able to participate, yet underlying levels of intersectional vulnerability (across class, gender, religion, race) can either increase or decrease a person’s access and participation (Dodman and Mitlin 2013; Cleaver 2009). This was experienced in this instance for while the project did not actively exclude anyone, these underlying norms prevented equitable access, namely for women and youth. This challenge has also been noted by implementing partners working with other communities in Kiribati: “the first thing I noticed here in Kiribati… the consultation is only done with the old men, the unimane, so you just have about five or six of them waiting in the Maneaba (traditional meeting

house) for the team to arrive. And they tell us that the women are not part of the consultation”

(Interview #6).

Another aspect that evolved to showcase how the local context was not accounted for, which ultimately impacted the success of the project, is looking at the current economic constraints experienced in both villages, and the evolution of the local food system and diet. In both Tabontebike and Tuarabu, foods are currently dominated by imported food, thus resulting in higher cash expenses for both communities, something experienced across other PICs (McCubbin, Smit and Pearce 2015). This coupled with low wage employment and limited opportunity on Abaiang Island has resulted in a dominant concern and priority centred on income generation. This was clear during FGs with sentiments that people did not get paid being expressed by participants as a problem experienced with the project. An expressed frustration toward a lack of market access was something that inhibited ongoing participation in the project for some community members as people had an expectation of selling foods grown as a result of the project: “we were discouraged to plant more because there is no one to buy more” (Tuarabu Men FG). The desire for immediate livelihood needs in terms of income generation coupled with an ongoing move away from subsistence crops to imported foods in both villages impacted the motivations of community members to participate as the project goals were not designed in recognition of, or to account for these.

Just as climate change impacts themselves are experienced in the context of other multiple stressors, adaptation initiatives must also account for and plan according to these (O’Brien et al 2007; McCubbin, Smit and Pearce 2015). Identifying and acknowledging these at the onset and including local community members in the process might have presented avenues through which to account for and integrate targeted objectives specifically relevant to the community, which can help in achieving more successful solutions (Jamero et al 2018). For example, in reference to the equitable distribution of opportunity and access when working with communities, a targeted equity framing that first acknowledges and then accounts for the specific nature of broader power dynamics that operate within communities is essential (Dodman and Mitlin 2013). Many NGOs and development organisations (such as CARE, OXFAM, and UNDP) working in PICs have started incorporating such an approach to transform the role of women and other vulnerable groups and people. For example, a recent study

undertaken by Clarke et al (2019) shows how, in a Vanuatu context, the use of a targeted equity framing by CARE emerged as a key element to project success as it served to combat those existing inequities in the community through an intentional approach to integrate social inclusion into all project phases. This improved the self-efficacy of women in the community and helped to alter perceptions of the value and role women hold in terms of adaptation (Clarke et al 2019). While important to combat underlying inequities, such approaches should further account for local knowledge systems and the multiple avenues through which empowerment can be achieved, and be culturally grounded, accounting for traditional roles and values (McLeod et al 2018). In reference to the degree to which financial constraints and limited market access impacted this project, if acknowledged and understood at the onset of the project design could have presented an opportunity to understand these factors and integrate solutions relevant to the target communities.