SECCIÓN 2ª: NORMAS ESPECÍFICAS PARA DETERMINADOS TIPOS DE ANDAMIOS

Although all interviewees valued science, its utilisation was discussed primarily in the context of CCA (even by DRR specialists), particularly in the case of Head Office participants. Two examples of engaging with climate scientists were shared. Firstly, the Kenyan representative (INGO C) described engagement with local climate scientists. However, the mismatch between the decadal scale of this information and the outlook of communities was noted (Walker et al., 2014):

‘...we are not bringing the international, the meteorological prediction into the communities; to be perfectly honest I don’t think it’s served any purpose. You know what they’re interested in is three weeks: “I got the seeds, I’ve tilled the land, we are ready to go, do I plant or not? Give me a three weeks forecast.”’ (Team Leader – Climate Change and Hunger Team, INGO C)

The Climate Change Programme Adviser at INGO D discussed farmers making decisions based on climate science, noting that these have admittedly focused more upon seasonal forecasting. This practice was also noted by INGO B’s Climate Change Adviser with regard to

47 Adviser – CCA (INGO C); Adviser – DRR (INGO H); Project Manager – Livelihoods and Disaster Management (Development INGO)

48 Programme Policy Management Team Member – DRR (INGO F)

156 their organisation’s experiences. In addition, three⁴⁹ interviewees noted that climate scientists need information from the local community.

Utilising climate science appeared more an exercise in raising awareness of climate change rather than utilising the data to inform assessments. This approach was in part due to the associated uncertainty of this data, but three interviewees ⁵⁰ also perceived the application of climate science in this manner to be necessary:

‘...you are like: well the science isn’t really telling us enough, or you know it’s not really on a scale that’s useful enough to inform a decision making so...we wanted users to really make a point of reading what’s out there, even if it’s not a, you know, it’s not information that’s necessarily digestible or particularly useful at a community level, just to sort of familiarize themselves with the quote unquote science is saying about climate change in Sahel for example. Maybe the jury’s out and that’s kind of frustrating but it’s still good to know that the jury’s out, you know.’ (Senior Researcher – Climate Change, Research Institute B)

In contrast, another three⁵¹ interviewees disputed the use of very general information like that described above, emphasising the need for precise information that is useful to communities for the purpose of planning. In fact, the Climate Change Programme Adviser at the same organisation (INGO D) stated that most of the plans that they have seen are not informed by a climate analysis or a PHVCA of any kind.

Opinion was mixed as to whether communities would directly utilise science. One respondent noted that the community do not need ‘figures’ they just need to know whether or not they can plant crops; however two respondents disputed this perception by sharing examples of farmers and communities who understand climate science and make decisions based on an

49 Programme Staff – CCA (INGO C, Kenya) gave the example of community monitored rainfall; Policy Coordinator – DRR (INGO G); Adviser – Environmental Sustainability (INGO H)

50 Adviser – Climate Change Programme (INGO D); Kenyan representative (INGO C); Senior Researcher – Climate Change (Research Institute B)

51 Policy Coordinator – DRR (INGO G); Policy Adviser – Climate Change (Development INGO); Project Manager – Livelihoods and Disaster Management (Development INGO)

157 understanding of the uncertainty⁵². In the context of integrating science, all but one interviewee emphasised that the process should begin with the community’s knowledge.

In the context of DRR, INGO D’s DRR Policy and Research Adviser noted that their in-country partners had demonstrated varying success in integrating science and multi-hazards into their programmes:

‘it was very much again different in each country, and very much down to the program office…in the Philippines…she was just so excellent and well-connected…that she managed to really bring this kind of scientific multi hazard quite rigorous assessment methods and linked those and integrated those with the findings from the community assessments…[in Malawi] it was definitely not multi-hazard, very much focused just on drought, and …they didn’t really [discuss the Met Office data with the communities], but instead focused on community level assessments and gaps with the outcome that actually a lot of the DRR work that was being done there was a continuation of the same old same old….’ (Policy and Research Adviser – DRR, INGO D)

Furthermore, during the interviews with in-country representatives, science emerged much more in the context of DRR and, without prompting, during the interview with the DRR Adviser (INGO D):

‘– we need to triangulate: well this is the perception of people on hazards, we also bring in scientists in the area to have our evidence, to have our facts more scientific. ’ (Adviser – Climate Change and DRM Programme, INGO G)

One Head Office interviewee and another in-country participant⁵³ shared anecdotes of the incorporation of scientific knowledge and expertise in the context of hazard assessments, specifically geological surveys that identified previously unknown landslide risk. These examples reflected the initiative of individuals and organisations in-country, rather than a sector-wide recognition of the need to engage with scientific experts for the purposes of hazard assessment:

52 Adviser – Climate Change Programme (INGO D); Adviser – Climate Change Adaptation (INGO C);

Project Manager – Livelihoods and Disaster Management (Development INGO)

53 Policy and Research Adviser – DRR (INGO D); Adviser – CC and DRM Programme (INGO G)

158

‘Often, the links are sometimes not so clear at first... they [partners] were saying that their DRR teams are quite science heavy, in that they will have a geologist…so they are quite ‘techy’. And they said that the interesting thing about that is the PRA approach is fine because you need to have that to ensure that the community is confident in the whole sort of approach, and they feel it is addressing their priorities. But there is some [hazards] that they don’t know about. So for instance they frequently uncovered, through geological surveys, risks (particularly landslide risks) that were completely unknown…sitting right above a village…but through this very scientific surveying approach they have uncovered something that people should be aware of.’ (Policy and Research Adviser – DRR, INGO D)

The above quotation emphasises the limits of community knowledge and also indicates the interviewee’s initial hesitancy regarding the application of science, indicative of reluctance shared by other interviewees. One interviewee felt that it would not be necessary to ‘bring a scientist down to the grass roots to actually participate in the [PHVCA]⁵⁴’. Additionally, the difficulty for organisations working with partners (and to some extent autonomous regional offices) is that it is up to the partner to decide whether or not they engage with external expertise, in spite of recommendations from the INGO:

‘...my experience [of] introducing different partners to different organisations like the local UNDP office [is] that they weren’t necessarily connected with and going into the district level of governments and government offices...my sort of feeling was I think that…the partners I was working alongside, they were very much doing their thing...’

(DRR Consultant)

Thus, there was concern (amongst two Head Office interviewees in particular) as to how the process of engaging with scientists would be sustained, with one questioning how communities would be able to, for example, pay for a ‘highly trained geologist’⁵⁵. At the same time, three interviewees acknowledged that they need to improve their engagement with all the necessary science since ‘participatory rural appraisal’ (PRA) limits expertise to livelihoods, agriculture and climate advice.

54 Director of the Disaster Manager Team (INGO H)

55 Adviser – Climate Change Programme (INGO D)

159 4.4.2 Perceived and real barriers to integrating science with community

knowledge

All interviewees seemed to value the utilisation of science, but it emerged there were a number of perceived and real barriers hindering its integration. The emphasis on climate science meant that interviewees fixated on the problems associated with this type of science.

Scale, in terms of both poor local data resolution and long-term projections (beyond the length of community concerns and NGO project planning) were deemed a blockade to the application of climate science. However, there were barriers identified that apply to science more generally.

Fundamentally, respondents felt that the utilisation of science necessitates simple, local analyses that are well communicated to those whom require them. Communication⁵⁶, access, a lack of local scale information⁵⁷ and scientific uncertainty were all quoted as hindering the integration of (climate) science with community knowledge. However, the most revealing barrier that emerged from the analysis was, however, the uncertainty at both an organisational and individual level as to how natural science can be applied and what science is of use. Underlying the barriers is a series of perceptions and assumptions, including preconceived ideas about science and scientists and the tendency amongst Head Office interviewees to couch science in terms of climate change. This was partly fuelled by the perception that DRR is a much less scientific discipline than CCA:

‘So [DRR]'s very much more an applied practical discipline and it’s not particularly academically rigorous or scientific necessarily; whereas adaptation has really emerged from you know from science, from social science and meteorology…’ (Programme Policy Management Team Member, INGO F)

56 Team Leader – CC and Hunger Team (INGO C)

57 Network Coordinator (Advocacy INGO); Policy Coordinator – DRR (INGO G)

160 What is implied is a relatively poor acknowledgment of the real value of science in hazard assessment, in other words the existing knowledge that is arguably easier to utilise than very uncertain climate science:

‘whilst there was much emphasis on climate change science the fact [is] that most of its utilisation is in the form of techniques which were already available, such as seasonal forecasting, and that perhaps existing science could be more readily utilised (rather than new research).’ (Director – DMT, INGO H)

In general – and specifically noted by the DRR Regional Programme Manager (HD INGO B), the Climate Change Team Leader (Research Institute A) and the Director of DMT (HD INGO H) – there was the perception amongst the study A interviews that science has to become more engaged in the social elements of disasters, be specific to local settings and become more understandable. Head Office NGOs emphasised an ‘action-learning’⁵⁸ model of research (cf.

Mercer, 2012) and one respondent questioned how academic discourse could be integrated with work so focused on the essential elements between life and death⁵⁹. This was also reflected by the fact that historically it has been up to the NGO to approach scientists⁶⁰:

‘It hasn’t come from universities to the social or the experience in field, their proposal comes from us to them. And the process is that you need to convince them.’ (DRR Regional Programme Manager, INGO B)

However, although not a reflexive stance taken by the majority of the interviewees, two interviewees observed that the problem may also lie within NGOs themselves since they are primarily comprised of social scientists⁶¹:

‘I was very anti-science…I made a conscious decision early on that actually it wasn’t about science, social science was the only way forward; but it is very interesting, NGOs are basically made up of social scientists, and it is incredibly how that whole social science mentality pervades.’ (Adviser – DRR, INGO B)

58 DRR Consultant; Adviser – DRR (INGO E); Network Coordinator – Advocacy INGO; Adviser – Environmental Sustainability (INGO H)

59 Director – Humanitarian Team (INGO A)

60 Regional Programme Manager – DRR (INGO B); Adviser – Policy and Research and Adviser – Climate Change Programme (both INGO D); Director – DMT (INGO H)

61 Adviser – DRR (INGO B); Adviser – CCA (INGO C)

161 The above interviewee also suggested that the pervasiveness of social scientists within NGOs means that they are not in a position to know what questions they should be asking of scientists. This is also reflected by the underlying uncertainty within NGOs regarding how to use science:

‘we as NGOs I think we’re struggling with that [‘the science thing’] – the simpler the better I say and it’s to do with arable land reduction, water table reduction, food crop yields – that’s what they [communities] get.’ (Team Leader – Climate Change and Hunger, INGO C)

This limited capacity was recognised by the CC and DRM Programme Adviser (INGO G) from the Philippines who stated that:

‘we are not scientists…[so] why not invite geologists from the…Geoscience and Mines Bureau in the Philippines to come.’ (Adviser - CC and DRM Programme Adviser, INGO G)

However, there was also a degree of reluctance amongst some interviewees to engage with scientists⁶² owing to concern over the legitimacy of the participatory process of hazard assessment and the need to maintain emphasis on people’s vulnerabilities and capacities for action⁶³. The very participatory approach is juxtaposed against the perceived ‘positivist’⁶⁴ mentality of science:

‘the danger that we see is…where technical aspects become more important…, or hazard assessments could become suddenly more important, or suddenly prioritised also in terms of funding over analysis of social political economic dynamics that underpin peoples vulnerability….’ (Policy and research Adviser – DRR, INGO D)

Furthermore, as noted by two interviewees⁶⁵, the process of engagement may not always run smoothly:

62 E.g. Climate Change Team Leader (Research Institute A)

63 Regional Programme Manager – DRR (INGO B); Adviser – DRR Policy and Research; Team Leader – CC (Research Institute A); Director – DMT (INGO H)

64 Team Leader – CC (Research Institute A)

65 Adviser – Climate Change Adaptation (INGO C); Senior Researcher – CC (Research Institute B)

162

‘I have seen it go both ways, where you know, sort of the use and the translation of science in communicating an environmental threat and to explain changes at the community level has been really powerful and very empowering, but I have also seen the opposite thing. And so I guess it’s really the role of the person or the medium used to sort of do that translation and that communication, that’s just essential.’ (Senior Researcher – Climate Change, Research Institute B)

This quotation emphasises the need for a broker of scientific information. However the above findings question whether NGOs are able to fulfil this communication role.