Climate mitigation cannot ignore local contexts

It is ironic that countries and people with the lightest ecological footprints are bearing the biggest brunt of climate change. While the global community is still reeling from the rise of climate-denying politicians and struggling to shore up alternative sources of climate related financing, the way the existing climate change policies are being implemented also needs a major rethink.

There is ample evidence to demonstrate how a lack of resources increases exposure to the consequences of climate change, and limits the ability of ordinary citizens, and even nations, to adapt to climate-related impacts. However, the climate related vulnerabilities of poor people and poorer nations are not uniform.

Yet, the global discourse on climate change assumes that all forms of climate action invariably help poorer countries and poorer people, so everyone must play along with whatever policy prescriptions are formulated by those in positions of power. Motivated by this rationale, global institutions like World Bank, IMF and even the UN have pushed homogenous climate policies such as carbon credit schemes to deal with global warming. The lingering dependence of poorer countries on donors makes them unable to push back against one-size-fits-all prescriptions, even if such impositions do not offer locally informed choices to deal with climate change.

The dearth of data on climate impacts within the global south also increases reliance on foreign experts, which then reinforces the use of top-down policy prescriptions. Poorer countries rely on donors not just for funding climate mitigation efforts, but also for climate-related research.

To be effective, climate action must be anchored in domestic political realities. Without adequate local ownership, climate commitments readily dissipate when donor funding dries up. For instance, signing onto pledges to limit deforestation is not enough. Political capital is needed to conserve forests, which cannot be created by foreign experts, if, for example, illegal logging provides a source of major revenue for local communities, whose votes are vital for local politicians.

Forest conservation also needs to recognise linkages between deforestation and subsistence farming requirements of local communities, which is also a major cause for encroachment on forest lands. Without investing in alternative sources of income, or identifying more sustainable methods of growing food, forest conservation schemes can undermine the welfare of local populations, which increases the chances of such efforts being subverted.

To tackle the global warming crisis, climate policies in the global south need to pay greater heed to the impact of climate mitigation strategies on local communities. More effective climate policies must be rooted in the idea of improving households' material conditions while tackling climate threats. Exacerbating marginalisation via exclusionary mitigation strategies, such as paying local elites to conserve forests for earning carbon credits, is not a viable climate strategy.

Climate policies need to be more flexible and pay more heed to local contexts. While recognising the need for global consensus to coordinate action across different countries is important, climate policies must be participatory and be able to incorporate alternative perspectives. Building viable coalitions which can adhere to common-sense approaches to climate mitigation is more sensible.

The tendency to consider climate policies from a myopic technocratic lens is a recipe for failure. Greater efforts must be made to anchor climate policies in the domestic politics of individual countries. International development entities spearheading climate adaptation must learn to relinquish control. And poorer countries need to proactively provide solutions of greater relevance to their local environments, and these solutions must in turn be informed by voices of specific communities in whose name climate mitigation efforts are being implemented. Meaningful climate actions cannot succeed without garnering popular support.