Decentralization – the necessary organizational change for better climate adaption
This article was written by a participant of GCA’s Young Leaders Program. The program develops young talent to become future leaders in global climate change adaptation efforts by enhancing their knowledge, skills, and ability to thrive in an international environment.
I
want you to act as you would in a crisis. I want you to act as if our house in on fire.”
This is the war cry of Swedish Climate Activist Greta Thunberg as she challenged the world to wake up from collective slumber and scepticism towards climate change. This emphatic appeal was not only addressed to governments and international corporations, but also confronted the public with the inconvenient reality of climate change. And even though we have always been quick blame the former for their inefficiency and inadequacy, it is the apparent inactivity of the general public that has largely gone unaddressed. So, why is it that a crisis that threatens mass extinction has remained largely contained to the political realm? The answer to this question might lie in how we, as a society, have constructed and view our systems.
A simple search of the word ‘system’ yields a definition on the lines of ‘a group of interacting or interrelated entities that form a unified whole’. A system quite typically can be described in terms of its interactions, scope, boundaries and feedback loops. All of human activity, physical, biological, economical, societal and environmental can be condensed in systems. From manufacturing to waste management, all the processes can be distinguished in the form of systems with varying levels of complexity. And it is at the heart of the study of the systems (or System Dynamics, as it is commonly referred to) that the problem lies.
American organizational theorist Karl E. Weick said, “the real trick in highly reliable systems is somehow to achieve simultaneous centralization and decentralization”. So, what exactly is centralization and decentralization, one might ask? Organizational theorists describe centralized systems as top-down structures where the power of planning and decision-making rests exclusively in the hands of apex level management. Decentralized systems, on the other hand, see dissemination of power and responsibility to the middle or lower levels of management. Based on the definitions, two parameters can be identified which differentiate the two systems: degree of dissemination of power and extent of stakeholder participation
Today, systems operational in a vast majority of developed and developing nations favour centralization and are often regulated by a handful of people. These systems although autonomous and effective, when viewed through the lens of climate change can be problematic. Centralization has discouraged stakeholder participation which in turn has dulled people’s perception of the risk posed by climate change. It has also excluded people from feeling a sense of responsibility or accountability – meaning that environmental damage is still seen as an externality [1]. In terms of climate adaptation, centralized system design prevents the dissemination of scientific knowledge to the grassroots. It also impedes the process by excluding the integration of indigenous knowledge in the decision-making process. This leads to very practical problems such as ineffective dissipation of funds to the locally-run programmes [2]. The adaptive capacity is also limited by the lack of individual understanding and institutional flexibility in governance structures [2].
Sumiran Rastogi
Getting local
The effectiveness of decentralization, on the other hand, can be attested by projects like Smallholder Innovation for Resilience (SIFOR) in Kenya. Here, a decentralized farming and decision-making system led to the application of traditional knowledge and crop varieties. These played an important role in the communities’ adaptation strategies and innovation responses to the food security issue [3]. Another example saw participatory planning in Indonesia. A diverse group of stakeholders restored a 20-km belt of coastal mangroves, introducing sustainable aquaculture and reduced groundwater extraction [4]. Decentralization, therefore, allows for policies and practices specific to the local environmental needs.
Decentralization does not guarantee all-encompassing solutions to climate change. Studies point out that it can lead to complexity, increase the burden of responsibilities on actors and create conflicts [5]. However, what it does offer is a promising opportunity for
• better integration of knowledge
• higher responsibility and motivation in decision-making
• internalizing the socio-economic costs of environment degradation
• facilitating building of local capacities for adaptation efforts which are more consistent with the local requirements [6].
It is important to understand that while action on climate change is a crucial global imperative, the efforts to adapt to it have to be widespread and local. A sense of urgency can only be invoked if people perceive that the house on fire is theirs, and they are equipped do something about it.
References
[1] https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2019.00060
[2] Brockhaus, M. and Kambiré, H., 2009, ‘Decentralization: A Window of Opportunity for Successful Adaptation to Climate Change?’, Chapter 25 in Adapting to Climate Change: Thresholds, Values, Governance, Cambridge University Press, eds. W. N. Adger, I. Lorenzoni and K. L. O’Brien, Cambridge, pp. 399-416
[3] https://www.iied.org/smallholder-innovation-for-resilience-sifor
[4] https://cdn.gca.org/assets/2019-09/GlobalCommission_Report_FINAL.pdf
[5] https://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/10769IIED.pdf
[6] http://www.fao.org/3/y4256e/y4256e05.htm
The ideas presented in this article aim to inspire adaptation action – they are the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Global Center on Adaptation.
