Narrator, Narration, Narrative

How epistemic injustice remains an ongoing battle for Northern indigenous peoples

“Our identity is not up for negotiation”

Bernadette Demientieff, Executive Director Gwich’in Steering Committee

The storytellers and the stories they tell

Back in February, I was sitting in the Royal Geographic Society’s lecture theatre and the explorer Sir David Hemplemen-Adams bounded onto the stage and began telling the excited audience about his most recent adventure circumnavigating the polar ocean in one season. I felt like I had stepped back in time with Hemplemen-Adams’ complete silence on indigenous people when telling the story of Franklin’s 1845 polar expedition.

Sir John Franklin returned to England after ending his role, as the colonial governor of Tasmania, under a political cloud. In a bid to restore his reputation he embarked on the infamous expedition to discover the Northwest Passage. However, the two ships disappeared without trace. His wife, Lady Jane Franklin campaigned for multiple expeditions to find the ships between 1850-1875. But the ships remained lost.

HMS Erebus in the Ice by Francois Etienne Musin Source: Royal Museums Greenwich

It was not until 2014 that HMS Erebus was found, with HMS Terror found two years later. These discoveries were achieved through a combination of the careful tracing of oral histories by Inuit Louie Kamookak and rising geopolitical tension which justified the financing of a new search for the Franklin ships. Western archaeologists had ignored Inuit knowledge for generations but as it turned out the ships were exactly where they had said they were.

This is an example of testimonial epistemic injustice (Fricker, 2013) where unfairness is displayed in trusting someone’s word and an incomplete narrative is the result. It is disturbing to think how many historic stories of national pride are in fact riddled with discrimination. It was even more uncomfortable to listen to this epistemic injustice being reproduced as Hemplemen-Adams stood in front of an audience and not only failed to mention that indigenous knowledge had been disregarded for generations, but that Inuit scholarship had been essential to the discovery.

Despite years of effort to combat epistemic injustice Western knowledge remains in a privileged position over Northern indigenous knowledge. This injustice has material consequences for the indigenous experience of contemporary society and environmental risks, like climate change.

Climate change: the next chapter

Climate change is warming the Arctic at twice the overall global rate (IPCC, 2018) which makes it a key ‘laboratory for science’, a ‘centre for geopolitics’ and a ‘space for climate witnesses’. This has inspired a revival of stories of Western ‘heroism’. For example, Hemplemen-Adams asserts that his expedition was a political act to draw attention to the environmental change. But it has also created opportunities for greater knowledge sharing. Indigenous activists and scholar’s calls for climate action have been heard and international actors have created platforms for indigenous climate change testimonials. However, this knowledge continues to be filtered in an unequal manner. For example, Bjørst (2012) draws our attention to the tight control of these testimonies. This can be understood as hermeneutical injustice (Fricker, 2013) whereby people face barriers in how they articulate their experiences.

The melting of the Arctic has also opened it up for intensified resource extraction. This geopolitical intensification can be seen in the increased number of National Arctic Policies from countries who do not have sovereign claim to the region. I found it extraordinary to see narratives of historic exploration used to justify contemporary ‘interest’. For example, the UK’s Arctic Policy makes reference to Franklin’s expedition. There are calls for the stronger inclusion of indigenous knowledge and voices in the development of the Arctic (Sandlos and Keeling, 2016). However, inclusion in current debates does not address the injustices of the past and ways in which they continue to shape people’s lives.

Map showing the Alaska Highway running through Beaver Creek, Yukon, Canada. Source: Charter Flight Network

There is a long-hidden history of environmental disturbance in the Arctic (Nuttall, 2010). For example, the building of the Alaska Highway in 1942 is typically narrated as a success which contributed to the war effort and aided economic development. However, during my dissertation research in Beaver Creek I was told by members of the White River First Nation (WRFN) that the army and others had left a great deal of partially hidden industrial waste in their traditional territory. This pollution continues to impact the community today; for example, by influencing areas considered safe for traditional food harvesting.

It is striking that while indigenous knowledge is being called upon to narrate current environmental change, much less effort is put into disseminating stories of how colonisation changed indigenous environments. I found that members of the WRFN wanted to tell me about colonial environmental change not climate change. Thus, for many indigenous people inclusion in contemporary debates, over Arctic development and climate change, does not constitute justice while knowledge of past injustices remain ignored.

Re-telling the story

Decolonising knowledge is “a long-term process” (Tuhiwai Smith, 2010). So, the question is what kinds of specific strategies can be used to achieve epistemic justice and by whom?

One way to address epistemic injustice is to provide spaces for indigenous peoples to narrate their history, on their terms, and to disseminate this knowledge. One example is Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), set up in 2008 by the Government to document the history and lasting impacts of the Canadian Indian Residential School System. The trauma experienced by indigenous children in these colonial schools had largely remained hidden. In 2015 TRC released a report which concluded the system amounted to cultural genocide and shared 94 ‘calls to action’ regarding reconciliation between Indigenous peoples and non-indigenous Canadians (Koggel, 2018). This marked a step towards epistemic justice; however, work is required to continue to circulate this knowledge and understand how colonial injustice still shapes indigenous and non-indigenous relationships and experience.

Colonial explorers and settlers used maps as a tool of power, which simultaneously reflected and reinforced their world view. Despite historical evidence for indigenous contribution to Arctic exploration, they were predominantly left out of the history of polar mapping. One strategy to combat this epistemic injustice is the Pan-Inuit Atlas Initiative which provides a digital synoptic view of centuries of Inuit mobility and inhabitation based on historical documents, stories, interactive workshops. This resource is an important example of indigenous and non-indigenous people coming together to produce an accessible digital resource which allows rich indigenous knowledge to be made visible.

Concluding thoughts

These reflexive initiatives allow the co-production of knowledge that works to combat epistemic injustice. The recent waves of protests against systemic racism have made me reflect on how I remain part of a discriminatory system and as I embark on my master’s dissertation, I must strive to avoid reproducing epistemic injustice through ignorance. The co-production of ‘just’ knowledge is complex process, only through us engaging with it together, can inequality be truly understood, deconstructed and a fairer society be built.

 

 

 

Useful links

The Story of Franklin’s lost ships as told by National Geographic: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/04/franklin-expedition-ship-watson-ice-ghosts/

Canada’s Trust and Reconciliation Commission: http://www.trc.ca/

Pan-Inuit Atlas Initiative: http://www.paninuittrails.org/index.html?module=module.about

References

Bjørst, L.R., 2012. Climate testimonies and climate-crisis narratives. Inuit delegated to speak on behalf of the climate. Acta Borealia, 29(1), pp.98-113.

Fricker, M., 2013. Epistemic justice as a condition of political freedom? Synthese, 190(7), pp.1317-1332.

IPCC, 2018. Summary for policymakers. In: Masson-Delmotte V et al (eds) Global warming of 1.5°C. an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva

Koggel, C.M., 2018. Epistemic injustice in a settler nation: Canada’s history of erasing, silencing, marginalizing. Journal of Global Ethics, 14(2), pp.240-251.

Nuttall, M., 2010. Pipeline dreams: People, environment, and the Arctic energy frontier. Copenhagen: IWGIA.

Sandlos, J. and Keeling, A., 2016. Aboriginal communities, traditional knowledge, and the environmental legacies of extractive development in Canada. The Extractive Industries and Society, 3(2), pp.278-287.

Tuhiwai Smith, L. (2010). Decolonizing methodologies. Zed Books, London.

Let’s all give up fast fashion for lent

“There is no beauty in the finest cloth if it makes hunger and unhappiness.”

– Mahatma Gandhi

Just under 10 years ago I entered a school essay competition with a short essay titled ‘Throw away remarks about a throwaway society’. This simplistic but well-meaning piece focused on the vast amount of clothes we throw away as a society and how we have lost the ability to recycle our clothes through clever home sewing. 10 years later the same problem exists but on an even bigger scale. My maternal grandmother was an accomplished sewer, who had had a tailor for a father. She was an incredibly thrifty person who never wasted anything, she would save the buttons from worn-out clothes and salvage any undamaged fabric. This attitude to clothes was echoed across her life choices and there is no doubt she could have taught our current polluting and mass consuming society a few good lessons. She may have been the product of war and post-war austerity but I do not think we can blame our socio-cultural context completely for our current behavioural choices. Just because we live in a time of mass consumption does not mean we can keep consuming in an unsustainable way especially with the overwhelming evidence it is destroying the planet.

Elizabeth Hubbard’s (my Grandmother) scarfs, collected over her life time and kept in pristine condition

Fast fashion is the inexpensive clothing produced rapidly by mass-market retailers in response to the latest trends and it is now strongly vying for environmentalist’s public enemy number 1. Fast fashion has been widely criticised recently for epitomising the big problems with the global economy.  It is economically, socially and environmentally exploitative and perpetuates the inequality between those who make the clothes and those who buy them.  I love clothes and I am definitely guilty of buying clothes from some of the worst fast fashion offenders. It is hard to accept that something that facilitates personal expression and frivolous entertainment is so bad. But there is no doubt in my mind after the many recent articles and documentaries that I cannot continue to buy into fast fashion and that as an economic model fast fashion has got to go.

The exploitative nature of fashion is nothing new. The V&A’s exhibition ‘Fashioned from Nature’ shows the many offences orchestrated by the fashion industry through time, from the exotic feathers that adorned 19th century hats and devastated bird populations, to the present day catastrophic water scarcity caused by cotton production. However, what is new is the vast scale of exploitation, it really is global. 80 billion pieces of clothing are consumed each year- a 400% increase in two decades.  On average, we spend £625 a year on clothes and for that, you’ll accumulate 28 kg of clothing which adds up to a total of 1.72 million tonnes of completely new clothes each year in the UK. Fast fashion connects people across the globe from the farmers who grow cotton to the people turning that cotton into garments, to those who load and unload the clothes off lorries and finally to those who buy them. This global connectivity is now being matched by fast fashions reputation as a massive global polluter.

Fast fashion really got going in the 1980s/90s when department stores started creating their own cheap lines. This put fashion retailers under pressure to bring down the cost of their clothes down. This was the start of an economic battle, as clothing retailers came up with new ways to out-compete each other, bringing out as many collections as possible and catching consumer interest through adverts and deals. This led to consumers buying more and more clothes as they tried to keep up with the latest trends. A Cambridge University study showed that by 2006 consumers were on average buying ⅓ more clothes than they were in 2002. More recently the cheap high street brands are being outcompeted by online retailers who sell thousands of products at unbelievably low prices. They offer free delivery and returns which encourages consumers to purchase many items and send them back if they do not like them. But more often than not consumers simply keep all the clothes and throw unworn items out or give them away. There is no doubt that the fast fashion industry has been making a lot of money. It is estimated that Amancio Ortega, the owner of Zara amongst other fashion brands, has a net worth of $82.5 billion. In 2017 Ortega was estimated to be the richest man in Europe and the richest retailer in the world. Fast fashion grew big and grew fast.

The price of clothes has fallen a lot with the rise of fast fashion. Between 2003-2007 average prices in retail fashion fell by 10%. We are simply being able to buy more for less. This fall in price has been accompanied by two strong trends. First, the quality of clothes has dramatically decreased as clothes retailers cut costs on materials and manufacturing quality. Second, it has fundamentally changed how we value our clothes. Clothes have become disposable and sometimes ‘one wear items’. Many people now feel they cannot wear the same party outfit twice or even appear on Instagram in the same clothes!  This is the ultimate economic trick; the fashion industry has made us think we are spending less on clothes because individual items are cheaper while in fact annually we are spending more because we are buying more. There has been another shift, in previous decades proportionally more was spent on the materials and making the clothes compared to the marketing. But now incredibly approximately only 25% of the cost of each item is spent on the materials and manufacturing and, the remaining 75% is spent on the retail, design, advertising, administration, distribution and shipping. It is no surprise that as soon as you buy an item from a fast fashion brand a button falls off. I was so shocked last summer when I bought a playsuit and it began to fall apart as I was wearing it for the first time. I then decided to visit the store and inspect the brand-new playsuits on the rail and I found they too were falling apart on the hangers. This brand was literally producing clothes that could only be worn once before they fall apart. This is anecdotal evidence but there seems little doubt the quality of our clothes has decreased with fast fashion.

Patrick Grant speaking at the RGS talk, ‘Are we wearing out the planet?’ Source: author

The easiest way to make fashion cheap is to make production as cheap as possible and, one way to achieve this is through exploiting human labour. In 1990 half of the clothes in the US stores were made in America but now that percentage has dropped to 2%. Most of our clothes are now produced in factories in Asia. 80% of those working in the factories are women and 98% of employees are paid less than the minimum wage. On top of the unethical wages, there are many reports that working conditions are appalling and the working hours extreme to meet the deadlines imposed by the fast fashion production model. I thoroughly recommend you watch ‘The True cost’ documentary on Netflix if you want to understand more about the sweatshops which produce our fast fashion. I often hear the argument that these factories are at least providing some employment, the ‘something is better than nothing’ philosophy. This argument is problematic for three key reasons. First, fast fashion contracts with these factories tend to have a short lifespan, often the industry quickly moves on to the next factory or next country where it can find cheaper labour. Therefore, it is not sustained employment, in fact, it is very insecure. Second, people should be paid properly for the work they do, just because they are being paid ‘something’ does not justify the practice. The ‘something is better than nothing’ argument has been used for centuries to exploit vulnerable people, not so long ago it was used frequently to argue against gender pay equality. Third, many of these factories also cut corners on safety and injured workers suffer for many years after the fast fashion industry has moved on to new factories. For example, the Rana Plaza collapse took place in Bangladesh in 2013. 1134 people were killed and another 2500 were injured when the factory building collapsed. This was a high-profile disaster but there are thousands of incidents in these factories which remain hidden and leave workers injured and less able to provide for their families. There is no doubt fast fashion exploits people. We are far removed from those who are making the clothes we buy but it is horrible to think that our clothes are made under these circumstances.

Fast fashion is wrecking the environment and making a substantial contribution to anthropogenic climate change. The textile industry produces 1.2 billion tonnes of CO2 per year which is more emission than international flights and maritime shipping put together. 60% of the textile industry is used in clothing production and a large proportion of clothing factories are in countries which rely on coal power stations. It has been estimated that the clothing industry is responsible for 5% of the total global emissions and by 2050, if it continues unchecked, it will be responsible for 25% of the global carbon emissions. Furthermore, fast fashion is very resource intense. 40% of all fabric used in the clothing industry is cotton. Cotton is a thirsty crop and is contributing to water insecurity on a global scale. For example, to make a t-shirt and pair of jeans from organic cotton takes 19,000 litres of water. Cotton is a needy plant in other ways.  While it only takes up 2.4% of all the cropland on Earth, it uses 10% of all the fertilisers and 25% of all insecticides. I am not arguing we should stop using cotton, cotton biodegrades which is a huge advantage over its synthetic counterparts.  We need make fewer clothes in the first place and put a proper price on the resources needed to make them. Synthetic materials are problematic. They are made from petrochemicals which do not biodegrade. It is estimated that all the polyester used to make clothes requires 70 million barrels of oil each year. Furthermore, these synthetic fabrics shed microfibres in our washing machines and these end up polluting our oceans. Sadly, our clothes are also contributing to land pollution. Shockingly, according to Patrick Grant (fashion retailer), about the same volume of clothes bought each year in the UK also ends up in our landfills sites. Although, most people do not directly put their clothes into the black bin, our charity shops are completely overwhelmed with donations and so tonnes of these carefully donated clothes end up in our landfill sites. It is estimated that only 10% of the clothes people donate to charity shops gets sold. It has been estimated that almost 60% of all clothing produced is disposed of within one year of production in a landfill or incinerated. This contribution to climate change and global pollution is completely unsustainable. Fast fashion is robbing us blind, we keep buying into something that is helping to destroy the planet.

Our clothes can pile up pretty quickly

I recently went to a talk at the Royal Geographic Society where the panel of Lucy Siegle (journalist), Patrick Grant and Pauline Op de Beeck (Carbon Trust lead on sustainable fashion) talked extensively about the social and environmental exploitation tangled up with fast fashion. The take-home message was that in their opinion the fast fashion industry was doing virtually nothing to change its ways and become more sustainable.  Patrick Grant said that ‘there is still no fast fashion brand that can demonstrate it is paying all of its workers a living wage.’ Both Lucy Siegle and Patrick Grant made it clear that they did not believe the fast fashion brands would ever become sustainable, instead, they hope rival sustainable retailers and instruments, like ‘clothing swap apps’, will eventually out-compete them. I left the talk thinking firmly that fast fashion has just got to go and that we, the consumer, need to push it out of the door. Increasingly fast fashion is being seen as a bad long term investment due to its impact on the environment and people, anecdotally Patrick Grant said that ‘investors are selling their shares in fast fashion brands for this reason but rather than fast fashion companies seeing this as a warning and changing their ways, they are simply going on ‘business as usual’ and buying back the company’.  Equally governmental policy change seems to be far too slow. On 19th February, an MP report was announced that called for 1p to be added to the cost of each clothing item to pay for a £35 million recycling plant. But this is just too small scale to deal with the massive problem that is unsustainable fashion.

We need stronger policy which really internalises the environmental costs of clothing production and pays the people who make the clothes an appropriate wage. I often hear the argument that if we make clothes more expensive it would adversely impact poorer people. This is true and access to clothing for all would need to be addressed. However, I do not accept this argument as a justification for the vast majority of us continuing to have access to cheap clothes produced through the exploitation of people and the environment. We need our clothes to be better quality so that they last longer. We need our clothes to be designed with recycling in mind and therefore not made of blended fabrics which cannot be recycled.  We need to buy fewer clothes and we need to learn how to repair them.  We need to do all this and we need to do it now. There is no doubt that consumers have the power to act on this issue, we need to stop propping up this exploitative industry and make more sustainable choices about our clothes.

A recent Guardian article criticised Marie Kondo’s declutter phenomenon for not emphasising that, rather than ‘getting rid’ of all our stuff we should ‘stop buying’ so much stuff in the first place. While a good point well made, I do not agree that Marie Kondo is missing the point, her approach is a positive way of showing us mass consumers that fewer possessions can bring more joy to our lives and relationships. This is an important message to communicate if we want to create a more sustainable society which consumes radically less. We need to see that buying less could actually improve our happiness and well-being. Therefore, given the evidence that fast fashion is not changing its ways, that we have a seriously long way to even a makeshift sustainable society and that our government is reluctant to legislate, we must act ourselves. We should all give up fast fashion for lent!  And after Easter, we should buy far fewer, better quality garments and ignore Instagram influencers and, fast fashion adverts which actively encourage us to keep destroying the planet.

So, let’s all give up fast fashion for lent and then hopefully forever!

 

 

Links to interesting articles and videos:

• Patrick Grant: ‘Why we should all feel uncomfortable in our clothes’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_p52WrspEE
• Lucy Siegle: ‘Why fast fashion is slow death for the planet’ https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2011/may/08/fast-fashion-death-for-planet
• Nature Climate change: ‘The price of fast fashion’ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-017-0058-9
• Get inspired to make your own clothes by watching the Great British Sewing Bee with Patrick Grant as one of the presenters https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/b03myqj2

 

One himalayan town goes from riches to environmental ruin. And back again?

We have forgotten how to be good guests, how to walk lightly on the earth as its other creatures do”

-Barbara Ward

A winding road takes you from the dusty heat of Haldwani through a cooling oak forest, past the Gaula River and finally over a mountain lip to the Nainital. Nainital is a town built at 1937m in the Kumaon hills of India. A friend who visited Nainital in the 1980s described it as a beautiful town surrounded by greenery and distant snow-capped mountains, where one can take a boat ride on the lake and see helicopters landing in the playgrounds of boarding schools. This description amongst others started to build the town into a fantastical place that I could not wait to see.  There is no doubt that my first views of Nainital lived up to the stories. The emerald kidney-bean shaped lake, surrounded by seven forests covered hills and multi-coloured houses were stunning. But as I walked around the town this impression began to fade. The more I looked the more I saw the rubbish in the streets, drains and even in the lake, the traffic churning up dust and the evidence of landslips. This beautiful and deeply spiritual place had become deeply degraded and as I stared around at all the shops, hotels and recreational boats I realised that as a tourist I was very much part of the problem.

Figure 1. A location map of Nainital. Source: CEDAR.

Nainital has long held significance in Hindu scripture, however, it was only after a British sugar trader, Mr P. Baron built the first house in 1839 that Nainital developed into a summer capital, where British colonialists could escape the summer heat for the cool tranquillity of Nainital. Ever since Nainital has been a popular place to visit. My family friend told me that in the 1980s Nainital was “a touristy place filled kind-hearted people who were polite to speak to and respected tourists.” However, Dr Vishal Singh (Deputy Executive Director for Centre Ecology Development and Research (CEDAR)), who grew up in Nainital explained how the nature of tourism has changed in recent decades, “it used to be that people would come for weeks or months and contribute to the community but now tourists come for just a night or a weekend. They have a large impact on the environment and contribute little to the community”. Furthermore, the number of tourists has escalated.  Between 1991 and 2014 the tourist influx increased from 203,000 to 758,000. Vishal Singh argues that this change in tourism has had a profound impact on the nature of Nainital, “Nainital used to be a family of close-knit people, there was a sense of belonging and tourism was decent. But now it has become a picnic spot for tourist.” Another important factor was the moving of the High Court to Nainital, “the place stopped belonging to the people and started belonging to the high court” (Anonymous). While tourism and the high court are major contributors to Nainital’s economy many local experts, including Professor S. P. Singh, former Vice-Chancellor of HNB Garhwal University and a renowned ecologist, believes that “Nainital is trying to maintain too many kingdoms, it simply cannot sustain all its residential schools, its tourist industry and the high court in one ecologically fragile space.”

Figure 2. A photograph of Nainital. Source: Beth Barker.

One of the parameters mass tourism has pushed well beyond the town’s carrying capacity is the water supply. “The situation has become so bad that there is a trade-off between water for locals and water for tourists”, said Professor S.P. Singh. Nainital receives above average rainfall which is channelled into Naini Lake. Approximately 18 million litres of water per day (MLD) (95% of the water supply) was pumped from tube wells, filled by the lake, to meet the demands of the 42,775 residents and approximately 0.75 million tourists. This demand is unsustainable as shown by the alarming decline of Naini Lake. For example, in the summer of 2017, the lake level dropped 18 feet below the zero-level mark. Tourists consume far more water than the average local, through the hotels in which they stay, the activities they enjoy and the food they eat. However, it is not the tourist who experiences the impacts of water stress, it is the residents. “The not so affluent residents complain about hotels making merry while they suffer water shortages” explains Chitra Iyer, a local resident and environmental activist. This contemporary inequality echoes that faced by Indian residents during the British Colonial time, where the visiting wealthy British people discriminated between themselves and the locals. Just like the colonialists, today’s visitors enjoy Nainital without facing the challenges beyond the beautiful facade.

Figure 3. A photograph of some Nainital residents collecting water from a public source. The photo was taken as part of CEDAR research into urban water insecurity. Source: CEDAR.

However, tourism does not simply increase the water demand, the construction encouraged by the growth in the tourist industry is interrupting the hydrological system. One key problem is that urban encroachment is taking place in Naini lake’s strategic recharge zones. For example, the encroachment of Sukhatal infill lake has been identified as a key reason for the drop in Naini Lake (Figure 3). Sukhatal basin fills during the rainy season and then gradually releases its water over the year so that it flows through the geology and into Naini lake. The laying of concrete on Sukhatal interrupts this process and so, contributes to water insecurity.

Figure 4. A photograph of the urban encroach of Sukhatal. Source: CEDAR.

 

However, water degradation is just one example of the environmental abuse taking place in Nainital. “The traffic is beyond control. It causes so much noise and air pollution” said retired Justice Jain who was posted to Nainital for many years. Anil Garia, a popular sports person and resident of Nainital emphasised that “there are now so many tourist cars that they have to park on the town’s recreation area, so now the people have nowhere to play games.” However, the greatest concern is the huge pressure the visitors put on Nainital’s fragile geology. Nainital’s geomorphology was tectonically formed. Sher ka Danda hill is particularly unstable because it is made from marls, limestone and slate which is highly vulnerable to mass movements and this has been exacerbated by human pressure. In 1880 there was a disaster where the whole hillside slipped due to heavy rain. The 1880 landslide destroyed many buildings and claimed hundreds of lives. Only this summer (2018) there was a landslip on the Lower Mall Road caused by the increased instability of the hillside and a drop in the lake level, both a result of human pressure. Experts are extremely concerned that another major mass movement could take place. Vishal Singh explained that the British time drainage system of storm drains, built to stabilise the slopes, are now filled with rubbish and concrete which leaves the slopes around Nainital highly vulnerable. Furthermore, the hillside is covered with more multi-story buildings than ever before and the traffic flow is far heavier. These pressures considered alongside the prediction that anthropogenic climate change will bring less frequent more intense rainfall in this region set up the prerequisites to a mass movement disaster.  

Figure 5. A photograph of Nainital’s recreation area being used as a carpark for tourist cars. Source: CEDAR

Nainital is operating well beyond its carrying capacity and has become highly degraded. “I feel disgusted. I belonged to the place and it belonged to me and now I do not even recognise the town” (Vishal Singh). The evidence is there even for a visitor like me to see and it is certainly catching the attention of the local people. Driven by stakeholder demands and personal interest CEDAR has carried out extensive research into water insecurity, landscape stability and general environmental degradation. CEDAR applied the principles of citizen science throughout their research, engaging local stakeholders in the collection of data and through continuous consultation. The results were shared and discussed on multiple platforms including social media. One particularly successful initiative was the setting up of the ‘Citizens for Nainital’ group which has a WhatsApp group containing local residents, experts, politicians and the District Magistrate. “This group remains extremely active and has become a powerful space for discussion” (Vishal Singh). One of the most impressive events produced by this campaign was the silent barefoot march undertaken by nearly 1000 people to raise awareness of the critical condition of the lake in 2017. This public display of protest caught a large amount of attention and sparked the large-scale 2017 stakeholder’s consultation on the rejuvenation of Naini lake.

Figure 6. Photographs from a stakeholders meeting in Nainital. Source: CEDAR.

The Naini lake rejuvenation consultation was facilitated by the United Nations Development Program India and CEDAR and, attended by the Governor of Uttarakhand, Dr K. Paul. “Driven by the citizens this consultation was turned into real change on the ground” (Vishal Singh). The recommendations implemented include the stoppage of construction in Nainital, the clearing of the heritage drains, the setting up of the Hillside safety committee and the volume of water removed from Naini lake was reduced from 18MLD to 8MLD. This was heralded as a breakthrough moment for Nainital, a decisive step towards creating a sustainable town. Indeed on my visit to Nainital, I spoke to a long-term resident who told me about the success of all the consultations and how he felt very positive about Nainital’s future. This demonstrates the ongoing progress and positivity a year on. This was echoed by the petition for further action which took off following the small landslip on the Lower Mall Road during 2018. Dr Vishal Said “I feel very optimistic and this is a fantastic example of citizen-driven change. I honestly believe this campaign has been so successful because of CEDAR’s citizen-focused research approach and because it was the citizens who took the research forward to the decision makers.” This was echoed by Chitra Iyer “this would have been an almost impossible task without enlightened and vigorous citizen participation.”

Figure 7. A photograph which shows that the construction debris has been removed from Sukhatal lake. Photographed 20/09/18.

However, during my walk around the town, the impacts of tourism were still clear in the traffic, litter and remnants of the 2018 landslip. My concern was echoed by Dr Vishal Singh “although I am very positive, a long-term effort from CEDAR, the decision makers and the citizens are required. Humans have short memories and Nainital requires long-term behaviour change.” Therefore, Nainital has taken strong steps toward sustainable development; however, there are still changes to be made. Most importantly real change is needed in the tourist industry. “It is the hotel owners who have the biggest impact on the environment through the water they use and waste they produce” commented Rohini Suri, a local resident and conservation expert. Currently, the tourist industry is self-destructing, “irresponsible tourism is destroying the very beauty which tourists wish to experience” (Chitra Iyer). Therefore, a move towards sustainable tourism is not just environmentally and socially important, it is economically essential.  Vishal Singh suggests that as the tourist industry relies on the lake, there should be a compulsory contribution from the industry to the beautification of the lake. Second, tourists should have a limited water consumption quota and beyond that, they should have to pay a fee. Third, there should be a policy put in place to restrict the number of tourists or the promotion of tourism in Nainital. Finally, the industry should work to educate tourists about the ecological fragility of Nainital and invite them to engage in environmentally friendly behaviour during their visit, in particular leaving vehicles outside of the town. Currently, “there is a tendency to try to make a ‘quick buck’ with no thought to the environmental consequences. This needs to change and the industry has the power to influence policy change in Nainital” (Vishal Singh). In answer to my question on how can one persuade the industry to change, Vishal Singh answered “CEDAR must continue to campaign with the citizens and policymakers and persuade the tourist industry that sustainable tourism is the only way forward for Nainital. If beauty is lost it is hard to mend”.

Figure 8. Photos of beautiful Nainital. Source: Beth Barker.

Furthermore, my conversations with Chitra Iyer and Rohini Suri suggested that the tourist industry may be taking back control of Nainital and leading the town back down an exploitative path. I was shocked to learn from Rohini Suri that the celebrated ban on construction had been rescinded and construction started again. Rohini suggested this may have been due to a strong lobby from the hotel owners. Both Rohini Suri and Chitra Iyer left me in no doubt that “a complete change in outlook and expectations is still required amongst many of the residents and decision makers as well as the tourist industry. As both significantly commented it might take a disaster like a landslide before substantial action is taken. These conversations painted quite a bleak picture where despite the action of engaged citizens and CEDAR the status quo of environment harassment continued. I was left questioning whether Nainital is a success story for citizen-led sustainable development or an example of the continued environmental exploitation despite the widely publicised evidence that it is unsustainable? On reflection, I believe that Nainital is both. It is a powerful example that the road to sustainable development is complex and difficult but that does not mean it is not worth pursuing even when things seem bleak.

The story of Nainital demonstrates the power of citizens and the need for environmental activism if our planet is to be preserved. Every day, there are new shocking revelations about just how far humans have pushed the Earth, no more alarming than the IPCC predictions for global climate change.  Although engagement in the environment may be increasing, we continue to abuse it and politicians fail to take action. Perhaps the environment needs a campaign akin to the #metoo movement which has empowered people all over the world to speak up about sexual harassment. The everyday assault has been made more visible than ever before. Just like sexual abuse, environmental abuse needs to be made visible and faced. Naini Lake was violated for well over 100 years, along with her surrounding hills and forests. Then some of the local people realised enough was enough and called for a halt to the molestation in Nainital. Perhaps the story of Nainital can inspire other towns to recognise the environmental destruction on their doorstep and to do something about it. Maybe the campaign could be called #heretoo. However, just like the #metoo campaign must now be back up with with public and private policy change which denies sexual harassment a place in our world, #heretoo needs to be backed up by substantial policy change, sustained campaigning and a recognition that long term change will be hard but is essential for the well-being of all life on this planet. As Leo Tolstoy said, “One of the first conditions of happiness is that the link between man and nature shall not be broken”, humans have broken that link and now it is time to fix it.

-Beth Barker

 

CEDAR takes to the Radio Waves

As the physician associates the patient with his own cure, so must the planner appeal to the citizen

Patrick Geddes, 1915

CEDAR and Radio Khushi 90.4 FM have embarked on a four-month radio-series on natural resource management with special emphasis on water security in Uttarakhand. The aim is simple, communicate with local people, give them a platform to voice their concerns and together find locally appropriate solutions.

 

A photograph of Dr Vishal Singh recording live at Radio Khushi.

 

As CEDAR’s Executive Director Dr Rajesh Thadani once said: “Knowledge limited to academic publication is of limited relevance”. Therefore, CEDAR is striving to find new ways to communicate their research on ecosystem services to the people who use them. Local radio presents an exciting new opportunity for CEDAR to reach out to people who may not use social media. As Dr Singh said “radio will allow us to reach the last corner of the village. These people are at the core of the community and need to have their questions and voices heard”. Furthermore, Dr Singh made the important point that those who are most vulnerable to environmental degradation and climate change are often those who are least connected through modern technology and least able to get their voices heard.

Radio Khushi is a community radio station which uses interactive media to connect, educate and inspire people. A partnership with CEDAR will allow the station to explore socio-environmental issues using CEDAR’s expertise, hear listener’s views and galvanise action. This partnership is being facilitated by Ideosync Media Combine (IMC). IMC aims to use media to accelerate communication and behavioural change for the social, economic and environmental development of communities. This harmonises with CEDAR’s belief in the importance of citizen science in socio-environmental research, only through stakeholder participation can issue be understood and appropriate solutions are found. It is the ‘tyranny of the expert’ which frequently hinders development because when local knowledge is excluded the proposed solutions are unlikely to be locally sustainable.

Together CEDAR, Radio Khushi and ICM have developed a radio-series strategy. An overarching theme of ‘natural resource management’ was settled and issues of water security in small and medium towns in the Himalayan region to be of prime focus. One important point agreed by all partners was the importance of female participation. While women can be some of the strongest activists on social and environmental issues, they are too often left out of decision making.  It was agreed that the radio-series would cover the geographical area of Uttarakhand but focus on the regions where CEDAR has the expertise, case study examples and success stories. These include CEDAR’s work climate change adaptation, urbanization and water security.

 

A photograph of Mussoorie, ‘Queen of the hill towns’. This shows the urban environment expanding over the hillside, removing the trees as it spreads.

 

The first live show was aired Thursday 11th October 2018 and was a great success with Dr Vishal Singh (CEDAR’s Deputy Executive Director) being interviewed by RJ Ashish (Radio Khushi’s Jockey). The programme started by introducing CEDAR as an organisation which focuses on research and research use. CEDAR was founded on the realisation that there is a gap between academics, grassroots workers and planning practitioners, CEDAR aims to bridge this gap through their multi-disciplinary approach. Dr Singh pointed out that many of the NGOs working in the region on socio-environmental issues work in isolation and there is an urgent need for more cross-disciplinary research and collective action. He asserted that citizens play a crucial part in the process, local knowledge is rich and often untapped by ‘scientific experts’. Dr Singh gave a very good example of the importance of traditional knowledge and loss if it is ignored. He explained that there is only one person left in the Kumaon region who knows how to make Naulas, a traditional surface-water harvesting method typical to the hill areas of Uttarakhand. He lamented how good traditional methods have been forgotten and how the adoption of new technology has often led to environmental degradation.

The show also discussed CEDAR specific work. Dr Singh described how CEDAR focuses on the themes of forestry, urbanisation and water biodiversity and wildlife. Regarding water security Cedar is examining how population rise, unplanned development, climate change and tourism are contributing to water insecurity in towns of Himalaya alongside environmental degradation and climate change. RJ Ashish picked up on the climate change theme and described how residents in Mussoorie were noticing the early flowering of the Rhododendrons, delayed monsoon and declining winter rainfall. This is a key example of citizens being able to observe and record change over time. Dr Singh confirmed these observations and asserted that they are a serious concern.

 

A photograph of Dhobighat stream (Mussoorie). The spring is a source of water for Mussoorie, a place for laundry businesses and a space for recreation.

 

A key point leading on from this discussion was that the rapid drying up of springs and depleting lake levels are a serious problem. Dr Singh said, “springs and lakes are shared resources shared resource to reap the benefits from, but nobody wants to conserve it”. This is a classic example of the tragedy of the commons. Collective conservation and sustainable use are needed urgently. However, it is easy to use buzzwords like ‘sustainability’ and ‘collective active’ but the real questions are how is this achieved and by whom? Perhaps this radio series can be a step towards finding answers to these questions as researchers collaborate with listeners.

It was at this point that a listener phoned in with an excellent question, “if there are so many NGOs working in this area why is there no output?” This question exemplifies the gap between research and the local people. Dr Singh explained that it is not that the work is not being done but that the output is not in the public domain or even when it is, it is not accessible. The accessibility of knowledge is as important as producing that knowledge in the first place.

This led onto a second good question from a listener, they said “to achieve anything citizen support is needed. But Bringing people of different opinions together becomes a challenge. How do you manage it?” Dr Singh explained how this is always a big challenge for CEDAR, for sustainable solutions to be found and successfully implemented policymakers, experts, activists and other stakeholders must all be brought together. However, even when a platform is provided it can be difficult to encourage stakeholders to come. Therefore, research NGOs must strive to make their research accessible. But equally, stakeholders must engage and share their ideas.

Dr Vishal Singh offered a great example of mass stakeholder engagement. In Nainital, the lake is being degraded and a meeting was held with the Chief Minister of Uttarakhand and the people of Nainital. CEDAR laid out their out their research on how the encroachment of Sukhatal lake is disturbing Naini lake level and a decision was made to rectify the problem. “It started with people, it was taken forward by people and then the people helped in the decision-making process of the government” (Dr Singh). The most iconic symbol of this success story was the over 1000 people who undertook a bare-foot silent march around the lake to raise awareness for its degradation and the need for conservation. This is a powerful example of how many people with different opinions can be brought together to create change.

Overall the radio show emphasised that technocratic solutions will only go so far and citizen participation is crucial. This initiative aims to disseminate CEDAR’s research in an accessible form, reach all corners of the community and bring everyone into the discussion. If you want to hear CEDAR researchers talk more about their research and address interesting questions from listeners across Uttarakhand, tune in every Thursday at 90.4FM.

The Journey Begins

Thanks for joining me!

I am a recent geography graduate and UK resident. I am currently working as an intern for the Centre for Ecology Development and Research (CEDAR), Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India. CEDAR is an NGO working on environmental development in North India, primarily the Himalayan region.

I have been assigned to their Climate Adaptive Water Management Project, funded by the International Research Development Centre. The aim of this project was to investigate water insecurity in two cities (Mussoorie and Haldwani). Based on their research CEDAR has developed climate adaptive and equitable water management solutions, for example, citywide rainwater harvesting and springshed revival. My internship coincided with the reporting phase of the project and therefore, I have assisted in writing several papers associated with this project. Furthermore, I have attended water forum meetings with stakeholders, CEDAR’s first live radio show on water security and field site visits.

 

A photograph of Nainital (Uttarakhand) which is a key field site for CEDAR’s urbanisation and water security research. I visited Nainital with another colleague 21st September 2018 and saw for myself the water challenges in this town. 

 

The key recurring themes for environmental development research in this region are the importance of stakeholder participation, good communication of research and a multidisciplinary approach.

So far this has been one of the most rewarding experiences of my life and an invaluable internship in the environmental development sector.