98
development problems. The JEMS’ case study is
a positive example where the youth implemented
measures to deal with deficiencies in their awareness of CCA and mobilised the communities to
take action. In the same breath, as seen from the
marijuana farmers who were mainly youth, due
to their frustration due to the high levels of unemployment they were experiencing, they began
clearing the valuable rainforest to plant marijuana. This practice has destroyed the environment because those youth were motivated with
profits and survival motives. As shown by the
JEMS capacity-building project, the youth participating in these measures should be guided and
supported through the implementation of adaptation projects. The fundamental question to be
asked is whether the JEMS capacity-building
measures can be sustained over the long term or
whether the lessons from this CCA approach can
be scaled-up to ensure that benefits are shared for
the broader population cohort.
Bottom-Up and Top-Down
Approaches Deliver CCA in SIDS
As observed from the TCMP project, top-down
approaches to CCA are mainly government-led,
planned, controlled, national in focus and much
slower in their implementation due to the challenges of financing and technical know-how.
Conversely, the bottom-up approach, as indicated
in the JEMS capacity-building case study, is
focused on addressing the vulnerability,
community- based in orientation, and identifies
local players and the domestic situation. Topdown and bottom-up approaches to CCA have
been widely accepted and documented by empirical studies (Matland 1995; Dessai and Hulme
2004; Fussel and Klein 2006; OECD 2013).
The key outcomes evolving from the FGDs
around bottom-up approaches highlight frustration with the system of leadership and governance; the youth believe current leaders seem
disinterested in the development issues relevant
to young people. This is compounded by governmental institutions not providing the necessary
support to harness the overall development of
the youth to support their transition into adulthood and the world of work. The literature tends
to lean more favourably to a bottom-up approach
as a more favourable CCA approach than the
top- down approach due to the ease of implementing CCA programmes at the local level. The
bottom- up approach also tends to focus on vulnerability, which makes it more attractive for
local people; hence they are easier to mobilise to
participate in CCA initiatives. The bottom-up
approach assumes that if you can address real
vulnerability today, you will eventually reduce
its impact on communities in the future (Burton
et al. 2002).
The bottom-up approach considers vulnerability as representative of social and ecological
structures that are generated by multiple factors
and processes. The findings from the case studies
show that the youth want to engage in the transformation of their communities in SIDS and that
their actions reflect the ongoing change in civil
and community participation in SIDS governance. The youth chose to collaborate with governmental agencies and other stakeholders such
as OECS, 5Cs and the Ministry of Planning and
Sustainable Development rather than taking on a
confrontational approach. The bottom-up
approach implemented by the youth serves to
build bridges between them, the government and
the broader community. The case of the “JEMS
Bottom-Up Capacity Development” project and
the participatory mapping exercise show how
small-scale, bottom-up approaches can bring
about CCA in concrete ways. This effort was
supported by policymakers who testified about
the sterling contributions of the youth prior, during and after a climate disaster to organise disaster relief in the communities that were affected.
The neglect or lack of care by some youth to participate in the decision-making process can be
demotivating and compound the disparity
between those creating policies and those affected
by policy. Such meetings can determine who and
where authorities provide relief, and a reduced
youth voice limits the resources given to those
affected far more by climate change compared to
sustainable, multinational organisations who
quickly have their voices heard. Literature sup6 Preparing the Youth for the Storm: Deepening the Discourse Around the Youth and CCA in SIDS
development problems. The JEMS’ case study is
a positive example where the youth implemented
measures to deal with deficiencies in their awareness of CCA and mobilised the communities to
take action. In the same breath, as seen from the
marijuana farmers who were mainly youth, due
to their frustration due to the high levels of unemployment they were experiencing, they began
clearing the valuable rainforest to plant marijuana. This practice has destroyed the environment because those youth were motivated with
profits and survival motives. As shown by the
JEMS capacity-building project, the youth participating in these measures should be guided and
supported through the implementation of adaptation projects. The fundamental question to be
asked is whether the JEMS capacity-building
measures can be sustained over the long term or
whether the lessons from this CCA approach can
be scaled-up to ensure that benefits are shared for
the broader population cohort.
Bottom-Up and Top-Down
Approaches Deliver CCA in SIDS
As observed from the TCMP project, top-down
approaches to CCA are mainly government-led,
planned, controlled, national in focus and much
slower in their implementation due to the challenges of financing and technical know-how.
Conversely, the bottom-up approach, as indicated
in the JEMS capacity-building case study, is
focused on addressing the vulnerability,
community- based in orientation, and identifies
local players and the domestic situation. Topdown and bottom-up approaches to CCA have
been widely accepted and documented by empirical studies (Matland 1995; Dessai and Hulme
2004; Fussel and Klein 2006; OECD 2013).
The key outcomes evolving from the FGDs
around bottom-up approaches highlight frustration with the system of leadership and governance; the youth believe current leaders seem
disinterested in the development issues relevant
to young people. This is compounded by governmental institutions not providing the necessary
support to harness the overall development of
the youth to support their transition into adulthood and the world of work. The literature tends
to lean more favourably to a bottom-up approach
as a more favourable CCA approach than the
top- down approach due to the ease of implementing CCA programmes at the local level. The
bottom- up approach also tends to focus on vulnerability, which makes it more attractive for
local people; hence they are easier to mobilise to
participate in CCA initiatives. The bottom-up
approach assumes that if you can address real
vulnerability today, you will eventually reduce
its impact on communities in the future (Burton
et al. 2002).
The bottom-up approach considers vulnerability as representative of social and ecological
structures that are generated by multiple factors
and processes. The findings from the case studies
show that the youth want to engage in the transformation of their communities in SIDS and that
their actions reflect the ongoing change in civil
and community participation in SIDS governance. The youth chose to collaborate with governmental agencies and other stakeholders such
as OECS, 5Cs and the Ministry of Planning and
Sustainable Development rather than taking on a
confrontational approach. The bottom-up
approach implemented by the youth serves to
build bridges between them, the government and
the broader community. The case of the “JEMS
Bottom-Up Capacity Development” project and
the participatory mapping exercise show how
small-scale, bottom-up approaches can bring
about CCA in concrete ways. This effort was
supported by policymakers who testified about
the sterling contributions of the youth prior, during and after a climate disaster to organise disaster relief in the communities that were affected.
The neglect or lack of care by some youth to participate in the decision-making process can be
demotivating and compound the disparity
between those creating policies and those affected
by policy. Such meetings can determine who and
where authorities provide relief, and a reduced
youth voice limits the resources given to those
affected far more by climate change compared to
sustainable, multinational organisations who
quickly have their voices heard. Literature sup6 Preparing the Youth for the Storm: Deepening the Discourse Around the Youth and CCA in SIDS