99
ports this case on civic actions (Wittmayer et al.
2014; Cloutier et al. 2018). The bottom-up project implemented by JEMS youths is in line with
the literature relating to bottom-up approaches to
CCA (OECD 2013; Stachowiak et al. 2016) and
community CCA (McNamara and Buggy 2016;
Hernandez- Delgado 2015). The JEMS case study
and the FGDs with the youth show that the best
way to acquire knowledge and resolve a perceived development problem was through learning by doing (Loorbach 2010). The project
provided opportunities for the youth to gain a
wide array of skills while participating in the
various components of the project.
Throughout the implementation of the JEMS
capacity building of youth project and the participatory climate risk mapping exercise, JEMS was
able to bring in and use its professional skills and
experiences, which enabled the group to gain recognition and support for its work including recognition from the UN for its work in CCA leading
up to the 2015 COP 21 of UNFCCC in Paris. This
recognition provided JEMS with significant
legitimacy in the field of CCA. This recognition
also influenced the public action, i.e. the government through NEMO, and the Ministry of
Planning and Sustainable Development has utilised the GIS climate risk maps evolving from the
participatory mapping exercises to assist communities with their CCA planning.
Challenges of Implementing
the Bottom-Up Approach to Address
in CCA in SIDS
Research shows that a bottom-up approach is
more applicable to local and less complex vulnerabilities. It is also context-specific, and in
instances where the climate change impact is
more complex, i.e. where new climate risks are
emerging that are outside of the range of experience, a bottom-up approach is less suited to guide
the adaptation process. As shown with the JEMS
case, bottom-up approaches are more successful
when dealing with less complicated vulnerabilities, are short term in orientation and do not consider the long-term implications of climate
change (Dessai and Hulme 2004). Therefore, if
left on its own to replicate the JEMS case, the
community may experience difficulties due to a
lack of technical expertise, financial resources
and the absence of a network of individuals and
agencies to support the project.
Strategies for Implementing the TopDown Approach to Address CCA
in SIDS
Judging from the analysis of the interviews with
policymakers and the project implemented on a
TCMP study, adaptation was observed as having
less emphasis by politicians. It can be deduced
that policymakers are mainly concerned with
projects that will provide high visibility and profitability to the government such as the construction of the international airport, the construction
of a five-star hotel in Buccament and the mariner
project in the Grenadines. These projects will
enable the government to harness enough
resources and votes that will allow them to win
the upcoming general election and stay in power
for a more extended period; the current government is in its fourth term in office.
Rather than working with communities to
build their adaptive capacity, policymakers are
more interested in providing relief support to
communities after a disaster because such mayhem would enhance the visibility of the governing party and would provide opportunities for
these parties to maintain political power. The
policymakers displayed a lack of interest in
working with the youth to develop their resilience to adapt to climate change because such
efforts will not provide visibility. The youth do
not have the political voice, level of organisation
and gravitas to generate such profile nor the platform to air their grievances; therefore, their voice
will never be heard.
The government approach to utilising the topdown approach to create the TCMP in the south
Grenadines was met with failure. The case shows
that due to the lack of consultation among stakeholders during the implementation of the TCMP,
the project disintegrated into chaos. This case
Theme 4: Exploring Approaches for Delivering of Climate Change Adaptation
ports this case on civic actions (Wittmayer et al.
2014; Cloutier et al. 2018). The bottom-up project implemented by JEMS youths is in line with
the literature relating to bottom-up approaches to
CCA (OECD 2013; Stachowiak et al. 2016) and
community CCA (McNamara and Buggy 2016;
Hernandez- Delgado 2015). The JEMS case study
and the FGDs with the youth show that the best
way to acquire knowledge and resolve a perceived development problem was through learning by doing (Loorbach 2010). The project
provided opportunities for the youth to gain a
wide array of skills while participating in the
various components of the project.
Throughout the implementation of the JEMS
capacity building of youth project and the participatory climate risk mapping exercise, JEMS was
able to bring in and use its professional skills and
experiences, which enabled the group to gain recognition and support for its work including recognition from the UN for its work in CCA leading
up to the 2015 COP 21 of UNFCCC in Paris. This
recognition provided JEMS with significant
legitimacy in the field of CCA. This recognition
also influenced the public action, i.e. the government through NEMO, and the Ministry of
Planning and Sustainable Development has utilised the GIS climate risk maps evolving from the
participatory mapping exercises to assist communities with their CCA planning.
Challenges of Implementing
the Bottom-Up Approach to Address
in CCA in SIDS
Research shows that a bottom-up approach is
more applicable to local and less complex vulnerabilities. It is also context-specific, and in
instances where the climate change impact is
more complex, i.e. where new climate risks are
emerging that are outside of the range of experience, a bottom-up approach is less suited to guide
the adaptation process. As shown with the JEMS
case, bottom-up approaches are more successful
when dealing with less complicated vulnerabilities, are short term in orientation and do not consider the long-term implications of climate
change (Dessai and Hulme 2004). Therefore, if
left on its own to replicate the JEMS case, the
community may experience difficulties due to a
lack of technical expertise, financial resources
and the absence of a network of individuals and
agencies to support the project.
Strategies for Implementing the TopDown Approach to Address CCA
in SIDS
Judging from the analysis of the interviews with
policymakers and the project implemented on a
TCMP study, adaptation was observed as having
less emphasis by politicians. It can be deduced
that policymakers are mainly concerned with
projects that will provide high visibility and profitability to the government such as the construction of the international airport, the construction
of a five-star hotel in Buccament and the mariner
project in the Grenadines. These projects will
enable the government to harness enough
resources and votes that will allow them to win
the upcoming general election and stay in power
for a more extended period; the current government is in its fourth term in office.
Rather than working with communities to
build their adaptive capacity, policymakers are
more interested in providing relief support to
communities after a disaster because such mayhem would enhance the visibility of the governing party and would provide opportunities for
these parties to maintain political power. The
policymakers displayed a lack of interest in
working with the youth to develop their resilience to adapt to climate change because such
efforts will not provide visibility. The youth do
not have the political voice, level of organisation
and gravitas to generate such profile nor the platform to air their grievances; therefore, their voice
will never be heard.
The government approach to utilising the topdown approach to create the TCMP in the south
Grenadines was met with failure. The case shows
that due to the lack of consultation among stakeholders during the implementation of the TCMP,
the project disintegrated into chaos. This case
Theme 4: Exploring Approaches for Delivering of Climate Change Adaptation