Currently, research issues of water through the lens of human security - I love the natural science of water - how and why it does what it does, how and why it is what it is - but, I am also interested in the nexus of water with energy, with culture, with religion, with ecosystems, with industry, with local and national economies, with navigation, with recreation...water, meet human and natural systems, and then I want to know what happens.
Human security offers a way to measure what is important to people to live and prosper in a healthy and harmonious way. I have designed a multi-sector approach in order to consider how changes to water systems can be viewed and understood from a variety of potential opportunities and challenges. This then may inform how and why people make decisions about water resources. I hope. It isn't finished yet.
Right now I am focusing on internationally shared river systems. Within that I am looking at dams being developed on those rivers. I would like to better understand why humans want to change water systems. What does that change mean through different sector lenses, whether it be environmental, economic, etc?
I am spending this year looking to answer those questions practically, on the ground, through the eyes of others. Through the eyes of people who have hope for changes to water systems that can change the opportunities that they experience in their lives. It is a beautiful story so far and I look forward to telling it in more details in the weeks to come.
But now I am coming into something different with my current case study on the Mekong - there are a whole mess of people actively opposing dams as changes to water systems. They think it better NOT TO alter the water system for a myriad of reasons that challenge the reasons TO alter the water system for a myriad of reasons. The voices against dams on the Mekong are predominantly the international community and neighboring countries, the voices for are a developing country and neighboring countries. It appears at first glance to look like a standoff, where the discourse is so divided that it is hard for either group to feel comfortable speaking about dams or to speak with one another. I hope this is not the case. But this highlights why being objective in research is so important. This situation seems to be bifurcated - the truth is either one story or the other. How can both be true? Objective research may be able to answer that question.
What role does objective research play in modern global discourse? It should play a stronger role and it sadly appears that there are not many objective researchers considering big sensitive questions, like anything "political". At least this is what I am being told when I want to go somewhere and build a case study about a dam. I cannot be the only one being turned away from research projects - I know there are more of you out there - denied funding because your project is not politically interesting or too politically interesting. Denied access because of the politics. And I am not talking about simple politics of a country - I mean the political climate of the global community.
When I approached the Ethiopian government to ask permission to study the Grand Renaissance Dam through interviews with national and local people, they granted me access with assurance that the truth would stand. My objective approach has revealed to me quite a different story within Ethiopia than the one being told outside of Ethiopia. Different than the press or whoever else is spinning stories would have other believe. When I took a balanced approach toward a topic that could possibly be controversial or otherwise imbalanced, I found many shades of gray. Dams are not black and white as most people would have you believe. And capturing the nuance of opportunities as well as challenges is key to moving forward as a global community. What do I mean with such a statement?
Let's be realistic. Progress is happening and change is inevitable. Why aren't we looking for more collaborative approaches with neighboring countries or communities when change becomes apparent? How we approach decisions about change, our attitude, our superficial understand of the complexity of change...this matters. If we go on looking at our global challenges of poverty, disease, and general suffering as either modern or traditional approaches, we limit ourselves. When we find a position and stick with it despite change, we will be left behind. The Western voices want to resist change on one front - say dams - and promote change on another - say medicines - but where the West resists, others can offer promotion - for example - the World Bank wont fund your dam, so ask someone else who can loan money, like China or a mining company. The rules are changing as economies change, but instead of resisting and challenging, we should be looking to better understand that change so we can respond positively to it. I am not suggesting there is no room for prudence and caution or outright resistance, but when is it helpful and appropriate? And we may find that looking at the same old story in an objective way will shed light on why these changes are happening, or need to happen. I think in most situation the big picture is being missed with instead an insistence on "the facts". This could inform on why the Global Climate Change issue is still a debate rather than something to respond to...Perhaps we can find solutions to working together as a global community if only we started opening our minds and asking different questions. Then we'd have another reality instead of remaining the West and the Rest