The Second Symposium on Climate Change Politics: The nexus of international politics in climate change and water resource

OPENING REMARKS: Kiichi Fujiwara, Professor, Graduate Schools of Law and Politics, the University of Tokyo
Professor Kiichi Fujiwara opened the second public meeting for the SDGs Collaborative Research Unit of the Institute for Future Initiatives by explaining the scope of research project. The main purpose of the research project is to investigate the role of scholars in achieving the 17 SDGs advocated by UN. To achieve this, the scholars focused on different social science issues, especially in identifying the possible role climate change played in causing social conflicts and international tensions and in developing constructive solutions using climate change resilience concept. Professor Fujiwara remarked that the research project was highly rewarding as it broadened their focus on social and international conflicts. In conclusion, Professor Fujiwara elaborated on the symposium format, which consists of three panels, each followed by Q&A.

PANEL 1: ANALYSIS OF THE CLIMATE CHANGE POLITICS

“Ecological Modernisation and its Discontents”
Roberto Orsi, Project Associate Professor, Graduate School of Public Policy, the University of Tokyo
Professor Roberto Orsi presented on the need to grasp the importance of ideas in understanding the social changes due to climate change as a subset of environmental issues. To define social change, one may focus on different elements of the society, which can fall into different theoretical categories, for example, structures, namely things that do not change or change very slowly, agents, such as people or organizations, or ideas. In his presentation, he focused on ideas, which we do not invent from scratch, but we largely inherit from social processes, as ideas are a product of social interactions.
Although already discussed in a limited fashion in the early modern era and in the nineteenth century, a global push for the creation of a sustainability concept, one which identified the criticalities in the relations between industrial activities and the planet, did not start until the period between the 1950s and the 1960s. This first wave of environmental thought entailed a substantial pessimism concerning the environmental unsustainability of industrial societies and economies, thus advocating radical change. The rise of a sustainability debate made clear that not all economic systems have the same impact on the environment, and that not all are amenable to reforms. For an economic system to be sustainable, it must be able to preserve the conditions that make it possible and viable in the long run.

Professor Orsi mentioned that ecological modernization can be defined as an optimistic approach to the question of environmental sustainability, one which considers environmental degradation as a byproduct of immature or bad policies and immature technologies. Ecological modernization started in the 1980s in the context of German sociology. At its core, it suggests that the problems caused by industrialization and modernization can be solved by means of more modernization, industrialization, more and better technology as well as better policies, without necessarily questioning the capitalistic foundations of society or other politically sensitive issues. Ecological modernization has then become the standard approach to sustainability, particularly following the 1987 Brundtland commission report, which has been and still is hugely influential. However, not everyone is happy about ecological modernization as the dominant idea in shaping the sustainability concept and its related policies. Professor Orsi mentioned that his paper distinguishes three schools of thought concerning the existing critique against ecological modernization, namely: political ecologists, ecological Marxists, and constructivists. Their arguments are interrelated and multifaceted, but, overall, the current trajectory of the global environmental crisis as described by a growing share of the scientific literature suggests that ecological modernization may be an overhauled approach to sustainability and that a new approach may be needed to cope with the urgency of the issues at stake.

“Global Challenges of Climate Change and Pandemic in 2020s: Can Nation-States and International Society Save People’s Lives?”
Chiharu Takenaka, Professor, College of Law and Politics, Department of Politics, Rikkyo University
In her presentation, Professor Chiharu Takenaka spoke about the commonality of ongoing pandemic crisis and the climate change issue. The immediate issue facing the mankind has been how to mitigate these crises effectively and build resilience using existing political, economic, and social tools.
The ubiquitous access to internet led ordinary public to make detailed comparisons of crises management by various governments around the world. In last year’s COVID outbreak, successful responses came from Democratic East Asian States and China as well as developed countries with women leaders. The women leaders emphasized on the values of human security and social redistribution of resources. In contrast, there have been dysfunctional states led by neoliberal nationalists who have responded poorly to the pandemic crisis. Next, the focus in the second year of the pandemic crisis has been on vaccine production, distribution, and its results. Here, wealthy G7 countries have been good responders, while Russia, China, and India have been focusing on vaccine diplomacy.
With regard to climate change issue, American public’s opinion changed drastically from 1990s to 2010s with many arguing that climate change is not a top priority. However, the pressing priority is to create a political framework and build a social consensus to overcome issues caused by environmental change. Learning from the examples of successful leaders in the COVID crisis is that there is a need to address challenges of climate change in a democratic way using tools like economic collaboration and political transcendence.
In conclusion, Professor Takenaka remarked that the 2020-21 COVID crises necessitated creation of new politics in terms of using international society, nation states, social and economic institutions, as well as market economy, and this experience can be used to create a new politics of climate change in 2020s.

PANEL 1: Q&A
Responding to the question about social justice and economic disparity being left behind in the discussion of ecological modernization, Professor Orsi argued that it is not entirely true as many societies today are more egalitarian than they were centuries ago. He agreed that there might be a problem with ecological modernization; however, its political usefulness so far lay precisely in its ability to depoliticize many of the issues of redistribution, which is also one of its long-term weaknesses. Ecological modernization may find a way to reconcile ecological problems with the problems of social justice in the future, but the changes are relatively limited. Furthermore, the competition for attention and resources among political leaders about what is perceived as priority makes radical initiatives for perceived long-term environmental issues unlikely.
Professor Takenaka replied that free market economy and neoliberal economic policies have worsened social and economic disparities in many countries. Further, this social and economic inequality is not only between countries but also increasing within most countries as well. Hence, there is a need to fundamentally re-think the economic system to overcome such crisis.
Professor Fujiwara added that until the recent past, developing nations opposed movement for sustainability, whereas the United States took the initiative in sustainability issues. However, the US reversed its approaches coinciding with the Trump administration. In terms of sustainability, he stated that in Keynesian economics, public investments are expected to have a great impact on improving social conditions, but neoliberal policies work in the opposite direction.

PANEL 2: WATER MANAGEMENT IN THE CONFLICT-AFFECTED AREAS

“The Israeli-Palestinian Water Conflict: Impact of the Technology and Climate Change”
Aiko Nishikida, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Keio University
Professor Aiko Nishikida’s presentation focused on the prolonged water conflict between Palestine and Israel due to inequitable water sharing in the Jordan River Basin. Palestine and Israel are located in the Mediterranean climate zone with mostly semi-arid land. Surface water, renewable aquifers, and non-renewable aquifers are the main source of water in the Palestinian-Israeli region, and the main source of surface water is the Jordan River shared by the riparian states. However, being a non-state actor, Palestine is excluded from this water sharing.
In 1995, Oslo Accords II explicitly recognized the Palestinian rights to water in the West Bank. The Joint Water Committee (JWC) was limited in its effectiveness to solve the issue. Hence, political negotiations after the Oslo Accords brought about little change in the water conflict situation. Further, climate change acted as another turning point in the water conflict situation. Frequent winter droughts and aggregated temperature pushed the Israeli government to rapidly advance recycling and desalination technology in the 2000s.
Israel then increased the water supply quantity to West Bank Palestinians to strategically mitigate international criticism of its continued occupation of the West Bank. However, this did not mitigate the water inequality between Israel and Palestine. The total amount of water in the occupied territory is still limited and the Palestinians have to purchase water from Israeli water companies. The blockade on the Gaza Strip since 2006 has also disturbed the development of water-related facilities.
She remarked that the scarcity of water resources along with an overwhelming political power imbalance does not allow for easy coordination between the riparian groups, and she concluded that equitable water use can be achieved only through cooperation between equal partners utilizing modern hydrological technology.

“International Entanglement of Drought, War, and Rehabilitation in Afghanistan: A Sketch from the Viewpoint of Dr. Nakamura’s Irrigation Project”
Hiromu Shimizu, Visiting Professor, Faculty of Policy Studies, Department of Policy Studies, Kansai University
Professor Hiromu Shimizu presented a unique perspective on international politics and development based on his field research which has been influenced by Dr. Tetsu Nakamura’s work on Afghanistan through Peshawar-kai/PMS.
To quickly understand the modern history of Afghanistan, Professor Shimizu stated the USSR invaded Afghanistan in 1979 while the US helped the mujahedeen leaders. This led to withdrawal of USSR troops in the late 1980s and the formation of Taliban government. The end of Cold War gave rise to the United States as the sole superpower. But, the US dominance decreased after the 9/11 attack with simultaneous increase in China’s economic dominance over the world. However, China’s rapidly aging demography is a threat to this economic rise.
Professor Shimizu remarked that since 1986, Dr. Nakamura had been providing medical care to Afghan through Peshawar-kai/PMS. When the US conducted airstrikes in Afghanistan in 2001, the country was reeling under severe drought which led to food shortage. During this time, Dr. Nakamura started an emergency food distribution but later broadened his scope of work to include irrigation and agriculture projects in the region. In fact, his greening project activities in areas like the Gamberi Desert provided employment to the local population and also served as a human security project.
Professor Shimizu concluded by stating that Dr. Nakamura’s development philosophy was heavily rooted on grassroots activities which brought significant transformation in the Afghan society. Beginning his work as a physician, Dr. Nakamura transitioned into a humanitarian. Alongside, he actively contributed to the media, newspapers, and authored more than 10 books. However, he was tragically killed in 2019, the same year he received honorary Afghanistan citizenship for his devotion to improving the lives of the Afghans.

PANEL 2: Q&A
Responding to the question of the correlation between Israeli policy of occupation of the Golan Heights and West Bank and access to water resources, Professor Nishikida replied that the Israeli occupation policy prioritized areas with rich water resources such as the Golan Heights and hill top settlements in the West Bank. Also, the Israeli government has followed the legal process as a justification for procurement of the land and water resources. As a result, it is extremely difficult for the Palestinians to claim ownership to these water resources and land.
On the comparative contributions of bottom-up anthropology approach to global agendas, Professor Shimizu replied that international politics is a top-down process, whereas anthropology has a bottom-up focus. He stated that if international affair is compared to the military than anthropology would be the guerilla soldiers in the field. In this regard, anthropology with its flexibility takes a narrower view of the things presents alternative approach to the problems.

PANEL 3: CLIMATE CHANGE POLITICS IN SOUTH ASIA

“The Climate Change and Democracy: Political Development of Bihar, India”
Kazuya Nakamizo, Professor, Graduate School of Asian and African Area Studies, Kyoto University
Professor Kazuya Nakamizo examined the possibility of democracy in solving climate change-related impacts in South Asia using Bihar in India as his field site. South Asian Monsoon is plagued by the problems of uncertain timing and uneven distribution making the region prone to frequent droughts and floods. In the colonial past, this led to multiple famines which invited criticisms against inadequate British government’s policies in mitigating the crisis. As a result, water management policy became an important agenda for post-independent Indian government.
In the post-independent India, the government vigorously pursued a policy of constructing dams and embankments. Despite this, droughts and floods caused by the failure of monsoon have continued to ravage the subcontinent. The first crisis occurred in 1965-66 which cornered the Indian government in accepting a reform package. The canal system proved insufficient to supply sufficient water for the Green Revolution. This led to extensive usage of tube-wells which rapidly lowered the underground water table.
Professor Nakamizo reasoned that the rapid increase of flood damages in India since 2000 suspiciously pointed to the impact of global warming. The rivers in his field site Bihar have their catchment areas in Nepal and Tibet, and Bihar has seen major floods almost annually since 2012. Interestingly, the success of Green Revolution as “Wheat Revolution” in the Kosi river basin area increased the political influences of backward caste farmers resulting in the domination of the socialist parties since independence.
India has suffered tremendously due to unstable Asian monsoon which have mobilized socialist and environmental movements against the failures of the government. However, even with the presence of a neoliberalist government, Professor Nakamizo concluded, the Indian democracy still provides space to criticize the government machinery for a better future and has the potential to solve the climate change issue.

“Climate Risk and its Political Impact in Kashmir Conflict”
Kazushige Nagano, Graduate Student, Rikkyo University
Mr. Kazushige Nagano examined recent Kashmir issues arising from climate change-induced events and analyzed medium-to-long-term political impact of the new climate risk in the conflict region. To broaden his understanding, he used the IPCC framework for assessing risk of climate-related impacts within the conflicted territory of Kashmir.
He stated that both traditional and non-traditional security risks arise in Kashmir. Traditional risks are the territorial and border disputes between India and Pakistan as well as India and China while the non-traditional security risks include human security matters resulting in protracted social conflicts, especially since the 1990s. On top of this, climate-induced disasters have emerged as the new risk in Kashmir which threatens political disruption. In fact, several researches into the Kashmir Himalayas ecosystem have reported the area to be a climate change hotspot.
To illustrate his point, Mr. Nagano presented the case of the 2014 Kashmir Flood which was severely worsened by the state governments’ failure to provide adequate relief measures. Furthermore, the situation aggravated due to clashes between the army and locals, lack of cross-border relief activities, and limited entry granted to aid workers.
After the 2014 Kashmir Flood, public anger grew against the National Conference-led state government. As a result of the state assembly election, the PDP-BJP coalition government was formed in 2015. However, this alliance collapsed in 2018 as the BJP withdrew from the coalition. President’s Rule and Governor’s Rule　were subsequently imposed in the state. Kashmir’s political fate changed when the BJP-led central government revoked the special status given to Kashmir by the Indian Constitution and divided it into two union territories. This decision has invited diplomatic tensions with neighboring countries of Pakistan and China.
In conclusion, he stated that there is a strong need to consider the risk of climate-induced disasters in a politically challenged area such as in Kashmir.

PANEL 3: Q&A
Regarding the question of deforestation and massive logging in water scarce areas as a result of infrastructure development, Professor Nakamizo replied that governments in the subcontinent plan to construct large number of dams in the ecologically vulnerable Himalayan belt. In India, it is estimated that almost 40 million people have been forced to be displaced by dams alone, in which most of them are the tribals who live in the forest area. Environmentalists have opposed the constructions of these mega dams in India mainly since 1980s. Furthermore, it is unclear whether these dams in the Himalayan belt are efficient due to high amount of silts present in the water. However, he concluded that this is an ongoing situation in South Asia without any clear solution so far.
Mr. Nagano replied that the Kashmir Himalaya possesses complex terrain with massive glacier lakes, and experiences warming air temperatures and vulnerable highland ecosystem and biodiversity. Research has shown that annual average temperature of the Kashmir Valley increased in the last 50 years and yearly precipitation is also trending down. Artificial and natural changes were some of the causes for the occurrence of Kashmir Flood in 2014. However, this is an ongoing climate risk that is needed to be dealt with.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
On the issue of how India has harmonized the developmental state and ecological modernization theme with Mahatma Gandhi’s Swaraj ideology, Professor Nakamizo stated that social movement have adopted Gandhian philosophy while Indian states have abandoned his ideals. Professor Takenaka further added that the present Hindu right wing BJP government is committed to neoliberal market economy with Swaraj being a mere rhetoric while Professor Fujiwara remarked that the combination of an agrarian society and anti-modernist rhetoric is a complicated one. On the problem of peaceful sharing of water resources across borders, Ms. Chotani replied that her research on trans-Himalayan tributary between India and China have revealed that in the absence of a binding water treaty and China’s public refusal of international dispute settlement, policy alternatives are yet to be found.
On the kinds of actors that can contribute to the resolution of ecological issues, Professor Nishikida observed with regards to environmental coordination in the Middle East, water being a vital issue, states want to take a dominant position, but in absence of formal agreements, excluded actors cannot gain much benefit. Professor Takenaka opined that the world cannot solve global crises in a hegemonic way but need deliberate understanding and consensual decision making at all levels. Professor Fujiwara added the principal agent would be the state, but it is easy for the state to put critical issues in the backburner which is where the role of non-state actors lies. Professor Wada replied that his experience suggest that the state and the affected population need to work together to come up with a lasting solution. Replying to a question, Professor Heng agreed that human security discussion fits well in dealing with climate change impact, but its criticism lies in it being an ambiguous concept. Instead, the notion of existential risk may generate policy attention and urgency which can outlast the state’s short-term thinking.

=Panel 1 : Analysis of the climate change politics=

=Panel 2 : Water management in the conflict-affected areas=

=Panel 3 : Climate change politics in South Asia=

=A Wrap-up Session=