25年度 学術交流支援資金 報告書 (ティースマイヤ・リン)
研究課題名 |
Livelihood Adaptation under Rapid Climate
Change in the Upper Mekong Region of Asia |
研究概要
Central and eastern Myanmar and northern Thailand
have similar ecologies and similarities in terms of traditional livelihoods
based on small-scale, upland, sustainable agriculture. They have, however, very different levels of economic development at this stage,
although Myanmar’s economy is growing rapidly. Despite this difference in
financial resources, however, both remain unable to
adapt sufficiently to their severely damaging weather events and the
slower-onset forms of climate change that affect them, resulting in some loss
of livelihood and food security. This issue has now visibly affected the
agricultural patterns and potentials of the entire nations of Myanmar and
Thailand, who have depended heavily on agriculture in their northern areas due
to past natural disasters, droughts and flooding in their eastern and southern
regions. As a result, it has begun to affect both food security and food safety
at the national levels as well. Of course it affects the local and even
household levels most seriously. The livelihoods that are derived from food
production in these agricultural areas have measurably declined.
The most obviously damaging events in recent
years have been the extreme drought and heat of 2010, the severe regional
flooding of 2011, and the historically high levels of air pollution, continued
warming, and delayed or lowered rainfall in both countries since 2012. Some of
the poorer rural populations have experienced environmental degradation to the
point of loss of livelihood, especially if they were landless or smallholders.
Further, the unforeseen climate events have pushed them to undertake extreme
responses in order to survive.
This research identified and surveyed
comparable groups in environmentally comparable rural areas of both countries.
It was particularly notable that in Northern Thailand and Eastern Myanmar,
areas bordering each other, there had been unanticipated, and usually
unreported, climate change that was impacting severely on rural livelihoods.
The surveys were both quantitative, using environmental chemistry analysis and
statistical analysis of population changes; and quantitative, using household
and community focus group interviews.
This research also had the ultimate purpose of
continuing such locally coordinated research and testing its potential for
policy advocacy.
The research activities, locations, and
contents are given below.
This research
project surveyed and analyzed data from Northern Thailand and Eastern Myanmar,
areas bordering each other in which there has been unanticipated climate change
impacting severely on rural livelihoods and sustainability. The climate change
in this region in the past 6 years has included the natural disasters of
drought and flooding, as well as longer-term issues of rapid warming and
extreme weather events. All of these have impacted this mainly agricultural
region as to loss of capacity for cultivation, and therefore loss of income and
of food security to some extent.
The surveys were
both quantitative and qualitative. The quantitative surveys were of 2 types:
1. Environmental
chemistry analysis of local soil, air, and water by Professor Yoshika Sekine.
The region and time frame were chosen from previous (preliminary) surveys to
show the most rapidly worsening and highest level of air pollution, which is in
the environs of Mandalay and occurs towards the end of the Dry Season (February
and March).
2. Statistical analysis
of population movement and other population changes that could be correlated to
environmental changes.
The
quantitative surveys used household and community focus group interviews within
the most-impacted rural areas.
The actions of rural people under environmental
stress may be termed “adaptations.” What this research showed, however, was that
they are best characterized as “responses” that may lead to both negative and
positive outcomes, both for the individuals and households involved, as well as
for the entire regions under discussion. The “responses” pursued by traditional
(and often tenant or contract) farmers in the 2 regions were shown to include temporary
or emergency survival strategies. These would have been difficult to survey in
terms of a strict division of quantitative and qualitative measurements,
necessitating a team that consisted of interdisciplinary researchers to survey,
analyze, and then combine their findings (社会経済調査―ティースマイヤ・環境化学調査―関根嘉香・植物学=山崎および現地専門家Win Myint・人口学= タイ国立チェンマイ大学のリワー先生).
The livelihood adaptations we found were
holistic. They included decisions and adaptations made at the household economy
level; in the jobs and labor markets available within the rural economy;
individual and community-wide calculations of the possibility of further environmental
disaster or degradation; and the severity of food insecurity and potential mortality
that the respondents could directly, or indirectly, relate to environmental
damage. The livelihood responses they tended to access were:
@ Out-migration
to quite distant locations, including domestic migrations to towns that are
several hundred kilometers distant and also illegal cross-border migration into
China or Northern Thailand. Most of the persons exercising these options were
very young, from age 14 to age 28, and were both male and female. Their place
of origin was the Dry Zone of Myanmar, the recently drought-stricken areas of
Shan State, and the flood areas of Kayah State.
A Contract
farming for absentee Chinese land lease managers. Most of the persons who
exercised this option were adult males between the ages of 25 to 50, local
farmers who had lost land or who were seeking the yearly wage offered by
Chinese managers. This occurred both in Central and Eastern Myanmar and in
Northern Thailand among local residents of both countries.
B Temporary, very
low-wage labor in construction or other manual work, or unskilled small-factory
work, again requiring some short distance and time of migration away from the
place of origin (usually to the nearest provincial town, and for one week per
time). Most of the persons engaged in this work were young and middle-aged,
from about age 14 up to 40, and were both male and female. This occurred both
in Central and Eastern Myanmar and in Northern Thailand among local residents
of both countries.
Climate and
environmental changes to be observed were chiefly the anthropogenic ones that have
resulted from the development of commercial agriculture (new plantations leased
by absentee landlords requiring clearing of large tracts of land and forest),
of industry (also requiring clearing of large tracts of land as well as
watershed diversion for industrial processes), of hydropower dams (requiring
clearing of land, watershed diversion or water volume reduction, and
submergence of some formerly food-producing land), and of new energies (an oil
refinery and long-distance oil pipelines that used large tracts of formerly
agricultural land and forest).
Anthropogenic
causes, especially from the large-scale development initiatives above, were
major factors in the degradation of the environment and also in the conversion
of land (from agriculture), both of which were found to pose a serious threat
to small farmers in rural Myanmar and rural Thailand. They had less in terms of
cash resources to adapt to land degradation by using purchased chemicals, farm
equipment, or irrigation equipment. They also could not make the transition to
mono-cropping because they would lose their own sustenance and the potential
income from their current small-scale areas of production. Over half of them
were engaged on very small holdings to produce a variety of foods. But the
current environmental degradation also poses risks to such diversity. Their own
perception was that it had become much more difficult to produce and protecting
their region’s current and future food supply. Some had also become aware that
the air, soil and water that protect their livelihoods and their resources,
were becoming damaged on a wider scale.
Given the constraints mentioned above, the responses by the rural
populations consisted mainly of short-term solutions, and are ones that have
the potential for greater environmental or livelihood impacts later. For this
reason it may not be appropriate to use the positive-sounding term
“adaptation.” Their responses consisted of: 1) out-migration, 2) accept work on
plantations for contract farming, and 3) temporary unskilled labor, usually for
outside investors who are undertaking development projects in the rural area. These
three alternatives were not only seen as good choices for those engaging in
them. Some respondents described them as the only choice. From this, it is
possible to hypothesize that their vulnerability has worsened. This makes
positive adaptation choices, and resilience, much less possible. If such
vulnerability continues or increases, it will pose a heightened risk to the
livelihoods and the economic stability of the region.
The
survey in Thailand offered a good base because, as mentioned above, it is one
of the most-developed countries in Southeast Asia, and Thailand has a number of
available resources of the financial, technical, human, and informational, that
could make rural adaptations to climate change more viable. Farmers there still
have the choice of remaining on-farm and accessing different agricultural
technologies and irrigation methods. If they choose to go off-farm to seek
non-farm livelihoods in the towns, there are more jobs available than in
Myanmar. Thailand’s less-developed neighbor, Myanmar, still lacks these
resources or has fewer of them. Yet both of these countries are still economically
dependent on agriculture and menial, unskilled work; and are simultaneously experiencing
serious negative impacts to these same sectors through the combined impacts of
climate change and of inefficient distribution of national resources to adapt
in more positive ways.
研究アプローチ・方法論
Starting from
Northern Thailand, the researchers (Thiesmeyer, Sekine, Yamazaki, Dr Win Myint,
and Dr Liwa) conducted quantitative and qualitative surveys in the Shan State
of Myanmar and the neighboring Northern Thai provinces of Chiang Mai and Chiang
Rai, in November of 2013. This research was based on the Sustainable
Livelihoods Approach. Our underlying assumptions were that livelihood
adaptations under climate change occur when, first, sustainability is
threatened; second, when vulnerability has been long-lasting or increasing; and
third, when there is insufficient, or no, outside assistance.
The environmental
measurements in the 2 areas above were made in order to determine the degree of
damage to primary natural resources of air, water and soil. The socio-economic
and ethnographic surveys in the 2 areas above were made in the impacted
communities by Professor Liwa, Prof. Seewigaa and Prof. Thiesmeyer. These
interviews were both individual and household-based. As much as possible,
persons who had already undertaken one of the climate responses above –
migration, shift to plantation employment, or temporary work in construction –
were chosen as the respondents.
The second
survey was made in February of 2014 for the central Dry Zone and eastern Shan
State areas of Myanmar by Thiesmeyer, Sekine, Yamazaki, Win Myint. The third
and last part was the follow-up in Northern Thailand, by Thiesmeyer and
Seewigaa.
Another comparison for this study, and a
continued partner of environmental research collaboration, was chosen as a
region that has a similar climate and similar development issues to the Upper
Mekong regions: Taiwan. Taiwan has had a similar economic development history
to Thailand and Myanmar, including its climate, ecology, production sectors,
its sources of foreign direct investment, and its access to markets. It has,
however, developed far enough to be able to undertake serious and practical
environmental remediation for sites that were polluted, as well as to consider
policy options for food security in its shrinking agricultural areas. The
principal researcher (ティースマイヤ) spent March
20, 2014 meeting the Taiwan researcher who has collaborated with SFC and EI for
the past 7 years (台湾国立成功大学政治経済研究科長楊永年教授) who is currently
doing a research project at the University of California, Berkeley, U.S. She
also then surveyed the local partners and East Asian environmental experts at
Princeton University, U.S., and Washington, D.C., U.S., and shared some of this
grant’s findings with them.
出張と活動 総括
I.
タイ〜ミャンマー境界線
・2013年11月 タイ、バンコク市、チェンマイ県、チェンライ県、そしてタイ〜ミャンマー境界線沿いミャンマー国シャン州タイチレック市外での、環境調査、人口調査。
参加者は、
Ø ティースマイヤ・リン
Ø チェンマイ国立大学人口学・人文地理学准教授リワー・パータイソン=チャイパニット
II.
ミャンマー、マンダレー市外の乾地での中小製造業地での公害調査や環境汚染及についての調査及びシャン州高地での、環境復元および農村共同体での生産能力についての調査。
・具体的には、2月24日〜27日 ミャンマー中北部 マンダレー、アマラープラー市、ピン・ウー・ルィン市、ジャウッメ市での、@生物多様性、A有機栽培、B有機栽培で生産するものをアマラープラー市での染料染色専門業界での使用の可能についての調査。
参加者は、
Ø 慶應義塾大学環境情報学部のティースマイヤ・リン(研究代表)
Ø 東海大学理科学部教授 関根嘉香 (環境化学調査担当)
Ø Dr Win Myint ミャンマー環境研究所所長 (ミャンマー現地自然環境調査担当)
Ø 山崎和樹 (農産業用植物調査担当)⇒ (学術交流支援資金の申請書に記された総合政策学部の青木節子先生は海外出張に行かれないため、代わりに研究テーマに近い農村調査の専門家)
III.
2月27日〜3月6日 タイの北部やバンコクでの調査や会議
参加者は、
Ø ティースマイヤ・リン
Ø タイ高地生活向上会会長 シウィカー・キティヨンクン (ライブリフードを失って境界線を渡った山岳民族についての顧問)
IV.
3月20日〜28日 米国のカリフォーニア大学バークレー校での、環境悪化や復元についての会議。プリンストン大学のプリンストン環境研究所および同研究所のワシントン、DC拠点で、気候変動とライブリフードについての会議
参加者は、
Ø ティースマイヤ・リン
Ø 台湾国立成功大学政治経済研究科科長 楊永年教授
Ø プリンストン環境研究所のサステーナブル・グローバル・開発 関連の研究者
研究成果(データ、ファインディング、活動)
The research produced the following findings:
1) High-impact areas, communities, and individuals responding to climate
change were identified and surveyed by means of environmental measurements,
population change, and ethnographic surveys.
2) Their responses included negative and temporary adaptations, and
were correlated to the presence of “environmental issues” as defined by
themselves to include drought, flooding, temperature change, and land
degradation to the extent that they felt their survival in the present location
was threatened.
3) We were able to gain the attention both of the surveyed communities
as well as of government officials and local researchers about the types of
livelihood-related climate-change response.
4) We were able to form a provisional conclusion that agricultural communities
and individuals whose food security and livelihood may be lost, are the most
likely to undertake unsustainable responses. The sampling of both the
environment in their area of origin, and the community’s members themselves,
including those who migrated away and those who stayed behind, provided a
baseline for such combination surveys in the near future. The economic
integration of ASEAN within the next year will make such information important.
5) The understanding of climate change and its socio-economic
consequences should be enhanced by cross-disciplinary research examining both
environmental and socio-economic factors.
6) A joint presentation and seminar was held on February 26, 2014, arranged
by the Myanmar local partner, the Myanmar Environmental and Economic Research
Institute. Each of the research participants from Japan (関根嘉香先生、山崎和樹氏、ティースマイヤ・リン) shared information on this research by the researchers in this
grant with the EERI officials and staff, as well as a small local audience. The
result was to raise awareness of environmental damage and also of environmental
restoration, and gain agreement by local officials on how to begin implementing
restoration activities and green business activities.
7) Data from
both the quantitative and qualitative methodologies were combined to write up
textual reports with statistical graphs for illustrations, in both English and
Japanese, to be published as journal articles and book chapters.
8) Meeting at a California research site (環境復元および旱魃復元現場) with 楊永年教授(台湾国立成功大学), the EI
research partner from Taiwan. This meeting included a survey of the research
sites and also the brainstorming session for further collaboration between the
Taiwan university and SFC, beginning from Fall 2014.
The current research has already led to outside funding
opportunities for the purpose of continuing and widening its scope. It is hoped
that graduate students of SFC may also benefit from future participation in the
next research.