Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
W O R K S H O P R E P O R T
An Adaptive Ecosystem Approach toManaging Urban Environments for HumanHealth in ChennaiWorkshop 1 of the research program “An Adaptive EcosystemApproach to Managing Urban Environments for Human Health”funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Councilof Canada. Principle Investigator: Martin J. Bunch, PhD.
19-20 August, 2002
CMDA Tower, ‘Thalamuthu-Natarajan Maliai’1 Gandhi-Irwin RoadEgmore, Chennai - 08
Organizers and Facilitators:Dr. Martin J. Bunch, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York UniversityDr. T. Vasantha Kumaran, Department of Geography, University of MadrasDr. V. Madha Suresh, Department of Geography, University of MadrasDr. Raj Murthy, Environment CanadaMs. Dana Wilson, School of Geography and Geology, McMaster UniversityMs. Beth Finnis, Department of Anthropology, McMaster UniversityMs. Chitra, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
2
Table of Contents
Table of Contents (this page) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Overview of the research program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Overview of the workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Workshop Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
List of Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Key Points of Lead PapersIntroduction to the Ecosystem Approach (Dr. M. Bunch & Dr. R. Murthy) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Experiences of the Ecosystem Approach in the Golden Horseshoe (Dana Wilson) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
The Adaptive Ecosystem Approach: Institutional and Jurisdictional Issues (Elizabeth Finnis) . . . . . . . . . 12
Mobilizing Local Knowledge - Local Health Traditions (Dr. T. Vasantha Kumaran) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Analysis of Working Sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Workshop Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3
Overview of the Research Program
AN ADAPTIVE ECOSYSTEM APPROACH TO MANAGINGURBAN ENVIRONMENTS FOR HUMAN HEALTH
This workshop is part of a larger research program is called “An Adaptive Ecosystem Approach to ManagingUrban Environments for Human Health.” The project is funded by the Social Sciences and HumanitiesResearch Council of Canada (Research Development Initiative) until mid-October of 2004. The research has todo with the exploration of an adaptive ecosystem approach to managing the urban environment with the aim ofimproving the health of city dwellers. It is a comparative study that builds on the experience of the “GoldenHorseshoe” region (Toronto to Hamilton) in Canada where ecosystem approaches have been applied for about30 years, and will explore the approach in the Chennai context. The research will mobilize existing agency andacademic expertise, as well as lay knowledge and concerns, to develop a framework for research that will lead toa holistic and integrated understanding of environment and health issues in Chennai. It is expected to directlystimulate further work on environment and health in Chennai. Copies of the research proposal will be madeavailable upon request.
Dr. Martin J. Bunch (Senior Fellow, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University) is the PrincipleInvestigator on this research project. Co-investigators and collaborators from this project are associated theMcMaster Institute of Environment and Health at McMaster University in Canada (Dr. Mike Jerrett, Dr. TinaMoffat, Dr. John Eyles), Environment Canada (Dr. Raj Murthy) and the University of Madras in Chennai (Dr. T.Vasantha Kumaran, Dr. V. Madha Sureh). If you have any questions or comments about this research, pleasecontact me or Dr. Vasantha Kumaran and Dr. Madha Suresh at the University of Madras. Contact information isprovided in the list of participants.
Overview of the Workshop
AN ADAPTIVE ECOSYSTEM APPROACH TO MANAGINGURBAN ENVIRONMENTS FOR HUMAN HEALTH IN CHENNAI
The workshop “An Adaptive Ecosystem Approach to Managing Urban Environments for Human Health inChennai” was held on 19-20 August 2002, and was hosted by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authorityat the CMDA office tower ('Thalamuthu-Natarajan Maligai') at No. 1 Gandhi-Irwin Road, in Egmore, Chennai. This workshop was intended for those who wish to participate over the next several years in the investigation ofan ecosystem approach to managing environment and health in Chennai. Using a mix of paper presentation andworking sessions, the workshop introduced participants to the ecosystem approach, and to provided anopportunity for participants to help direct the upcoming research program.
Chennai Workshop Objectives were:
1. To present the Ecosystem Approach (as formulated for this research project and informed by the experienceof practitioners in the Golden Horseshoe region) to research program participants in Chennai.
2. To present the results of the survey of practitioner perceptions of the ecosystem approach in the GoldenHorseshoe to research program participants in Chennai.
3. With participants in Chennai: to explore the feasibility of using key tools, techniques and methodsidentified in the Golden Horseshoe survey in the Chennai context.
4. To develop a preliminary conceptual model of environment and health for the city of Chennai.
5. To use this model to identify key themes in environment and health in Chennai.
6. To identify key information necessary to understand (model) at least one of these key themes.
4
An Adaptive Ecosystem Approach to Managing Urban Environments for Human Health in Chennai
August 19-20, 2002CMDA Tower, 'Thalamuthu-Natarajan Maligai', 1, Gandhi-Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-08
AUGUST 19
10:00 Inaugural SessionWelcome Dr. T. Vasantha KumaranInaugural Remarks Mr. P.R. Shampath, IAS, Member Secretary CMDA
Mr. Dattatri, Trustee, SUSTAINMr. Anand Doss, Chief Planner, CMDA
Introduction Dr. Martin J. Bunch
10:30 Tea
10:50 Environment and Health in Chennai: Problem Definition Participants (Exercises)
11:20 Participant Presentations Participants (Presentations)
1:00 Lunch
2:00 Introduction to the Ecosystem Approach Dr. Martin J. Bunch and Dr. Raj Murthy
3:00 Describing Environment and Health in Chennai (Part I) Participants (Exercise)
4:00 Tea
4:15 Experience of the Ecosystem Approach in the Golden Horseshoe Region, CanadaDana Wilson
AUGUST 20
10:00 Critique of the Ecosystem Approach: Institutional and Jurisdictional IssuesBeth Finnis
10:30 Describing Environment and Health in Chennai (Part II) Participants (Exercise)
11:30 Tea
11:45 Environment and Health Themes Participants (Breakout Sessions)
1:00 Lunch
2:00 Mobilizing Local Knowledge Dr. T. Vasantha Kumaran
2:45 Breakout Session Presentations Participants (Presentations)
3:45 Tea
4:00 Directions for Research Participants
4:45 Concluding Statements Participants and Researchers
5
PARTICIPANTS IN THE WORKSHOP ON “AN ADAPTIVE ECOSYSTEM APPROACH TO MANAGING URBANENVIRONMENTS FOR HUMAN HEALTH IN CHENNAI”
CMDA - August 19-20, 2002Workshop Participants1. Ms. N. AhalyaProject AssistantEnergy Wetlands Research GroupCentre for Ecological ScienceD. 230, IISC Housing ColonyIndian Institute of Science CampusBangalore - 560012Phone: (080) 3600985 (Ext. 232)[email protected]
2. Mr. G. Balan SamsonChief Conservator of ForestsNo. 1, Jennis Road, Panagal BuildingSaidapet, Chennai – 600 015Phone: 4364997E-mail: [email protected]
3. Dr. C. Chandramouli, IASDirector of Census Operations‘E’ Wing, III Floor, Rajaji BhavanBesant NagarChennai – 600 090Phone: 4911992E-mail: [email protected]
4. Mrs. S. ChitraDeputy PlannerChennai Metropolitan Development AuthorityNo. 1, Gandhi Irwin RoadEgmore, Chennai - 600 008Phone: 8534 855 Ext. [email protected]
5. Mr. G. DattatriTrustee, Citizens Alliance for Sustainable Living(SUSTAIN)C/o. UN-HABITAT Office5th Floor, CMDA BuildingEgmore, Chennai – 600 008Phone: 8530802 / 8555834Fax: 8572673E-mail: [email protected]
6. Mr. Ananda Ranjana DossMember & Chief Urban PlannerChennai Metropolitan Development Authority1, Gandhi-Irwin RoadEgmore, Chennai-600 008.Phone: 8534 855 Ext. [email protected]
7. Dr. (Ms) R. GunaselvamScholarDepartment of GeographyUniversity of MadrasChennai – 600 005Phone: 8445779E-mail: [email protected]
8. Mr. V. HariharanChairman and Coordinator Exnora Anna Nagar9, III Street, F Block (old 103)Anna Nagar East, Chennai – 600 102Phone: 6261011, Fax: 6195500E-mail: [email protected]
9. Ms. Jayanthi, I.A.S.Vice-ChairpersonChennai Metropolitan Development Authority1, Gandhi-Irwin RoadEgmore, Chennai-600 008.Phone: 8534 855 Ext. [email protected]
10. Mr. R. JosephSenior GeographerDirectorate of Census Operations‘E’ Wing, III Floor, Rajaji BhavanBesant Nagar, Chennai – 600 090Phone : 4902696 / 4912993E-mail: [email protected]
11. Dr. A. KalaiselvanMedical OfficerMini Health CentreThoraipakkam, Chennai – 600 096Phone: 4962666
12. Mr. V. KumaraswamiDeputy DirectorTuberculosis Research CentreSpur Tank roadChennai – 600 031Phone: 8265425Fax: 8262137E-mail: [email protected]
13. Mr. P. S. Lakshmi NarayananGeneral SecretaryEXNORA InternationalState Bank of IndiaPerambur, Chennai – 600 011Phone: 5584195 / 5375732
14. Mr. V. MuthukumaranFormer Director / Treasurer123/9, Bharathi Colony, 15th Main RoadAnna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040Phone: 6161097E-mail: [email protected]
15. Ms. Naina ShahVice President & TrusteeEXNORA International 17, (Old 7B) Sathyanarayana Ave., Boat Club RoadChennai – 600 028Phone: 4320706 / 4320564E-mail: [email protected]
16. Mr. G.S. Panneer SelvamGIS Assistant, GIS CellChennai Metropolitan Development AuthorityNo. 1, Gandhi Irwin RoadEgmore, Chennai - 600 008Phone: 8534 855 Ext. [email protected]
17. Mr. Rajan PhilipSenior Vice PresidentEXNORA InternationalY-193, Anna NagarChennai – 600 040Phone: 6214023E-mail: [email protected]
6
18. Dr. Y. E. A. RajScientist & Director (Research)Regional Meteorological Centre50, College RoadChennai – 600 006Phone: 8230091 / 8230092 Fax: 8271581E-mail: [email protected]
19. Mr. S. R. RajendhiranDeputy Planner, CMDAEnvironmental DivisionEgmore, Chennai – 600 008Phone: 8534855 Ext. 310E-mail: [email protected]
20. Dr. T.V. RamachandraCoordinator, Energy Wetlands Research Group,Centre for Ecological ScienceD. 230, IISC Housing ColonyIndian Institute of Science CampusBangalore - 560012Home Phone: 91 - 080 - 3602075
21. Mr. R. RameshProfessorInstitute for Ocean Management, Anna UniversityChennai – 600 025Phone: 2300108 Fax: 2200159E-mail: [email protected]
22. Mr. P.R. Shampath, I.A.S.Member SecretaryChennai Metropolitan Development Authority1, Gandhi-Irwin RoadEgmore, Chennai-600 008.Phone: 8534 855 Ext. 245E-mail: [email protected]
23. Mr. P. ShanmugamChief Community Development OfficerTamil Nadu Slum Clearance BoardChennai – 600 005Phone: 8440745
24. Ms. Shobha MenonJournalist, Madras MusingsOld No. 37, V Street, Padmanabha NagarAdyar, Chennai – 600 020Phone: 4915137 / 4463932
25. Mr. T. V. SivakumarMember (Headquarter Club)Alpha Institute of Akademic Excellence12/1, Bhajanai Koil StreetChoolaimedu, Chennai – 600 094Phone: 3723020 E-mail: [email protected]
26. Dr. Y.V. SubrahmanyamScientist & Head, NEERICSIR Madras ComplexTharamani, Chennai – 600 113Phone: 2541250Fax: 2541964E-mail: [email protected]
27. Mr. S. ThirunavukkarasuJunior EngineerPublic Works DepartmentTechnical Education Sub-division IIIGuindy, Chennai – 600 025Phone: 2351018 Ext. 203
28. Dr. D. ThulasimalaResearch AssociateDepartment of ImmunologyTuberculosis Research CentreChetput, Chennai – 600 031Phone: Res: 5395312 / 6444286E-mail: [email protected]
29. Dr. S. VincentSenior LecturerDepartment of Zoology, Loyola CollegeChennai – 600 034Phone: 8175660 Ext. 306E-mail: [email protected]
30. G.V. Venkatesh WilliamsTrusteeMyrtle Social Welfare30, Hunters Road, ChoolaiChennai - 600 [email protected]
Workshop OrganizersDr. Martin BunchSenior FellowFaculty of Environmental Studies, York University4700 Keele StreetToronto, Ontario, Canada, M3J 1P3Phone: (416) 736-2100 ext: 22630 Fax: (416) 736-5679E-mail: [email protected]
Dr. V. Madha SureshLecturerDepartment of Geography, University of MadrasChepauk, Chennai – 600 005Phone: 5368778 Ext. 303 Fax: 5366693E-mail: [email protected]
Ms. Elizabeth FinnisResearcherDepartment of Anthropology, McMaster University1280 Main St. W.Hamilton, ON, Canada, L8S 4M1E-mail:[email protected]
Dr. T. Vasantha KumaranProfessor of GeographyDepartment of Geography, University of MadrasChennai – 600 005Phone: 5368778 Ext. 303 Fax: 5366643E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]
Dr. Raj MurthySenior Research ScientistNational Water Research InstituteEnvironment CanadaP. O. Box 5050, BurlingtonOntatio LTR 446Phone: 905-336-4920 Fax: 905-336-6230E-mail: [email protected]
Ms. Dana WilsonResearcherSchool of Geography & GeologyMcMaster University1280 Main St. W.Hamilton, ON, Canada, L8S 4M1E-mail: [email protected]
7
An Introduction to the “Ecosystem Approach”Dr. Martin Bunch and Dr. Raj Murthy
19 August 2002
The Meaning of “Ecosystem”
The term “Ecosystem” was coined in 1935 by Sir Aurthur Tansley (Bocking, 1994). Tansley used the term inthe context of understanding how organisms acted together with their physical environment as a whole. Heviewed the abiotic, physical environment of organisms as part of a system (as opposed to viewing an organism ina particular physical setting). This new way of studying ecology drew out important new aspects of nature. Forexample, there were not just inputs and outputs, flows and stocks and transformations, but also cycles, hierarchy,emergence, adaptive behaviour and resilience. For example, it was known that in a forest, trees require mineralswhich they take from the soil, but looking at the forest as an ecosystem led to the observation that forestspreserve their store of nutrients with tenacity!
The common use of the term “ecosystem” by ecologists often refers to a wide range of different material systems– the collection of all the organisms and environments in a single location (Allen et al., 1994). For example, wecan describe the “Great Lakes Ecosystem” or more generally, “forest ecosystems.” A more modern and generalunderstanding of “ecosystem” (even to ecologists) refers to a system – a collection of interacting componentsand their interactions – that includes (but is not restricted to) ecological or biological components. This leavesroom for humans as part of the system.
Ecosystem Approaches to Planning
An Ecosystem Approach is an approach to managing systems. It “is both a way of doing things and a way ofthinking, a renewal of values and philosophy” (Crombie, 1992). Conventional planning rests on faith in growth. This assumes that expansion of economic activity, population, infrastructure, etc. are inherently beneficial. Italso assumes that any negative aspects can be minimized well enough through marginal adjustments. In contrast,ecosystem approaches to planning promote certain economic activities, but they also recognizes “that other kindsof growth are overwhelming the resilience of communities and ecosystems, bringing seriously adverse social,economic, and biophysical effects for which there are no easy correctives or adequate compensations” (Gibson,et al., 1997). Such adverse effects can be seen for example in sprawling urban form which leads to loss ofproductive land, loss of productive time due to commuting, environmental impacts of hydrocarbon-based fueltransportation, declining social and environmental equity, homogenization of neigbourhoods and the breakdownof communities. Whereas conventional planning is about nudging and accommodating prevailing trends,ecosystem planning is about choosing and pursuing a desirable future (Gibson, et al., 1997).
The Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront (the “Crombie Commission”) identified 5themes of the Ecosystem Approach:
1. The ecosystem as “Home” – The traditional view of the environment is something that surrounds us andinfluences us – something “out there” like a house. In contrast, an ecosystem is akin to “home.” There is aspiritual dimension to it, transcending its physical structures. It consists of dynamic, interacting, livingsystems of which humans are a part. This implies that we are responsible for maintaining and protecting thehealth of our “Home,” its residents and our community. We must be stewards of ecosystems. As Bill Reesat UBC says, “People must acquire in their bones a sense that violation of the biosphere is a violation ofself.”
2. Everything is Connected to Everything Else – The approach is rooted in an understanding and use ofgeneral and complex systems theory of which a key understanding is that “everything is connected toeverything else.” Systems theory also provide a set of heuristics and tools which help to understandecosystems. Fundamentally, “we must examine the entire web of links among and within elements ofecosystems: air, soils, water, wildlife, land uses, communities, economic activities, and the like. By doingso, we can begin to understand how the parts affect, and are affected by, one another, and we can appreciatethe complexities of the whole” (Crombie, 1992)
3. Sustainability – Sustainability is a key concept: “We have not inherited the earth from our ancestors, buthave borrowed it from our grandchildren.” This implies that any development we undertake should beenvironmentally sustainable, i.e., it should not compromise the ability of future generations to meet theirown needs. For a start, we must broaden our planning horizon. Governments typically plan on the basis of3-5 years only! Thinking about sustainability leads to several conclusions: (1) We have to sustain naturalcapital and live off the interest – our cities cannot demand or require more resources than can be harvestedfrom our environmental support systems, without reducing their capacity to produce the resources that weneed. (2) We must undergo a paradigm shift from “bigger is better” to a mindset that does not lead tounsustainable activity... perhaps: “beautiful is better”, “greener is better”, or “healthier is better.” (3) Both(1) and (2) above have to do with a shift from a consumer society to a conserver society in which,consumption is reduced, more is done with less, what is done is done better (Daly and Cobb, 1989)
4. Understanding Places – There are 3 basic concepts in understanding place. These have to do with thenatural regional setting, the historical past in the region, and an appreciation of landscape and distinctness of
8
place. (1) Understanding the natural environment, the source of resources in the immediate region, meansknowing about the natural landscape, ecological processes, the scale of watersheds, sub-watersheds, andbioregions, and getting an idea of the hierarchies involved in the nesting of natural systems. This means are-connecting with the natural environment and involves a broadening of perspective for most people. (2)Developing a connection with our own history and impact in the bioregion means understanding such thingsas the historical pattern of settlement, aboriginal history in the area, human impacts on environmentalprocesses and wildlife in the region. “Such thinking rekindles our sense of place, of rootedness, and ofcontinuity with the past. It also shows what we have already lost, and what we stand to lose unless we beginmaking decisions based on an awareness of the region’s full natural and cultural potential” Crombie (1992). (3) Gaining an appreciation of landscape and distinctness of place has to do with knowing and preservingnatural attributes of a place, distinct built environments (e.g., markets or monuments), and vistas. Attentionto such things “is more than mere symbolism: it helps protect and maintain the unique qualities of thesecities, and influences urban form and structure just as powerfully as natural features or the configuration ofroads and blocks” (Crombie, 1992).
5. Integrating Processes – There are 2 primary obstacles to implementing the ecosystem approach: rigidity ofbureaucratic systems and fragmentation of jurisdictions. In order to overcome these obstacles the CrombieCommission acted as an “agent of change”. It did this by: (1) Linking Resources which involves activitiessuch as the construction of multi-disciplinary teams, and consensus building wherein participants/teammembers work together in a goal-oriented or problem-focused environment. (2) Helping Processes such asfacilitation or mediation in situations where movement forward would normally be difficult (e.g. due to“jurisdictional gridlock”), holding of public hearings and facilitation of formal communications amongstakeholders and actors in the situation. (3) Acting as a Catalyst by generating reports which expressedissues and drew conclusions not easily addressed within the prevailing jurisdictional environment and takinga proactive and interventionist stance.
An Example: The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
The Golden Horseshoe region of Canada has the longest experience in formally applying ecosystem approachesto planning and management of socio-ecological systems. One of the oldest programs is the Great Lakes WaterQuality Agreement. The GLWQA came about in response to eutrophication in the lower Lakes, particularly inLake Erie, the shallowest and narrowest of the 5 Great Lakes. For decades Lake Erie had been undergoing aprocess of cultural eutrophication. Inputs of wastes and chemicals from urban, peri-urban and agriculturalactivities within the watershed had caused the lake to “flip” from a benthic to a pelagic system.
This situation brought the intervention of the International Joint Commission (IJC), a bi-national agencyestablished by USA and Canada to manage shared water bodies such as the Great Lakes. This brought togetherFederal, State/Provincial, and regional governments with industry, academic and NGO stakeholders to deviseand implement management solutions to the problem. The IJC is characterised by multi-stakeholder initiatives,and its governance structure includes the working of various boards – for example the Great Lakes WaterQuality Board (which sets goals and evaluates management interventions) citizens’ advisory boards andscientific and research advisory boards. The Research Advisory Board formally adopted an ecosystem approachto manage the Great Lakes ecosystem in 1972.
Over the years, long term (and still on-going) management of the situation has brought Lake Erie back to abenthic state. However, there are other serious problems with pollution and invasive species in the Great Lakes. Specifically, 42 areas of concern (AOC) were identified by the IJC in near shore, interconnecting channels,harbours and wetlands of the Great Lakes ecosystem. These AOCs did not meet water quality guidelinesestablished in the GLWQA. To address the AOCs, the IJC established individual remedial action plans (RAPs) that adopted an ecosystem approach. To de-list AOCs, water quality guidelines set out in the GLWQA must bemet. The RAPs highlighted awareness and participation of stakeholders, and scientific research. Multi-stakeholder councils such as the Hamilton Harbour Bay Area Council (BARC) were mobilized and scientificresearch councils were set up. In each case, there was vertical integration of jurisdictions (all relevantjurisdictions were involved and power was decentralized to the councils) and horizontal integration acrossscientific disciplines. It should be emphasised that management of the areas of concern is long term. Afterseveral decades of research/monitoring and management two AOCs have been de-listed so far.
The experience of the Golden Horseshoe Region has indicated that characteristics of successful application ofthe ecosystem approach are:
C Power of decision making is decentralized (e.g., in local area councils)C The process is “multi-stakeholder” and participatoryC The process is transparent C The approach is supported by sound scientific researchC Government agencies act as facilitatorsC The process is long-term and ongoing
The ecosystem approach has also been successful in the Golden Horseshoe Region in a wide variety of otherprograms, from watershed management by conservation authorities to healthy city programs. It has a greatpotential for management of difficult environmental health situations in general, providing that the primarybarriers to the approach – rigidity of bureaucratic systems and fragmentation of jurisdictions can be overcome.
9
References and Selected Readings on the Ecosystem Approach
Allen, Timothy F.H., Bruce L. Bandurski and Anthony W. King (1994) The Ecosystem Approach: Theory andEcosystem Integrity. Initial report of a multi-year project of the Ecological Committee to the InternationalJoint Commission’s Great Lakes Science Advisory Board.
Bocking, S. (1994) “Visions of Nature and Society: A History of the Ecosystem Concept” in Alternatives,20(3):12-18.
Bunch, Martin J. (2001) An Adaptive Ecosystem Approach to Rehabilitation and Management of the CooumRiver Environmental System in Chennai, India. Geography Publication Series No. 54. Waterloo, ON:University of Waterloo.
Crombie, David (1992) Regeneration: Toronto’s Waterfront and the Sustainable City: Final Report. Toronto:Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront and Minister of Supply and Services Canada.
Forget, Gile and Jean Lebel (2001) “An Ecosystem Approach to Human Health” in the International Journal ofOccupational and Environmental Health (Supplement). 7(2):S3-S36.
Gibson, Robert B., Donald H.M. Alexander, and Ray Tomalty (1997) “Putting Cities in Their Place: Ecosystem-based Planning for Canadian Urban Regions” in Eco-city Dimensions: Healthy Communities, HealthyPlanet. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.
Kay, James J., Henry Regier, Michelle Boyle, and George Francis (1999) “An Ecosystem Approach forSustainability: Addressing the Challenge of Complexity” in Futures, 31(7): 721-742.
Kendrik, Martyn and Linda Moore (1995) “Chapter 3 – Merchants of Vision: Sustaining an Urban Ecosystem”in Re-inventing Our Common Future. Hamilton, ON: Eco Gateway Group.
Vayda, A.P. and B. McCay (1975) “New Directions in Ecology and Ecological Anthropology” in the AnnualReview of Anthropology, 4:293-306.
Yassi, Annalee, Pedro Mas, Mariano Bonet, Robert B. Tate, Niurys Fernadnez, Jerry Spiegel, and MaylileePerez (1999) “Applying an Ecosystem Approach to the Determinants of Health in Centro Habana” inEcosystem Health, 5(1): 3-19.
10
Experiences of the Ecosystem Approach in the Golden HorseshoeDana Wilson
19 August, 2002
INTRODUCTION:The purpose of this presentation is to transfer preliminary results from research recently completed within theGolden Horseshoe Region of Ontario, to workshop participants in Chennai, in order to explore the possibilitiesand implications of applying an ecosystem approach to human health issues in Chennai. Objectives of theresearch conducted in the Golden Horseshoe, involved analyzing and evaluating the experience of ecosystemapproaches as they have been applied over the last 30 years on urban and regional planning and health policy inthe Region. This research was designed to identify strengths and barriers with the approach, according to theactual practitioners within the Golden Horseshoe. Objectives were accomplished through a survey conductedsolely on practitioners of the ecosystem approach throughout the Golden Horseshoe to reveal their past andcurrent experiences.
The following presentation summary includes: background information about the Golden Horseshoe Region; adescription of the survey conducted which was conducted in the Region, and finally; a synopsis of thepreliminary results obtained from the survey, summarizing the ecosystem approach experience.
THE GOLDEN HORSESHOE REGION:The Golden Horseshoe Region is located in the Southern portion of the Province of Ontario, and surrounds thewestern half of Lake Ontario. This Region is the largest continuous urban area in Canada containing apopulation of approximately 4 million people. Urban issues facing the Golden Horseshoe Region include: homelessness, uncontrolled urban growth, traffic congestion, diminished natural and agricultural areas, as well asdeteriorating environmental conditions.
SURVEY DESCRIPTION: The survey was comprised of three broad categories of questions aimed at: 1 Exploring the participant perceptions about the ecosystem approach (definitions, theories, principles, tools,
methods) 2 Exploring actual participant experiences with the ecosystem approach (type and nature of programs
implemented)3 Exploring participant opinions of ecosystem approach (successes, failures, suggestions)
RESULTS:55 practitioners of the ecosystem approach were surveyed from March until July of 2002. The participants werecategorized into the following employment sectors: 19 were employed by the Federal or ProvincialGovernment; 20 were employed by the Municipal or Regional Government; and 16 were employed by anacademic institution, a non-governmental organization or a private firm. The following list of headingssummarizes some of the key results collected in the survey.
TOOLS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ECOSYSTEM APPROACH (TOP 5):1. Multi- or interdisciplinary teams 2. Stakeholder workshops 3. Development of ecosystem indicators4. Educational or awareness campaigns5. Mobilization of traditional / local knowledge
INFORMATION REQUIRED TO UNDERTAKE AN ECOSYSTEM APPROACH (TOP 5):1. surface water quality data 2. land use data3. data on biodiversity 4. ground water quality data 5. local knowledge about the situation
PROJECTS UNDERTAKEN IN THE GOLDEN HORSESHOE:Projects or programs participants have been involved with have been summarized into the following 4 broadcategories:
40% = projects aimed at improving or managing watersheds or waterbodies 20% = projects associated with improving the health of human populations or communities 20% = projects attempting to understand a specific ecosystem, in order to develop official plans for
achieving a desirable and sustainable future 20% = projects involving restoration and/or management projects directed at certain natural areas or
habitats
11
HAVE ECOSYSTEM APPROACH PROGRAMS BEEN SUCCESSFUL?53% = YES35% = SOMETIMES7% = NOT SURE5% = NO
FACTORS ENABLING THE SUCCESS OF ECOSYSTEM APPROACH PROGRAMS (Top 5):1. participation of diverse stakeholders2. incorporation of multiple perspectives (scientific, technical, lay)3. development of innovative interventions4. clear communication among stakeholders5. multi- and interdisciplinary nature of the approach
FACTORS UNDERMINING THE SUCCESS OF ECOSYSTEM APPROACH PROGRAMS (Top 4):1. Time limitations for project 2. Poor jurisdictional or institutional relationships3. Difficulty conceptualizing or modelling human dimensions of the situation4. Lack of support for the approach among all stakeholders
INSTITUTIONAL / JURISDICTIONAL SETTINGS AIDING IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ANECOSYSTEM APPROACH (Top 4):
1. When projects are defined by natural boundaries (such as a forest or watershed) rather than byartificial/political boundaries
2. When the various institutions and agencies involved work collaboratively with one another, includingall levels of government
3. When a project is led by a single agency (such as a community organization, an academic or researchgroup, or even an NGO) - - All levels of government and surrounding agencies support the singleagency in the lead.
4. When decision making is decentralized rather than centralized
WHAT FACTORS ARE NECESSARY TO IMPROVE FUTURE APPLICATIONS OF THEECOSYSTEM APPROACH?
C Stable funding required throughout project C Create shared vision to work towardsC Greater communication and information sharingC Increased support from government and institutionsC Improved facilitation and mediation skillsC Need continual commitment from all stakeholders (throughout the entire project)C Adapt project as necessary to attain vision
12
The Adaptive Ecosystem ApproachInstitutional and Jurisdictional Issues – Key Points
Elizabeth Finnis20 August 2002
I. The ecosystem approach general goal: the sustainable use of natural resources
To achieve this goal, we need to consider more than scientific knowledge alone:- “A reliance on only scientific knowledge will not suffice because there are sociocultural, ethical,
contextual, historical issues and concerns that shape the development and implementation of ecosystemplans” (McGinnis & Hastings 2000:510).
II. The Crombie Commission identified two primary obstacles to the ecosystem approach:1) the rigidity of institutions2) jurisdictional issues
One way to deal with these obstacles is through integrating processes. There are three aspects of this:A) Linking resources: creating multi-disciplinary teams that allow for consensus building with
regards to problems and interventions.B) Helping processes: the inclusion of neutral parties to act as mediators, along with the inclusion
of many stakeholders through public hearings/communication.C) Acting as a catalyst: one body or organization can work to provide stepping stones towards an
intervention for an identified problem. This can encourage others to become involved.
III. Mechanistic vs Adaptive Management
Table 1: Mechanistic vs Adaptive Management: Key Differences
Management StrategyMechanistic Adaptive
Environment Certain UncertainTasks Routine InnovativeManagement Processes
Planning Comprehensive IncrementalDecision Making Centralised DecentralisedAuthority Hierarchical CollegialLeadership style Command ParticipatoryCommunication Vertical, formal Integrated, formal/informalCoordination Control FacilitationMonitoring Conformance to plan FlexibleUse of formal rules High LowBasis of staffing Functions Objectives
Structures Hierarchical OrganicStaff values Low tolerance for High tolerance for
ambiguity ambiguitySource: Bunch 2001:54; after Rondinelli 1993
IV. Key aspects of successful adaptive ecosystem projects
1) Communication:C the importance of wider institutional support for an adaptive ecosystem approach
C accountability between agencies and other stakeholdersC different levels of governments and agencies working together to define problems and
solutionsC Australian forestry example (Stone, Old, Kile & Coops 2001)
2) Support for paradigm viability:C institutions may respond to crises rather than take preventative measuresC without powerholders/policy makers giving credibility to an adaptive approach, we may face:
a) institutional inertia and a maintenance of the status quo (Bunch 2001:51)b) scientific information classified as ‘good’ and ‘useful’ in a way that supports powerholders’ positionsin the decision-making process (McGinnis & Hastings 2000:512)c) a manadate for an adaptive ecosystem approach without the necessary strategy for planning,implementing and evaluating projects (Lee 1989:9)
13
3) A goal-oriented institutional settingC most institutions are goal-oriented, meaning that programs are developed with an expected outcome and
a given time limit. C an adaptive ecosystem approach deals with uncertainty. However, in institutions, there is no reward for
the failure of a program, even in the ecosystem approach is used correctly.C acceptance of this approach may therefore require the restructuring of institutions, in terms of mission
statements, timelines and project goals.
4) FundingC adaptive programs are never-ending; funding should reflect thisC adequate funding is necessary for planning, implementation and evaluationC key people who know institutional practices, believe in the model, and have the power to advocate its
use are crucial to achieving adequate funding
5) Columbia River Basin example (Lee 1989)C Multiple stakeholders from various federal, state, municipal governments; aboriginal communities;
power-generating companies; electricity users; recreational users of the waterways; industry; farmers;conservation authorities; environmentalists
V. Useful references
Bunch, Martin J. 2001. An Adaptive Ecosystem Approach to Rehabilitation and Management of the CooumRiver Environmental System in Chennai, India. Waterloo. Department of Geography, Faculty of EnvironmentalStudies, University of Waterloo.
Crombie, David. 1991 Regeneration: Toronto’s Waterfront and the Sustainable City: Final Report.
King, Leslie A. & Virginia L. Hood. 1999. Ecosystem Health and Sustainable Communities: North and South. Ecosystem Health 5(1):49-57.
Lee, Kai N. 1989. The Columbia River Basin: Experimenting with Sustainability. Environment 31(6):7-11; 30-33.
McGinnis, Michael V. & Sean P. Hastings. 2000. An Ecosystem Approach to Managing the Santa BarbaraChannel Islands. Fifth Annual California Islands Conference. Santa Barbara, CA. Sponsored by the MineralsManagement Service, US Department of the Interior. pp 510-517.
Rondinelli, D. A. 1993 Strategic and Results-based Management in CIDA: Reflections on the Process. Hull:Canadian International Development Agency.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 1999. Report of the Liaison Group on the EcosystemApproach. Electronic Document. http://www.biodiv.org/doc/meeting.asp?wg=LGESA-01
Stone, Christine, Ken Old, Glen Kile & Nicholas Coops. 2001. Forest Health Monitoring in Australia, Nationaland Regional Commitment and Operational Realities. Ecosystem Health 7(1):48-58.
Ullsten, Ola & David Rapport. 2001. On the Politics of the Environment: Ecosystem Health and the PoliticalProcess. Ecosystem Health 7(1):2-6.
14
Mobilizing Local Knowledge – Local Health TraditionsDr. T. Vasantha Kumaran
20 August 2002
Local Health Traditions: Definition
Local health traditions and customs related to health are specific to each locality and community. Diverseand informal health care systems are passed on from generation to generation by word of mouth. Thesetime-tested local health traditions are an integral part of community life and focus on prevention and curesfor humans and animals.
(Source: Hafeel et al., 2001: Participatory rapid assessment of local health traditions, COMPASMagazine, March: 17-19)
LOCAL TRADITIONS IN URBAN MILIEU1. Local traditions, rooted in rural milieus, get carried to urban areas by migrating people.2. People continue to use their local traditions, for a variety of reasons, in urban areas. The most important of
which being the lack of access to urban health care systems, because of time, money and affordability. 3. The people therefore follow traditions brought along with them and continue to benefit from them.
Revival of use of local health traditions in urban areas:C Dissatisfaction with the western system of medicine C Increasing costs of western medical / health careC Natural cure and adoption of traditional systems of medicine are on the increase. C Natural and herbal cures more attractive C It is lasting. C It provides permanent cure. C No side effects, even if dieting is a problem
LOCAL HEALTH TRADITIONS Living ExpressionsC Knowledge of specific plantsC Health related customs
MethodsC Pulse diagnosisC Examination of urineC Specific methods of treating poisoningC Varma Kalai - a diagnosis and treatment using
vital points in the body
Local health traditions are found throughout the countryC Depend on natural resources of the areaC Make use of a wide array of species:
C 8,000 plant speciesC 200 animal and mineral sources
There are 4,639 ethnic communities in IndiaIndian systems of medicinesC AyurevedaC SiddhaC Unani
Western medicine dominates the public health system
THREATS TO LOCAL HEALTH SYSTEMSC Demand for new medicines based on natural productsC Research and patenting of natural resources by pharmaceutical companiesC Bio-piracy
Western medical systemC Capital intensiveC Technology centredC Depends heavily on external resources
Local health traditionsC Treasure house for bio-prospectingC Discouraging attitudes of the general publicC Attitude at the political levelC Lack of self confidence among users and
practitioners alike
DOCUMENTATION PROCESSC Need for a movement for documentationC Incorporation of effective traditional health practicesC Knowledge of local resourcesC Local knowledge of traditionsC Effective practices through pharmacological and clinical validation
PARTICIPATORY RAPID ASSESSMENTCCCC Assessing home remedies for promotion in PHCC Recording knowledge, resources and socio-cultural aspectsC Different levels of knowledge and practice
15
Figure 1: A Participatory Rapid Appraisal session in progress
PRIORITISING HEALTH CONDITIONSC Listing of health conditions prevalent in communityC Establishing criteria to prioritise health conditionsC Developing matrix with criteria and health conditionsC Ranking or scoring conditions based on each criterionC Identify a small number of relevant health conditionsC Describe causes, symptoms, stages, local resources, affordability, effort
A DEMONSTRATION
“TELL ME A STORY OR GIVE US EPISODES OF EXPERIENCE”
Stories: Illustrate what can happenGuide to what to do
Example 1:
“This woman was waking suddenly at night with shortness of breath. I thought she had 'cardiac asthma', butit turned out to be reflux into her trachea from a hiatus hernia!"
Example 2:
“Ruby S. came in with lower abdominal pain. She was tender in the right iliac fossa, so I operated on her asacute appendicitis. When I opened the peritoneum there was a smear of turbid fluid, but the appendix wasnormal. I pulled out loop after loop of small bowel, much to the irritation of the registrar, and there, in theupper jejunum, was a toothpick sticking though the wall!”
Stories are about: Some predicamentA sequence of eventsPlots in which things are resolved oneway or another
Stories can be: Illness story (patient's)Disease story (clinician's, doctor's)
Stories lead to: What is importantStrategy and tacticsSpeak about outcomes
Stories provide: RelevanceContextCircumstantial detail
CASE MANAGEMENT
C Practical knowledgeC Logical deductionC JudgementC Decision making
16
Workshop Report and AnalysisThe following pages contain a summary of the workshop working sessions. The objective of the first sessionwas to identify environmental and health problems within the city. The second exercise, a force field analysis,helped to identify the restraining and driving forces of one objective of the workshop participants. To provideclarity and avoid repetition, when topics were similar, they have been aggregated.
Working Session 1: PROBLEM IDENTIFICATIONThe first exercise in the workshop consisted of a set of written responses to 8 questions provided in theworkshop package. Participants were first asked to identify what they thought was the most importantenvironment and health relationship in Chennai. The 8 questions then helped to clarify these relationships. Theexercise was completed on the morning of the first day of the workshop. It was assumed that workshopparticipants had some ideas about environment and health problems, and were working/living with the situation.However the workshop participants represented quite a range of experience and perspectives. One of theobjectives of this exercise was to address that variation before there had been much discussion to colour theresponses.
1. What is the single most important environment and health relationship in Chennai?; 1.What is theProblem?; and 7. Really now, what is the problem?In response to the above questions, workshop participants listed a wide variety of environmental aspects andassociated issues having to do with environment and health in Chennai. Four broad categories were discussed,addressing air issues, water issues, solid waste disposal and diseases that are linked with each of these generalissues. These four categories have been used to help aggregate participant responses, and minimize repetition. Additionally, the information below is not necessarily quoted verbatim. There is some repetition of factorsbetween these four categories. This reflects the close relationships between the various aspects of theenvironment.
Responses to the identification of important health and environment relationships, and question 1 are reportedhere together because the two are closely related. Question 7. helps contextualise the problem in widerrelationships. It is interesting to note that many of the “problems” identified refer to political, social ormanagement aspects of the problem. In all 41 problems were identified.
Air
C Urban pollutionC Smoke from garbage burning and cookingC Poor air qualityC Emissions from vehiclesC Emissions from unregulated industriesC Lack of enforcement of regulationsC The larger problem is that of city growth, which is
linked with a poor rural economy and infrastructureproblems
Water
C Inadequate water supply/water shortage (bothdrinking and domestic use water)
C Lack of drinking water supply to slumsC Clean drinking water very expensiveC Lack of proper drainageC Water loggingC Lack of water management (polluted and
contaminated)C Foul smelling waterC Stagnant water (mosquito breeding grounds)C Lack of civic pride in environmental cleanlinessC Urbanisation and more water contaminationC Wastes dumped into waterwaysC Domestic waste water mixing with drinking waterC Uncertain water quality (especially in slums)C Lack of coordination by government officials to
solve water problemsC The larger problem is one of water quantity,
quality, and technologyC Using wetlands for infrastructure development is
the real problemC It is the symptom of a bigger problem: indifference,
unresponsiveness. People’s callousness is the real
problem.C Pollution is linked with the problem of solid waste
management
Solid Waste Disposal
C Open defecation due to inadequate toilet facilitiesC Dumping of waste into waterwaysC LitteringC Inability of civic body to clean up waste/poor waste
management by public officialsC No conservation policyC The real problem is the mindset of the political
body and the publicC The real problem is illiteracy and a poor economic
backgroundC Lack of good governance is the real problem
Health Hazards (related to above issues)
C Respiratory diseases such as asthmaC Waterborne diseases, including typhoid, cholera,
diarrhea, dysentery – all linked with lack of potablewater
C Poor hygiene due to lack of water supplyC Lack of awareness about basic cleanlinessC Mosquito breeding grounds and malariaC Fly breeding grounds and gastrointestinal diseasesC In slums, these are all aggravated by the lack of
immediate medical care/health personnel.C Mosquito breeding grounds are a symptom of the
larger problem of water stagnation
17
3. Whose problem is it? Who owns it? Responses to this question identified actors who are involved in environmental and health problems in Chennai,as well as those who might help to develop/implement interventions. Although some participants stated thatenvironmental and health problems belong to “everybody” equally, in general, those responsible for theenvironment fell into four rough groups: Government and Governmental Agencies; Non-governmental Agencies(NGOs); Researchers/Academics and Citizens. In some cases, specific agencies were mentioned by name. These organizations have been identified in the lists below. Comments on these are indicated in [ ].
Government and Governmental AgenciesC Local and regional governmentsC Decision and policy makersC The mayor of the cityC The Corporation of Chennai/city administrationC Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage
Board (“Metro Water”)C Chennai Metropolitan Development AuthorityC Health DepartmentsC Tamil Nadu Public Works Department
i) they should take control of low-lying access toprevent well-water contamination
C The Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance BoardC Pollution Control Board
Researchers/AcademicsC Research Organizations
Non-Governmental AgenciesC NGOsC Community-Based OrganisationsC EXNORA (waste disposal has become the problem of
EXNORA because the city government is unable todeal with it)
C Voluntary agencies
CitizensC The public at largeC Everyone in societyC The poor especially are affected by problemsC Slum dwellers and mobile populations (ie the rural
poor) are also particularly affectedC A societal problem that the affluent and elite must ownC Children should be taught the importance of
cleanliness [lack of water for domestic use]
4. Where is it a problem? and 5. When is it a problem?These two questions asked when and where environmental problems exist in Chennai. The questions aregrouped together because the responses of some participants indicated that time and place are linked. Forexample, “widespread and persistent” responses were given several times. “When” sometimes referred to timesof the year or times of the day.
The responses to these two questions fall into several categories. Environmental health issues are considered tobe both widespread and localised. For the most part, they are identified as persistent and continual, although insome cases, responses indicated that certain periods exacerbated the problem. The following indicates some ofthe local areas, with clarification provided in ( ). Specific problems are then placed in a time frame. Somedirect quotes are included in ( ).
WHERE?:
Widespread:C The environmental health concerns discussed above
are widespread throughout Chennai. Oneparticipant indicated that the “city infrastructure isoverstrained and on the verge of a collapse.”
C However, some areas may be more affected,including:
Localised:C Slums (where congestion and poor sanitation can
result in epidemic/endemic infections)C At places where sewers overflow onto the roadsC At the urban fringes (lack of access to clean
drinking water)C Where ever mass housing exists, whether it be
slums, or wealthy areas (malaria)C Air pollution is worst on the anterior roadsC Garbage piling up is worst in slums
WHEN?:
Air Pollution:C All the timeC All daylight hoursC Mornings 7-11 amC Evenings 3-8 pmC 8:30 am to 7:30 pmC Peak travel hours 9-11 am and 4-6 pm
MalariaC All the time, especially at nightC Breeding areas are more numerous after rainsC From October to December, the problem is especially
high
Waterborne DiseasesC Always (“Every minute, hour, day, week, month,year”)C After the monsoon the problem is worse
Water Supply and DrainageC Always a problem (“24 hours”)C In some areas, there is no water supply at allC In some areas, water comes only in the early morning
or late at nightC Mixing of sewage and drinking water worse during the
rainy season
Garbage DisposalC Always a problem
Lack of awareness about basic cleanlinessC Continuous
18
6. How long has it been a problem?This question is related to question five, but takes a longitudinal viewpoint. For clarity, the four basic categoriesof water, air, solid waste disposal and human health are used. Generally, all four categories were indicated aslong-term problems that should be a priority for interventions. However, some workshop participants stated thatthese are not priorities, there is a lack of political will to solve them, or they are without solutions (see questions2b and 8 below).
It is interesting to note that air quality, water issues and human health were all stated to have become worse inthe last 10 to 40 years. One individual attributed air quality deterioration to population increases and a greaternumber of vehicles. Similarly, two participants linked increases in waterborne diseases to the populationincrease and inadequate planning for city growth.
AirC Long standingC For the past 20-25 years
Water IssuesC Drainage problems have existed since the
establishment of Chennai cityC Long standing water issues of all kindsC Water supply and disposal has been an acute issue
for the last two decades, critical now
Solid Waste DisposalC Many yearsC Privatising garbage disposal two years ago has
helped the situation in some areas
Human HealthC Gastrointestinal diseases are a long standing
problemC Waterborne diseases have been a problem for the
past 30-40 yearsC Waterborne diseases have been severe for the past
10 yearsC Mosquitoes/malaria have become an increasingly
severe problem in the last 15 years
2b. What would the problem look like if it were solved? and 8. What would happen if nobody didanything to solve the problem?These two questions asked respondents about their vision of the future. Direct quotes are used to demonstratethe variety of perspectives and possible solutions to the problems outlined above. For brevity, responses whichoverlapped are not repeated. Air quality; water quality; and solid waste disposal were linked by someparticipants with human health issues. Therefore, for the sake of clarity, the category of ‘human health’ isincorporated with the three general areas of environmental problems.
2b. What would the problem look like if it were solved?
Air quality
“If the problem of air pollution could be at last solved, to some extent it would result in cleaner air for theresidents.”
“If it is solved, this will give a clear sky, clean air for breathing in the city.”
“Good quality air and improvement in the quality of life.”
Water Quality, Access and Drainage
“When people are inflicted by health problems, there is an additional burden in the form of treatmentexpenditure. If the problem is solved and potable water is available to all people, the health of the peoplewould be saved or protected.”
“The city will be very neat and clean, healthy. People will be without many killer diseases like typhoid,jaundice.”
“Chennai will be free of mosquitoes. Malaria and other mosquito-related diseases can be eliminated."
“I feel it [waterborne diseases] can’t be solved completely, but can be helped.”
“Better aesthetics and better health.”
[It would] “require large coordination within government stakeholders, non-government, and public.”
Solid Waste Disposal
“Proper waste management would bring down diseases and make life more livable.”
19
“If the problem is solved, the general health of people will improve. Infant mortality will come down. Because of improved health, there will be an increase in the productivity and financial conditions of thepeople.”
“If the solid wastes are segregated as i) organic ii) inorganic/recyclable and iii) hazardous waste, it would helpin the use of organic fertilizers, reducing chemical fertilizers…by solving the problem, there will be a betterstandard of living, better health and hygiene.”
“A concerted strategy that works in a comprehensive fashion needs to be implemented. Awareness + promptaction (cleaning) + negative enforcement for offenders = overall health of the environment.”
8. What would happen if nobody did anything to solve the problem?
Air Quality
“The pollution will accelerate every year. Residents will be breathing polluted air. Quality of life willdeteriorate.”
“The city will get choked.”
“The bubble will burst with catastrophic consequences for human health.. Economic productivity will take aloss.”
Water Quality, Access and Drainage
“More indifference/callousness.”
“The city of Chennai will be identified at the international level as being a potential threat of killing people.”
“There would be social unrest and extreme mass out-migrations.”
“You’d pay higher prices. Maybe rationed water. Maybe Chennai won’t be livable.”
“It will result in total health failure of the people. Economic losses due to spending on medicine and doctors.”
“It will slowly affect the health of the people, which means it will cost the government and development.”
“The very survival of people in the city will be in peril.”
“Malarial deaths may occur more in Chennai. The economic situation may worsen.”
“The spread of epidemic diseases.”
Solid Waste Disposal
“Productivity of the people will come down because of poor health. Suffering and frustration will breed anti-social elements.”
“Total chaos and health hazards.”
“Chennai won’t be congenial to live and people will desert it so soon.”
“Things just go from bad to worse with nothing constructive being done about it.”
“Drop in the quality of living. No investors. No tourists. Weak citizens and future citizens who have totrudge along somehow.”
20
Working Session 2: DESCRIBING ENVIRONMENT AND HEALTH IN CHENNAI
The second working session involved the diagrammatic expression of environment and health in Chennai using a‘Rich Picture’ technique borrowed from Soft Systems Methodology. Workshop participants chose to expressenvironment and health situation of slum areas. Slums and slum dwellers arose as a primary theme in theworkshop. The figure below is a redrawing of the Rich Picture developed during the workshop.
Figure 2: A Rich Picture of the environment and health situation of slum and slum dwellers.
This‘Rich Picture’ expression of a problematic situation focused on environment and health in slums does notportray all possible actors, elements and relationships. Nor does it represent all possible perspectives (such asthat of slum dwellers themselves). However, it does begin to portray the degree of complication in the situationand highlights some import clusters of relationships. For example:
C Animal husbandry, including the role of cattle as hosts for the malaria parasite, pigs and the spread ofJapanese encephalitis, animal (including human) dung and the spread (via flies) of diseases such as cholera,hepatitis, and diarrhea. This is linked to the keeping of animals in the city (as a source of income). Animalsare allowed to graze in the streets and open areas, particularly along waterways where they contribute to thepollution of surface waters and the buildup of organic sludge. These waterways are breeding grounds for theAnopheles (malaria) and Culex (filariasis) mosquitos.
C Location of slums on objectionable land, such as riverside locations that are prone to flooding, and onroadsides where slum dwellers are exposed to higher levels of traffic-related pollution, dust, and traffichazards.
C Political processes such as the use of slums as vote banks by politicians in exchange for protection andpolitical favours. Also indicated is protest action by slum dwellers who block roads in response to water
21
scarcity and the responding provision of water supply (of questionable quality).
C Links to the urban economic system are portrayed in indications of unemployment/underemployment. Theseare linked (in the absence of adequate government support for slum dwellers) to urban poverty, malnutrition,alcoholism, wife beating and child labour. Roadside eateries (which are affordable to slum dwellers) areimplicated in gastroenteritis and food poisoning.
C Children emerge as a theme in the Rich Picture. From unemployment/underemployment and alcoholism ariseschild labour. Child labour acts as a barrier to participation of children in primary education. Primaryeducation centres improve nutrition through the noon meal scheme, but also act in the spread of contagiousdisease among children. Children (and others) engage in open air defecation because of lack of availability ofpublic latrines and continuation of traditional practices in slum areas, which increases the incidence of scabiesand contributes to the spread of cholera, hepatitis and diarrhea.
C Lack of urban and public amenities in slums are shown to affect health in the Rich Picture. For example, lackof public latrines promotes open air defecation and the spread of spread of cholera, hepatitis, diarrhea andscabies. Water supply is of questionable quality. Hospitals are not accessible to slum dwellers. Schools arenot located in slums.
Working Session 3: ENVIRONMENT AND HEALTH THEMES
Working session 3 involved the further exploration of key themes in environment and health in Chennai. Twoprimary themes were pursued by workshop participants, slums and waterways and both of these themes were castin light of institutional and organizational contexts. Institutional and jurisdictional issues were also a main themein the workshop. The first diagram below explores the relationship between institutions and organizations andslums/slum dwellers in the context of environment and health. For example, workshop participants indicatedthat slums act as vote banks for local politicians in exchange for relief benefits. Local politicians ‘strong arm’(via henchmen) the Corporation of Chennai to provide such civic amenities to their protected slums. Access toslum dwellers was seen to be controlled by slum leaders and “Slum Lords.”
Figure 3: A diagrammatic portrayal of relationships among institutions and organizations and slums and slumdwellers in the context of environment and health.
22
The following diagram portrays institutions and organizations involved in managing surface waters in Chennai. The theme of surface water quality and its relationship to human health was a primary one in the workshop. Previous work led by Dr. Martin Bunch, in which some of the current workshop participants were involved (theCooum River Environmental Management Research Program) produced a Rich Picture for the Cooum Riversituation in Chennai. As does Figure 3 with the theme of slums, this diagram represents an exploration oforganization and institutional relationships associated with surface waters (such as the Cooum River) in Chennai.
In Figure 4 waterways are portrayed as sites of organic sludge (associated with pathogenic parasites and enthericpathogens) and the breeding ground for flies and mosquitos (disease vectors). Organizations and agenciesdepicted with asterisks (*) are those seen by workshop participants to have some jurisdiction or power to changethe situation. The number of asterisks corresponds to participants perception of the potential for that agency tostimulate change.
Figure 4: Institutions and organizations involved in managing surface waters in Chennai. The context isenvironment and health relationships with surface water quality.
23
Working Session 4 – FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS
The fourth working session, on the afternoon of the second day, undertook “force field analysis” for a selectedaspect of the problem situation as described by workshop participants. The exercise is intended to identifybarriers (restraining forces) and bridges (driving forces) with regard to an objective that changes the currentsituation. In this exercise, participants chose to work on the problem of “Limited Public Participation” inmanagement of environmental and health problems. The objective was to “improve public participation.”
A force field analysis diagram generated in this working session is shown below. The length of the arrows foreach force represent their power: the longer the arrow, the more powerful the force. Force field analysisprovides a set of targets for intervention in the situation. In particular, addressing restraining forces will oftenturn them into driving forces.
In this analysis, participants identified political, financial and institutional support as restraining forces. Theseexternal forces were often identified as barriers towards achieving the desired goal. There is somecorrespondence here with “bureaucratic rigidity” and “jurisdictional fragmentation” which are the mostcommonly cited barriers to successful application of ecosystem approaches. In contrast, internal forces, or thosecentering around individuals, their experiences and perceptions, were more commonly identified as drivingforces (bridges) towards the desired goal. However, these (lack of interest, lack of integration betweeneducation and training, not understanding the benefits) also play important roles in the restraining forces list.
It is interesting to note that workshop participants identified more and stronger driving forces than restrainingforces. If a full arrow were to represent 4 force units then driving forces out-power restraining forces 22 to 17. This may mean that participants perceive the situation to be changing in favour of increased public participation,or that the situation is poised to change.
24
Workshop RecommendationsThe final session in the workshop, on the afternoon of August 20, involved a discussion of potential issues anddirections for the program of research, possible case studies and recommendations for government. Issues thatparticipants identified as important were:
Most strongly emphasised:C Slums as locations of most-vulnerable populations and objectionable conditionsC Surface water quality and water bourne disease, e.g., typhoid, cholera, diarrhea, dysentery C Public participation in management of environment and health problemsC Malaria Also indicated:C Air pollution and respiratory illnessC Lack of coordination and cooperation among government agencies/departments, poor governanceC Solid waste (rodent and fly breeding - G.E., etc.)C TuberculosisC FilariasisC A variety of other pathogenic parasites and entheric pathogens werealso mentioned.
Participants in the workshop had 3 main recommendations as follows.
1. Government agencies and departments must establish and operate mechanisms for meaningful citizenparticipation in environmental management projects and programs in Chennai.
The rationale for this recommendation emerged in discussion throughout the workshop – it is threefold. First,various stakeholders can provide different perspectives on a problem to develop a more complete picture of theissues and actors involved. Second, local knowledge exists alongside scientific knowledge about ecological andsocial systems and can improve environmental managers’ understanding of the situation. Third, meaningfulparticipation by stakeholders will transfer ownership of solutions and management plans to the stakeholders, andthis will promote cooperation with interventions made and improve the chances for success.
2. The ecosystem approach should guide sustainable development and environmental managementactivities in Chennai. Specifically, the Master Plan for Chennai should adopt an ecosystem approach.
The approach crosses many academic disciplines, requires collaboration among government agencies anddepartments, and ongoing meaningful participation of citizens and NGOs. This implies that it is challenging toundertake. However, it also offers the greatest potential for successful management of such intractable situationsin the long term.
3. The CMDA should establish a Centre for Environmental Planning which incorporates the newenvironmental wing in the CMDA, activities carried on from the Sustainable Chennai Project, and theGIS section.
Several times throughout the workshop participants expressed their view that the CMDA, with its mandate forcoordination of development activities in Chennai, was the appropriate agency to sponsor the kind of ecosystemapproach necessary to address the difficult environment-and-health problems with which Chennai is faced. Thecombination of a mandate for environmental management and sustainable development in the environmentalwing, the potential of SCP activities to foster collaboration among government agencies/departments andparticipation of NGOs and the public, and the necessary support for environmental modelling, mapping andspatial analysis that could be provided by the GIS section offers a unique opportunity to create an effective unitto apply an ecosystem approach to environmental management and environment-and-health problems in theChennai Metropolitan Area.
