8 research outputs found
Gender in development discourses of civil society organizations and Mekong hydropower dams
'Gender in development' discourses are used to justify interventions into, or opposition to, projects
and policies; they may also influence perceptions, practices, or key decisions. Four discursive threads are globally
prominent: livelihoods and poverty; natural resources and the environment; rights-based; and managerial. Civil
society organisations (CSOs) have been vocal in raising awareness about the adverse impacts of large-scale
hydropower developments on the environment, on local livelihoods, and on vulnerable groups including women.
This discourse analysis first examines how CSOs engaging in hydropower processes in the Mekong Region frame
and use gender in development discourses, and then evaluates the potential of these discourses to empower both
women and men. Documents authored by CSOs are examined in detail for how gender is represented, as are
media reports on CSO activities, interview transcripts, and images. The findings underline how CSOs depend on
discursive legitimacy for influence. Their discursive strategies depend on three factors: the organizationsā goals
with respect to development, gender, and the environment; whether the situation is pre- or post-construction;
and, on their relationships with the state, project developers and dam-affected communities. The implications of
these strategies for empowerment are often not straightforward; inadvertent and indirect effects, positive and
negative, are common. The findings of this study are of practical value to CSOs wishing to be more reflexive in
their work and more responsive to how it is talked about, as it shows the ways that language and images may
enhance or inadvertently work against efforts to empower women
River Commoning and the State: A CrossāCountry Analysis of River Defense Collectives
Grassroots initiatives that aim to defend, protect, or restore rivers and riverine environments have proliferated around the world in the last three decades. Some of the most emblematic initiatives are anti-dam and anti-mining movements that have been framed, by and large, as civil society versus the state movements. In this article, we aim to bring nuance to such framings by analyzing broader and diverse river-commoning initiatives and the stateācitizens relations that underlie them. To study these relations we build on notions of communality, grassroots scalar politics, rooted water collectives, and water justice movements, which we use to analyze several collective practices, initiatives, and movements that aim to protect rivers in Thailand, Spain, Ecuador, and Mozambique. The analysis of these cases shows the myriad ways in which river collectives engage with different manifestations of the state at multiple scales. As we show, while some collectives strategically remain unnoticed, others actively seek and create diverse spaces of engagement with like-minded citizen initiatives, supportive non-governmental organizations, and state actors. Through these relations, alliances are made and political space is sought to advance river commoning initiatives. This leads to a variety of context-specific multi-scalar stateācitizens relations and river commoning processes in water governance arenas
River commoning and the state: A cross-country analysis of river defense collectives
Grassroots initiatives that aim to defend, protect, or restore rivers and riverine environments have proliferated around the world in the last three decades. Some of the most emblematic initiatives are antiādam and antiāmining movements that have been framed, by and large, as civil society versus the state movements. In this article, we aim to bring nuance to such framings by analyzing broader and diverse riverācommoning initiatives and the stateācitizens relations that underlie them. To study these relations we build on notions of communality, grassroots scalar politics, rooted water collectives, and water justice movements, which we use to analyze several collective practices, initiatives, and movements that aim to protect rivers in Thailand, Spain, Ecuador, and Mozambique. The analysis of these cases shows the myriad ways in which river collectives engage with different manifestations of the state at multiple scales. As we show, while some collectives strategically remain unnoticed, others actively seek and create diverse spaces of engagement with likeāminded citizen initiatives, supportive nonāgovernmental organizations, and state actors. Through these relations, alliances are made and political space is sought to advance river commoning initiatives. This leads to a variety of contextāspecific multiāscalar stateācitizens relations and river commoning processes in water governance arenas
Characteristics and dynamics of backyard poultry raising systems in five Asian countries in relation to the reduction and management of avian influenza risk (Thailand) : final report
Backyard poultry are especially important for food security, biodiversity, tradition and lifestyle conservation of Thai people. It is estimated that there are 90-120 million backyard chickens in Thailand, with 3-5 hens per household, freely roaming in the household area. The project investigates current knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) of the farmers and ways to improve prevention and control of Avian influenza (AI) infection in humans. Campaigning AI through schools is found to be an efficient way to communicate information, as activities easily draw attention from parents. Strengthening AI networking based on school activities to revise KAP on AI should be performed regularly
Five Asian countries in relation to the reduction and management of avian influenzarisk : a case study of Thailand
Narrator: Songpon Intasia
The Mekong region = ę¹å ¬ę²³åå
Moderator : Carl MIDDLETON (Chulalongkorn University. Thailand)
Speakers : Walden BELLO (Focus on the Global South, Thailand) Naruemon THABCHUMPON (Chulalongkorn University, Thailand) Kanokwan MANOROM (Ubon Ratchathani University, Thailand) Nwet Kay Khine (Paung Ku, Myanmar) Supawadee PETRAT (Thai Volunteer Service Foundation, Thailand)
Discussant : Pianporn DEETES (International Rivers, Thailand