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 organizations’ 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 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 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 state–citizens 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 state–citizens 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 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 state–citizens 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 state–citizens 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 = 湄公河區域

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