SMUS Session at the Global Centres Conference “Imaginaries of Climate Futures” – Berlin, 10-12 Sept 2024

­­­Traversing Boundaries: Reflections on Imagining Climate Futures

Prof. Jakkrit Sangkhamanee, Chulalongkron University, Thailand

As an environmental anthropologist from Thailand and academic partner of GCSMUS, I had the privilege of attending the Global Conference on “Imaginaries of Climate Futures – Cross Regional Insights to get from Knowledge to Action” in September 2024, hosted by DAAD. Alongside colleagues from Indonesia, Malaysia, Germany, and India, we facilitated a workshop titled “Reifying Resilience: Translocal Learning from Coastal and Delta Cities of South and Southeast Asia.”

The conference buzzed with the energy of diverse professionals actively combating climate change, each bringing unique perspectives from their respective fields. The main roundtable and parallel sessions offered a kaleidoscope of climate challenges faced by various communities worldwide. Experts from multiple disciplines shared their cutting-edge approaches and reflected on the intricacies of multi-stakeholder collaborations in addressing these global issues.

As an anthropologist and transdisciplinary advocate, I found myself captivated by the myriad methodological approaches to climate change mitigation. However, I couldn’t help but notice a predominance of technical perspectives, with hydrologists, environmental engineers, scientists, and economists taking center stage. The humanities and social sciences, in contrast, were underrepresented. Given the conference’s theme of “Imaginaries of Climate Futures,” the absence of artists, philosophers, and creative minds felt particularly poignant, leaving a void in the dialogues we sought to nurture.

Our workshop aimed to address this imbalance by fostering a more inclusive discourse. We convened individuals from diverse research backgrounds, geographical regions, and ecological specialties to share their insights and experiences. Rather than dwelling on the uniqueness of each perspective, we encouraged participants to explore various “trans-” concepts: translocality, transecology, transmodality, transdisciplinarity, and transformation.

This approach yielded fascinating exchanges: a health chemist recounted lessons learned from local communities in Nigeria; an Indian hydrologist reflected on co-benefits and gender sensitivity in Thai projects; an environmental economist expressed curiosity about local decision-making in resource management; and one participant candidly acknowledged the limited communication beyond their epistemic community.

We framed these revelations not as shortcomings but as opportunities for growth. Participants were prompted to consider what additional knowledge might enhance their research. Many recognized that co-producing knowledge with diverse collaborators could foster deeper reflection and understanding of their pursuits. The “trans-” aspects of research emerged not as obstacles, but as gateways to new possibilities.

This workshop served as a compelling illustration of how research positionality can be productively challenged. While many arrived with firm convictions about their methodologies, our discussions revealed the inherently collaborative nature of knowledge construction. Through a process of unlearning and relearning, participants came to understand climate change mitigation as an endeavor requiring the interweaving of diverse knowledge systems, peoples, places, and objectives.

Our final exercise invited participants to envision “unusual” future collaborations. The resulting ideas were truly inspiring, incorporating more-than-human actors, alternative research settings beyond academia, critical examinations of established models, and innovative modes of presenting findings.

To truly imagine climate futures, we must transcend disciplinary boundaries and recognize our positionality amidst a spectrum of alternatives and possibilities. Addressing climate change is not merely a matter of facts but equally one of concern and care. Climate knowledge craves more imaginative approaches, and it is through “trans-” activities that we can hope to achieve this expansive vision.

Translocal Learnings against Trans-ecological Repercussions of the Anthropocene

Prof. Jenia Mukherjee, IIT Kharagpur, India

We are encountering the planetary crises, yet global ‘solutions’ are infested with challenges associated with transnational corporate funding and power-laden political choices. Within this critical juncture and conspicuous dichotomy, can the focus on trans-ecological and translocal settings, and their intersections offer some unusual ways and directions to critically re/think urban ‘wicked problems’?

Our table consisted of an atypical combination with (inter)disciplinary researchers focussing on hydrological modelling and simulations in the Indian Ocean, economists involved in cost-benefit analysis for biological controls in South Africa and Germany, land-use specialists studying politics of subsidies in the rangeland of Jordan, architects investigating coastal vulnerabilities in the cities of North Java, and restoration ecologists from Sahel.

While the researchers working on multi-sited projects explained that though local successes and failures of implementation designs are site-specific, yet, there are key lessons to be learnt and replicated across contexts so far as the project processes are concerned, confirming translocal exchange as an important learning opportunity in addressing boundary-crossing characteristics of environmental change. Furthermore, the restoration ecologist asserted the need to learn from cross-local contexts within (dis)similar geographies and political economies of the global South rather than linear transplantation of knowledge from the global North to the global South. The water resource management researcher shared his experience of how findings on small water bodies (ponds and tanks) from North Germany and Chennai (India) contagioned each other, enabling better management and water governance frameworks.

Discussions poured in – examples, experiences, and exposures from situated contexts validated the unconventionality of translocal towards deeper understanding of concepts such as ‘coastal’, ‘urban’, and ‘resilience’ – differently understood by different people, beyond universalized global ontologies imposed from above. There was an (un)abrupt end to this unusual conversation with the restoration ecologist from Sahel passionately appealing (transdisciplinary) social scientists to convey storylines of communities that he encounters; he wants the stories to be told and shared, but does not have the language to communicate the social.

The utopia of setting up the TLCUC* was liberating. This unusual community may not see each other again, but the collective envisioning of TLCUC* is the forged connection that we will warmly cherish in our hearts for ever!

* TLCUC = translocal center of unusual collaborations

A personal note on how I imagine water research at our future TLCUC*: (Un)learning Water at TLCUC

“The way of water has no beginning and no end, …water connects all things, life to death, darkness to light.”

(Avatar: The Way of Water)

Water creates, nurtures, harnesses, binds, assembles, destroys, disrupts, permeates, transforms! What is, and who is water? How do we get to know, and from whom? Who should ensure epistemological sanctity around water and what could be the methodology to arrive at that?

‘Exact’ sciences – the outcome of Renaissance modernity have failed. Modernity had led to the birthing of knowledge paradigms – tried and tested in laboratories, evolved along ‘scientific’ principles and scriptures. Hydrology, oceanography, limnology had emerged as sophisticated technical sciences to understand water and her complex existence and entanglements with other entities – human and non-human, terrestrial and aquatic.

So, who has the agency to define water?

Antoine Lavouisier, who concluded that water was a compound of oxygen and inflammable air, or hydrogen (i.e., water is H₂O) or Robert Horton, the father of modern American hydrology and the proponent of hydrologic cycle or Arthur Cotton, the British engineer who converted River Godavari into monetary units and attested her as “liquid gold”?

Unfortunately, these anthropocentric efforts to conceptualize water have curtailed her unbound identity into boxed bifurcations – ponds, rivers, creeks, lakes, swamps, marshes, seas, and oceans to accomplish human-centric needs. The oneness has been robbed and dissected, fuelled by human requirements, desires, imaginaries, and aspirations. Technologies have been invented and transplanted across diverse water/ecosystems to legitimize, ensure, and optimize upon human-induced categorizations. And then, there are (un)predictable reactions and responses from water, asserting her identity as a whole – upsetting manipulative logics and logistics tactfully designed to accomplish profit-seeking pursuits of few (yet the most ‘powerful’) Anthropos of our ‘modern’ times.

The TLCUC envisions eco/water futures by taking the first step of apologizing against this scientific arrogance spread by few humans, generating metabolic rift in our (everyone’s) relationship with and attachment to water and vice versa. Here, we/humans get the chance to clean our mistakes through material, relational, and subjective immersion, paying heed to more-than-conventional vocabularies, gestures, and ways of being surrounding water.

Terrestrial boundaries across megaliths of modern knowledge systems at the Centre will be blurred and dismantled through the force and agency of water shaping and getting shaped by every other entity – human and non-human, material and relational, planetary and cosmic. Embodiments, many forms of experiences and exposures will gain weightage as methods over laboratory tested experiments conducted by few, having access over costly technologies and equipment.

In the TLCUC, this disAnthropocentric approach through ‘immersing in’ and ‘becoming with’ water, along with millions of species silently, spontaneously, and inherently pursuing the same, will steer conscious embeddedness towards collective stewardship build upon pluriversal possibilities that exist with or without anthropocentric affiliation and adherence.

Planning the Unplanning – Pathways to Unanticipated Climate Futures

Prof. Wiwandari Handayani, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Diponegoro University, Indonesia

It has been a great opportunity for me to attend the DAAD Global Centres Conference 2024, not only to update on knowledge and research on climate change and expand networks, but also -and most importantly- to manage a session with my SMUS colleagues from different countries with various knowledge backgrounds (anthropology, architecture, geography, history, urban/regional planning) and highlighting cases from Global South countries. This was a very insightful platform for “trans-knowledge” exchange through our session about trans-local learning in promoting urban resilience, focusing on the delta, which is prone to various climate change impacts.

In the era where 60 percent of the world population is categorized as “urban”, and most of them live in megacities located in the coastal areas impacted by climate change, indeed, discourse on the combo (climate+urban) resilience is extremely important. One thing that is clear to me is that we need to address the issue with an “out- of-the-box” or even a “no-box” way of thinking.  Why? Simply (or not simply) because the “in-the-box” (i.e., business as usual) approach has not, yet, led to concrete outcomes in reducing climate risk in many vulnerable regions worldwide.

The conference discussions pushed me to contemplate a unique idea (or maybe unusual thought). In our session, we asked participants to address questions such as “what/who should (not) be included to promote resilience?” and “what needs to be unlearned?” With my planning background by education and experience, this led me to an unusual thought: what if my department, then, transforms into the Department of Urban and Regional (Un)Planning, instead of Planning? This was a good exercise (at least for me) to start thinking “out-of-the-box.”

Last but not least, what I consider the most interesting learning process is how as part of a global network, we in the future, have to emphasize more on trans-local and trans-disciplinary approaches. I believe that science needs to be concretely connected to the reality on the ground. Every “local” is different and it is important to have a shared learning environment with the involvement of all different stakeholders, including taking into account the non-human aspects along the process.

I declare myself an expert on urban and regional planning concerning climate resilience.  I have been exploring the most possible approach in dealing with high uncertainty to predict futures because of climate and environmental change in the setting that urban and urban planning are indeed wicked problems. As of now, I have started questioning myself,  what if we unplanned instead of planning the future?

Bridging Theory and Practice: Reifying Resilience through Transdisciplinary and Translocal Approaches

Dr. Khairul Hisyam Kamarudin, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

I still vividly remember one of my students in the Disaster Education for Social Resilience class asking me how resilience could be defined to guide a better and broader understanding. From my perspective, the topic and discourse on community resilience to natural hazards and disasters involve many abstract ideas and are relatively new in my country, Malaysia. Moreover, there has been a lack of locally-based research and case studies focused on defining resilience within a local context and its application. Due to the complexity and dynamic nature of resilience itself, even researchers cannot agree on a definitive definition, which only adds to its complexity (or, to some extent, confusion). Indeed, resilience is an intriguing concept—one that, in my view, resists a single, clear definition. It fascinates me to explore how individuals or communities react during disasters and tough times, and why some crumble and retreat into bitterness and victimhood, while others endure immense suffering yet remain largely optimistic and resilient—questions that still require further cross-learning.

And here I am in Berlin, as part of the SMUS team organizing a workshop during the 2024 DAAD Global Centres Conference entitled “Reifying Resilience: Translocal Learnings from Coastal/Delta Cities of South and South-East Asia”, with team members from Germany, India, Thailand, and Indonesia. The engagement with the participants has been both lovely and informative, with shared experiences from various continents, including Africa, South America, Southeast Asia, Europe, and MENA. After the focus group discussions (FGDs), my involvement in the workshop made me realize that reifying resilience refers to the process of making the concept of resilience more concrete, practical, and tangible in real-world contexts. Based on the knowledge and experiences shared by participants, reifying involves taking the abstract idea of resilience—typically understood as the capacity of communities, systems, or individuals to withstand, adapt to, and recover from shocks and stresses—and turning it into actionable strategies, policies, or practices.

While listening and taking notes on participants’ comments and inputs, it became clearer to me that resilience actions are happening everywhere in the world, each at its own level of action and achievement. Therefore, I would argue that resilience is ordinary, not extraordinary. Resilience is not a special gift from an unknown source, nor is it magic. Anyone with the ability to think and take action, as demonstrated by the stories from the workshop participants, can become resilient, including local stakeholders in various regions. Secondly, reifying resilience can occur by working hand in hand with a transdisciplinary approach (TDA) to foster a better understanding of the resilience concept and to translate the role and application of science and technology and local traditional knowledge into real-world disaster risk reduction (DRR). Thus, transdisciplinary collaboration, stakeholder partnerships, and aligning research with policy are crucial to addressing the complexity of modern DRR efforts.

Feedback from participants also highlighted that, despite the growing attention to science and technology in DRR across various case studies, knowledge remains fragmented and disjointed, with gaps between research, practice, and policy due to limited collaboration between researchers and non-academics. This undermines the potential utilization of TDA. As one participant noted in the context of hydrological research in Africa, TDA is not widely practiced due to the traditional focus on basic hydrological engineering, where scientists often do not feel responsible for collaborating with communities. Another participant mentioned the challenge for TDA in Thailand, where stakeholders often prioritize different aspects of disasters (e.g., scientists focus on hazard data, while local politicians and leaders prioritize political and economic factors), complicating coordination. Limited knowledge, skills, resources, and a lack of institutional commitment and leadership further hinder the implementation of TDA.

Thirdly, in the context of urban and coastal city climate change resilience, “reifying resilience” means moving beyond theoretical discussions to implement practical measures that build and strengthen resilience in specific communities or regions. This might involve learning from various local case studies or translocal learnings, including both their successes and shortcomings in developing resilient infrastructure, fostering social cohesion, improving governance, and integrating local knowledge into broader resilience-building frameworks. As summarized from the workshop, translocal learnings emphasize that the first and most crucial step for the success of locally-led DRR projects is determining the community’s needs and readiness. Understanding and acknowledging these needs and readiness are essential to sustaining long-term support, ensuring commitment, and fostering a strong sense of ownership and belonging within the community. On the other hand, failure to incorporate people’s input may severely impact the projects, including the withdrawal of support and, in the worst case, active resistance. Translocal learnings are rooted in effective knowledge communication and dissemination. Therefore, addressing language barriers and improving communication between and within stakeholders should be prioritized in the early stages of engagement.

In essence, I believe the workshop session has significantly contributed to a better understanding of translocal learnings by expanding the understanding of resilience in urban and coastal cities in several key ways: (1) By addressing region-specific challenges like flooding, sea-level rise, and climate impacts, the research tailors resilience strategies to the unique conditions of these vulnerable areas; (2) Sharing knowledge and best practices across cities and regions fosters collaboration and cross-regional learning, enhancing cities’ and communities’ ability to adapt and mitigate risks for greater urban sustainability; (3) Community involvement and the inclusion of diverse stakeholders are prerequisites for effective projects; and (4) By turning local knowledge into actionable policies, the research bridges the gap between research and implementation, which is crucial for achieving urban resilience agenda.

Trans-ecological resilience: Transboundary ecosystems as the key to local adaptation strategies

Dr. Johannes Herbeck, Bremen University, Germany

As part of the DAAD Global Centres Conference and co-facilitator of a short workshop on resilience in coastal cities, I gathered many impressions, had conversations and discussions and gained insights into the exciting work of SMUS – for which I am very grateful. During the workshop in particular, we brought together a variety of different voices, backgrounds and perspectives to discuss about the importance of looking at transboundary ecosystems for the development of local resilience strategies – especially in a world increasingly characterised by global environmental crises. While global ‘solutions’ are often influenced by transnational corporations and political power structures, the focus on trans-ecological and translocal approaches offers new perspectives for dealing with complex urban challenges. During the workshop, these aspects were discussed in several rounds. The key points for me were

Translocal learning for ecological resilience

The exchange of experiences and insights between different localities makes it possible to learn from successes and failures and to adapt best practices. This is particularly relevant for projects dealing with transboundary environmental change. The discussions during the workshop showed that, for example, findings on small water bodies from northern Germany and Chennai (India) can lead to improved management approaches in both regions.

Instead of transferring knowledge linearly from the global North to the South, the need to learn from similar and different contexts within the global South – this has been emphasised several times during the workshop. This approach takes into account the specific geographical and political-economic conditions and promotes more customised solutions.

Reconceptualising ‘coastal’, ‘urban’ and ‘resilience’

Translocal perspectives enable a deeper understanding of concepts such as ‘coast’, ‘urban’ and ‘resilience’, which are interpreted differently depending on the context. This approach overcomes universalised global ontologies and takes local conditions and perceptions into account. The complexity of cross-border ecosystems requires an interdisciplinary approach. The co-operation of experts from fields such as hydrology, economics, land use and ecology enables holistic approaches to solutions. Social science perspectives are also central here, e.g. to record and communicate the stories and experiences of local communities, and for understanding epistemic and socio-economic injustices.

Water as a connecting element

A key discussion point during the workshop was the central role of water: in water-based ecosystems, some of the particularities, fractures and opportunities of trans-ecological contexts are particularly evident. Looking at the diversity of water ecosystems from a social science perspective opens up new dimensions for understanding and developing local resilience strategies in transboundary contexts. Water, in its various forms and ecosystems, is not only a natural resource, but also a social and cultural good that is deeply rooted in the structures and practices of human societies. When looking at freshwater ecosystems such as rivers, lakes and wetlands, it becomes clear how closely they are interwoven with local identities, economies and social structures. Rivers, for example, often serve as natural boundaries, but are also unifying elements between cultures and communities. The way in which societies interact with these bodies of water reflects their values, traditions and power relations. In transboundary contexts, these interactions become even more complex as different national interests, legal frameworks and cultural practices clash. Saltwater ecosystems, especially coastal areas and oceans, pose their own social challenges. Rising sea levels and coastal erosion threaten not only physical infrastructures, but also the social fabric and cultural practices of coastal communities. Ocean acidification and its impact on marine ecosystems have direct consequences for communities dependent on fisheries and require a renegotiation of traditional lifestyles and economic practices. Of particular interest from a social science perspective are brackish waters and transitional areas such as estuaries and coastal lagoons. These zones of transition often also reflect social and cultural transitions, where different lifestyles and economies clash and intermingle. Adaptation strategies for these dynamic ecosystems must therefore consider not only ecological, but also social and cultural aspects. The inclusion of traditional and local knowledge has been described as central for those processes.

Conclusion

Analysing transboundary ecosystems opens up new possibilities for the development of local resilience strategies. Through translocal learning, South-South cooperation and interdisciplinary collaboration, customised solutions to complex environmental challenges can be found. During the (too) short workshop, these approaches helped us to think beyond conventional boundaries and focus on our interconnectedness.

Technological innovations often offer new opportunities for a better understanding and management of water ecosystems, and it is important to ensure equitable access to these technologies. Education and awareness-raising play a key role in promoting a holistic understanding of the diversity and importance of different water ecosystems. This is not just about communicating facts, but also about promoting an awareness of the social, cultural and ethical dimensions of our relationship with water. By looking at the diversity of water ecosystems in transboundary contexts from a social science perspective, we can develop resilience strategies that are not only ecologically sustainable, but also socially just and culturally appropriate. This holistic approach recognises the complexity and interdependence of our water resources while taking into account the multiple human dimensions that are inextricably linked to these ecosystems.