Top-down vs bottom-up: Part two

In last week’s post, I discussed the effectiveness of top-down mitigation initiatives. For part two of this post, I am moving onto bottom-up strategies.

Bottom-up schemes

Having become increasingly popular as the effects of climate change are understood and felt around the world, bottom-up initiatives are designed so that they can be implemented at the “lowest feasible level of organisation” (Rayner, 2010), whether it be local community, city, regional or national level.

Rayner (2010) states that bottom-up approaches opposes the philosophy of cross-governmental top-down strategies. International top-down strategies requiring universal agreement are forced to appease so many, from a range of backgrounds and with a range of different interests, and this results in a less effective response; in comparison, introducing action at a lower level allows for it to be tailored to the region itself. This means initiatives can be quickly implemented, contrasting top-down and multi-country collaborations that would take considerably longer to take effect.

The author suggests that bottom-up methods need not rely even on the efforts of an entire country, and that cities hold the potential for innovation and collaboration. The C40 Group, that was touched upon in an earlier post is named as a being one of the most successful.

Example: short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs)

One of the best opportunities for bottom-up mitigation lies with SLCPs, as discussed by Seddon and Ramanathan(2013). Included within this group are emissions of black carbon from soot, tropospheric ozone, methane and HFCs, and reducing SLCPs could lead to a 0.5^oC reduction by 2050, amongst other benefits: for example, a reduction in the 3.5 million deaths from indoor air pollution-sourced black carbon. The authors state that the technology is there for this to be achieved, but presently little is being done. Herein lies one of the potential issues with bottom-up initiatives: their success relies on adoption by the communities they effect. An example of this lies in cutting methane emissions from farms. One way this can be reduced is draining of the fields midseason. From an external viewpoint, this seems simple and straightforward, but in reality, persuading farmers is difficult due to additional risks to crops and complications pertaining to the timing of income (Seddon and Ramathan, 2013).

Is bottom-up the answer?

I think bottom-up has to be play an integral part of climate change mitigation. The top-down approach has not worked anywhere near as well as hoped so far, and in terms of the ability to inspire and outreach to the general public, bottom-up schemes seem more significant.

The ultimate answer, I would imagine, lies in a combination between top-down and bottom-up. Bottom-up has great potential but is not without its issues. For one, most initiatives are more adaptation-based than for mitigation. This is not surprising, given that these are generally smaller projects that are often introduced in direct response to a threat from climate change. Another flaw, highlighted by Rayner (2010), is the fact that bottom-up approaches are exactly what the name suggests – initiatives that occur right at the bottom of public decision making.

The SLCP example above presents the perfect opportunity for action at the top and bottom levels. Cutting down emissions from these particles can be induced at a local level, even if just as simply as decreasing use and demand. For the specific problem of rice fields, working alongside farmers to design a solution that reduces releases of methane whilst not causing significant disruption is important. To go alongside these, multi-national agreements can support and facilitate the same change, as is seen by discussions to ban HFCs (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37610850). In fact, without the support of top-down schemes, the effectiveness of bottom-up is most likely to be limited. Urwin and Jordan (2008) looked at the interplay between top-down and bottom-up, using the UK as an example. They found that few policies were currently in place to support climate change adaptation and mitigation directly, but found some that currently existed indirectly worked to undermine bottom-up efforts. An example of this was given by the authors in regards to a lake near Cambridge, where plans were in place to recreate a wetland habitat but was made much more complex due to three seemingly-unrelated pieces of legislation.