Nearly $370,000 has been awarded to Stanford researchers trying to improve conditions in some of the world’s poorest places.

The money comes from the Global Underdevelopment Action Fund, which was established four years ago by the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies to provide seed grants to faculty designing interdisciplinary research experiments.

“It’s money that we can deploy quickly and that we can use in a very flexible way,” says Stephen D. Krasner, deputy director of FSI and chair of the Action Fund awards committee. “We can target specific kinds of activity that we’re interested in — not just because we think the activities themselves are worthwhile, but because we think they can really contribute to the interdisciplinary community that we’re building at FSI.”

The 12 Action Fund grants range from projects with immediate social impact to those designed to build an academic foundation for future work. The seed grants provided by the fund often are the first steps toward a sustainable research project funded by other sources, as well. Krasner says the grants are also awarded in part to impact policy and help solve problems that benefit from a multifaceted approach.

One such project comes from Stephen P. Luby, a professor of medicine and new senior fellow at FSI and the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. His project aims to curb pollution from Bangladeshi brick kilns, which may seem like a strange topic for Luby, who studies infectious diseases. But by broadening the viewpoint, the issue is more complex than only replacing the kilns with more efficient models. Solving the problem requires an understanding of social pressures and government regulations as well.

“I’m interested in working with people who want to solve real problems,” Luby says, explaining what brought him to Stanford. “FSI collaboration can really convene the group.” The “intensely interdisciplinary” nature of the project made it perfect for FSI, he says.

“That kind of project can have a real impact on health,” says Krasner, who adds that interdisciplinary research is key. “It typifies the kind of work that we like to support with the Action Fund.”

Another project will study electricity in East Africa, headed by economics professor and FSI Senior Fellow Frank Wolak. Households powered by solar batteries are found throughout the region, but until recently it has been difficult to determine how the power is being used within the home. Wolak’s team will use iPad tools to track household appliance usage and investigate how households are making decisions about power consumption. The double-faceted approach will answer crucial questions related to the distribution and use of power in the developing area.

Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar, co-director of FSI’s Center on International Security and Cooperation (CISAC) and incoming director of FSI, was awarded an Action Fund grant to study refugee communities around the world. Cuéllar, a law professor, will focus on a renewed approach to refugee camps for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), at the U.N.’s request. In addition to Cuéllar’s background in law, the project will also employ students to help rethink camp logistics, architects focused on improving camp design and CISAC’s expertise in maintaining a collaboration with UNHCR.

In three previous rounds of funding since the Action Fund was established in 2010, $694,000 has been awarded to support 19 research projects.

Throughout the spring, past projects will be featured during Action Fund Fridays in Encina Hall. Topics will range from medical technology in India to poverty concerns in rural Africa. Events will be held at noon on March 22, April 26, May 10, May 24 and June 7. 

For more information, visit http://fsi.stanford.edu/events/series/2900 or contact Elena Cryst at 650.723.3369.

For several decades, Southeast Asia’s tracts of dense, old-growth rainforest have served as fertile ground for lumber, and much land has been converted to agriculture. Now, palm oil plantations are being planted where forests once stood.

In 2011, Indonesia, one of the region’s most prosperous countries, instituted a two-year moratorium on clearing new areas of forest, which is set to expire this May and has been criticized as having several loopholes. Other countries, including Cambodia and Myanmar, are losing forests rapidly.

Out of concern for climate change, international initiatives such as Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+) have aimed to promote conservation and sustainable development in countries with significant forest cover. But these efforts do not always support local needs, and can inadvertently have negative impacts.

Tim Forsyth, a Lee Kong Chian NUS-Stanford Distinguished Fellow, speaks about the gap between conservation efforts and economic and social development in Southeast Asia. He is visiting Stanford this quarter from the London School of Economics and Political Science where he is a reader in environment and development at the Department of International Development.

What major types of forest management do we see across Southeast Asia today?

A number of countries have put laws in place to restrict illegal logging, and have established national park areas. These are usually old-growth rainforests that restrict logging and agriculture. The problem with national parks is that they put so many restrictions on land use that the vulnerable populations living around them either suffer or are forced to cut other trees. I have spent some years working in poorer villages in Indonesia and Thailand on the edge of protected forests, and usually conservation policies avoid the fact that people need to get livelihoods somehow. Government policy should acknowledge how these people are vulnerable to changes in crop prices and the availability of land, or else these people might be forced into breaking the rules of national parks.

There is also production forest, which usually includes forest plantations. These can include softwoods such as pine, or hardwoods such as teak — and increasingly oil palm for food and biofuels. Forest plantations are attractive to governments and businesses because they earn money and can provide timber for construction and exports. Sometimes, plantations also gain carbon credits, although this is not a lot of money so far. In terms of conservation, destroying old-growth forest and replacing it with a monoculture plantation is not good for biodiversity. It also does not benefit those local people who want to harvest forest products or use part of the land for agriculture.

Finally, there are community forests that are supposed to be places where people can grow food, live, and have forest cover. The definition of “community forest,” however, varies from place to place. In Thailand, for example, the way the government defines it is not very different from a conservation area, and consequently there is not much space for agriculture. The Philippines, on the other hand, is more decentralized and local people can shape the nature of the forest landscape more. Corruption, however, is a problem.

Is there an ideal model that successfully supports sustainable development? How does your research approach this issue?

There has been much progress in collaborations that involve willing governments, international advisors, and local actors — often in accordance with an international agreement such as the Convention on Biological Diversity. These collaborations are more useful than a single actor working alone, and they acknowledge a wider range of objectives.

A new initiative is Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+). This is meant to encourage governments to slow down deforestation by rewarding them financially through carbon credits. But REDD+ has a number of challenges. The main problem is that the value of the credits is so low at the moment. REDD+ also overemphasizes forest cover, rather than forest quality. This means that if a satellite image of a country shows a lot of forest cover, that is good according to REDD+. But this gives no indication as to the biodiversity or the diversity of livelihoods inside a forest. It is a green light to all of the people who want fast-growing tree plantations, which makes them money and supplies them with wood for construction. In addition, it keeps a government happy because it supplies their country with timber and tax revenue, but this is not necessarily what you would call sustainable development.

There are elements of good models in different places, and it really depends on one’s viewpoint. Nepal offers a good example of community forestry because, in principle, it aims to engage local people more effectively and equally, and so can combine local development with the protection of national forests. From a development perspective, some forms of conservation can hurt poorer people and actually undermine conservation efforts. Therefore, in my work, I try to promote policy that acknowledges the needs of the more vulnerable populations. My research tries to make climate change policy more relevant to development processes in Southeast Asia. In my current project, I am seeing how policy recommendations about forests can be reshaped and reinterpreted locally in developing countries in order to address local interests. My goal is to understand how expert knowledge about climate change can be governed more effectively in order to enhance both development and conservation in Asia with better outcomes for everybody.

Image

The practical problem of dealing with forest destruction and climate change in Southeast Asia is also a function of social and economic trends. As countries become more prosperous, more and more people live in megacities, drive cars, live in air-conditioned apartments, and frequent shopping malls.

A couple of years ago in Bangkok, I took lots of photographs of t-shirts printed with global warming messages and of people carrying reusable bags. When I was there recently, all of these things had disappeared. In other words, there is a tendency for people to think of conservation efforts as a fashion trend.

I do not think that any city in Asia is doing enough. We have to start planning cities in ways that use fewer greenhouse gases, and also to encourage people to realize that they can be real agents of change. At the moment, many urban citizens believe they can implement climate change policy by managing rural and forested landscapes. Instead, they need to realize the problems of these approaches, and to see what they can do themselves.