Envelope #8: Open one week prior to the conclusion of your Fellowship

Prompt: How does the local approach to addressing this social issue differ from the approach used in your home country? What, if any, distinct advantages or disadvantages do you see to either approach?

This fellowship has offered me insight into environmentalism and conservation, an area that I previously was not very knowledgeable in. Thus, in answering this question, I will be largely relying on what I have learned during this time, both at CURA and during the preparation for the fellowship, in particular my conversation with Dr. Glenn from the Houston Advanced Research Center (HARC). I would also like to start by noting the similarities I’ve observed between the two. I admire the emphasis both organizations place on involving the local residents and making them stakeholders in the projects implemented. For HARC, it was developing the Watershed Protection Plan (WPP) with Double Bayou residents towards improving the water quality of the West and East Trinity Bays. For CURA, it was working with the residents of Anlong village to implement organic farming and eco-infrastructure. In order to do so, both simply started by trying to get to know the community and understand and accommodate its needs. Thus, CURA ensured that the farmers would benefit economically from switching to organic farming by helping them connect to city customers via a CSA mechanism rather than simply forcing an environmental agenda on the residents. Ultimately, this switch helps improve the quality of the water that serves as a source of drinking water for Sichuan province residents by reducing the chemical run-off. Of course, Anlong is just one of many villages, and serves as an example in the hopes of encouraging other villages to follow suit. Both organizations certainly faced some pushback from the local residents initially, but with time the connection between the organization and its corresponding community thrived.

With regards to differences, I would say there is one notable difference that stood out to me. HARC has a closer affiliation with the government than CURA does. When speaking with Dr. Glenn, she told me the WPP project had been initiated at the EPA’s request and funding. On the other hand, CURA receives most of its funding from grants not affiliated with the government. The health survey project was funded by a National Geographic grant. Of course, I am not fully versed in CURA’s history, so this is solely my observation. Nevertheless, I learned from Dong that about half of the 160 or so dry-compost toilets he helped install with the Anlong residents were demolished by the government as part of an initiative to move the residents into more ‘compact’ communities to free up much-needed arable land. This seemed to reflect that there wasn’t as strong a collaborative effort between the government and CURA, though this probably applies to other NGOs in China as well.

Overall, these approaches seemed fairly similar in what mattered the most--maintaining a community focus, certainly advantageous in any setting or project.