From the Wilson Center:
India’s Threat from Within
Same Insurgency, Different Motivations
P.V. Ramana, a research fellow at the New Delhi-based Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses, discussed the motivations that draw people to the insurgency. Some people are aggrieved by the resource exploitations they witness in their villages. Others join the Maoist cause because of the “high-handedness” of Indian security forces. Still others do so because family members are already in the movement.
Ramana underscored a “serious disconnect” at play — people have such varied reasons for joining the insurgency, yet top Maoist leaders are inspired by one sole motivation: capturing political power. Ramana also highlighted the “increasing militarization” of the insurgency. Maoists have amassed an immense arsenal of weaponry, from “crude” tools to more sophisticated weapons such as rocket launchers and landmines. Their attacks increasingly target not only government security forces, but also national infrastructure such as power lines and railways.
Andhra Pradesh: Leading By Example
K. Srinivas Reddy, a Hyderabad-based deputy editor for The Hindu, offered a case study of the insurgency in his home state, Andhra Pradesh (AP), in southeastern India. He noted that New Delhi’s response to the insurgency in AP is often cited as a success story. This response, according to Reddy, can be attributed to an “attitudinal change” within the security ranks. From the 1970s through the mid-1990s — a period of mass Maoist recruitment and escalating insurgent violence — New Delhi’s counterinsurgency measures had been “panicky,” haphazard, and reactive, Reddy said. The “turning point” came in 1996, when a new “unity of thought” emerged within the government that emphasized better training of security forces, stronger intelligence, and greater attention to economic development. Later in the 1990s, security forces further softened their strategies and tactics, emphasizing “problem-solving rather than hunting Naxals.” As a result, in the early 2000s, popular support for Maoists in AP began to wane.
Is the Government Also to Blame?
Nandini Sundar, a professor of sociology at Delhi University, focused on the human impact of both the insurgency and the government’s response. Much of her presentation centered around Bastar, a sparsely populated, heavily forested, mineral-rich district of Chhattisgarh state — one of the areas hardest-hit by the insurgency. Maoist “entrenchment” is strong, she argued, because locals are treated so dreadfully by the government. “Very poor people are jailed” for committing minor forestry transgressions, Sundar explained, while “powerful people” get away with large-scale offenses. Additionally, the police are deeply unpopular and “a source of repression.” They also regularly rape women and extort money, she said.
Sundar identified and condemned a raft of repressive government policies — from throwing locals off their land to commandeering schools — and insisted that such repression constitutes the prime reason for recruitment to the insurgency. “Injustice more than inequality” explains why people join the Maoists, she said.
The panel was far from sanguine about the future. Ramana contended that immediate prospects for peace talks between the government and the Maoists are slim, and that civil society has been “quiet” and has offered little assistance. While he predicted that some sort of resolution could be reached in “7 to 10 years,” Sundar countered that the harsh nature of New Delhi’s response means that 7 to 10 years “could finish off” not just the Maoists, but also village populations.
Compounding the challenge is what Sundar described as “official contempt” toward the culture of the Adivasi, the tribal peoples of India whose homeland comprises the insurgency’s epicenter. Dehumanizing, anti-adivasi language from the government enables New Delhi to justify the waging of forceful counterinsurgency, Sundar argued.
Glimmers of Hope
Several speakers, however, gave reasons to be guardedly optimistic about the Maoist issue. Pointing to Maoist strategies in Andhra Pradesh, Reddy suggested that the insurgency’s poor policies could spell its demise. Maoists in this state chose to escalate violence, but their inability to spread their ideology along with this violence has cost them public support, particularly in urban areas. (A recent survey by The Times of India actually found that 58 percent of those in AP think Naxalism has been good for the area – a devastating poll for those in the government who thought they were winning there – Ed.)
Sundar, meanwhile, noted that much good would come out of simply implementing long-dormant constitutional protections for the rural poor in Maoist-affected areas. This, she concluded, would reflect rights-based development, which is necessary for success — as opposed to development based on “hand-outs” by the elite, which is destined to fail.
Michael Kugelman is a program associate with the Woodrow Wilson Center’s Asia Program.
For more on the resource conflict aspect of the insurgency see The New Security Beat's, “India's Maoists: South Asia’s ‘Other’ Insurgency.”
Sources: BBC, Foreign Policy, Times of India.
Photo Credit: Adapted from “CPI Flag (Andhra Pradesh),” courtesy of flickr user Shreyans Bhansali.
Pop Audio:
Jon Barnett on Climate Change, Small Island States, and Migration
Contrary to the iconic image of lapping waves submerging low-lying countries, few Pacific islanders are emigrating from their homes due to climate change, according to Australian geographer Jon Barnett of the University of Melbourne. In this short interview with ECSP’s Geoff Dabelko, Barnett emphasizes that climate change is more likely to push islanders to move due to declining food production and/or drinking water availability rather than sea-level rise. These sober reminders on the complexity of climate-migration links are worth keeping in mind when evaluating the plethora of new reports on the topic.
The "Pop Audio" series offers brief clips from ECSP's conversations with experts around the world, sharing analysis and promoting dialogue on population-related issues. Also available on iTunes.
You Are Invited: October 1, 2010
Taking Stock of Carbon Emissions: Policies, Strategies, and Tools for the U.S. and China
The China Environment Forum and Environmental Change and Security Program
Friday, October 1, 2010, 9:00 a.m. - 11:00 a.m
Woodrow Wilson Center, Washington DC
5th Floor Conference Room
RSVP Agenda Directions Webcast
Qi Ye, Tsinghua University’s Climate Policy Institute
Michael Gillenwater, Greenhouse Gas Management Institute
Keith Gurney, Arizona State University/The Vulcan Project
In the past year China has been aggressively promoting low carbon policies and emissions targets, chief of which has been their commitment in Copenhagen. But for all countries, not just China, ensuring that these policies and targets are accurate — so called measurable, reportable, and verifiable (MRV) — is a challenging task which has also become a contentious issue in international politics. On the eve of the Tianjin intercessional climate meetings, CEF is proud to present three speakers to explore these issues as they relate to U.S.-China cooperation.
Leading climate and energy researcher Qi Ye of Tsinghua University’s Climate Policy Institute will provide an overview on the effectiveness of some of China’s key climate and low carbon policies. His evaluation is based on an extensive new report by Tsinghua University. Michael Gillenwater will delve into broader issues of measurement, reporting, and verification of greenhouse gas emissions, highlighting challenges with the current international MRV framework under the Kyoto Protocol. Finally, Keith Gurney will introduce the Vulcan Project that aims to quantify North American fossil fuel carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions at physical and time scales much finer than has been achieved in the past.
Location: Woodrow Wilson Center at the Ronald Reagan Building, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington DC, USA ("Federal Triangle" stop on Blue/Orange Line), 5th conference room. A map to the Center is available at www.wilsoncenter.org/directions. Note: Due to heightened security, entrance to the building will be restricted and photo identification is required. Please allow additional time to pass through security.
From the Wilson Center:
Integrated Analysis for Development and Security Policymakers
Scarcity, Climate, Population, and Natural Resources
In an event hosted by the Environmental Change and Security Program on September 2, 2010, Alex Evans of New York University and Global Dashboard and Mathew Burrows of the National Intelligence Council (NIC) focused on the current state of integrated scarcity issues in the policymaking world. [Video Below]
A Developing Problem
Globally, demand in key resources is outpacing supply:
You can’t address one of these scarcity issues without affecting another, argued Evans. In Haiti, for example, deforestation led to soil loss and erosion, thus degrading agricultural land. Deforestation also changed the country’s precipitation patterns. Together, these effects reduced food supplies even before the earthquake. Today, the UN estimates that more than 2.4 million people in Haiti are food-insecure.
- Demand for oil is rising by a percentage point each year, and the International Energy Association has warned that investment is not keeping up;
- Demand for water will increase 32 percent by 2025, but one of the first impacts of climate change is expected to be less available water; and
- Demand for food will increase 50 percent by 2030, but food supplies are only growing by one percent annually.
Evans recommended that these concerns be better integrated into current development and aid efforts, focusing on five areas:
A New International System
- Establishing land tenure and renewable resources;
- Exploring the overlaps between resilience and peacebuilding;
- Empowering women and stabilizing population growth;
- Improving agricultural investment; and
- Increasing general investment in the energy sector.
In addition to the physical dangers of scarcity, Evans pointed out that the perception of scarcity can drive what he sees as dangerous behavioral dynamics such as protectionism.
“Look at the way 30-plus countries slapped export restrictions on their exports of food in 2008,” said Evans. “It’s perceptions of scarcity driving irrational behavior, it’s fertile ground for panic and we need to factor that into our policymaking.” He called for a mechanism similar to NAFTA, which restricts sudden price changes, to help the global trade system become more resilient to changes in energy and food supplies.
Burrows pointed out that a big reason for the rising disparity between food, water, and energy demand and supply is the large “middle class” of emerging powers. “You are seeing this phenomenal change going on on the resource side, but at the same time, the international system is in great flux,” he said.
Scarcity will also affect the international legal system as well. “Of the world’s 263 transboundary river systems, 158 lack any kind of cooperative management framework,” said Evans, asking if they could be peacefully managed during times of scarcity. He offered another example: How will the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea handle coastlines that change with the climate? “We haven’t really begun to ‘stress test’ existing legal infrastructure, to look for these kinds of instances,” said Evans.
The biggest elephant in the “international room,” however, is how to settle the issue of carbon sharing, without which there can be little global cooperation on these issues that does not end in a zero-sum game, Evans said:
For me the jury is still very much out on whether there are limits on growth per se, as a result of scarcity – I’m not convinced of that yet. But I think it is clear that there are obviously limits to how much carbon we can put in the atmosphere, how much oil there is, how much land and water is available, and so on. We can do a huge amount with efficiencies and new technologies, but I think we’re kidding ourselves if we think that efficiencies and new technologies get us off the hook all together from having to face up to the distributional questions, the questions of fair shares that arise in a world of limits.Is Integrated Policymaking Possible?
Government has come a long way towards addressing scarcity, said Burrows, but serious structural issues remain because there are too many established, vested interests at stake. Often, the tactical takes priority over the strategic: “A lot of these issues, by their very nature, are long-range in character,” he said. “In my experience there are more policymakers that are simply focused on the tactical [and] fewer that take these longer-range perspectives.” In addition, he pointed out that the divide between government and the scientific community continues to impede policymakers’ understanding of the technological options available.
On the positive side, Burrows highlighted improved work by government planning offices, particularly in the intelligence community and the military. “If you compare Global Trends 2020 and Global Trends 2025…you’ll see a huge difference in terms of how we dealt with climate change, environment, and the resource issues,” said Burrows of the NIC’s reports. He said that the intelligence community is performing more long-range analyses, and that other countries like China are now starting similar global trends analyses.
Despite the silo problem, the best solution may not be in creating new government agencies and closing down others, said Evans. “I think instead perhaps we need to see the challenge as more creating shared awareness, common analysis; a common sense of objectives among existing institutional configurations. I think we may find we get better rates of return on that,” he said.
While U.S. and other governments are only beginning to grasp these issues, Burrows praised NGOs and think tanks, which “have played such a big part… in creating those sorts of networks and inter-relationships” that have raised the profile of scarcity issues.
While the political space for dealing with these issues is not there yet, Evans argued that it will eventually emerge – most likely after some kind of shock, because “after sudden-onset crises, people are often, for a short time, prepared to think the unthinkable.”
An adequate response requires readying integrated approaches to address the integrated problem of scarcity. “It’s necessary to have the solutions, so when the crisis hits, you can have some action, and I think we are doing that legwork,” said Burrows.
Sources: International Energy Agency, MSNBC, UN.
Pakistan After the Floods: A Continuing Disaster
Sohail Malik, chairman of Innovative Strategies in Islamabad, joined academics and students on September 15th to discuss the humanitarian crisis at a Georgetown University panel event, “Monsoon Madness: Governance, Food Security, Environmental Sustainability, and Climate Change.” The panelists discussed the failure on the part of the Pakistani government to address the crisis. “Everything that can be done wrong is being done wrong,” Malik said.
According to Reuters, the 10 million people displaced by the flooding have overwhelmed the Pakistani government’s disaster management efforts and fueled social unrest throughout the country. An estimated 15 million people currently lack access to clean water and 8 million lack food, explained Shannon Scribner, senior policy analyst at Oxfam America.
In addition, 21 percent of Pakistan’s GDP comes from the agricultural sector, which has been severely damaged by the flood waters. The international community’s response has, so far, failed to address the country’s needs. The UN recently issued its largest-ever natural disaster appeal - more than $2 billion - less than one fifth of which has been contributed so far.
Scribner attributed the reticence of international donors to the high level of corruption in the Pakistani government and its relatively young disaster management agency - the Pakistani National Disaster Management Agency (NDMA), which was created in 2006 after the 2005 earthquake. Sadly, international donors have not stepped in to fill the void.
The slow response to the crisis has damaged the image of the government and the international community in the eyes of many Pakistanis. In response, said Malik, some have turned toward extremist groups, who were the first non-governmental groups to provide flood relief (although the United States and others disagree). The Pakistani military, which has provided the strongest government relief efforts, has had to divert some of their forces from fighting Taliban and Al Qaeda in order to respond to the floods.
Malik pointed out that the areas of Pakistan that are hotbeds of extremism also have the greatest food insecurity. Even before the flood, he said, 60 percent of rural Pakistanis were living at or below subsistence level (as of 2006, 24 percent live below the poverty line). Now, with millions more hungry and homeless, this is a “breeding ground for something that is about to explode if not addressed,” said Malik. “Addressing their hunger is really the best way to address the war on terror.”
Georgetown professor and former USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios, who attended the event, said that the flood has the potential to spur a political upheaval. In his paper, “The Coming Food Coups,” Natsios explains why famines are historically linked with coups. Failed states such as Pakistan, he writes, have a high likelihood of experiencing political consequences from famine because they have little government accountability and weak feedback mechanisms that can provide political leaders with information about the state of their country.
While the international press has reported protests in urban areas of Pakistan, the rural population, who were most affected by the floods, have largely been absent from the media coverage. The rural people “do not have a voice,” said Malik. “How much more will these people endure before they come onto the streets?”
Sources: CIA, Reuters, UN, Washington Quarterly.
Photo Credit: “Pakistan floods,” courtesy of flickr user IRIN Photos.
You Are Invited: September 29, 2010
Hill Briefing: The Effects of Demographic Change on Global Security
Briefing of the Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs and the Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight
Wednesday, September 29, 2010, 1:00 p.m. - 2:00 p.m
Capitol Visitors Center, Washington DC
Room HVC-210
Elizabeth Leahy Madsen, Director of Research, Population Action International
Richard Cincotta, Ph.D., Demographer-in-Residence, Henry Stimson Center
Geoffrey Dabelko, Ph.D., Director of the Environmental Change and Security Program, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
On Wednesday, September 29, 2010, at 1:00 p.m. in room HVC-210 of the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC), Congressman John Tierney’s Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs and Congressman Russ Carnahan’s Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight will hold a briefing titled, “The Effects of Demographic Change on Global Security.”
This briefing will address the emerging issues surrounding demographic security, which primarily focuses on the link between the age structure of a population and the propensity for conflict. The speakers will cover a range of issues from the emerging threat of youth bulges to the impact of demographic shifts on the wellbeing of women and girls to the effects of natural resource scarcities that are related to demographic trends. This event is open to the public.
Location: Capitol Visitors Center, below the East Plaza of the Capitol between Constitution and Independence Avenues, on First Street SE. ("Capitol South" stop on Blue/Orange Line). When you get through security and are inside the visitor’s center, you will turn left, and then take a right at the two statues. Take the stairs or elevator down to the next level. At the bottom of the stairs, you will take a left. Walk past the astronaut statue to the three metal doors labeled “U.S. House of Representatives Meeting Rooms.” Enter these doors. Walk down this hallway to the hearing room. HVC-210 Hearing Room is the 2nd door on the right.
Note: This event is open to the public. Due to heightened security, the entrance to the building will be restricted and photo identification is required. Please allow at least 30 minutes to pass through security.
Syria at the Crossroads:
Beyond the Euphrates
Across the Middle East, sustained population growth has strained government institutions, natural resources, and the social fabric of entire societies. In Syria, these problems have been particularly acute.
With a total fertility rate of 3.3 children per woman and a population growth rate of 2.45 percent, the country is slated to swell from 22.5 million people to 28.6 million by 2025, and upward to 36.9 million by mid-century, according to the Population Reference Bureau.
“We have a population problem, no question,” acknowledged Syrian economist and former World Bank official Nabil Sukkar in a recent interview with Reuters. “Unless we cope with it, it could be a burden to our development.”
One of the biggest population problems threatening to derail Syria’s continued development is the scarcity of clean fresh water, which has troubling implications for both the security of the country and the region, since Syria shares key transboundary waterways, like the Euphrates River, with neighbors Iraq and Turkey.
As Syria grows more crowded, can Damascus find a way to encourage more efficient management and sustainable use of the country’s water? Or is greater conflict over the resource at home and in the neighborhood inevitable?
From Water Rich to Water Scarce
Historically, Syria has enjoyed plentiful groundwater resources and water from a number of rivers. Even today, Syria typically receives more annual precipitation per capita than seven other Arab nations, placing Syria 13th on a list of 20 released by the UN Development Programme’s 2009 Arab Human Development Report.
However, rapid demographic change, coupled with a series of severe droughts since 2006, has made life considerably more difficult for many Syrians. According to the UN, erratic rainfall in recent years has reduced Syria’s surface water supplies, inducing crop failures and livestock losses, and nudging millions — especially those involved in subsistence farming — into “extreme poverty.” In particular, wheat production has been hit hard, weakening the country’s food security and pushing farmers to migrate to urban centers.
Heading Underground
To cope with the drought, large- and small-scale farmers alike have increased their reliance on groundwater. But in a country where 90 percent of all water withdrawals are used for agriculture, Syria’s efforts are placing a huge strain on its aquifer health. And despite appearances, it's not just the drought: Syria’s groundwater depletion problems have spanned decades, mirroring its population growth.
According to Syria’s National Agricultural Policy Center (NAPC), the number of wells tapping aquifers nationwide is thought to have swelled from just over 135,000 in 1999 to more than 213,000 in 2007. The rampant pumping — much of it illegal — has caused groundwater levels to plummet in many parts of the country, and raised significant concerns about the water quality in remaining aquifer stocks.
And demand continues to rise: NAPC reports that the amount of land irrigated by groundwater soared from roughly 650,000 hectares in 1985 to 1.4 million hectares in 2005, a trend that has only accelerated in the face of recent rainfall shortages.
Drawing down aquifers is worrisome as long as withdrawals outpace natural recharge. Some, known as “fossil aquifers,” lack natural inputs or outlets and will never refill — once drained, these aquifers are gone for good.
Avoiding the Hard Choices
For decades, Damascus did little to acknowledge or address the country's growing problem of aquifer overuse. Government officials shied away from implementing robust policies that would have metered, taxed, or even simply monitored groundwater usage. In lieu of encouraging water-use conservation in the agricultural sector, Syria’s water managers instead focused on manipulating supply, by constructing dams or proposing plans to shuttle water between river basins. In doing so, they largely avoided imposing water austerity measures that almost certainly would have proven politically unpopular.
Belatedly, some efforts to mitigate Syria’s water issues are now underway. The country’s 2005 water-use code called for the licensing of all the country’s wells, threatening fines or prison terms for those caught illegally pumping groundwater. In 2008, Damascus took its campaign one step further, eliminating diesel subsidies that once facilitated groundwater removal.
But while these efforts have had some positive effect on groundwater-use trends nationwide, they could undermine stability in the short term. Illegal wells facilitate crop growth in many areas and help employ thousands in the agricultural sector, so shutting them down could heighten regional unemployment, and further weaken the country’s food security.
There Goes the Neighborhood?
With the future of Syria’s groundwater uncertain, there has been speculation that these internal water tensions might increase competition with neighboring countries for transboundary surface waters. The two countries most inextricably linked to Syria’s water crunch are Iraq and Turkey, who share the Euphrates with Syria.
Syria pulls roughly 85 percent of its water from the Euphrates, making the river a vital strategic resource. Yet water availability has historically been subject to the whims of Turkey, which controls the Euphrates’ headwaters.
Meanwhile, Iraq, which lies downstream of Syria, is also heavily dependant on the river. Understandably, as all three countries have seen their populations grow in recent decades, so too have tensions over controlling and sharing the Euphrates’ flow.
Despite Turkey’s long-standing resistance to international water-sharing pacts and penchant for large-scale hydroelectric projects, a new round of water diplomacy may help ease future tensions over the river. A recently created joint institute — backed by Iraq, Syria, and Turkey — is designed to provide a forum for the three countries to share data and policy ideas. Academics and water experts from the three countries will collaborate on efficient management, share best practices, and create a comprehensive map of the region’s water supplies.
The institute may be only a small step, but its emphasis on transparency is undoubtedly a move in the right direction. For Syria — sandwiched between two much larger countries — better communication with its neighbors is not only smart, but necessary to avoid conflict. But that won't solve the country's serious water scarcity problem. Leaders in Damascus should also continue to encourage conservation and more efficient use of water to stretch supplies to meet the needs of their growing population.
Sources: BBC, Global Arab Network, IRIN, Mideastnews.com, National Agricultural Policy Centre (Syria), Population Reference Bureau, Reuters, Syria Ministry of Agriculture, Syria Today
Photo Credit: “Euphrates and the Dig House Dura Europos,” courtesy of flickr user Verity Cridland.
Apply Today: Deadline Approaching for Wilson Center Fellowship Applications
The Woodrow Wilson Center awards approximately 20-25 residential fellowships annually to individuals with outstanding project proposals in a broad range of the social sciences and humanities on national and/or international issues. Topics and scholarship should relate to key public policy challenges or provide the historical and/or cultural framework to illuminate policy issues of contemporary importance.
Fellowship applications must be postmarked or submitted online by October 1. Applicants are notified of the results of the selection process in March of the following year.
For more information, please see the full application announcement here.
You Are Invited: September 30, 2010
Toward a Safe, Secure, and Clean Energy Future, Director's Forum with Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar
The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
Thursday, September 30, 2010, 10:30 a.m. - 11:30 a.m
Woodrow Wilson Center, Washington DC
6th Floor Auditorium
RSVP Agenda Directions Webcast
On September 30th, 2010, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar will come to the Woodrow Wilson Center to discuss the Obama Administration’s comprehensive energy strategy, the path to a clean energy economy, and the Department of the Interior’s progress in raising the bar for the oil and gas industry’s safety and environmental practices in deepwater.
If you are interested, but unable to attend the event, please tune into the live or archived webcast at www.wilsoncenter.org. The live webcast will begin approximately 10 minutes after the posted meeting time. You will need Windows Media Player to watch the webcast. To download the free player, please visit: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/download.
Location: Woodrow Wilson Center at the Ronald Reagan Building, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington DC, USA ("Federal Triangle" stop on Blue/Orange Line), 6th floor auditorium. A map to the Center is available at www.wilsoncenter.org/directions. Note: Due to heightened security, entrance to the building will be restricted and photo identification is required. Please allow additional time to pass through security.
Weather as a Weapon: The Troubling History of Geoengineering So Far
Is there a technological fix for global warming? Where would we put a "planetary thermostat," and who would control the settings? The long and tragicomic history of fixing the sky — of rainmakers, rain fakers, weather warriors, and climate engineers — indicates that such ideas are far-fetched. Dosing the stratosphere with sulfuric acid to turn the blue sky milky-white does not sound like a good idea. Neither does dumping an iron slurry into the oceans to fill them with algae and turn them soupy-green. A global forest of artificial trees? Storing massive amounts of carbon dioxide under our feet forever? A flotilla of ships pumping seawater into the clouds? Unlikely, unlikely, unlikely.
Global climate engineering is untested and untestable, and dangerous beyond belief. The famous mathematician and computer pioneer John von Neumann warned against it in 1955. Responding to U.S. fantasies about weaponizing the weather and Soviet proposals to modify the Arctic and rehydrate Siberia, he expressed concern over "rather fantastic effects" on a scale difficult to imagine and impossible to predict. Tinkering with the Earth's heat budget or the atmosphere's general circulation, he claimed, "will merge each nation's affairs with those of every other more thoroughly than the threat of a nuclear or any other war may already have done." In his opinion, attempts at weather and climate control could disrupt natural and social relations and produce forms of warfare as yet unimagined. It could alter the entire globe and shatter the existing political order.
Continue reading on Slate.
James Fleming is an environmental historian and Professor of Science, Technology, and Society at Colby College. ECSP and the Wilson Center will be hosting the launch of his new book, Fixing the Sky: The Checkered History of Weather and Climate Control, on October 6, 2010.
Photo Credit: Adapted from “Lever du jour,” courtesy of flickr user Solea20.
From the Wilson Center:
Latin America’s Future: Emerging Trends in Economic Growth and Environmental Protection
Janet Ballantyne, acting deputy assistant administrator of USAID’s Latin America and the Caribbean Bureau, stated that Latin America is “not our backyard, it’s our front yard.” It’s time that we “open the front door,” she claimed, and address the issues facing Latin America — issues that have long-term consequences for not only the region, but the United States and the world as well.
A Broad Range of Challenges
Christine Pendzich, principal author of the report and technical adviser on climate change and clean energy to USAID, covered the five interrelated economic and environmental trends that the report discusses: climate change, clean energy, indigenous and minority issues, challenges facing small economies, and urban issues. To capitalize on the Latin American demographic transition that will soon result in a large number of working age adults, Pendzich argued that the region needs to increase skilled job creation, educate workers to fill those positions, and maintain economic stability. She also declared that recent climate change trends are a “game changer,” which can fundamentally alter development paths.
While closer economic ties with China have contributed to Latin America’s above-average recovery from the global economic downturn, Pendzich argued that this economic relationship could add to the social and environmental problems facing the region. She added that insufficient innovation could lead to the continuation of the region’s dependence on commodity exports, while also noting that the inadequate economic integration and educational opportunities for indigenous and minority groups “drags everyone down.”
In terms of the regional economic trends, Eric Olson, co-author of the report and senior associate of the Mexico Institute, highlighted six challenges and opportunities for Latin America and the Caribbean. Olson claimed that the recovery of the global economy will hurt net importers of fossil fuels, especially in Central America and the Caribbean; have a negative impact on the environment; increase natural resource exploitation that may exacerbate inequality and social conflict; increase demand for primary products that will decrease the incentive to diversify Latin American economies; provide opportunities to promote environmentally friendly growth; and allow for increased utilization of existing trade benefits and intra- and sub-regional trade opportunities.
Recognizing the Need for an Integrated Response
Three of the 77 participants involved in the formation of the report explored in greater depth what Geoffrey Dabelko with the Environmental Change and Security Program described as the “integration and interconnectivity” of the five trends discussed in the report. Blair Ruble, chair of the Comparative Urban Studies Project, noted that with 78 percent of the Latin American population living in urban areas, “cities and urban life create a context in which there are opportunities for solutions to problems,” opportunities that can be used to further innovation, encourage social equality, and promote good governance.
Meanwhile, working with rural indigenous communities and minority groups can also provide valuable opportunities for change, specifically in the area of climate change, according to Judith Morrison, senior adviser at the Inter-American Development Bank’s Gender and Diversity Unit. Morrison argued that indigenous populations are the ones most affected by climate change, but also the most able to improve environmental stewardship as a result of their unique knowledge of the local geography.
Maria Carmen Lemos, associate professor at the University of Michigan, highlighted that vulnerability to climate change depends on two sets of factors: geographical location and socioeconomic factors. As a result, Lemos asserted that climate-change adaption measures must focus on poverty reduction as well as the vulnerability of specific geographic locations.
Julie L. Kunen, senior adviser to the Bureau of Policy, Planning, and Learning at USAID, applauded the report for its cross-trend analysis and called the development community to work together to address these trends in the Latin American and Caribbean region. The next step, Kunen claimed, must be to develop an ambitious strategy and “convene everyone who cares about the issues and rally them around the agenda.”
Elizabeth Pierson is an intern with the Brazil Institute at the Woodrow Wilson Center.
Photo Credit: “The River Runs Through the Andes,” courtesy of flickr user Stuck in Customs.
Reading Radar:
The Effects of Climate Change on Water in South Africa and Tibet
Shawna Cuan is an intern with the Environmental Change and Security Program.
Across My Desk:
Women, Water and Conflict as Development Priorities Plus Some Geoengineering Context
Here are some useful links to environment, population, and security work that recently crossed my desk.
• NYU’s Richard Gowan dissects UK development minister Andrew Mitchell’s encouraging speech identifying conflict-affected states as special DFID priorities. Gowan pulls out highlights from the speech and parses NGO reaction to it on Global Dashboard.
• Council on Foreign Relations’ Isobel Coleman provides five practical suggestions for tapping into women as the “new global growth engine,” on Forbes.
• The Aspen Institute announced its Global Leaders Council for Reproductive Health this week. Their goal: meeting unmet demand for family planning services by 2015 on the MDG schedule. That is over 200,000,000 women who want services but do not have access.
• I'm heartened to see the U.S. Senate pass the Senator Paul Simon Water for the World Act. Hoping the House will follow suit. Last time Congress passed legislation on water, sanitation, and health priorities, the 2005 Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan support.
• Colby historian Jim Fleming, writing in Slate, puts the increasing fascination with geoengineering as a climate response "option" in some sobering historical context. “Weather as a Weapon: The Troubling History of Geoengineering” is the short read. Tune in to hear Jim present the book length version, Fixing the Sky, at the Wilson Center, October 6th at 10:30 am EST.
Follow Geoff Dabelko (@geoffdabelko) and The New Security Beat (@NewSecurityBeat) on Twitter for more population, health, environment, and security updates.
Circle of Blue Launches Choke Point: U.S. Series Examining Intersection of Water and Energy Resources
For as long as the United States has been a nation the central idea guiding energy development is to generate as much as the energy sector is capable of producing. In every way imaginable, though, the 21st century is testing the soundness of that principle. A number of environmental, economic, and political impediments lie in the path to large increases in American energy production.
None, though, is more significant than the nation’s steadily diminishing reserve of fresh water. The place where rising energy demand collides with declining water supplies is a national choke point that the United States has barely begun to address, and certainly isn’t close to resolving.
For more check out Circle of Blue’s full feature as well their multimedia section, with infographics illustrating water regulations and power generation type by state, North Dakota’s remarkable rise to “domestic oil royalty,” and video interviews with residents and experts from around the country (including the Wilson Center’s Jennifer Turner, on China).
Beyond the United States, Circle of Blue and the Wilson Center’s China Environment Forum also hope to start-up a "Choke Point: China" but are still seeking funding.
Image Credit: Graphic courtesy of Ball State University graduate student, Mark Townsend, and data compiled by Circle of Blue’s Aubrey Ann Parker and Andrea Hart.
Pop Audio:
Alex Evans on Resource Scarcity and Global Consumption
“Why should we be concerned with scarcity issues?” asks New York University's Alex Evans. Beyond general population growth, there is also an expanding global middle class that is shifting to more Western diets and consuming more energy, he explains. The net result is that demand for food, water, oil, and land is outpacing supply. These scarcity issues should be grouped together, argues Evans, because you can’t address one without affecting the others.
The “Pop Audio” series offers brief clips from ECSP's conversations with experts around the world, sharing analysis and promoting dialogue on population-related issues. Also available on iTunes.
U.S. v. China: The Global Battle for Hearts, Minds, and Resources
She called for negotiations over the rights to resource extraction in the South China Sea to be multilateral rather than bilateral:
The United States supports a collaborative diplomatic process by all claimants for resolving the various territorial disputes without coercion. We oppose the use or threat of force by any claimant. While the United States does not take sides on the competing territorial disputes over land features in the South China Sea, we believe claimants should pursue their territorial claims and accompanying rights to maritime space in accordance with the UN convention on the law of the sea.China, who is far and away the most powerful claimant of disputed, resource-rich territory in the South China Sea, has the most to lose in any opening up of negotiations to international mediation. The United States, meanwhile, has an interest in maintaining freedom of the seas and would rather not see China run rough-shod over its smaller Southeast Asian neighbors.
Sparring over the South China Sea is not new for the United States and China — the 2001 EP-3 collision and 2009 Impeccable incidents off Hainan are cases in point — but it does illustrate what may become a more familiar fault line in U.S.-China relations: resource access.
In a move reminiscent of Russia’s 2007 stunt in the Arctic Ocean, China recently planted a flag on the South China Sea floor with a newly revealed submersible that can dive deeper than any other in the world. According to The New York Times, a Chinese vice minister of science and technology said the trials “laid a solid foundation for [the submersible’s] practical application in resource surveys and scientific research.”
China’s growth — recently passing Japan as the second largest economy in the world and overtaking the United States in total energy consumption — has outstripped its domestic resource base.
In a 2009 U.S. Army War College report, Kent Butts and Brent Bankus pointed out the growing tension between the two powers over supply issues:
Continued economic growth in China requires access to foreign industrial and fuel minerals. In that regard, China is not unlike the United States in having a substantial natural resource base that has proven incapable of meeting the demands of an expanding domestic economy. Mineral imports are depended upon to supply the balance of industrial demand and the security of those mineral imports is of critical geo-strategic importance to both states.Exclusive Aid for Exclusive Access
As a result of China’s resource overshoot, the government has developed a sort of “Chinese Marshall Plan” of infrastructure development, debt-forgiveness, and aid in exchange for raw resource access, mostly in developing countries. And while China’s growth indicators may have just begun making news in the West, PRC planners have been making inroads for resource access since the 70s and 80s.
African states such as Sudan, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe have been particularly targeted for investment, as well as similarly resource-rich but underdeveloped South American countries such Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, and Peru. China’s latest partner is Afghanistan, where the PRC is hoping to tap into the country’s vast mineral potential with a $3.5 billion copper mine in Aynak as well as a railway connecting it to Western China through Tajikistan.
Important, say Butts and Bankus in their report, is that “China’s intent is not to compete on the open market for natural resources, but to own them and their associated infrastructure to create a secure source of supply.”
Such a focused, widespread, and long-term strategy of quid pro quo resource acquisition is destined to conflict with the more laissez-faire American approach of simply outbidding the competition on the open market. Recent developments such as the U.S. scare over rare earth metals suggest Washington has been caught off guard.
Hearts and Minds
That brings us back to the South China Sea, where American concern over China’s maneuvering for more exclusive control of resources may have played a role in Secretary Clinton’s decision to take a stand on international mediation rather than bilateral negotiations at the ASEAN summit and mount a metaphorical “attack on China.” At the same conference, the United States also announced a “hearts and minds” commitment to Southeast Asia, with a $187 million investment in the Lower Mekong Initiative.
The Mekong, upon which nearly 60 million people rely, has reached record-low flow levels this summer and Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam have raised concerns that China’s damming upstream is leading to environmental and agricultural losses downstream. China blames the river’s low level on drought, but officials downstream are uneasy, saying they fear a “future in which their access to water will be controlled by China’s Ministry of Water Resources,” as Foreign Policy reports.
Investment in the Lower Mekong Initiative represents a smart counter to Chinese resource diplomacy by employing American soft power to not only improve individual livelihoods but to also potentially win valuable clout as a friend to Southeast Asia in the South China Sea dispute. It may also signal that Washington is serious about responding to China’s bilateral diplomacy and development strategy and maintaining open markets.
Incentive to Clash or Cooperate?
Butts and Bankus point out what Westerners often forget: that PRC planners are just as suspicious of American intentions as Washington is of theirs. They remember well America’s Cold War strategy of encirclement and eye U.S. alliances with Japan, South Korea, Southeast Asia, India, and Central Asia warily. China is also just as reliant on the Middle East for oil imports as the United States, if not more so, and is therefore apprehensive about a continued American presence in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Seeing these American commitments and perhaps also recognizing the resource access issues behind its neighbor India’s “gravest threat to internal security,” China therefore views mineral and hydrocarbon access as vital to its security (see the recent tensions which Japan over islands in the East China Sea for a case in point) and has demonstrated its commitment to acquiring them in unconventional ways. Whether or not the United States should fear the special relationships developing between Chinese benefactors and some of the world’s most troubled states is unclear so far, but certainly the two seem destined to clash over the issue again.
For those who see U.S.-China cooperation as essential to any meaningful international action on climate change, this tension is an important one to unwind, as Secretary Clinton reminded us in her speech to foreign ministers from the lower Mekong countries at Hanoi, “managing this resource and defending it against threats like climate change and infectious disease is a transnational challenge.”
Sources: BBC, Christian Science Monitor, CNN, Foreign Policy, Mineweb, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, New York Times, Reuters, Transport Politic, U.S. Army War College, U.S. State Department, Wall Street Journal.
Photo Credit: Adapted from South China Sea map courtesy of www.southchinasea.org and Middlebury College.
UN Millennium Development Goals Summit: PHE On the Side
From 20-22 September 2010, world leaders will meet in New York City to discuss the United Nations' “We Can End Poverty 2015” Millennium Development Goals, which include food security, maternal and child health, and environmental sustainability as key objectives, but controversially, make no mention of population. Officially, there is only one small "side session," organized by Vicky Markham of the Center for Environment and Population, devoted to talking about the MDGs in the integrated context of population, health, and environment (PHE).
Since 2005, annual Millennium Development Goals reports have published data from a large number of international organizations and UN agencies to track progress. According to the 2010 Millennium Development Goals Report, the 2008 economic downturn has stalled momentum to achieve the eight goals. The report also stated that “though progress had been made, it is uneven. And without a major push forward, many of the MDG targets are likely to be missed in most regions.”
While PHE remains somewhat taboo at the UN, The New Security Beat continues to highlight the important linkages between these issues. Check out some of our recent coverage including Calyn Ostrowski’s blogging from the 2010 Global Maternal Health Conference, perspectives on Pakistan’s ongoing environmental and development disaster, the World Bank’s latest report on international land grabs and their effect on food security, and our coverage of all things population, health, and environment.
Sources: AFP, United Nations.
Photo Credit: Adapted from "United Nations," courtesy of flickr user Ashitakka.
Iraq at the Crossroads:
Steve Lonergan on the Southern Marshes
Environmental Disaster or Impetus for Cooperation?
Iraq’s Southern Marshes, once the Middle East’s largest and most ecologically diverse wetlands, have survived the Iran-Iraq war, systematic drainage by Saddam Hussein, American invasion, and record-breaking drought. Today, however, the prospects for survival are dimming, as water consumption across the region continues to increase and security remains unsettled. Despite these challenges, the marshes’ location along the Iranian border and their reliance on flow from Turkey upstream offers unique potential for environmental peacemaking in this troubled region.
Iraq’s population of approximately 31.5 million is predicted to balloon to 64 million by 2050, and today 41 percent of the population is under the age of 15. The vast majority of the 64 million will live along the Tigris or Euphrates. Both rivers drain into the Southern Marshes, which as recently as the 1980s provided 60 percent of Iraq’s fish. Today, the marshes are a fraction of their former size (see maps below), no longer provide appreciable sustenance at the national level, and support fewer than 10 percent of their original number of inhabitants.
Although numbers are grim, much of the marsh habitat is highly resilient and could recover enough to support local livelihoods – but not without concerted water management efforts by the Iraqi government and agreements with both Iran and Turkey.
Considering their strategic location and great cultural importance (sometimes called the real-life “Garden of Eden”), restoring the marshes might entice Iraqi leaders and their neighbors to come to the table to discuss more long-standing water access issues in the region.
Geographer Steve Lonergan of the University of Victoria is an expert on hydrology and resource management in the Middle East and headed up the Canada-Iraq Marshlands Initiative (CIMI), which worked in Iraq from October 2004 – March 2010. CIMI recently published both a comprehensive atlas of the Marshes and a report on their current state, “Managing for Change: The Present and Future State of the Marshes of Southern Iraq.”
The New Security Beat recently interviewed Lonergan about the Southern Marshes and their future prospects:
New Security Beat: The CIMI report states that climate change and rising demand will put a serious strain on the Southern Marshes and, if nothing is done, may even lead to their near total loss. What sort of mitigation and/or adaptation efforts are under way if any, and do you see a space for them in Iraq?
Steve Lonergan: Not much is being done at present, and certainly not with the present problem of governance, nationally. Iraq does not have a drought management strategy in place, and it refused to label the 2009 drought a disaster because of possible negative perceptions by the international community. There has been investment in infrastructure to support the remaining residents, and small desalination plants have been installed in seven or eight communities (with funding from Japan and UN Environment Programme).
I would guess that the population within the marshes – that is, living on the high ground in villages inside the marshes – is not more than 5,000 persons. As a result, there is not much of a political voice for marsh residents. The United States, Canada, and Japan have all discontinued direct assistance. Organizations such as the UN Development Programme are frustrated with the lack of action at the national level. So mitigation and/or adaptation efforts are minimal.
NSB: UNEP, UNDP, the United States, Japan, Italy, Canada, and ad hoc local efforts contributed to a remarkable comeback from 2003-2008, but recently water levels in the marshes have dropped once again. What are the most important short-term steps that have yet to be taken with respect to the marshes?
SL: The most important step would be to reach agreements with Turkey and Iran. In the absence of these, it is difficult to imagine how the marshes could survive. The marshes must also be considered a high priority within Iraq and this is not the case at present.
It is likely that water levels in the marshes will continue to fluctuate; in wet years they will go up, and in drought years they will go down. But much of the original Southern Marshes are now being used for agriculture and are unlikely to return to marsh.
NSB: In the past the Southern Marshes have been used as a buffer against invasion, drained to force out inhabitants, and dammed to prevent drug trafficking and help monitor the border. How important do you see conservation efforts in the marshes to promoting dialogue and ultimately improving security with Iran and even Turkey?
SL: There has been some hope in the international community and with people living in the marshes that environmental diplomacy, through the Ramsar Convention, a possible World Heritage Site designation, and bilateral discussions initiated by the UN, could stimulate better dialogue that could eventually improve security within the Tigris and Euphrates basins. Unfortunately, this has not occurred.
The Ramsar Convention cannot compel parties to dialogue and UN efforts have been unsuccessful. Having said this, there are ongoing technical discussions between water engineers from Iraq and Iran over the Hawizeh Marsh dyke. But until the Iraqi government is established and the security situation in the country is reasonably stable, I see little hope for these technical discussions.
NSB: As mentioned in the CIMI report, the marshes once provided 60 percent of the fish consumed in Iraq, and their drainage has not only affected the marshes themselves but also fisheries in the Persian Gulf. Do you think fish stocks can ever recover to the point of once again playing a large role in Iraq’s food supply?
SL: It is unlikely that fish stocks will ever recover, at least not in terms of native species. Low-valued species such as catfish (which Iraqis will not eat) now dominate in many areas as water quality has deteriorated. Attempts to restore the Bunni population – the highest valued species – were completely unsuccessful. There is still fishing in the marshes, but in many cases it is with poison or dynamite.
We ran workshops throughout the region on best management practices in fishing, but there simply is not enough fish to feed the local population, let alone the rest of Iraq.
NSB: Given the continuing poor security situation as well as political deadlock, have the prospects for the future health of the marshes changed in your mind?
With competition for water increasing (both from Turkey and Iran and also from other sectors within Iraq), it is doubtful whether there will ever be enough water to replenish the marshes to the extent they were prior to 1990. Coupled with greater climate variability – evidenced by the severe drought in 2008-2009 – and the decreasing quality of most of the water remaining, I remain pessimistic about the future of the Southern Marshes and the people dependent on them.
Sources: BBC, Canada-Iraq Marshlands Initiative, Guardian, IPS-Inter Press Service News, NPR, New Scientist, Population Reference Bureau, UN Environment Programme, University of Pennsylvania Press.
Photo Credit: “Marsh Arabs in a mashoof,” courtesy of Wikimedia Commons. Maps courtesy of the Canada-Iraq Marshlands Initiative.
You Are Invited: September 22, 2010
ChokePoint: US: Understanding the Tightening Conflict between Energy and Water in the Era of Climate Change
The China Environment Forum and Environmental Change and Security Program
Wednesday, September 22, 2010, 9:00 a.m. - 11:00 a.m
Woodrow Wilson Center, Washington DC
5th Floor Conference Room
RSVP Agenda Directions Webcast
On September 22nd, 2010, J. Carl Ganter, the director of Circle of Blue, Keith Schneider, Circle of Blue’s senior editor, and Jeffrey J. Fulgham, chief sustainability officer and ecomagination leader at General Electric will discuss the findings of Choke Point: U.S., an exploration into the fierce contest between the nation’s growing demand for energy and the tightening supplies of fresh water. The presentation will also look into the development of a similar project, Choke Point: China.
In undertaking Choke Point: U.S., Circle of Blue set out to understand whether the transition to a low-carbon economy would produce a penalty or a dividend for freshwater consumption in the United States. Multimedia reporters were dispatched to the coalfields of southwest Virginia, the dry plains of South Dakota, the tar sands region of Alberta, Canada, the oilfields and solar-generating deserts of southern California, and biofuel production plants in the Midwest.
The facts and insights gathered by Circle of Blue also point to a new national narrative of resource urgency. Choke Point: U.S. makes a strong case that the United States quickly needs to reconsider and realign much of its energy production policy and water management practices in order to avoid dire shortages of water and potential shortfalls in energy. None of the big energy producers or large water use sectors will be left untouched.
Choke Point: U.S. found that:
• Oil companies are investing tens of billions of dollars annually to develop oil-bearing sands and shales, and deep gas-bearing shales. Each of the unconventional reserves produces more carbon emissions, uses more water, and damages more land than the conventional oil and gas reserves they are replacing.
• The concept of "peak oil" may turn out to be a myth. The recoverable oil reserves contained in bitumen-saturated tar sands and oil shales amount to trillions of barrels and are greater than the recoverable "conventional" reserves. Canada's tar sands are already the single largest source of exported oil to the United States and production is increasing almost 10 percent a year. North Dakota is now the fourth largest oil-producing state because of reserves discovered in the Bakken Shale. Three years ago North Dakota was barely in the top 10.
• Carbon capture and storage technology, which is undergoing a handful of tests as a fix to climate-changing emissions, increases water consumption at conventional plants 40 percent to 90 percent.
If you are interested, but unable to attend the event, please tune into the live or archived webcast at www.wilsoncenter.org. The live webcast will begin approximately 10 minutes after the posted meeting time. You will need Windows Media Player to watch the webcast. To download the free player, please visit: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/download.
Location: Woodrow Wilson Center at the Ronald Reagan Building, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington DC, USA ("Federal Triangle" stop on Blue/Orange Line), 5th floor conference room. A map to the Center is available at www.wilsoncenter.org/directions. Note: Due to heightened security, entrance to the building will be restricted and photo identification is required. Please allow additional time to pass through security.
Guest Contributor Serge Dedina:
Environmental Security Along the U.S.-Mexico Border
In 2005, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) began the construction of a massive earthen, concrete, and metal security barrier along much of the U.S.-Mexico border, from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico.
Framing it as an issue of national security, DHS used provisions in the Real ID Act to waive environmental laws and citizen review for the controversial infrastructure project.
Unfortunately in Imperial Beach, California – my corner of the U.S.-Mexico border – the poorly engineered barrier has caused serious environmental mishaps and damage. In 2009 the Voice of San Diego reported that DHS circumvented numerous local and state laws in the course the barrier’s construction:
Were it anyone else's project, state regulators would've required irrigation to ensure that plants grew. But the federal government is responsible for the $59 million effort to complete and reinforce 3.5 miles of border fence separating San Diego and Tijuana. The Department of Homeland Security exempted itself from eight federal laws and any related state laws that would have regulated the project's environmental impacts.The Voice goes on to report that state water regulators also have no jurisdiction over the project since it has been exempted from the federal Clean Water Act.
“They did better engineering in 8th century China,” said Joe Sharkey of The New York Times, whom I took on a tour of the border, about the massive amphitheater of dirt that DHS dumped in Smuggler’s Gulch a few miles from the Pacific.
Ironically, while DHS has focused its efforts on the massive earthen and concrete wall, the agency has virtually ignored the tidal wave of polluted sewage water and garbage that flows across this section of the U.S.-Mexico border, a problem that makes the very people charged with safeguarding our security – border patrol agents and even Navy Seals – often unable to carry out their mission.
Over the past 20 years, border patrol agents have become ill from contact with the region’s polluted rivers, as well as the Pacific Ocean. In the Calexico-Mexicali region, border patrol agents worked directly with the Calexico New River Committee to clean up the New River – a drainage canal turned toxic hot spot.
Navy Seals based in Coronado, California, about 10 miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border, train in an area of the ocean that is directly impacted by polluted water flowing across the border from Mexico, bypassing the vaunted concrete and metal border barrier.
The organization I run, WiLDCOAST, is now working with U.S. agencies such as the International Boundary and Water Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency along with agencies in Mexico (e.g., CONANGUA and the state of Baja California) to reduce the threats to our military personnel and federal employees as well as border residents from cross-boundary pollution.
This cooperation has required a significant investment on the part of both the Mexican and U.S. governments in developing real solutions to our environmental security crisis on the border. Unfortunately the massive Berlin Wall-style barrier on our southern border is of little assistance in this effort.
Solving complex transboundary issues sometimes requires ignoring the cacophony of politics from distant capitals and instead working on the ground with colleagues from both nations who are experts in their shared geography. It appears the Obama administration is now slowly trying to repair some of the damage done to local communities, the cross-boundary relationship with Mexico, and our fragile shared environment.
But much more work and investment is needed to safeguard those we entrust to protect our security along the borderlands, as well as the residents of the region, from pollution that ignores international divisions and concrete walls. We must remember not only the national security component of our border-strengthening efforts but also the effect on human and environmental security as well.
Serge Dedina is the executive director of WiLDCOAST. He grew up and still lives on the U.S.-Mexico border in Imperial Beach, California. He is the author of Saving the Gray Whale and the forthcoming Wild Sea: Eco-Wars and Surf Stories From the Coast of the Californias.
Sources: Defenders of Wildlife, Environmental Protection Agency, University of Arizona, Voice of San Diego, WiLDCOAST.
Photo Credit: Serge Dedina.
