From the Wilson Center:
Dialogue Interviews International Reporting Project Fellows on Liberia
Monday, February 28, 2011
Since 1998, the International Reporting Project has been a pioneer in the “non-profit journalism” movement that seeks to fill the gap left by much of the mainstream media’s reduction in international news coverage. IRP has provided opportunities to more than 300 U.S. journalists to travel to more than 85 countries to produce award-winning reports. This month on the Wilson Center's Dialogue program, host John Milewski speaks with guests Sunni Khalid, Ed Robbins, and Teresa Wiltz. They recently participated in an intensive fact-finding visit to Liberia under the auspices of the International Reporting Project where they produced stories on the country’s ongoing development and women’s empowerment efforts (among other topics).
Sunni Khalid is managing news editor for WYPR in Baltimore, Maryland. Previously, he worked for Time, The Washington Times, USA Today, Voice of America, and NPR.
Ed Robbins is an independent, multi-award winning director, writer, producer, and videographer. Outlets for his work have included PBS, The Discovery Channel, National Geographic Channel, ABC, and the BBC.
Teresa Wiltz is a senior editor for The Root, where she helps oversee the production of the African-American web-magazine. She previously served as a staff writer for The Washington Post’s style section.
The full 30 minute interview is available at the Wilson Center.
To hear more about their projects, see The New Security Beat’s “A Lens Into Liberia: Experiences from IRP Gatekeepers.”
Sunni Khalid is managing news editor for WYPR in Baltimore, Maryland. Previously, he worked for Time, The Washington Times, USA Today, Voice of America, and NPR.
Ed Robbins is an independent, multi-award winning director, writer, producer, and videographer. Outlets for his work have included PBS, The Discovery Channel, National Geographic Channel, ABC, and the BBC.
Teresa Wiltz is a senior editor for The Root, where she helps oversee the production of the African-American web-magazine. She previously served as a staff writer for The Washington Post’s style section.
The full 30 minute interview is available at the Wilson Center.
To hear more about their projects, see The New Security Beat’s “A Lens Into Liberia: Experiences from IRP Gatekeepers.”
Choke Point China: Escalating Confrontation Between Water Scarcity and Energy Demand Has Global Implications
J. Carl Ganter, Circle of Blue
Monday, February 28, 2011
Water scarcity, rapid economic growth, and soaring energy demand are forming a tightening noose that could choke off China’s modernization.
Writes my colleague Keith Schneider in the first installment of the new report, “Choke Point: China,” from Circle of Blue:
Underlying China’s new standing in the world, like a tectonic fault line, is an increasingly fierce competition between energy and water that threatens to upend China’s progress. Simply put, say Chinese authorities and government reports, China’s demand for energy, particularly for coal, is outpacing its freshwater supply.
The 12-part “Choke Point: China” series presents powerful evidence of the fierce contest between growth, water, and fuel that is virtually certain to grow more dire over the next decade. The project is produced in partnership with the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars’ China Environment Forum.
Tight supplies of fresh water are nothing new in a nation where 80 percent of the rainfall and snowmelt occurs in the south, while just 20 percent of the moisture occurs in the mostly desert regions of the north and west. What’s new is that China’s surging economic growth is prompting the expanding industrial sector, which consumes 70 percent of the nation’s energy, to call on the government to tap new energy supplies, particularly the enormous reserves of coal in the dry north.
The problem, scholars and government officials told us, is that there is not enough water to mine, process, and consume those reserves and still develop the modern cities and manufacturing centers that China envisions for the region. “Water shortage is the most important challenge to China right now, the biggest problem for future growth,” said Wang Yahua, deputy director of the Center for China Study at Tsinghua University in Beijing. “It’s a puzzle that the country has to solve.”
The consequences of diminishing water reserves and rising energy demand have been a special focus of our attention for more than a year. In 2010, in our “Choke Point: U.S.” series, Circle of Blue found that rising energy demand and diminishing freshwater reserves are two trends moving in opposing directions across America. Moreover, the speed and force of the confrontation is occurring in the places where growth is highest and water resources are under the most stress – California, the Southwest, the Rocky Mountain West, and the Southeast.
Stripped to its essence, China’s globally significant choke point is caused by three converging trends:
- Production and consumption of coal – the largest industrial consumer of water – has tripled since 2000. Government analysts project that China’s energy companies will need to increase coal production by 30 percent by 2020.
- Fresh water needed for mining, processing, and consuming coal accounts for the largest share of China’s industrial water use, a fifth of all the water consumed nationally. Though national conservation policies have helped to limit increases, water consumption nevertheless has climbed to record highs.
- China’s total water resource, according to the National Bureau of Statistics, has dropped 13 percent since the start of the century. In other words China’s water supply is 350 billion cubic meters (93 trillion gallons) less than it was at the start of the century. That’s as much water lost to China each year as flows through the mouth of the Mississippi River in nine months. Chinese climatologists and hydrologists attribute much of the drop to climate change, which is disrupting patterns of rain and snowfall.
We found a powerful narrative in China in two parts, and never before told: First is how effectively the national and provincial governments enacted and enforced a range of water conservation and efficiency measures that enabled China to progress as far as it has.
Second is that despite the extensive efforts to conserve water, and to develop water-sipping alternatives like wind and solar energy, China still faces an enormous projected shortfall of water this decade to its energy-rich northern and western provinces. How government and industry leaders respond to this critical and unyielding choke point forms the central story line of the next era of China’s unfolding development.
J. Carl Ganter is director and co-founder of Circle of Blue, a leading source of news, science, and data about water issues globally. “Choke Point: China” is produced in partnership with the Wilson Center’s China Environment Forum.
Image Credit: Two tunnels beneath the Yellow River to be completed by mid-decade that will transport more than 35 million cubic meters (9 billion gallons) of water a day from southern China to thirsty cities in the north. Courtesy of Aaron Jaffe and Circle of Blue.
Mapping Demographics in WWF Priority Conservation Areas
Friday, February 25, 2011
Using comprehensive data from the USAID-sponsored Demographic Health Surveys (DHS), the researchers analyzed population, mortality, and fertility indicators for 10 of the 19 priority places for conservation identified by the World Wildlife Foundation (WWF). These biological hotspots represent parts of 25 countries throughout South Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, and South America, including the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Colombia, Guatemala, Indonesia, Kenya, Nepal, Madagascar, and Thailand.
Urban vs. Rural
The findings confirmed the researchers’ hypothesis that rural areas within WWF priority regions are at a lower state of demographic transition than their urban counterparts, meaning they have higher fertility and infant mortality rates and a younger age structure due to poor access to primary health care, including family planning. Furthermore, women in these regions desire more children than those in urban, non-priority areas, but experience a greater difference between ideal and actual number of children.
For many of the indicators, the differences between urban and rural, and priority and non-priority, regions of the developing world are striking. In urban Asia, the mean predicted population doubling time is 86.1 years; in rural Africa it is only 24.6 years. Urban Asia and South America also have total fertility rates of 1.8 children per woman, while rural Africa’s is 5.2. Infant mortality also ranged from a low of 20 deaths per every 1,000 births in some developing urban areas, to over 100 in rural parts of Coastal East Africa. In the developed world it is less than 10.
There is also consistently less desire among women in priority areas to limit their childbearing. Worldwide, 49.4 percent of women living within priority areas want to limit childbearing, compared to 56.2 percent outside priority areas.
Rural areas in all regions had the highest unmet need for family planning, with the exception of the Congo Basin, where high infant mortality has persisted and dampened women’s desire to limit childbearing. “If much needed health services were provided in the Congo Basin, along with family planning services, child survival rates would increase, and couples would be more inclined to limit overall births,” the study says.
Lower demand for family planning in priority areas is consistent with Caldwell’s theory of intergenerational wealth flows, the paper noted, which explains how in rural agricultural societies, children are economic assets who move wealth to their parents. As countries develop and people gain access to education, healthcare and female empowerment, wealth flows reverse and children become financial burdens. This transition decreases fertility and increases demand for family planning.
Setting Priorities
As WWF plans to scale up its population, health and environment (PHE) programs, this study will help to prioritize places within priority areas that are most in need of PHE intervention and “are most likely to help alleviate negative environmental and social impacts of rapid population growth.” The results of this study show that many areas are ripe for such intervention:
Nearly a quarter of households in Coastal East Africa and the Mesoamerican Reef wish to have access to contraception yet their desire remains unfulfilled. Similarly, households within priority places in Coastal East Africa, the Mesoamerican Reef, Amazon and the Guianas, and the Eastern Himalayas wish to have nearly one child fewer than they currently have.The findings of this study have already informed the planning of several of WWF’s projects in Madagascar and Namibia.
The limited availability and detail of the DHS data was the primary limitation of the study, the researchers noted. The 25 countries examined did not fully cover all WWF’s priority areas – 17 other countries within the priority areas lacked sufficiently comprehensive data for the study. Furthermore, the district or municipality was the smallest unit of analysis possible with DHS data, making it difficult to exactly pinpoint priority communities.
“Geography matters,” write the authors. “Only with further refined data accompanied by qualitative on-the-ground field research can we credibly answer remaining questions.”
Image Credit:“Family Planning: Unmet Need for Family Planning Services” and “Mortality Rate: Child Mortality Rate (Under Age 5)” courtesy of World Wildlife Fund.
Sources: Population Council, World Wildlife Fund.
The Middle East’s Demographic Destiny
Jennifer Dabbs Scuibba, Rhodes College
Friday, February 25, 2011
The so-called “arc of revolution” sweeping across the Middle East and North Africa has some demographers feeling smug. In Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Jordan, and Lebanon the population ages 15-29 – a key group for demographers – is very large, about 41-50 percent of all adults ages 15-59. No matter where you’re born, this life period is significant because during this time young adults expect to finish their education, get a job, get married, maybe start a family, and have some say in the way they are governed. As many have noted, the problem in each of these countries is that the desires of young adults are being dashed as they are shut out of economic, political, and even social opportunities. The result is all over the headlines.
Aside from structural failures like corruption and inattention of politicians to creating jobs, why are young people so disadvantaged? The answer lies in demography. Opportunities for young adults are limited in these countries because of what demographers refer to as “cohort crowding,” a situation that results when an age group, in Tunisia’s case those aged 25-29, is significantly larger than the preceding age group. Generally, jobs cannot be created fast enough to keep pace with this demographic bump, so those in the large cohorts are “crowded” out of the labor market. This situation turns into protest and violence when youth from large cohorts fall short of the living standards of preceding generations, which are smaller. In a 2009 Pew Global Attitudes survey, 50 percent of respondents ages 18-29 in Egypt said they thought children born today would be worse off than their parents. In Jordan and Lebanon, 38 and 40 percent, respectively, of respondents had a similarly depressed attitude.
Continue reading on The Future Faces of War: Population and National Security blog.
Sources: Pew Research Center, U.S. Census Bureau.
Photo Credit: “DS-RY028 World Bank,” courtesy of flickr user World Bank Photo Collection (Dana Smillie).
Continue reading on The Future Faces of War: Population and National Security blog.
Sources: Pew Research Center, U.S. Census Bureau.
Photo Credit: “DS-RY028 World Bank,” courtesy of flickr user World Bank Photo Collection (Dana Smillie).
Watch: Laurie Mazur on a Pivotal Moment for the Global Environment and World Population
Thursday, February 24, 2011
“It’s increasingly clear that we are living in a pivotal moment,” said Laurie Mazur, director of the Population Justice Project, in this interview with ECSP about her new book, A Pivotal Moment: Population, Justice, and the Environmental Challenge. Currently, “nearly half the world’s population – about three billion people – are under the age of 25,” she said, and the choices these young people make, and the choices that are available to them “will determine whether world population grows from the current almost 6.9 billion to anywhere between 8 billion and 11 billion.”
“Numbers do matter,” said Mazur. “Clearly, a world population of eight billion would be better than 11 billion for both human beings and the environment.” What’s more, “everything we need to do to slow population growth is something we should be doing anyway.”
Investments in family planning, girls’ education, women’s empowerment, and sustainable, equitable development are all means to slowing population growth, as well as being an end in and of themselves. Population growth “is an issue of really broad appeal” and should be of concern to environmental and reproductive health advocates, people of faith, or anyone who cares about development, justice, and eliminating poverty, said Mazur.
“Numbers do matter,” said Mazur. “Clearly, a world population of eight billion would be better than 11 billion for both human beings and the environment.” What’s more, “everything we need to do to slow population growth is something we should be doing anyway.”
Investments in family planning, girls’ education, women’s empowerment, and sustainable, equitable development are all means to slowing population growth, as well as being an end in and of themselves. Population growth “is an issue of really broad appeal” and should be of concern to environmental and reproductive health advocates, people of faith, or anyone who cares about development, justice, and eliminating poverty, said Mazur.
From the Wilson Center:
Deforestation, Population, and Development in a Warming World: A Roundtable on Latin America
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Nearly 80 percent of Latin America’s people live in urban areas, yet the continent’s rural populations have a disproportionate effect on its forests. Panelists Liza Grandia, assistant professor of international development and social change at Clark University, and Jason Bremner, director of population, health, and environment at the Population Reference Bureau, argued that meeting the needs of these communities is therefore key to conserving Latin America’s forests. [Video Below]
Rural Populations Have Disproportionate Impact on Deforestation
In his analysis of more than 16,000 municipalities in Latin America, Carr found “no statistical significance between population change at the municipal level and woody vegetation change at the municipal level.” Yet this lack of connection does not mean population growth and deforestation are unrelated, but instead indicates “a problem of place and scale,” he said. Within countries or even within municipalities, there are huge variations in fertility rates. Rural areas, which generally have larger families, more agricultural expansion, higher population growth, and lower population density, account for higher impact per capita on forests.
“Less than one percent of the population of Guatemala moves to any rural frontier at all,” said Carr, “yet that small, tiny fraction of the population has a disproportionate impact on the forests, and that is true throughout Latin America.” Carr also distinguished between the private sector primarily converting secondary forest for corporate agriculture and subsistence farmers clearing old growth forest.
Indigenous Lands Are Key to the Future
There are generally two groups of people on the frontier: indigenous people and “colonists,” who move in to take advantage of undeveloped land. Indigenous people, by and large, act as “stewards of the forests,” exhibiting lower rates of deforestation and forest fragmentation then colonists, Bremner said. “They do have a very protective effect, largely because they are excluding others from those lands.”
Indigenous communities tend to be “common property institutions” with an informal or cultural set of rules and traditions facilitating land use, said Bremner. They are “really good at mobilizing against external threats,” he said, which results in a protective effect over the forest. In the Amazon, for example, “indigenous lands, in the context of all of this colonization and deforestation that is happening, are now seen as key to the future,” he said.
However, as indigenous population growth and growing agricultural and industrial expansion change indigenous communities and livelihoods, more formal rules must be developed to govern land use. If indigenous communities “are the protective factor, then we need to know how to protect them,” said Bremner.
There are few demographic surveys of rural communities, but one of nearly 700 women in the Ecuadorian Amazon found the total fertility rate of indigenous women to be 7-8 children per woman. “Fifty percent of indigenous women didn’t want to have another child…of that 50 percent, 98 percent were not using a modern method of contraception,” Bremner said. “Responding to these women’s needs, I think, would go a long way in terms of changing the future of these communities.”
Guatemala: Reducing Fertility By Thinking Outside the Box
Grandia, with support from Conservation International and ProPeten, conducted a study of population and environment connections as part of the Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) of Peten, a sparsely populated and highly biodiverse municipality of Guatemala. The 90,000 people living in the protected area in this park had “literally no family planning services,” said Grandia, and their population was on track to double within 20 years.
Using the DHS data, Grandia and ProPeten created a “somewhat eclectic population and environment program” that integrated many of the concerns of indigenous Maya communities in Peten, called Remedios. Remedios focused on a diverse set of issues, including agriculture, education, maternal and child health, family planning, and gender issues, and included projects like a “traveling education-mobile” and Between Two Roads, a bilingual radio soap opera in Spanish and Q’eqchi’ Maya, which used the story of a conflict between midwife and cattle rancher in a frontier community “to touch on a whole range of social and environmental issues.”
“As a result of our efforts…the total fertility rate dropped from 6.8 in 1999 to 5.8 in 2002, and in the most recent DHS it had fallen to 4.3,” said Grandia. She credited this success in part to the fact that the programs were “so cross-cutting across many of those schools of thought.” Yet the integration of a diverse range of issues also caused a split between the field-based ProPeten and the DC-based Conservation International, who wanted a more “narrow focus” on family planning and conservation, she said.
“Sometimes working outside the box can have unexpected results,” said Grandia. The population-environment movement could learn from the American environmentalist movement’s evolution from “an elite movement” into a “broader-based socially dynamic movement that involved new constituencies,” she said.
“Population and environment has often begged the articulation of a third field,” said Grandia. “How you fill in that blank often reflects the kind of development interventions you deem appropriate.” Perhaps “justice” should be considered “a new critical third paradigm,” she said.
Sources: Population Reference Bureau, World Bank.
Photo Credit: “Chevron's Toxic Legacy in Ecuador's Amazon,” courtesy of flickr user Rainforest Action Network.
Reading the QDDR
Coverage Wrap-up: Institutional Shifts, Development-as-Security, Women’s Empowerment, and Complex New Threats
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
In a townhall meeting just before the release of the document, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the QDDR was only a first step for State and USAID, but an important one nonetheless, especially in strengthening a broader approach to national security:
What you will see in the QDDR is our effort to begin to better organize ourselves, to better coordinate between State and USAID, so that we’re not trying to determine, well, who gets deployed and how they get deployed and who they respond to. We can’t keep reinventing the wheel in every crisis.Clinton also made a point of emphasizing that State wants more flexibility in spending and deployment – akin to what the military commands in the field – in order to make the partnership with the Pentagon more than just a phrase.
The New Security Beat reached out to five experts for their takes on the QDDR and what it means for the future of American foreign policy and development.
Richard Matthew, professor at the University of California at Irvine and founding director of the Center for Unconventional Security Affairs, focuses on the application of civilian power to today’s (and tomorrow’s) increasingly complex, interconnected, and global challenges.
He finds an “encouraging process of rethinking and restructuring that is long overdue” but sees inconsistency in the approach to living in an “age of uncertainty.” He argues that State should follow the Defense Department in “scanning for global challenges on the near horizon that are being propelled by, or deepening the extent of, interconnectivity and complexity,” including issues such as large-scale land acquisition, food and energy security, and so-called “black swan” events. Civilian power, he argues, could be harnessed to address these issues in new and innovating ways, but the QDDR must do more to encourage concrete steps towards this goal, “otherwise this good start will never expand beyond its own bubble of rhetoric and promise.”
Chad Briggs, Minerva Chair of Energy and Environmental Security for the USAF Air University, highlights the overlap of the QDDR’s vision with the military’s mission and how increased leadership (with the requisite political enabling) from State and USAID can free up already over-taxed Pentagon resources.
He argues that considering the United States’ many overseas responsibilities and engagements, the QDDR’s emphasis on a more holistic approach to security and stability can “only be a positive step for U.S. interests.”
“By giving increased recognition to human security to include energy, health, the environment, non-proliferation, terrorism, and cyber-security,” he writes, “the United States can increase its strategic capacity for foresight and action, rather than reacting to world events after they occur.”
State must also improve its capabilities if it wishes to address complex global issues more effectively, Briggs says; specifically, communication between and among organizations must improve.
John Sewell, senior scholar at the Wilson Center, has seen several attempts to rework U.S. development. He breaks down the QDDR into its essential parts, illuminates the failures that plagued previous attempts, and points out some of the most important questions remaining.
Sewell argues that if this effort at development reform is to succeed where others have failed, it “must have strong administration support, a congressional group (preferably bipartisan) to craft needed legislation, and strong support from civil society organizations and business” – a tall order, given the current political and budgeting environment.
Questions left unresolved include: Who among the White House, USAID, State, and various interagency working groups will have authority over whom? How difficult will it be to overcome institutional inertia? Which countries get aid and how is that decision made? How does U.S. strategy interface with other large development institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund?
And finally, what’s the timetable for these changes? “The Obama administration has only two years left in it what it presumes will be its first term,” Sewell writes. “It will be important, therefore, that it prioritize the changes it wants to implement. If everything is a priority, overload will result.”
Frederick Burkle, senior public policy scholar at the Wilson Center and senior fellow of the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative at the Harvard School of Public Health, sees the QDDR as a the first step to righting a problem that began after Vietnam: the defunding and de-staffing of USAID.
Like others, Burkle notes that the QDDR is only a preliminary step, saying “it is clear that it will take years – probably two decades at the least – and billions to restore USAID’s potential to what it should have remained decades ago.”
As it became apparent that development was essential to securing Iraq and Afghanistan, the military increasingly took over that role. But Burkle says they failed to pay proper attention to public health systems and other long-term development issues, instead favoring “short-term, feel-good projects that have, for the most part, fallen apart.” If USAID is to pry these responsibilities back from the military he sees a difficult and perhaps (currently at least) impossible-to-win congressional fight in the cards.
“Overall,” Burkle writes, “the QDDR has tremendous potential, but emphasis must be placed on USAID’s autonomy and assurances that they will have the internal capacity to develop sensible programs to address root causes.”
Improving women’s status and ideologically engaging youth: These are the diplomatic and development battlegrounds of the 21st century, says Richard Cincotta, consultant on political demography for ECSP and demographer-in-residence at the Stimson Center. These issues are where civilian power, strategically applied, “will be critical to the long-term international political and security environment.”
Cincotta, who has written for The New Security Beat on the demographic factors behind the Middle East’s recent turmoil, sees better communication with the world’s youth as a critical need that the QDDR shows signs of addressing. Likewise, he writes, the State and USAID commitment to women’s issues perhaps “anticipates long-term U.S. involvement in some of the world’s most politically volatile regions – parts of the Middle East (particularly the Arabian Peninsula), sub-Saharan Africa (west, central, and east), and South Asia (specifically Afghanistan and Pakistan) – where women’s status remains low, fertility is highest, the growth of young adult cohorts is most rapid, and states are at their weakest.”
While he expected the QDDR to largely deal with “organizational initiatives and streamlining bureaucratic process,” Cincotta says he found it describes a “full array of tactical relationships and programs that State and USAID maintain with other U.S. agencies, international institutions, and NGOs.” As such, read in conjunction with the National Security Strategy, it can be a useful reference point for debates linking diplomacy and development to national interests, as well as for those seeking a glimpse into the future of U.S. diplomacy and development – including foreign-policy-oriented academics and their students.
Sources: Sources: Council on Foreign Relations, Foreign Policy, The New York Times, Oxfam International, U.S. Defense Department, U.S. State Department.
Photo Credit: Adapted from (clockwise from the top) “091012-F-7498H-173,” courtesy of flickr user isafmedia; QDDR word cloud, courtesy of Wordle; “101007-F-3682S-130,” courtesy of flickr user isafmedia; “Town Hall Meeting with USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah,” courtesy of flickr user US Mission Geneva; and “NYTimes: Hope vs. Crisis,” courtesy of flickr user blprnt_van (Jer Thorp).
You Are Invited: February 23, 2011
Managing the Planet’s Freshwater
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
The Brazil Institute, Environmental Change and Security Program, Latin American Program, and Mexico Institute
Wednesday, February 23, 2011, 3:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Woodrow Wilson Center, Washington DC
6th Floor Auditorium
RSVP Agenda Directions Webcast
Karin M. Krchnak, Director, International Water Policy, The Nature Conservancy
Dann Sklarew, Sustainability Fellow, George Mason University
Paulo Sotero, Director, Brazil Institute
The environmental challenges of climate change, ecosystem change, energy demands, and demographic trends continue to mount. The first decade of the 21st century was the warmest in 130 years of recorded global temperatures and 2010 may be close to the warmest year yet recorded. Extreme events related to the environment – such as the major wildfires in Russia, devastating floods in Pakistan and Australia, and record drought in the Amazon basin – are becoming more frequent. Meanwhile, over a billion people are without access to safe drinking water. Desertification and aquatic and wetland habitat destruction are rampant. Many now call for collective action at the global level to address these trends and move the planet and humanity toward a more sustainable future. This response requires the best of the sciences (including social sciences) and an integrated effort with the world of policymakers and practitioners.
The result is a set of "Managing the Planet" dialogues – developed jointly by George Mason University and the Wilson Center's Environmental Change and Security Program and Brazil Institute. This session will focus on how we manage our planet’s increasingly stressed freshwater resources. Presenters will introduce key challenges, global responses and options, followed by full-audience participation in exploring solutions.
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.
The result is a set of "Managing the Planet" dialogues – developed jointly by George Mason University and the Wilson Center's Environmental Change and Security Program and Brazil Institute. This session will focus on how we manage our planet’s increasingly stressed freshwater resources. Presenters will introduce key challenges, global responses and options, followed by full-audience participation in exploring solutions.
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.
Topics:
You Are Invited
USAID’s Role in National Security
Development Matters and It’s Cheaper Than You Think
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Over the past year, the Obama administration launched the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (the QDDR – see our full set of reviews on this first-of-its-kind document), Feed the Future, and the Global Health Initiative. In accordance with these new strategic initiatives, USAID has launched USAID Forward to implement a series of reforms to strengthen its capacity to meet the world’s development challenges effectively and efficiently. The agency has tried to foster a “spirit of innovation, science, technology, and smarter strategic thinking to each of [its] areas of core focus: gender, education, water, and climate,” said Shah. In his speech at CGD, he announced a new, re-worked evaluation policy and outlined a number of cost-saving actions, including graduating countries that no longer need aid, promoting procurement and contracting reform, and eliminating some costly senior positions in the agency.
Value to Shareholders
Moving forward, USAID is working to further reduce inefficiencies and increase transparency, said Shah, and is “focused on delivering the highest possible value for our shareholders – the American people and the congressional leaders who represent them.” He added that “like an enterprise, we’re relentlessly focused on delivering results and learning from success and failure.”
These are exciting changes for the development community. But, if Congress significantly cuts funding, by, for example, passing a plan similar to one endorsed by 165 Republican representatives a few weeks ago, these changes might not see the light of day – the plan proposed to save $1.39 billion by eliminating agency operating expenses. Putting that in perspective, the USAID operating budget for the past fiscal year was $1.69 billion. (Strangely, while the plan all but eliminates the agency that administers them, it does little to cut actual outgoing foreign assistance monies.)
The plan, however, may reflect the views of much of the American public. A World Public Opinion poll showed that Americans believe the government spends up to 25 percent of its budget on foreign aid and want to cut back to 10 percent, while in fact, aid represents just one percent of the federal budget (compared with more than 20 percent for defense).
What the proposed plan fails to take into account is development’s role in promoting peace, security, and prosperity globally. Said Shah at CGD, “as the President and the Secretaries of State, Treasury, and Defense have all made abundantly clear, development is as critical to our economic prospects and our national security as diplomacy and defense.”
A More Efficient Investment
Shah elaborated on this idea in an interview with Foreign Policy last month: “In the military they call us a high-value, low-density partner because we are of high value to the national security mission but there aren't enough of us and we don't have enough capability,” he said. “This is actually a much, much, much more efficient investment than sending in our troops, not even counting the tremendous risk to American lives when we have to do that.”
Chad Briggs, a professor for the USAF Air University, pointed out the multiple benefits to the military that increased State and USAID agency in the field could provide in his review of the QDDR:
Considering the existing responsibilities of the United States overseas and the potential for future risks and crises that will need to be addressed, the QDDR’s recommendations to strengthen engagement abroad can only be a positive step for U.S. interests. If the various hurdles enumerated above and elsewhere can be addressed, the QDDR’s focus on emerging risks may also ease the burden on DOD resources and force deployments, recognizing that not every engagement abroad should be resolved by the military alone.If done right, development can provide both economic growth and democratic governance and help stabilize countries before, during, and after conflict or crisis in a cost-effective way while simultaneously addressing transnational human and environmental security issues like hunger, poverty, disease, and climate change (see Yemen for an example where the application of soft power now could reduce the chance of deploying more hard power later).
Policymakers should support USAID's current efforts to make smarter investments, “which over time will save hundreds of millions of dollars, as opposed to trying to save a little bit now by cutting our capacity to do oversight and monitoring,” said Shah in Foreign Policy.
Sources: Center for Global Development, The Economist, Foreign Policy, USAID, U.S. Department of State, World Public Opinion.
Photo Credit: "Pallets of food, water and supplies staged to be delivered," courtesy of flickr user USAID_Images.
You Are Invited: February 22, 2011
Carrying Capacity: Should We Be Aiming to Survive or Flourish?
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
The Environmental Change and Security Program
Tuesday, February 22, 2011, 3:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Woodrow Wilson Center, Washington DC
5th Floor Auditorium
Agenda Directions Webcast
Sir John Sulston FRS, Chair, Institute for Science, Ethics, & Innovation, University of Manchester and Chair, Royal Society People and the Planet Working Group
Martha Campbell, President, Venture Strategies for Health and Development
Parfait Eloundou-Enyegue, Associate Professor, Department of Development Sociology, Cornell University; and Associate Director, Cornell Population Program
The UK-based Royal Society is undertaking a new study entitled People and the Planet, focusing on the roles population dynamics play in sustainable development. The working group effort, chaired by Nobel laureate Sir John Sulston, aims to take a fresh look at the factors affecting and affected by changing populations.
Some countries in Africa, Asia, and Central America continue to have rapidly growing populations while many others have transitioned to slower or even negative population growth. This diversity of demographic growth profiles is accompanied by a wide spectrum of views on population’s importance in sustainable development debates. Some see population questions as a distraction from the urgent imperative of reducing resource consumption in the wealthiest countries. Others argue population growth is an issue that will solve itself, as global population size is projected to peak and then fall from the middle of the 21st century. Still others argue stabilizing population is a key to achieving sustainable development.
To be completed in early 2012, the Royal Society’s People and the Planet study will speak directly to these debates by analyzing how population variables will affect and be affected by economies, environments, societies, and cultures over the next forty years and beyond. The aims of the study are to provide policy guidance to decision makers and inform interested members of the public based on a dispassionate assessment of the best available evidence.
While the scope of the study is global, it explicitly acknowledges regional variations in population dynamics. It looks at the implications of population decreases and increases that are observed and predicted in different parts of the world; it considers how scientific and technological developments might alter the rate and impact of population changes and affect human well-being; and it examines what population levels are likely to affect quality of life regionally and globally - should we be aiming to survive or flourish?
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.
Some countries in Africa, Asia, and Central America continue to have rapidly growing populations while many others have transitioned to slower or even negative population growth. This diversity of demographic growth profiles is accompanied by a wide spectrum of views on population’s importance in sustainable development debates. Some see population questions as a distraction from the urgent imperative of reducing resource consumption in the wealthiest countries. Others argue population growth is an issue that will solve itself, as global population size is projected to peak and then fall from the middle of the 21st century. Still others argue stabilizing population is a key to achieving sustainable development.
To be completed in early 2012, the Royal Society’s People and the Planet study will speak directly to these debates by analyzing how population variables will affect and be affected by economies, environments, societies, and cultures over the next forty years and beyond. The aims of the study are to provide policy guidance to decision makers and inform interested members of the public based on a dispassionate assessment of the best available evidence.
While the scope of the study is global, it explicitly acknowledges regional variations in population dynamics. It looks at the implications of population decreases and increases that are observed and predicted in different parts of the world; it considers how scientific and technological developments might alter the rate and impact of population changes and affect human well-being; and it examines what population levels are likely to affect quality of life regionally and globally - should we be aiming to survive or flourish?
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.
Topics:
You Are Invited
Reading Radar:
Health, Demographics, and the Environment in Southeast Asia
Friday, February 18, 2011
From the Wilson Center:
Watch: Geoff Dabelko and John Sewell on Integrating Environment, Development, and Security and the QDDR
Friday, February 18, 2011
“We all must check our stereotypes of the other communities at the door…we’re not talking about hugging trees and hugging pandas,” said Geoff Dabelko, director of the Wilson Center’s Environmental Change and Security Program, in a panel discussion on Foreign Policy Challenges in the 112th Congress as part of the Wilson Center on the Hill series. Dabelko argued for a more multi-dimensional and integrated approach to addressing environmental issues.
“To tackle these problems, these connections between, say, natural resources, development, and security, it really does require that we have an integrated approach to our analysis [and] an integrated approach to our responses,” Dabelko said.
In dealing with climate change, for example, “a more diversified view would be one where we spend more time trying to understand adaptation,” said Dabelko. “How are we going to deal with the expected impacts of these problems?” he asked.
Dabelko called on policymakers to seek “triple bottom lines,” pointing out that “if you’re worried about climate change, or you’re worried about development, or you’re worried about fragile states, some of the same governance interventions and strong institutions in these fragile or weak states are going be the ones that will get you benefits in these multiple sectors.”
The Political Space
Fortunately, the current political environment is one in which “there is political space for integration,” said Dabelko, as demonstrated by, for example, the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR), which Wilson Center Senior Scholar John Sewell addressed in his remarks.
“All of you who are directly or indirectly engaged in Congress are going to be faced with a very important opportunity in the next 12 to 24 months,” Sewell said, “to focus both diplomacy and development on the major challenges that are going to face all of us in the first half of the century.”
Calling the QDDR a “major rethink of both American diplomacy and American development,” Sewell applauded its conceptual alignment, but cautioned that the review leaves many questions unanswered about its implementation.
“The QDDR sets no criteria,” said Sewell. “Are we going to continue to put large sums of money into countries that aren’t developing? Are we going to follow the choice of issues – food, environment, and so on and so forth? It’s a question that is not answered in any of these documents.”
Sewell also pointed to potential clashes over budgeting, USAID/State leadership, and the lack of coordination with other large development agencies, like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.
For more on Sewell’s analysis of the QDDR, see his recent blog post “Reading the QDDR: Is the Glass Half Full or Half Empty?”
“To tackle these problems, these connections between, say, natural resources, development, and security, it really does require that we have an integrated approach to our analysis [and] an integrated approach to our responses,” Dabelko said.
In dealing with climate change, for example, “a more diversified view would be one where we spend more time trying to understand adaptation,” said Dabelko. “How are we going to deal with the expected impacts of these problems?” he asked.
Dabelko called on policymakers to seek “triple bottom lines,” pointing out that “if you’re worried about climate change, or you’re worried about development, or you’re worried about fragile states, some of the same governance interventions and strong institutions in these fragile or weak states are going be the ones that will get you benefits in these multiple sectors.”
The Political Space
Fortunately, the current political environment is one in which “there is political space for integration,” said Dabelko, as demonstrated by, for example, the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR), which Wilson Center Senior Scholar John Sewell addressed in his remarks.
“All of you who are directly or indirectly engaged in Congress are going to be faced with a very important opportunity in the next 12 to 24 months,” Sewell said, “to focus both diplomacy and development on the major challenges that are going to face all of us in the first half of the century.”
Calling the QDDR a “major rethink of both American diplomacy and American development,” Sewell applauded its conceptual alignment, but cautioned that the review leaves many questions unanswered about its implementation.
“The QDDR sets no criteria,” said Sewell. “Are we going to continue to put large sums of money into countries that aren’t developing? Are we going to follow the choice of issues – food, environment, and so on and so forth? It’s a question that is not answered in any of these documents.”
Sewell also pointed to potential clashes over budgeting, USAID/State leadership, and the lack of coordination with other large development agencies, like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.
For more on Sewell’s analysis of the QDDR, see his recent blog post “Reading the QDDR: Is the Glass Half Full or Half Empty?”
Beat on the Ground:
Promoting Family Planning and Livelihoods for a Healthy Environment in Uganda
Ruth Siyage, PHE Champion
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Meet 32 year old Ruth Siyage – a wife, mother, peasant farmer, shop owner, and population, health, and environment (PHE) champion. Ruth, her husband, Siyage Benon, and their three healthy daughters – ages 3, 6, and 11 – live about an hour from Bwindi Impenetrable National Park (BINP) in Uganda’s Kanungu District. The 33,000-hectare BINP is a World Heritage Site known for its exceptional biodiversity – with over 200 species of trees, 100 species of ferns, 350 species of birds, 200 species of butterflies, as well as many endangered species, including the mountain gorilla.
In addition to being a peasant farmer who grows potatoes, millet, beans, and groundnuts to feed her family, Ruth also has a small shop in the nearby trading center where she sells groceries and interacts with most of her friends. Ruth first learned of and embraced the PHE approach through a neighbor and local community volunteer, Mrs. Hope Matsiko – one of 29 PHE volunteers trained by the Conservation Through Public Health (CTPH) programs.
Ruth recalls:
Hope used to approach us and tell us about family planning. Others refused to listen, but I took it up. Before, I used to refuse to go to Kajubwe Health Center for services and never got information because it was so far away. However, when Hope, the local volunteer, who is also my neighbor, visited me at home, I got more information about family planning. She also counseled me on the methods I could use, which was best for my health and how to use it. I now use family planning.As a new champion, Ruth uses several ways to teach her community about family planning and PHE activities. One way is through face-to-face discussions with individuals attending village meetings. She focuses on women she sees often and who she knows have closely-spaced pregnancies. Recently, three of these women started using modern contraceptives.
Ruth says she believes that through a PHE approach much can be done and has been done:
By teaching people about safe water use, I believe that we can stop diarrhea diseases. And by teaching about sanitation, we can help prevent diseases such as malaria, tuberculosis, and worms. Now my neighbors seldom get sick. We have a fairly healthy life. When we are not sick, we do not have to sell our goats and land to buy medicine. And when we plan our families, we are better able to care for and educate our children. Through our community sensitization, people now even understand the importance of gorilla conservation.Ruth is especially appreciative of the CTPH program, which first taught her about and then turned her into an advocate for the integrated PHE approach.
This PHE Champion profile was produced by the BALANCED Project. A PDF version can be downloaded from the PHE Toolkit. PHE Champion profiles highlight people working on the ground to improve health and conservation in areas where biodiversity is critically endangered.
Photo Credit: Silverback mountain gorilla named Mwirima with a juvenille gorilla from the Rusguguar group near Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, and Ruth and her son in their shop in rural Uganda, courtesy of CTPH.
Reading the QDDR
Guest Contributor Richard A. Matthew:
Civilian Power in a Complex, Uncertain World
Thursday, February 17, 2011
The basic premise of the QDDR is that U.S. leadership in the global arena – where there are shared problems to solve, wars to prevent, fragile countries to assist, and new risks to manage – depends in significant measure on our capacity to generate, focus, and exercise “civilian power.” Civilian power, the QDDR contends, is critical if we are to succeed in a world that has become an increasingly complex, high-speed, and interconnected place, due in large measure to dramatic technological innovation and diffusion (e.g., see the effects of Twitter and Facebook on the recent Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions).
Solutions to the problems we face today require “even greater cooperation,” as the QDDR puts it, and therefore we need to continue to build an international system that is compatible with our national values and conducive to international partnerships. We face new or emboldened threats like terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and climate change that we cannot handle alone. Power is shifting around in the system, towards countries like China and India, which presents the United States with new challenges and new opportunities. Some non-state actors have become incredibly powerful in the global arena, while some states remain very fragile, and we need to work with both.
Unanswered Questions and the Purse Strings
Is the end result of the QDDR, then, a strong case for leading through civilian power? The document imparts some sense of the complexity of 21st century world affairs, and dutifully affirms the entrepreneurial spirit and sense of purpose and possibility that are distinctive elements of American political culture. It is hard to find fault with very general claims that the world is increasingly interconnected; that we need to cooperate with other state and non-state actors to solve shared problems; that development and diplomacy are critical elements of global leadership; and that the United Nations is important to us and to the world.
It is also easy to accept the argument that a renewal of State and USAID is an essential part of optimizing U.S. foreign policy. I suspect that preparing the QDDR was a useful exercise for State and USAID, and I hope that it does become a regular output, unlike one of its obvious ancestors, Environmental Diplomacy, which was State’s first – and last – annual report on the environment and foreign policy.
But while the QDDR is a promising start, it is not an entirely satisfying one. An important omission, which is well addressed elsewhere on The New Security Beat, is any sense of how to tackle the enormous challenge of overcoming institutional inertia in order to implement meaningful reform. Bureaucracies have great capacity to resist change, knowing that elected leaders come and go. This resistance may be based on fears of what change will bring, or in the belief that change is not necessary or desirable. In any case, it is not a trivial obstacle in the path of institutional reform. New incentives, new training programs, new hiring practices, new career paths: these will be essential to change, but they are scarcely mentioned here.
An equally daunting political challenge will be attracting the necessary resources. Congress holds the purse strings, and the U.S. Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, already seems to be having a tough time stabilizing support for the United Nations. Is there any chance that Congress will increase the $47 billion State and USAID currently receive, given the country’s lingering economic crisis? Would reallocating the existing budget be sufficient?
The thorny question of finding the optimal defense/diplomacy/development mix for U.S. foreign policy remains to be answered, and while it is surely true that the boundaries are not as clear as in the past – for example, the military is currently involved in diplomacy and development on an unprecedented scale – this does not necessarily mean that boundaries around budgets will shift accordingly so that scarce funds can be used for the greatest impact.
An “Age of Uncertainty”
There are deeper problems with the QDDR than these perennial and hard to solve ones. The vision of world affairs it lays out, a vision that provides the rationale for civilian power and institutional reform, adopts the analytical and normative vocabularies of the post-Cold War world but skirts the tough issues such language raises. For example, Chapter 1 casually notes that we live in an “age of uncertainty,” and at several points the report underlines the “complexity” of global problems. If such claims are more than mere rhetorical flourishes, then they have important implications for foreign policy: How do we orient a superpower in an “age of uncertainty?” Do we need to prepare for “black swan” (low-probability, high-impact) events? Do we need to build greater resilience at home and abroad? Should we not be thinking about building capacities in our citizenry and in the countries we choose to invest in that can be repurposed and customized as circumstances change? There is a gap between the urgent prose that describes the complex and interconnected world we inhabit and the very general, almost formulaic recommendations for how to respond to this world that follow.
What would it mean to take seriously this rather foreboding vision of the world? It might mean that State should follow Defense in scanning for global challenges on the near horizon that are being propelled by, or deepening the extent of, interconnectivity and complexity. In my field, looming issues with implications that need to be explored include the dumping of enormous quantities of plastic into the oceans and large-scale land purchases in parts of Africa by foreign countries seeking to improve their own food and energy security. No doubt there are similar issues in other policy domains.
Looking Back and Forward
One place to look toward is developing a far deeper understanding of citizen diplomacy, social entrepreneurship, and the use of new information technologies in the global arena. Here we find great passion, agility, and innovation in addressing daunting global problems, but also many limitations. The realm of citizen diplomacy does not turn international agreements into national laws, direct development aid, or stand beside the legitimate use of force. How can and should State work with this turbulent, inventive, and growing sphere of activity to reduce poverty, support women, slow climate change, and rebuild war-torn societies?
It might mean thinking through the lessons of 20 years of UN efforts to stabilize fragile and post-conflict states and moving towards more sustainable platforms of development. What have we learned about the challenges of coordinating global activities? What have we learned about the pros and cons of investing into elections versus job creation, versus natural resource management, versus empowering women, and so on?
One could add to this chain of thought indefinitely. The bottom line is that the QDDR is a good start, but the next steps will not be easy. Bureaucratic and political battles need to be waged. A deeper understanding of the security and development implications of complexity, connectivity, and uncertainty is needed. More attention must be given to drawing lessons from the past two decades of efforts to support development and prevent and respond to conflict and crisis. Otherwise this good start will never expand beyond its own bubble of rhetoric and promise.
Be sure to check out the other entries in The New Security Beat's full series of analyses on the first QDDR.
Richard A. Matthew is a professor in the Schools of Social Ecology and Social Science at the University of California at Irvine and founding director of the Center for Unconventional Security Affairs.
Sources: The New York Times, U.S. State Department.
Image Credit: Adapted from “NYTimes: Hope vs. Crisis,” courtesy of flickr user blprnt_van (Jer Thorp).
From the Wilson Center:
Can Women Help Make Peace Agreements Sustainable?
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
On January 20, the Wilson Center’s Middle East Program and the Institute for Inclusive Security (IIS) hosted a meeting titled “Can Women Help Make Peace Agreements Sustainable?” with Luz Mendez, member of the Advisory Council of the Global Fund for Women, Guatemala; Jacques Paul Klein, former United Nations Secretary General’s special representative and coordinator of United Nations operations, Liberia; Alice Nderitu, National Cohesion and Integration Commission, Kenya; and Suaad Allami, director, Sadr City Women’s Center and Legal Clinic, Iraq. Carla Koppell, director of the Institute for Inclusive Security, moderated the event.
Mendez recounted her experiences at the negotiating table during the peace process that ended a 36-year war in Guatemala. She described the shift in that process when the United Nations went from observer to mediator once participants realized the original format was not producing results. Mendez emphasized the challenges she faced when trying to address women’s rights concerns in talks, being the only woman present for four years of the five-year process. She also described the satisfaction she felt when the UN moderator consulted her on the inclusion of particular women’s rights provisions. Mendez also highlighted the ongoing challenges in Guatemala, such as weak implementation mechanisms for the accords, the ubiquity of femicide, and the persistence of socioeconomic grievances.
Klein, who served the UN aiding victims in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Liberia, denounced the violence and hatred that often erupts when a state is too weak to implement rule of law and is unable to turn its human capital into a source of strength. He described the prevalence of human trafficking witnessed throughout his career and the programs implemented to rescue kidnapped and exploited women. He concluded by emphasizing the responsibility and ability that each individual has to foster tolerance and take action against violence and repression.
Nderitu reviewed the origins of ethnic tensions in Kenya, which erupted into violence following elections in 2007-2008, as well as the role of women in the subsequent peace negotiations. She referred to the Kenya National Dialogue and Reconciliation agreements mediated by Kofi Annan, which involved women throughout the peace process. These agreements focused on ending violence and the humanitarian crises while also addressing longstanding issues such as poverty, inequality, and unemployment.
Allami described the rise of the conservative movement in Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein, which has effectively limited women’s rights and freedoms codified in the existing Iraqi personal status law. She stated that coalition forces in Iraq helped to limit this trend, but the situation was still contentious because Iraqi leadership tends to not work with women’s groups even though women are mandated to comprise no less than 25 percent of parliament. Allami indicated that female leadership is ultimately weakened if the general female population’s rights are repressed. She also discussed the commitment the international community and the United States have made to Iraqi women.
Koppell concluded by discussing how there are plenty of models throughout the world where women in civil society have been brought into negotiations and peacemaking; policymakers can no longer justify the exclusion of women by claiming there are no proven strategies of inclusion.
Sara Girgis is an intern with the Middle East Program at the Wilson Center.
Photo Credit: “070905-A-5406P-024,” courtesy of flickr user The U.S. Army. Sgt. Yasser Ahmed, a soldier from the Iraqi Army’s 3rd Battalion, 1st Brigade, 11th Infantry Division, talks with a local woman during a patrol in the Graya’at area of Baghdad’s Adhamiyah District Sep. 5.
Watch: Teaching Environment and Security at West Point
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
U.S. strategic assessments like the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, the 2010 National Security Strategy, and the Director of National Intelligence’s annual threat assessment have placed natural resources, climate change, population, and poverty squarely on the American security agenda. But are these broad statements in doctrine and threat assessments translating into tangible changes, such as new approaches to the education of future military officers? My colleague Sean Peoples and I recently spoke with faculty and cadets at the U.S. Military Academy about how West Point’s Geography and Environmental Engineering Department is integrating these issues directly into their curriculum.
“I want them to think about the bigger picture,” said geography professor Amy Krakowka. “West Point’s geography curriculum requires cadets to complete an integrated analysis using a checklist that works up from the basic physical landscape of an area to the larger-scale human and cultural geography of a region.” We’re trying to “put people into the decision-making process,” she said. Though some students are skeptical at first, Krakowka said she has already received requests for the checklist tool from former students now deployed overseas in active theaters.
“The military is engaged in many, many varied operations, many of which have nothing to do with combat, many of which are simply aimed at building bridges between populations,” said LTC Lou Rios USAF (Ret.), who taught at West Point before retiring from active duty this year.
Trained as a meteorologist, Rios taught climate change and energy issues as part of environmental security courses. Rios also paid multiple visits to the Wilson Center to discuss integrating environment and demography into the West Point curriculum. One tangible outcome of these visits was ECSP hosting two honors cadets as summer interns, something we plan to do again in 2011.
“These cadets, who are soon to be lieutenants, will eventually be in positions of decision-making, hopefully advising higher ranking colonels [and] general officers on how to essentially take the environment into account,” said Rios. He expects the students to employ the skills they learn in places like Africa Command (AFRICOM), where the mission is less about actual combat and more about “understanding places and why conflict happens.”
“I think they’re open-minded enough that they can actually take all that classroom knowledge and put it to work,” Rios said. “I think they understand that the military changes and the environment will play a role in that future.”
“I want them to think about the bigger picture,” said geography professor Amy Krakowka. “West Point’s geography curriculum requires cadets to complete an integrated analysis using a checklist that works up from the basic physical landscape of an area to the larger-scale human and cultural geography of a region.” We’re trying to “put people into the decision-making process,” she said. Though some students are skeptical at first, Krakowka said she has already received requests for the checklist tool from former students now deployed overseas in active theaters.
“The military is engaged in many, many varied operations, many of which have nothing to do with combat, many of which are simply aimed at building bridges between populations,” said LTC Lou Rios USAF (Ret.), who taught at West Point before retiring from active duty this year.
Trained as a meteorologist, Rios taught climate change and energy issues as part of environmental security courses. Rios also paid multiple visits to the Wilson Center to discuss integrating environment and demography into the West Point curriculum. One tangible outcome of these visits was ECSP hosting two honors cadets as summer interns, something we plan to do again in 2011.
“These cadets, who are soon to be lieutenants, will eventually be in positions of decision-making, hopefully advising higher ranking colonels [and] general officers on how to essentially take the environment into account,” said Rios. He expects the students to employ the skills they learn in places like Africa Command (AFRICOM), where the mission is less about actual combat and more about “understanding places and why conflict happens.”
“I think they’re open-minded enough that they can actually take all that classroom knowledge and put it to work,” Rios said. “I think they understand that the military changes and the environment will play a role in that future.”
You Are Invited: February 17, 2011
From 1910 to 2010: Understanding the Causes and Consequences of the Youth and Adult Grievances That Drive the Second Arab Revolt
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
The Middle East Program and Environmental Change and Security Program
Thursday, February 17, 2011, 12:00 p.m. - 1:00 p.m.
Woodrow Wilson Center, Washington DC
6th Floor Moynihan Board Room
Agenda Directions
Rami Khouri, Former Public Policy Scholar, Woodrow Wilson Center; Director, Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs, American University of Beirut; and Visiting Scholar, Fares Center, Tufts University
Rami Khouri will examine the convergence of multiple economic, social, security, and political grievances that are widely shared throughout much of the Arab world and are clearly reflected in new research and polling data among young people throughout the region. He will also explain why the current concerns and activism of Arab youth are widely shared among adults and why the current revolt across much of the region is not a surprise to anyone who has made the effort to analyze Arab grievances and repeated incidents of self-assertion, rebellion, and resistance in the past generation.
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 Moynihan board 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.
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 Moynihan board 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.
Topics:
You Are Invited
Yemen’s Revolt Won’t Be Like Egypt or Tunisia
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Demographically, Yemen is far younger than both Egypt and Tunisia. Its median age is 18 years old, while Egypt’s is 24 and Tunisia’s, 30. Yemen’s youthfulness makes it far more likely to face violent unrest than either of its relatively peaceful predecessors. And according to demographer Richard Cincotta, given its age structure, it also has a far lesser chance of becoming a stable democracy anytime soon. Yemen’s probability of liberal democracy, based on historical demographic analysis, will not reach the 50/50 point until 2045 (for more on Cincotta’s median age methodology, see his post on Tunisia).
Yemen is not only the fastest growing country in the Middle East, it is also the poorest, with unemployment reaching close to 40 percent, 45 percent of the population living on less than $2 a day, and almost no source of income besides oil exports, which have declined 56 percent since 2001. Yemen’s environment is vulnerable too, with analysts concerned that it could become the first modern country to literally run out of ground water.
These factors mean that Yemen’s revolution, if it comes, likely won’t be anything like Egypt or Tunisia’s relatively peaceful (so far) transitions. For more on Yemen’s unique background and some of the factors leading to its troubled present, see “Demographics, Depleted Resources, and Al Qaeda Inflame Tensions in Yemen.”
Sources: Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas – USA, CIA World Factbook, Reuters, Social Watch, The New York Times, UN Development Programme.
Image Credit: 2011 population age structures for Tunisia, Egypt, and Yemen, adapted from graphics courtesy of the U.S. Census Bureau.
You Are Invited: February 15, 2011
Deforestation, Population, and Development in a Warming World: A Roundtable on Latin America
Monday, February 14, 2011
The Brazil Institute, Environmental Change and Security Program, Latin American Program, and Mexico Institute
Tuesday, February 15, 2011, 12:30 p.m. - 2:30 p.m.
Woodrow Wilson Center, Washington DC
5th Floor Conference Room
RSVP Agenda Directions Webcast
Jason Bremner, Director, Population, Health, and Environment, Population Reference Bureau
Liza Grandia, Assistant Professor, International Development and Social Change, Clark University
David Lopez-Carr, Associate Professor, Department of Geography, Director, Human-Environment Dynamics Lab, University of California, Santa Barbara
Latin America is a region of contrasts. It is the most urbanized continent in the world, yet it has vast tracts of tropical rainforest. Much of the region has experienced declining fertility rates, yet rural populations, particularly indigenous peoples, have remained high. Land use change, such as deforestation, is driven by a complex mix of changing urban and rural pressures. These are just a few of the differences that characterize the region. On top of this diversity, and the vulnerabilities and resiliencies that come with it, are the expected impacts of climate change.
Please join us as three experts present highlights of their recent applied research and suggest potential lessons learned for policymakers and practitioners tackling a range of development challenges in the region.
Jason Bremner has conducted extensive field research on indigenous communities in Peru and Ecuador, where population, health, and natural resources outcomes are tightly intertwined. Now working with integrated population-health-environment practitioners around the world, Bremner also can set these efforts into a comparative context of these cross-sectoral development responses.
Liza Grandia focuses her research on population-health-environment connections in rural Guatemala, drawing heavily on resources like the Demographic and Health Surveys. She also has worked for years with community-based NGOs such as Guatemala’s ProPeten. These dual research and practice experiences enable her to share practical insights on integrated PHE approaches in a critical and changing tropical environment.
David Lopez-Carr has tracked changes in rural populations and land use in Guatemala at the same research sites for over a decade. His research explores the links among rural to urban migration, demography, land use, and climate change.
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. 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.
Please join us as three experts present highlights of their recent applied research and suggest potential lessons learned for policymakers and practitioners tackling a range of development challenges in the region.
Jason Bremner has conducted extensive field research on indigenous communities in Peru and Ecuador, where population, health, and natural resources outcomes are tightly intertwined. Now working with integrated population-health-environment practitioners around the world, Bremner also can set these efforts into a comparative context of these cross-sectoral development responses.
Liza Grandia focuses her research on population-health-environment connections in rural Guatemala, drawing heavily on resources like the Demographic and Health Surveys. She also has worked for years with community-based NGOs such as Guatemala’s ProPeten. These dual research and practice experiences enable her to share practical insights on integrated PHE approaches in a critical and changing tropical environment.
David Lopez-Carr has tracked changes in rural populations and land use in Guatemala at the same research sites for over a decade. His research explores the links among rural to urban migration, demography, land use, and climate change.
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. 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.
Topics:
You Are Invited
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
