• ecsp

New Security Beat

Subscribe:
  • mail-to
  • Who We Are
  • Topics
    • Population
    • Environment
    • Security
    • Health
    • Development
  • Columns
    • China Environment Forum
    • Choke Point
    • Dot-Mom
    • Navigating the Poles
    • New Security Broadcast
    • Reading Radar
  • Multimedia
    • Water Stories (Podcast Series)
    • Backdraft (Podcast Series)
    • Tracking the Energy Titans (Interactive)
  • Films
    • Water, Conflict, and Peacebuilding (Animated Short)
    • Paving the Way (Ethiopia)
    • Broken Landscape (India)
    • Scaling the Mountain (Nepal)
    • Healthy People, Healthy Environment (Tanzania)
  • Publications
  • Events
  • Contact Us

NewSecurityBeat

The blog of the Wilson Center's Environmental Change and Security Program
Showing posts by Kayly Ober.
  • Urbanization, Climate Change, and Indigenous Populations: Finding USAID’s Comparative Advantage

    ›
    May 26, 2010  //  By Kayly Ober
    “Part of the outflow of migrants from rural areas of many Latin American countries has settled in remote rural areas, pushing the agricultural frontier further into the forest,” writes David López-Carr in a recent article in Population & Environment, “The population, agriculture, and environment nexus in Latin America.” In a May 4 presentation at the LAC Economic Growth and Environment Strategic Planning Workshop in Panama City, Panama, he discussed how to integrate family planning and environmental services in rural Latin America.

    Latin America is one of the most highly urbanized continents in the world, with an average of 75 percent of the population living in cities. However, “there are two Latin Americas,” said López-Carr at the workshop, which was sponsored by the Woodrow Wilson Center’s Environmental Change and Security Program and Brazil Institute, as well as the U.S. Agency for International Development. Largely developed countries like Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay are close to 90 percent urbanized, while Guatemala, Ecuador, and Bolivia are about 50 percent. In less urbanized countries, rural-rural migrants in search of agricultural land remain a major driving force behind forest conversion, he said.

    Between 1961 and 2001, Central America’s rural population increased by 59 percent, said Lopez-Carr. The increasing density of the rural population had a negative impact on forest reserves: a 15 percent increase in deforestation totaling some 13 million hectares.

    “Rural areas of Latin America still have high fertility rates but (unlike much of rural Africa, for example) also have a high unmet demand for contraception, meaning that improved contraceptive availability would likely result in a rapid and cost-effective means to reduce population pressures in priority conservation areas,” he said. Additionally, remote rural areas with high population growth rates tend to be associated with indigenous populations located in close proximity to protected forests.

    For example, in Guatemala, communities surrounding Sierra de Lacandon National Park have, since 1990, grown by 10 percent each year, with birthrates averaging eight children per woman. Larger communities and larger households have led to agricultural expansion, which infringes on the park and accelerates deforestation in one of the most biologically diverse biospheres in the world, said López-Carr.

    Based on these demographic and environmental trends, López-Carr suggested USAID’s work in the region should focus on rural maternal and child health, and education – especially for girls.
    Not only does USAID already invest in such programs, but they only cost pennies per capita and could reduce the number of rural poor living in Latin American cities by tens of millions.

    Given the strong links between population density and deforestation in Latin America, expanding access to family planning would also be a smart investment in forest conservation and climate mitigation, López-Carr concluded.

    Source: Population Reference Bureau.

    Photo Credit: Dave Hawxhurst, Woodrow Wilson Center.
    MORE
  • Maintaining the Momentum: Highlights From the Uganda International Conference on Family Planning

    ›
    From the Wilson Center  //  March 29, 2010  //  By Kayly Ober
    “Family planning is to maternal survival what a vaccination is to child survival,” said Johns Hopkins professor Amy Tsui, quoting Khama Rogo of the World Bank, at the Woodrow Wilson Center event Maintaining the Momentum: Highlights From the Uganda International Conference on Family Planning on March 16. Rogo made the strong statement during the landmark November 2009 conference in Kampala, which has renewed interest in family planning and reproductive health among African leaders and development partners. Rhonda Smith of the Population Reference Bureau and Sahlu Haile of the David and Lucile Packard Foundation joined Tsui, the director of The Bill & Melinda Gates Institute of Population & Reproductive Health, to discuss their impressions of the Kampala conference and what it means for the future of family planning in Africa.

    “An event that happened at the right time”

    “Kampala was the work of a community,” said Tsui. More than 50 organizations—the U.S. Agency for International Development, the UN Population Fund, the World Bank, the World Health Organization, and the Gates and Packard Foundations—convened in Uganda, which was chosen not only for its central location, but also to highlight the country’s soaring unmet need for contraception—41 per cent—and rapid 3.1 percent population growth rate.

    Panels focused on key issues in family planning, including:
    • Integrating family planning into HIV/AIDS care
    • Integrating family planning in post-abortion, postpartum, child, and other primary health care
    • Expanding contraception delivery services by community health workers
    • Increasing outreach to youth and men
    • Capitalizing on private and public innovations in service delivery and financing
    The conference also made a splash in the media. “If you want it to get a lot of media hype, you have to have someone ready to say ‘I’m giving money to X,’” said Tsui. Thus, the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, David and Lucile Packard Foundation, USAID, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation announced a new three-year, $12 million Advance Family Planning project to advance reproductive health and family planning efforts in regions with the greatest need—particularly, sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. The conference generated palpable excitement and renewed energy for family planning. Uganda was “an event that happened at the right time,” said Tsui. Conference organizers, who have been asked to replicate it in other parts of the world, are already looking for locations for 2011. The conference was not just a success in theory, but also in action, and several developments emerged in its wake:
    • The United States announced its foreign assistance budget will increase support for family planning from $450 million to $715 million for the next fiscal year.
    • The Global Health Initiative identified maternal/child health and family planning as one of its main priority themes.
    • Secretary of State Clinton positively discussed girls’ education, family planning, and reproductive health at the ICPD + 15 anniversary.
    • The Women Deliver 2010 Conference, to be held in June, has identified family planning as a third pillar of maternal health.

    Uganda on the Move

    Rhonda Smith’s presentation “Uganda on the Move”—which she also presented in Uganda—is a prototype of the Population Reference Bureau’s new ENGAGE (Eliminating National Gaps—Advancing Global Equity) project, which is designed to “engage policy audiences and promote policy dialogue around issues of high fertility and high unmet need for family planning and their costs, consequences, and solutions,” she said. By using stunning, innovative graphics and avoiding confounding technical terms, ENGAGE’s products are designed to reach non-technical policy audiences and influential decision-makers.

    As one of the Uganda conference’s most talked about presentations, “Uganda on the Move” wows audiences with visuals created using Hans Rosling’s Trendalyzer software. The presentation shows that although Ugandans are increasingly healthier, have a higher life expectancy, and are more educated, maternal health remains in jeopardy. Tellingly, 46 percent of pregnancies in the country are unplanned, 6,000 women die each year from complications related to pregnancy, and 1,200 women die each year from undergoing unsafe abortions.

    Maternal deaths, however, do not tell the whole story: For every one woman dying, Smith said, 20-30 women suffer from short-term disability, which places a major strain on economic growth. From 2004 to 2013, maternal death will cost Uganda US$350 million in lost productivity; and disability will cost and additional US$750 million.

    What Next? The African Perspective

    “After 10 years of virtual clandestine work, [family planning] is just coming out of the closet,” said Sahlu Haile. Over the last few decades, family planning advocates have been struggling to: 1) keep family planning alive—without it being affected by political considerations 2) make family planning a health priority, without any associations with rights violations; and 3) be in solidarity with pioneering organizations of the family planning movement, like the International Planned Parenthood Federation, that were victims of discriminatory funding decisions.

    The Uganda conference changed all that, said Haile. In Uganda, conference attendees were “talking about family planning…not reproductive health, not maternal/child health.” This, he said, was “probably the single most important lesson…that I took from the Kampala conference.”

    Following the conference, Haile said that African government officials stressed family planning as a priority at meetings in Ethiopia and Nigeria—the first time he had witnessed such high-level attention to family planning from those countries in his 30-year career.

    In Ethiopia, African leaders pledged to:
    • Prioritize family planning, since family planning is one of the most cost-effective development investments;
    • Ensure access to contraception, as 40 percent of maternal deaths are associated with unwanted pregnancies; and
    • Integrate MDG 5b, universal access to reproductive health, into their international development plans and budgets.
    In Nigeria, West African ministers of health agreed that making abortion safe was essential to reducing maternal mortality. Across the board, at each meeting, family planning was discussed as “an investment, not an expenditure,” said Haile.

    Haile credited the Kampala conference for spurring these efforts. In December, he joined a task force of 14 Ethiopian organizations to plan the next steps. They will jointly develop research capacities, generate evidence, and strengthen monitoring and evaluation practices, especially with regard to integrating population, health, and environment efforts. In addition, they will engage with wider audiences via new tools such as the blog RH RealityCheck and Gapminder Foundation’s Trendalyzer program.

    Haile believes we need to “work together to encourage national-level efforts…to make sure family planning stays where it is now and make sure it is not abandoned.”

    To be a part of the new online family planning community, join the Kampala Conversation.

    Photo 1: A women and her children in Jinja, Uganda. Courtesy Flickr user cyclopsr. Photos of Amy Tsui, Rhonda Smith, and Sahlu Haile courtesy of Dave Hawxhurst, Woodrow Wilson Center.
    MORE
  • Water: The Next Climate Negotiation Tool?

    ›
    January 21, 2010  //  By Kayly Ober
    When the dust settled at the COP15 in Copenhagen, participating parties failed to reach a formal climate change agreement and old divisions between developed and developing countries intensified. Despite such setbacks, there may be a natural building block in formal climate change negotiations between the north and south in the future: water.

    Luis Alberto Moreno, president of the Inter-American Development Bank, argues in a recent LA Times op-ed that economic interdependence and, more concretely, basic survival hinge on water in both developed and developing countries alike, most especially in Latin America.

    With 31 percent of the world’s freshwater resources, Latin America enjoys a competitive advantage in agriculture and energy. But recently, drought has taken its toll. Repercussions were most acutely felt in Argentina in 2008, when 1.5 million head of cattle died and half its wheat crop was ruined. Meanwhile, hydroelectric output in the most populous part of Chile plunged by 34 percent and water-dependent states like Venezuela, Ecuador, Colombia, Paraguay, and Mexico rationed water, cut power, or both.

    Water’s importance in the region is obvious, but why should developed countries care about it when negotiating a climate deal? The simplest answer, according to Moreno, is that developed countries can invest in projects that resolve near-term, climate-related problems such as water supply and sanitation as they look for ways to spend the billions in aid they have just pledged for climate adaptation in the developing world. And many international donors, particularly the UN Development Programme, World Bank, and World Wildlife Fund already have invested millions of dollars towards water management and sanitation adaptation projects.

    On the other side of the coin, Latin American governments should “start treating water as a truly strategic resource instead of a free and limitless one.” Moreno claims this would mean “prioritizing investments and reforms in basic services in order to reduce waste, closing the coverage gap and eliminating waterborne diseases among the poor” in the short term and would also require “a willingness to make concessions in pursuit of global emission reductions that…could be crucial to ensuring reliable supplies of water.”

    While it may seem that Latin America’s water problems are not pressing, it is undeniable that if not properly managed, essential components of the region—such as the vital agricultural economy, the health of the population, and political and economic stability—may be in jeopardy.

    Photo: Man drinking water from a pipe in Ecuador. Courtesy Edwin Huffman and the World Bank.
    MORE
  • The Future of Family Planning Funding

    ›
    November 3, 2009  //  By Kayly Ober
    “Family planning is one of the biggest success stories of development cooperation,” said Bert Koenders, Dutch Minister for Development Cooperation, via video at a Wilson Center roundtable discussion on the future of family planning funding. Koenders was followed by representatives of three of the field’s largest donors, Musimbi Kanyoro, director of the David and Lucile Packard Foundation’s Population and Reproductive Health Program; José “Oying” Rimon, senior program officer for Global Health Policy and Advocacy at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; and Scott Radloff, director of USAID’s Office of Population and Reproductive Health.

    Celebrating Family Planning Success

    Radloff said his organization has “success stories in every region of the world.” USAID’s family planning and reproductive health programs have shown positive gains over the last few years, especially in Latin America where “most countries have graduated from bilateral assistance or are in the process of graduating,” he added.

    Rimon lauded the strides made within developing societies where contraceptive use has become the norm. Since the 1960s, the contraceptive prevalence rate in developing countries has increased from ten per cent to about 55 per cent; which, in turn, has prompted the total fertility rate to fall from fall from six children to about three in the same time frame, he said.

    Rimon was even more hopeful about the future of the field, as he claimed that “the decline for family planning/reproductive health resources, which has been happening since the mid 1990s, has been reversed.” Since 2006, the amount of resources allocated to family planning has steadily risen.

    Facing Current Challenges

    While funding for family planning has been gaining momentum in recent years, it still faces enormous obstacles. “The biggest challenge,” said Koenders, is investing in youth—more than half the world’s population. “We should acknowledge the needs and rights of adolescents and young people—married and unmarried—in the field of sexual and reproductive health,” he said.

    Koenders also stressed the need to find common strategies to “counterbalance…growing opposition to sexual and reproductive health and rights,” as it is “not only about abortion.” The reproductive rights of women and girls are “closely linked to the deeply rooted imbalance in power relations between women and men, and the increasing sexual violence against women.”

    Nowhere is this challenge more acutely observed than in “the poorest countries of the world, in Africa and South Asia,” said Radloff. If “you look across the countries of Africa, the countries that are lagging behind in terms of increasing contraceptive use and availability of contraceptives, it’s largely Francophone West Africa.”

    By 2050, Africa’s population is projected to double. “India would be around 1.7 billion and stabilizing. China would be around 1.5 billion stabilized. And Africa would be at two billion and still growing, in some of the most fragile countries which have very serious economic and development issues,” said Rimon.

    Kanyoro said the Packard Foundation will “take a good look at what is happening in sub-Saharan Africa so that we can be able to address some of those areas that are the weakest in the link.” The foundation’s plans include high-level advocacy “to make sure that these messages go across not just one country but several countries and even, if possible, benefit from inter-regional work.”

    Opportunities in the Obama Era

    “I’m an optimist,” said Rimon, who sees opportunities amid these myriad challenges. Not only has the long decline in funding being reversed, but there is a “major trend towards more effective and better policies, and I think here in the U.S. we have seen that: rescission of the Mexico City policy, the new guidelines in PEPFAR, and some with the new changes and policies that are also seen in Europe.”

    Radloff agreed that USAID has seen “positive engagement of the administration on reaffirming U.S. support for the MDGs, including MDG 5b and improving access to reproductive health information and services and reaffirming support for the ICPD [International Conference on Population and Development] program of action.” He also found it encouraging that “many bilateral donors, multilateral donors, and foundations are now very interested in working closely with USAID in advancing these programs…the environment, in general, is much better than it’s been at least since 1992, and perhaps even ever.”

    “We have, in addition to having strong support in our administration, both a president and a secretary of state that speak out passionately about the need to reduce unintended pregnancies and to make family planning more widely available,” Radloff continued.

    “We have family planning and reproductive health included as a priority under the Global Health Initiative which was announced by the President back in May. That initiative encompasses family planning, reproductive health, maternal-child health, and various infectious diseases, including HIV, TB, and malaria. The fact that he placed these under a single initiative, rather than creating two new initiatives for family planning and maternal-child health signals his interest in ensuring that we integrate these programs to the extent practical.”

    Sustaining Progress Over the Long Term

    “I come from Africa, and I know that we can literally grow anything. We can have every small project. But the really big difference is when those problems are brought to big scale,” said Kanyoro. Developing the capacity of local leaders—particularly women—is necessary to make sustainable gains in the field, she said, as well as collaboration between government donors and private funders to drive innovation. “I think private money is really good for paving the way, but I think that private money and government money [are] really what makes the biggest difference in scale.”

    Radloff agreed that we should not view the sectors “as independent of each other, but interrelated.” Governments should partner with the private sector to “develop strategies that incorporate the contributions of private sector and public sector, and acts in ways that improves the environment for private sector investments and involvement,” he said. Such collaboration will lead to success: “Almost uniformly, where we graduate countries, is where there is a strong private sector providing services to those who can pay.”
    MORE
  • Wind Farms’ Dirty Laundry Aired in Mexico and the United States

    ›
    September 18, 2009  //  By Kayly Ober
    Many see wind as a great source of green energy, but some local communities around the world are seeing red. Specific cases in the United States and Mexico—two countries that are now investing heavily in wind energy—highlight the potential for community opposition to wind farms in the rural areas where they are being built.

    Mexico was recently dubbed the “Saudi Arabia of alternative energy” by USA Today due to the government and foreign investors’ massive wind energy initiatives. The Isthmus of Tehuantepec, a narrow point between two mountain ranges where wind from the Gulf of Mexico is funneled out to the Pacific Ocean, is known as the one of the windiest places on earth.

    Mexican President (and former energy minister) Felipe Calderon has called for the isthmus to produce 2,500 megawatts of electricity from wind power within three years. The project is intended to decrease Mexico’s dependency on its falling oil supplies and stimulate the economy in Oaxaca, one of the poorest states in Mexico.

    However, the local community has greeted the initiative with unexpectedly fierce opposition. Residents are angry that the electricity will likely be sold to distant cement plants and big-box stores like Wal-Mart.

    In addition, foreign companies have offered local farmers little compensation—about $46 per acre each year—for the land. Residents say they need more, especially since wind farms threaten their traditional livelihoods. Construction stirred up huge amounts of dust and blocked irrigation lines, forcing many farmers to cut crops and herds by more than half.

    A group of farmers recently sued three Spanish companies, claiming that the investors aimed to trick poorly educated farmers, many of whom did not speak Spanish, with misleading contracts. Demonstrators in La Venta have disrupted the construction of the Eurus wind farm six times. And territorial disputes have reignited old feuds along racial and political lines in San Mateo del Mar.

    Wind farms in the United States are also generating opposition, although of a milder variety. In Flint Hills, Kansas, 100 wind turbines now tower over 20 miles of roads. While most environmentalists cheer such a move, the positive energy prospects on the plains may also bring some negative consequences, such as fragmenting the already fragile prairie ecosystem.

    The issue is even more contentious in Cape Cod, where developers are set to construct 170 wind turbines off the coast. Opponents argue that the Cape Wind project will obstruct ocean views, decrease tourism, disrupt traditional fishing trawlers, and block a major bird migration route. In 2008, when the Interior Department issued a favorable report on the project, the late Sen. Edward Kennedy famously announced that its decision “virtually assured years of continued public conflict and contentious litigation.” Local opposition groups, such as the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, have said they are prepared to go to court if the project proceeds.

    With the renewable energy footprint of the U.S. set to reach nearly 80,000 square miles of land by 2030, tensions over land-use issues look likely to rise.

    These cautionary tales should not deter us from pursuing wind as a viable alternative energy source. Certainly, given the imperative to act against catastrophic climate change, wind should be part of the mix. However, planners and policymakers must consider the likely impacts on the local community; work with affected communities during site selection and construction; and share the benefits of the new projects in order to avoid environmental degradation and social unrest.

    Photo: A wind farm in Mexico. Courtesy Flickr user Cedric’s Pics.
    MORE
  • Food, Water, Energy, Timber, Population: Do Madagascar’s Forests Stand a Chance?

    ›
    April 22, 2009  //  By Kayly Ober
    A graphic published recently in Le Monde reveals that companies from South Korea, China, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are the top purchasers of foreign farmland. These corporations from water-strapped, land-starved, and/or densely populated countries often make bargain-basement deals with unsavory African and Asian governments—or even warlords—to increase their own profits and their home nations’ food security.

    A case in point: The International Criminal Court’s indictment of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir for human-rights abuses has not deterred Saudi Arabia’s Hail Agricultural Development Co. from developing 9,200 hectares of land in Sudan or the UAE from investing in agricultural projects in several Sudanese provinces, including a 17,000-hectare farm for wheat and corn.

    As previous New Security Beat posts have pointed out, allowing foreign governments to purchase land could threaten food security within the host country, and around the world. The heads of the Food and Agriculture Organization and the International Fund for Agricultural Development raised eyebrows last weekend when they suggested that these deals could be “win-win” situations, if done right.

    These business ventures can also have serious political consequences: Several months ago, seeing an opportunity to capitalize on increasing population growth and limited arable land in its homeland, South Korean conglomerate Daewoo signed a deal to buy more than half of the arable land in Madagascar to grow grain and palm oil. Widespread anger at the terms of the deal—from which the island’s people would gain little—contributed to then-President Marc Ravalomanana’s unpopularity. After weeks of riots, Ravalomanana was ousted by Andry Rajoelina, who immediately axed the deal. “In the constitution, it is stipulated that Madagascar’s land is neither for sale nor for rent, so the agreement with Daewoo is cancelled,” Rajoelina told BBC News.

    Yet although Rajoelina’s actions may seem to have preserved Madagascar’s land for its people, the coup he launched has spurred unprecedented destruction of this land, in the form of deforestation. The breakdown of authority that accompanied the coup spread into Madagascar’s protected areas, where groups of thugs have been illegally felling valuable trees at a rapid rate since the coup. This environmental destruction is particularly tragic for a country like Madagascar, which possesses some of the richest biodiversity on the planet and relies heavily on ecotourism for jobs and economic growth.

    Next month, a Wilson Center event will explore some of the motivations, patterns, and implications of this rush for farmland. Five Wilson Center programs are co-sponsoring this event—demonstrating the global, cross-sectoral implications of this issue.

    Photo: Deforestation in Madagascar. Courtesy of Flickr user World Resources Institute Staff and Jonathan Talbot.
    MORE
Newer Posts  
View full site

Join the Conversation

  • RSS
  • subscribe
  • facebook
  • G+
  • twitter
  • iTunes
  • podomatic
  • youtube
Tweets by NewSecurityBeat

Featured Media

Backdraft Podcast

play Backdraft
Podcasts

More »

What You're Saying

  • Closing the Women’s Health Gap Report: Much Needed Recognition for Endometriosis and Menopause
    Aditya Belose: This blog effectively highlights the importance of recognizing conditions like endometriosis &...
  • International Women’s Day 2024: Investment Can Promote Equality
    Aditya Belose: This is a powerful and informative blog on the importance of investing in women for gender equality!...
  • A Warmer Arctic Presents Challenges and Opportunities
    Dan Strombom: The link to the Georgetown report did not work

What We’re Reading

  • U.S. Security Assistance Helped Produce Burkina Faso's Coup
  • https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2022/02/02/equal-rights-amendment-debate/
  • India's Economy and Unemployment Loom Over State Elections
  • How Big Business Is Taking the Lead on Climate Change
  • Iraqi olive farmers look to the sun to power their production
More »
  • ecsp
  • RSS Feed
  • YouTube
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Home
  • Who We Are
  • Publications
  • Events
  • Wilson Center
  • Contact Us
  • Print Friendly Page

© Copyright 2007-2025. Environmental Change and Security Program.

Developed by Vico Rock Media

Environmental Change and Security Program

T 202-691-4000