“It’s not every day you find an issue where effective diplomacy and development will allow you to save millions of lives, feed the hungry, empower women, advance our national security interests, protect the environment, and demonstrate to billions of people that the United States cares. Water is that issue,” declared Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at a World Water Day event hosted by the National Geographic Society and Water Advocates.

Alongside speeches by representatives from government and the non-profit sector, Secretary Clinton repeatedly emphasized America’s support for water issues. “As we face this challenge, one thing that will endure is the United States’ commitment to water issues,” she asserted. “We’re in this for the long haul.” Beyond simply highlighting the importance of the issue, Secretary Clinton also affirmed commitment to new programmatic, cross-cutting initiatives that will target water as a keystone for development and peace.

ECSP Director Geoff Dabelko, who attended the event, noted that Secretary Clinton’s speech ran counter to the much publicized notion that water scarcity is an unavoidable catalyst for conflict.

She came down squarely on the side of inclusion by identifying water as both a ‘human security’ and ‘national security’ issue. At the same time, she did not fall prey to the common pitfall of arm-waving about water wars. She flagged conflict and stability concerns, but also raised solutions through meeting needs associated with water and development. She went out of her way to emphasize water’s potential for peace and confidence-building, reflecting a commitment to capturing opportunities rather than merely identifying threats.

Secretary Clinton highlighted five crucial areas that comprise the United States’ whole-of-government approach to water issues:

1. Building capacity:
Through efforts with international partners, the United States hopes to strengthen the abilities of water-stressed nations to manage vital water resources. Agencies such as the Millennium Challenge Corporation and USAID are implementing initiatives that will enhance national ministries and encourage regional management cooperatives.

2. Elevating diplomatic efforts:
A lack of coordination between the numerous UN agencies, governments, and multilateral funding organizations hinders global water progress. By bringing this work together, the United States can act as a leader, demonstrating a positive diplomatic precedent for fragile and water-stressed nations.

3. Mobilizing financial support:
Relatively small grants have achieved large impacts. Work by the United States to strengthen capital markets in the water sector shows that it is possible to earn large returns on water investments. Successful examples range from educational and awareness-building programs, to desalinization and wastewater treatment plants.

4. Harnessing the power of science and technology:
Although there is no silver technological bullet to solve the global water crisis, simple solutions, such as ceramic filters and chlorine disinfection systems, do help. Additionally, sharing government-accumulated technological knowledge can have significant impacts, as demonstrated in a recent NASA-USAID project establishing an Earth-observation monitoring and visualization system in the Himalayas.

5. Broadening the scope of global partnerships:
By encouraging partnerships and elevating water in its global partnership initiatives with NGOs, non-profits, and the private sector—all of which are increasingly engaged in water issues—the Department of State hopes to maximize the effectiveness of its efforts.

The holistic approach advocated by Secretary Clinton reflects a distinct evolution of American diplomacy within this area, which is strongly supported by the water community. “The policy directions outlined in the speech, the five streams, represent a victory for those in and outside of government who have argued for a broad, rather than narrow, view of water’s dimensions,” said Dabelko. “The diversified strategy focuses on long-term and sustainable interventions that respond to immediate needs in ways most likely to make a lasting difference.”

In her concluding remarks, Secretary Clinton sounded a positive note, noting that for all of the press and attention devoted to the dangers of the global water crisis and the possible dark and violent future, dire predictions may be avoided through a smart, coordinated approach. “I’m convinced that if we empower communities and countries to meet their own challenges, expand our diplomatic efforts, make sound investments, foster innovation, and build effective partnerships, we can make real progress together, and seize this historic opportunity.”

Environmental problems that amplify regional security issues are often multifaceted, especially across national boundaries. Obtaining a comprehensive understanding of the natural resource, energy, and security issues facing a region is not fast or easy.

Fortunately, the Environment and Security Initiative (ENVSEC) has created highly informative, easy-to-understand maps depicting environmental, health, population, and security issues in critical regions.

Published with assistance from the United Nations GRID-Arendal, these maps offer policymakers and the public a snapshot of the complex topography of environmental security hotspots in Central Asia, Eastern Europe, Southeastern Europe, and the Southern Caucasus.

In our latest video interview about PHE programs in Ethiopia, Zuna–a village elder from the Mettu Woreda region of Ethiopia—describes how an integrated intervention by the Ethio-Wetlands and Natural Resources Association (EWNRA) has benefited her community.

Bill Gates gave the PHE community a much-needed upgrade in his foundation’s 2nd Annual Letter, released this week. Unfortunately it still has a few bugs.

“In the long run, not spending on health is a bad deal for the environment because improvements in health, including voluntary family planning, lead people to have smaller families, which in turn reduces the strain on the environment,” concludes Gates.

This statement could dramatically raise awareness of and funding for population-environment programs. Any time Bill Gates talks, the world listens, as evidenced by the barrage of coverage from Reuters, AFP, and top IT newswires. For the public, it offers a rare glimpse into development strategy, so Gates’ thoughts (and financial commitments) could be seen as representative of the foundation community’s approach to global health problems.

Although it may seem obvious that fewer people place less strain on the environment, this connection has been largely absent from the environmental agenda, including the efforts to combat climate change. Some environmental leaders and organizations have dismissed population as an unimportant distraction from the real business at hand. Others have noted that population growth’s impact on climate change is far greater in the rich world than in poor countries, whose per capita emissions are a fraction of developed countries’.

Gates’ comment may cause those in the first camp to re-evaluate the importance of family planning, and it is likely to energize the converted. But it will have less impact on those focused on consumption. But if it encourages the environmental community to put population and family planning issues back on the table, it will have gone a long way.

However, Gates could have gone further, by explaining that family planning is a relatively inexpensive way to mitigate climate change, compared to complex and emerging technological solutions. He also could have pointed out that climate change is expected to increase the prevalence of vector-borne diseases such as malaria, or that sick or malnourished individuals may be forced to mismanage natural resources.

Because Gates didn’t make these explicit connections, many in the media missed his point. The wire headlines pit health against environment, when Gates was in fact pointing out how interdependent they are. This distortion is symptomatic of the media’s tendency to highlight the horserace. But maybe they would pay closer attention if the Gates Foundation put its money where its mouth is—and funded programs that integrate family planning and the environment.

Perhaps several years from now, we will look back and say that this letter marks the start of the Gates Foundation’s integrated approach to development. But we may need to wait for Letter 3.0 for a complete install.

Photo: Courtesy Flickr User World Economic Forum

MORE

In a preview of his new book The Plundered Planet: Why We Must – and How We Can – Manage Nature for Global Prosperity, Paul Collier dispelled the common perception that Africa’s indentified resource reserves are the world’s largest. In actuality, it is estimated that up to four-fifths of the value of subsoil assets in the African continent are yet to be discovered. “That is the big story,” Collier remarked. “Here are assets which could finance transformation….but historically haven’t.” Instead, these resources have been plundered.

In a recent event hosted by the U.S. Institute of Peace, Paul Collier, professor of economics and director of the Center for the Study of African Economies at Oxford University, and Nancy Birdsall, president of the Center for Global Development, discussed how resource-rich environments in developing countries have been traditionally misused. The two also proposed strategies to disrupt these processes and transform resource “curses” into deeply needed support for peace and stable development.

Conflict and instability in countries whose economies are heavily invested in natural resource have often hindered local development and security. Many of these countries—including Cambodia, Angola, Indonesia, and DRC—have suffered from one of two forms of plunder:

Types of Natural Resources Plunder:

1. Where the few steal from the many:
Natural assets are, by definition, without natural owners, and therefore lie as easily taken common goods. “This process of expropriation opens up a whole array of dysfunctional variants, many of which are violent,” Collier noted.

2. Where the present steals from the future:
Intertemporal mismanagement is a possibility, as unlike man-made assets, natural assets belong to all generations.

Operating from a worldview of weak sustainability, where profits from natural assets are reinvested for the benefit of future generations, Collier suggested that natural resource rights are more akin to “rights of stewardship” than traditional property rights. “We may well transform that value into something that is more productive, but if we pull up natural assets from the ground, we should leave to the future something that is equivalently valuable.”

Collier argued that the successful harnessing of natural resources for stable and sustainable development depends on the application of a tenuous decision chain:

Natural Resources Decision Chain:

1. Discovery Process:
Failure in this phase stems from poor property rights, and the time consistency problem—uncertainty that conditions and regulations that make expensive upfront investments profitable today will remain in place in the future.

2. Appropriate Taxation:
Currently, as a result of poor negotiations or limited information regarding the status of resources, governments are unable to craft tax regimes which effectively capture resource rent.

3. Avoiding the Delta:
Sustainable management any discovered subsoil assets must avoid a local “Nigerian Delta” catastrophe. Clearly designating the government as the sole responsible agent for resource rents may limit such failures.

4. Saving the money:
To avoid plunder of the future by the present, Collier suggested that, though politically difficult, a proportion of revenue streams must be delineated from general accounts.

5. Building the capacity to invest in the country:
Collier deemed the inability of resource-rich countries to attract diversified investment as the “killer link.” Governments must use returns from subsoil assets to fund “investment in investment”—directing public capital toward transportation and utility infrastructure, education, health, and other short-term projects. Once in place, such projects encourage future public and private investments, thereby multiplying long-term returns.

As with many complex systems, Collier warned that the chain is only as strong as its weakest link. If one link fails, “the chain won’t pull the country from poverty to prosperity.” On the other hand, if each link holds, the value is tremendous. ”[Y]ou really can pull the country from poverty to prosperity over the course of a generation. There are no fixes in economics that are faster than that.”

Ultimately, Collier and Birdsall emphasized that success depends upon the development of an informed and competent “critical mass” of people. Even the strongest decision chain will fail if it is not underwritten by a majority of the population. Birdsall reiterated the need for public participation in the process, possibly through direct income distribution or responsible interventions by non-vested third parties.

Photo: Courtesy of Oxford University Press.

“Most people think that if you’re living on $1 a day or $2 a day, it’s impossible to save,” Jonathan Morduch tells ECSP Director Geoff Dabelko in a discussion of his book, Portfolios of the Poor: How the World’s Poor Live on $2 a Day. The Woodrow Wilson Center hosted Morduch and his co-author, Daryl Collins, for presenations at the Center and on Capital Hill last September. “[I]n fact, because of being poor—not despite it—households were spending a lot of time building up for the future.”

“What was really critical about what this new work was showing was that poor households were strategizing, they were making decisions,” says Morduch. “They were, essentially, juggling, active in ways that had been hidden from sight with the bigger surveys.” Now revealed, this knowledge creates opportunities for policymakers to help poor households in new ways, such as reducing regulatory costs for financial institutions seeking to service poor communities.

Morduch says microfinance and microcredit schemes are doing well, but that they are not enough to serve poor communities’ entire financial needs. “The next steps involve embracing what’s already going on and making products, devising products, that are even more flexible or even more appropriate,” he says. Households have a diverse range of needs, from food and water to financing health care and education, and Morduch says these diverse needs merit diverse solutions.

“Even in the hardest moments of conflict there are opportunities for cooperation, and they need to be seized,” said Juan Dumas, senior advisor of Fundación Futuro Latinamericano during the Pathways to Peace: Stories of Environment, Health, and Conflict roundtable event co-hosted by the Wilson Center’s Environmental Change and Security Program and the Fetzer Institute on January 13th.

“Even as you were talking about the conflict potential,” said Aaron Wolf, professor of Geoscience at Oregon State University, “everywhere you looked there were people talking about water uniting together across boundaries and being able to share… [and] people being willing to talk about water when they wont talk about anything else.”

Dumas and Wolf were joined by Gidon Bromberg, co-director of Friends of the Earth Middle East (FoEME); Shewaye Deribe, project coordinator for the Ethio Wetlands and Natural Resources Association (EWNRA); and Joan Regina L. Castro, executive vice president of the PATH Foundation Philippines, Inc. (PFPI) to discuss work that demonstrates the positive impact multi-dimensional development and peacebuilding programs can have on environmental conflict arenas.

Water as an Entry Point

“In the academic world, there’s a growing documentation about the coming wars of the 21st century are going to be about water resources,” said Wolf, discussing how water resources are inherently intertwined with the Arab-Israeli and other regional conflicts. His research, however, suggests the opposite. In recent history, he said, cooperation for the resource, not conflict, was observed in nearly two-thirds of the world’s cross-boundary watersheds.

“Water is a wonderful way to have regional dialogue,” he continued, discussing how technical data and modeling are only part of any successful water conflict resolution. “A language that people have in common, and when we talk about water—because it’s connected to everything we do—we end up talking about our shared vision of the future.”

“We came out with a vision that is a shared vision,” echoed Bromberg in describing the Good Water Neighbors (GWN) project—a FoEME program seeking to improve water scarcity and quality in the Jordan River watershed by fostering cooperation between Israeli, Palestinian, and Jordanian leaders. “The Jordan office advocates that vision to the Jordanian government, the Israeli office to Israeli government, the Palestinian office to the Palestinian authority. That’s proven to be very effective because it’s the same vision.”

While hesitant to say the program could lead to or be a model for peace in the Middle East, Bromberg did underscore how multi-dimensional methods used in GWN could productively serve future peacebuilding efforts in the region.

“By empowering young people to go out and improve their own water reality with their own hands [through rainwater harvesting and grey water collection] they learn together, and then they build the facilities within their own communities,” said Bromberg. “…Not only does it empower the youths but it helps create peacemakers.”

Integrated PHE and Conflict Avoidance

“Water is common for all of us because it is the base of our life, of our survival,” said Deribe, linking ENWRA’s integrated population, health, and environment (PHE) wetland restoration program in Ethiopia to the greater discussion. “I think it is a lack of altruism, a lack of mutualistic thinking which leads us to this kind of conflict.”

Ethiopia’s 12 river basins serve more than 200 million people. Managing local wetlands and waterways with PHE approaches can therefore play an integral role in maintaining environmental quality and productivity for current and future generations while avoiding conditions that contribute to conflict, according to Deribe.

Castro, pointing to her own PHE experience with PFPI, found that multi-sectoral programs promote improved environmental quality and community stability. In the Philippines, her program targeted local youth, fishermen, and policymakers to promote food security through sustainable resource management, improved medical and family planning services, and expanded livelihood training.

Castro found that a PHE program could continue even after funding ran out. “A project can be sustained and can be owned by the local governments and local communities if they are provided the capacity to be able to continue to implement the programs and that they see the value of the programs that they do,” she said.

Lessons in Conflict Resolution

Funding, said Dumas, is the biggest limiting operating factor for organizations that facilitate dialogue in environmental conflict areas. The ability to travel across Latin America on short notice to help resolve conflict has been extremely beneficial to Dumas’ organization; but in an arena where funders require full proposals with specific outcomes and indicators, such availability over the long-term is “not financially sustainable.”

Dumas did, however, suggest ways to reduce the need for conflict resolution while opening accessibility to funding. He recommended that institutions mainstream environmental considerations into all sectors of decision-making, thereby improving capacity to respond to environmental conflicts within the given population. He also suggested the creation of “early action funds” – pools of money that his and other organizations can use on short notice for dialogue facilitation support.

MORE

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.