Showing posts from category environment.
-
Underground Lake in Darfur: Fertile Ground for Cooperation or Conflict?
›July 26, 2007 // By Rachel WeisshaarThe recent discovery of a vast underground lake in Darfur has prompted hope for a resolution to the region’s terrible conflict, which is partially rooted in tensions over scarce resources—particularly water. Yet the lake is not a silver bullet. First of all, there may not be any water in it. Alain Gachet, a French geologist who has studied mineral and water exploration in Africa for 20 years, told BBC News that he thinks the lake is probably dry.
In addition, as The New York Times astutely observed, it is the way in which natural resources are managed—not simply their scarcity or abundance—that determines whether they further peace or conflict. Time and again, inexpert or corrupt management of plentiful natural resources has plunged nations into violence and poverty, rather than granted them prosperity. In Africa, this “resource curse” has been a regrettably common phenomenon.
A report released by the UN Environment Programme last month and an opinion piece by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon also highlighted how environmental factors have contributed to the crisis in Darfur. -
The Greening of Population
›July 19, 2007 // By Karima TawfikClimate change, biodiversity, air pollution, deforestation, water scarcity, and other environmental issues share a common denominator that lies quietly beneath the higher priorities of the environmental movement: population pressure.Recently, several experts, including Nafis Sadik, the former director of the UN Population Fund, have said that the lack of attention to population, as evidenced by drops in donor support for family planning since 1995, will have negative consequences for the welfare of future generations. Despite the UN’s 2006 prediction that the population will grow to 9.2 billion by 2050, environmentalists have largely ignored the issue of human population growth, focusing instead on reducing the quantity of resources each person uses and other issues that are often exacerbated by an increasingly crowded Earth.
While scaling down each person’s environmental footprint is indeed important, demands for land and resources will increase in tandem with population growth. This is one reason why the Optimum Population Trust’s (OPT) recently-published report Youthquake: Population, fertility, and environment in the 21st century advocates for wider access to family planning and the promotion of voluntary population policies as part of a comprehensive environmental protection strategy. Discourse on population management is always controversial, but OPT believes that it is critical to achieving environmental sustainability. -
PODCAST – Unleashing the Potential of Urban Growth
›July 10, 2007 // By Sean PeoplesNext year, for the first time in history, more than half of the world’s population will live in cities. This urban growth is inevitable, says a new United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) report. Although cities are sometimes thought of as synonymous with poverty and large ecological footprints, the report, entitled State of World Population 2007: Unleashing the Potential of Urban Growth, describes the unprecedented urbanization as an opportunity. Lead author George Martine discusses the misconceptions surrounding urbanization and the ways in which policymakers can maximize the benefits of urban growth.
-
Newfound Migration in Southern Sudan Poses Old Conservation Questions
›June 22, 2007 // By Karima TawfikIn Southern Sudan, a semi-autonomous region starting to rebound after two decades of devastating civil war, scientists have discovered a surprising zoological phenomenon. More than 1.3 million migratory animals—including white-eared kob, tiang (African antelope), and mongalla gazelle—are currently thriving in the region, according to an aerial survey conducted by the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and the Government of Southern Sudan (GoSS).Encompassing 58,000 square miles, the survey provides the first reliable data on Southern Sudan’s wildlife since civil war broke out in 1983. And the results are heartening: the region’s migratory animal population rivals that of the Serengeti, considered the largest in Africa. Additionally, the survey spotted 8,000 elephants, concentrated primarily in the Sudd, the largest freshwater wetland in Africa. This documentation is even more astonishing in light of the experiences of other war-torn countries. For example, regional conflicts in countries such as Mozambique and Angola led to the collapse of peacetime animal protection laws, triggering widespread poaching that decimated local wildlife populations.
Although Southern Sudan’s abundant wildlife is a valuable ecological asset, scientists wonder how it will fare now that the recovering society is confronting new social, economic, and environmental pressures. In 2005, the U.S.-sponsored peace agreements established Southern Sudan as a semi-autonomous region; and since that time, notes National Geographic, hundreds of thousands of refugees—many of whom are farmers—have returned to the area. As the number of farmers increases, many could be forced to expand onto migratory land.
Oil exploration is further contributing to land scarcity. Director of WCS Southern Sudan Country Program Paul Elkan told the New York Times that the GoSS has already distributed oil permits throughout much of the white-eared kob and tiang’s migratory corridor. WCS has called for the creation of a Sudano-Sahel Initiative that would facilitate natural resource management and cooperation with the GoSS to convert thousands of ex-combatants from the Sudan People’s Liberation Army into wildlife protection officers. Initiatives such as this are a good first step toward balancing conservation and growth. But looking ahead, Southern Sudan faces difficult decisions about how best to protect wildlife in the midst of mass migration and economic development. -
PODCAST – The Role of Gender in Population, Health, and Environment Programs
›June 21, 2007 // By Sean PeoplesGender is an oft-debated topic in the development community, usually focusing on ways to build equity and equality for women. So what are the appropriate roles of women and men? Who should take on responsibilities such as environmental management? What about family planning and reproductive health?
In the following podcast, experts Karen Hardee, senior adviser in reproductive health, HIV/AIDS, and monitoring and evaluation at John Snow, Inc.; and Elin Torell, coastal resources specialist at the University of Rhode Island’s Coastal Resources Center, address these questions, and specifically discuss the role of gender in field-based projects that incorporate population, health, and environment components. -
Saving the World
›What’s wrong with the world today? A whole lot. War in Iraq, poverty in rural America, malaria in Africa, global warming…the list is endless. But the editors of Foreign Policy think they have a way to solve these problems and more. The magazine’s new cover story, “21 Ways to Save the World,” is a collection of short essays on a wide range of global issues by some of the world’s leading thinkers.
Besides the interesting topics and the authors’ engaging styles, I like this series because it forces journalists and scholars—both of whom usually write about problems—to write about solutions. This shift is important because policymakers often get stumped when they hear that issues like high fertility and pollution are concerns of national security—what can they do about these seemingly insurmountable problems?
Most of the dilemmas and solutions presented in the article will be familiar to the informed reader. Amy Myers Jaffe extols the virtues of electricity. Seth Berkeley is optimistic about an AIDS vaccine. Jeffrey Sachs calls for malaria intervention. But some of the proposed solutions will be a tough sell for the policy audience.
For example, as he does elsewhere, Nicholas Eberstadt draws attention to the astonishingly high mortality of Russians—males in particular. He argues that if the United States intervenes, the benefits would be two-fold: humanitarian gains through Russian lives saved, and also political dividends in the form of a strengthened Russian democracy. But increased foreign aid for Russia’s health crisis will likely be a bitter pill for American politicians to swallow for a couple of reasons: First, there are still too many people occupying important government posts who got their first taste of power during the Cold War. For these folks, Russia is still the big bad bear and they may not be too keen on taking action to strengthen the Russian state. And for policymakers who are more humanitarian-minded, Eberstadt’s argument is still a hard sell because there’s simply no room for another needy state. Thanks to relentless campaigning by celebrities like Bono and philanthropists like Bill and Melinda Gates, the U.S. government is finally attempting to gain traction in Africa and see the deplorable conditions there as both a humanitarian and security concern (AFRICOM is the most recent example of the United States trying to get ahead of the problem). Now they have to save Russia, too?
This gets at the larger issue with the collection of essays. While the editors of FP are noble in their aim to tackle all of the world’s troubles, I fear that policymakers will just continue to be overwhelmed by the magnitude of problems and the multitude of solutions—the deer-in-headlights response. Thomas Homer-Dixon is correct when he writes that problems are complex, systems are complex, and solutions must be complex. With so many problems of equal importance—in an environment where everyone has their issue—and so many solutions of equal viability, how are policymakers ever to choose?
Jennifer Dabbs Sciubba is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland, and a consultant to Policy Planning in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy at the U.S. Department of Defense. -
Pop Goes the Environment: Op-Eds Break the P-E Silence
›April 11, 2007 // By Meaghan ParkerThe population-environment connection is riding the climate change bandwagon into the Op-Ed columns—at least overseas. The Observer’s Juliette Jowit lays out four reasons why “No one is willing to address the accelerating growth in the world’s population” including:“[T]he uncomfortable suspicion that environmentalism is a soft cover for more objectionable population agendas to stop or reduce immigration or growth in developing countries. Sometimes it might be. But that doesn’t take away the underlying fact: that more people use more resources and create more pollution.”
But, she concludes, this is no reason to “to ignore one half of the world’s biggest problem: the population effect on climate change.” The lively comment board takes sides on this sometimes-controversial linkage with gusto.
London-based journalist Gwynne Dyer argues in the New Zealand Herald that despite some progress, the “Population bomb [is] still ticking away” in many developing countries. Like Jowitt, he bemoans population’s perceived political incorrectness, which means it “scarcely gets a mention even in discussions on climate change.”
But not talking about population growth is a “failure of government”—especially when the consequences include not only poverty, but war, he says:“Often, however, the growing pressure of people on the land leads indirectly to catastrophic wars: Sierra Leone, Liberia, Uganda, Somalia, Congo, Angola, and Burundi have all been devastated by chronic, many-sided civil wars, and all seven appear in the top 10 birth-rate list. Rwanda, Ethiopia, and Mozambique, which have suffered similar ordeals, are just out of the top 10.”
Aside from the rough correlation he draws between fertility rate and civil conflict, Dyer doesn’t cite any reasons or research supporting this indirect link. Experts writing in the ECSP Report’s “Population and Conflict” series provide a more nuanced look at this relationship. -
Environmental Security – It’s Big in Europe
›April 5, 2007 // By Gib ClarkeTo an American “outsider” like me, a recent conference in Berlin on integrating environment, development, and conflict prevention reflected the stark contrast between our policies and those of the EU. Though we are confronting similar situations – indeed, the same situation – we are dealing with them quite differently. In recent years, European policymakers have tried to balance environmental and energy concerns, working to decrease humans’ impact on climate and the environment and encourage environmental cooperation, while still generating enough energy for growth.
The tone of the conference was bleak, but the EU’s recent action on climate change is an encouraging sign of how governments can use scientific data to make difficult policy decisions. Only a month age, the EU agreed to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2012.
Interestingly, the conference was situated at the center of German’s current political dominance, coming on the heels of the EUs 50th Anniversary celebration in Berlin and during the year of Germany’s joint Presidency of the EU and the G8. The conference’s timing also preceded the start of the UK’s Presidency of the United Nations Security Council. John Ashton, special representative on climate change at the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office, announced that the UK will hold a “thematic debate” in the Security Council exploring the relationship among climate, energy, and security. The debate, the first of its kind at such a high level, will focus on the security implications of a changing climate, as well as other factors that contribute to conflict, like population growth, immigration, and access to food, water, and natural resources.
