Showing posts from category water.
-
Video—Integrating Population, Health, and Environment (PHE) to Conserve Ethiopian Wetlands
›February 1, 2010 // By Julia GriffinIn 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.
EWNRA aims to raise awareness within Ethiopian communities and governmental organizations of the importance of sustainable wetlands management. The organization also imparts local-level training on resource conservation and wise-use labor techniques.
Zuna recounts how EWNRA provided welcome training in sanitation and housekeeping practices that increased both safety and sustainability within her community. The more efficient, cleaner-burning wood stoves introduced in Mettu Woreda, for example, have improved local air quality while decreasing the frequency of skin burns and amount of harvested fuel required for cooking and other activities.
“We are benefiting from all this and I think the benefits from this intervention are good,” she says through an interpreter. “I want them to keep doing this and hopefully we will improve our activities working with them.” -
Lessons from the Field: Focusing on Environment, Health, and Development to Address Conflict
›
“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.”
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. -
Water: The Next Climate Negotiation Tool?
›January 21, 2010 // By Kayly OberWhen 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,
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. -
Water, Conflict, and Cooperation: Practical Concerns for Water Development Projects
›
“Water disputes that can start at the local level—little things—have the potential, in extreme cases, to burgeon into something much bigger,” warned Ken Hackett, president of Catholic Relief Services (CRS), during a discussion at the Woodrow Wilson Center (Webcast) for the launch of CRS’ new publication, Water and Conflict: Incorporating Peacebuilding into Water Development. The report provides guidance to water development practitioners, civil society members, and others striving to incorporate water and peacebuilding into their project frameworks.
In recognition of water’s potential to drive conflict, Hackett—part of a panel featuring Jason Gehrig, Water and Conflict‘s primary author; William Hall, professor of conflict resolution at Georgetown University; and Tjip Walker, team leader of USAID’s conflict management and mitigation office‘s warning and analysis unit—urged those working on water to focus attention on identifying and diffusing areas of emerging disagreement while they are still manageable. “We must, in a proactive way, incorporate peacebuilding methodologies in water and sanitation work,” said Hackett.
Looking Beyond Tubes and Tanks
Prior to witnessing violent protests within the Altiplano region of Bolivia, Jason Gehrig assumed that the primary obstacles to successful water development efforts would be found in the technical phase of designing or building delivery systems. Local political developments, however, demonstrated that “we can’t just be looking at development without also looking at the structural issues at play,” said Gherig.
Emphasis on “social infrastructure” and the inclusion of peacebuilding paradigms allows for conflict transformation and the mitigation of future violence through heightened conflict sensitivity by local practitioners. Such understanding and sensitivity to local conflicts and structures, Gehrig asserted, can only be achieved by “listening, winning hearts and minds (beginning with our own) by getting close to the people so that their struggle for life, for dignity, for peace, becomes our own.”
Defining the Role of Environmental Conflict Resolution
William Hall noted that conflict sensitive practices apply several elements of environmental conflict resolution (ECR), such as in-depth social participation, context analysis, stakeholder involvement, and the use of neutral parties.
For Hall, the goal of ECR is not only conflict resolution, but “also how people will be involved.” Adapting a framework design from the International Association for Public Participation, Hall reminded the audience that decision-makers must clearly communicate both the goals of their intervention as well as the degree of public involvement required and desired. These issues are sensitive; Hall emphasized that, once a commitment has been made, it is extremely important “to be true to [one’s promises.]”
In situations such as those included in the CRS report, successful peacebuilding efforts—which result in high-quality agreements and improved working relationships between the affected parties—must include effective engagement of appropriate stakeholders, proper mediation, and high-quality information. While many of these factors may be seen as additional procedural complications and expenses, Hall countered that recent research has shown that, compared to standard methods, agreements reached within an ECR context grant economic and environmental benefits beyond those afforded by alternative processes.
Peacefully Managing the Commons
Tjip Walker noted that effective governance of water and other common pool resources, often magnets for mismanagement and contention, should be a pivotal concern for peacebuilders in fragile states. Drawing on research on governance and conflict, Walker explained that countries that are more democratic, and allow for greater social participation, are at a lower risk for violent conflict.
With regard to threats posed by common pool resources, Walker reminded the forum that Elinor Ostrom’s work demonstrates it is possible—providing a “enabling environment” for governance—to manage such resources without exposure to dire consequences. In many cases, however, Ostrom’s requirements for sustainable management are unfortunately difficult to achieve and are further complicated by pre-existing challenges stemming from economic dependencies and political arrangements.
Referring to previous trans-boundary river conflict projects, Walker noted that “most of them have been positive…[which] seems to suggest that we are all in this together.” Successes such as these grant hope for the future, yet also demonstrate a need for negotiated agreements across political boundaries. “Under the right circumstances,” Walker concluded, “we do have the ability to manage these resources effectively in ways that are perceived as generally being effective and legitimate.”
For more information about water, conflict and cooperation, as well as other events and publications under ECSP’s Navigating Peace Initiative, please visit www.wilsoncenter.org/water.
Photo: Courtesy David Hawxhurst, Woodrow Wilson Center.
-
An Island of Peace in a Sea of Conflict: The Jordan River Peace Park
›Saleem Ali filmed this video on his visit to the “peace island” between Jordan and Israel, which Friends of the Earth Middle East (FOEME) is working to convert into an international peace park.
FOEME co-Director Gidon Bromberg will be at the Wilson Center today to discuss the peace park and other FOEME water cooperation initiatives in more detail as a panelist participating in “Pathways to Peace: Stories of Environment, Health, and Conflict,” an event discussing field-based lessons for addressing environment, health, development, and conflict.
Video: Filmed by Saleem H. Ali (University of Vermont, editor of the MIT Press book Peace Parks: Conservation and Conflict Resolution) with commentary by Elizabeth Ya’ari (FOEME), January 2010. -
Making the Connections: An Integration Wish List for Research, Policy, and Practice
›January 3, 2010 // By Geoffrey D. DabelkoNew York Times columnist Nick Kristof is likely a well-known voice to New Security Beat readers. His ground-level development stories from around the world expose a range of neglected issues that usually struggle for mainstream media coverage: maternal health, microcredit, human trafficking, family planning, sanitation, micronutrients, and poverty, among others.
Kristof brought many of these threads together Half the Sky, a book he coauthored with his wife Sheryl WuDunn. I asked about the challenges of addressing these connected problems when I interviewed the couple and two frontline White Ribbon Alliance maternal health practitioners this fall at the Wilson Center.
Now Kristof is asking readers to suggest topics for him to cover in 2010. My suggestions to him are actually a wish list for the wider development community. In short, how can scholars, policymakers, practitioners, and communities better research and analyze these connected topics and then fashion integrated responses? I posted my comment on Kristof’s blog, On the Ground (and I ask your indulgence for the less than polished writing):I’d love for you [Kristof] to explore the challenge of integration from both problem and response perspectives. People in poverty lead integrated lives (just like we wealthier folks do), face connected challenges, and need integrated or multiple responses. Single-sector programs may deliver quicker, more obvious, and/or more countable impacts (or parallel advantages for single-discipline research endeavors). Yet time and time again we see such approaches only partially meeting needs or not meeting them sustainably. There is also a persist danger of undercutting others’ efforts and/or creating high opportunity costs.
These questions topped my wish list to Kristof last night while procrastinating on other writing. What would be on your wish list for Kristof, the development community, or even just New Security Beat? We at the Environmental Change and Security Program (ECSP) would love to hear from NSB readers so we can keep covering the questions that interest you.
So which integrated research, policy analysis, or field-based programs explicitly recognize that trends that appear to be on the periphery are hardly peripheral? At the same time, if programs try to be all things to all people, they can become bloated, unrealistic, and/or unsustainable.
For example, are the Millennium Villages examples of the former or the latter? How about the much smaller programs under the population-health-environment grouping? What went wrong with Campfire programs to cause so many to abandon the approach? Have the loosened restrictions on what constitutes an appropriate PEPFAR intervention addressed this integration problem, or will politics (exclusion of family planning in PEPFAR, for example) mean we cannot capture the full benefits of integration?
And the big Kahuna: how is the rhetoric and analytical argument around the 3Ds (defense, development, and diplomacy) made real and practicable in the field (as in the United States we anticipated early this year the results of the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR), and Presidential Study Directive on Global Development Policy (PSD))?
And finally, does our (read donors’) penchant for measuring impact and quantifying results force us to narrow interventions to the point of missing key connections in cause and effect of the problems we are trying to address? Is there a better mix of defining and measuring success that captures the challenges and benefits of integration? -
Climate Reporting Awards Live From COP; Revkin To Quit NYT
›It’s a good news/bad news day for climate-media watchers. The Earth Journalism Awards honor some of the best climate coverage from around the world, while arguably the world’s most respected climate reporter announces he’s leaving journalism.
Earth Journalism Awards
Tune in now to watch the Internews Earth Journalism Awards webcast live from Copenhagen. The spectacularly impressive winning entries span the globe from Kenya, Brazil, Pakistan, and Papua New Guinea.
Two top-notch stories illustrate how nuanced, in-depth reporting can compellingly and accurately portray climate-security links: Lisa Friedman’s 5-part series on Bangladesh for ClimateWire untangles the knotty problem of climate-induced migration, while William Wheeler writes in GOOD Magazine about the increasingly difficult role of Indus Water Treaty in mitigating conflict between India and Pakistan.
The 15 winners are blogging from the summit, as well 40 reporters from 26 developing nations, as part of the Climate Change Media Partnership.
Revkin Frustrated With Journalism; Will Leave NYT
On the bad news side, Yale Forum on Climate Change and Media announced this morning that Andrew Revkin, the NYT’s climate reporter, will leave the paper on December 21. He cites “frustration with journalism,” but will continue writing his popular DotEarth blog.
Maybe Revkin’s frustration is with the disintegration of environmental coverage in the mainstream media? The Internews winners demonstrate the high quality of climate coverage at niche publications like ClimateWire or funded by non-profits like the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting.
Let’s hope Revkin finds a more comfortable home and continues his pioneering work on DotEarth, specifically his efforts to cover population, poverty, consumption, and development connections to climate. -
Water Conflicts Enter the Fourth Dimension
›The Pacific Institute has just released an updated version of its renowned Water Conflict Chronology in a new interactive form. The online map depicts water conflicts from the Biblical flood to this year’s December 3 protest in Mumbai, pinpointing their location and chronological order. Pop-up text boxes provide the date, parties involved, basis for conflict, and hyperlinked references.
Since its founding in 1987, the project has continuously collected water conflict data “in an ongoing effort to understand the connections between water resources, water systems, and international security and conflict,” writes Pacific Institute President Peter Gleick in the San Francisco Chronicle.
But now, the data can also be visualized and manipulated in a table with citations, interactive timeline, or Google Earth map. Also of note is the project’s robust water and conflict bibliography search engine.
The Pacific Institute publishes The World’s Water, which offers a broad analysis of water resource trends, from conflict and scarcity, to implications for health and the impacts of climate change. At the Wilson Center launch of The World’s Water, Gleick talked to ECSP Director Geoff Dabelko about “peak water” (video).
