-
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? -
‘DotPop: ’ New Toolkit for Population, Health, and Environment
›December 29, 2009 // By Wilson Center StaffThe PHE Toolkit, launched by Building Actors and Leaders for Advancing Community Excellence in Development (BALANCED), is a new source of information and resources on Population, Health, and Environment (PHE).
The interactive online library of documents, videos, and other resources will provide “one-stop shopping” for the target audience of program managers working on health, family planning, development, and conservation programs—as well as policymakers, researchers, academics, and educators. All users can contribute resources and participate in discussions through the toolkit.
The Environmental Change and Security Program, along with several PHE partner organizations, helped build the framework and will contribute its PHE resources to the toolkit. ECSP is also a member of the PHE Gateway, which can be accessed through the toolkit.
The PHE toolkit is one of five public toolkits housed on the Knowledge for Health (K4Health) website, which is supported by USAID’s Bureau of Global Health. Together, the current and forthcoming toolkits will form an updated and vibrant community for information on health, including family planning, HIV/AIDS, and reproductive health.
The PHE toolkit is made possible through the collaboration of Johns Hopkins University Center for Communication Programs (JHU/CCP) and the BALANCED Project. BALANCED is spearheaded by the Coastal Resources Center (CRC) at the University of Rhode Island and its partners, PATH Foundation Philippines Inc. and Conservation International. -
Price of Coal Surges!
›December 23, 2009 // By Geoffrey D. DabelkoThe price of coal surged this morning as a new buyer entered the market. A high-volume rush order came in from the North Pole in the last few hours, accounting for the surge. Shaking his head, one dazed trader said the size of the order was equivalent to the yearly total of a medium-size country with no green energy sector.
When pressed to reveal the source of the demand, traders grudgingly admitted a white-bearded man clad in red had suddenly appeared, agitated and mumbling about those who simply couldn’t be good for goodness’ sake. He had come straight from the Bella Center and was scrolling through a long list of names on his Blackberry. “It just keeps getting longer and longer!” he cried. With a bottle of Carlsberg in hand, he made some final calculations and proclaimed he had a sudden need for coal ready for delivery in two day’s time.
Satisfied he’d have adequate supplies ready for pickup in every country from the North to the South, he made his way up to the roof of the trading house. Those close at hand overheard him say, “Good night to you all, but I won’t see you next year. I’ll have to come up with something else for these naughty types. They will probably just burn this stuff.”
“At least Mexico City will be warmer!”
Photo: Courtesy David Hawxhurst, Woodrow Wilson Center -
‘DotPop:’ Copenhagen’s Collapse: An Opportunity for Population?
›December 22, 2009 // By Gib ClarkeWhile the negotiators failed to reach a comprehensive agreement in Copenhagen, the population and reproductive health community might find a silver lining in the stormclouds that derailed COP-15.
Developing countries’ strong protests of their lack of culpability for the climate problem, on one hand, and the dramatic examples of their vulnerability on the other, have focused the world on the problems of poor people—and on potential solutions, including family planning.
The Case of the Missing “P”
The New York Times’ Andrew Revkin complained that population was the “The Missing ‘P’ Word in Climate Talks,” but PAI’s Kathleen Mogelgaard argues in New Security Beat that “there is encouraging evidence that voices of those advocating for increased attention to the role of population and reproductive health and rights in climate change responses are being heard” in Copenhagen, including new funding from the Danish government for family planning.
At a breakfast last week, luminaries including Gro Harlem Brundtland and IPCC Chairman Rajendra K. Pachauri discussed UNFPA’s latest report, Facing a Changing World: Women, Population and Climate in Copenhagen.
According to lead author Robert Engelman, the report is “helping many more people to see population and climate in a more hopeful light, linked as they are through the right of women to equal standing with men and access to reproductive health care for all.”
Women, Population, and Climate
“Climate change is ultimately about people,” declared Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney at the recent Washington, DC, launch of the report. Though the issues are complex and multi-faceted, Engelman said that the report’s message is “stark and optimistic”: that “women in charge of their own lives” can have positive impacts on change climate mitigation and adaptation.
“Women are more sustainable consumers,” said UNFPA’s José Manuel Guzmán at the launch, noting that in many cases women make buying decisions for their families, so empowering them with information and tools is a wise approach to combating climate change.
Inequitable Impacts
Women – especially poor women – contribute fewer greenhouse gas emissions than men, yet are more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Unfortunately, this fundamental inequality is difficult to quantify, since most data sources are not disaggregated by gender. The report recommends improving data quality to better informing policy decisions.
Tim Wirth, president of the UN Foundation and the Better World Fund, noted that women face a “double whammy”: they are already less likely to go to school and to have access to paying livelihoods, and more likely to have HIV. Climate change will only increase the inequity.
People Power
PAI’s Karen Hardee called on the population community to focus their efforts on the next phase of negotiations – adaptation. A recent PAI report found that while 37 of 41 National Adaptation Plans of Action say that population pressures exacerbate the effects of climate change, only six include slowing population growth or addressing reproductive health and family planning as a key priority.
“The focus has been on where and what the impacts of climate change will be,” said Guzman, but the conversation needs to shift to who will be affected, and an analysis of their vulnerabilities and their capacities to adapt.
For real progress to occur, said Engelman, “climate needs to be seen through a more human lens.” -
Eco-Tourism: Kenya’s Development Engine Under Threat
›Africa’s elephants and black rhinos—already at risk—are increasingly threatened as the price of black market ivory rises, global markets contract, and unemployment rates rise. To fight poaching of these tusked animals, Ian Craig, founder of the Lewa Conservancy in Kenya and the brains behind the Northern Rangelands Trust, takes a unique approach to conservation that involves both local community members and high-level government officials, as well as private and public sector investors.
In the 1970s the black rhino population was at about 20,000. Less than three decades later, it had fallen to 200. Today, the population is about 600, of which 79 live in the Lewa Conservancy. The vast regions of Kenya covered by the Northern Rangelands Trust and the Lewa Conservancy are difficult to govern, so the conservancies partner with local communities to ensure the security necessary to protect the animals from poachers. By investing in community institutions, the conservancies create long-term sustainability and self-sufficiency.
But why should local communities—often beset by poverty, disease, and hunger—care about saving elephants or rhinoceroses rather than killing them for their tusks or meat? Revenue from tourism can total hundreds of thousands of dollars, especially because of the high cost and exclusive nature of tourism facilities in the area. This money is then injected back into community programs to improve adult literacy, school nutrition, health care, micro-credit, water and irrigation systems, community livestock and agriculture, and forestry and aquaculture.
In some politically volatile areas, the conservancy serves not only as a platform for ecological security, but also as a mediator of disputes. Where livestock theft is rampant, multi-ethnic anti-poaching teams have been able to act as intermediaries. Community elders and other traditional leaders serving on the conservancies’ boards have bi-annual meetings to further intra- and inter-regional cooperation. Along with regular managerial and council meetings, the board meetings set standards for good practices, open dialogue for policymaking and cooperation, and act as a unique platform for communication between different ethnic and regional groups.
Community members understand they have a stake in protecting not only the animals, but in ensuring security and building trust within the country. With its unique combination of local-level engagement, the cooperation and support of the Kenyan Wildlife Service and the national government, and with the resources available to the conservancies as a group, the Lewa Wildlife Conservancy hopes to create a model of conservation that can be used across Africa and in other at-risk regions.
The future is shaky: ivory prices continue to rise, the migration of animals has facilitated poaching, and small arms are abundantly available. However, the new community-focused approach has helped to create positive attitudes that aren’t just about saving animals, but about developing the nation.
Justine Lindemann is program assistant with the Africa Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
Photo: Elephants in Lewa Conservancy area, courtesty Flickr user Mara 1 -
Science and Geopolitics in Copenhagen
›The Copenhagen COP-15 was not a stand-alone event. It was a product of years of ongoing work around the globe, from the trenches of climate research laboratories to the highest levels of government. As a result, apart from anything else, it gave valuable insight into the current state of two of the most dynamic and overarching issues of the coming decades: the science of environmental change (and in particular the potential impacts) and dynamics of shifting geopolitics.
In both cases, based on what was seen in Copenhagen, the situation is disconcerting.
In terms of the science, the COP-15 had a dangerously narrow focus. Carbon emission-related issues, the main topic of the COP, are just one component of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). Other include, for example, livestock-related methane emissions and the release of exponentially potent industrial GHGs.
Due to feedback loops and other factors now in play, anthropogenic GHG emissions themselves are just one component of changing atmospheric GHG concentrations. Others include, for example, methane released from thawing permafrost and CO2 saturation in the oceans.
Meanwhile, GHG concentrations in the atmosphere are themselves just one potential component of major environmental change. Others include, for example, massive changes in consumption patterns, soil exhaustion, and groundwater depletion. Even without climate change, those factors alone are destabilizing.
While unquestionably important, from a scientific point of view, what was on the table at Copenhagen was severely limited. This was acknowledged by those involved, many of who talk in terms of a 2 degree C temperature rise as being a win.
The implications are staggering. Already, critical energy infrastructure, for instance, is feeling the effects of environmental changes. In some cases, such as French nuclear power stations, U.S. Gulf Coast infrastructure, and Indian hydroelectric installations, environmental change periodically severely affects production.
If an infrastructure that is as well-designed and funded as the energy sector is starting to feel the effects, it is hard to imagine the potential for disruption that the science now tells us is inevitable.
Meanwhile, geopolitically, the conference quickly took on the developed-versus-developing world framing that has increasingly paralyzed other global negotiations. As one Zambian delegate told me, “This is even worse than the WTO.”
While the Financial Times called Lumumba Di-Aping, the Sudanese head of the G-77 group of developing countries, “belligerent,” the largest circulation English language newspaper in the world, the Times of India, ran a headline reading: “India suspects foul play on draft declaration.”
In some cases the day-to-day management of the COP incited and inflamed the feeling of fragmentation. The location itself was criticized from the start: Copenhagen is lovely, but very expensive. Many stakeholders from the developing world could not afford to attend, assuming they could get visas.
Once they did arrive, the long registration lines in the cold took a toll on those just off long flights from the tropics, and some just gave up as coughs set in. It is worth noting that on several key days, members of negotiating parties had to wait in line with the NGOs, severely limiting their ability to contribute to the work going on inside.
Some of those who braved the lines, including an Indian journalist colleague, got inside and to the registration desk after hours only to find that their accreditation had been unilaterally cancelled.
The restrictions on NGOs hit the developing world particularly hard, as many of the government negotiating teams were actively supported by think tanks and others who were registered as NGOs.
In an atmosphere already rife with distrust, those sort of organizational issues were not helpful, to say the least, and they fed into conspiracy theories about a deliberate concerted effort by the developed world to bulldoze through secret drafts. It doesn’t matter if it is not true, what matters is that it is now widely believed – and on the front page of the Times of India.
The implications are troublesome. The government officials and negotiators involved will be sitting across the table from each other in a wide range of other treaties and agreements. The distrust resulting from COP15 will feed into existing geopolitical tensions and will be carried in the hearts and minds of those involved for years.
This is not good. When we combine the two trends – a failure to manage (or even acknowledge) the scientific importance of non-carbon environmental change factors and increasingly polarized geopolitics – it is easy to see some very unsettling times on the near horizon.
As we start to experience accelerating problems with everything from water scarcity (including in the United States and Europe) to infrastructure failure (including along the U.S. coasts), we are all going to need as many friends as we can get. If the Titanic is going down, it doesn’t help to compete over who can steal the most silverware.
The sort of behavior on show in Copenhagen may suit some narrow interests, but unless the full complexity of environmental change is addressed, those interests will lose out—as will we all.
Cleo Paskal is a fellow at Chatham House, a consultant to the Department of Energy’s Global Energy and Environment Strategic Ecosystem (GlobalEESE) and author of Global Warring: How Environmental, Economic, and Political Crises Will Redraw the World Map. -
VIDEO—Alexander Carius, Adelphi Research: Finding Empirical Evidence for Environmental Peacebuilding
›December 18, 2009 // By Dan Asin“One of the shortcomings of the entire debate on natural resources, climate security, and conflict is the question of empirical evidence,” Adelphi Research co-director Alexander Carius told ECSP’s Geoff Dabelko in a video interview.
The German government, UNEP, and others are investigating transboundary natural resource cooperation initiatives, also known as “environmental peacebuilding” programs. But before fully committing to the idea, they want more information. “Empirical evidence cannot be created just by outlining the usual cases that we know where it has worked,” said Carius, who indexed successful environmental peacebuilding programs in ECSP Report 12.
In some cases, empirical evidence is already available—it’s just unapparent. Conflict analytical frameworks and environmental peacebuilding protocols exist, but they “reside in different programs,” said Carius, rendering the information inaccessible. Packaging this already available information into coherent messages and delivering it to relevant agencies is “the next step,” he said.
In addition, efforts to collect new data are already underway. UN post-conflict analysis teams are combining their academic expertise with on-the-ground experiences to find not only empirical evidence, but also “usable, practical tools” that can be used by agencies at home, said Carius.
Carius sees a bright future for environmental peacemaking: “The largest potential is with the bilateral donor agencies, because they do much more practical projects on the ground,” he said. New and reformulated evidence, Carius hopes, will give environmental peacebuilding the traction it needs to take hold in bilateral aid agencies like USAID. -
Amid Blizzards, Protests, and Lock-downs, Population Gets Stunning Moments in the Sun in Copenhagen
›The second week of negotiations here in Copenhagen has been marked by dramatic events, as the deadline for a new global agreement to address climate change approaches.
Blocs of negotiators from developing countries have walked out, and returned. Thousands of NGO representatives who have been denied access to the proceedings are shivering in the cold. Observers inside the Bella Center have staged sit-ins. And yet slivers of hope remain for some form of a global deal that is fair, ambitious, and binding as negotiators prepare for the arrival of more than 100 heads of state on Friday.
Subscribe:
Africa’s elephants and black rhinos—already at risk—are increasingly threatened as the 
The 
