The New Security Beat |
- What’s in a Name? Making the Case for the Sahel Conflict as “Eco-violence”
- Tackling Scarcity and Building Security: A Response to IUU Fishing
- Midwives in Humanitarian Crises Need Recognition and Investment
- Responsible Research Won’t Be Enough to Control Solar Geoengineering
- World Population Day Shines a Spotlight on Inequities
| What’s in a Name? Making the Case for the Sahel Conflict as “Eco-violence” Posted: 14 Jul 2022 09:01 PM PDT  The Sahel region of Africa is a semi-arid, arc-shaped landmass that stretches 3,860 kilometres from Senegal across portions of Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Nigeria, Chad, and even Sudan. It is also the most neglected and conflict-ridden part of the planet, according to the Norwegian Refugee Council. At the heart of the conflict in the Sahel region in recent years is violence between sedentary farmers and nomadic herders. These persistent battles have caused thousands of deaths, displaced millions of people, and destroyed properties worth millions of dollars. Although these conflicts primarily occur between nomadic herders from the Fulani ethnic group and sedentary farmers living in rural communities in the Sahel, many different labels and names are used by conflict scholars to describe this violence. This diffusion in terminology obscures key elements in these conflicts. In research published with three of my colleagues in June 2022 in Third World Quarterly, we advocate for a change to this practice. Many of the labels given to this violence are politicized and not neutral. They emphasize the social identities and occupations of the contending groups, make the conflict seem as if it is caused by single-issue events, and suggest that it exists only between non-state actors. We believe that a consistent use of the term "eco-violence" would be more exact, and refocus our attention on the essential elements of these conflicts. It would also promote much-needed clarity both in analysis and seeking sustainable solutions to end this violence. Many Names, Many CausesThe scale of eco-violence and the damage it has caused in the region is immense. It also has been characterized by bursts of lethal ferocity. For generations, conflicts over water and agricultural resources have raged in Africa’s Sahel region. Scholars have begun to observe a heightened escalation since 2014 due to various reasons, including changes in who gets favoured within the political system. Such developments resulted in nepotism, impunity, and other forms of insecurity, as well as the deployment of military-grade weaponry in the conflicts. The situation has resulted in thousands of people being killed within the rural community due to the conflicts over water and land, while millions have been displaced to IDP camps and into makeshift camps. These widespread killings and destructions are not unique to anyone particular country in the Sahel but it is widespread. For instance, on March 23, 2019, Dogon farmers slaughtered around 175 Fulani inhabitants in Mali. Recently, the killings and spates of kidnappings associated with eco-violence have skyrocketed in Nigeria. Weekly reports of the massacre of hundreds of people, especially in the Middle Belt region of Nigeria, have been recorded by reputable Nigerian and world news agencies. For instance, over 50 people were killed in three separate attacks by suspected herders in the Tarka local government area of Benue State in April 2022. Similarly, about 37 individuals were reportedly killed in the early hours of June 19, 2022 when suspected Fulani herders stormed Igama, a rural village in Nigeria’s Benue State. The next day, suspected armed herders killed about 16 people in Benue State’s Udei and Yelwata districts. The violence is becoming common—and even normalized. According to local reports in Nigeria, "there was a sort of relief in May as only five people were killed in the only attack carried out in Guma, while a couple were also killed at Ikyangwa Tombard near Ayilamo on June 7." It is a frightening testament to both the severity and barbaric nature of these conflicts when "a sort relief" is felt when "only" five human beings are killed. Getting a handle on this violence is difficult enough. But the practice of labelling these conflicts in multiple ways has added to the challenge for scholars studying the violent conflicts between sedentary farmers and nomadic herders in Africa. Among the terms used in several studies to label these conflicts over water and other agricultural resources are: Fulani herdsmen and farmers conflicts, farmer-herder conflicts, herdsmen militancy, resource conflicts, land-use conflicts, and ethnic violence. All these terms (and others) refer to the unending violent conflict between Fulani herders and sedentary farmers in rural communities across the Sahel of Africa. Yet these terms do not capture the complexity at the root of these conflicts. Indeed, they reflect some contradictions. In some cases, either violence is said to be caused by the scarcity of water and agricultural resources resulting from adverse climatic conditions and migration, or an abundance of agricultural resources or investments. Others blame these conflicts on uncompensated agricultural devastation, rape, murders on both sides, cattle rustling, and grazing opportunities limitations. The violence also has been attributed to government incompetence and the availability of military-grade firearms, which produced ungoverned zones, or from grievances resulting from discriminatory practices and the depiction of people and their lives through prejudicial frames. As we can see, many factors contribute to these violent conflicts in the Sahel region. But our overall understanding is constrained by the multiple labels used to describe them. These varied and at time contradictory terms highlight certain aspects of the conflicts while obscuring other critical issues, such as social and environmental injustices and political failures. The result is an unsettling lack of clarity. Clearing Up DefinitionsOur proposal to use the term "eco-violence" is a way to gain more clarity and insight into the conflict over water and other agricultural resources in the Sahel between nomadic herders and sedentary farmers. Our paper argues that the use of this new and more expansive definition should become standard practice. We suggest that eco-violence be deployed by scholars when they are referring to "conflicts in which competition for water and agricultural resources occurs within or between social groups or state actors, often resulting in mass murder and destruction of the environment and properties; such conflicts are exacerbated by the states’ failure to address resource redistribution challenges, institutional failures, and environmental and social injustice." The term eco-violence encompasses more dimensions of these violent conflicts than framing them as single-issue problems. Adopting it as a description also changes our focus from the identities and occupations of the warring social groups. Shifting the lens in this way illuminates other (and often ignored) factors that sustain these violent conflicts, such as government failures to address resource scarcity, insecurity, climate change challenges, and primordial sentiments (resource captures). It also better captures the range of effects created by the violence, including mass murder and human displacement, ecological destruction, and social injustices. If scholars and opinion leaders do adopt eco-violence as the umbrella terminology for these conflicts, they will divert attention away from the trivial and primordial descriptions of the violence in the region, and focus our attention on significant issues and causes. It will represent a significant step to further enhance our understanding of these violent conflicts. Ezenwa Olumba is a PhD candidate in the Department of Politics and International Relations, Royal Holloway, University of London. His geographical expertise focuses on the West African sub-region. Sources: The Conversation; Norwegian Refugee Council; Third World Quarterly; African Security Review; Transborder Pastoral Nomadism and Human Security in Africa (Taylor & Francis); American Political Science Association; African Security; Vanguard; Premium Times; Punch Photo Credit: In the Mentao Nord camp in Burkina Faso, a pastoralist leads three goats, courtesy of flickr user Oxfam International/Photo Credit: Pablo Tosco. |
| Tackling Scarcity and Building Security: A Response to IUU Fishing Posted: 14 Jul 2022 08:44 AM PDT  Last month, as global leaders met in Lisbon for the UN Oceans Conference, President Biden signed a National Security Memorandum to address the challenge of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. This event is a promising sign that the U.S. and other governments are accelerating the response to the threat that IUU fishing poses—not just to the environment, the economy and human rights, but also to global peace and security. Marine resource scarcity will increasingly breed violence between communities and countries, especially as global populations grow ever more dependent on fish. That's why any viable strategy to curb IUU fishing must be two-pronged, promoting solutions that tackle the underlying issues of marine resource scarcity and boost maritime security response. Fragile FisheriesHealthy coastal ecosystems support peaceful and well-functioning societies. They feed billions of people, support hundreds of millions of jobs, and provide security to communities at risk from climate change and natural disasters. But today's oceans are far from healthy. Human activity has devastated marine ecosystems and depleted fish stocks, resulting in more hungry people, increased unemployment, and heightened insecurity for people and societies. It is a recipe for chaos and conflict. While fisheries conflict could surge in the coming years and decades, it would not be a new development. Between World War II and the end of the Cold War, a quarter of all military conflicts between democracies were fought over fisheries. Since then, the amount of interstate fisheries conflict has increased twentyfold. To understand what's driving this rapid growth, it's critical to understand that IUU fishing is, at its core, an issue of natural resource competition. As those resources become increasingly scarce, competition for them boils over into conflict. Fish is already one of the most rapidly dwindling natural resources on the planet. Two-thirds of our oceans have already been significantly altered by human activity. Over 90% of the world's fisheries have been pushed to (or beyond) their biological limits. Half of coral reefs and mangroves—which serve as nurseries for juvenile fish and other marine life—have been destroyed. Within 30 years, all of Earth's remaining reefs and mangroves could be at risk. Left unchecked, this crisis is only going to worsen. The global human population is expected to grow by two billion by 2050, with demand for fish and other aquatic food on course to nearly double during that time frame. Climate change compounds the problem. According to a University of British Columbia study, 23 percent of fish stock connected to territorial waters will migrate as a result of climate change in the next eight years. That percentage is expected to double by the end of this century. This climate-driven migration will create newly fish-rich and fish-poor areas that present fresh challenges for coastal communities and nations. Getting Ahead of ConflictScarcity fuels conflict, and conflict in turn drives more scarcity. IUU fishing degrades our oceans by enabling unsustainable practices at industrial scale. This clearly devastates domestic fishing industries, and further depletes a critical resource that billions of people depend on for sustenance. Yet its ripples extend further. IUU fishing also breeds government corruption, and contributes to unsafe and unethical labor practices—including "sea slavery" and other human rights abuses. There is no path to arresting IUU fishing that doesn't address the issue of our unhealthy oceans and declining fish stocks. To that end, nations have an opportunity to join the 30×30 movement and commit to conserving and sustainably managing 30 percent of their marine areas by 2030. Ideally, nations would then follow through on that commitment by implementing a blue foods agenda that both meets their food security needs and also fosters inclusive ocean governance and the effective protection and management of their ocean areas. When it comes to curbing IUU fishing and associated conflict, knowing where and when it will boil over is half the battle. That's why it's also vital to develop predictive analysis of future fish conflict based on climate, fisheries, and geopolitical data and analysis. Such analysis could provide the basis for an early warning system for conflict and food insecurity, and usher in a new era in which maritime security resources are leveraged to deter and prevent future fish wars. Technology capacity building resources, enforcement support and intelligence systems would be key components of such a system. There is also a great need for the maritime security and ocean conservation communities to leverage one another's resources and competencies through innovative partnerships. The time to get ahead of looming conflicts over this vital resource before it sparks a shooting war. As U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has said, "it’s always better to stamp out an ember than to try to put out a blaze.” Now is the time for innovative conservation and peacebuilding solutions that address the intersecting crises of environmental degradation and conflict. This fire is rising, but the conservation and maritime security communities can work together to stamp this threat out before it is too late. Johan Bergenas is Senior Vice President of Oceans at World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Sources: White House; International Studies Quarterly; IPBES; United Nations; Nature; Global Change Biology Photo Credit: A boarding team from the USCGC Sequoia conducts an IUU fisheries patrol in the Pacific Ocean, courtesy of flickr user Coast Guard News, Photo Credit: U.S. Coast Guard photo by USCGC Sequoia/Released. |
| Midwives in Humanitarian Crises Need Recognition and Investment Posted: 12 Jul 2022 09:01 PM PDT  More than 60 percent of preventable maternal deaths and 45 percent of newborn deaths take place in countries affected by recent conflict, natural disaster, or both. Yet as Sarah B. Barnes, Project Director of the Maternal Health Initiative, observed at a recent event hosted by the Wilson Center and UNFPA, in collaboration with the Inter-agency Working Group on Reproductive Health in Crisis (IAWG) and White Ribbon Alliance, "the leading causes of both maternal and newborn death occurring in humanitarian settings are considered to be preventable if managed by skilled providers and adequate resources." The central role of midwives in navigating crisis and preventing these unnecessary deaths was the focus of the event. "Midwives constitute the health workforce that can help deliver around 90 percent of essential sexual, reproductive, maternal, and neonatal health services," said Dr. Tamar Khomasuridze, Sexual and Reproductive Health (SRH) Technical Advisor for Eastern Europe and Central Asia Regional Office at UNFPA. Dr. Khomasuridze works to support midwives in many settings. She observed that this essential work can be accomplished when health workers are properly trained and supported by an enabling policy environment and health system. But she added that periods of conflict or disaster in humanitarian settings, midwives face several challenges affecting their role in supporting mothers and infants. Cultural Context as a Barrier to CareHealth workers and midwives on the ground in South Sudan, Afghanistan, and Ukraine shared their particular experiences at the event. What they had in common, observed Dr. Khomasuridze, is "the fact that midwives deliver life-saving services in life-threatening conditions, for all." Yet each speaker acknowledged facing unique barriers to their work "The context of the crises in [these] three countries is different," said Dr. Khomasuridze. said Dr. Olena Samoilenko, a neonatologist working in a children's hospital ward in Ukraine, noted that nobody abandoned the children in her country, even in wartime: "While bombs fell, while transport was collapsed – all staff, nurses, came here and stayed here. All were with our children." The cultural context can sometimes create or compound barriers to the role of midwives and health workers in emergency response situations. An Afghan midwife, whose name was withheld to protect her safety, noted that the current cultural norms and rules in Afghanistan have led to increased discrimination towards mothers and midwives—as well as a reduction in the number of women seeking care. An example that the Afghan midwife offered was the fact that all women, including midwives, their staff, and their female patients, face discrimination because they are required to always be accompanied by a male. "Yet despite these challenges," she continued, "Afghan midwives are still the frontline health providers in many fragile settings and continue to provide constant and quality care in public and private sectors." Lilian Ndinda, Maternal and Child Health Coordinator for the International Rescue Committee in South Sudan, reflected on the challenge of cultural context while she worked at the Dadaab Refugee Complex in Kenya. "Culture sometimes affects the quality of health services that are provided," Ndinda said, noting that women need to seek several levels of approval from family members – from their father, their mother, their husband—before obtaining care. "It would take a mother several days to make the decision on whether to have a caesarean section or not," said Ndinda. She added that the delays caused by this cultural norm also strained Kenya's health systems as well. Investing in Midwives"The role of midwives in disaster preparedness is critical," said Mushtaq Khan, Health Technical Advisor and SRH Advisor for the MENA region and Asia at the International Rescue Committee. Yet the central role that midwives play often does not reflect this fact. For instance, a lack of providers and training for midwives in various settings remains a challenge. Khan observed that there are a mere five midwives per 100,000 people in Afghanistan. Given the scarcity of trained professionals, he continued, how can we expect to improve maternal and neonatal child health indicators without more substantive investment? Another challenge is stress. Midwives often face mental strain and psychological burnout from working in these conflict settings with inadequate support. But organizations can take steps to reduce the psychological impacts. "Just as we focus on training a midwife to become a better midwife," said Ndinda, "let's also focus on teaching the midwife to cope with this work." Investing in midwives is a key piece of strengthening the health systems which are fundamental to disaster response. "We should utilize the potential of the health workforce to strengthen health systems," said Dr. Khomasuridze. Prioritizing the health workforce, and, in particular, midwives, within health systems will be an investment with long term positive impact. Prioritizing Midwives in Disaster PlanningAs a group, the panelists agreed that that midwives were often overlooked in planning for disaster responses. "Midwives are being discounted in numbers, no one is listening to their realities" said Angela Nguku, a midwife, and Deputy CEO of White Ribbon Alliance. Given the impact that they have, it is critical for organizations to prioritize the needs of midwives in humanitarian responses. Yet while the need to center midwives in the response process is essential, there are a number of significant barriers to doing so. The Afghan midwife panelist said that instead of payment for their services, midwives in her country instead were confronted by a "fear of being attacked while working in health facilities, [as well as] a lack of female healthcare providers' voices at the decision-making table." Another challenge in integrating the role of midwives in response planning is the fact that reproductive health is often not the first priority in such emergencies. Sexual and reproductive health needs are often overlooked in these crises, observed Dr. Khomasuridze. She proposed that sexual and reproductive health needs, including maternal and neonatal health, should be fully integrated and prioritized in preparedness and humanitarian responses. The most compelling reason to do so is that emergencies do not erase these critical needs. The reality is that pregnancy and other health concerns still occur during these events. "The crisis comes and finds women when they are pregnant," said Nguku. Ensuring care for women in the midst of disasters requires a systemic response. Khan observed that when emergency preparedness and response planning at all levels – local, national, and international—leaves midwives out of the process, it is impossible to come up with concrete solutions. Read more:
Sources: IAWG, International Rescue Committee, UNFPA, UNHCR, White Ribbon Alliance, WHO. Photo Credit: Midwives make pregnant mothers health checks at the Rohingya Refugee Camp Health Center. Djohan Shahrin/Shutterstock.com. |
| Responsible Research Won’t Be Enough to Control Solar Geoengineering Posted: 12 Jul 2022 08:10 AM PDT  As climate change worsens, the once-unimaginable power to use technology to cool the planet—a method known as “solar geoengineering”—has quietly entered the realm of possibility. Yet the prospect of developing such planet-altering technologies has launched an intense debate: Can this be achieved responsibly? Should it be attempted at all? A report released by the National Academy of Sciences in March 2021—Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance—identified some governing principles for socially and environmentally responsible research into controversial climate-altering “geoengineering” technologies. But is pointing the way toward a responsible research agenda for such a powerful technology enough? History shows us that such principles—even when powerfully articulated by scientists and international governing bodies—prove to be an insufficient constraint on the actors who actually decide how a powerful new technology will be used. Impersonal economic and geopolitical forces determine how such powerful technologies are developed and deployed to a far greater extent than any group of regulators. If we hope to avoid a misuse of geoengineering, then, it is essential we rely upon more than researchers’ intentions to uphold principles. We must also focus on making tangible progress towards decarbonization and sustainable development. Ice, Clouds, and SulfurSo what's the science behind geoengineering technologies—and how might they mitigate the impacts of climate change? At present, they are theoretical systems that aim to create large-scale cooling in the Earth’s climate. Such technologies are divided into two categories: Solar Radiation Management, (SRM) and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR). The goal of CDR is to directly remove carbon and other greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. It's a relatively non-controversial and essential technology, but it also will require decades of cost-intensive work to be deployed. Research into Solar Radiation Management (SRM), however, is more controversial—and likely will scale up for potential use more quickly. It envisions ways that technology might increase the Earth's "albedo effect"—or the rate at which solar radiation is reflected away from the earth. The higher the albedo effect, the less solar radiation is absorbed by the earth. This effect occurs naturally through reflective surfaces such as icebergs and clouds, but the development of SRM technologies attempts to artificially replicate and amplify these natural processes, including Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI), Marine Cloud Brightening, and Stratospheric Aerosol Injection. All of these methods would reflect sunlight away from the Earth at a greater rate, producing an artificial cooling effect on the planet. But Stratospheric Aerosol Injection is both the most powerful and controversial tactic, because it involves the use of planes to disperse reflective particles into the atmosphere over an extended period. While the large-scale reflection of sunlight occurs naturally in the form of massive volcanic eruptions that dispersed large quantities of sulfur into the atmosphere SAI is an attempt to replicate such eruptions artificially. Solar radiation management technologies have yet to be developed or tested to a significant degree. But the scientific consensus is that they are feasible. One perceived factor in its favor is cost: SRM is anticipated to be less expensive than any other mitigation strategy. Another factor is speed. Depending on size and duration of the deployment, the desired cooling effect would take hold in a matter of months. Navigating a "Slippery Slope"Yet "hacking" the planet in the way envisioned by SAI—and other solar radiation management strategies—raises serious concerns. Critics caution that the ecological side effects of solar geoengineering could be dire, and theoretical research suggests a solar-geoengineered world could generate a range of new stressors to environmental security. How so? While SRM would cool the planet, it would not address the root driver of climate change (greenhouse gas emissions) and do nothing to alleviate other ecological impacts of climate change, such as ocean acidification and soil degradation. The scale on which SRM would need to be deployed also would likely create unintended impacts on agriculture, human health, and already fragile ecosystems. The lack of a safe and effective "off" switch is also a major concern. If the deployment of SAI or other technologies were to suddenly cease after a long period of use, the planetary system would experience the cumulative warming effect of the greenhouse gases accumulated in the atmosphere since the beginning of the cooling period. This “termination shock” could result in mass extinctions and ecological collapse, as rapid warming kills plants and insects at the bottom of the food chain faster than larger animals could find new food sources. In short, it would present a threat to the foundations of life on the planet. Solar radiation management also raises serious (and broader) environmental justice concerns. As a global climate-altering technology, it will directly impact the countries of the global south and indigenous peoples who are already the most vulnerable populations to climate change. The deployment of geoengineering by powerful states (including the United States) also could perpetuate existing climate injustices, creating additional barriers to a more resilient and sustainable planet. Given its disruptive potential, critics warn that even research into SAI and other similar technology be undertaken with caution. It might even create a “moral hazard” in which its existence as a perceived “plan B” reduces the necessary urgency to advance decarbonization and other sustainable development efforts. Investors in the new technology will expect a concrete return on their investment, thereby creating a “slippery slope” to deployment. Owning the OutcomesThe authors of Reflecting Sunlight identify key principles that should govern geoengineering research. They emphasize a multidisciplinary approach, including racial and economic diversity, collaborative sharing of research between nations, and perspectives from developing countries and the global south. Yet the National Academy of Sciences report also lays down even broader markers. Its authors see geoengineering as serving a limited role in a larger adaptation strategy meant to ease the transition a carbon-free world economy, and not as an acceptable substitute. The report identifies the need for “exit ramps” to terminate research that does not align with these principles. Yet even as the authors of Reflecting Sunlight seek to minimize the likelihood of misusing geoengineering, their efforts inevitably run up against the unprecedented power of these promised technologies. International agreements can propose essential regulations, but their ability to serve as reliable constraints on geoengineering depends ultimately on domestic political conditions. Economic and geopolitical concerns could easily trump not only a responsible research agenda, but also its development and deployment of solar engineering technologies in a warming world. History offers an unhappy preview of how restraint by researchers likely cannot counter strong incentives for misuse or weaponization of powerful technologies. First, the decisions taken regarding the development and use of geoengineering will not be made by current theorists, but by future leaders facing the ecological, economic, and national security consequences of our lack of progress in reducing fossil fuel emissions. The future of what results from research will not reside entirely in present measures taken to guide it. Yet other factors also make regulation of this technology difficult. Powerful emerging technologies such as SRM cause social, economic, and technological systems to transform and adapt around them. In our modern interconnected world, these transformations can be highly difficult to reverse once they have taken hold. "The essence of controlling a technology is not in forecasting its social consequences," writes David Collingridge in his 1982 book, The Social Control of Technology, "but in retaining the ability to change a technology, even when it is fully developed and diffused." When an emerging technology exhibits an early competitive advantage over alternatives, it can trigger a series of feedback loops. The eventual outcome is a “socio-technical lock-in,” in which social, economic, and technological systems become mutually dependent to the point where they are difficult to separate—even if they become harmful or a superior alternative emerges. Decarbonize Now To Prevent Lock-InMajor efforts to decarbonize the global economy have not yet taken root. It takes time to lay foundations for adaptation strategies that will be sustainable in the long run. The complex time and effort-intensive nature required to do so make it a preemptive, rather than a reactive strategy. Yet Solar Radiation Management possesses qualities that make it likely to be used in reaction to runaway climate change. It works quickly. It is (relatively) cheap. Current estimates of a hypothetical 15-year deployment ramp for SRM in the United States run at about $15 billion, making it far less expensive (in the short term) than either emission abatement or the economic costs of a warming climate. And this technology promises to be relatively easy to deploy on short notice, possibly as a reaction to the harsh consequences offered by our failure to decarbonize. In short, SRM likely offers a short-term comparative advantage over more responsible and sustainable alternatives. The path to global powers continuing to invest in SRM at the expense of the more complicated and cost-intensive ways to decarbonize and develop sustainably is clear. But we also see the dangers of substituting SRM technology, despite its short-term comparative advantages. The resulting path-dependency and socio-technical lock-in would make large-scale decarbonization even more difficult, thereby exposing future generations to the risks of life in a geoengineered world. Because SRM technologies have yet to be developed on a large scale, it is tempting to see the role they will play in the future of our species and our planet as questions for tomorrow, and not today. Such thinking is a mistake. Now is the time to push forward more aggressively with decarbonization programs. This is especially as the current lack of progress around decarbonization suggests that SRM technologies will be advanced as part of an overall adaptation strategy. The dynamics of path dependency and sociotechnical lock-in suggest that will have far less control over their use if they are deployed as a desperate reaction to cascading climate impacts. We can only hope that if—or, more likely, when—solar radiation management measures are is deployed, large-scale decarbonization of our energy system will be already well underway. Whit Henderson is a strategic foresight practitioner and ethicist currently residing in San Francisco. He worked as Dr Elizabeth Chalecki's research assistant during her 2020-2021 fellowship with the Wilson Center. Sources: National Academy of Sciences; Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative (C2G); Strategic Studies Quarterly; Nature; Ethics, Policy & Environment; Global Sustainability; Ecology Law Quarterly; Northern Kentucky Law Review; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists; Council on Foreign Relations; Environmental Research Letters Photo Credit: The sun illuminates the sky over a still body of water, courtesy of flickr user BrunoAmaru. |
| World Population Day Shines a Spotlight on Inequities Posted: 10 Jul 2022 09:01 PM PDT  July 11 is World Population Day—a day designated annually by the United Nations that should prompt us, in the words of the International Institute for Sustainable Development, to "focus attention on the urgency and importance of population issues." Examining population trends helps describe where we've been and suggests where we're headed. Yet these facts about human existence on our planet also offer insights into how we got here—including a window into places where inequities exist and rights have been denied. The latest revision of global population projections released today by the UN Population Division will make headlines for the big picture they offer: the world's population continues to grow by about just under 1 percent annually. While this sounds like a slow growth rate, it results in the addition of nearly 65 million people per year—the equivalent of about eight New York Cities. This growth rate has slowed significantly since a peak of about 2.2 percent in the late 1960s. The projections indicate that growth will continue to slow and may end by the end this century (though there is a wide range of possible population futures). Yet there are many diverse and discrete regional trends woven through this global picture. In some places, including the United States, observers lament slow population growth and its implications for the economy. Persistently high population growth rates bump up against local natural resource constraints in other regions, hampering efforts to address core challenges people are facing related to poverty, pandemic recovery, and limited access to education and health services. An examination of population trends offers signposts for future needs, whether these are near-term needs to expand housing and other infrastructure, or longer-term investments to boost education, public health, and care for an aging population. But such examination should not simply be a dispassionate planning exercise. Thoughtful interpretation of population trends can direct long-overdue attention and resources to address chronic inequities that darken the prospects for a more just and sustainable future. The Collective Impact of Individual RightsLast month's U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade has brought reproductive rights squarely into the spotlight in the U.S. and around the world. Much of the discussion revolves around the basic human right to reproductive autonomy—allowing individuals to freely determine whether and when to become parents, and also obtain the information and services that enable them to actualize those intentions. These rights have their foundation in the global agreement stemming from the 1968 International Conference on Human Rights, and they have been affirmed in multiple international agreements ever since. But this individual right to agency in one's own reproductive life remains unrealized for much of the world's population. Multiple barriers—insufficient health systems, social stigma, educational barriers, and political roadblocks—stand in the way, and these obstructions disproportionately affect people with limited financial resources, those who live in rural areas, and other marginalized groups. This lack of individual rights results in significant collective impact. More than 218 million women in low and middle income countries would like to end or delay childbearing, but are not using an effective method of family planning. This unmet need for family planning results in high rates of unintended pregnancy, with its myriad of complexities, as outlined in this year's UNFPA State of World Population Report. Unsurprisingly, countries with high proportions of women with an unmet need for family planning also have some of the highest population growth rates. For example, according to the latest USAID Demographic and Health Surveys, about one in three women have an unmet need for family planning in Angola, Burundi, and Uganda; the population in each of these countries is growing close to 3 percent per year. While this may seem insignificant, it's important to remember that such growth compounds rapidly over time: a population that is growing at 3 percent annually will double in just 23 years. The Sahel: Gender Inequity and Persistent Youthful Age StructureHigh population growth rates and very young age structure are hallmarks of many countries in the Sahel region of Africa, including Niger, Burkina Faso, Mali, and Chad. In these nations, more than half of the population is under the age of 18, and high fertility means that each new cohort added is larger than the one before it. This rapidly expanding youth population strains—and in many cases, overwhelms—the ability of governments to provide even the most basic services related to education and health care. A persistently youthful age structure in the region drives and exacerbates mutually reinforcing crises, including deep food insecurity, widening income inequality, and acute political instability. The Sahel is also a region of vast gender inequity. The UN Development Programme's Gender Inequality Index, a composite measure of gender-based disadvantage in reproductive health, empowerment, and the labor market, ranks the countries of the Sahel at or near the bottom of its global list. When girls are not afforded opportunities to go to school or enter the labor market, marrying young can become commonplace. Child marriage is widespread in Niger, for example, where 28 percent of girls marry by the time they are 15 years old. High rates of child marriage are tightly linked to rapid population growth and youthful age structure. Across the Sahel, six in ten child brides give birth before age 18, and nearly nine in ten give birth before age 20. For girls and women who are not yet fully grown, pregnancy and childbirth carry greatly increased risk of major complications, including prolonged or obstructed labor that can cause stillbirth, obstetric fistula, uterine rupture, and maternal death. The scourge of child marriage and early childbirth also has implications for fertility rates: a recent study of 15 countries estimated that a girl marrying at 13 will have 26 percent more children over her lifetime than if she had married at 18 or later. In a recent conversation, Rachida Issoufou Mani, executive director of Lumière des Filles et des Femmes (Light of Girls and Women), a program that provides safe spaces for married adolescent girls in southern Niger told me, "When girls become mothers it is hard for them to see opportunities in life." Overlooking the Last MileAlthough Guatemala is classified as a "middle-income country," this designation masks significant inequities within its population, particularly relating to women's health. Inequities faced by youth and rural, Indigenous populations are evident in Guatemala's population growth trends. Guatemala has the highest population growth rate in Latin America; the projections released today by the UN Population Division indicate that Guatemala's population could grow from 17.5 million today to anywhere between 22-27 million by 2050. While there has been laudable progress in recent decades, health indicators among rural Indigenous populations remain bleak. Maternal mortality rates among Indigenous women are three times higher than for non-Indigenous women, and can reach up to 221 deaths per 100,000 deliveries in some regions. People living in remote rural communities suffer from isolation, poverty, low visibility, and low institutional support from health institutions. Guatemala also has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in Latin America—and is one of the few places where it is on the rise. The average age for women to first give birth is 20, and 21 percent of young women ages 15–19 are pregnant or parenting. In rural areas, this percentage rises to 24 percent. Indeed, pregnancy among the youngest girls in Guatemala has become common enough that civil society pushed the government's statistical agency to create a new statistical bracket to register pregnancies among girls between the ages of 10 and 14. And the gaps in supporting teenage girls are particularly severe. Surveys indicate that 22 percent of teen girls have an unmet need for family planning. “Recent disruptions in education and health systems brought by the COVID-19 pandemic left an entire generation of adolescent girls with inconsistent access to in-person learning and limited to no guarantees to protect their sexual and reproductive health,” said Ángel del Valle, Guatemala Country Director for the Population Council. The Population Council's response? A targeted, evidence-based approach taken in its Abriendo Oportunidades program, which offers mentoring, comprehensive sexuality education, and other skills building that enables girls to claim their human rights and increase prospects for decent livelihoods. “Investing in the poorest girls at the right time—at the onset of puberty and before negative outcomes like school dropout and child marriage start to rise—continues to be a critical goal,” de Valle said. Intersecting Inequities at the Global LevelAs we have seen, injustices related to health inequities, gender inequities, and inequities faced by youth and other marginalized groups described above are also driving population growth in many places. Add the growing frequency and intensity of weather-related disasters, and the need to understand population trends for planning is especially obvious. Earlier this year, UN Secretary-General António Guterres noted that one-third of the world's people, mainly in least developed countries and small island developing states, are not covered by the early warning systems that enable communities to anticipate storms, heatwaves, floods, and droughts. This is only one stark illustration of climate injustice in which those who bear little responsibility for the atmospheric build-up of greenhouse gases that is wreaking havoc with the climate system are offered the least protection from this impending disaster. Overlaid on this reality is the fact that many of the nations and communities that lack coverage from early warning systems, such as most of the population of Africa, are also experiencing population growth at rates higher than the global average. Today one-third of the population is vulnerable, but without action, that proportion will be even larger a decade or two from now. World Population Day invites us to not only assess the implications of population trends for society, but also to seek out the signposts in those trends that point toward stories of persistent inequities faced by people around the world. As the human family continues to expand, we owe it to ourselves and to each other to better understand how inequities are both a cause and consequence of population trends—so that we can better direct our energies and resources toward forging a more just and sustainable future for all. Kathleen Mogelgaard is President and CEO of the Population Institute in Washington, DC. Sources: IISD; United Nations Population Division; New York Times; Devex; Guttmacher Institute; World Bank; UNDP; UNICEF; OASIS; MSPAS/INE/Segeplán; OSAR Guatemala; The Population Council Photo Credit: Aerial view of pedestrians passing a crosswalk during rush hour, courtesy of Varavin88/Shutterstock.com |
| You are subscribed to email updates from New Security Beat. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
Inbox too full?  Subscribe to the feed version of New Security Beat in a feed reader. | |
| Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
This is dummy text. It is not meant to be read. Accordingly, it is difficult to figure out when to end it. But then, this is dummy text. It is not meant to be read. Period.
ConversionConversion EmoticonEmoticon