Showing posts from category Congress.
-
Food Security Comes to Capitol Hill, Part One
›April 30, 2010 // By Schuyler NullThis week, the CSIS Task Force on Global Food Security released its latest report, Cultivating Global Food Security: A Strategy for U.S. Leadership on Productivity, Agricultural Research, and Trade.
According to the report, “the number of people living with chronic hunger has jumped to more than 1 billion people – one sixth of the world’s population – and those trends show no signs of reversal: between 2007 and 2008, the number of people suffering from chronic hunger in the developing world increased by 80 million. In 2009, as many as 100 million additional people were pushed into a state of food insecurity.” The riots and instability during the 2008 food crisis vividly illustrate the consequences of failing to address this problem.
The report outlines six broad recommendations for policy makers:1. Develop an integrated, comprehensive approach to food security;
At the report’s Capitol Hill launch, CSIS President John Hamre compared releasing think tank studies to “casting bread on the water, most of it disappears.” However the high profile Congressional presence—including co-chairs Representative Betty McCollum and Senators Richard Lugar and Bob Casey—proves that awareness of the global food security problem is growing.
2. Empower leadership (USAID) and ensure cross-agency coordination;
3. Support country-led (and country-specific), demand-driven plans for agriculture;
4. Elevate agricultural research and development in the United States utilizing the land-grant university system;
5. Leverage the strengths of the private sector to encourage innovation and give farmers better access to credit and markets; and
6. Renew U.S. leadership in using trade as a positive tool for foreign policy and development in order to improve stability and economic growth at home and abroad.
“We are summoned to this issue by our consciences but we also know this is a security issue,” said Sen. Casey. Along with Sen. Lugar, Casey introduced the “Global Food Security Act of 2009,” which seeks to “promote food security in foreign countries, stimulate rural economies, and improve emergency response to food crises, as well as to expand the scope of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to include conservation farming, nutrition for vulnerable populations, and economic integration of persons in extreme poverty.”
Representative McCollum introduced a similar bill in the House, but neither has made much headway. Senator Lugar said that he hopes the bipartisan and bicameral nature of their bills will help this issue stay afloat during a particularly toxic political atmosphere in Washington.
The release of the CSIS report and its Congressional support is particularly timely, as USAID just announced the 20 focus countries for the “Feed the Future” Initiative, which are Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Mali, Malawi, Mozambique, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia in Africa; Bangladesh, Cambodia, Nepal, Tajikistan in Asia; and Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, and, Nicaragua in Latin America. The White House pledged an initial $3.5 billion over three years for the Feed the Future Initiative, with additional pledges from other G-8 and G-20 members to total $18.5 billion.
In addition, the State Department is in the midst of preparing its first-ever (and long-delayed) strategic doctrine for diplomacy and development, the QDDR, in which agricultural development is expected to have a major role.
Speaking on behalf of the State Department, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Trade Policy and Programs William Craft echoed the previous testimony of Deputy Secretary of State Jacob Lew on Feed the Future, saying that the United States believes development should be on par with diplomacy and defense, and is both a strategic and moral imperative.
Next up: “Food Security Comes to Capitol Hill, Part Two” on the particular role women can play in increasing global productivity, if given the chance.
Photo Credit: “World Food Day,” courtesy of flickr user JP. -
Event Update: Sustainable Urbanization
›April 21, 2010 // By Julien KatchinoffThe newfound American engagement on international urban issues lauded by UN-HABITATS’ Christopher Williams and the Wilson Center’s Blair Ruble last week has been formalized in legislation introduced today by Senator Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD), Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-MA), and Senator Dick Durbin. (D-IL)
From Modernize Aid:The Sustainable Urban Development Act of 2010 (S. 3229) seeks to deal with unprecedented growth from enlarging slums, increasing levels of pollution, overburdened transport systems, and the lack of affordable housing. The bill would direct the USAID Administrator to: 1) develop a strategy to foster sustainable urban development; 2) consider establishing a senior advisor for urban development; and 3) establish a pilot urban strategies initiative that will help a select number of cities create a policy framework for future growth and development.
In a statement for the release of the legislation, Senator Kerry echoed Williams’ thoughts on the subject of urbanization and U.S. foreign policy. “There is an explosion of urban growth around the globe – already the majority of the world’s population lives in urban areas, with approximately one billion people residing in slums. The phenomenon of urbanization will be ignored at our own peril. Responsible citizens of the world must consciously harness their creativity and ingenuity to increase the livability, economic viability, and environmental sustainability of our cities,” Kerry said.
Facts about the Sustainable Urban Development Act of 2010:(From the Press Release, COMTEX)
(Summary Courtesy Congressional Documents and Publications/ContentWorks via COMTEX)
* The bill includes a statement of policy that recognizes urban development as an objective of United States foreign policy and overseas development assistance, particularly programs that foster improved urban governance, management, and planning, promote the formal provision of and access to essential urban services and infrastructure, expand access to basic shelter, affordable urban housing, promote economic growth and alleviate poverty, and respond to and prepare for environmental and climatic challenges.
* It directs the Administrator of USAID to develop a strategy to foster sustainable urban development that will update the Making Cities Work Urban Strategy. Specifically:
– Assess the feasibility of establishing a senior advisor for urban sustainable development at USAID, who would provide leadership for coordinated programming, technical support for urban development, disseminate best practices, guide urban programming, and help build the capacity of government officials in developing countries to more effectively manage urbanization
– Consider establishing a pilot urban strategies initiative that would support, through technical and financial assistance, a select number of cities in developing countries by identifying, developing, and implementing long-term sustainable urban development strategies to provide a framework for future growth and development in identified countries
– Review and assess existing or past U.S. programs and foreign assistance strategies designed to improve urban development and ensure that strategies to address urban development and slums in developing countries are integrated into the broader strategic foreign assistance plans of USAID and the Department of State
– Develop a strategy for providing long-term United States support for sustainable urban growth and development initiatives that draws upon the expertise of U.S. city and regional elected officials and professionals, private foundations, NGOs, policy, education and research organizations, United Nations organizations, and multilateral development banks.
Photo Credit: “US Capitol” courtesy Flickr User ehpien -
Energy Is a “Constraint on Our Deployed Forces”: DOD DOEPP Nominee Sharon Burke
›March 24, 2010 // By Wilson Center Staff“I believe right now that energy is a vulnerability and constraint on our deployed forces,” said Department of Defense nominee and CNAS Vice President Sharon Burke yesterday morning at her confirmation hearing before the Senate’s Armed Services Committee. She described the tremendous cost—in lives, capital, and operational flexibility—of meeting the current fuel needs of troops in Afghanistan. Leading DOD’s efforts to account for the “full cost and full burden of energy,” she said, will be one of her priorities if she is confirmed.
“The committee and Congress have shown an acute interest in operational energy by creating this position,” said Burke, who would be the first person to serve as Director of Operational Energy Plans and Programs (DOEPP). “Sharon Burke has a deep understanding of the energy and climate change challenges facing the Department of Defense,” according to Geoff Dabelko, director of the Wilson Center’s Environmental Change and Security Program. “She would be able to hit the ground running if confirmed.”
Burke said that previous Congressional and presidential mandates have pushed DOD to improve the energy posture of its domestic facilities. She hopes to achieve similar successes in the operational arena. While she was reluctant to privilege any single solution, she suggested that more efficient weapon platforms and tactical vehicles, alternative fuels, and better business and acquisition processes could all be part of the mixture.
In response to a question from Senator Chambliss (R-GA) about climate change, Burke said, “I think the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) does a very good job laying out the proper role of the military forces.” The Wilson Center recently hosted a panel discussion on the QDR and the UK Defence Green Paper, at which the speakers repeatedly referred to the future DOEPP.
The nomination hearing largely avoided any tension concerning climate science and mitigation policies, focusing instead on military operations and ensuring the maximum effectiveness of U.S. forces. “My top priority would be mission-effectiveness,” Burke said. E&E; News reports Burke is expected to be confirmed.
Photo: Sharon Burke courtesy CNAS. -
Reforming Development: New Year’s Resolutions for Policymakers
›The foreign policy headlines are dominated by terrorism, Iraq and Afghanistan, the Arab-Israeli dispute, and North Korea and Iran’s nuclear weapons.
Under the radar, however, a quiet revolution is going on. Policymakers from the Pentagon to Capitol Hill are proposing ways to modernize development policy to meet the demands of foreign policy in the 21st century.
Development Seeking Its Place Among the Three “D”s—Diplomacy, Development and Defense
Three major efforts launched in 2009 are expected to be completed in 2010:- The State Department’s “Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review” of operations at State and USAID is due in Fall 2010; preliminary recommendations are scheduled for this month.
- The White House’s review of global development policy will involve all government agencies with development programs. Headed by National Security Advisor Jim Jones and NEC head Larry Summers, the team will report out in the next few months.
- Congress, which for a long time has paid little attention to these issues, also is making development reform a priority. Both the Senate and the House are writing new legislation to replace the current bill, which was last overhauled in 1961.
A new policy framework is long overdue. Everyone agrees that the Obama administration inherited a system that is broken and must be fixed. But how? I propose seven New Year’s resolutions for policymakers trying to revamp development.
1. Address all the myriad issues that impact American interests and for which development aid could be an important policy tool.
Promoting development is critical to a diverse range of cross-cutting issues:- preventing violent conflicts
- restoring economic growth and dampening financial instability
- expanding global trade
- dealing with global climate change
- dealing with global pandemics and other health challenges
- eliminating absolute poverty
2. Lay out a government-wide “national development strategy” that sets clear goals and objectives for US development policy—and doesn’t just tinker with organizations and budgets.
Development promotion, broadly defined, must be an important part of the solution. But any new strategy must go beyond just reforming the aid program.
While needed, new policies and programs are costly. The sooner they are put into place, however, the lower the long-term costs of not addressing them will be.
3. Include all the parts of the U.S. government that are now engaged in promoting development.
Existing development capacities are spread throughout the executive branch, and, in some cases, the private sector. Currently 25 departments, 25 agencies, and almost 60 offices are involved in making or implementing development policy. There is no central oversight, planning, budgeting, implementation, or evaluation.
There must be a central point within the government that monitors and coordinates all development programs. Past experience indicates that only the White House, with a strong presidential mandate, can effectively pull off this coordination. Many previous attempts at reform have foundered because the executive branch refused to take congressional initiative seriously.
4. Reflect on lessons learned over the past 60 years.- While liberalized trade and economic openness can improve growth, each country must craft its own strategies.
- Growth is important, but it alone will not eliminate poverty. Measures that directly address poverty are important for their own sake, and if done right, will enhance economic growth as well.
- Similarly, good governance and democracy are important for growth, but are also important goals in their own right. Participatory decision-making is critical to program success.
- Conflict, with its high human costs, is not caused by poverty and lack of development, but makes the solution to other problems much more difficult.
- Investments in poor people, and particularly poor women, pay high dividends. Measures increasing access to education and health, redistributing productive assets (credit and land), and supporting small-scale rural and urban enterprises are particularly effective.
The United States is now one of many players in the development game. In fact, in all but a few countries, it is not even the major aid provider. In Southeast Asia, China, Japan, or India are more likely to be the major donors; in Africa, it is the European Union or China.
Furthermore, many nongovernmental funders have joined the field. The Gates Foundation has spent more than $12 billion on its Global Health Program. Ford and other U.S. foundations are seeking to rebuild African universities, and companies like Mars and FedEx are running technical assistance programs. In addition, American private voluntary agencies have raised over $10 billion in private funds—more than some European aid donors.
Trade and private financial transactions dwarf official development assistance (ODA). For instance, remittances from migrants to their home countries are approaching US$300 billion a year, nearly 50 percent more than all ODA. Frankly, trade liberalization and financial stability will have greater impact on development than any increase in ODA.
As a result of these seismic shifts, U.S. development policy needs to be smarter and more strategic, mobilizing new and different ways to engage governments, corporations, universities, foundations, and civil society (as is now being done for with HIV/AIDS).
6. Make fundamental changes to existing aid structures, which have atrophied over the years.
Currently, USAID is not equipped to deal with the challenges of the 21st century. It is considerably understaffed and lacks the necessary technical skills, particularly in agriculture and institution-building. The agency has no capacity to think strategically about the global development environment and lacks a voice at policy tables. Furthermore, new independent development agencies, such as the Millennium Challenge Corporation and PEPFAR, have proliferated
A revamped U.S. aid program needs a strategy that would:- Give responsibility for formulating and implementing development strategies to the user country, thereby transferring ownership and increasing effectiveness. Providers, of course, can then choose whether or not they want to support the country’s strategy.
- Agree on a more rigorous, transparent, performance-based approach to allocating ODA.
- Give equal priority to global problems, regional needs, and country priorities.
A long-term commitment is essential because these significant changes will not be implemented overnight. It will take the next three years of President Obama’s tenure (and perhaps longer) to change long-embedded policies and practices. Remember, the Defense Department was established in 1948, but did not fully integrate the three services until the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986—almost 40 years later.
New Year’s resolutions are often broken as the tough work of fulfilling them becomes all too apparent. But breaking these resolutions will adversely affect U.S national interests in the coming decades. As Secretary of State Clinton argued recently, development “is a strategic, economic, and moral imperative – as central to advancing American interests and solving global problems as diplomacy and defense.”
The administration and Congress now have an opportunity to set development policy on a new course. Let’s hope they take it.
John Sewell is a senior scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. -
Development Seeking its Place Among the Three “Ds”
›December 15, 2009 // By Dan Asin“By one count, there are now over 140 goals and priorities for U.S. foreign assistance,” Senator John Kerry said during the nomination hearing for USAID Administrator-designate Rajiv Shah. If Shah is confirmed, his principal tasks will be moving development out from the shadow of defense and diplomacy and bringing definition to USAID’s mission.
“USAID needs to have a strong capacity to develop and place and deploy our civilian expertise in national security areas,” Shah said at his nomination hearing. USAID “has a responsibility to step up and offer very clear, visible, and understood strategic leadership,” as well as clarify “the goals and objectives of resources that are more oriented around stability goals than long-term development goals.”
A difficult task—and whether Shah wants it or not, he’ll get plenty of help from State, the Obama Administration, and Congress.
State Department Reviews Diplomacy and Development
The State Department’s Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR)—launched in July by Shah’s impending boss, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton—will certainly inform his USAID vision. Modeled after the Defense Department’s Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the QDDR is designed to enhance coordination between USAID and State.
Anne-Marie Slaughter, director of policy planning at the State Department and co-leader of the review process, laid out the QDDR’s specific goals at a recent event hosted by the Center for American Progress:- Greater capacity for, and emphasis on, developing bilateral relationships with emerging nations, working within multilateral institutions, and working with non-state actors
- Capability to lead “whole-of-government” solutions to international challenges
- More effective coordination between top-down (diplomatic) and bottom-up (development) strategies for strengthening societies
- Greater capacity to launch on-the-ground civilian responses to prevent and respond to crises
- Flexible human resource policies regarding the hiring and deployment of contractors, foreign service officers, and development professionals
Obama Administration, Congress Also Join In
Details on the Presidential Study Directive (PSD) on Global Development Policy—outside its broad mandate for a government-wide review of U.S. development policy—are similarly sparse. The directive’s fuzzy parameters leave open the potential for its intrusion into the QDDR’s stated objectives.
But from what little is available, both the QDDR and PSD appear to be part of complementary efforts by the Obama administration to elevate development’s role in U.S. foreign policy, using whole-of-government approaches.
Lest Congress be left out, each chamber is working on its own development legislation. Senators John Kerry and Richard Lugar’s Foreign Assistance Revitalization and Accountability Act of 2009 (S. 1524) seeks “to strengthen the capacity, transparency, and accountability of United States foreign assistance programs to effectively adapt and respond to new challenges.” The act would reinforce USAID by naming a new Assistant Administrator for Policy and Strategic Planning, granting it greater oversight over global U.S. government assistance efforts, and strengthening its control over hiring and other human resource systems.
Congressmen Howard Berman and Mark Kirk’s Initiating Foreign Assistance Reform Act of 2009 (H.R.2139) would require the president to create and implement a comprehensive global development strategy and bring greater monitoring and transparency to U.S. foreign assistance programs.
Successful legislation in the Senate and House could pave the way for the reformulation of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, whose message has been rendered complicated and sometimes contradictory by decades of amendments.
And all these ambitious efforts are complicated by the involvement of 25 independent government agencies in U.S. foreign assistance—a formidable challenge to any administrator.
Photo: Courtesy of the USDA. -
The Scoop on Development Reform
›The development reform picture became more complicated after a recent speech by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Senator John Kerry (D-MA) and congressional testimony by Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources Jack Lew.
Revamping State and USAID
At a Brookings Institution speech (transcript) on May 21 entitled “Diplomacy and Development in the 21st Century,” Kerry laid out the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s plan for strengthening the civilian agencies that deal with these issues.
In the short term, Kerry favors the recruitment of more diplomatic and development professionals and a stronger emphasis on their training and education. He also expressed his desire to “untie the hands of our aid workers” by streamlining outdated regulations and rebalancing the relationship between Washington and the field.
“Over the long term, we need to take a close, hard look at exactly what we want our diplomatic and development institutions to achieve,” said Kerry. “We need to make sure that we give those people the resources they need to get where we have decided they must go.”
To meet these goals, he and Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) will introduce two pieces of legislation: a Foreign Affairs Authorization Act and a foreign aid reform bill, which will serve as precursors to a more comprehensive overhaul of the 1961 Foreign Assistance Act next year, said Kerry.
A Power Grab by State?
On May 13, Lew testified on the FY2010 international affairs budget request (webcast; testimony), outlining five “smart power” funding objectives:
1. Build civilian capacities in State and USAID;
2. Promote long-term development and human security;
3. Enhance strategic multilateral and bilateral partnerships (e.g., with Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, and Afghanistan);
4. Strengthen global security capabilities (e.g., nuclear non-proliferation); and
5. Maintain the resources to respond to urgent humanitarian needs.According to Lew, State’s approach to development will be both “top-down”—strengthening “the ability of governments to support just and capable institutions that meet the basic needs of their populations”—and “bottom-up”—partnering with civic groups to build human capacity to innovate, cooperate, and solve problems.
Lew indicated that State should coordinate multiple agencies’ efforts to address challenging, cross-sectoral problems. He said, “We must be able to look at a country, a function or an objective and be able to identify everything that the U.S. government is doing in that area—not just State.” For instance, he wants the State Department to lead “a whole-of-government process to design and implement a new food strategy.”
Lew’s testimony seems to indicate that State wants to oversee all of development policy, with no apparent role for the National Security Council (NSC). But it is not at all clear that State has the human and financial resources to coordinate all the other agencies involved in development. If State were granted this authority, the organizational implications would be immense.
At the NSC, development issues fall under the purview of Deputy National Security Adviser for International Economic Affairs Michael Froman, but he has many other issues on his agenda, including the G20 and the G8. I would be surprised if the NSC does not see this kind of overall coordination as part of its mandate. But there have been no public reactions to State’s grab for power.
At the same time, both Kerry and Congressman Howard Berman (D-CA), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, see development reform as a major part of their portfolios. The State Department has strongly opposed Berman’s bill mandating that the administration produce a government-wide “National Development Strategy,” on the grounds that the responsibility for drafting such a document should be given to the State Department, and not (as it is now written) to the President. The future of Berman’s legislation is not clear, but Kerry also has indicated his desire for an overall strategy paper.
USAID Still Seeking Chief
Finally, USAID still lacks a director. The latest rumors in the blogosphere revolve around Dr. Paul Farmer, the renowned physician who founded Partners in Health, a major NGO focusing on global health. Farmer would be the first USAID administrator in recent years with extensive on-the-ground development experience, but I understand he has no experience with Washington bureaucracy (outside, perhaps, of the health arena). Furthermore, he is known more as a charismatic leader than as a manager.
Farmer would be an unconventional choice for running USAID, though there are conflicting opinions on whether he even wants the job. But if he does want it, he should ensure he had a deputy secretary rank, as well as authority over the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, and other independent development programs. He also would need the funds and staff to completely revamp USAID to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
John W. Sewell is a senior scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center and the former president of the Overseas Development Council. ECSP published Sewell’s review of Trade, Aid and Security: An Agenda for Peace and Development in ECSP Report 13. -
Water’s Role in International Development
› A mark of a good event is that it generates further debate, questions, and ideas. “Water and International Development: A Dialogue,” a recent discussion at The Johns Hopkins University School for Advanced International Studies, was such an event. Geoff Dabelko, director of the Environment Change and Security Program at the Wilson Center, and Aaron Salzberg, special coordinator for water resources at the U.S. Department of State, went head-to-head to discuss water’s role in international development.
The discussion between Dabelko and Salzberg touched upon many issues I ran into while trying to program Water for the Poor Act funding while working as a natural resources adviser for the Economic Growth Office at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) mission in Ghana. Once we received the funding, there was an intra-office debate among:- People who wanted to make drip-irrigation work we were already funding fit the Water for the Poor Act definition;
- People who thought the funds should be spent on a narrow set of water and sanitation interventions, such as borehole/latrine construction and water purification tablets; and
- People who thought the funds should be spent on the larger-scale water and sanitation infrastructure that Ghana so desperately needs.
USAID mission offices have specific strategic priorities and associated operational plans, which dictate the makeup of the staff employed at any given time. In this case, there was no one water specialist who could take on this important task. I had an M.S. in water management, so I was passed the baton. If the Water for the Poor Act is going to have a significant impact, USAID missions must have the technical capacity to assimilate the funds.
Dabelko and Salzburg’s discussion brought up even more questions for me: How can the United States reconcile its bilateral earmark funding for water with the growing trend toward donor coordination—for instance, under the 2005 Paris Declaration, or, in the case of Ghana, the Multi-Donor Budget Support fund, which encourages donors to contribute direct financial support to the Ghanaian government to implement its Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy? Is there a need to have water specialists assigned to USAID missions, rather than relying on specialists in Washington, D.C.? How can we make municipal financing mechanisms for infrastructure more attractive to Western funders and host-country governments? Although Dabelko and Salzburg might not have had all the answers to these questions, I’m heartened that they and other water experts are tackling the tough issues.
David Bonnardeaux is a freelance consultant on rural development and natural resource management for the World Bank, USAID, and CARE, among others. He is also an amateur photographer (www.davidbonnardeaux.smugmug.com). His next port of call is Vietnam.
Photos: Top: Boy pumping water, Volta Region, Ghana. Bottom: Girl collecting water from lake, Volta Region, Ghana. Courtesy of David Bonnardeaux. -
New Director of National Intelligence Assesses Climate, Energy, Food, Water, Health
›February 18, 2009 // By Rachel WeisshaarIn the annual threat assessment he presented last week to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, new Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair named the global economic crisis—not terrorism—the primary near-term threat to U.S. national security, prompting accusations of partisanship from the Washington Times. Yet as the U.S. Naval War College’s Derek Reveron notes, “the economic turmoil of the early 20th century fueled global instability and war,” and today’s economic collapse could strengthen extremists and deprive U.S. allies of the funds they need to deploy troops or increase foreign assistance to vulnerable regions.
Further down the list of potential catastrophes—after terrorism, cybersecurity, and the “arc of instability” that stretches from the Middle East to South Asia—the assessment tackles environmental security threats. The four-page section, which likely draws on sections of the recent National Intelligence Council report Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World, summarizes the interrelated natural-resource and population challenges—including energy, food, water, demography, climate change, and global health—the U.S. intelligence community is tracking.
The world will face mounting resource scarcity, warns Blair. “Access to relatively secure and clean energy sources and management of chronic food and water shortages will assume increasing importance for a growing number of countries. Adding well over a billion people to the world’s population by 2025 will itself put pressure on these vital resources,” he writes.
Drawing on the conclusions of the 2008 National Intelligence Assessment on the impacts of global climate change to 2030, Blair portrays climate change as a variable that could place additional strain on already-stressed agricultural, energy, and water systems: “We assess climate change alone is unlikely to trigger state failure in any state out to 2030, but the impacts will worsen existing problems such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership, and weak political institutions.” Direct impacts to the United States include “warming temperatures, changes in precipitation patterns, and possible increases in the severity of storms in the Gulf, increased demand for energy resources, disruptions in US and Arctic infrastructure, and increases in immigration from resource-scarce regions of the world,” writes Blair.
Africa, as usual, is the last of the world’s regions to be analyzed in the assessment. Blair notes that “a shortage of skilled medical personnel, deteriorating health systems, and inadequate budgets to deal with diseases like HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis” is threatening stability in sub-Saharan Africa, and explains that agriculture, which he rightly calls “the foundation of most African economies,” is not yet self-sufficient, although some countries have made significant improvements in infrastructure and technology. He highlights ongoing conflicts in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria, Sudan, and Somalia as the most serious security challenges in Africa. He fails to note, however, that all four have environmental/natural resource dimensions (see above links for details).
