New Security Broadcast

By Wilson Center Staff Through the Inflation Reduction Act, the Biden administration has launched a new industrial strategy. Today’s episode of New Security Broadcast highlights a fireside chat at a Wilson Center event between John Podesta, Senior Advisor to the President for Clean Energy Innovation and Implementation, and Duncan Wood, Wilson Center Vice President for Strategy and New Initiatives. Podesta and Wood explore the opportunities provided by the Inflation Reduction Act for the U.S. and its allies. Select Quotes from John Podesta “The IRA fits with our strategy that is embedded in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Chips and Science Act to try to create a better investment environment in the United States. We are open to foreign direct investment, but economies in Asia and in Europe, as well as across the globe were concerned that we were paying the most significant attention to investment in the United States. However, we have maintained dialogue with our key trading partners, and the structure of the law provides benefits to countries, particularly in the critical minerals space.” “Our strategy is to see prosperous industrialization, electrification, and decarbonization of economies across the globe. One of the effects of the bill is its global reach. BCG estimated that it would reduce the cost of clean energy deployment by 25 percent globally, which is a global public good. With the U.S. making that investment and creating that cycle of investment and innovation, it brings the “green premium,” which Bill Gates emphasizes, down even further. We are seeing that solar is the cheapest new form of electricity production around the globe today. And we are going further across a range of technologies that will be crucial for hitting net zero emissions targets, such as green hydrogen and carbon capture…The President makes no apologies for using U.S. tax dollars to support investments in the United States.” “We need to adjust our investment strategies and our sustainable development strategies in order to meet that goal [net zero]. It's not the only thing we need to do, we still have a huge finance challenge, particularly with developing economies. And that will be a topic of focus and conversation at the upcoming COP. This is not just a matter of developing the best technology, for we also have to be able to finance their deployment. And, the United States has a deep responsibility to make sure it's doing its part. The President's nomination of Ajay Banga is a step in the right direction.” “We have to show up…It wasn’t a lack of knowledge, but a lack of long-term strategy, that illuminated what the dependence [on China] would be like. In Europe, North America, and Asia, there is a sense that this is an intolerable alliance. China will continue to be part of the global economy, the country leads in electric vehicles etc., but, as the Ukraine war taught us, we can’t be overly dependent on one country. So, what we need to do is reduce that dependency by developing new partnerships. In Europe and the U.S., it is critical to ensure that we pay attention to labor protection, human rights violations, and transparency…The mission remains sustainable development, but includes creating pathways for clean energy development that work simultaneously on the climate problem.” Photo Credit: John Podesta speaking at a recent Wilson Center event, titled The Inflation Reduction Act and the Green Deal Industrial Plan: Transatlantic Cooperation on Critical Minerals, courtesy of the Wilson Center.

To better understand the complex dynamics of global hunger and the urgent need for more collective action to address this humanitarian crisis, Chase Sova, Senior Director of Public Policy and Research at World Food Program USA, and his colleagues recently launched a new report, "Dangerously Hungry." In today’s episode of New Security Broadcast, ECSP Program Coordinator and Communications Specialist, Abegail Anderson, speaks with Sova about the report's analysis on the current state of global hunger and its devastating impacts on vulnerable populations. The report showcases how food insecurity, met with external motivators, creates a greater likelihood for food-related instability and conflict. Sova emphasizes the importance of investing in sustainable agriculture, empowering marginalized populations, and building resilience for the most vulnerable communities. The conversation serves as an important and timely reminder that food insecurity is not only a byproduct of conflict and global instability, but also a driver of it, calling for a cross-sectoral approach to address these challenges and ensure food security for all. Select Quotes "Temperature and precipitation changes, desertification—all these climate-related impacts tend to impact food systems first, and so a lot of the climate change and security literature runs through food systems, and we’ve tried to capture as much of that as we can in the Dangerously Hungry report. There is also an increase in peer reviewed work looking at the individual motivations for someone to join a rebel cause or an extremist organization, and a lot of that has to do with economic benefits and exploitations that happen when someone is not able to feed their family." "Food insecurity alone is simply never a driver of instability in and of itself; it drives people to desperation, it helps amplify grievances in a country, and it does poke holes in the challenges of governance. It is not as if hungry people are always violent, and violent people are always hungry. It is important to note that usually it is some combination of drivers and individual motivators, [such as] climate change, economic shocks, and resource conflict. For that stew of food instability to occur, there have been those individual motivators." "In the desperation space, typically we are referring to the opportunity cost thesis. This occurs where incomes are low, poverty is high, and the expected return from fighting outweighs the benefits of traditional economic activity. Sub-Saharan Africa is one of the better examples of this, where Al-Shabab, Boko Haram, and Islamic State are tapping into people’s deep desperation, and that calculus of someone engaging in violent extremism or joining one of these groups becomes obvious through the opportunity cost thesis." "Oftentimes, it is the government’s failure to respond to food insecurity that erodes trust between a government and people. It is this failure to intervene because of a lack of resources or a lack of political motivation that is exploited by extremist organizations. They will establish their own parallel social protection system as an alternative to the state, and they will offer their own forms of informal justice, which tend to happen in rural areas that are distant from the police arm of the state." "Apart from urbanization, we need to figure out ways to marry international humanitarian assistance with longer-term agricultural development work. We have got to be investing more in those transitions in places that are recovering from conflict and in places we are trying to prevent from falling into conflict. There has to be a concerted effort in that space, and that is something we are going to spend more time thinking about going forward. As for areas for continued research: urbanization, conflict sensitivity programming, linking humanitarian and development assistance. And we need more on international human rights and humanitarian law in order to come up...

Today's geopolitical climate, paired with the accelerating energy transition, means it is more important than ever to coordinate on international infrastructure investments. This episode of the New Security Broadcast features a recent Wilson Center panel discussion with Amos Hochstein, Special Presidential Coordinator for Global Infrastructure and Energy Security. Moderated by Mark Kennedy, Director of the Wilson Center's Wahba Institute for Strategic Competition, and Wilson Center Global Fellow Sharon Burke, the conversation explores what U.S. cooperation—with both developed and developing countries—should look like to ensure that the unfolding technology and energy revolutions contribute to diplomacy and benefit all countries. Select Quotes "We need to make sure that as we are going through a revolution in energy and a revolution in technology, everyone around the world gets to benefit from it and rises at the same time, and that the supply chains for those revolutions are diversified and secure." “We want there to be multiple hubs of production of critical minerals all the way to refining and the manufacturing...We cannot have a monopoly and a dominant position in the energy sector as we're building a new one, just to go through the same problems that we had and the same national security risks that we had in the 20th century. So what do we do about it? We have to invest across the board...We shouldn't come to countries and say, work with our companies or work with us just because it's us. We should do it because we have a better offer for them." "We have to have reform the international institutions that provide finance, because that is going to help us unlock the private capital that needs to come...If we can de-risk those investments and if we can provide support so that [the private sector is] not afraid of all three of the ESG components, and we do this through multilateral development banks, through governmental export and financial support institutions, then we can bring [private capital] along with us...That’s one area where we can collaborate.”

Since the start of Russia’s war in Ukraine, Kostiantyn Krynytskyi, Head of Energy at Ecoaction, and his colleagues, have been tracking the ongoing environmental damage caused by Russia’s aggression. In today’s episode of New Security Broadcast, ECSP Director Lauren Risi speaks with Krynytskyi to discuss how Ecoaction, the largest environmental NGO in Ukraine, is mapping out the environmental destruction caused by the war and working to develop a green post-war reconstruction of Ukraine. Krynytskyi shares how the war has impacted Ecoaction’s priorities and shifted its approach to address short-term energy needs in Ukraine while safeguarding a secure and sustainable energy future. Select Quotes “We started advocating with our European partners for the Ukrainian electricity system to be connected to the European system. The Ukrainian energy system was preparing itself to be disconnected from the Russian one and connected to the European system in 2023. In 2022, there were supposed to be two pilot periods in winter and in summer where our energy system disconnected from Russia and then it should have connected again. This first disconnection occurred seven hours before the invasion. When the Russian army started marching on Kyiv and other cities, the electricity system was neither connected to the European system nor the Russian one … [and] it was a huge strain on the energy system.” “We advocate for the greening of emergency aid [to] diversify, give us generators, but also solar panels, heat pumps, and wind power. The war has heightened the conversation around renewables, as you can imagine, for years we have been advocating for a switch to a decentralized generation with renewables on the community level … But climate change is not the first priority, so now the focus is on energy security and the resilience of communities.” “Ukrainians currently have a strange and horrible collective experience of the targeted attacks on our energy infrastructure, and now people understand the value of [decentralized generation]. The term decentralized generation has become more mainstream, our President, Zelensky uses it, as well as the Minister of Energy … and we highlight that [it should be] based on renewables. Our main message is it doesn’t make sense to plan this transition for after the war, we need to start doing the groundwork so when the war ends, we already have projects, ideas, concepts, and strategies so it can be implemented quickly…Renewables can help now, and renewables will help in the future because a decentralized system is much harder to destroy.” Photo Credit: Kostiantyn Krynytskyi speaking at the 2023 D.C. Environmental Film Festival – Ukrainian Environmental Documentary Showcase, Photos (c) Bruce Guthrie.

In today’s episode of New Security Broadcast, Sarah Barnes, Project Director for the Wilson Center’s Maternal Health Initiative Project Director met with Bridget Kelly, Director of Research for Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights at Population Institute to discuss the launch of Population Institute’s new report: Connecting the Dots, Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights as Prerequisites for Global Gender Equality and Empowerment. On the episode Kelly, lead author of the Connecting the Dots report, shares findings from the report on the importance of the Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHR) agenda, how SRHR leads to gender equality, the power of and need for increased U.S. investment, and policy recommendations to fully realize the SRHR agenda and improve gender equality and empowerment. Selected Quotes: Bridget Kelly 1) The U.S. plays such an important role in the global goal to achieve gender equality as the U.S. is the largest funder and implementer of global health assistance worldwide. But what U.S. policymakers often fail to recognize is that these gender objectives are directly impacted by the availability and accessibility of comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services. 2) Why are SRHR important to achieve gender equality and empowerment? Evidence shows us that girls' education, a top gender priority, and SRHR have a mutually reinforcing relationship. Early marriage and unintended pregnancy can both be a cause of and a reason as to why girls are out of school. Of the 261 million adolescent girls age 15 to 19 living in the global South, an estimated 32 million are sexually active and do not want to have a child in the next two years. Yet, 14 million of these adolescent girls have an unmet need for modern contraception and are thus at an elevated risk of unintended pregnancy. So, the barriers to accessing sexual and reproductive health services puts the U.S. commitment to girls’ education at risk. 3) Improved access to family planning services is linked with a higher labor force participation for women. We also know that reproductive health is a critical element to making space for women to meaningfully contribute to peace and security efforts, not only because they themselves are affected by these outcomes, but also because they are more often able to come to lasting solutions compared to their male counterparts. 4) In order to create a more enabling environment for sexual and reproductive health and rights, Congress would need to pass the Global HER Act, which would permanently repeal the Global Gag Rule. The Global Gag Rule, when invoked, prevents foreign organizations receiving U.S. global health assistance from providing information, referrals, or services for legal abortion. Another Act that Congress would need to pass is the Abortion is Healthcare Everywhere Act, which would repeal the Helms Amendment. Now, the Helms Amendment prohibits U.S. foreign assistance from being used for the performance of abortion as a method of family planning. There would also need to be modifications to the Kemp-Kasten Amendment to ensure that U.S. funds are not wrongfully withheld from UNFPA. 5) Now is a really opportune time to invest as the world population grows… Today there are about 1.8 billion people between the ages of 10 to 24. That is the largest generation of youth in history and close to 90% of this generation lives in the global South. And, these numbers of individuals are reproductive age are projected to grow. So, what these figures really highlight is just how critically important it is to increase U.S. foreign assistance for global sexual and reproductive health and rights in order to ensure that efforts do not fail to keep pace with the needs of this generation.

In today’s episode of the New Security Broadcast, ECSP’s Claire Doyle partnered with Elsa Barron at the Center for Climate and Security for a conversation with two young leaders who are working to tackle climate change and build peace: Christianne Zakour and Hassan Mowlid Yasin. Christianne is a volunteer with UNEP’s Major Group for Children and Youth and Hassan is co-founder of the Somali Greenpeace Association. On the episode, Christianne and Hassan share about the climate, equity, and conflict issues that motivate their work and describe how they think we can make progress towards a livable future for all. Select Quotes: Christianne Zakour: “We coordinated the Stockholm+50 Youth Task Force…We were able to get together a good number of people—fifty-something young people came together to create a youth handbook, a policy paper, and the timeline of youth activity going back to the 1970s that was supporting the Stockholm+50 conference in June last year.” “I think there needs to be enabling environments. Within the Latin America and Caribbean region, we have an agreement called the Escazu Agreement…It stands for access to public information, access to justice, and defenders of the environment. Many countries have not signed on at this point, including my own Trinidad and Tobago. But it has gone into effect now, as of either [yesterday] or the day before. And I think it so succinctly sums up the areas that we need to work on. I think we could be much closer to peace building in the region if the other countries signed on.” Hassan Mowlid Yasin: “In 2018, the frequent floods and drought that occurred in Somalia led millions of people to be displaced, and others to lose their properties. Some people included my closest relatives who used to live in rural areas and who have a pastoralist background. They depended on the products of their animals. During this drought, most of those animals died, and my closest relatives were no longer able to make a living. So in 2019, thinking, ‘what actually can we do about this?’ [I formed] an organization that speaks for the people of Somalia, for the grassroots communities—not in the sense of a humanitarian response, but [in terms of] how they can become really resilient and adaptable to climate change.” “When we go to the grassroots level, where farming occurs, we listen to them. And when we listen to them, they tell us the solutions they have, which are affordable to implement. It's through these solutions that we bring [ideas] to international forums. We tell [the international community], ‘you don't need to bring your solutions on the ground, the people have the solutions. Can you finance them, so that they can implement their solutions?’”

It is fully within our power to guarantee a healthy ocean and protect it for the future, says Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry in today’s episode of the New Security Broadcast. Kerry spoke at a recent Wilson Center event hosted in partnership with the Embassy of Panama to spotlight the 8th Our Oceans Conference, scheduled to take place in March in Panama. In his remarks, Kerry emphasized the vital role the ocean plays in supporting global food security and economic prosperity as well as the imperative to take action to protect the ocean from climate change. Select Quotes: "[The ocean has] played a huge, central role in the lives of people all around the planet, many of whom are part of the 500-billion-dollar industry that depends on the ocean for food production, for protein, for life itself…but the fact is that ninety percent of all the heating of the planet from global climate change is subsumed into the ocean and the ocean is warming." "In our country the link between climate and oceans is becoming indelibly imprinted in people's minds. You cannot solve the problem of the oceans—i.e., bad emissions dropping into the ocean and changing the chemistry of the ocean—you can't change that if you don't deal with the climate crisis." "The United States has announced three new bilateral work streams to facilitate green shipping corridors within the Republic of Korea Canada and the United Kingdom. If shipping were a nation state it would be the eighth largest emitter on the planet so we have an imperative to move. I'm really proud to say that it was at the Our Oceans Conferences that we first started focusing in on shipping practices, and now as a result of that we are seeing the largest container shippers in the world 65 percent of the new ships ordered are ordered with dual fuel propulsion systems and over a hundred ships have been ordered that are now going to be zero emissions. That came out of the oceans conference."

This week’s episode of the New Security Broadcast explores Invisible Threads: Addressing the Root Causes of Migration from Guatemala by Investing in Women and Girls—a new report from the Population Institute. “We feel like it's really important to highlight how the lives of women and girls and other marginalized groups are really central to a lot of the issues that are at the root causes of migration from the region,” says Kathleen Mogelgaard, President and CEO of the Population Institute. In this episode, Mogelgaard lays out the report’s findings and recommendations with two fellow contributors: Aracely Martínez Rodas, Director of the Master in Development at the Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, and Dr. J. Joseph Speidel, Professor Emeritus at the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine. In recent years, a growing proportion of migrants who arrive at the U.S. border come from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. Mogelgaard notes that this surge of migrants has captured political attention in the United States, and one of the most important responses has been the release of the Root Causes Strategy by the Biden-Harris Administration. The Root Causes Strategy illustrates dynamic, complex, and interrelated drivers of migration, including economic insecurity, governance, climate change and environmental degradation, and crime and violence. To gain greater perspective on the regional challenges, the Population Institute report examines how the root causes in the White House strategy play out in one nation: Guatemala. For Guatemala, one of the main causes of internal migration is the search for employment or higher income, says Aracely Martínez Rodas. Guatemala has the largest economy in Central America, and is considered an upper middle income country. However, half the population lives in poverty. Why is this so? Rodas identifies four structural factors in Guatemala that influence migration trends: 1) The impact of neoliberal policies implemented in the 1980s and 1990s that weakened the state; 2) Violence and structural racism have influenced the state’s ability to provide basic services, security, and living conditions that ensure quality of life; 3) The creation of gaps between middle income populations and low income populations, which often do not receive the same services or experience the same infrastructure, and; 4) A historical migration flux that has strengthened and expanded migration networks, as well as links between family, friends, and communities in Guatemala and in desired destinations. Rodas highlights that these historical migratory fluxes and networks are notable because they create a “migrant imaginary.” With the influences of both remittances and digital technology, information about the benefits of migration are easily shared. Thus, the migrant imaginary plays an important part in how people decide to move, she continues, observing that “it's impossible to prevent.” For men, in particular, migration can be considered a rite of passage. The possibilities of making progress in one’s life offered by leaving outweigh the risks this journey may bring. “Nothing compares to the attraction of migration,” she says. Connecting Guatemala’s migration trends to its demographic profile reveals that the country is on a trajectory to what demographers consider a “stable population.” Dr. Speidel observed that in 1970, there were 5 million people living in Guatemala. Today it's 17.8 million. “The future might bring as many as 25 million in 2050 or maybe even 40 million in 2100,” Speidel says. Guatemala’s considerable progress in its family planning programming has also been effective, with the country’s total fertility rate (the average number of children each woman will have) reduced from about 5 in 1995 to 2.4 today. “If we get down to that magic number 2.1, then essentially, we're going to have a stable population,” says Speidel. Given this demographic profile, the report notes that...

The war in Ukraine is not only displacing millions, straining the economy, and ravaging infrastructure. It’s also creating a mounting health crisis. In this week’s New Security Broadcast, ECSP’s Director Lauren Risi hears from Ambassador Daniel Speckhard and Dr. Mariia Dolynska about the health impacts created by the war in Ukraine and what is still needed to strengthen the health system—as well as what one NGO is doing to deliver healthcare in the embattled nation. Millions Displaced and an Economy Under Strain Ambassador Speckhard, a former U.S. Ambassador to Greece and Belarus who is now president and CEO of the global NGO Corus International, says that what stood out to him on his recent visit to Ukraine was the sheer magnitude of suffering. “Fifteen million people have been displaced—about 7 million have moved outside the country, but there's still 7 million people who are trying to find other places within the country,” he says. “And most of those people had to leave without really anything but what they could carry.” Some Ukrainians fled west within the country to escape the war, only to face continued threats as Russians expand their attacks. As the war stretches on, Ukraine is experiencing a humanitarian crisis that encompasses security, economy, and health. The country is confronting economic collapse, and at least 15 million need humanitarian assistance. One in three Ukrainians is reportedly food insecure. The elderly and those with disabilities have been particularly vulnerable, says Speckhard, given Ukraine’s age structure and the hamstrung health system. Health Crises amid a Frayed System of Care The war’s impact on health is manifold, suggests Dr. Dolynska, the medical director of the NGO Infection Control in Ukraine. She explains that severe health issues like coronary heart disease and tuberculosis are going undetected, the country’s already subpar waste management has gotten even worse, and unreliable power supplies pose a central challenge to healthcare delivery. Risi points out that that the war’s environmental damages—like polluted air and drinking water—are creating health risks too. Yet Dolynska and Speckhard also stress an additional—and underappreciated—dimension to the crisis: mental health. The untold violence and broader humanitarian consequences of the conflict have taken a huge toll on the mental wellbeing of Ukrainians. “It looks like every Ukrainian survivor will have some more or less severe psychological trauma,” says Dolynska. Speckhard recalls hearing about children’s trauma in particular during his visit to Ukraine: “Mothers were telling me how their children would still startle whenever a ball bounced—even months later they just are not feeling safe.” And those responding to the crisis, whether they be primary healthcare workers or emergency responders, are also at high risk of trauma themselves. Extending the Focus and Reach of Health Services In response to this multidimensional health emergency, Dolynska and her team at Infection Control in Ukraine are working bravely on the front lines to support primary healthcare workers across the country. The new focus represents a shift for the NGO, which worked more narrowly on infection prevention prior to the conflict. With help from Corus International, Infection Control in Ukraine is filling a critical healthcare gap for the Ukrainians it serves in rural areas, where healthcare facilities don’t have adequate capacities or their services have been interrupted. Dolynska says that her NGO is deploying mobile teams of experts in specialties like cardiology and psychology and offer a combination of in-person and remote care—though internet connectivity has sometimes limited delivery. They also have a mobile clinic. “We're trying to reach the most remote areas where people have limited access to large clinical centers,” explains Dolynska. “[We] provide them screening for the most common health conditions,...

“Things that we used to think were 20 or 30 years into the future are in fact happening today… Climate change is noticeably changing the extent, the severity, and the frequency of these kinds of events.” This stark assessment from Jonathan Pershing, Program Director of Environment at the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, is at the center of a discussion of progress made and needed for international climate commitments, the role of critical minerals in the green energy transition, and climate-related migration trends with ECSP Senior Fellow Sherri Goodman and ECSP Program Associate Amanda King in this week’s episode of New Security Broadcast. Pershing brings a wealth of perspective to the conversation, drawing on his roles formally supporting Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry, and serving both as a Special Envoy for Climate Change at the U.S. Department of State and lead U.S. negotiator to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. As the world is currently tuning in to the 2022 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP27) in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, Pershing noted that the year since COP 26 occurred in Glasgow “really feels like a bit of a tipping point in the scale.” One notable yardstick can be found in a comparison of the scales of global security dimensions and refugee crises occurring over the past year. While about 5 million people have been displaced by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and under 10 million compelled to move because of the ongoing conflict in Syria, he continued, climate catastrophe has displaced nearly 30 million people in Pakistan alone. “One event, short term,” Pershing said. Against this backdrop, Pershing observed that a key problem facing COP27 attendees is that “people have not been able to make as much progress as we'd like to have made.” Implementation is going to be hard, he said. “We know we've got the money now at the table, but how do you carry it forward?” A central point of contention at this year’s conference is the long-standing commitment that the developed world would help the developing world transition to renewables. Pershing identified China as a major player in the global transition to renewable energy. “If we look at the total global development of renewable energy,” he said, “and divide up the world into two parts—one part is China.” Indeed, China’s slice of that pie “is as big if not bigger than the rest of the world combined in terms of its installation of new renewable capacity.” Pershing considered that the world is not up to the scale needed for the coming decades in terms of obtaining the materials necessary for this energy transition. In examining the U.S. role in the renewable energy transition, for example, he noted that the U.S. has been historically reluctant to create the new facilities required for the essential minerals to make such a transition. Pershing also said that while the U.S. has a share in global mines, it is only a piece of the total amount. If the U.S. wants to build out its capacity for these resources, it will take a global network. While the energy transition and mining for critical minerals can be a point of conflict, Pershing added that it may also be a possible point of cooperation between the U.S. and China. But what would such partnership look like? “It could occur in places where it doesn't conflict with the underlying security tensions between the countries,” Pershing said, “but yet offers a real opportunity to transition to the future that we must have.” This common ground might include places where policy is central, and where information could be exchanged about creating more efficient and environmentally-sound mining operations. The Democratic Republic of Congo is one place suggested by Pershing as a nation offering the U.S. and China a chance to work together to minimize deforestation as global networks seek growing access to minerals. Pershing concluded by offering the Global Methane...

According to the World Bank, building enough renewable energy infrastructure to keep global warming below 2C will require more than 3 billion tons of minerals. Reducing emissions quickly is crucial to minimizing risk for the world’s most climate-vulnerable communities, many of whom are on the front lines of a crisis they did not create. But unless we are careful, ramping up mining in order to decarbonize could actually worsen inequity and injustice. “How do we do this quickly, safely, and sustainably, in ways that benefit all?” asks Lauren Risi, Director of the Wilson Center’s Environmental Change and Security Program in this week’s New Security Broadcast. Risi explores this question with Roger-Mark De Souza, a Global Fellow with the Wilson Center and Vice President of Sustainable Markets at Pact, an international development organization with decades of experience improving health, governance, sustainable markets, and local stakeholder engagement in mining activities. What Pact is most known for, says De Souza, is how it engages communities: “[It’s] very much a co-creation process in partnership with and led [by] communities.” Pact’s broad portfolio includes work on gold in Ghana, mica in Madagascar, cobalt in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and gemstones in Tanzania and Kenya. In the Great Lakes region of Africa, the organization has spent over a decade improving mining activities for the 3T minerals (tin, tantalum, and tungsten) through a program called ITSCI. De Souza explains that the project, which is implemented in partnership with the International Tin Association, “[looks] at the supply chain [of] the three T's with a focus on social protections, traceability, and due diligence.” According to De Souza, ITSCI is the only program that fully adheres to the OECD’s guidelines for due diligence. Across the world, Pact also works closely with artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM) operators—which De Souza calls “the hidden labor force of the mining sector.” Distinct from the more formalized, and more mechanized industrial mining sector, ASM accounts for a vast majority—as much as 90 percent—of the mining workforce worldwide. Artisanal and small-scale mining can bring significant economic benefits both for local populations and for global markets. “[ASM] is a tremendous source of livelihoods and income for communities,” says De Souza, “and [it] is critical to supply chains.” But ASM, and mining more broadly, can also be accompanied by serious human rights risks. “There's a tension [when] mining is the foundation of communities’ livelihoods,” observes Risi, because mining often simultaneously introduces child labor, hazardous working conditions, and environmental degradation—all of which undermine local livelihoods, health, and sustainability. Pact’s programming seeks to respond to some of these challenges. Under its ‘alternative livelihoods’ program, for instance, Pact helps children exit mining and then supports them in developing sustainable livelihood strategies post-graduation. The program has had major success in certain places: “In some mining sites, we're able to get more than 90 percent of the children out of these mines,” De Souza shares. Despite the challenges of ASM, its importance to local livelihoods and global supply chains means it merits attention in policy solutions. To that end, the World Bank, Pact, and other partners have developed a data hub called DELVE, which seeks to collate robust information about ASM and ultimately inform better decision-making. As a multipurpose tool, it serves a wide audience including communities, the mining sector, policymakers, and NGOs. As the demand for critical minerals continues to rise, De Souza says improving transparency across ASM and industrial mining should be a priority. “[It’s important to] have in place systems for better tracking, traceability, due diligence, tracking on conflict minerals.” For companies, looking at the risks in their...

As the last decade has brought about a dramatic shift in approaches to addressing climate change, water is increasingly at the forefront of the conversations around adaptation and resilience. In part, this is because more countries now experience the damaging effects of climate change through water-related events including rising sea levels, intensification of natural disasters, droughts, and flooding. In this week’s New Security Broadcast, John Matthews, Executive Director of the Alliance for Global Water Adaptation (AGWA), observes that the heightened attention to water has placed his group at the center of discussions at the 2022 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP27) in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt. "We have been going to COPs since 2009,” says Matthews, “and trying to talk about adaption and resilience from a water perspective for a really long time now. It’s changed a lot over the years….People were asking at a few of the earlier COPs: ‘Why are you here?’” In this episode, Matthews and his colleague Ingrid Timboe, Policy Director of AGWA speak with ECSP Director Lauren Risi and ECSP Associate Amanda King about water’s rise “to the top of the agenda” at COP27 and beyond, as well as AGWA’s vital work to support global and national climate-water adaptation and resilience policy. Egypt is one country among many coping with water insecurity, and Timboe says that its role as the host of COP27 will bring significant attention to the plight of water-scarce regions—as well as the challenges they face in implementing water adaptation plans. The “variability and sensitivity” of climate effects in these nations means that approaches to adaptation necessarily will be more complex. “It’s not just about water scarcity when speaking to countries like Egypt,” she observes. “They’re also experiencing flash floods.” AGWA’s new pilot project—The Water Tracker—is one way that the alliance is sorting through these complexities. Matthews says that one key role for the Tracker is to act as an early warning system tool that “patrols for elevated sea rise, super typhoons, and extended droughts.” Timboe adds that the initiative also plays a more systemic role by helping countries assess how they can “integrate climate resilient water management across their national climate plans.” The Water Tracker assists nations as they look across their climate plans—including National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) and Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)—to understand how they can manage water resources in a way that will support their “goals for climate, disaster risk, sustainable, development, and biodiversity.” One place where the Water Tracker is doing this vital work is Vietnam, where 80 percent of the country’s water is embedded in agricultural production. As Vietnam continues to develop its economy and transition to greater reliance on hydropower, AGWA is supporting that country’s efforts to ensure these new hydropower facilities are environmentally and economically sustainable, as well as climate resilient. The challenges and complexities of water-based adaptation and resilience are clear. But Matthews and Timboe emphasize that they are heartened by water’s growing role in transboundary cooperation, as momentum for regional cooperation around water adaptation builds in regions including Latin America and the Middle East. “The political process for thinking about peace in the Middle East is so broken and so stuck,” says Matthews. But a shared sense of risk in the region about climate change’s impact on water security is creating a gateway to peacebuilding and resilience through transnational cooperation. “The Middle East has been the quietest part of our map since our founding 12 years ago,” he observes, “and it is starting to get noisy. And it’s noisy in a really good way. People want to work together.” Contributions from the global water sector—including AGWA—will help drive new solutions and fundamental changes in...

As the world turns its attention to the 27th UN Climate Change Conference (CoP27) in Sharm El Sheikh, CoP26 President Alok Sharma reflects upon the achievements won thus far in the fight against climate change in our latest podcast. Sharma’s address at the Wilson Center also outlines the steps that need be taken at CoP27 and in the future to ensure a sustainable and prosperous future for all. Sharma observes that the CoP26 in Scotland last year represented a “fragile win” and that the Glasgow Climate Pact went further than many had imagined it would to keep accepted climate goals in place. “The pulse of 1.5 degrees remained alive,” he says. A year on from Glasgow, however, the geopolitical landscape has altered. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has triggered crises of food and energy security. Economic factors such as inflation and increased debt pressures have compounded the world’s existing environmental emergency in a moment when it is still making a tremulous recovery after Covid-19. “But as serious as these crises are,” Sharma remarks, “we must also recognize the seismic structural shift that is underway. Our global political economy built on fossil fuels for the last century is in a state of flux.” He urges the world community not to get bogged down in, and distracted by, these new challenges. In this way, global leaders might avoid the same mistakes committed during the financial crisis of 2008, when economic meltdown put climate action on the back burner. Sharma highlights the excellent gains being made on climate action despite the changing currents, noting that “estimates suggest that by the middle of this decade, renewables’ capacity is expected to be up 60 percent on 2020 levels”. He cites cleaner energy initiatives undertaken across various countries, including the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act, and the strengthened reduction targets of India’s 2030 Nationally Determined Contribution. Sharma also praises Kenya’s pursuit of its geothermal potential and welcomes Australia back to the forefront of the “fight against climate change.” Taken together, these actions and others offer a “future of hope.” Yet Sharma also offers a note of frustration and urgency. He observes that his conversations today on climate issues have not changed in nature from those he was having three years ago at the start of his CoP Presidency tenure. In assessing the G20 Climate and Environment Ministerial Meeting in Indonesia in August 2022, for instance, Sharma reveals that "some of the world’s major emitters threatened to backslide on commitments that they had made in Glasgow and in Paris.” The urge to reverse progress reveals that there is still “a big deficit in political will,” he says. “What further evidence or motivation do global leaders need to act?” A sharp critique of current infrastructure for addressing climate is at the center of Sharma’s current thinking. He says that the institutions currently in place to deal with climate action are ill-fitted to deal with today’s critical situation. “We cannot tackle the defining challenge of this century,” he argues, “with institutions defined by the last”. Sharma seconds the comments of Mia Mottley, Prime Minister of Barbados, at the UN General Assembly in September 2022 that there needs to be an “overhaul of global financial architecture.” “Countries must get access to the technical help they need through fully operationalizing the Santiago Network,” he says. Sharma concludes by threading together the seeming paradoxes of our moment, noting that the positive work and progress already made in combatting global warming must be accompanied by adequate systems that recognize the systemic risk of climate change and manage it accordingly. If the global community can manage this task, he believes that the twenty first century “will be the century that we unlocked a just and sustainable path to prosperity for billions of people around the world.”

On a recent visit to the Wilson Center, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari remarked on the historic nature of the monsoon-related floods that have submerged a huge swath of his country over the last several months. “These are no normal monsoons and no normal floods,” said Zardari. “We are used to monsoons. We are used to floods. We have provincial mechanisms [and] national mechanisms to deal with such disasters. What we were not prepared for was for floods to descend from the sky.” This week’s episode of the New Security Broadcast features Zardari’s observations on the catastrophic flooding in Pakistan, which is so extensive it is visible even from outer space. From July to mid-September, Pakistan was battered by heavy, unrelenting monsoon rains that scientists say were made more likely by climate change. With fully one-third of Pakistan now underwater, the crippling disaster has resulted in a humanitarian crisis that is still unfolding. Zardari said that more than 33 million people—greater than the population of Sri Lanka or Australia—have been impacted, including 16 million children and 600,000 pregnant women. Key infrastructure has been decimated, and at least 4 million acres of crops were destroyed. Such large-scale devastation means that Pakistan’s path to recovery is sure to be long and challenging, not least because the flood emergency is likely to trigger other related emergencies. Agriculture is one key area of concern. Zardari noted that the damage to agricultural land will put even more pressure on Pakistani people’s food security and livelihoods, which are already strained by constricted food supply from the war in Ukraine. Although many of those impacted by the disaster were not living in poverty before the floods, millions of small farmers have now lost their main source of income. Zardari adds that another crisis in public health is looming as well: “We're looking at—as the WHO has warned—a second catastrophe, a health catastrophe, with waterborne diseases spreading at epidemic rates and our supplies of basics like Panadol and anti-malaria medication not [keeping] up.” Pakistan’s Foreign Minister sees climate injustice at the center of his nation’s current calamity. Zardari says that the 33 million people impacted by the disaster “are paying in the form of their lives, in the form of their livelihoods for global warming that they didn't create.” Pakistan’s share of the global carbon footprint is a meager 0.8 percent. “The ten most climate stressed countries—of which Pakistan is one—have contributed negligibly to the overall carbon footprint,” Zardari observed. “But they are going to be the frontline victims.” Despite this fact, "Loss and Damage is a conversation we're still debating,” adds Zardari. He says that it is critical that there be international follow-through on climate finance commitments.“ As the UN Secretary-General has stated, this is not about charity,” said Zardari. “This is about economic justice.” Once the floodwaters recede, Zardari says the country will rebuild in a way that accounts for climate change. “We don't only want reconstruction and rehabilitation to take place,” he continued, “…we want [them to take place] in a climate resistant manner. A greener manner.” Offered a chance for Pakistan to become a test case for green infrastructure, Zardari believes that the choice is clear: “Either we do it cheaply and poorly and dirtily and wait for the next flood…Or we do it right.” Looking beyond Pakistan, Zardari holds that “dialogue and diplomacy” are central for global action on climate change. It is time for multilateralism, not war, he stressed, adding that successful US-China cooperation on climate is especially important. “History will ask us: While our planet was burning, while we were being warned time and time again—from [former U.S. Vice President Al] Gore to Greta [Thunberg]—that the climate is in imminent danger, did we choose to ignite...

The confluence of climate change, COVID-19, and the war in Ukraine have placed enormous stress on food systems across the globe. Food insecurity spiked in 2020 and has stayed high, and the number of undernourished people is on the rise. As we respond to this emergency, there is an opportunity—and a need—to strengthen the kind of strategic investments that will make our agrifood systems resilient to tomorrow’s shocks. “We cannot be running crisis to crisis,” says Bram Govaerts, Director General of the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center, or CIMMYT, in this week’s New Security Broadcast. “We need to look at the underlying elements that are provoking these ripple effects.” On the episode, ECSP Director Lauren Risi and ECSP Advisor Sharon Burke speak with Govaerts and his colleague Kai Sonder, head of CIMMYT’s Geographic Information System Unit, about how to address the unfolding food crisis as we simultaneously build food system resilience in the medium and long term. Drawing from their newly-published article in Nature Food, Govaerts and Sonder share approaches that governments, civil society, and private actors can take to tackle today’s wheat supply disruptions and food insecurity. They also share past success stories and lay out key challenges moving forward. Beyond the immediate humanitarian aid needed to boost food security, Govaerts identifies intensified wheat production and greater investments in local cereals as essential short-term priorities. Medium-term investments should focus on agricultural production that is agroecologically suitable, policies that support the adoption of improved crop varieties, and data analysis to target the vulnerabilities of smallholder farmers. And with long term goals in mind, Govaerts says that we need to ask “how can we enhance our ecosystem diversity, resolve the gender disparity [in the agricultural sector] and invest in agrifood transformation from efficiency to resilience?” Both experts emphasize that these approaches aren’t meant to be taken incrementally. “We’re really saying we need to start today, taking actions with an impact on the short, medium, and long term. It would be a mistake to only focus on the short-term actions that need to be taken,” says Govaerts. Sonder acknowledges that transforming agricultural systems takes time—and isn’t easy. “You need to invest in breeding systems. You need to build capacity and identify areas where that is easily possible,” he explains. “Bringing out a new variety of wheat or maize or other crop takes up to ten years.” Introducing new farming technologies can also come with challenges, since it requires making sure those technologies can actually be maintained. “You have to ensure that there are mechanics who can fix [them] quickly, that there’s a supply chain for spare parts,” observes Sonder. And securing sustained large-scale investment for research or program activities can prove difficult, as was the case for a study CIMMYT did on the potential for wheat in Africa. “The ministers were very interested,” Sonder says. “But other crisis come along, and then the funds go somewhere else.” Despite the hurdles, there are plenty of examples of agrifood interventions with positive impact. For instance, one of CIMMYT’s current areas of work is in developing risk assessment and disease warning systems to allow people to act quickly before a crisis occurs. Sonder describes how his colleagues in Ethiopia had a recent success in identifying a risk of rust epidemic in collaboration with the government and stakeholders on the ground by using weather models. The joint effort allowed the government “to procure and to spread fungicides and to be prepared for that crisis,” he says. Addressing the challenges that underlie world hunger will take both this kind of strategic medium-term action as well as longer-term transformations—Even as we respond to the current hunger crisis with much-needed short-term efforts, we can also be...

Why does climate change lead to especially bad security outcomes in some places but not others? In this week’s New Security Broadcast, Josh Busby, Associate Professor at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas-Austin, discusses the latest thinking on this essential question as laid out in his new book, States and Nature: The Effects of Climate Change on Security, with ECSP Program Associate, Amanda King, and ECSP Senior Fellow, Sherri Goodman. In States and Nature, Busby examines intriguing case studies that demonstrate that—when it comes to climate insecurity—proximity is not destiny. Drought-driven famine devastated Somalia, but led to less dire outcomes in neighboring Ethiopia. Another drought that sparked civil war in Syria resulted in less overt conflict next door in Lebanon. He argues that a combination of state capacity, political exclusion, and international assistance explains why some nations suffer particularly acute negative security outcomes and not others. “Whether or not states have the capability to deliver services,” observes Busby, “is an important piece of whether or not governments are able to deliver services in the lead-up to exposure to climate threats—and are able to respond in their wake.” Political representation—and the lack of it—also matter to a nation’s climate resilience. Busby observes that this is especially true when favored groups within a given society receive more aid when the entire nation is exposed to climate hazards. He says his research reveals that “inclusive political societies—those that try to include all social groups in representation in government—typically end up with more just outcomes.” Busby recently had an opportunity to merge theory and practice when he took a leave of absence from UT Austin to serve as a Climate Advisor in the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) in 2021 and 2022. He believes that the experience will shape his research going forward. “When you're in academia,” says Busby, “you don't really have an appreciation for the levers and tools that governments have—and don't have—to be able to try to shape and influence outcomes.” What scholars bring to the discussion is essential, Busby adds. Between managing budgets and navigating a bureaucracy of confusing acronyms across the U.S. government, researchers possess an expertise rooted in their understanding of the rich and developing literature on the connections between the cause and effect of climate and insecurity. Yet, translating good ideas into policy and programs can be a challenge. “If you want to be a change agent, to make the world better,” he says, “you have to invest some time and understanding into what those instruments and levers are.” Busby’s extensive research and recent experience at the DoD has convinced him that most of the instruments to deal with climate security impacts will be civilian instruments and levers. Citizens, and not the military, will be the first line of defense for affected nations. Governments of countries that are affected by climate impacts must respond, of course. But Busby says that their efforts will be more effective if they are backstopped by international assistance that “first and foremost is going to be development and diplomatic resources.” Given his recent stint at DoD, however, Busby does see a critical role for militaries to play in navigating climate security issues, especially via military-to-military cooperation or disaster risk reduction. Such activities will come in to play particularly when civilian capacities may be limited and where militaries are needed to respond to extreme weather events and other climate-related emergencies. Yet he insists that there is a need to invest more fully in instruments and power structures separate from national defense, if only “to ensure that it doesn't become the responsibility of the military to do this work.” Goodman and Busby share an interest—and a track record—of marrying...

About half the world’s population lives in an area of active or latent conflict. And few corners of the planet are not feeling the effects of climate change. But in this week’s New Security Broadcast, researcher Clionadh Raleigh cautions against drawing too strong a connection between the two phenomena in an interview with ECSP Director Lauren Risi. “Conflict is a competition for power,” says Raleigh, a professor of political geography and conflict at the University of Sussex and the executive director of the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED). Because conflict’s roots cannot be found in “grievance, resource distribution, and population dynamics,” she continues, “there are conflict dynamics that play out irrespective of climate risk, and are not directly associated with environmental issues; hence, it is not useful to frame climate issues as security issues.” Raleigh says that her research on conflict points to “some indirect connections between conflict dynamics and climate change,” especially when they create “competitions in which some attributes of the environment, especially through patronage and other means of financing turn the entire scenario into a competitive interpretation of how elites are going to operate and contest against each other violently.” One key element in Raleigh’s case is research that demonstrates that cooperation—and not conflict—is often found in regional communities with the highest climate risk and lowest potential to mitigate it. This is part of a larger pattern of cooperation in these communities, she adds. Raleigh notes that studies indicate that at times, such broader community collaboration smooths the path for cooperation on climate initiatives—and signals the significance of creating and implementing effective adaptation plans. “The areas that have been able to build adaptation, like adaptive cooperation, managed to become resilient to conflict,” she says, “or to break down in that social and political order to resist that kind of violent competition when it stems from other sources.” One such case can be found in Kenya, observes Raleigh, “where there were peace committees throughout the country that allowed people to discuss and to mediate in situations related to resource distribution, and those mediations—especially when they were funded—were very successful.” Nations such as Nigeria, she continues, offer a case study in collaboration failures rooted not in climate conflict but in structural challenges. In that country’s middle belt, Raleigh says, the failure of “local-based cooperative mechanisms” led to “massive conflict that has taken the form of livelihood-based competitions, rather than the climate-related conflicts.” In this context of research that argues for a broader view of conflict—as well as its causes and patterns—is the framing of climate security still useful? Raleigh says that it must be refined and given greater nuance—especially in the areas of cooperation and resilience—if it is to retain its usefulness. “I find that security framing that has been practiced for years has become outside of the situations, where we are talking about security outcomes,” she says, “it loses this nuance that we bring to it when it's being practiced.” The result, continues Raleigh, is that the framing can “create negative effects on the people who are supposed to be on the receiving end of better policies or better assistance…In these scenarios, security initiatives themselves cause insecurities among the people.” Raleigh levels particular criticism at what she sees as a pillar of climate security framing: a seeking out of regional insecurities and refashioning of them as climate-related. She argues that this ignores growing climate collaboration in favor of identifying communities to be presently or potentially “at risk.” The danger in doing so is a tendency to admit the future into evidence while spurning research on communities presently existing in difficult...

Debates around whether and to what extent international order is changing can be misguided “so long as we are thinking about international order as a single, monolithic thing,” says Jeff Colgan, Associate Professor of Political Science and director of the Climate Solutions Lab at Brown University in this week’s episode of New Security Broadcast. Colgan spoke at a recent Wilson Center event featuring his new book, Partial Hegemony: Oil Politics and International Order. In the book, Colgan challenges the idea of a monolithic ‘global order’ and shows that international order instead comprises a set of interlinked “subsystems.” In a world where there is no single, all-encompassing hegemon to trigger universal global change, this framework of subsystems allows us to explore how particular geopolitical realms can alter without fundamentally changing the geopolitical landscape, he says. In 1973, the world experienced the largest peaceful transfer of wealth across borders in all of human history. “Up until that point,” says Colgan, “a group of international oil companies known as the Seven Sisters controlled the vast majority of the world's oil reserves and production. And that gave them enormous power over countries like Iran and Venezuela.” OPEC formed as a direct response to this concentration of control, helping its member countries confront some of the most powerful companies in the world at the time. “It was a huge shift in international order that reverberated for years afterwards.” But understanding shifts in global order like this one requires revisiting common perspectives on international governing arrangements. Most people conceptualize hegemony as an on-off switch, Colgan says. They think that if you are the hegemon, then you dominate across “all dimensions of power—you're dominant militarily, you're the biggest economy, you're the leading technological state, you control natural resource flows, capital flows, information.” That is not how global power currently operates, however. “In reality, of course, a state could lead in some of these dimensions, but not all of them.” It is this state of partial hegemony that describes today’s world, he says. The aim of Partial Hegemony, Colgan says, “is to help us remember that international governing arrangements only work under some conditions, so we need to learn about what those conditions are.” Shedding light on these arrangements is an integrative process. Particular issue areas like oil and its geopolitical history, he says, can be a jumping-off point for broader discussions of international relations theory, which in turn can deepen our understanding of other systems within the world order.

The impacts of COVID-19 have shown policymakers that we need to invest in infrastructure and shore up existing systems to ensure that they can withstand changing conditions over time, says Alice Hill, former special assistant to President Barack Obama and current senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Resilience, in this week’s New Security Broadcast. “As we go forward, we need to have resilient systems. But we haven’t done that yet, we’re unprepared.” Hill sat down with Sherri Goodman, Senior Fellow at the Wilson Center’s Environmental Change and Security Program and former U.S. Deputy Undersecretary of Defense, to her new book, The Fight for Climate After COVID-19, and how the response to COVID-19 can inform approaches to building climate resilience. “Even as we see the ferocity of events increase, we are seeing that our systems just have not accounted for the future risk, and that is what we need,” says Hill. Investing in preparedness is cost-effective in the long term, she says. Every dollar spent on preventative measures now can save from 6 to 13 dollars in repairing future damages. “If we can discipline ourselves to invest now in resilience, we will save money, save lives, save livelihoods.” In addition to building resilience and preparing for long-term changes, Hill says that policymakers and experts must also focus on reducing emissions and cutting pollution. “There’s the mitigation—cutting harmful pollution. And there’s the adaptation and resilience—preparing for the impacts. Those two communities have been historically separated,” says Hill. In particular, experts in these communities must work together to ensure that adaptation and mitigation measures receive equal attention in the developing world. “When these events hit the developing world, it can cause a family just to spiral into poverty very quickly,” says Hill. “We need to make deep investments to help these countries understand their risks and warn their populations in advance.” Hill and Goodman conclude their conversation by encouraging everyone to engage in understanding and responding to climate change. There is a much greater focus on the issue now, says Hill. “One of the things that I find—that has been a wonderful surprise for me—is how exciting it is to be engaged in this field. And feeling as if there are things that I can contribute to, and that I can join with others to build, that will have greater results,” she says. “I just want to encourage people to engage and then, as we engage, we can help build the political will that’s necessary for all of us to understand our risks, and then make choices that will keep us safer.”

“When we started out, people thought it was weird. ‘Why are you integrating people and animals and why are you integrating human health and animal health?’” says Kalema-Zikusoka, founder of Conservation Through Public Health (CTPH), in this week’s New Security Broadcast. Indeed, health infrastructure and conservation have long been organized around distinct silos. “Donors were focusing on single sector funding, and government departments were aligned along single sectors,” says Kalema-Zikusoka. To protect Uganda’s mountain gorillas, however, Kalema-Zikusoka recognized the need to set up an organization that could prevent disease transmission between humans and wildlife. Improving the health and well-being of communities in and around protected areas would help to ensure that they were less likely to have infectious diseases, could enjoy a better quality of life, and would ultimately enable communities to co-exist better with the wildlife. Over the past decade, there has been growing awareness and acceptance of this approach to conservation and public health. Often referred to as “One Health,” it is a multisectoral approach to disease prevention that centers interconnections between wildlife, ecosystem, and human health. Evidence tracing COVID-19’s origins to virus transmission between bats, an intermediate host, and humans only heightened the awareness of the interdependency between wildlife and human health. CTPH’s approach to community health has made them an asset for addressing COVID-19. The Ugandan Ministry of Health requested that the NGOs working with community health workers create village COVID task force committees, says Kilema-Zikusoka. They were worried that mounting infections could easily become severe ones, and there were not enough beds and oxygen, particularly in protected areas, where the lack of resources is more severe than in cities, she says. These action groups—now in 59 villages—are led by the village head and conservation team, and include the Uganda Wildlife Authority, porters at gorilla reserves, women and religious groups, and educational staff members. Such holistic, coordinated One Health efforts are essential for disaster preparedness and response in communities where wildlife and humans share a habitat, says Kalema-Zikusok. Despite this progress, tensions between human and animal health continue to emerge. Last year, hunger and economic desperation caused by the loss of tourism revenue drove a poacher to enter a protected area and kill a member of Uganda’s silverback mountain gorilla population. To prevent further endangerment, CTPH has implemented a range of short and long term measures to tackle pandemic-induced food insecurity—distributing fast growing green seedlings in the community; encouraging sustainable farming as an alternative to poaching; and ensuring gorilla guardians and reform poachers are trained in and benefitting from COVID-19 prevention initiatives. “This is an area we got into because of the pandemic. We started to look at food security more closely as an organization, so we have also grown just like other organizations during this very difficult time,” says Kalema-Zikusoka. There are important lessons learned and insights drawn from the pandemic that we must carry forward in order to realize a safer future for humans and animals alike.