Earlier this week (week #2 of COP27), I attended an event at the U.S. Center entitled Fragility, Conflict, and Climate Change: A New Strategy to Build Sustained Peace. Not only did the session title catch my attention, but also, in the introduction to the session, it was mentioned that our Department of Defense had its first ever delegation at a COP and their representative in the session was the sustainability director for the DOD. Last year, during a stakeholder roundtable with Gina McCarthy (then first White House National Climate Advisor for President Biden), the mandate requiring all agencies within the federal government to consider climate change in terms of solutions, national strategies, and efforts to reduce the carbon footprint of the U.S. government was discussed at length. (See a previous post about this event.) It appears that some of this is happening!
As with every session at a COP, several sound-bytes and a lot of jargon and acronyms were used:
- HDP nexus (HDP = Humanitarian Development and Peace)
- DRR (Disaster Risk and Reduction)
- PREPARE
- Emergency Adaptation and Resilience
- Feed the Future
- Global Fragility Act (I hadn’t heard of this before)
- 3D (Defense, Diplomacy, Development) or 5D (adding Defining Decade before the three previous terms)
One might ask whether it takes threats of war to move us to action on other fronts such as humanitarian aid or climate change. And for some reason, having representatives from US Agency for International Development and the DOD (aka Pentagon) on the stage together oddly reminded me of the very unsettling book by Dave Eggers, The Parade. (A partial description of this book from Amazon.com: An unnamed country is leaving the darkness of a decade at war, and to commemorate the armistice the government commissions a new road connecting two halves of the state. Two men, foreign contractors from the same company, are sent to finish the highway.)
Setting aside the cynicism and looking at global problem-solving through the lens of a scientist, the idea of having science and foreign aid as arms of diplomacy and peacekeeping isn’t inherently a bad idea. The prestigious organization, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), even has a Center for Science Diplomacy. Scientific discoveries can lead to clean energy technologies, carbon removal mechanisms, and climate-resilient agriculture as well as provide the data and monitoring for early warning systems. If we can overcome barriers such as intellectual property and technology transfer, innovative technologies arising from science might help address climate change mitigation and adaptation, protect livelihoods and lives, and enhance food security. Can sharing innovations from research and development be considered foreign aid?
The U.S. Center panel discussion and these random post-session reflections have me thinking about how we, as educators, might prepare future diplomats and agency staffers who can work across agencies, national boundaries, and disciplinary specializations. Alas, too often, those of us in higher education still work in silos (disciplinary-specific departments). Distinct packets of information are taught through these departments, sometimes even more finely subdivided (e.g., biochemistry vs. ecology as opposed to thinking about "life sciences" holistically). There are, of course, examples of campus interdisciplinary centers developed around key themes, and some academic programs are, by nature, dependent on interdisciplinary collaborations, including the environmental sciences and studies. But in such programs, do we have students work at the interface of policymaking, consider transnational-boundary issues, or evaluate the ethical dilemmas of technological “solutions” especially if they are implemented and impact people who have had no say in the decision to deploy? In higher education speak, if a program like environmental studies includes an array of requirements across disciplines, are these requirements integrated in intentional ways? Do students understand why they are taking the different requirements and the interrelationships between what they are learning in different courses? Do they realize that the information can and should be applied to solve complex global problems? Do students (and faculty) feel comfortable working across language and cultural differences – both across disciplines and national borders?
The American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) are advocates of liberal education and a 2020 publication entitled “What Liberal Education Looks Like” which is described as:
In distilling the principles, practices, and contemporary challenges of liberal education, this signature AAC&U publication presents a clear vision of the learning all students need for success in an uncertain future and for addressing the compelling issues we face as a democracy and as a global community – regardless of where they study, what they major in, or what their career goals are.
The American Council on Education, in discussing their global learning outcomes, refers to international education and education diplomacy.
At Moravian University, we have had a unique cross-cutting academic program known as InFocus that had its roots in discussions going back to 2010. In my opinion, it was a rare example of interdisciplinary teaching, scholarship, debate, collaboration, problem-solving, service, and advocacy. The program focused on 4 key thematic areas reflecting grand challenges of the 21st century:
- Poverty and Inequality
- Sustainability and Eliminating Environmental Degradation
- Health and Justice
- War and Peace
InFocus grew from a 2010 series of dialogues held by small groups of faculty at Moravian College who pondered the question how can we better link our educational mission with the real problems and needs that face all of us, both locally and globally? We deliberated about the most pressing sets of problems facing humanity, and how to shift our common educational life to seriously address them. We questioned how to link research, advocacy, and action; increase multidisciplinarity; and multiply alliances between our college, the local community, and the wider world. We stressed the need for students to envision their education in accordance with their lives beyond the college campus. This critical dialogue led to the eventual spearheading of an open-ended, ambitious cross-college initiative, InFocus at Moravian College, that would be organized around four yearly rotating “Centers of Investigation.” Each year the Moravian College community dedicates itself to one “challenge area” facing humanity that demands greater investigation, understanding, imagination, collaboration, and advocacy if we are to build toward a more sustainable, just, and democratic society.
For reasons many of us cannot understand, the upper administration recently announced that this would be the last year for InFocus. The stated reasons were that this program it is not something that attracts students to the institution or retains them (although I have no idea how they know that), and it wasn't included in the institutional strategic plan. (For that matter, neither are most of the existing academic programs.) What those of us who have participated in the program know, through program assessments as well as student testimonials, is that students demonstrate intellectual growth and have a greatly expanded view of the world and a sense that they can make a difference in that world. It is more difficult to measure or even articulate what value this has had for faculty, but, personally, the impact has been profound.
Given the theme of the event I attended at the U.S. Center, it is perhaps ironic that the InFocus theme this final year is "War and Peace". In an InFocus event earlier this year, one of the faculty co-directors handed me a pin that says
“The more you sweat for peace, the less you bleed in war.”
 |
| I am wearing this pin here at COP27 |
I doubt that whoever created this slogan was linking climate change (global warming) and peace. However, perhaps some of that sweat equity needs to be directed towards addressing climate change which, in turn, will reduce conflict and come with many other co-benefits (food and water insecurity, better health, sustainable development, etc.)
[An interesting note: 5-5 ½ % of global greenhouse gas emissions are from war and military action. I don't have a source, but this was mentioned in the Emissions Gap 2022 report launch here at COP27 when someone asked about the consequences of the Russian - Ukrainian war on climate action. My friend Heidi Svestre, a glaciologist, noted that one consequence -- largely because Russia is currently chairing the Arctic Council -- is that the work of the council has been suspended, including critical polar research in the Arctic.]
On the humanitarian-development-peace nexus:
A short brief entitled The Humanitarian-Development-Peace (HDP) Nexus: Challenges in implementation
A report entitled The Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus: What does it mean for multi-mandated organizations?
On PREPARE:
The PREPARE action plan (a U.S. initiative)
Action Plan Released for the President's Emergency Plan for Adaptation and Resilience (PREPARE)
National Security Strategy (interagency cooperation)
On the Global Fragility Act
The 3 D's publication
2022 Prologue to the United States Strategy to Prevent Conflict and Promote Stability
A press release on this act
No comments:
Post a Comment