Blog

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By John Weigand, Professor Emeritus of Architecture and Interior Design, Miami University

Colleges and universities are struggling to stay afloat.

The reasons are numerous: declining numbers of college-age students in much of the country, rising tuition at public institutions as state funding shrinks, and a growing skepticism about the value of a college degree.

Pressure is mounting to cut costs by reducing the time it takes to earn a degree from four years to three.

Students, parents and legislators increasingly prioritize return on investment and degrees that are more likely to lead to gainful employment. This has boosted enrollment in professional programs while reducing interest in traditional liberal arts and humanities majors, creating a supply-demand imbalance.

The result has been increasing financial pressure and an unprecedented number of closures and mergers, to date mostly among smaller liberal arts colleges.

To survive, institutions are scrambling to align curriculum with market demand. And they’re defaulting to the traditional college major to do so.

The college major, developed and delivered by disciplinary experts within siloed departments, continues to be the primary benchmark for academic quality and institutional performance.

This structure likely works well for professional majors governed by accreditation or licensure, or more tightly aligned with employment. But in today’s evolving landscape, reliance on the discipline-specific major may not always serve students or institutions well.

As a professor emeritus and former college administrator and dean, I argue that the college major may no longer be able to keep up with the combinations of skills that cross multiple academic disciplines and career readiness skills demanded by employers, or the flexibility students need to best position themselves for the workplace.

Students want flexibility

I see students arrive on campus each year with different interests, passions and talents – eager to stitch them into meaningful lives and careers.

A more flexible curriculum is linked to student success, and students now consult AI tools such as ChatGPT to figure out course combinations that best position them for their future. They want flexibility, choice and time to redirect their studies if needed.

And yet, the moment students arrive on campus – even before they apply – they’re asked to declare a major from a list of predetermined and prescribed choices. The major, coupled with general education and other college requirements, creates an academic track that is anything but flexible.

Not surprisingly, around 80% of college students switch their majors at least once, suggesting that more flexible degree requirements would allow students to explore and combine diverse areas of interest. And the number of careers, let alone jobs, that college graduates are expected to have will only increase as technological change becomes more disruptive.

As institutions face mounting pressures to attract students and balance budgets, and the college major remains the principal metric for doing so, the curriculum may be less flexible now than ever.

How schools are responding

In response to market pressures, colleges are adding new high-demand majors at a record pace. Between 2002 and 2022, the number of degree programs nationwide increased by nearly 23,000, or 40%, while enrollment grew only 8%. Some of these majors, such as cybersecurity, fashion business or entertainment design, arguably connect disciplines rather than stand out as distinct. Thus, these new majors siphon enrollment from lower-demand programs within the institution and compete with similar new majors at competitor schools.

At the same time, traditional arts and humanities majors are adding professional courses to attract students and improve employability. Yet, this adds credit hours to the degree while often duplicating content already available in other departments.

Importantly, while new programs are added, few are removed. The challenge lies in faculty tenure and governance, along with a traditional understanding that faculty set the curriculum as disciplinary experts. This makes it difficult to close or revise low-demand majors and shift resources to growth areas.

The result is a proliferation of under-enrolled programs, canceled courses and stretched resources – leading to reduced program quality and declining faculty morale.

Ironically, under the pressure of declining demand, there can be perverse incentives to grow credit hours required in a major or in general education requirements as a way of garnering more resources or adding courses aligned with faculty interests. All of which continues to expand the curriculum and stress available resources.

Universities are also wrestling with the idea of liberal education and how to package the general education requirement.

Although liberal education is increasingly under fire, employers and students still value it.

Students’ career readiness skills – their ability to think critically and creatively, to collaborate effectively and to communicate well – remain strong predictors of future success in the workplace and in life.

Reenvisioning the college major

Assuming the requirement for students to complete a major in order to earn a degree, colleges can also allow students to bundle smaller modules – such as variable-credit minors, certificates or course sequences – into a customizable, modular major.

This lets students, guided by advisers, assemble a degree that fits their interests and goals while drawing from multiple disciplines. A few project-based courses can tie everything together and provide context.

Such a model wouldn’t undermine existing majors where demand is strong. For others, where demand for the major is declining, a flexible structure would strengthen enrollment, preserve faculty expertise rather than eliminate it, attract a growing number of nontraditional students who bring to campus previously earned credentials, and address the financial bottom line by rightsizing curriculum in alignment with student demand.

One critique of such a flexible major is that it lacks depth of study, but it is precisely the combination of curricular content that gives it depth. Another criticism is that it can’t be effectively marketed to an employer. But a customized major can be clearly named and explained to employers to highlight students’ unique skill sets.

Further, as students increasingly try to fit cocurricular experiences – such as study abroad, internships, undergraduate research or organizational leadership – into their course of study, these can also be approved as modules in a flexible curriculum.

It’s worth noting that while several schools offer interdisciplinary studies majors, these are often overprescribed or don’t grant students access to in-demand courses. For a flexible-degree model to succeed, course sections would need to be available and added or deleted in response to student demand.

Several schools also now offer microcredentials– skill-based courses or course modules that increasingly include courses in the liberal arts. But these typically need to be completed in addition to requirements of the major.

We take the college major for granted.

Yet it’s worth noting that the major is a relatively recent invention.

Before the 20th century, students followed a broad liberal arts curriculum designed to create well-rounded, globally minded citizens. The major emerged as a response to an evolving workforce that prioritized specialized knowledge. But times change – and so can the model.

John Weigand does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Why the traditional college major may be holding students back in a rapidly changing job market – https://theconversation.com/why-the-traditional-college-major-may-be-holding-students-back-in-a-rapidly-changing-job-market-258383

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Jimmy Aguilar, PhD Candidate in Urban Education Policy, University of Southern California

President Donald Trump on April 23, 2025, signed an executive order that aims to change the higher education accreditation process. It asks accrediting agencies to root out “discriminatory ideology” and roll back diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives on college campuses.

The Conversation asked Jimmy Aguilar, who studies higher education at the University of Southern California, to explain what accreditation is, why it matters and how the Trump order seeks to change it.

What is accreditation and how does it work?

Accreditation is a process that evaluates whether colleges and universities meet standards of academic rigor, institutional integrity and financial stability.

In the United States, there were 88 accrediting agencies during the 2022-23 school academic year.

The agencies are formally recognized by the Department of Education and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation.

Accreditation is not a one-time stamp of approval, but a continuous process.

At its core, accreditation is a guarantor of quality in higher education.

The process involves self-assessment and peer review visits.

Colleges typically undergo a full review every five to 10 years, depending on the accrediting agency.

Institutions must meet standards for curriculum, faculty, student services and outcomes, and provide documentation.

Then, federally recognized accrediting agencies review the documentation.

Teams, often comprised of peer reviewers from other colleges, conduct campus visits and evaluations before granting or reviewing accreditation.

Why do universities need to be accredited?

Accreditation assures students, employers and the public that an institution meets basic academic standards.

It also signals credibility and secures federal financial support.

Without it, colleges cannot access key funding sources such as Pell Grants and federal student loans.

The funding is essential for college budgets and students’ access to higher education.

Accreditation is also required for professional licensure in fields such as teaching, nursing, medicine and law.

It also helps ensure that students can transfer credits between institutions.

What does Trump’s executive order do?

The executive order would reshape the college accreditation system, aligning it with the administration’s political priorities. Those priorities include the rollback of DEI initiatives.

The order seeks to use federal oversight to weaken institutional DEI policies and priorities. It also promotes new standards aligned with the administration’s interpretation of “merit-based” education.

The executive order also directs the Department of Education to penalize agencies that require colleges to implement DEI-related standards.

The Trump administration claims that such standards amount to “unlawful discrimination.”

Penalties may include increased oversight or loss of federal recognition. This would render the accreditation seal meaningless, according to the executive order.

The order also proposes a broad overhaul of the accreditation process, including:

• Promoting “intellectual diversity” in faculty hiring. The executive order argues that promoting a broader range of viewpoints among faculty will enhance academic freedom. Critics often interpret this language as an effort to increase conservative ideological representation.

• Streamlining the process for institutions to switch accreditors. During Trump’s first term, his administration removed geographic restrictions, giving colleges more flexibility to choose. The new executive order goes further. It makes it easier for schools to leave agencies whose standards they disagree with.

• Expanding recognition of new accrediting agencies to increase competition.

• Linking accreditation more directly to student outcomes. This would shift focus to metrics such as graduation rates and earnings, rather than commitments to diversity or equity.

The executive order singles out accreditors for law schools, such as the American Bar Association, and for medical schools, such as the Liaison Committee on Medical Education.

The order accuses them of enforcing DEI standards that conflict with a 2023 Supreme Court ruling that outlawed affirmative action in university admissions.

However, the ruling was limited to race-conscious admissions. It did not directly address faculty hiring or accreditation standards.

That raises questions about whether the order’s interpretation extends beyond the scope of the court’s decision.

The ruling has nonetheless been a point of contention in the debate over diversity, equity and inclusion.

The American Association of University Professors and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law have denounced the executive order.

The groups argue that it threatens to politicize accreditation and suppress efforts to promote equity and inclusion.

Nevertheless, the order represents a push by the federal government to influence higher education governance.

Jimmy Aguilar does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. How proposed changes to higher education accreditation could impact campus diversity efforts – https://theconversation.com/how-proposed-changes-to-higher-education-accreditation-could-impact-campus-diversity-efforts-255309

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Jeanne Beatrix Law, Professor of English, Kennesaw State University

I’m a writing professor who sees artificial intelligence as more of an opportunity for students, rather than a threat.

That sets me apart from some of my colleagues, who fear that AI is accelerating a glut of superficial content, impeding critical thinking and hindering creative expression. They worry that students are simply using it out of sheer laziness or, worse, to cheat.

Perhaps that’s why so many students are afraid to admit that they use ChatGPT.

In The New Yorker magazine, historian D. Graham Burnett recounts asking his undergraduate and graduate students at Princeton whether they’d ever used ChatGPT. No one raised their hand.

“It’s not that they’re dishonest,” he writes. “It’s that they’re paralyzed.”

Students seem to have internalized the belief that using AI for their coursework is somehow wrong. Yet, whether my colleagues like it or not, most college students are using it.

A February 2025 report from the Higher Education Policy Institute in the U.K. found that 92% of university students are using AI in some form. As early as August 2023 – a mere nine months after ChatGPT’s public release – more than half of first-year students at Kennesaw State University, the public research institution where I teach, reported that they believed that AI is the future of writing.

It’s clear that students aren’t going to magically stop using AI. So I think it’s important to point out some ways in which AI can actually be a useful tool that enhances, rather than hampers, the writing process.

Helping with the busywork

A February 2025 OpenAI report on ChatGPT use among college-aged users found that more than one-quarter of their ChatGPT conversations were education-related.

The report also revealed that the top five uses for students were writing-centered: starting papers and projects (49%); summarizing long texts (48%); brainstorming creative projects (45%); exploring new topics (44%); and revising writing (44%).

These figures challenge the assumption that students use AI merely to cheat or write entire papers.

Instead, it suggests they are leveraging AI to free up more time to engage in deeper processes and metacognitive behaviors – deliberately organizing ideas, honing arguments and refining style.

If AI allows students to automate routine cognitive tasks – like information retrieval or ensuring that verb tenses are consistent – it doesn’t mean they’re thinking less. It means their thinking is changing.

Of course, students can misuse AI if they use the technology passively, reflexively accepting its outputs and ideas. And overreliance on ChatGPT can erode a student’s unique voice or style.

However, as long as students learn how to use AI intentionally, this shift can be seen as an opportunity, rather than a loss.

Clarifying the creative vision

It has also become clear that AI, when used responsibly, can augment human creativity.

For example, science comedy writer Sarah Rose Siskind recently gave a talk to Harvard students about her creative process. She spoke about how she uses ChatGPT to brainstorm joke setups and explore various comedic scenarios, which allows her to focus on crafting punchlines and refining her comedic timing.

Note how Siskin used AI in ways that didn’t supplant the human touch. Instead of replacing her creativity, AI amplified it by providing structured and consistent feedback, giving her more time to polish her jokes.

Another example is the Rhetorical Prompting Method, which I developed alongside fellow Kennesaw State University researchers. Designed for university students and adult learners, it’s a framework for conversing with an AI chatbot, one that emphasizes the importance of agency in guiding AI outputs.

When writers use precise language to prompt, critical thinking to reflect, and intentional revision to sculpt inputs and outputs, they direct AI to help them generate content that aligns with their vision.

There’s still a process

The Rhetorical Prompting Method mirrors best practices in process writing, which encourages writers to revisit, refine and revise their drafts.

When using ChatGPT, though, it’s all about thoughtfully revisiting and revising prompts and outputs.

For instance, say a student wants to create a compelling PSA for social media to encourage campus composting. She considers her audience. She prompts ChatGPT to draft a short, upbeat message in under 50 words that’s geared to college students.

Reading the first output, she notices it lacks urgency. So she revises the prompt to emphasize immediate impact. She also adds some additional specifics that are important to her message, such as the location of an information session. The final PSA reads:

“Every scrap counts! Join campus composting today at the Commons. Your leftovers aren’t trash – they’re tomorrow’s gardens. Help our university bloom brighter, one compost bin at a time.”

The Rhetorical Prompting Method isn’t groundbreaking; it’s riffing on a process that’s been tested in the writing studies discipline for decades. But I’ve found that it works by directing writers how to intentionally prompt.

I know this because we asked users about their experiences. In an ongoing study, my colleagues and I polled 133 people who used the Rhetorical Prompting Method for their academic and professional writing:

• 92% reported that it helped them evaluate writing choices before and during their process.

• 75% said that they were able to maintain their authentic voice while using AI assistance.

• 89% responded that it helped them think critically about their writing.

The data suggests that learners take their writing seriously. Their responses reveal that they are thinking carefully about their writing styles and strategies. While this data is preliminary, we continue to gather responses in different courses, disciplines and learning environments.

All of this is to say that, while there are divergent points of view over when and where it’s appropriate to use AI, students are certainly using it. And being provided with a framework can help them think more deeply about their writing.

AI, then, is not just a tool that’s useful for trivial tasks. It can be an asset for creativity. If today’s students – who are actively using AI to write, revise and explore ideas – see AI as a writing partner, I think it’s a good idea for professors to start thinking about helping them learn the best ways to work with it.

Jeanne Beatrix Law does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. AI isn’t replacing student writing – but it is reshaping it – https://theconversation.com/ai-isnt-replacing-student-writing-but-it-is-reshaping-it-254878

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Steven Matome Mathetsa, Senior Lecturer at the African Energy Leadership Centre, Wits Business School, University of the Witwatersrand

South Africa’s state-owned electricity company, Eskom, has applied to the National Energy Regulator of South Africa to approve a 36.1% electricity price hike from April 2025, a 11.8% price increase in 2026 and an 9.1% increase in 2027. Steven Mathetsa teaches and researches sustainable energy systems at the University of the Witwatersrand’s African Energy Leadership Centre. He explains some of the problems with the planned tariff increase.

Why such a big hike?

Eskom says the multi-year price increase is because of the need to move closer a cost-reflective tariff that reflects the actual costs of supplying electricity.

However, Eskom’s electricity tariff increases have been exorbitant for several years – an 18% increase in 2023 and a 13% increase in 2024. This is a price increase far above inflation, which is currently at 4.4%.

Some companies have installed their own generation capacity, and individuals have moved to rooftop solar systems. As a result electricity sales have fallen by about 2% , resulting in a drop in revenue.

There’s a knock on effect for municipalities, the biggest distributors of electricity, which have also been forced to hike tariffs in line with Eskom’s increases.

All these costs are passed onto the consumers.

What will the impact be on South Africans?

If the hike is approved it will certainly worsen the economic difficulties facing
South Africa. One of the most unequal countries in the world, South Africa has an extremely high unemployment rate – 33.5%at the last count.

Economic growth is also very slow, at a mere 0.6% in 2023. The cost of living is high.

Exorbitant increases in electricity costs aggravate these problems.

South Africans and businesses in the country have little choice about where they source their energy. Eskom is still the sole supplier for nearly all the country’s electricity needs. This means that ordinary citizens are likely to continue relying on electricity supplied by Eskom, irrespective of the costs.

The high costs affect businesses negatively. Large industrial and small, medium, and micro enterprises have all highlighted that costs associated with utilities, mainly electricity, are affecting their sustainability.

---

Read more:
Competition in South Africa’s electricity market: new law paves the way, but it won’t be a smooth ride

---

The Electricity Regulation Amendment Act implementation will make major changes to Eskom. The reforms establish an independent Transmission Systems Operator tasked with connecting renewable energy providers to the grid. This will allow the creation of a competitive market where renewable energy providers can sell power to the grid.

But it’s not yet clear if these changes will address the issue of exorbitant electricity price rises.

What are the problems?

The country’s energy frameworks are drafted on the basis of the World Energy Trilemma Index. The index promotes a balanced approach between energy security, affordability, and sustainability. In other words, countries must be able to provide environmentally friendly and reliable electricity that their residents can afford.

South Africa is currently unable to meet these goals because of different energy policies that do not align, a lack of investment in electricity and dependency on coal-fired power. Electricity is increasingly becoming unaffordable in the country. Although there’s been a recent reprieve from power cuts, security of supply is still uncertain.

---

Read more:
South Africa’s new energy plan needs a mix of nuclear, gas, renewables and coal – expert

---

Furthermore, over 78% of the country’s electricity is produced by burning coal. This means South Africa is also far from attaining its 2015 Paris Agreement greenhouse gas reduction goals.

Compounding this problem is that Eskom is financially unstable – it needed R78 billion from the government in debt relief in 2024. For years, there was a lack of effective maintenance on the aging infrastructure.

The country has made some inroads into improving security of supply. To date, recent interventions have resulted in over 200 days without power cuts. This should be commended. The same focus must be placed on ensuring that electricity remains affordable while giving attention to meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement.

What needs to change?

South Africa’s 1998 Energy Policy White Paper and the new Electricity Regulation Amendment Act promote access to affordable electricity. However, they’ve been implemented very slowly. Affordable electricity needs to be taken seriously.

The question is whether the country’s electricity tariff methodology is flexible enough to accommodate poor South Africans, especially during these challenging economic times.

In my view, it is not. In its current form, vulnerable communities continue to foot the bill for various challenges confronting Eskom, including financial mismanagement, operational inefficiencies, municipal non-payment, and corruption.

I believe the following steps should be taken.

Firstly, South Africa should revise its tariff application methodologies so that consumers, especially unemployed and impoverished people, are protected against exorbitant increases.

Secondly, the National Energy Regulator of South Africa should strengthen its regulations to ensure its compliance and enforcement systems are effective. For example, Eskom should be held accountable when it does not deliver efficient services or mismanages funds, and be transparent about costs associated with its processes. Municipalities should also be held accountable for non-payment and other technical issues they regularly struggle with. Both affect the revenue of the power utility.

---

Read more:
South Africa’s economic growth affected by mismatch of electricity supply and demand

---

Thirdly, the government must make sure that price increases are affordable and don’t hurt the broader economy. It can do this by adjusting its policies to make sure that increases in electricity tariffs are in line with the rate of inflation.

Fourthly, communities can play a vital role in saving electricity at a household level. This will reduce the country’s overall energy consumption. Furthermore, both small and large businesses should continue to consider alternative energy technologies while implementing energy saving technologies.

Lastly, the level of free-basic electricity is not sufficient for poor households. Subsidy policies should also be reviewed to allow users access to affordable electricity as their financial situation changes negatively.

Steven Matome Mathetsa does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. South Africa’s 36.1% electricity price hike for 2025: why the power utility Eskom’s request is unrealistic – https://theconversation.com/south-africas-36-1-electricity-price-hike-for-2025-why-the-power-utility-eskoms-request-is-unrealistic-240941

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Olasunkanmi Habeeb Okunola, Senior Research Associate, United Nations University – Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS), United Nations University

Extreme climate events — floods, droughts and heatwaves — are not just becoming more frequent; they are also more severe.

It’s important to understand how communities can recover from these events in ways that also build resilience to future events.

In a recent study, we analysed how communities affected by the extreme flood events of 2021 in Germany’s Ahr Valley and in Lagos, Nigeria, grappled with recovery from floods.

Our aim was to identify the factors – and combinations of factors – that served as barriers (or enablers) to recovery from disasters.

We found that financial limitations, political interests and administrative hurdles led to prioritising immediate relief and reconstruction over long-term sustainable recovery.

In both cases immediate and long-term recovery efforts were siloed, underfunded and focused on reconstruction to pre-disaster conditions.

We concluded from our findings that the success of recovery efforts lies in balancing short-term relief and a long-term vision. While immediate aid is essential after a disaster, true resilience hinges on proactive measures that address systemic challenges and empower communities to build a better future.

Recovery should not be merely action-oriented and building back infrastructure (engineering). It should also include insights in other areas, like governance and psychology, helping people to deal with losses and to heal.

What worked

To understand the recovery pathways of the two regions, we reviewed relevant literature, newspaper articles and government documents. We also interviewed government agencies, NGO representatives, volunteers and local residents in the communities where these floods occurred.

We found that in the Ahr Valley, recovery wasn’t just about rebuilding structures, it was about empowering individuals.

Through initiatives like mental health and first aid courses, residents learned to support one another. This fostered a sense of community and resilience that was essential for meeting the emotional challenges posed by the disaster.

The focus on rebuilding with a sustainable vision also included environmental initiatives. For example, a type of heating system was put in place that didn’t rely on fossil fuels.

Not only did this reduce carbon emissions, it also served as a symbol of hope. It showed there was an opportunity to create a more sustainable and environmentally friendly community.

In Lagos, too, residents found strength in community and innovation. Grassroots efforts using sustainable materials like bamboo and palm wood highlighted the ingenuity and resourcefulness of the people. Faith-based organisations provided material aid as well as emotional and spiritual support. This reinforced the bonds that held the community together.

Each community faced unique challenges. But they shared a common thread: the importance of adaptive governance – flexible decision-making and strong community ties.

For example, established building codes in the Ahr Valley provided a framework for reconstruction, ensuring that new structures were resilient and safe.

In Lagos, the absence of strong government support highlighted the critical role of community organisations in providing services and fostering a sense of shared responsibility.

What needs improvment

In both the Ahr Valley and Lagos, the journey towards recovery has been fraught with obstacles as well.

In the Ahr Valley, bureaucratic red tape has become a formidable barrier. Residents, eager to rebuild their lives, find themselves entangled in a complex web of regulations and lengthy approval processes. This has delayed their access to insurance and recovery funds. Waiting for months or even years has eroded hope and fuelled a sense of abandonment.

Meanwhile, in Lagos, insufficient government support has left communities to fend for themselves, creating a breeding ground for uncertainty and conflict.

Land tenure disputes, fuelled by a lack of clear property rights, sow seeds of distrust and hinder resettlement efforts. Political disagreements complicate the picture, as competing interests divert attention and resources away from those who need them most.

In Lagos, none of the respondents reported having insurance to help them to recover from disaster-related losses.

While some residents in the Ahr Valley did have insurance, many were under-insured.

The Ahr Valley’s building codes offer a framework for reconstruction. But it’s clear that processes should be streamlined so communities can take ownership of their recovery.

In Lagos, the importance of robust social safety nets is clear. Partnerships between communities and authorities are also needed.

A different approach

Recovery isn’t a separate process that occurs after disasters only. It should be seen as an essential part of managing risks. It’s important to understand what recovery involves and what resources are needed.

This will help reduce future risks and increase resilience after extreme events.

Governments should encourage flexible governance structures that value community voices and local knowledge to enable recovery. A good example is the New Orleans Recovery Authority, established after Hurricane Katrina. It involved local residents and city officials in planning and rebuilding efforts.

Grassroots efforts in Lagos demonstrated the power of sustainable materials and community-led initiatives. Seeing things from the community’s point of view can help tailor solutions that fit the situation and adapt to evolving challenges.

Training and capacity-building programmes empower communities to be active in their own recovery.

Mental health and first aid courses were successful in the Ahr Valley. Equipping individuals with skills in sustainable practices and disaster preparedness helps weave a social fabric capable of weathering future storms.

Olasunkanmi Habeeb Okunola is a Visiting Scientist at, the United Nations University – Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS)

Saskia E. Werners works with United Nations University, Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS). She is grateful to have received research grants in support of her research on climate change adaptation and recovery.

– ref. Post-flood recovery: lessons from Germany and Nigeria on how to help people cope with loss and build resilience – https://theconversation.com/post-flood-recovery-lessons-from-germany-and-nigeria-on-how-to-help-people-cope-with-loss-and-build-resilience-240260

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Maria S. Floro, Professor Emerita of Economics, American University

The world is witnessing the consequences of climate change: long-lasting changes in temperature and rainfall, and more intense and frequent extreme weather events such as heat waves, hurricanes, typhoons, flooding and drought. All make it harder for families and communities to meet their care needs.

Climate change affects care systems in various ways. First, sudden illnesses and unexpected disabilities heighten the need for care. Second, it reduces access to important inputs for care such as water, food and safe shelter. Third, it can damage physical and social care infrastructures.

It can also lead to breakdowns of traditional units of caregiving such as households and communities. And it creates new situations of need with the increase in displaced person settlements and refugee camps.

Climate change creates sudden spikes in the demand for care, and serious challenges to meeting the growing need for care. All this has immediate and long lasting effects on human well-being.

The size of the current unmet care needs throughout the world is substantial. In childcare alone, about 23% of children worldwide – nearly 350 million – need childcare but do not have it. Families in low- and lower-middle-income countries are the most in need.

Similarly, as the world’s population ages rapidly, only a small proportion of the elderly who need assistance are able to use formal care (in an institution or paid homecare). Most are cared for by family members or other unpaid caregivers. Much of this unpaid care and formal care work is provided by women and girls.

Hundreds of millions of people around the world struggle to get healthcare. Expansion of access to essential health services has slowed compared to pre-2015 . And healthcare costs still create financial hardship.

Without comprehensive public and global support for care provision and the integration of care in the climate agenda, unmet care needs will only grow and inequalities will widen.

Impact

Climate change interacts with human health in complex ways. Its impact is highly uneven across populations. It depends on geographical region, income, education, gender roles, social norms, level of development, and the institutional capacity and accessibility of health systems.

In 2018-22, Africa experienced the biggest increase in the
heat-related mortality rate since 2000-05. This is not surprising as the continent has more frequent health-threatening temperatures than ever before and a growing population of people older than 65.

Africa is also the region most affected by droughts in 2013-22, with 64% of its land area affected by at least one month of extreme drought per year on average. It was followed by Oceania (55% of its land area) and South and Central America (53%).

Scientific evidence also points to increases in health inequalities caused by climate change. The health effects of climate change are not uniformly felt by different population groups.

Exposure, severity of impact, and ability of individuals to recover depend on a variety of factors. Physiological characteristics, income, education, type of occupation, location, social norms and health systems are some of them.

For example, older people and young children face the greatest health risks from high temperatures.

There is also evidence of the disproportionate effect of climate change on the health of people living in poverty and those who belong to disadvantaged groups.

Women of lower social and economic status and with less education are more vulnerable to heat stress compared to women in wealthier households and with higher education or social status. They are exposed to pollution in the absence of clean cooking fuel, and to extreme heat as they walk to gather water and fuel, or do other work outdoors.

Bad sanitation in poor urban areas increases the incidence of water-borne diseases after heavy rains and floods.

Lack of access to healthcare services and the means to pay for medicines make it difficult for women and men in low-income households to recover from illness, heat strokes, and air pollution-related ailments.

Mental health problems are being attributed to climate change as well. Studies show that the loss of family or kin member, home, livelihood and a safe environment can bring about direct emotional impacts.

These adverse impacts increase the demand for caregiving and the care workload. Climate-induced health problems force family and community caregivers, particularly women, to spend more time looking after the sick and disabled, particularly frail elderly people and children.

Effect on food and water

Climate change threatens the availability of food, clean water and safe shelter. It erodes households’ and communities’ care capacity and hence societies’ ability to thrive.

Fluctuations in food supply and rising food prices as a result of environmental disasters, along with the inadequacy of government policies, underscore the mounting challenge of meeting food needs.

The threat of chronic shortage of safe drinking water has also risen. Water scarcity is an area where structural inequalities and gender disparities are laid bare.

Care for the sick and disabled, the young and the elderly is compromised when water is scarce.

Effects on providing care

Extreme weather events disrupt physical care infrastructures. It may be hard to reach hospitals, clinics, daycare centres, nursery schools and nursing homes. Some facilities may be damaged and have to close.

Another type of care system that can break down is family networks and support provided by friends and neighbours. These informal care sharing arrangements are illustrated in a study of the three large informal settlements in Nairobi.

About half (50.5%) of the sampled households reported having had a sick member in the two weeks before the survey. The majority relied on close friends and family members living nearby for care and support.

Studies have shown that climate change eventually leads to livelihood loss and resource scarcity, which can weaken social cohesion and local safety nets in affected communities.

Heightened risks and uncertainty and imminent changes in socio-economic and political conditions can also compel individuals or entire households to migrate. Migration is caused by a host of factors, but it has increasingly been a climate-related response.

The World Bank’s Groundswell Report released in 2018, for example, projected that climate change could force 216 million people to move within their countries by 2050 to avoid the slow-onset impacts of climate change.

A possible consequence of migration is the withdrawal of care support provided by the migrating extended kin, neighbours or friends, increasing the caregiving load of people left behind.

In the case of forced displacements, the traditional social networks existing in communities are disrupted entirely.

What’s needed

There are compelling reasons to believe that meeting care needs can also help mitigate the effects of climate change. And actions to meet carbon-zero goals, prevent biodiversity loss and regenerate ecosystems can reduce the care work burden that falls heavily on families, communities and women.

Any effort to tackle these grave problems should be comprehensive in scope and must be based on principles of equality, universality, and responsibility shared by all.

This article is part of a series of articles initiated through a project led by the Southern Centre for Inequality studies, in collaboration with the International Development Research Centre and a group of feminist economists and climate scientists across the world.

Maria S. Floro does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Climate change is making it harder for people to get the care they need – https://theconversation.com/climate-change-is-making-it-harder-for-people-to-get-the-care-they-need-240557