# data[].attributes.body
Wind Energy Powers New Possibilities for the Dominican Republic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Rising sea levels. Coral bleaching. Unpredictable tropical storms.

These are just some of the environmental impacts associated with climate change-and the Dominican Republic is vulnerable to many of them. To help preserve its side of Hispaniola-the second-largest island in the Caribbean-Dominican officials have targeted a 25-percent cut in greenhouse emissions by 2030.

That's a big number, but the government's plan to turn wind into energy could help it achieve its ambitious goals. IFC, along with the Government of Canada, is supporting the effort with an $80million financing package for the construction and operation of a grid-connected, 50-megawatt wind farm.

The new wind farm, called Parques Eólicos del Caribe S.A., or Pecasa, will diversify the Dominican Republic's energy matrix and ease its dependence on imported fossil fuels.Today, fuel imports account for almost 80 percent of the country's energy needs. This dependence has led to high electricity prices, which create a burden on the economy.

When completed in 2019, Pecasa will be one of the Dominican Republic's largest wind farms. It is expected to reduce greenhouse emissions by more than 90,000 tons of CO ₂; equivalent per year, which is roughly comparable to taking 20,000 cars off the road.It will power over 151,000 households.
Planning for a Changing Climate
Development of the Pecasa wind farm is important as the Dominican Republic strategizes on how to maintain some of the strongest economic growth in Latin America and the Caribbean. With this growth comes energy demand-which has increased by 3.6 percent over the last five years. Investments in the country's energy sector are crucial to sustaining this economic trajectory.

This private-sector led initiative behind Pecasa will help the Dominican Republic reduce its reliance on fossil fuels by adding wind power as an energy source. Pecasa will sell all its energy output to the government-owned power company, Corporación Dominicana de Empresas Eléctricas Estatales (CDEEE), through a dollar-denominated power purchase agreement for a 20-year term.

The $120 million wind farm will be located on the country's northern coast, about 260 kilometers from the capital, Santo Domingo. The IFC-arranged financing package includes $18.5 million for IFC's own account, $18 million from the Dutch Development Bank (FMO), $17 million from the IFC-Canada Climate Change Program (a partnership between the Government of Canada and IFC), $15 from million Proparco, the French development finance institution, and $11.5 million from the German Investment Corporation (DEG). Pecasa is owned by Paris-based Akuo Energy SAS.

In fiscal year 2018, IFC provided $8.4 billion, including a record $4.5 billion mobilized from other investors, to finance climate-smart projects like Pecasa. This accounted for more than a third of our total commitments for the year-including funds mobilized from others-and exceeded our target for 2020. IFC's investments are expected to help our clients reduce greenhouse emissions by an estimated 10.4 million metric tons annually.

Published in August 2018

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Wind Energy Powers New Possibilities for the Dominican Republic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Rising sea levels. Coral bleaching. Unpredictable tropical storms. These are just some of the environmental impacts associated with climate change-and the Dominican Republic is vulnerable to many of them. To help preserve its side of Hispaniola-the second-largest island in the Caribbean-Dominican officials have targeted a 25-percent cut in greenhouse emissions by 2030.

# data[].attributes.body
helps save and protect the world's most vulnerable children. Rated one of the best charities to donate to, 88.4% of every dollar spent goes directly to help children.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
UNICEF's work

UNICEF works in over 190 countries and territories to save children's lives, to defend their rights, and to help them fulfil their potential, from early childhood through adolescence. And we never give up.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
UNICEF works in more than 190 countries and territories to reach the most disadvantaged children and adolescents - and to protect the rights of every child, everywhere.

# data[].attributes.headline
6 THEORIES EXPLAINING THE LIMITATIONS OF GLOBAL HEALTH INTERVENTIONS

# data[].attributes.subject
6 THEORIES EXPLAINING THE LIMITATIONS OF GLOBAL HEALTH INTERVENTIONS

# data[].attributes.body
Even the most well-intended global health interventions and delivery plans can result in unforeseen consequences. These consequences threaten the success of the health project and sometimes even have undesirable effects on the communities they attempt to serve. The Global Healthcare Delivery online short course presented by Harvard’s Office for the Vice Provost for Advances in Learning, in association with HarvardX, has been designed to help you understand how global health interventions can be threatened by social bias.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Even the most well-intended global health interventions and delivery plans can result in unforeseen consequences. These consequences threaten the success of the health project and sometimes even have undesirable effects on the communities they attempt to serve. The Global Healthcare Delivery online short course presented by Harvard's Office for the Vice Provost for Advances in Learning, in association with HarvardX, has been designed to help you understand how global health interventions can be threatened by social bias.

In Module 2 of the course, you'll explore a "toolkit" of six social theories. They can be used to better understand the effects and limitations of global health interventions so that future projects are optimally designed and executed. This interactive infographic gives you a look into Module 2 of the Global Healthcare Delivery course - showcasing a summary of each of the social theories and an example to demonstrate their use.
This interactive infographic is best viewed on a desktop. The six theories you'll cover in Module 2 of the Global Health Delivery online short course: 1. The social construction of reality
Knowledge is constructed through perceptions or the outcomes of interactions between people. Over time, this knowledge is formalized through rules and habits, so that it eventually seems objective, and thus unquestionable.
2. Unintended consequences of purposive action
Deciding on a plan of action requires a choice informed by the decision maker's knowledge, values, or motives. This choice influences the intended outcome, as well as any unexpected outcomes. These unintended outcomes may be positive or negative, but they're often overlooked by the official outcome, resulting in poor understanding of their consequences.
3. Weber's vision of modernity
Max Weber predicted that power in the 20th century would shift from families and communities to institutions and their associated bureaucracies. This resulted in organizations that can outlast their individual leaders or members but are also resistant to change, exceptions, or new ideas.
4. Local moral worlds
Shared value structures characterize different environments, and influence the actions of individuals who may or may not be in agreement with them. This theory also helps to identify how the values that people strive to live by may be greatly limited by the demands of the context they find themselves in.
5. Biopower
In contrast to times of sovereigns where monarchs had control over death, modern governments now control populations through the use of knowledge and systems that grant them surveillance. Individuals internalize the state's control by regulating their actions in acknowledgment of being monitored.
6. Social suffering
Most health challenges originate from larger social forces (such as poverty or gender inequality) and often from the same structures (such as institutions or policies) created to counter these forces. Their consequences rarely affect an individual alone; their family and community also suffer.

Want to use social theories to ensure your health projects achieve success? Register for the Global Health Delivery online short course from Harvard's VPAL.
REGISTER NOW
Related stories

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
6 Theories Explaining The Limitations of Global Health Interventions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Even the most well-intended global health interventions and delivery plans can result in unforeseen consequences. These consequences threaten the success of the health project and sometimes even have undesirable effects on the communities they attempt to serve.

# data[].attributes.body
Worldwide, more than 650 million women alive today were married as children. An estimated 12 million girls under 18 are married each year. Girls who marry before they turn 18 are less likely to remain in school and more likely to experience domestic violence. Young teenage girls are more likely to die due to complications in pregnancy and childbirth than women in their 20s; their infants are more likely to be stillborn or die in the first month of life.

# data[].attributes.body
In Bangladesh, Cox's Bazar is a well-known honeymoon destination. It is famous for having one of the longest unbroken beaches in the world. But only 16 km from the vacation spot, there is a different reality.
http://www.who.int/images/default-source/rohingya-one-year-on/refugees.jpg?sfvrsn=acd8a567_2

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Supporting health of Rohingya in Bangladesh: One year on

# data[].attributes.body
GOING “ABOVE AND BEYOND” FOR PATIENTS ACROSS THE MIDDLE EAST

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A strong and engaged private sector is indispensable to ending extreme poverty and boosting shared prosperity. That's where IFC comes in-we have more than 60 years of experience in unlocking private investment, creating markets and opportunities where they're needed most.

# data[].attributes.headline
U.S. cuts all funding to UN agency for Palestinian refugees

# data[].attributes.subject
U.S. cuts all funding to UN agency for Palestinian refugees

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
After months of review, the Trump administration has announced it will stop all funding to the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which in recent years reached $350 million annually.

Why it matters: The U.S. was the main funder of UNRWA for years. Many in the State Department, Pentagon and intelligence community had reservations about a total funding cut, fearing it would further destabilize Jordan, Gaza and the West Bank. The move to stop all U.S. funding to UNRWA was led by senior adviser Jared Kushner and UN Ambassador Nikki Haley.

The cutting of U.S. aid to UNRWA will make the continuation of the agency's operations in the Middle East almost impossible.

The decision might also lead to serious deterioration in the humanitarian situation of Palestinian refugees due to the fact that UNRWA provides food, medical services and education to millions of Palestinian refugees in Gaza, the West Bank, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.

The U.S. will now try to transfer aid to Palestinian refugees through other channels.

The Trump administration statement said the decision to cut funding to UNRWA was made because the U.S. "was no longer willing to shoulder the very disproportionate share of the burden of UNRWA's costs." The statement also said most of the international community has not shown sufficient response to U.S. requests for burden sharing.

In its statement, the Trump administration also criticized UNRWA for its "unsustainable and flawed business model and fiscal practices" mainly the agency's "endlessly and exponentially expanding community of entitled beneficiaries". - is simply unsustainable and has been in crisis mode for many years.

The statement did not say anything about the Trump administration's policy regarding the Palestinian refugee issue - one of the core issues in every final status negotiation between Israel and the Palestinians.

A report on Israel's Channel 2 News claimed last week that the Trump administration will announce it's taking the refugee issue "off the table."

A senior U.S. official told me those reports were false and stressed there is no change in U.S. policy on the Palestinian refugees issue at this time:

"We continue to study and evaluate alternatives for an equitable resolution of all refugee issues."

The U.S. official also said the Trump administration is not trying to dismantle UNRWA and is not planning on asking Israel to stop its operations in the West Bank.

What's next: Despite the decision to stop funding to UNRWA, the Trump administration is going to try and find way to give aid to Palestinian refugees through different UN agencies or through host countries.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is supportive of the U.S. move, but many in the Israeli defense establishment are worried it will lead to unrest in the West Bank and Gaza.

Officials in Netanyahu's office tell me Israel thinks the U.S. aid should be transferred to other organizations so that it could be spent for the benefit of the Palestinian population "and not for perpetuating the Palestinian refugee ethos."

The Palestinians, who have cut off talks with the U.S., see the U.S. decision on UNRWA as a further attempt to push them into accepting the peace plan the White House has been working on for months.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
U.S. cuts all funding to UN agency for Palestinian refugees

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After months of review, the Trump administration has announced it will stop all funding to the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which in recent years reached $350 million annually. Why it matters: The U.S. was the main funder of UNRWA for years.

# data[].attributes.headline
One Year After Irma, a Focus on Weathering the Next StormSeptember 6, 2018

# data[].attributes.subject
One Year After Irma, a Focus on Weathering the Next StormSeptember 6, 2018

# data[].attributes.body
On Sept. 6, 2017, Hurricane Irma roared across the Atlantic — bringing widespread destruction to Anguilla, Barbuda, the British Virgin Islands, Turks and Caicos, the Dominican Republic, Haiti and Cuba. Just two weeks later, Hurricane Maria swept through Dominica, Guadalupe and Puerto Rico, compounding the region's woes and requiring UNICEF and its partners to redouble their efforts to bring lifesaving aid to the hundreds of thousands of people who had been impacted.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On Sept. 6, 2017, Hurricane Irma roared across the Atlantic - bringing widespread destruction to Anguilla, Barbuda, the British Virgin Islands, Turks and Caicos, the Dominican Republic, Haiti and Cuba. Just two weeks later, Hurricane Maria swept through Dominica, Guadalupe and Puerto Rico, compounding the region's woes and requiring UNICEF and its partners to redouble their efforts to bring lifesaving aid to the hundreds of thousands of people who had been impacted.

Emergency responders worked quickly to distribute clean water, food, medicine and other emergency supplies to affected children and families. UNICEF also provided educational supplies and tents to serve as temporary learning spaces, while helping to restore and reopen damaged schools. A "Return to Happiness" program was also launched, with UNICEF providing psychosocial support to traumatized children.

In the months since, UNICEF has been working with governments and local NGOs to develop longer-term solutions to the "new normal" of severe weather - strengthening emergency preparedness and local capacities for disaster risk management, and developing "shock-resistant" social protection systems, so that when the next disaster strikes, children can be kept out of harm's way and their basic needs can be met.

In Dominica, for example, teachers and students worked together to create contingency plans specific to their own schools in advance of this year's hurricane season. Students built 3D models mapping their school compounds, noting any dangers or vulnerabilities.

The chief aim of this effort, Dominica's Chief Education Officer Melena Fontaine explained, was to make sure all schools have a basic school emergency operation plan that everyone - students, principals, teachers, ancillary staff - can understand and become familiar with, "so that whatever hazard comes our way, we know what it is we must do to safeguard life and property."

Ahijah, a 15-year-old who attends North East Comprehensive School in Wesley, said he remained "terrified" of what the next hurricane might do, but is reassured by the disaster planning and preparedness training he received after Hurricane Maria.

Sheranda, a 15-year-old student at Community High School in Roseau, was also happy to participate in the process. "I feel better prepared this time," she said.

The first part of this year's Atlantic hurricane season has been quiet - some say too quiet - producing nothing close to last year's string of storms, which together caused an estimated $200 billion in damage.

There's still time, however: Peak season continues through late October.

Support UNICEF's efforts to build resilience and mitigate the effects of weather-related disasters on vulnerable children and families. Your contribution can make a difference.

Top photo: Two girls from Barbuda hold school supplies and other items they received from UNICEF after Hurricane Irma devastated their island home, forcing them to flee to Antigua with many other children and families. ©UNICEF/UN0121377/Gonzales

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
One Year After Irma, a Focus on Weathering the Next Storm

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On Sept. 6, 2017, Hurricane Irma roared across the Atlantic - bringing widespread destruction to Anguilla, Barbuda, the British Virgin Islands, Turks and Caicos, the Dominican Republic, Haiti and Cuba.

# data[].attributes.body
WHO began when our Constitution came into force on 7 April 1948 – a date we now celebrate every year as World Health Day. We are now more than 7000 people from more than 150 countries working in 150 country offices, in 6 regional offices and at our headquarters in Geneva.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The United Nations agency working to promote health, keep the world safe and serve the vulnerable.

# data[].attributes.headline
How The US Elevates Corporate Interests Over Global Public Health. And How The World Can Respond

# data[].attributes.subject
How The US Elevates Corporate Interests Over Global Public Health. And How The World Can Respond

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
At the May 2018 World Health Assembly, the United States threatened " punishing" trade sanctions if Ecuador supported a resolution urging women to breastfeed their newborns, according to the New York Times. That threat also likely deterred other lower-income countries from offering the resolution. Ultimately, Russia proffered the resolution, and the US withdrew its threats. The US has a history of opposing international actions that could harm the infant formula industry, which has moved aggressively to expand their markets in low- and middle-income countries. US-based multinationals comprise three of the six dominant infant formula producers globally.

In some ways, this episode was merely a continuation of long-standing US government support for corporate interests, at the expense of global public health. The Los Angeles Times called this " the American way." Previous administrations, for example, have advanced private-sector causes in global health forums and free trade negotiations, such as defending pharmaceutical companies' intellectual property rights and opposing calls for more affordable access to medicines. In another sense, however, the breastfeeding case is emblematic of the Trump administration in particular: combining an ardent defense of US corporate interests with a disdain for global norms, international institutions, and scientific evidence. No previous administration has been so cavalier in its willingness to eschew the very international order the US built.

Along with support for infant formula manufacturers, the US has long supported the pharmaceutical industry in its insistence on strong patent protections and opposition to using mechanisms such as compulsory licensing to override intellectual property rights. The World Trade Organization's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) permits countries to declare a national emergency and then issue compulsory license, including for expensive branded drugs. The 2001 Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health affirmed countries' prerogative to take such actions, including for public health crises, which enable people to access patented medicines at affordable prices. Still, the US often opposes countries exercising this prerogative even when they are acting in full compliance with the TRIPS Agreement. That agreement was forged by the US itself, which sought greater worldwide uniformity in patent and trademark protection.

In 2016, for instance, the US raised concerns over Colombia's proposal to use compulsory licensing to make a cancer treatment manufactured by the Swiss pharmaceutical giant Novartis more affordable for Colombians. US pharmaceutical companies feared the precedent this could create. The US trade representative and US Senate Finance Committee threatened to hold back millions of US aid dollars to Colombia and shelve a bilateral trade agreement. Ultimately, Colombia issued a compulsory license, and the US did not follow through on its threat. Still, the US ambassador to Colombia called for urgent consultations-even though Colombia was taking a purely domestic action that was TRIPS-authorized, and US interests were not directly involved.

In 2014, the US warned India against further use of compulsory licensing and the continual expansion of its generic manufacturing industry and maintained India on a priority watch list, pressure that resulted in India issuing a new intellectual property policy in 2016. The Obama administration similarly fought for stronger drug patent protections under the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement, although ultimately the Trump administration decided not to proceed with either.

More recently, the Trump administration staunchly opposed any reference to TRIPS flexibilities in the Political Declaration on the Fight Against Tuberculosis, scheduled for adoption at this month's United Nations (UN) High-Level Meeting on Tuberculosis. The US stood isolated, as all the G77 nations pushed for TRIPS flexibilities in the declaration's text. The US mission to the UN said that mentioning intellectual property would be a distraction. In the end, the US succeeded in removing any mention of patents in the declaration's text in part due to an institutional norm for prioritizing consensus even at the expense of substance. The only references to TRIPS and the Doha Declaration appear in the preamble, instead of among countries' commitments in the operative section of the tuberculosis declaration.

Even the preamble language on intellectual property is watered down: "Intellectual property rights are an important incentive in the development of new health products." An earlier draft mentioned the need for other incentives for research and development, but the final version emphasized only the role of intellectual property. (This runs counter to the World Health Organization's (WHO's) 2011 Global Strategy and Plan of Action on Public Health, Innovation, and Intellectual Property, which states: "Intellectual property rights ... alone do not [afford sufficient incentives] to meet the need for the development of new products to fight diseases where the potential paying market is small or uncertain.") Nor does the preamble to the Political Declaration on the Fight Against Tuberculosis recognize that patent protections can lead to high prices, a major barrier to access.

President Donald Trump has insisted on renegotiating the Korea-US Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA), initially concluded during the first term of the Obama administration. Among the United States' new complaints: By keeping down the price of domestically manufactured drugs as covered by its national health insurance plan, South Korea was essentially preventing competing US suppliers from maximizing their profits. The new KORUS FTA will include provisions benefiting US-based pharmaceuticals.

The attempt to undermine WHO guidelines on antimicrobial resistance (AMR) offers another telling illustration of the administration's disrespect of international norms and institutions. WHO guidelines-released in November 2017 after two years of work by experts in infectious disease, veterinary medicine, and microbiology-called for an end to giving medically important antibiotics routinely to healthy animals to promote growth or prevent disease. The WHO said that the drugs should be administered only to sick animals or healthy ones in the same flock, herd, or fish population. Even then, drugs "critically important for human medicine" should not be used. In response, the US Agriculture Department termed the WHO's guidelines "shoddy science," stating that the guidelines "are not in alignment with U.S. policy and are not supported by sound science." Presently, the US is drafting an alternative approach that is more favorable to agribusiness. All this despite the fact that AMR is a major public health threat.

Similarly, the Trump administration has defended the interests of manufacturers of sugary sweetened beverages and other unhealthy foods and beverages. During the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, the US proposed banning "front-of-package" labeling of foods unhealthily high in salt, fat, or sugar. Canada rejected the US proposal. Front-of-package labeling to nudge consumers toward healthier products has been increasing worldwide, and Canada has been actively exploring this public health measure. The Center for Economic and Policy Research criticized the US effort as " non-trade-related," as front-of-package labeling is designed only to protect domestic public health. The US position on this issue is oddly juxtaposed with the Food and Drug Administration's interest in developing front-of-package labeling -although in cooperation with industry, and likely only as a recommendation.

The Trump administration successfully protected sugary sweetened beverages companies when it " torpedoed a plan to recommend higher taxes on sugary drinks," forcing the WHO Panel on Noncommunicable Diseases to step back from its plan to call for these taxes as a way to fight obesity. Two years earlier, the WHO recognized the value of such taxes as means to improve public health, and several US cities have also adopted sugary sweetened beverages taxes, including Oakland, California, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The International Food and Beverage Alliance-based in Geneva and representing companies such as Unilever, Coca-Cola, Nestlé, and PepsiCo-enthusiastically welcomed the move, while most public health advocates and experts decried it.

The revelations came as the WHO panel issued a report that recommended ways to reduce noncommunicable diseases including cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and cancer, collectively responsible for more than 40 million deaths per year. Dr. Sania Nishtar, co-chair of the panel, said that most of its 26 members supported a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages, but one commissioner stood in the way: Eric Hargan, the US deputy secretary for Health and Human Services. He asserted that it was unclear that sugary drink taxes would improve public health, even though the WHO had earlier found that they would.

Of course, it is not just through the aggressive elevation of corporate interests that the current administration is undermining international norms developed over generations. Such efforts are but one piece of its broader disregard for international cooperation to resolve global health, environmental, security, and other threats. Last year, the Trump administration re-imposed the Global Gag Rule, preventing recipients of US funding from providing abortions or counseling clients about their abortion options even with their own funds and expanded the scope of funds that would be withheld from family planning funding to all US global health funding. In response, the Dutch government established an international funding initiative to support organizations affected by the US policy, raising an initial $190 million.

It is just such solidarity and resistance-such as Canada's stand against banning front-of-packaging food labeling-that should form the international response to US efforts that promote industry interests over public health, that disregard global norms aimed at promoting health and human rights, that seek to undermine global institutions, and that dismiss solid science. As the Dutch sought to mitigate the harm caused by the Global Gag Rule, international funders could seek to replace any losses in aid that countries experience that stand against the Trump administration in support of health and human rights. And international negotiators should be willing to break with norms of consensus if that is what is necessary for health and human rights to win out.

It may not always be possible for countries to stand up to the United States, particularly in bilateral negotiations, but wherever possible, that should be the international community's approach. There will come a time when the US returns to the international fold. Until then, the administration should be shown that bullying will not work.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How The US Elevates Corporate Interests Over Global Public Health. And How The World Can Respond

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At the May 2018 World Health Assembly, the United States threatened " punishing" trade sanctions if Ecuador supported a resolution urging women to breastfeed their newborns, according to the New York Times. That threat also likely deterred other lower-income countries from offering the resolution. Ultimately, Russia proffered the resolution, and the US withdrew its threats.

# data[].attributes.headline
USAID Newsletter Focuses On Maternal, Child HealthSep 04, 2018

# data[].attributes.subject
USAID Newsletter Focuses On Maternal, Child HealthSep 04, 2018

# data[].attributes.body
USAID’s “Global Health News”: Healthy Beginnings
USAID’s August 2018 newsletter focuses on maternal and child health. “The 1,000 days from a woman’s pregnancy through her child’s second birthday offer a tremendous opportunity to build healthier and more prosperous futures for both mothers and their babies. … By focusing on improving maternal and child health and nutrition and reducing disease during the critical first 1,000 days, USAID helps children grow into strong, productive citizens and promotes more stable, self-reliant societies…” (August 2018).