Becoming remote... Living in the ruins: Toward a critique of digital humanitarianism

Utilizando la gestión de desastre humanitario como ejemplo, este artículo analiza con una mirada crítica algunos cambios recientes que se han producido en la naturaleza de la gobernanza de la seguridad. Sobre todo, la desaparición de la participación directa en favor del desarrollo de técnicas de detección y gestión a distancia. La rápida evolución de las tecnologías de la información y el análisis de datos para la gestión de los desastres ha proporcionado un medio para conseguir esta distancia de forma digital. A pesar de la arrogancia y las reivindicaciones positivas que rodean este cambio, el artículo argumentará que tales formas de gestión tienen consecuencias preocupantes. Por ejemplo, la creciente dependencia de la detección y la gestión a distancia son una parte esencial del creciente dominio de la idea de la resiliencia. Ya no buscamos controlar o protegernos de los desastres. Ahora, el objetivo es adaptarse a ellos. A través de ejemplos extraídos de los programas de transferencia de dinero o el reciente plan de Google y Facebook de conectar a la red a las poblaciones del Sur global donde el acceso es complicado, el documento concluye con un argumento crítico que defiende que esta nueva tecnología tiene la capacidad de perpetuar la desigualdad en lugar de promover la libertad o el desarrolloWith humanitarian disaster management as a main example, this article takes a critical look at some recent changes in the nature of security governance. Especially, the withdrawal from face-to-face engagement with the external world in favour of developing techniques of remote sensing and management. In disaster management, the rapid adoption of information technologies and data analysis has provided a means to recapture distance digitally. Despite the hubris and affirmatory claims surrounding this adoption, the paper goes on to argue that such forms of recapture have concerning consequences. For example, the growing dependency on remote sensing and management is an essential part of the rise to dominance of resilience-thinking. We are no longer expected to control or protect ourselves from disaster events. The aim now is to endlessly adapt. Using examples drawn from cash-transfer programmes and the current Google and Facebook plans to connect difficult to reach populations in the global South, the paper concludes with the critical argument that new technology has the ability to lock-in inequality rather than promoting freedom or developmen

Carry on killing: Global governance, humanitarianism and terror

In this working paper, Mark Duffield analyses the new security-development terrain in terms of theoretical and historical relations between sovereignty and governance, between hard and soft forms of power. His focus is on the structure and functions of global governance and the current crisis of the non-governmental humanitarian organizations whose relations to sovereignty have become evermore exposed as humanitarian interventions have been substituted by operations for regime change in the global “borderlands”.I dette arbejdspapir analyserer Mark Duffield feltet mellem sikkerhed og udvikling, som det har udviklet sig siden den kolde krigs afslutning. Duffield analyserer feltet i forhold til de teoretiske og historiske relationer mellem suverænitet og regeringsførelse, mellem såkaldt hårde og bløde former for magt, der i den aktuelle kontekst af ’global governance’ er tæt sammenvævet. Han fokuserer på den globale regeringsførelses struktur og funktioner og især på de ikke-statslige humanitære organisationers aktuelle krise, hvor deres forhold til suverænitet er blevet stadig mere åbenlyst efterhånden som de humanitære interventioner er blevet afløst af militære interventioner, der har til formål at udskifte politiske regimer

Fragile states and the return of native Administration

Ponencia presentada en el I Congreso Internacional Sobre Desarrollo Humano, Palacio Municipal de Congresos, Madrid, 14 a 16 de noviembre de 2006Durante los últimos años, un número de ideas relacionadas con el trabajo en “entornos difíciles”, o que implican países descritos como “malos actores” o “estados frágiles” han entrado en el discurso político. Tratan de describir el reto del desarrollo en una época de inestabilidad global y de extendido fallo estatal. Estas ideas son similares en contenido y aquí nos referimos a ellas como el estado frágil, o el discurso sobre el estado frágil. El pensamiento de los gobiernos donantes sobre la reconstrucción de los estados frágiles se entiende como la punta de lanza de la política actual. De cualquier forma, además de explorar éste discurso, éste trabajo se basa en las suposiciones y disposiciones desarrolladas dentro de la cobertura del imperialismo liberal, en concreto, la práctica colonial del gobierno indirecto o administración nativa. En vez de ser esencialmente nuevo, el discurso sobre el estado frágil es más bien una reinscripción contemporánea de enfoques anteriores sobre el problema del espacio no gobernado. Dado el fallo histórico de semejantes tecnologías para revertir el rechazo al tutelaje occidental, en una época de guerra indefinida y de creciente insurgencia global, es tan urgente como relevante un examen crítico de esta arqueologíaOver the last several years, a number of ideas relating to working in “difficult environments”, or engaging countries described as “poor performers” or “fragile states” have entered policy discourse. They attempt to describe the challenge for development at a time of global instability and the widespread occurrence of state failure. In content, these ideas are similar and are referred to here as the fragile state, or fragile state discourse. Donor government thinking on reconstructing fragile states is regarded as the cutting-edge of current policy. Besides exploring this discourse however, this paper draws out its reliance on assumptions and dispositions developed within the fold of liberal imperialism; in particular the colonial practice of indirect rule or Native Administration. Rather than being essentially new, fragile state discourse is more a contemporary re-inscription of earlier approaches to the problem of ungoverned space. Given the historic failure of such technologies to reverse the rejection of Western tutelage, at a time of indefinite war and deepening global insurgency, a critical examination of this archaeology is both pressing and relevant

An advanced systemic lesson learned knowledge model for project organisations

The research study described in this thesis was inspired by many years as a project manager, watching the failure of organisation projects, and the lessons learned. This led to the research idea of how can the lessons learned enable organisations to learn from past project experiences to drive continuous improvement. The thesis is based on five published publications that collectively make a significant contribution to knowledge of the development of the Systemic Lessons Learned Knowledge (Syllk) model (Paper One) and application of the Syllk model (Papers Two, Three and Four) and the research methodology (Paper Five). I have applied an action research study which addressed the dual imperatives of both the research and problem solving by using a series of action research cycles on three separate projects. The research method consisted of multiple spiral action research cycles. I have demonstrated how to apply the Syllk model to enable the organisations to disseminate and apply knowledge/lessons learned. The initial planning stage consisted of interviews, followed by focus groups, to identify the facilitators and barriers that impact upon the initial design of the Syllk model within the organisation. Established knowledge management practices were aligned with each of the Syllk elements to address the identified barriers and facilitate learning as the action cycles progressed. Initiatives were implemented, and actions were observed, monitored, and then evaluated after a period of reflection using an after-action review process. The results from this research showed how knowledge capability can be wired (distributed) across organisational systems (capability networked) and how the Syllk model can be used to conceptually facilitate this. The research study described in this thesis provides insights into how an organisation learns and how it can be effectively wired to acquire and accumulate knowledge, including from lessons learned. The thesis highlights that the variables of the Syllk model (learning, culture, social, technology, process and infrastructure) were found to be the most dynamic and influential for the organisation participating in the action research. The action research outcomes showed that an organisation is not a simple structure, but rather, a complex interweaving and coupling (capability network) of the Syllk elements of people and systems. Processes in the organisation need to align with the elements of the Syllk model. Using action research is one possible way forward. One needs to understand how the organisation is wired for knowledge and lessons learned. The findings from this research form a sound structure for future research studies based on the application of the Syllk model. This research supports the premise that to successfully manage projects and day-to-day business activities, the learning process is challenged by many barriers. The thesis demonstrates that action research can benefit project management and knowledge management researchers and practitioners

Seguridad Humana: vincular desarrollo y seguridad en una era de terror

La seguridad humana es comúnmente entendida como la priorización de la seguridad de las personas, especialmente su bienestar social, seguridad y calidad de vida, por encima de la seguridad de los estados. Sin embargo, lejos de examinar la seguridad humana como una condición medible o específica, el objetivo de este artículo es indagar cómo la seguridad humana —como tecnología de gobernanza— determina la forma en que las poblaciones que viven en los territorios de estados ineficaces son comprendidas, diferenciadas y validadas por las instituciones de cooperación provenientes de los países eficaces. Para conseguirlo, primero definirá el término desarrollo desde una perspectiva biopolítica, es decir, como una tecnología de seguridad orientada a promover la vida de poblaciones que —comparadas con los habitantes de sociedades desarrolladas— están en esencia "no aseguradas". Para este artículo es de especial interés examinar cómo la seguridad humana, entendida como una relación de gobernanza, ha continuado evolucionando de la mano de la guerra contra el terrorismo. Hacia finales de la década de los noventa, la seguridad humana condensaba una visión que integraba las redes de ayuda existentes en un sistema internacional de intervención coordinado, capaz de complementar los esfuerzos de los estados ineficaces para brindar seguridad a sus ciudadanos y a sus economías. Comparada con esta noción más universalista de seguridad humana, en la que desarrollo y seguridad se entendían como “diferentes pero iguales”, la guerra contra el terrorismo ha profundizado la interconexión entre desarrollo y seguridad. En particular, está reenfocando los recursos de cooperación hacia aquellas subpoblaciones, regiones y asuntos que se consideran un riesgo para la seguridad nacional de los estados desarrollados. Mientras algunas organizaciones no gubernamentales (ONG) se preocupan por las crecientes amenazas a su independencia, para otras han surgido nuevas posibilidades y oportunidades para la interacción estatal/no-estatal

Los estados frágiles y el retorno de la administración nativa

Durante los últimos años, un número de ideas relacionadas con el trabajo en “entornos difíciles”, o que implican países descritos como “malos actores” o “estados frágiles” han entrado en el discurso político. Tratan de describir el reto del desarrollo en una época de inestabilidad global y de extendido fallo estatal. Estas ideas son similares en contenido y aquí nos referimos a ellas como el estado frágil, o el discurso sobre el estado frágil. El pensamiento de los gobiernos donantes sobre la reconstrucción de los estados frágiles se entiende como la punta de lanza de la política actual. De cualquier forma, además de explorar éste discurso, éste trabajo se basa en las suposiciones y disposiciones desarrolladas dentro de la cobertura del imperialismo liberal, en concreto, la práctica colonial del gobierno indirecto o administración nativa. En vez de ser esencialmente nuevo, el discurso sobre el estado frágil es más bien una reinscripción contemporánea de enfoques anteriores sobre el problema del espacio no gobernado. Dado el fallo histórico de semejantes tecnologías para revertir el rechazo al tutelaje occidental, en una época de guerra indefinida y de creciente insurgencia global, es tan urgente como relevante un examen crítico de esta arqueología

Biodiversity 2020: climate change evaluation report

In 2011, the government published Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem services [1]. This strategy for England builds on the 2011 Natural Environment White Paper - NEWP [2] and provides a comprehensive picture of how we are implementing our international and EU commitments. It sets out the strategic direction for biodiversity policy between 2011-2020 on land (including rivers and lakes) and at sea, and forms part of the UK’s commitments under the ‘the Aichi targets’ agreed in 2010 under the United Nations Convention of Biological Diversity’s Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 [3]. Defra is committed to evaluating the Biodiversity 2020 strategy and has a public commitment to assess climate change adaptation measures. This document sets out the information on assessing how action under Biodiversity 2020 has helped our wildlife and ecosystems to adapt to climate change. Biodiversity 2020 aims to halt the loss of biodiversity and restore functioning ecosystems for wildlife and for people. The outcomes and actions in Biodiversity 2020, although wider in scope, aimed to increase resilience of our wildlife and ecosystems in the face of a changing climate. In order to inform the assessment, we have defined which of the measurable outputs under Biodiversity 2020 contribute to resilience. Biodiversity 2020 included plans to develop and publish a dedicated set of indicators to assess progress towards the delivery of the strategy. The latest list (at the time of writing), published in 2017, contains 24 biodiversity indicators [4] that would help inform progress towards achieving specific outcomes, they are also highly relevant to the outputs (detailed below) that form the basis for this evaluation. The Adaptation Sub-Committee’s 2017 UK Climate Change Risk Assessment Evidence Report [5] sets out the priority climate change risks and opportunities for the UK. The ASC also produced a review of progress in the National Adaptation Programme - “Progress in preparing for climate change” [6], which highlights adaptation priorities and progress being made towards achieving them. The UK Government’s response to the ASC [7] review includes a set of recommendations, of which Recommendation 6 states that “Action should be taken to enhance the condition of priority habitats and the abundance and range of priority species”. The recommendation further iterated that “This action should maintain or extend the level of ambition that was included in Biodiversity 2020” and that “An evaluation should be undertaken of Biodiversity 2020 including the extent to which goals have been met and of the implications for resilience to climate change.” To this, end an evaluation process has been put in place to define: a. What worked and why? Which actions or activities have had the greatest benefit in terms of delivering the desired outcomes? And, conversely, what prevented progress? b. Where are the opportunities? What are the financial, political, scientific and social opportunities for furthering the desired outcomes in the future? These objectives underpin the evaluation process for actions to date, and will also inform future actions and the iteration of a new nature strategy for England