Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

Improving humanitarian information management is at the heart of next week’s conference “GeONG 2016 -Impact of humanitarian IM: Lessons from the past, shaping the future”. The conference takes place in Chambery from 17th to 19th of October. Find out more about the agenda and secure your tickets here: http://cartong.org/geong/2016/agenda

Few specialisations within humanitarian assistance have undergone as dramatic a change as Information Management (IM) over the past ten years. In 2006 CartONG was founded with the goal to improve how data is collected, analysed and displayed so that stakeholders have better information when making critical decisions in humanitarian emergencies.

What seems obvious today, took a lot of convincing at the beginning: many programme staff and decision makers did not see why dedicated information officers (IMO) should be added to rapid response teams – after all, programme staff and reporting officers had been counting tents and estimating population size for decades. Why change?

Three things have been the primary drivers behind establishing information management as a core support function since then:

– Increased expectations regarding transparency and accountability have shown that data quality was often not good enough. In addition, data sets were frequently not compatible with each other. Professional information managers were able to standardize data, collect them with better quality and satisfy donors’ demands for more frequent updates.
– Like all other professions, humanitarian aid has become far more digital over the past ten years. The number of digital tools and sensors has increased massively, resulting in amounts of data that required dedicated staff to sift through and interpret. It is simply no longer possible for someone to do this in addition to their regular job.
– The visualization tools have gotten much better: having timely and accurate data is of little value when the analysis cannot be easily interpreted by stakeholders. Where (offline) excel sheets and occasional pie charts were the state of the art, today’s decision makers can expect visual representations of data that are updated as soon as new data is uploaded and that are available to anyone with an internet connection.

THE POWER OF THE MAP

The most powerful of these visualizations tools is the modern, digitally created map. More often than not, this map is built on information that is available for free and enhanced by data that has been collected on the ground or by drones or satellites from above. In some cases the map is further augmented by volunteers who are contributing their time and expertise. IMOs – and more specifically Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Officers – help to bring it all together.

Ten years ago most humanitarians – apart from logisticians – still needed to be convinced that putting things on a map would be helpful to their work; that the ability to visualize places, infrastructure, distribution points or other operational data with a spatial context would make it easier to take take decisions, communicate and coordinate activities. A map, just like a picture, can say more than a thousand words. While this had already been impressively demonstrated 150 years ago when the English Physician John Snow used a map to identify the cause of cholera, in the humanitarian sector even epidemiologists have been slow to embrace GIS.

Part of this reluctance was due to inadequate tools. Even just a few years ago, a GIS officer had to dig deep to patch spotty basic maps together, often scanning outdated maps since GPS devices and the knowledge on how to operate them were scarce. This occasionally included interpreting pictures taken from a mountain or top of car, or, if you were very lucky, from a helicopter. Mapping drones were still years in the future in 2006 and aerial photographs and satellite images were rare and expensive.

GAME CHANGERS

Google and OpenStreetMap (OSM) changed that. When Google released Google Maps and Google Earth in 2005, the company made satellite imagery and GIS tools accessible to everyone. What had been expensive and complicated was suddenly ubiquitous and so easy that people used it to map their favourite bars and plot the route to their next holiday destinations.

Almost immediately aid workers realized that the same tools could help them at work, pinpointing locations they needed to visit and assess or where they needed to build or distribute something. Just as has been predicted by futurists like Daniel Burrus, the use of GIS rose as the technology became more user friendly. Others, like Tim Bowdon went so far as proclaiming the end of the GIS professional, believing that the user friendly tools would shortly make GIS staff obsolete

Of course, today we know that reports of the death of the GIS officer have been greatly exaggerated. While many of the basic tasks that used to require specialist knowledge can now be performed by almost anyone, it still requires trained experts to develop and maintain the tools and the data behind them.

OpenStreetMap (the “wikipedia of maps”), which was a project that started in 2004, is probably the best example that illustrates this point: on OSM, users are in full control; they collect, edit, comment and decide which datasets are published. However, this is only possible because IMs and GIS officers meticulously developed – and continue to develop – tools that are so user friendly that “amateurs” can enter data with little risk of making mistakes. Similarly, below the surface, experts define the dataset and the rules according to which data is saved, changed and harmonised.

As a result, today, OSM is the most detailed and reliable map available in many parts of the world. Within this open ecosystem, groups like the Missing Maps Project and the Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team are organizing local “Mapathons” during which they inspire digital volunteers to map regions of the world that are poorly represented on the map, particularly those that are vulnerable to natural disasters or other humanitarian crises.

This is a stark difference to Google that looks at mapping from a command-and-control approach. The company relies almost exclusively on commercial data providers for their mapping products. While users can send in suggestions, they have very little influence over the official data that is shown publicly. This reliance on commercial providers ensures a comparatively high quality of the data, but because it is proprietary, GIS officers cannot extract and re-use it for their own information products. Google deserves a lot of credit for opening the door to GIS for the masses with Google Earth and Google Maps. Yet, today, community based tools such as OSM are more relevant for humanitarians.

CHANGES IN THE FIELD

What do these innovations mean for a GIS officer in the field today?

She no longer needs to convince people that maps are useful and she is able to produce simple, printable maps far quicker and with far less effort than in the past: Within 24 hours she can put together a fairly comprehensive, basic map for most regions of the world – not completely error free, but good enough to be of use before the first data collected in the field comes in. For the most part, this data will be uploaded remotely by smartphones or drawn by the field staff directly within the Google Earth application itself. Occasionally, she will still receive data from stand-alone GPS devices. Within a few days, this fresh data will allow her to edit and improve the first maps and include relevant information that field staff and sector specialists need, such as: Which bridges are damaged? Where will water collect when it rains? What is the slope of the terrain? How many people live in this community?

CHALLENGES

What are the main challenges that an IM and specifically a GIS has to deal with today?

Given the many new tools and data sources as well as the ability to access them from almost anywhere in the world, the demands placed on IM and GIS officers have changed substantially:

Herself not being able to know each and every tool by heart, she is expected to advise what tools to use, to collect, analyze and visualize the data. This is difficult, unless she has a peer group or a supporting organisation that is regularly comparing the different tools that are on the market. Knowing that the technology can change quickly, she needs to understand that a well through procedure to collect or verify data might be more important than a specific tool.

She needs to try to ensure that her work has a lasting impact. This means she needs to identify and work with the different data silos that need to be connected to allow a holistic view of a given situation in a humanitarian crisis. She needs to communicate with the users of her data products as well as with all partners. In larger crisis, she might even be expected to take on a coordinating role to ensure that the data coming in through collaborations with other partners is consistent, follows agreed standards and can be easily turned into information.

She also better have a sense of humour when she is once again asked to fix someone else’s Excel problems or is mistaken for a reporting officer.

In the commercial world, these diverse skillsets are collected in business intelligence units where whole teams of people work on these issues to find out whether shelves in a supermarket need to be stocked differently, or when gadgets needs to be ordered in China to ensure they arrive in time for Christmas. Humanitarian Information Managers on the other hand are frequently alone in the field and need to document and predict the needs for life saving assistance.

Over the last ten years, decision makers in the humanitarian sector have embraced the fact that information is available at their fingertips. This is progress since it has helped to professionalise humanitarian aid and has also increased transparency and accountability.

Following acceptance of the role of humanitarian information managers, we now need to resource the function properly. This means in-house capacity building as well as either hiring more staff or entering into partnerships that can provide surge staff when needed. Organisations that neglect these investments will find that they don’t have information, they just have data. But data without structure is meaningless and organizations that base their operational decisions on bad information will not be able to survive in the long term. After all, one thing has not changed in the last ten years: if you put garbage in, you get garbage out.

Der Abschluss der europäisch-amerikanischen Verhandlungen über das Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) ist mittlerweile zumindest in zeitliche Ferne gerückt. Damit hat das Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) mit Kanada, bislang meist nur im Zusammenhang mit dem EU-USA-Abkommen wahrgenommen, auch für sich allein an Bedeutung gewonnen. CETA hat vielfältige Kritik ausgelöst, bei der organisierten Zivilgesellschaft vor allem in Deutschland ebenso wie bei europäischen Regierungen wie jenen Österreichs, Belgiens, Rumäniens und Bulgariens. Nun scheint eine politische Einigung näher; auch dank Überzeugungsarbeit der kanadischen Handelsministerin. Noch immer aber kann das fertig verhandelte Abkommen in verschiedenen Stadien gestoppt werden – sowohl im Ministerrat der EU als auch durch fehlende Ratifizierung seitens Europa-Parlament oder nationaler Parlamente. Doch welche der kritisierten Bestimmungen sind in CETA überhaupt noch enthalten, und wie können sie realistischerweise geändert werden? Abgesehen von diesen Fragen ist es an der Zeit, jene Streitpunkte zu benennen, die gar nichts mit dem Abkommen zu tun haben und die von der EU allein gelöst werden könnten.

Date: Jeudi 20 Octobre 2016

At an IPI seminar in Reykjavik, Iceland yesterday, former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev said via video, “I would like to emphasize something, with all the emotions I have in my soul: the worst thing that has happened over the past few years is the collapse of trust in relations between the major powers, which, according to the UN Charter, bear primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security, and which still have enormous stockpiles of nuclear weapons and must reduce them, up to and including their elimination.”

“Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought,” Mr. Gorbachev said. “I think it sounds even stronger today than at that time.”

With today’s US-Russian relations at a new low, can his meeting with Ronald Reagan at the Reykjavik summit 30 years ago—which history views as the beginning of the end of the cold war—serve as an inspiration for arms control and reducing tensions today?

This question is the topic of the IPI seminar, “The Legacy of the Reykjavik Summit,” organized with the Foreign Ministry of Iceland, taking place October 10-11, 2016.

Mr. Gorbachev’s full remarks, below.

George Shultz, who was US Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan, also gave opening remarks.

On October 11-12, 1986, the President of the United States of America Ronald Reagan, and the General Secretary of the Communist Partyof the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, met in the capital of Iceland, Reykjavík, to discuss a radical plan: redirection of nuclear-armed missiles and a move towards a nuclear free world. The meeting was a breakthrough in relations between the USSR and the United States, and is widely considered as the beginning of the end of the Cold War.

Thirty years later, tensions between Russia and the West are at their highest since the Cuban Missile Crisis. Instability in other parts of the world, like the Middle East and the South China Sea, is also creating new risks, and leading to a new arms race.

Can the anniversary of that historic meeting at the Höfði House in Reykjavík thirty years ago provide an inspiration to de-escalate tensions between NATO and Russia? Can it help to promote non-proliferation, and reignite the hope of a nuclear free world?  Participants at this meeting include former and current diplomats, arms control experts, historians, and representatives of civil society.

See full meeting agenda

Date: Jeudi 13 Octobre 2016

Bonn, 12.10.2016. Am 16. Oktober ist es wieder soweit: Die Weltgemeinschaft erinnert am Welternährungstag an die Menschen, die auch in Zeiten des globalen Überflusses noch hungern. 1945 wurde an diesem Tag die Ernährungs- und Landwirtschaftsorganisation der Vereinten Nationen (FAO) gegründet. Seitdem ist die Zahl der Hungernden erschreckend konstant – etwa 800 Millionen bis eine Milliarde Menschen leiden weltweit an Unterernährung. Nur weil sich die Weltbevölkerung mittlerweile verdreifacht hat, ist der Anteil der Hungernden von etwa 35 % auf 11 % zurückgegangen. Doch ist dies wirklich ein Erfolg? Mittlerweile leben auch in Entwicklungsländern mehr Über- als Unterernährte. In Südasien und in Subsahara-Afrika jedoch sind sowohl die Anzahl als auch der Anteil der Hungernden immer noch besonders hoch. Diese Zahlen selbst sind bereits skandalös. Dazu kommt, dass in den globalen Überschussregionen wie Nord- und Südamerika die „moderne“ Nahrungsmittelproduktion mit großen Maschinen, Mineraldünger und chemischem Pflanzenschutz an biologische, ökologische und gesellschaftliche Grenzen kommt. Andererseits werden in vielen armen Ländern die natürlichen Ressourcen durch Übernutzung auf niedrigem Produktivitätsniveau zerstört. Wasser für die Bewässerung etwa wird vielerorts knapp. Die Agrar- und allgemeine Biodiversität schwindet. Der Klimawandel bedroht die Landwirtschaft ausgerechnet in den ärmsten, subtropischen Weltregionen am stärksten. Krisen und Konflikte erschüttern die Selbsthilfekräfte ganzer Nationen. Hinzu kommen verstärkt Preisschwankungen auf den internationalen Agrarmärkten. Mit der Bioökonomie (Nutzung von Biomasse für Energie oder als Ersatz für Öl in der Petrochemie) entsteht neue Konkurrenz für Nahrungsmittel. Doch einfache Schuldzuweisungen und schnelle Lösungen gibt es nicht. Einerseits zeigt sich seit Gründung der FAO, dass es bisher keinen grundsätzlichen Mangel an Nahrung gab, sondern nur jeweils örtliche, zeitliche und personenbezogene Verteilungsprobleme. Aber ohne einen kontinuierlichen Anstieg der Nahrungsmittelproduktion ist der globale „Angebotsvorsprung“ schnell aufgebraucht. Und auch die Verteilung der Nahrungsmittel ist kein leicht lösbares Problem. In den reichen Ländern ist eine stärkere ökologische Ausrichtung der Agrarproduktion notwendig. Dadurch sinkt jedoch die Produktivität, was zu steigenden Agrarpreisen national und auf dem Weltmarkt führt. In armen Ländern kann dies zu weiterem Hunger bei armen Konsumenten führen. Die Bekämpfung der Nahrungsmittelverschwendung sowie der Verzicht auf Fleischkonsum könnten dieses Defizit ausgleichen. Anders sieht es allerdings bei der steigenden Nachfrage der kommenden Jahrzehnte in den Entwicklungsländern aus, die weit über dem liegt, was derzeit im Überschuss oder einsparbar ist. Die weltweite Agrarproduktion muss daher weiter steigen. Die Reserven dafür sind vor allem in den ärmeren Entwicklungsländern zu finden, wo die Erträge oft bei nur 20-30 % des realistisch gegebenen Potentials liegen und die vermeidbaren Nahrungsmittelverluste ähnliche Größenordnungen aufweisen. Darüber hinaus braucht es eine drastische Erhöhung des Anteils der Nahrungsproduktion, der auf den Markt angeboten wird, um die wachsenden Städte zu versorgen. Der Schlüssel sind die Kleinbauern. Sie stellen immer noch zwei Drittel aller Hungernden. Können sie ihre Produktion steigern, hat dies zwei ernährungssichernde Effekte: Es wird mehr Nahrung produziert, und die bäuerlichen Haushalte erzielen höhere Einkommen. Dies kann nur gelingen, wenn sie – und ihre organisierten Strukturen – massive Unterstützung erhalten; Einerseits durch die Bereitstellung von kurzfristige Betriebsmitteln wie Düngemitteln, langfristige Investitionen wie Maschinen, (leichtere) Kreditvergaben, und andererseits aber auch durch gute (forschungsbasierte) Beratung. Dies alles muss in eine förderliche Agrarpolitik, in ländliche Entwicklungs- und kohärente Makropolitiken eingebettet sein. Die Produktion muss standortgerecht und nachhaltig sein. Dabei sind teilweise auch große Betriebe nützlich: Sie können mehr Risiken auf sich nehmen, für mehr Stabilität sorgen und die Organisation der Wertschöpfungsketten vorantreiben. Die kleinbäuerliche Produktion werden sie aber auf absehbare Zeit nicht ersetzen können. Flankiert werden muss dies von sozialen Sicherungsprogrammen sowohl für die temporär und chronisch Armen ohne Land als auch für die Kleinbauern selbst. Längerfristig müssen auch Arbeitsplätze außerhalb der Landwirtschaft geschaffen werden, um die steigende Zahl junger Menschen zu beschäftigen. Auch auf internationaler Ebene muss gehandelt werden: Freier Agrarhandel und regulierte Absicherungsmöglichkeiten gegen Ernteschwankungen, der Ausbau der internationalen Agrarforschung mit einer guten Verknüpfung in nationale Systeme, ernährungsorientierte Leitplanken für die Bioökonomie, Maßnahmen zur Sicherung der Biodiversität, die Einrichtung internationaler sozialer Sicherungssysteme für das Auffangen der großen, transnationalen Krisen. Weitere Anstrengungen zur Bekämpfung des Klimawandels sind Voraussetzungen dafür, dass auch der Aufbau einer „Klima-smarten“ Landwirtschaft gelingt. Nur dann können wir es noch schaffen, bis zum Jahr 2030 den Hunger weitgehend auszurotten. Erst dann sollten wir wirklich von einem Welternährungstag sprechen und diesen gebührend feiern.

Microfinance Capacity Building Project Turnover and Closing Ceremony

Competency Assessment Tools for Microfinance Technology National Certificate IV Completed

Flucht und Vertreibung und die damit in Zusammenhang stehenden Fragen bestimmen nach wie vor ganz wesentlich die Berichterstattung und das öffentliche Interesse. Doch was bedeutet es, fremd zu sein? Was bedeutet Heimat? Was stiftet Identität?

Although Thailand and India are two of the world’s largest producers and exporters of fruits and vegetables, both countries suffer from severe food-safety and quality problems with its domestic and export-oriented produce. According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, the two countries are consistently listed in the EU and US 2002–2010 agrifood rejections category, pointing to inadequate compliance – or lack thereof – with international standards, alluding to the low degree of implementation of good agricultural practices (GAP) nationwide. Both countries are aware that, in order to increase food safety and quality domestically and internationally, voluntary GAP standards are key. However, compliance is costly and can threaten the existence of small and poor farmers and value-chain operators in particular. Thus, standards and their implementation require careful consideration. However, among the host of food-safety and quality standards in existence, which ones are most relevant?
In this Briefing Paper, we distinguish between Level 1 GAP standards for high-value export markets and Level 2 local GAP standards for domestic markets and lower-value export markets. We provide an overview of the opportunities and challenges of implementing different levels of standards and use the “Five Rural Worlds” (5RWs) model of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to demonstrate how standards impact and address the specific challenges of different types of agricultural producers. The primary findings of this analysis are as follows:

• Level 1 GAP standards, such as the collective pre-farm gate standard GlobalGAP, are the most challenging to comply with and can only be adopted by a minority of producers belonging to RWs 1 and 2. Although voluntary, Level 1 standards, which are required by major supermarkets and retailers worldwide, are de facto becoming increasingly mandatory to supply high-value markets.

• Level 2 GAP standards are local voluntary standards (e.g. ThaiGAP, IndiaGAP) introduced with the aim of im¬proving the level of food safety in domestic supply chains and to allow gradual upgrading to Level 1 standards. Level 2 standards are easier to comply with and could benefit the many traditional and subsistence agricultural households in RWs 2 and 3. In Thailand and India, parallel initiatives by the public and private sectors have led to two co-existing and overlapping local GAP standards.

Food safety will continue to remain an issue if GAP principles are not adopted on a large scale. Due to the complexity of standard requirements and the high costs of compliance, Level 1 standards are not an option for the majority of farmers in developing countries in the near future. Level 2 standards are more promising, but our case studies have shown that, if introduced by public actors, they tend to lack credibility due to a lack of capacity and resources. It is simply not possible for governments to certify millions of smallholders and to monitor continuous compliance as long as certification is not demanded and supported by the private sector. We encourage public and private actors to cooperate in harmonising standards and to jointly support smallholders in obtaining certification through institutional arrangements, extension programmes and media campaigns. Moreover, we recommend that governments focus on the implementation of GAP principles and improving quality infrastructure rather than focus on certification per se.

To discuss and plan overall development as well as specific interventions in rural areas of developing countries, it is important to have a comprehensive conceptual model at hand that facilitates communication across sectors involved and which allows generalisations across countries. It should be able to simultaneously bring poverty, economic growth and structural change into focus.
This paper presents a conceptual model that can serve these purposes. It builds on the “Five Rural Worlds” (5RWs) model of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). It centres on rural populations and classifies them based on a pragmatic, multi-criteria analysis of basic assets and endowments, competitiveness and growth opportunities, and needs, in particular with regards to poverty and food security. The Rural Worlds (RWs) distinguished are 1) large-scale commercial agricultural households and enterprises, 2) traditional landholders and enterprises, 3) subsistence agricultural households and micro-enterprises, 4) landless rural households and micro-enterprises and 5) chronically poor rural households (without family labour force). These distinctions may be crude and blurred, but they are sufficient in many instances to clarify basic assumptions. Being simple enough, they facilitate fundamental and inter-sectoral debates about policy interventions in rural areas.
We extend the OECD model to explicitly include interactions between the RWs as well as between these and the outside world. These extensions have been made to highlight the fact that rural areas are increasingly being integrated into national and wider relations, and to allow these relations and their implications to be discussed comprehensively.
This modified RW concept has several advantages:

• It classifies the rural population into a limited number of ubiquitous groupings according to major, common constraints, needs and opportunities.
• It highlights the importance of land and agricultural technology/productivity as key starting points for pov¬erty, food security and growth opportunities, without excluding the possibility of other livelihood options.
• It focusses on the rural poor and considers their heterogeneous potential to strive within and/or outside agriculture, in particular distinguishing the landless and chronically poor, who are often left out (or even damaged) by agricultural interventions.
• It invites thinking about not only the direct effects of policy interventions on different target groups individually, but also about systematically checking indirect second-round effects through the interaction channels.
• It reminds us of the growing relations between a given rural area and the rest of the world.

We advocate the 5RW concept for the inter-sectoral planning of rural development in developing countries, and for multi-sectoral research, in particular in rural sub-Sahara Africa (SSA). We acknowledge that, in addition, a gender and an environmental perspective must be explicitly taken into account, too, which is, however, easily compatible with the model.

Enhancing social protection accessibility for disabled workers: Hanns Seidel Foundation and the Institute of Labour Science and Social Affairs introduce study

Labour Migration and Social Protection