Sunday, August 7, 2016

BOOK REVIEW - Disaster Capitalism: Making a Killing out of Catastrophe by Anthony Lowenstein

The US Presidential Election is in full swing. Over the next few months, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton will go toe-to-toe in what is already a less than clean scrap. In amongst the media and social media hysteria (on both sides), one could be forgiven for missing an intriguing narrative espoused by alternative voices that opts, rather than criticizing one candidate over the other, to reject both the neoliberal status quo and reactionary neofascist agendas that are the product of unfettered predatory capitalism.

In Disaster Capitalism: Making a Killing out of Catastrophe, acclaimed Australian journalist Anthony Loewenstein turns his passion for justice to deliver a stunning critique of the thriving disaster capitalism industry, in its many forms; the profiteers of privatized detention, militarized security, the aid industry and multinational mining are relentlessly skewered with style and poise, and their predatory tactics exposed. According to his narrative, Hillary Clinton is exactly the kind of neoliberal hawk that enables neofascist demagogues like Trump to rise, and allows predatory 'businessmen' like Trump to prosper. Both Presidential candidates are indeed invested in disaster capitalism, but Loewenstein's tale is arguably one that focuses on the Hillary's of the world; the trusted and experienced hand; the status quo; the Establishment.


Disaster Capitalism is the story of Loewenstein's journey into the belly of this particular beast. The book gives us an up-close-and-personal look at how corporations like Serco, G4S, Halliburton and their ilk profit from organized misery, perpetual conflict and the impacts of disaster, and how national governments and international organizations like the IMF and the World Bank are willing collaborators. In Part I, he takes us to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea and Greece, exposing the various exploitative strategies employed to enrich the local elite and foreign interests, and the devastating effects on the majority of people in each country. In Part II, we visit wealthy Western democracies (Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom) that punish the most vulnerable in their societies while dictating economic conditions to the world, imposing taxpayer funded cruelty for private profit at home and abroad.

This is an absolutely enthralling read; a must for the revolutionary; the dreamer; the activist; the teacher; the learner. Loewenstein has compiled a treasure-trove of evidence on his travels. His dismantling of the social and economic myths that enable predatory disaster capitalism is robust and compels us to action. He offers a "challenge to cherished beliefs concerning aid and development, war and democracy, and in particular the modern, borderless nature of capitalism." (p. 14) For this reader, 3 key themes emerge; a dialogue around crime and punishment; a critique of the idea of benevolent corporations; and the grim reality that this is all part of a plan, a rigged system that empowers and enables predator capitalists to flourish.

Crime and Punishment

As the prison-industrial complex has rapidly taken hold in Western societies, the public clearly favours an ideology of punishment over reform. In addition to highlighting issues around race and class, Loewenstein speaks to issues around the treatment of those in the care of the state, and how "lobbying, ideology and a punishment ethos have colluded to produce one of the most destructive experiments in recent times: mass incarceration."

Judicial processes in the UK, US and Australia target the marginalized for what amounts to, essentially, punishment for being unable to escape their systemic disadvantage. Loewenstein unpacks the ideology behind this phenomenon and asks whether the poor man, the petty criminal, the asylum seeker or the drug user really deserve the punishments that are prescribed and who indeed benefits? What of the bankers that caused a global financial collapse? The CEOs of corporations that destroy the only planet we have? The heads of state that lied in order to enable the invasion and destruction of Iraq, leading to the destabilisation of the region and a current displacement crisis of epic proportions? Should not our justice system be designed to protect society from such individuals and the devastating consequences of their actions?

Over the past 2 months, we have witnessed a brutal crackdown on drug sellers and users in the Philippines, since the rise to power of President Duerte. Summary executions on the streets have shocked the world, yet few official condemnations are forthcoming. While it is not difficult to imagine that many politicians and indeed members of the public might secretly support these abuses of power and share the President's disdain for Article 10 of the Declaration of Human Rights, as Loewenstein finds in Australia, America and the UK, there is an infinitely more 'subtle' way to enforce the harshest punishments: through private contractors.

The criminal justice system in Australia ensures sky-high rates of Aboriginal incarceration, and, as the recently revealed abuses of the NT government demonstrate, the hateful punishment of those discarded by society is absolutely state sanctioned. In America, the black population is also disproportionately incarcerated. Loewenstein explores the roots of a system that enables this in the US and the corporations that profit handsomely at the expense of taxpayers, destroying families and leaving little opportunity for rehabilitation and reintegration into society. "Private prison corporations saw a unique opportunity" (p. 196) in America, Loewenstein writes, to do everything possible to ensure that more and more people were incarcerated. The prison population is thirty times what it was in the 1990s. The absolutely failed 'War on Drugs' has wreaked havoc on society. For all the posturing about market efficiency, private prison corporations are a spectacular leech off the government purse, with a rigged legal system providing financial and political benefits right down the food chain. All of this is possible, he tells us, due to a lack of "serious questioning of the harsh, punitive ideology underpinning US 'justice'." (p. 207)

In Australia, the UK, the US and Greece, Loewenstein exposes the fact that asylum seekers and migrants are also punished, most often without breaking any law.  In Greece, he provides a rich cultural background of "not just economic harshness, but a culture that tolerated and celebrated exclusion." (p. 69) In the grips of imposed austerity measures, the social fabric began to unravel and "Popular frustration was taken out on the most marginalized group in society: refugees." (p. 72) The mandate for demonization of the vulnerable that was secured in Greece, as in Australia, was just one tactic used to ensure profit for human rights abuses across the countries that Loewenstein investigates.

Time and again, Loewenstein finds governments all too eager to enable those corporations in a position to cash in. He details how the EU has become central in "funding, encouraging and pressuring EU nations to isolate and imprison asylum seekers." He discusses the industries that have sprung up and thrived, often with the EU leading "the charge in working with corporations that have been very willing to develop and hone methods for repelling the desperate hordes." As 'Fortress Europe' closes her borders, deals like that done between the EU with Turkey are sealed without a second thought for the human cost. Corporations and corrupt governments profit; the vulnerable are turned away and suffer.

Benevolent Corporations

Loewenstein picks up where Naomi Klein left off in her 2007 bestseller Shock Doctrine. She pointed out that privatization of government has accelerated in the U.S., as private sector opportunities have been generated through the 'war on terror'. She argues that, "now wars and disasters are so fully privatized, that they are themselves the new market: there is no need to wait until after the war for the boom - the medium is the message." Loewenstein builds on this and adds that "it is hard to escape the conclusion that wars are often fought for the key reason of liberating new and willing markets - and with the war on terror likely to continue for decades, there will be no shortage of new business to secure." (p. 16)

We often encounter the myth of the benevolent corporation. As much as it might be comforting to believe that the private sector simply goes about its business in a free market generating jobs and growth, from cover to cover Disaster Capitalism lays bare the impacts of a global privatisation bonanza. For Loewenstein, the US has played a pivotal role. He says that a "central plank" of U.S. foreign policy is "the US model of reducing the role of government while increasing the influence of largely private power has never been so rapacious, though the problem is global." (p. 4)

Loewenstein is no admirer of market fundamentalism, saying that "wealth is concentrated in so few hands in today's world: there is little incentive to advocate for a more equitable planet. The market system guarantees unfairness and rewards greed." (p.2) He shows us examples of open rebellion against this system from communities in Greece, Haiti and PNG, countries exploited long and hard by the status quo. As we have become more enslaved to the neoliberal project, Loewenstein argues "that the corporation is now more powerful than the nation-state, and that it is often the former that dictates terms to the latter." (p.7)

In Bougainville, PNG, Loewenstein meets members of the resistance against resource exploitation, and explores the shady relationships between corporate and political interests. The memories of violence fuelled by greed and repression do not fade easily. The health of the community and the environment have also been terribly compromised. "Environmental vandalism should not be the price tag for 'progress'," he pleads.

In Afghanistan, we are introduced to Jack, the British MD of a private military company (PMC) who provides an inside look at a truly burgeoning industry. He is not shy to admit that his corporation "survives off chaos." (p. 20) Jack anticipates perpetual war and opportunity. "If we can make money, we'll go there," he tells Loewenstein. He sees his industry in a purely positive light, providing "jobs for the boys leaving the army who can continue their trade." In spite of the well documented abuses of PMCs in Afghanistan and Iraq, military objectives continue to be dressed in humanitarian robes, government intelligence gathering has been privatized and mercenaries are ensured "a quick buck" (p. 21). Indeed, Loewenstein finds that the PMC industry hopes that the conflict and the profit will never end. When it does, they will be "looking for the new war." (p. 61) 

How often are we outraged at government spending on weaponry and conflicts that we deem unnecessary, but hesitate to question the relationship between corporate interests and government policy and spending. Loewenstein reminds us that the war on terror represents one of the largest wealth transfers in history, with 4 trillion dollars to date being spent, with much of it going to ever-grateful Western contractors. The privatization of prisons and security apparatus is incredibly expensive, while all evidence shows that incarceration does not tackle societal problems that lead to crime, but rather reinforces them. 

The overwhelming message is that simply outsourcing your cruelty is a convenient way to avoid responsibility, transparency and accountability, while profiting corporations and manipulating the economy. Neoliberal governments would like us to accept the notion that corporations are ultimately benevolent entities that exist only to employ people, satisfy market demand and grow GDP. Loewenstein argues that "multinational corporations spent the twentieth century gradually reducing their obligations in the various jurisdictions in which they operated." (p. 243) What we have now is unregulated, unaccountable and secretive private sector entities. Meanwhile, governments with dirty work to outsource are not left disappointed.

Unfortunately, a willful ignorance of the sometimes devastating social impact of 'business' has allowed a mentality of self-righteousness to fester, completely detached from the suffering of people that stand in the way of profit, those targeted by governments for suppression and oppression, and the unfortunate citizens of countries outside of the US circle of trust, whose lives appear to hold so much less value than those of allies. Companies like DynCorp and Blackwater, despite having their abuses repeatedly exposed, thrive in this context.

A Rigged System


Loewenstein exposes, time and again, the fact that the global economy is dominated by anti-democratic and predatory forces that profit the wealthy and the ruthless. The revolving door between corporations, lobby groups and government is clear for all to see. This collusion between powerful actors fans the flames of crisis while selling market fundamentalism as the antidote and positioning 'benevolent' corporations to reap the benefits. In the U.S. the banks were bailed out while personal debt, and indeed poverty rates, soar. Loewenstein offers a stinging critique of a system rigged for the 1%, and the scandalous truth that in the US both major parties represent similar corporate interests while the media feigns ignorance. Indeed, liberal presidents have done little for the vulnerable other than make empty promises.

Meanwhile, in Haiti, Loewenstein describes an environment of "canny capitalists sifting through the ashes of a disaster, looking for business opportunities." (p. 109) His narrative of this historically vulnerable nation describes the strong 20th Century American support for successive brutal dictatorships, enriching U.S. interests and a local elite. We see this model replicated again and again in Disaster Capitalism, and indeed around the world as a key element of U.S. foreign policy. The example, in chapter 3, of the "devoutly anti-Communist" 'Baby Doc' Duvalier is particularly damning, who, "unlike the many African despots targeted by the Hague, remained a friend of the West and was therefore largely untouchable." (p. 110) When the neoliberal agenda was challenged in Haiti by Aristade, the U.S. and local elite conspired to overthrow the government to restore 'order'.

We are often presented with the assertion that the international community, led by U.S. humanitarianism, rescued Haiti after the 2010 earthquake. Loewenstein paints a very different picture, and claims that "when Haiti had received lashings of 'help' this generosity had done little but enrich foreign companies." (p. 115) The local reception to UN  intervention was largely hostile. In the context of historical US interventions in Haiti this comes as no surprise, and the sentiment is well founded. As revealed by Wikileaks, the US ambassador to Haiti asserted that the UN military-style solution was "an indispensable tool in realizing core [US government] policy interests in Haiti" (p. 115)

In a similar vein, most development aid to PNG from Australia since its independence either found its way into the pockets of either the wealthy PNG elite or Australian corporations. Far from its claimed humanitarian ideals, Loewenstein says that the main goal of the Australian government in PNG was simply, "to ensure that Australian corporations had a ready market in which to turn a profit." (p. 172) The denial of complicity with oppressors in the violent struggles of the 1980s and the patronizing attitudes displayed by Australian diplomats leaves a bitter taste.

Loewenstein reserves some of his harshest criticism for the mainstream media, and the "false construct of "balance" that permeates the corporate press, which merely pits one powerful interest group against another" and one that "views business and political leaders as far more important than the individuals and societies affected by them." (p. 10) As an independent journalists that opposes the state of his profession, he laments the fact that "90% of Americans rely on information from media outlets owned by only six multinationals, including News Corporation, Comcast and Viacom."

Conclusion

Disaster Capitalism pulls no punches in calling out both profiteers and enablers. Loewenstein exposes a shady cabal operating in plain sight; corporations that will not blink at the thought of misery, death and destruction as part of business as usual. Governments that outsource their most distasteful projects to companies that have neither conscience nor boundaries. A complete lack of transparency and accountability allows whatever abuses that are uncovered to yield few consequences for the perpetrators. 

The book is impossible to put down and rich with memorable lines. It will have the reader coming back to review the stories of friend and foe, of oppressed and oppressor. Loewenstein has skillfully articulated opposing positions, admitting his ideological bent where possible in the text and to those he meets in the field. It is sure to be a book both loved and hated, depending on the beliefs of the reader, for its honest storytelling. The accounts of his journalistic interactions give the book a very personal feel. 

Loewenstein shows us how accepting something terrible (e.g. abuse of asylum seekers, mass incarceration etc.) out of a fear of personal harm, insecurity or loss gives a perceived legitimacy to profiteers (perhaps the American elections will be a case in point of this mechanism, on both sides). He wrote the book to "shock, provoke and reveal." (p. 16) The question is; once we know all about the profiteers of calamity, will we just carry on or will we fight for justice? 


Friday, June 3, 2016

Horses for Courses? Deploying the right person is harder than you think

Organisations recruit personnel to address skill and competency requirements related to the projects that they are likely to undertake. This can be a challenging endeavour. Ask any HR professional. Depending on the field, finding a good match can be extremely hit and miss due to uncertainty built into an organisation, industry or operational context.

Take post-disaster reconstruction. Organisations undertaking projects in a post-disaster context can face an extremely volatile and fragmented situation, with unique and complex problems arising quick and fast. It is very difficult to even characterise, prior to a scenario arising, what an appropriate professional might be to cover the range of skills and behaviours necessary.

During field work in Bangladesh, 2009
Since 2007 I have been researching competency in non-government organisations (NGOs) relating to post-disaster reconstruction projects. The project has taken me to South Asia and allowed me to interview dozens of NGO project managers. My field work inspired the overall concept and allowed me to generate the essential data for a system that could simulate the likely performance of post-disaster project managers in disaster scenarios.

In 2014 I took the concept further and designed a beta software tool (with a lot of help from my friends). We are delighted to have just published a paper in Disaster Prevention and Management, describing the system development process. The tool allows administrators a high degree of functionality; creating project manager, disaster scenario and competency variables and values. As a user of the tool, the options are more limited. You can simulate various disasters against personnel profiles and calculate likely performance.

Example of tool interface
At the moment the tool is a bit buggy and limited by my field data, but I'm excited about what the future holds for the idea. Watch this space for the next Phase (anyone want to fund it?!). The key message is that if we have the knowledge to reduce the risk of deploying the wrong people to deal with disasters, we must use that knowledge. This research will help us to develop tools that add significant value for organisations; particularly those that understand the need for 'horses for courses', in a disaster context and potentially in any project based activity.

Click here for the full paper


Wednesday, May 18, 2016

Slashed OLT represents lost opportunities for innovation in DRR



2015 represented an important year for disaster scholars, with the release of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction in March, the launch of new Sustainable Development Goals in New York in September, and the December agreement for carbon emission reduction at COP21 under the UNFCCC in Paris. The value and the effectiveness of these international agreements are certainly open to debate. George Monbiot (2004, p.75) questions the democratic value of the UN, arguing that 'the nation states tacitly conspire against their peoples,' and that 'we the people' in the UN Charter should read 'we the States.' Furthermore, if we do not start questioning our current methods of production, consumption, and development, any well-intentioned international frameworks may ultimately represent no more than empty promises

At their best, these milestones can enable a new roadmap in research, policy, and practice of DRR to emerge that will enable us to move forward significantly in the next 15 years. We must interrogate governance; the role of the State, the private sector and local communities and the balance of power; as well as understanding how various issues from globalisation to climate change contribute to shape exposure and vulnerability, and become imperative in DRR science. Such a roadmap must inform teaching and learning related to disaster risk reduction in higher education. The increase in the number of undergraduate and postgraduate courses and programs exploring disasters and related issues illustrates the recognition of the challenges faced by the global community and therefore an emerging market to train experts. However, higher education is also shifting and we onus is on educators to develop better ways to engage learners that may not actually be participating in learning activities in the same place or time. 

Haigh and Amaratunga (2015) developed a roadmap for the ANDROID research network, which gathers different universities and scholars with different backgrounds and perspectives related to disaster resilience, DRR, and CCA. In this roadmap, the main challenge presenting for disaster resilience in higher education is the reduction of the policy–science gap, insomuch that research be translated to action.

Five critical opportunities and challenges for higher education were identified:
1. linking research, education and action;
2. integrating all hazards, stakeholders and disciplines;
3. collaborating regionally and globally;
4. facilitating policy dialogue, knowledge sharing and capacity development; and
5. developing flexible and customisable education programmes.

At the University of Newcastle, we are somewhat unique in that we teach disaster resilience/DRR into our Bachelor of Construction Management degree. We do this because we believe that DRR needs to be a core competency in built environment professions. In our Master of Disaster Preparedness and Reconstruction, we progress to a much more detailed exploration of various elements of disasters. 

In 2015 we launched the RES-SIM project, a collaboration with RMIT and funded by the Office for Learning and Teaching (OLT). This project proposes to develop the conceptual model for a virtually distributed computer-based teaching and learning tool that enables students within and across disciplines (e.g. engineering, architecture, logistics), both on and off campus, to collaboratively acquire essential decision-making skills through immersion in a dynamic disaster system simulation. 

The research team works with practitioners to develop
disaster scenarios
Our field work gave us the opportunity to interview and share knowledge with eminent scholars in DRR, information technology and construction management. It also allowed us to meet volunteers and practitioners involved in emergency management across New South Wales and Victoria, to talk with them about procedures, priorities, and expectations, and to build a network for knowledge exchange and future collaboration. The 1 year project has represented an opportunity, as academic scholars, to contribute to reducing the gap between our world and that of practitioners and volunteers, contributing to the central necessity outlined in the ANDROID roadmap. 


This grant by the OLT gave us the seed funding to do something otherwise not possible. 


Workshops allow educators and practitioners to describe
their world as a system
At the end of June, the OLT will cease to offer any new projects, based on cuts announced in the federal budget. We had advanced warning of this since 2015, but a commitment previously made to establish a successor 'institute' for research in teaching and learning has now also been scrapped. The closure of the OLT, as well as the loss of its grants and fellowships, removes from Australian higher education the national commitment to innovation and improved performance in learning and teaching (Gardner, 2016).

The closure of the OLT is a dark day for both researchers and citizens who believe in the betterment of countries and societies through education, culture, and engagement. Under a cloak of 'innovation' and 'industry engagement' the government has set its own agenda above that of the people. We must therefore stand up against these cuts and proclaim that research for the common good is of value. We have a democratic society and it is time for the government to recognise the will of the people over corporate interests. 

References:

Gardner M. (2016). Innovation in teaching and learning is too important to cut. The Conversation.

Haigh, R., & Amaratunga, D. (2015). Moving from 2015 to 2030: challenges and opportunities for higher educationInternational Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment6(3).

Monbiot, G. (2004) The age of consent. HarperPerennial.

Tuesday, March 22, 2016

Australia ASEAN Council (DFAT) Disaster Resilience Education Project Launch

The 18th of March 2016 marked the 1 year anniversary of the adoption of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. It was fitting that this day was also marked by the launch of an international
project funded by the Australia ASEAN Council and the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, focusing on building regional (ASEAN) capacity in disaster resilience education.


The project consortium gathered in Penang, including the team leaders from the University of Newcastle (Australia), the University of the Philippines, the Asian Institute of Technology (Thailand), the University of Civil Engineering (Vietnam) and the launch host, Universiti Sains Malaysia.

Following a kind welcome from Prof. Dr. Ahmad Farhan Mohd Sadullah, Assistant Vice Chancellor, USM and Dean of the Engineering Campus, Dr Jason von Meding (Australia), Dr Indrajit Pal (Thailand), Professor Pham Cuong (Vietnam), Professor Mario Delos Reyes (Philippines) and Dr Taksiah Majid (Malaysia) introduced the respective partner institutions and their research/education capacity..The rest of the morning was spent dissecting the project proposal and agreeing on roles and responsibilities, considering potential outputs and planning the range of activities to be conducted over the course of the 2 year project.

In the afternoon, staff and students from USM gathered for a seminar featuring presentations from the team leaders of each participating institution (von Meding, Cuong, Pal, Ahmed and Delos Reyes). This session showcased research projects from around the region and put the spotlight on disaster risk reduction/ resilience higher education programs and research groups currently operating.


Following the seminar session we proceeded to the official project launch. We were again joined by the Assistant Vice Chancellor Prof. Dr. Ahmad Farhan Mohd Sadullah along with special guests, Tuan Haji Baderul Amin Bin Abdul Hamid, representing the Municipality Council of Seberang Perai, Penang, and Second Secretary Ms Katelyn Hornby, representing the Australian High Commission, Malaysia.

Dr von Meding began with an introduction to the project, outlining the shared vision of the project team to address root causes of disaster risk through education and concluding with a short promotional video prepared for the event. Prof. Dr. Ahmad Farhan Mohd Sadullah extended a warm welcome on behalf of USM and discussed the excitement of his Faculty to extend its DRR capacity in the regional and international sense, building on its existing local and national profile. Ms Hornby concluded by outlining the importance of the relationship between Australia and Malaysia and Australia's commitment to building regional resilience as demonstrated through various projects and initiatives, including the one being launched and funded by the Australia ASEAN Council.


The launch event concluded with a team dinner, hosted by Prof. Dr. Ahmad Farhan Mohd Sadullah. We would like to thank the Professor and Dr Sharifah Akman in particular, and the Universiti Sains Malaysia, for their efforts in hosting this event and kicking off the project in great style.

Saturday, February 6, 2016

Sacrifice (someone else)

It has been playing on my mind recently how quick we are to sacrifice others, their families and their communities, for our own personal or national self-interest.

The Australian public has been bombarded with damaging political rhetoric about refugees for decades. Many are prepared to turn a blind eye to abuse, injustice and abdication of international responsibility in the 'national interest', building an argument on the logic that oppressing a relatively small number of the global displaced, the most vulnerable and damaged, will keep 'the masses' away from our entitled existence. That this is built on centuries of dispossession and injustice is not something that those advocating for its protection wish to acknowledge. We plan to send babies born in Australia to Nauru, to put it beyond doubt that if you try to come here, we are prepared to torture your children. We are sacrificing the vulnerable for self interest.

My wholehearted daughter, out protesting for refugees in Newcastle...

Having thrived during an age of climate stability, the human race is facing climate change as an existential threat, pushing well beyond the planetary boundaries that would ensure some measure of safety. We have destroyed the very ecosystem that we depend on for life, a tragedy and a disgrace. The villains in this arena; the corporations and industries that profit, the politicians that enable and, like it or not, the people that consume. 

As the world wakes up to this climate reality, it appears to be too little too late. The powers that be are unwilling to adopt the radical change that is necessary. And yet again, we sacrifice the little guys to maintain the status quo. Pacific island states will be lost to the sea. Developing nations will be pummelled by ever more frequent and destructive disasters. It is not unrealistic to expect climate change migrants to be met with military force in the years to come. In international forums, talk of common but differentiated responsibility is quelled. In the meantime, trade agreements continue the raid on resources begun under colonial conquest. We are sacrificing the vulnerable for self interest.

In the US the political establishment continue to oppress the working man. In a country rich on international plunder, millions earn a poverty wage. In the UK, the government continues to enforce austerity on the poor while giving corporate and millionaire welfare. In Australia, unions are under attack by politicians that are unwilling to allow scrutiny of their own activities and are opposed to transparency in the affairs of their industry backers. We are sacrificing the vulnerable for self interest. 

We make war when diplomacy does not ensure our supremacy in determining the affairs of other nations. We call it 'freedom' and 'democracy', and those who would be patriots must not dissent when we kill other people's children. We support tyrants around the world, as long as they play by our economic rules. We supply the weapons to kill and maim, and wonder why there is not more peace on earth. Can we truly desire peace, and build it through violence? We are sacrificing the vulnerable for self interest. For Oil. For Markets. We call it 'national interest' or 'national security'.

In our workplaces, in our social clubs, in our communities and in our homes, we have fallen for the age old lie, that looking after number one is all you can really do. Some of us extend our caring to our family, our friends, our tribe, our nation. How many extend it to all human beings? How many extend their compassion to all life on earth? We are sacrificing the vulnerable for self interest.

The cowardly resolve to make a sacrifice of those least able to raise a voice or a fist must be challenged on all fronts. We cannot claim to be for justice and equality while we turn a blind eye to another's suffering. We are all in this together.

Thursday, January 28, 2016

Thoughts from UNISDR Science and Technology Conference

The UNISDR Science and Technology Conference has provided a platform for discussion of many pertinent topics relating to the implementation of the Sendai Framework. However, what has really struck me is the absence of what I would have thought were important discussion points. Perhaps these issues are outside of the scope of this conference. But does their absence (or brief appearance) in the dialogue undermine the objectives of DRR scientists?



1. Root causes of disaster

It is certainly not popular to discuss poverty, inequality, conflict, discrimination, globalisation etc. as drivers of vulnerability and therefore disaster risk at forums like this. Perhaps scientists feel powerless to address these issues. Ok, but we must lend our voice to the cause of the vulnerable, rather than colluding to perpetuate structural violence. We must make clear that many of the solutions of science cannot succeed while global inequality and injustice flourish.


2. Inequality

The existence of inequality in not only wealth, but access to knowledge and opportunities was raised briefly on day 1. This issue came up again as individuals decried the academic paywall and the fact that much DRR knowledge is inaccessible to those who need access the most. In addition, we must ask whether the push that we are seeing towards privatising DRR is a healthy shift? Corporate control in DRR, climate change and sustainable development (*shudders*) is growing. Will this reduce vulnerability, or have the opposite effect by creating a bigger gap?


3. Discrimination

We are of course much more sensitive to discrimination against minority groups now than ever before. Thankfully we have witnessed great societal shifts, with rights being won for many. However, we must guard against cultural norms that are still inherently discriminatory against groups that we may not normally perceive as marginalised. One clear issue arising from this conference is that of discrimination against young scientists. 'You are so young'. 'You have to earn your credibility.' 'Wait till you have a PhD and then talk to me.' You only have to speak to a sample of PhD students to realise the gravity of the issues that young scientists face. We need mentoring, opportunities, resources, recognition for brilliant young minds. Uncorrupted. Uncompromised. Idealist. I'd prefer that they made decisions about our future than those currently holding power.


4. Political will

Disasters are political beasts. Much of the discussion has avoided the simple fact that the global political structure is highly resilient to change. I feel that the solutions being offered at this conference are based on the assumption that a system driven by growth, consumption and domination cannot be challenged. Our current system is creating new problems and exacerbating existing problems faster than we can solve them. Can science and technology solve problems that are inherently social, economic and political? Perhaps not directly, but we can become advocates and even activists. We know that there is an absence of will to change in the political establishment. Is there also an absence of will to advocate for change among researchers who rely upon the support of the establishment to further their careers?


Overall, we have heard some interesting perspectives on SFDRR implementation and about fascinating advances in science and technology. These things give me hope. However, like Sendai I will depart a bit frustrated at the general reluctance to engage with the systemic issues that uphold the status quo. All of our advances will be useless if we ignore these. As a speaker pointed out yesterday, we are in a special position where the public trusts our community of knowledge. We have a responsibility to communicate, not only about the technical aspects of our work but as commentators on the big issues society faces. As DRR researchers, we are uniquely qualified to do so.

Monday, November 30, 2015

Student Learning Matters


Phase I of the RES-SIM project has focused on:

“develop[ing] the conceptual model for a virtually distributed computer-based teaching and learning tool that enables students within and across disciplines (e.g. engineering, architecture, logistics), both on and off campus, to collaboratively acquire essential decision-making skills through immersion in a dynamic disaster system simulation”.

The team has been busy interviewing experts in disaster management and education (Stage 1) to identify stakeholder needs and perceptions (students, educators, graduate employers, disaster management agencies) and ultimately working towards producing the detailed design specifications for the simulator. Following the analysis of the interviews we are now turning our attention to a series of workshops to map the system (Stage 2) and will be conducting focus groups to develop the scenarios (Stage 3).

We’ve learnt a lot….

Yet it won’t be until Phase II of the project that RES-SIM will come into fruition— that is, be developed by a software consultant and ultimately used by students and staff.

What will success look like?

Most certainly a system that ensures student attainment of learning outcomes and supports a positive learning experience will be an important part of this equation. For this to happen it will be critical that Phase II of RES-SIM considers the complete learning cycle from curriculum design through to assessment and feedback. After all, while many people agree that online games and simulation can promote learning, critics argue that what is learned may be inappropriate and it is therefore important that games are underpinned by learning theory (Shaffer et al., 2005).

The RES-SIM team argue for scenario-based teaching of disaster resilience

Students need guidance when using simulation, they need to be challenged and they need time to reflect. Teachers need resources to be able to support students in these ways. In Phase II the team would therefore draw from a range of “Good Practice Guides” for curriculum development available from the OLT and other educational research and apply and extend these to the context of RES-SIM. We envisage production of sample learning activities, example assessments and guidelines to support learners and teachers so that students get the most out of RES-SIM.

Success will also involve the maximization of impact. It is one thing for the team to use RES-SIM to positively impact our own students’ learning however broader systematic adoption of the RES-SIM and the lessons learned is preferred over narrow adoption (Hilton, 2014). In part, broader adoption will be dependent on the extent to which RES-SIM and its scenarios cater to a wide range of educational contexts. The team is certainly focusing on this in producing the conceptual design during Phase I. Continual engagement with stakeholders, spreading the word about RES-SIM through journals and conferences and production of online resources is also ongoing. There is also the potential for broadening impact by including new partner institutions willing to adopt RES-SIM. If you are interested in being involved, please contact the team.


REFERENCES

Hilton, T., (2014) The impact management planning and evaluation ladder (IMPEL) http://www.olt.gov.au/system/files/IMPEL_0.pdf, accessed 2 November 2015.

Shaffer, D. W., Squire, K. R., Halverson, R., & Gee, J. P. (2005). Video games and the future of learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(2), 104-111.