Rules of Order: Assessing the State of Global Governance

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Stewart Patrick: “The current disorder has multiple causes, although their relative weight can be debated. They include intensifying strategic competition between the United States and China, two superpowers with dramatically different world order visions and clashing material interests; Russia’s brazen assault against its neighbor, resulting in the most serious armed conflict in Europe since World War II; an ongoing diffusion of power from advanced market democracies to emerging nations with diverse preferences, combined with resistance from established powers against accommodating them in multilateral institutions; a widespread retreat from turbocharged globalization, as national governments seek to claw back autonomy from market forces to pursue industrial, social, national security, and other policies and, in some cases, to weaponize interdependence; growing alienation between richer and poorer nations, exacerbated by accelerating climate change and stalled development; a global democratic recession now in its seventeenth year that has left no democracy unscathed; and a resurgence of sovereignty-minded nationalism that calls on governments to take back control from forces blamed for undermining national security, prosperity, and identity. (The “America First” ethos of Donald Trump’s presidency, which rejected the tenets of post-1945 U.S. internationalism, is but the most prominent recent example.) In sum, the crisis of cooperation is as much a function of the would-be global problem-solvers as it is a function of the problems themselves.

Given these centrifugal tendencies, is there any hope for a renewed open, rules-based world order? As a first step in answering this question, this paper surveys areas of global convergence and divergence on principles and rules of state conduct across fourteen major global issue areas. These are grouped into four categories: (1) rules to promote basic stability and peaceful coexistence by reducing the specter of violence; (2) rules to facilitate economic exchange and prosperity; (3) rules to promote cooperation on transnational and even planetary challenges like climate change, pandemics, the global commons, and the regulation of cutting-edge technologies; and (4) rules that seek to embed liberal values, particularly principles of democracy and human rights, in the international sphere. This stocktaking reveals significant preference diversity and normative disagreement among nations in both emerging and long-established spheres of interdependence. Ideally, this brief survey will give global policymakers a better sense of what, collectively, they are up against—and perhaps even suggest ways to bridge existing differences…(More)”

Computing the Climate: How We Know What We Know About Climate Change

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Steve M. Easterbrook: “How do we know that climate change is an emergency? How did the scientific community reach this conclusion all but unanimously, and what tools did they use to do it? This book tells the story of climate models, tracing their history from nineteenth-century calculations on the effects of greenhouse gases, to modern Earth system models that integrate the atmosphere, the oceans, and the land using the full resources of today’s most powerful supercomputers. Drawing on the author’s extensive visits to the world’s top climate research labs, this accessible, non-technical book shows how computer models help to build a more complete picture of Earth’s climate system. ‘Computing the Climate’ is ideal for anyone who has wondered where the projections of future climate change come from – and why we should believe them…(More)”.

Wastewater monitoring: ‘the James Webb Telescope for population health’

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Exemplars News: “When the COVID-19 pandemic triggered a lockdown across Bangladesh and her research on environmental exposure to heavy metals became impossible to continue, Dr. Rehnuma Haque began a search for some way she could contribute to the pandemic response.

“I knew I had to do something during COVID,” said Dr. Haque, a research scientist at the International Centre for Diarrheal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b). “I couldn’t just sit at home.”

Then she stumbled upon articles on early wastewater monitoring efforts for COVID in Australia, the Netherlands, Italy, and the United States. “When I read those papers, I was so excited,” said Dr. Haque. “I emailed my supervisor, Dr. Mahbubur Rahman, and said, ‘Can we do this?’”

Two months later, in June 2020, Dr. Haque and her colleagues had launched one of the most robust and earliest national wastewater surveillance programs for COVID in a low- or middle-income country (LMIC).

The initiative, which has now been expanded to monitor for cholera, salmonella, and rotavirus and may soon be expanded further to monitor for norovirus and antibiotic resistance, demonstrates the power and potential of wastewater surveillance to serve as a low-cost tool for obtaining real-time meaningful health data at scale to identify emerging risks and guide public health responses.

“It is improving public health outcomes,” said Dr. Haque. “We can see everything going on in the community through wastewater surveillance. You can find everything you are looking for and then prepare a response.”

A single wastewater sample can yield representative data about an entire ward, town, or county and allow LMICs to monitor for emerging pathogens. Compared with clinical monitoring, wastewater monitoring is easier and cheaper to collect, can capture infections that are asymptomatic or before symptoms arise, raises fewer ethical concerns, can be more inclusive and not as prone to sampling biases, can generate a broader range of data, and is unrivaled at quickly generating population-level data…(More)” – See also: The #Data4Covid19 Review

The planet is too important to be left to activists: The guiding philosophy of the Climate Majority Project

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Jadzia Tedeschi and Rupert Read: “Increasing numbers of people around the world are convinced that human civilisation is teetering on the brink, but that our political “leaders” aren’t levelling with us about just how dire the climate outlook is. Quite a few of us are beginning to imagine collapse. And yet, for the most part, the responses available to individuals who want to take action seem to be limited to either consumer choices (minimising the amount of plastics we buy, using reusable coffee cups, recycling, and so on) or radical protests (such as gluing oneself to roads at busy intersections, disrupting sports matches, splashing soup on priceless art works, and risking imprisonment).

But there must be a space for action between these two alternatives. While the radical tactics of the Extinction Rebellion movement (XR) did succeed in nudging the public conversation concerning the climate and biodiversity crisis toward a new degree of seriousness, these same tactics also alienated people who would otherwise be sympathetic to XR’s cause and managed to give “climate activists” a bad name in the process. To put it simply, the radical tactics of XR could never achieve the kind of broad-based consensus that is needed to meaningfully respond to the current crisis.

We need a coordinated, collective effort at scale, which entails collaborating across social boundaries and political battlelines. If we are to prevent irrecoverable civilisational collapse, we need to demonstrate that taking care of the natural world is in everybody’s interest.

The Climate Majority Project works to inspire, fund, connect, coordinate, and scale citizen-led initiatives in workplaces, local communities, and strategic professional networks to reach beyond the boundaries of activism-as-usual. It is our endeavour to instantiate the kind of ambitious, moderate flank to XR that Rupert Read has previously called for. The plan is to prove the concept in the UK and then go global — albeit at a slower pace; after all, moderation is rarely adorned with fireworks…(More)”.

Valuing Data: Where Are We, and Where Do We Go Next?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Tim Sargent and Laura Denniston: “The importance of data as a driver of technological advancement cannot be underestimated, but how can it be measured? This paper looks at measuring the value of data in national accounts using three different categories of data-related assets: data itself, databases and data science. The focus then turns to three recent studies by statistical agencies in Canada, the Netherlands and the United States to examine how each country uses a cost-based analysis to value data-related assets. Although there are two other superior ways of valuing data (the income-based method and the market-based method, as well as a hybrid approach), the authors find that these methods will be difficult to implement. The paper concludes with recommendations that include widening data-valuation efforts to the public sector, which is a major holder of data. The social value of data also needs to be calculated by considering both the positive and negative aspects of data-related investment and use. Appropriate data governance strategies are needed to ensure that data is being used for everyone’s benefit…(More)”.

Toward Bridging the Data Divide

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Blog by Randeep Sudan, Craig Hammer, and Yaroslav Eferin: “Developing countries face a data conundrum. Despite more data being available than ever in the world, low- and middle-income countries often lack adequate access to valuable data and struggle to fully use the data they have.

This seemingly paradoxical situation represents a data divide. The terms “digital divide” and “data divide” are often used interchangeably but differ. The digital divide is the gap between those with access to digital technologies and those without access. On the other hand, the data divide is the gap between those who have access to high-quality data and those who do not. The data divide can negatively skew development across countries and therefore is a serious issue that needs to be addressed…

The effects of the data divide are alarming, with low- and middle-income countries getting left behind. McKinsey estimates that 75% of the value that could be created through Generative AI (such as ChatGPT) would be in four areas of economic activity: customer operations, marketing and sales, software engineering, and research and development. They further estimate that Generative AI  could add between $2.6 trillion and $4.4 trillion in value in these four areas.

PWC estimates that approximately 70% of all economic value generated by AI will likely accrue to just two countries: the USA and China. These two countries account for nearly two-thirds of the world’s hyperscale data centers, high rates of 5G adoption, the highest number of AI researchers, and the most funding for AI startups. This situation creates serious concerns for growing global disparities in accessing benefits from data collection and processing, and the related generation of insights and opportunities. These disparities will only increase over time without deliberate efforts to counteract this imbalance…(More)”

A Blueprint for the EU Citizens’ Assembly

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Carsten Berg, Claudia Chwalisz, Kalypso Nicolaidis, and Yves Sintomer: “The European Union has recognised that citizens are not sufficiently involved or empowered in its governance—how can we solve this problem?

Today, ahead of President Von Der Leyen’s 2023 State of the Union address on 13 September, we’re proud to co-publish a paper with the European University Institute written by four leading experts. The paper offers a blueprint for a solution: establishing the EU Citizens’ Assembly (EUCA) to share power with the other three institutions of the European Council, Commission, and Parliament.

After all, “a new push for democracy” is one of the European Commission’s self-declared top priorities for this coming year. This needs to be more than lip service. Unless citizens are given genuine agency and voice in deciding the big issues facing us in this age of turbulence, the authors argue, we will have lost the global battle in defence of democracy. The foundation has been laid for the EUCA with the success of lottery-selected EU Citizens’ Panels during the Conference on the Future of Europe, as well as those initiated by the European Commission over the past year, but more work must be done. 

In the paper, the authors explain why such an Assembly is needed, then suggest how it could be designed in an iterative fashion, operated, and what powers it could have in the EU system.

“In a broader context of democratic crisis and green, digital, and geopolitical transitions, we need to open up our imaginations to radical political change,” the authors say. “Political and technocratic elites must start giving up some control and allow for a modicum of self-determination by citizens.”..(More)”

Incentivising open ecological data using blockchain technology

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Robert John Lewis, Kjell-Erik Marstein & John-Arvid Grytnes: “Mindsets concerning data as proprietary are common, especially where data production is resource intensive. Fears of competing research in concert with loss of exclusivity to hard earned data are pervasive. This is for good reason given that current reward structures in academia focus overwhelmingly on journal prestige and high publication counts, and not accredited publication of open datasets. And, then there exists reluctance of researchers to cede control to centralised repositories, citing concern over the lack of trust and transparency over the way complex data are used and interpreted.

To begin to resolve these cultural and sociological constraints to open data sharing, we as a community must recognise that top-down pressure from policy alone is unlikely to improve the state of ecological data availability and accessibility. Open data policy is almost ubiquitous (e.g. the Joint Data Archiving Policy, (JDAP) http://datadryad.org/pages/jdap) and while cyber-infrastructures are becoming increasingly extensive, most have coevolved with sub-disciplines utilising high velocity, born digital data (e.g. remote sensing, automated sensor networks and citizen science). Consequently, they do not always offer technological solutions that ease data collation, standardisation, management and analytics, nor provide a good fit culturally to research communities working among the long-tail of ecological science, i.e. science conducted by many individual researchers/teams over limited spatial and temporal scales. Given the majority of scientific funding is spent on this type of dispersed research, there is a surprisingly large disconnect between the vast majority of ecological science and the cyber-infrastructures to support open data mandates, offering a possible explanation to why primary ecological data are reportedly difficult to find…(More)”.

Scaling deep through transformative learning in public sector innovation labs – experiences from Vancouver and Auckland

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Lindsay Cole & Penny Hagen: “…explores scaling deep through transformative learning in Public Sector Innovation Labs (PSI labs) as a pathway to increase the impacts of their work. Using literature review and participatory action research with two PSI labs in Vancouver and Auckland, we provide descriptions of how they enact transformative learning and scaling deep. A shared ambition for transformative innovation towards social and ecological wellbeing sparked independent moves towards scaling deep and transformative learning which, when compared, offer fruitful insights to researchers and practitioners. The article includes a PSI lab typology and six moves to practice transformative learning and scaling deep…(More)”.

Wartime Digital Resilience

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Gulsanna Mamediieva: “Prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, technology was already a growing part of the Ukrainian economy and was central to the government’s vision to reimagine the way citizens and businesses interact with the state in the digital era: paperless, cashless, and without bureaucracy. Even before the conflict, we in government believed that technology holds the promise of making government more transparent, efficient, and accountable, empower citizens, increase participation, and combat corruption.

However, technology has become even more central to helping the country defend itself and mitigate the effect of Russian attacks on civilians. As a result, Ukraine has emerged as a leading example of digital innovation and resilience in the face of challenges, particularly through its gov-tech solutions, using digital governance capacities to maintain basic governance functions in crisis situations and showing a strong case for digital public innovation to support its people. Digital government plays a central role in Ukraine’s ability to continue to fight for its very existence and respond to the aggressor…(More)”