Doha, Qatar

Doha International Airport is well-known for welcoming a wide array of people from around the world, from the businessman come to seek his share of the seemingly inexhaustible Gulf Money, to the tourist looking to explore the beauty of modern architecture. Then there are the citizens of neighbouring countries, devastated by poverty who find themselves desperately seeking a livelihood in Qatar, most often working as taxi drivers, on construction sites or in low paid service industries.

The very first image that struck me as I walked out of the arrivals gate in Doha was the endless line of people queuing to pass the border controls. Among them, you could see Westerners holding their briefcases with their eyes glued to their Blackberries, Arab families surrounded by restless children, but more importantly, hundreds of men who looked like they came from South Asia, who in my opinion were treated less courteously than the rest of us. A stark contrast indeed.  They represented about 70% of the people queuing and I wondered what it was they were seeking as they had their passports checked, eyes scanned and fingerprints taken, a routine procedure to enter the country. Was it the hope of a better life or at least enough to support families left behind in their home towns and villages?

A week later, I was back at my desk in London, reading the statements made by Nicholas McGeehan of Human Rights Watch to CNN. He was denouncing the so-called ‘Kafala system’—which apparently ties employees to a specific employer and has, according to Human Rights Watch and the International Trade Union Confederation, turned into a de facto form of slavery for the more than one million migrant workers living within Qatar’s borders. [1]

He further commented that ‘Qatar has been quite successful at giving off a progressive image when, in fact, the [labour] system is exploitative.’ [2] The country’s exit visa system is another factor encouraging this ‘modern slavery’ as employees are unable to leave the country without presenting their sponsor’s approval. This results in a system where workers are trapped in a country and the same old abusive practices rear their head: unpaid wages, wages held in arrears, making the workers incredibly vulnerable, and which made the entire Gulf Region stand out as a red light in the 2010 Human Rights Watch Risk Assessment looking at basic fundamental labour rights. McGeehan went as far as calling the region a collection of ‘fundamentally slave states.’

As I read the interview, I could not help but think back at the time I spent queuing at the Qatar Border Control, surrounded by Bangladeshis, seeking the illusory promise of better opportunities and a better life.

Yet, from a grander perspective, this situation is emblematic of the cognitive dissonance the Gulf States can often present – shiny buildings and fast cars, opulence and benevolence versus dire conditions that many of their inhabitants live in and effectively manufactured class system.  A stark contrast indeed.  Strategically and geographically, these states, not least Qatar, have many disparate publics, both domestic and international, with whom they are engaged – a difficult line to walk and not an enviable position.  But because of this, it sometimes feels difficult to grasp what exactly these relatively young countries ‘are’ and what they stand for, depending upon whether you’re a rich westerner or a poor Asian.  On the back of the Arab Spring, some governments in the region are recognising this dissonance and fortunately some, but by no means all, are attempting to tackle it responsibly.  But there’s a long way to go.

Tina Kavadze, Albany Associates

Trainer Yahya Shoqair

Yahya started the fourth and final day of “Enhancing Media Coverage of Elections” workshop with tips for successful election coverage; he started with an overview of some articles in the constitution relevant to parliamentary elections. He continued to talk about the importance of being prepared before elections and explained that journalists need to begin to plan for elections ahead of time because if they don’t, others will and the media will have to chase to catch up with them.  He affirmed, “We need to address the programs being put forward by the parties and draw up questions that will put those policies to the test.”

Yahya added, “If journalists don’t plan for the elections, candidates and parties will hijack the media agenda and we will fail in our role as observers and monitors to make sure the elections are free and fair. Our role in the election starts from the onset of the registration. It does not begin at polling day.”

Yayha carried on confirming to the delegates the importance of being prepared before, during and after elections. He explained that the election is an opportunity to focus on the needs of the minorities and marginalized as well and to give a voice to those who have no voice. He added that the questions the journalists ask are important and stressed the value of preparing them in advance and making them count. He advised the delegates not to pose several questions at once, as the candidate will simply answer the easiest.

He concluded with a reminder to the journalist to be professionally neutral and impartial. “Whatever your own political preference, do not wear party colors or reveal your personal views during an interview” he told the delegates. Yahya warned the journalists from accepting gifts from candidates and cautioned them to watch out for election crimes, such as multiple voting, to check that the parties are conforming to the election codes and not to ignore coverage in remote areas as this where most violations take place.

Andrew commenced the second session “Towards a new code of conduct for journalists.” He began by asking the journalists to define public interest. The public interest was explained as the necessity to expose a serious crime, misdemeanor or a misleading statement.  It is not immunity from prosecution or a license to break the law, lie or deceive, but a recognition that sometimes the journalist, like the undercover cop, must go into the shadows in order to expose a serious crime or misdemeanor.

Andrew explained that the journalist must sometimes intrude on the rights of an individual in order to protect the public from that individual. He said that in the UK, if the journalist does something illegal, the Director of Public Prosecutions will weigh up whether the greater public interest was served by the journalist’s actions. He concluded that the public interest needs to be defined in Jordan and protected.

Delegates worked in pairs to answer two questions “Are you as a journalist protected by the law? If not should that be changed?” Participants presented and discussed their answers.

After discussion most of the delegates believed that journalism that served the public interest should be given greater protection in Jordan.

Yahia carried on with the discussion with the participants about the protection of journalists in Jordan. He explained that 114 lawsuits were filed against journalists, of which 64 were convicted as a result of violations of articles 4, 5 and 7 from the constitution.

After lunch, Andrew Boyd started the session entitled “Investigative Reporting” with a quote from the film All the President’s Men:

“At times it looked like it might cost them their jobs, their reputations, and maybe even their lives” to demonstrate the risks that investigative reporters subject themselves to.

He posed a question to the audience: “What is investigative journalism?” and asked the delegates to share their experiences in investigative reporting and if they were ever threatened throughout their careers as journalists.  This session also looked at steps journalists should take to protect themselves and their sources when they conduct investigative journalism. He explained to the delegates that they should record all threats they receive, refer them to their editors, and alert organizations that exist for journalists’ protection.

He also addressed the issue of the protection of interviews, explaining that should the interview and media exposure likely create a substantial risk to their safety they should be clearly informed and their permission given.

Amani Soliman concluded the workshop giving tips to the journalists for successful political interviewing. She addressed the journalists, saying “We ask questions on behalf of our audiences. So be persistent and keep on asking to make sure they answer the question.”  She affirmed that journalists should not be sidetracked by the politician, and should never lose their temper with their interviewee.  She gave examples of politicians attempting to manipulate the interview to their own advantage. Among many other useful tips she also added that the journalist should never promise to ask only easy questions, or to agree with the interviewee about their questions in advance. She also added that the questions should be straightforward and simple.

At the end of the workshop, participants shared what they have learned throughout the course over the past four days:

“I felt that I gained more information, specifically on the laws and those that are to be developed in the future.”

“The training was comprehensive in covering all aspects for journalists – wonderful. I learned so much about my rights and duties in getting information.”

“You reminded us to be gender-sensitive in press coverage. This is often overlooked. It is good to be reminded about the issue of laws, regulations and legislation and to compare the practices in Jordan with the rest of the world.”

Andrew Boyd hands out certificates at the completion of the four-day workshop.

The participants were handed their certificates and the workshop was closed with a group photo with the trainers and representatives from UNESCO and Albany.

Hamza proceeded with the second session on social media networks; he showed some Twitter accounts of governmental officials in Jordan, explaining how social media networks made it easier for journalists to get statements from governmental officials and spokespersons, whereas it was more difficult before social media. He added that during elections, journalists used Facebook to get in touch with the candidates which was often easier than getting their contacts from the Independent Election Committee. Participants who were not yet using social media were offered the opportunity to sign up to Twitter and learned how to best use new media.

The trainers looked at the convergence between all media and the web, where traditional media outlets are now regarding the web as a second screen, affording audiences the chance to select their own information, to choose what they want and when they want it. The web is empowering audiences by allowing them to select that which is relevant to them. Their consumption is no longer dictated by the media agenda.

The session charted the irresistible rise of the infographic – interactive information that can bring home the relevance of a story to an audience and allow them to participate as never before. That mixture of infographics and audience participation meant massive increases in audiences for the media in America who made the most of them in the recent US elections.

The session looked at the use of social media in the recent US and Egyptian elections, and posed two key questions: can social media impact the outcome of elections, and can the effective use of social media by the candidates actually determine the outcome?

Finally, the session looked at the way the interconnectivity of social media users can be extrapolated and portrayed graphically, which could be used by authoritarian societies to identify and remove key influencers or ‘trouble-makers’ – including journalists.

The final session of the day was led by Yahya Shoqair aimed at training the journalists to train others and pass the knowledge they have gained to their fellow journalists. He began by explaining the characteristics of a good trainer. He continued explaining the effective training methods and techniques, stressing the importance of sharing experiences. The delegates worked in groups applying what they learned in planning and designing a training outline, followed by a presentation by the groups and open discussion.  Boyd closed the session thanking the participants for their dedication and commitment.

Shoqair explained the high importance of freedom of expression which also includes the right to peaceful assembly and the right to join trade unions and political parties as well as the right of the opposition. He presented some articles from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and engaged in an open discussion with the participants.

Shoqair explained that Jordan is a signatory to various international guarantees of freedom of expression. These are guarantees of the citizen’s right to news and information. Governments who seek to regulate journalism do so in order to control journalists. But the rights of freedom of information and expression belong to every citizen, not just to journalists.

‘In a democracy a journalist has no privilege over any other citizen in the country; all have the right – not the privilege – to freedom of information,’ Shoqair said.  ’That right belongs to citizens and journalists alike.  There are necessary limits to freedom of expression, because freedom carries responsibilities,’ he explained. ‘We are not free to call for war, to tell lies about others that will damage their reputations or incite others to hatred.’

Andrew Boyd stressed onthe importance of making a distinction between a right and a privilege:  ’A right belongs to me, nobody can take it away from me while a privilege is conditional and belongs to the state and can be withdrawn.’

Session two focused on the representation of minorities by Hamza Saud. A heated debate took place about the right of Jordanian women to pass on their citizenship to their children.

Boyd continued to talk about propaganda and the distortion of reality.  He explained that the role of the journalist is to report accurately and give people a voice despite his/her own opinion: ‘Even if I despise what they’re saying, my role as a journalist is to give people a voice.’

Boyd showed pictures as examples of propaganda which stimulated discussion amongst the participants.

Saud engaged the audience in an exercise as part of the next session about the representation of minorities, and he asked the participants to answer two questions:  What minorities and marginalized groups that are represented by a quota (in politics) are fairly represented in the media?  Which ones are not?

Soliman began the following session, ‘Gender sensitive reporting’ with a definition of gender and explains that media plays a role in shaping how society views, treats, respects and deals with women. She engaged the participants in a discussion about the representation of women in the media and examples of male-biased coverage.  She further elaborated the gender stereotyping of women in the media and how it prevents the society from seeing women as equals and reinforces inequality and stigma which in turn leads to shaping public opinion.

In the following session, Soliman continued to talk about gender sensitive reporting with a focus on women’s empowerment. She presented examples from reports published about women’s empowerment in Jordan during the past year and concluded with a discussion about some of the obstacles that obstruct women empowerment and participation, showing some quotations from women leaders in Jordan about the status and the future of women in the country.

Participants left the second day of the training excited about what they have learned throughout the day and the discussions with the trainers and their fellow journalists. They were particularly interested in the discussion about gender sensitive reporting where a debate broke out between the participants about women’s rights, their empowerment and their representation in the media.

Follow updates at #EMCOEJordan and on the project’s Facebook page.

Participants at the first workshop for Enhancing Media Coverage of Elections in Jordan.

Day one of the training workshop entitled “Enhancing Media Reporting on Elections” commenced Sunday 12 May, 2013 at the Bristol Hotel with the participation of 15 journalists from different media outlets based in Amman and in the north of Jordan.

At the beginning of the workshop, participants introduced each other and talked about their experiences and involvement in covering the previous elections in Jordan, expressing what they hoped to gain from the 4-day workshop.

Trainers introduced each other as well in an interview set-up. The team of trainers included Mr Andrew Boyd, a media consultant and journalist with 25 years’ experience in print, radio and TV; Mr Yahya Shoqair, a Jordanian journalist, media law expert, and the Chief Editor of Alarab Alyawm; Ms Amani Soliman, a communications specialist and professional journalist, working for organisations including Al-Jazeera, BBC, CNN, Kuwait State Television and Egyptian Radio and Television Union; and Mr Hamza Saud, a journalist and broadcaster in the Community Media Network (Amman Net country radio Al Balad) since 2007, who specialises in coverage of the parliament.

Amani Soliman, communications specialist, trains journalists on ethics and credibility.

Following the introductions, Mr Boyd explained the aim of this course which is to support, train and equip the journalists in the context of election reporting and their vital role in developing democracy in Jordan. Hamza started off the first session talking about covering the elections in an open discussion with the journalists where participants shared their experiences in covering the previous parliamentary elections and the challenges that they faced and the lessons learned.  Some examples of what the participants shared:

• “The electoral commission said there was a high turnout, but this was wrong. I saw a weak turnout.”

• “The elections were not fair. I was working with an electoral website, representing radio there. When they started counting the votes, everything was cut off, they took our computers, they closed the doors, and they banned me from going out of the rooms. We lost the link for a couple of hours. There was fraud.”

• “I was given no material or information. I had to find out myself what was going on.
  Many of my articles on the election were not published, because they were against the editorial line of the newspaper, which was supposed to be independent. When I wrote about fraud, it was banned. The paper was supposed to be independent but the government was interfering.”

• “There was a lot of fraud because campaigning got underway before the legal time for the campaign to start.”

• “There were no instructions on how to deal with the media. Journalists were prohibited from entering the election stations, because local decisions were being made on how to deal with the media.”

• “The IEC was just a decoration. It was run by the governor, his assistant and his troops. There was no reference point for the media. The official’s phone was turned off. Many people turned back. All the young men were gathering round the women’s polling stations and were harassing them. There was no access to information. If you talk about political money you can be attacked. One colleague was attacked and his camera was broken. The reporter was beaten because he was considered to be doing harm. Those in charge of security were ineffective at protecting journalists.”

• “For the officials, the most important thing is to project a good image, to prove they have a high rate of participation. The governor told me of a far higher rate of participation than the officials. These were not accurate figures.”

Mr Yayha Shoqair led the second session entitled “The Protection of Journalists.” Mr Shoqair stressed on the fact that the journalists have the ultimate right to choose not to reveal their sources by law. He talked about the rights of the journalists in the press and publications law, he also presented the penal code and the sanctions that journalists might be subject to in the case of any violation on their part

After lunch, Ms Soliman delivered the third session of the day: “The Role of the Media in the Electoral Process.” She explained that the main role of the media is to inform the citizens fairly and accurately, to act as a watchdog safeguarding the public’s interest and to be the voice of the voters

She continued talking about the ethics of journalism in elections, stressing the importance of accuracy as one of the most important elements in journalism, for it is what builds credibility and image. “A good journalist is one whose own opinions and preferences are not visible in his/her reporting,” said Ms Soliman.

She continued with an open discussion with the participants giving examples from the Jordanian, Egyptian and Iraqi elections.

Mr Saud continued to talk about the role of the media in the electoral process, presenting the international electoral standards. More discussion about journalism ethics took place; within this context, participants engaged in a discussion about whether undercover investigative audio recordings are considered enough evidence in the court of law.  He talked about the report published by the Independent Election Commission, and the main findings with regard to the media coverage of the electoral process.

The participants expressed their interest in this workshop and the importance of such courses targeted at Jordanian journalists covering the elections. They engaged in open discussion with the trainers and amongst themselves, adding value to the topics delivered.

Find more photos and live updates at the project’s Facebook page and by following #EMCOEjordan on Twitter.

 Albany Project Management, Enhancing Media Coverage of Elections, Jordan

Albany recently conducted an Investigative Journalism Course for 30 Somali journalists on behalf of the African Union/United Nations Information Support Team in Somalia (AU/UN IST) and the National Union of Somali Journalists (NUSOJ).

The objectives were to help Somali journalists in the specific area of investigative journalism and to strengthen their basic skills and decision-making criteria.

The course, taught by Andrew Hill, Yusuf Garaad and Ruhi Hamid, covered:

- Ethics, objectivity & conduct Sourcing & Research methods Relationships with institutions

- New digital media

- Editorial & news writing skills – for print, radio, web and video

- News gathering, production and distribution, Interviewing skills

- Fundamentals of Media Law & Regulation

- Safety and security of journalists

Enthusiastic and engaged delegates praised the course highly, claiming that more such training was vital to expand the capacity of Somali journalism.

Albany remains committed to enabling journalists operating in challenging environments to conduct their roles professionally, ethically and safely.

View more photos from the training on Flickr.

Web link: https://s3.amazonaws.com/easel.ly/all_easels/129629/DigitalDivide2/image.jpg

Enbed link: <a href=”https://s3.amazonaws.com/easel.ly/all_easels/129629/DigitalDivide2/image.jpg”/><img src=”https://s3.amazonaws.com/easel.ly/all_easels/129629/DigitalDivide2/image.jpg” alt=”DigitalDivide2 title=”easel.ly” /></a><br /><a href=”http://easel.ly” style=”text-align:left;” align=”left”>easel.ly</a

Photo: opensource.com

For the duration of the Cold War, America was known as the ‘Land of the Free’ and perhaps one of the most important components of that statement was the upholding of freedom of speech. During the period of bipolarity and unipolarity following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the First Amendment enshrined in the US Constitution was considered a clear model of free speech, a perception in part aided by US hegemony, with other countries adhering to liberal ideals cast under an American umbrella.  As the world moves to a more dynamic and pluralistic international society, it is becoming increasingly clear that freedom of speech is far from being a universally understood term under one typecast.

The egg is Twitter’s symbol for users that choose to remain anonymous. Image by mkhmarketing via Flickr.

Social media giants like Twitter are at a crossroad as we see a rise in the diversification in interpretations of freedom of speech. Twitter prides itself on upholding the ideal version, even calling itself the ‘Free Speech Wing of the Free Speech Party’. Providing communications support during the Arab Spring protests and serving as an amplifier for social discontent has cemented Twitter’s role as the preserver of free speech, at least to those such as the professional media who are always waiting for a story.

However, there is an increasing perception that this precise understanding of free speech is an American export and interestingly, it is Western democracies that are contesting this conception more and more. This is especially true of France, where the weight of past collaboration with the Nazi occupation still hangs heavy over the public conscience. As such, there are strong laws put in place to counter hate speech, particularly that of an anti-Semitic nature. Earlier this year, trending topics on Twitter in France included #UnBonJuif and others which the French authorities tried to have removed, calling upon Twitter to reveal the names of the tweeters who had displayed the worst symbols of anti-Semitism or racism. So far, Twitter has blocked access to these offensive tweets from France, but they can still be accessed beyond the country’s borders. But the company has refused to give up details on the authors of the tweets. As such, Twitter has conceded to limited censorship, while simultaneously trying to uphold its loyalty to free speech, creating confusion in terms of whether it is abiding by national laws or not, given that it is a US company with its servers based there. At any rate, selectively adhering to national laws will create an unsustainable situation for Twitter, which is accessed by more than 140 million people worldwide (see a global heat map of users here) and will force the company to take a firm position on the extent to which they stand by free speech in relation to the countries in which they operate.

Comic by Carlos Latuff via pbs.org.

Of course, there are dangers in complying with the provisions of laws designed to stifle hate speech in other countries, namely that it sets a precedent in terms of giving up names to authorities.  After enough times it becomes established practice that can be called upon by other authorities looking to control content online, perhaps for reasons not as legitimate or righteous as preventing hate speech.

With more tweets coming from outside the US, will Twitter stand by the free speech increasingly seen as an American export, or will it give way to considerations of measures put in place in other countries counteracting hate speech? If it does choose to take into account national laws, will it continue to be the ‘Free Speech Wing of the Free Speech Party’?

Beatrice Verez, Albany Associates

Map of the In Amenas region in Algeria. Image by Al MacDonald via Wikimedia

The events of 16-20 January 2013 at the In Amenas industrial plant in Algeria, during which almost 50 people lost their lives, have thrown a stark spotlight upon the very essence of any company’s ‘licence to operate’ in troubled parts of the world.

BP, Total, Statoil, Italy’s Eni, Spain’s Cepsa and Repsol have all been forced to reconsider their operations in Algeria’s oil and gas industry that supplies up to 25% of the European Union’s gas, earning Algeria $55 billion.  The terrorist attack has undoubtedly raised the cost of business and operations, with concerned companies such as ConocoPhillips contemplating departure.  The strategic consequences are huge.

In standard business terms any organizations’s licence to operate depends on a multitude of stakeholders.  In relatively stable governed areas, top of that list has traditionally been the government in power, be it democratically elected or otherwise.  The other various forces at play include political opinion, the media, industry reputation, pressure groups, public opinion, regulations, industry standards and the widespread attitudes of consumers, consumers themselves, suppliers, investors and communities.  Common to all the stakeholders, all of whom possess a degree of influence on those forces, is the fact that they affect or can be affected by an organization’s actions.  This is increasingly being understood by those in the extractive industries.

Dark smoke from a gas chimney, Gas & oil fields near Ahwaz, Khuzestan province, Iran, April 2008. Photo by dynamosquito on Flickr.

Even before In Amenas, shifts in the concept of licence to operate were afoot.  It can be argued that Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), as a major factor in handling those forces at play, has been weak in doing precisely that.  The concept of social licence to operate (SLO) has gathered pace, in which SLO has become an imperative for corporations in the resource extraction sector that require support from local communities to secure financing and government approvals for their projects[1].  The differences in its intentions over mere licence to operate are largely indistinguishable. But the mechanisms are of note.  This new form of securing a licence to operate depends much more on direct engagement with local stakeholders, building partnerships on the ground and ceding a degree of control to local players.  As Ernst and Young concede “the consistent ranking of maintaining a social license to operate within the top six risks over the last five years demonstrates it is an important element of doing business as opposed to being a compliance exercise.”[2]  Equally, Ashridge Business School state that “in this competitive system, with extractive industries caught in the glare of local and global attention, participatory engagement is a way for companies – and stakeholders – to negotiate a social license to operate, i.e. social acceptance of the resource development by local communities, and positively impact host communities and companies themselves through increased morale, more productive employees and long term benefits as a partner of choice. Thus there is a dual business case: increased productivity (value creation) plus risk mitigation (value protection).”[3]

Grappling with new realities in which local stakeholders are flexing muscles has proved problematic.  Examples of such difficulties can be seen with Australia’s Lynas Corporation over its operation in Malaysia, where the Corporation and Malaysian government are facing a competent and powerful backlash against the companies operations[4]. The consequences for Lynas are costly, not least in public relations and social media[5].  Equally, in the aftermath of the deadly incidents of August 2012 at South African Lonmin’s Marikana mine, in which 34 miners were shot by police[6], Anglo-American, suffering under similar fiery sentiment from local stakeholders, are facing a major challenge to its licence to operate in South Africa[7].

The cited examples, however, exhibit a complex and toxic mix.  Alongside genuine local activism, the wider political spectre of resource nationalism appears to be raising its head.  As a 2012 Chatham House report presents, ”in recent years, resource-rich countries have been pushing aggressively for more control and a higher share of profits from their natural resources – especially projects in the extractive industries.”[8]  With Mali being discussed in many senior diplomatic and security forums, such resource nationalism appears to be a corporate concern in that locale, as well as across Africa[9].  Although African governments may be squeezing organizations, not least the extractives, for levys the very notion of resource nationalism has not only the capability to affect licence to operate but also to be available to be hijacked not only by political entities but also those exercising power through the gun.  Especially in the currently newsworthy insecure environments of Africa.

In those semi-governed spaces and challenging environments, where politics, and thereby the rule of law, is very much local and where that rule of law is, at best, weak or, at worst, practically non-existent, the events of In Amenas has dramatically shown that other, non-traditional stakeholders, in the clearest understanding of the term, are exerting disproportional power in which they are demonstrably effecting the actions of organisations, threatening their licence to operate.

July 2010 protest in New Orleans about the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster and response. Traditional CSR is no longer a guaranteed license to operate for extractive companies, especially in semi-governed and conflict places. Photo by Infrogmation.

Here, the hard security options of many industries seem to have not necessarily been up to the task of enabling the maintenance of operations.  The current trend towards increased resource nationalism, terrorism, radicalization and violent labour disputes indicate that hard security and traditional CSR programmes are no longer guarantors of a licence to operate and are, in fact, false economies. Soft security initiatives such as grassroots engagement with local entities, from tribal leaders, Imams, local politicians and activists, suitable and culturally sensitive public information campaigns, inclusive and collaborative with stakeholders on the ground and relationship building with civil society and non-governmental organizations all have the potential to significantly mitigate the risks to organisations operating in challenging environments.  Real, tangible security will still be required but as, in the security and diplomatic fields, Hard and Soft power have morphed into Smart power, the intelligent, or smart, use of both hard and soft security instruments need to be progressively brought into corporate strategy.

Oilfields in Azerbaijan. If companies do not engage and communicate with local communities where they work, it is unlikely they will be warmly accepted by society. Photo by indigoprime via Flickr.

Issue management should correctly identify the threats to those choosing to operate in semi-governed spaces but the mechanisms for addressing those threats are, using a medical analogy, often more akin to treating the disease but not its cause.  As ever, prevention is better than cure.

As oil, gas, and other minerals grow increasingly scarce and as competition for access to resources intensifies, a license to operate is becoming as important to companies in resource-intensive industries as advanced technologies and engineering equipment.  Securing such a licence to operate in semi-governed spaces and challenging environments increasingly involves engagement with actors previously merely tolerated or, worse, not even considered.  The issues presented by this lack of engagement to maintain a licence to operate can no longer be ignored.  In Almenas may prove yet to be a dramatic manifestation of this.

Jem Thomas, Albany Associates

The intensive, immersive and collaborative Masterclass (renamed from Albany’s previous Strategic Communications Masterclass) covered a wide range of subject areas from social media and digital engagement through to humanitarian, conflict and grassroots communications.  Delegates heard from some of the world’s most respected professionals in the communications and media industry. Speakers included Nick Gowing, BBC World News, Mark Laity, Chief Strategic Communications at SHAPE, NATO, and Sir Kieran Prendergast, former Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs at the United Nations, among many others.

The Masterclass proved an opportunity for delegates to discuss today’s key communications challenges, share experiences and impart knowledge learnt from operations in some of the world’s most challenging environments, as well as discuss the principles of ‘comprehensive communications,’ an approach developed and implemented by Albany around the world, from Somalia to Iraq to the DRC.

The scenario exercise, underpinning the entire course, was fast paced and all syndicates dealt with its challenges well, devising comprehensive solutions and solid, workable strategies.  Participants used their varied experiences to contribute unique answers to tough questions, creating lively debate and opportunities for learning and grasping new concepts, especially amidst the world’s rapidly changing media ecosystem.

Watch out for CCMC14 coming next year.  For more information about Albany’s training programs, please visit our Training page.  More photos from the event can be found at our Flickr page.