120 likes | 134 Views
This document discusses the concept of horizon scanning and its application in building an information network for NATO Strategic Direction South. It outlines the objectives, factors/drivers of (in)stability, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats, main line of effort, and key stakeholders involved in this process.
E N D
SYNDICATE 7 Horizon Scanning: Building an information network for NATO Strategic Direction South
Initial Brainstorming Questions • Understanding the meaning and scope of “horizon scanning” • What information is needed? • Which actors should be involved? • What are limitations and risks? • How can CIMIC contribute to the network?
Horizon Scanning Objectives • Identify factors / drivers / root causes for (in)stability • Elements of stability versus triggers of instability • Horizon scanning as part of the mission of the Southern Hub (NSD-S Hub)
Factors / Drivers of (In)Stability • Main Categories • PMESII (Political, Military, Economic, Social, Information, Infrastructure) • To Consider • Who is and should be looking at factors? • Who is able to asses a specific situation? • Who is ensuring complete coverage by criteria of stability? • Using ASCOPE (Area, Structure, Culture, Organization, Persons, Events)
Factors / Drivers of (In)Stability • Understanding culture • Ethnic tensions • Key-leaders • State resilience • More Detailed List • Leadership perceptions • Civilian perceptions • Gov’t structures/institutions • Historic trends and understanding • Operating patterns • Education • Employment level • Religious influence • Anthropology – understanding the society
Strengths • CIMIC assets (“boots on the ground” for the Hub) • Mutual trust / confidence • Using current capacities / planning procedures from a PS dimension • Support the decision making process • Existing resilience • Early warning system • Future Mission Network & CivMil Exchange products • Understanding of Comprehensive Approach
Weaknesses • Too many actors leads to duplication of efforts (lack of coordination/info sharing) • Negative perception of NATOby Non-Military Actors and Partner Nations • Political barriers to info-sharing among Allies/with Partners • Governmental/organizational interests • Definition of rules of information sharing • Difficulty of predicting outcomes
Opportunities • Info-sharing platforms, regular meetings/conferences/workshops • Building relationships • with international/regional organizations (AU, EU, GCC, LAS, UN, 5+5 initiative) • think-tanks (including in the region) • civilian universities, defense institutes in the region • others • Exploit existing tools already used by other actors • Expand Comprehensive Approach • Consider regional context • Optimized allocation of resources (by increasing coordination and avoiding duplication) • Support interaction with non-military actors
Threats • Need to know versus need to share • Corruption / criminality • Information sharing perceived as intelligence collection • Criminal networks • Regional impact
Main Line of Effort • SMEs (think tanks, academia) • Strategic Key Leaders (regional, local) • NMAs (IOs, GOs, NGOs) • Allies and Partners Actor Mapping Selection Outreach Engagement Key Stakeholders Key Activities Network Building • Communication platform • Information management system • Mutual trust • Seminars, conferences • Common understanding • Database of actors • Confidence building • MoUs, TAs, contracts Resources Outputs Time Scales • Current activities: Mapping and outreach (cyclical activity) • Future activities: Building communication platform, engagement
Enablers and Blockers • Enablers • Existing networks • Existing information sharing tools • … • Blockers • National caveats for information sharing • Political crisis • Conflicting interests/agendas among stakeholders
“Thank You for Your Attention” “Grazie per l’attenzione”