1. Remote Management Annotated Bibliography | MERCY CORPS 1
REMOTE MANAGEMENT
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
JUNE, 2015
This annotated bibliography provides an overview of literature related to remote management in humanitarian
settings. The resources presented here are illustrative of the bulk of the literature on the topic and include both
academic discourses as well as publically available organizational documents.
Abild, Erik. (2009). Creating Humanitarian Space: A Case Study of Somalia. UNHCR Research Paper No. 184.
http://www.unhcr.org/4b2a035e9.html
Abild’s biggest contribution to the discussion on remote management is what he terms “responsibility
transfer,” (p. 12). That is, organizations may blame or rationalize operational problems by attributing it to
remote management. Abild’s main thesis it that, rather than solely reacting to security dynamics,
humanitarian actors play a role in creating the humanitarian space in which they operate (p. 25).
Carle, Alexandre and Hakim Chkam. (2006). Humanitarian Action in the New Security Environment: Policy and
operational implications in Iraq. HPG Background Paper. http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-
assets/publications-opinion-files/397.pdf
This paper’s examination of humanitarian actors in Iraq is a useful way of examining the advantages and
disadvantages of remote management. Its discussion of the lack of distinction between aid workers and the
occupation of Iraq proves an interesting counter to the “aid-worker as impartial” narrative (p. iii). It outlines
the differences between remote management, remote control, and remote support, and argues that, in the
case of Iraq, a remote support strategy for nationalizing staff is the best option. In looking at organizations
operating in Iraq overall, Carle and Chkam argue that the development of remote management strategies was
ad-hoc and that staff responsible for implementing remote strategies tended to have no prior experience
doing so. However, this critique neglects to explore why a coherent strategy across organizations would be
beneficial. In the discussion, the authors take the stance that the most ‘rigid’ organizations adopted remote
control, while the most ‘flexible’ adopted remote support, thereby giving national staff more decision-making
power (p. 31).
Collinson, Sarah and Mark Duffield. (2013). Paradoxes of Presence: Risk management and aid culture in
challenging environments. HPG. http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-
files/8428.pdf
This report, commissioned by ESRC/DFID, is largely a critical response to Egeland et al.’s Stay and Deliver. It
argues that the “aid industry” has neglected to address the implications and consequences of an increased
reliance on remote management strategies. The authors agree with Hammond and Vaughan-Lee’s (2012)
argument about the increased interaction between military and security actors and civilian entities. They
assert that “arm’s length aid management” inevitably transfers risk to national and local staff. Additionally,
Collinson and Duffield critique Egeland et al., for failing to recognize the assumptions that national and local
staff are safer, when in fact, “particular ethnic, religious, or other identity or affiliations or resulting from their
position as agency representatives and gatekeepers,” (p. 22) may put them at greater risk.
Donini, Antonio and Daniel Maxwell. (2014). From face-to-face to face-to-screen: remote management,
effectiveness and accountability of humanitarian action in insecure environments. International Review of the Red
Cross. http://www.alnap.org/resource/12741

2. Remote Management Annotated Bibliography | MERCY CORPS 2
A very critical article that aims to analyze the issues associated with growing use of remote
management. The definition of remote management that the authors use is similar to
OCHA’s in that it is a response to deteriorating security, whereby international staff
members are withdrawn from program sites in a departure from ‘normal’ programming (p.
386). This article’s clear and strong stance against remote management likens remote management to
‘bunkerization’ of aid workers and argues that there is a correlation between increased availability of distance
technologies and the increased use of remote management. Interestingly, it mentions the possibility of the
next technological step being to use drones to deliver aid. According to Donini, this fundamentally changes
the relationship of aid from “the time-tested anthropological-type approaches for understanding local
situations” to “cyber-humanitarianism,” (p. 411). Despite being quite disparaging about remote management,
at the conclusion, this article says that “remote technologies are obviously here to stay. If they are to have a
progressive future, however, they need demilitarizing and opening to greater democratic control,” (p. 412).
ECHO. (n.d.). Instruction note for ECHO staff on Remote Management.
http://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/partners/humanitarian_aid/Remote_Management_instructions.pdf
ECHO’s strict stance against funding programs which use remote management is based on three
considerations: 1) ECHO is a field-based donor, 2) Remote management entails significant risks, and 3)
Building acceptance remains the best access strategy. It argues that the best way to gain access and avoid
security risks is to “build acceptance” (p. 3), but fails to discuss the limitations (ie. time constraints, with which
population/group if there is a conflict, etc.) of this approach.
Egeland, Jan, Adele Harmer, and Abby Stoddard. (2011). To Stay and Deliver: Good practice for humanitarians in
complex security environments. OCHA. https://docs.unocha.org/sites/dms/Documents/Stay_and_Deliver.pdf
This study presents remote management as an alternative to ‘bunkerization’ and argues that while it makes
effective and accountable programming challenging, there are “promising practical innovations,” (p. 2).
Egeland et al. cite organizations most successful at maintaining access as being those which have combined
localized programming having a high degree of local acceptance with low visibility at the national level (p. 3).
The authors point out that there are few examples of best practices in providing adequate security and
support, while at the same time, increasing capacity for national staff. It concludes with broad
recommendations/ good practice for gaining and maintaining access, and a discussion of various acceptance-
based approaches including, negotiated access; localized or devolved management strategies; low-profile
approaches; protective measures; deterrent measures; and other operational measures.
Fast, Larissa, Elizabeth Rowley, Michael O’Neill, and Faith Freeman. (2011). The Promise of Acceptance: Insights
into acceptance as a security management approach from research in Kenya, South Sudan, and Uganda. Save the
Children. https://acceptanceresearch.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/finalreport_copyedited-for-print.pdf
This is the final project document for an 18-month project funded by OFDA which explored acceptance as a
way to address security concerns. It argues that organizations “need to consider various ways to more
systematically integrate an acceptance approach as part of good programming and effective security
management,” (p. 3). It does not refer to remote management, but is included here as it is one of the more-
commonly cited sources on acceptance.
Federal Department of Foreign Affairs. (2011). Humanitarian Access in Situations of Armed Conflict.
http://www.cdint.org/documents/FDFA_Humanitarian%20Access_Field%20Manual.pdf
This manual outlines a legal and logistical framework for gaining humanitarian access in response to specific
access issues, including bureaucratic constraints, targeting of personnel, and conflict environments. The
starting points for designing remote access programming are quite basic and drawn predominately from
Stoddard et al.’s Once Removed.

3. Remote Management Annotated Bibliography | MERCY CORPS 3
Global Protection Cluster. (2012). Seminar on Humanitarian Access, Protection and Assistance
Under Constraints.
http://www.globalprotectioncluster.org/_assets/files/news_and_publications/GPC_Thematic_
Seminar_Humanitarian_Access_Final_2012_EN.pdf
This paper, from the summary conclusions of the 2012 GPC Seminar, says that panelists generally agreed that
“the success of remote management has been difficult to measure,” (p. 5). The Access Monitoring &
Reporting Framework (AMRF) has context-specific indicators for protection concerns and this summary argues
that negotiations with governments and NSAs should be more focused on urgent needs (p. 6).
Hammond, Laura and Hannah Vaughan-Lee. (2012). Humanitarian Space in Somalia: A Scarce Commodity. HPG
Working Paper. http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/7646.pdf
This paper argues that the restrictive and insecure environment of Somalia is a direct result of the “political
economy of aid” (p. 2), whereby legal and illegal transactions have so eroded stakeholder’s trust in
humanitarian actors. As a result, since 2007, organizations have increasingly used remote management
strategies. It discusses the assumptions embedded in a switch to remote management, including: that
national staff are safer than international staff, that national staff are more willing to expose themselves to
risk, and that the cost (financial and reputational) to the organization are lower if an attack against national
staff occurs (p. 11). It concludes with the argument that humanitarian assistance is inherently political and
must therefore asses the limitations of access and protection in these contexts.
Hansen, Greg. (2008). Adapting to Insecurity in Iraq. Briefing Paper 1. https://www.eisf.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2014/09/0145-Hansen-2008-Adapting-to-insecurity-in-Iraq.pdf
Hansen, in discussing issues of access, argues that remote programming is “at odds with the operational
approach of proximity to victims,” (p. 2), which he argues is essential for “animating creativity, a sense of
urgency, and a willingness to take risks.” Without this relationship, there is not only increased geographic
distance, but also increased psychological distance between aid workers and beneficiaries. In the context of
Iraq, Hansen argues that organizations with a smaller footprint are more able to operate without armed
protection (p. 4).
Herbert, Sian. (2013). Remote Management of Projects in Fragile States. GSDRC Helpdesk Research Report.
http://www.gsdrc.org/docs/open/HDQ908.pdf
This report provides a broad overview of the literature on remote management and discusses two examples
of the use of remote management: The UNDP in Somalia and Tearfund in Afghanistan. It provides a helpful
discussion of trends, including increased use of remote management and the idea that it is a ‘last resort’ as
well as different forms of remote management, including remote control, remote management, remote
support/oversight, and remote partnership (p. 3).
Howe, Kimberly, Elizabeth Sites, and Danya Chudacoff. (2015). Breaking the Hourglass: Partnerships in Remote
Management Settings—The Cases of Syria and Iraqi Kurdistan. Feinstein International Center.
http://fic.tufts.edu/assets/Breakingthe-Hourglass_Syria_Iraqi-Kurdistan.pdf
This study sought to answer the following questions: How do international organizations identify local
partners? How do international organizations assess and build the capacity of these partners? How are
monitoring, accountability, and learning (MEAL) conducted in these settings? How do local partners prepare
for eventual donor withdrawal? It acknowledges that while remote management has been temporary or last-
resort in other contexts (i.e. Sudan, Iraq, or Afghanistan), in Syria, remote management has been a dominant
part of aid operations. It raises the question as to whether there is evidence that donors are less willing to
fund remotely managed projects.

4. Remote Management Annotated Bibliography | MERCY CORPS 4
Humanitarian Practice Network at ODI. (2010). Humanitarian Security Management.
http://www.odihpn.org/documents/humanitarianexchange047.pdf
This issue focuses on safety and security for humanitarian staff and discusses a number of
different approaches to aid delivery in insecure environments. In its brief discussion of
remote management, it argues that it is generally a reactive response to deteriorating security. In a chapter
on NGO programs in Darfur, it discusses the ways in which remote programming has transferred risk to local
staff. However, the nuances of this are presented in a discussion of how national staff may, in fact, be safer
due to their increased understanding of the context or may be more at risk due to their “ethnicity or
perceived political allegiance,” (p. 27).
Humanitarian Outcomes. (2013). The New Normal: Coping with the kidnapping threat. Aid Worker Security
Report. https://www.humanitarianoutcomes.org/sites/default/files/HO_AidWorkerSectyReport_2013_0.pdf
This fourth edition of the Aid Worker Security Report provides statistics on violence against humanitarian
workers in Part I and examines kidnapping in detail in Part II. The data shows an increase in the number of
attacks, but a decrease in the rates of violence if one is to consider per capita data. In the discussion on
kidnapping, this report points out that it is rare for an organization to leave completely, but that it may
restrict movement or switch to remote programming. It cautions against remote programming due to the
potential to transfer risk to “less well-resourced entities,” (p. 10). For more recent data on attacks on aid
workers, see Humanitarian Outcomes. (2014). Unsafe Passage: Road attacks and their impact of humanitarian
operations. Aid Worker Security Report.
https://www.humanitarianoutcomes.org/sites/default/files/Aid%20Worker%20Security%20Report%202014.p
df
Humanitarian Practice Network at ODI. (2010). Operational Security Management in Violent Environments.
www.odihpn.org/download/gpr_8_revised2pdf
This book is an updated manual for humanitarian security, in response to increased kidnappings and attacks
on aid workers. It argues that although remote management practices have been taking place for some time,
the prevalence is increasing due to increased risks to aid workers as well as technology developments which
allow for more remote monitoring (p. 95). Of note, it argues that the lack of organizational guidelines and
procedures on remote management is problematic given its widespread use (p. 96).
IASC. (2010). Evaluation of the Humanitarian Response in South Central Somalia, 2005-2010.
http://www.oecd.org/derec/SomaliaDARA.pdf
This independent evaluation of humanitarian aid in South-Central Somalia between the years 2005-2010 is
one of the most comprehensive evaluations ever conducted. It highlights the use of remote management as
one particularly innovative response to the conflict and resulting security considerations. It discusses issues of
risk transfer, access to information from the field, and the advantages of remote management strategies over
‘bunkerization.’ It posits that humanitarian organizations may need to consider remote management over the
long term, rather than assuming it is exclusively a temporary response (p. 52).
Integrity Research & Consultancy and Axiom Monitoring and Evaluation. (2015). Cross-Cutting Evaluation of DFID’s
Approach to Remote Management in Somalia and North-East Kenya. Evaluation Report.
http://www.integrityresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/150211-RPM-TPM-Evaluation-Final-Report.pdf
This report is a very thorough (and rare in that it was produced by outside consultants) examination of DFID’s
programming in Somalia and North-East Kenya. Their discussion of methodology attests to the lack of shared
understanding and the sensitive nature of remote management amongst implementing partners. Of note is
the recommendation, based on their findings, that DFID should lead coordination and systematic engagement
around remote management in the region, and specifically should “build consensus around minimum M&E

5. Remote Management Annotated Bibliography | MERCY CORPS 5
and accountability standards for remote programme management,” (p. vii). The biggest
contribution of this document is how it outlines risks to the program cycle as a result of
limited access, from program design to choice of implementing partners, to
implementation, to monitoring (p. 7). Additionally, it discusses at length, the remote
management practices in each country as well as different methods for monitoring, which are specific and
well-presented (p. 12-20).
Norman, Bryony. (2011). Effective Monitoring and Beneficiary Accountability Practices for Projects Implemented
Remotely in Insecure Environments. Humanitarian Innovations Fund. http://www.alnap.org/resource/7955
This research draws on interviews and surveys with the staff of 28 organizations about the impacts of remote
management on project monitoring and beneficiary accountability. Key findings include:
o 9 organizations (32%) oppose remote management in any circumstances
o Of 14 INGOs surveyed using remote management, just 2 have formal policy on doing so
o 14 (50%) INGOs expressed deterioration in program quality as an issue
o 13 out of 28 INGOs expressed concern about effective and rigorous monitoring
o 11 out of 28 INGOs were concerned about reduced visits to program sites
o 11 out of 28 INGOs identified capacity of personnel as a substantial issue
o 10 out of 28 INGOs expressed concern about communication between office and field
o 6 out of 28 INGOs recognized increased risk of fraud and corruption
Persiani, Marta. (2012). Accountability to Affected Populations in Limited or No-Access Areas.
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/emergencies/docs/AAP%20in%20Conflict%20and%20Limited%20Acc
ess%20Zones.pdf
This paper focuses on the participation of beneficiaries and the challenges that remote management presents
to beneficiary accountability. It discusses two models of remote management: “soft,” which means locally-
employed staff on the ground that are managed remotely and “remote” which means utilizing partner
organizations. It discusses a number of issues pertaining to accountability in remotely managed contexts,
including: communication and information flow; participative approaches; and feedback and complaint
mechanisms.
Renouf, Jean. (2011). Understanding How the Identity of International Aid Agencies and Their Approaches to
Security are Mutually Shaped. DPhil thesis at The London School of Economics.
http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/171/1/Renouf_Understanding_How_the_Identity_of_International_Aid_Agencies_and_T
heir_Approaches_to_Security_Are_Mutually_Shaped.pdf
This qualitative study of aid organizations in Haiti and Afghanistan seeks to understand how aid organizations
conceptualize and practice security and what the implications of each approach are for target populations. It
uses a critical constructivist approach to argue that aid agencies’ identities and interests are co-constructed.
That is to say, organizations play a role in building and reproducing a certain security environment depending
on their approach (for example, hiring military protection). Renouf’s main contribution is that security
approaches need to be reflexive about how organizations’ identity affects security decision.
Rogers, Colin. (2006). Accessing the Inaccessible: The Use of Remote Programming Strategies in Highly Insecure
Countries to Ensure the Provision of Humanitarian Assistance Iraq: A Case Study. Dissertation submitted to the
University of York. https://www.eisf.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/0055-Rogers-2006-The-Use-of-Remote-
Programming-Strategies-in-Highly-Insecure-Countries-to-Ensure-the-Provision-of-Humanitarian-Assistance-
Iraq.pdf
This detailed case study presents three NGOs and their use of remote management, remote control, and
remote support. It argues that the transfer of risk potential means that remote programming should not be

6. Remote Management Annotated Bibliography | MERCY CORPS 6
the default when NGOs cannot deploy international staff (p. 50). As a graduate
dissertation, much of the paper focuses on research methodologies, however, Rogers’
discussion of criteria for different remote programming strategies (p. 77-80) may be useful
for organizations operating in insecure countries.
Schreter, Lisa and Adele Harmer. (2013). Delivering Aid in Highly Insecure Environments: A Critical Review of the
Literature, 2007-2012I. Humanitarian Outcomes. http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/pdf/outputs/Hum_Response/60995-
Delivering_aid_in_highly_insecure_environments_final_report.pdf
This comprehensive literature review helps to situate remote management practices in the wider discussion
of humanitarian assistance in insecure environments. It argues that the discussion on remote management
tends to be dominated by practitioners (and primarily qualitative), with relatively little published in academic
journals. Thus, there lacks a shared understanding of the most effective strategies for ensuring quality and
accountability across organizations. Additionally, due to the reliance on emerging technologies to implement
remote management programs, there is a lag in analysis and guidance on the use of these technologies.
Schreter and Harmer indirectly critique ECHO’s reliance on acceptance and negotiation as a panacea for
access issues (p. 21). Its biggest contribution to the discussion on remote management is its outline of sector-
specific strategies, including for health-care, WASH, shelter, education, and protection (p. 26-27).
Souness, Colleen. (2011). Monitoring and Beneficiary Accountability in Remote Managed Locations. Tearfund
Afghanistan. www.alnap.org/resource/7593
This paper is an external evaluation of Tearfund’s monitoring programs in Kandahar. Based on the findings,
Souness argues that monitoring in remotely managed projects should be ‘mixed-method,’ (p. v). Most useful
is a Venn-diagram (p. 4), which provides a visual way of thinking about the ways in which M&E strategies
overlap or diverge in remote management contexts. It provides a tool-kit type model (p.11) for different in-
field monitoring practices, such as peer monitoring, beneficiary feedback, etc., which may be useful for
developing organizational M&E strategies. It also charts the strengths and weaknesses of monitoring practices
for in-field monitoring, operational monitoring, and building M&E capacity, with clear designation for remote
management-specific activities (p. 14). This type of presentation may be a bit binary for the nuance of
remote-management, but includes some less-commonly mentioned advantages and disadvantages.
Steets, Julia, Urban Reichhold, and Elias Sagmeister. (2012). Evaluation and review of humanitarian access
strategies in DG ECHO funded interventions. http://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/evaluation/2012/GPPi_Access-
Report.pdf
This evaluation is based on a literature review and 388 interviews with donors, organizations, and local
authorities to examine the relevant access constraints and how humanitarian organizations are overcoming
them. It outlines three strategies: persuading those in control (advocacy), mitigating security risks, or
operating through remote management. Notably, the evaluation found that UN agencies are increasingly
outsourcing large operations to private contractors. Given that these contractors are also contracting with
international organizations for political or military purposes, this raises some concern for the authors. It
outlines how DG ECHO funds remote operations only when they have done the following: addressed risk
transfer, attempted to build acceptance, specified technical capacity of field staff, made contingency plans for
deteriorating access, adapted monitoring procedures, located senior staff as close as possible, and limited use
of contractors or sub-contractors for implementation. Based on their findings, the authors make a series of
recommendations for each strategy to overcoming access constraints (p. 10). For example, on remote
management, they recommend: supporting staff and encouraging consistent decisions; adopting a common
definition of remote management; developing operational guidelines; improving DG ECHO’s ability to monitor
directly; promoting staff diversification; paying more attention to externalities; reducing budget pressure in
emergencies; and going into hibernation when compromises become excessive (p. 13). The authors define

7. Remote Management Annotated Bibliography | MERCY CORPS 7
access as both the ability to reach populations and the ability of populations to access
services. Their outline of access constraints from policies of Western governments is
thorough and provides examples of Somalia, Syria, and Afghanistan (p. 25).
Stoddard, Abby and Adele Harmer. (2005). Room to Manoeuvre: Challenges of Linking
Humanitarian Action and Post-Conflict Recovery in the New Global Security Environment. UNDP Human
Development Report Office Occasional Paper.
http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr2005_stoddard_abby_and_adele_harmer_23.pdf
Somewhat dated at this point, this paper is primarily focused on the lack of agreement amongst humanitarian
actors about the transition from humanitarian aid to more recovery-focused efforts. Of relevance to remote
management is the argument that the UN is distinctly state-centered in its humanitarian responses, whereas
NGOs are more flexible to local partnerships.
Stoddard, Abby, Adele Harmer, and Katherine Haver. (2006). Providing Aid in Insecure Environments: Trends in
policy and operations. HPG Report 23. http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-
files/269.pdf
This article presents the context of insecurity/risk in which humanitarian organizations are acting, but remains
quite critical of remote management as a way to address these concerns. The primary critique centers on risk
transfer and argues that with strategic planning and guiding principles, organizations could minimize risk
transfer. The argument is built on six case studies of humanitarian actors using remote management
practices. It found statistically significant (but is from a very small sample size) evidence that national staff
face disproportionate risk as compared with international staff. One theory worth exploring is the trend
within the international aid system to pass risk down from UN agencies to international NGOs to national staff
and local partners (p. 20).
Stoddard, Abby, Adele Harmer, and Jean S. Renouf. (2010). Once Removed: Lessons and challenges in remote
management of humanitarian operations for insecure areas. Humanitarian Outcomes.
https://aidworkersecurity.org/sites/default/files/RemoteManagementApr2010.pdf
One of the more comprehensive resources on remote management, this article argues that organizations can
avoid some of the negative effects of remote management (ie. risk transfer, and effects on program quality,
effectiveness, and accountability) by a ‘whole of agency’ approach to strategic planning. One salient argument
is presented here by UNICEF, which is that remote management takes away one of the most important value-
add: direct monitoring of program implementation (p. 17).
Svoboda, Eva and Sara Pantuliano. (2015). International and local/diaspora actors in the Syria response: A
diverging set of systems? HPG Working Paper. http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-
opinion-files/9523.pdf See also, the Reuters story on the report: http://www.trust.org/item/20150313000140-
ggjwm/?source=jt
This is a very interesting paper, with a lot of specific detail about partnerships in the Syria response. It argues
that, given the severe restrictions on international actors, that the local and diaspora groups (which,
according to OCHA, number between 600-700) have filled the gap of international presence. This paper is part
of a two-year project on approaches and innovations in the Syrian response, in which the researchers
interviewed actors about the diaspora response. Much of this started organically “around the kitchen table”
(p. 10) in the U.S. or the UK. However, due to anti-terrorism laws, many of these groups’ fundraising efforts
have been hampered by the idea that they are funneling money to insurgents or the opposition. At the same
time, many Syrian NGOs have improved access because they are from the same communities as armed actors
and as a result are more able to negotiate access (p. 12). The authors’ discussion of protection maintains that
Syrian actors generally have a good understanding of protection under IHL and IHRL, and many include

8. Remote Management Annotated Bibliography | MERCY CORPS 8
documenting violations as a focus of their work. Of particular relevance is the discussion
on partnerships and the complicated nature of ‘capacity building.’ The authors argue that a
meaningful “level of engagement and commitment to more genuine partnership seems to
be the exception, rather than the rule,” (p. 17).
UNICEF. (2012). Remote Programming in Humanitarian Action.
http://www.unicefinemergencies.com/downloads/eresource/docs/Remote%20Programming/2012-06-
12%20Remote%20Programming%20guidance%20(Final%20version).pdf
This guidance emerged out of UNICEF’s past experiences in remote programming, which were “a process of
learning by doing,” (p. 3) and aims to fill that gap by more closely examining UNICEF’s experiences to present
key principles, issues, and threats. It references the UN mandate and highlights the concern that
implementing partners retain the same protection while delivering humanitarian assistance. Under remote
management, UNICEF is less able to ensure that the humanitarian principles (humanity, impartiality, and
neutrality) are observed. It outlines decision-making criteria and guidance for preparing for, and
implementing, remote management.
Van Brabant, Koenraad. (2012). Incident Statistics in Aid Worker Safety and Security Management. EISF.
https://www.eisf.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/EISF_Incident-Statistics-in-Aid-Worker-Safety-and-Security-
Management_March-2012.pdf
This article aims to provide guidance on methodologies for producing and analyzing statistics of incidents
affecting aid workers. Related to remote management, the article argues that “the incidence rate for
internationals is stable or declining while it is growing for national staff. One possible important contributing
factor to this may be the tendency to operate by remote management, essentially keeping international staff
at a (safer) distance and working through national staff or national/local partners,” (p. 16).
Wilton Park. (2013). Advancing humanitarian action: engaging with rising global actors to develop new strategic
partnerships. https://www.wiltonpark.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/WP1269-Report.pdf
This paper argues that changes in arrangements of global actors affect humanitarian action, including
mechanisms of coordination, cooperation, and funding. Additionally, the growing number and diversity of
armed non-state actors (ANSAs) makes humanitarian access increasingly difficult. It argues that "politicization
and instrumentalisation of humanitarian action," (p. 4) such as the "War on Terror" makes it harder for
humanitarian actors to be perceived as independent and as a result, more organizations are operating
remotely by working with local partners.

9. Remote Management Annotated Bibliography | MERCY CORPS 9
45 SW Ankeny Street 888.842.0842
Portland, Oregon 97204 mercycorps.org
CONTACT
NICK MACDONALD
Senior Performance Analytics & Learning Advisor | LOE
nmacdonald@mercycorps.org
MARK FERDIG
Senior Team Leader | SRGE
mferdig@mercycorps.org