#humanitariantech

Drones in Humanitarian Action - A survey on perceptions and applications Published September 2016

The Swiss Foundation for Mine Action (FSD) has released a survey on how drones are viewed by people in the humanitarian sector - the first of its kind. It’s part of a wider initiative by the European Commission to study the use of drones in humanitarian crises.

Only one in ten respondents had actual experience with drones in humanitarian work. Those who had experienced them were more likely to see them as a good thing.

Overall, the majority (61%) of respondents viewed the use of drones in humanitarian work positively. The key benefit cited was that drones can provide faster, better access in dangerous situations or hard-to-reach areas. Interestingly, though, opinions were split (40% to 41%) on whether drones should be used in conflict settings.

Many emphasised that drones can improve – but not replace – the work of ground teams.

A significant minority (22%) viewed the use of drones unfavourably for three main reasons:

The technology creates distance between beneficiaries and aid workers.

Potential association with military applications.

Lack of added value delivered by the use of drones.

Most respondents agreed that clear guidance and rules for using drones in humanitarian work was needed, as well as better coordination and experience with using the technology. This is vital to ensure that the data collected with drones is handled safely and responsibly by humanitarian organisations. This was summed up well by one respondent:

Download paper here [PDF]

by Jos Berens, Ulrich Mans, and Stefaan Verhulst

This paper, released in July 2016, looks at the scope and reach of various policies which address elements of responsible data. Interestingly, only one of the 17 policies chosen for inclusion here is actually labelled as a “responsible data policy” (from Oxfam) - the others are labelled as addressing Data Protection, Privacy, or Data Sharing. 

The paper goes through various elements of these policies, looking at similarities and differences between them. The takeaways from this analysis centre around implementation of policies (leadership, accountability, feedback loops), accessibility (clear language), and learning (what works, what doesn’t, and iterating.) 

The "Mapping Refugee Media Journeys" project, by the Open University and France Médias Monde, looks at how Syrian and Iraqi refugees use technology and suggests ways of using this to help the most vulnerable refugees.

It’s based on interviews with more than 50 Syrian and Iraqi refugees in France and the UK, analysis of refugee social networks (Facebook and Twitter), and interviews with the European Commission, international media and NGOs.

Here are some of the key points we picked out:

Unsurprisingly, responsible data was a big concern: 

Refugees will not share personal information online, preferring to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals, surveillance, detention and/ or deportation. 

The digital tools and resources that help, guide and comfort refugees are also used to exploit, monitor and track them.

For example, researchers found that interviewees followed news on Whatsapp mainly because they trusted that the service (unlike Twitter and Facebook) wasn’t under surveillance.

Refugees also rarely used resources produced by national or state­‐funded organisations, and were often driven towards “unofficial, potentially dangerous and exploitative resources” as a result. 

The report gives practical recommendations to deal with this (informed by Aspiration Tech guidelines and Oxfam’s Responsible Data policy, among others). They include designing tools that don’t asking refugees to disclose any information about themselves, and recommending that any information sources  include warnings about the known risks of financial exploitation by taxi/private drivers or smuggling networks.

Highlighting the daily changing nature of the situation in border areas, the researchers criticised the plethora of hackathons to create tools, saying:

any resource must be frequently updated in order to avoid it doing more harm than good with misinformation....there is a real danger that quick tech fix initiatives are not viable or sustainable. A sustainable resource of the kind that international news organisations might provide would offer a more viable alternative.

They argue that any digital outreach project should be “highly personal” and ensure that "trusted individuals” should have a continuous physical and digital presence at key sites. In particular, they recommend drawing on sustainable existing networks (such as by encouraging refugees to ask for help and counseling from local NGO staff) and understanding shifting local conditions on­‐the­‐ground experience. They also found that, despite the range of tools available, there was little content available in key areas, notably "relevant high quality legal information...and sources of information about language learning facilities”.

This paper by Nathaniel Raymond and Brittany Card argues that we need minimum standards for mobile network access and coverage, providing ICT services for vulnerable people, providing early warning to people at risk, involving communities in ICT programme design, and assessing the data accessibility needs of particular populations.

Download paper