Category Archives: Cellphone

Mobile Response 2008: Call for Papers

Last year, the first Mobile Response symposium on Mobile Information Technology for Emergency Response was held – they’ve published the proceedings in a proper book and everything (somebody remind me why aren’t we doing that at ISCRAM?). Mobile Response is much more along the “emergency management” axis than the “humanitarian response” axis (you know, critical infrastructure, rescue operations and so on), but obviously there’s a lot of crossover (although at some point I’m going to have to write about the distinction and what it means for ICT issues in particular).

So the Call for Papers for Mobile Response 2008 has just been issued. To give you an idea of the topics that they’re interested in, take a look at this list:

  • Mobile and wearable computing
  • Context-aware applications
  • Geographic information systems and location-based services
  • Rescue operation management and decision support systems
  • Multimedia and multimodal communication systems
  • Requirements, design and empirical foundations
  • System support for cross-organizational cooperation
  • Critical infrastructure protection
  • Strategies for involving the general public
  • Information systems for environmental monitoring

And then get writing, I guess.

Dial H for Humanitarian

At the same time as my discussion with Sanjana about mobile phones as a human right (summary: he thinks they are, I don’t), I just had an interesting conversation with Katrin Verclas of Mobileactive, who is doing some research into cellphone use in different sectors, and in the course of our discussion a few points emerged about how cellphones are being used in the humanitarian sector.

  • Cellphones are ubiquitous in the humanitarian community – everybody uses them now as the main channel of communication, particularly in country offices. The reasons are obvious: they’re extremely convenient, relatively reliable, inexpensive, and coverage is improving all the time. These are exactly the same reasons why everybody else has adopted them as well, of course.
  • So basically we’ve adopted cellphones as they’ve penetrated into the countries in which we work – a natural process of osmosis that happens at the country level. The downside of this is that I don’t think their introduction has been managed in a systematic manner in any of the organisations that I know of. Obviously country offices will set their staff up with their own phones and/or SIM cards, but precisely because it’s so easy to do so, there’s very little thought given to it except in terms of ongoing call costs.

As a result, there are a number of problems emerging in the sector.

  • The first is that reliance on cellphones creates a security risk, as I identified in the ECB Assessment. In a number of countries (for example, Sudan or Sri Lanka), cellphone networks are regularly pulled by the government on grounds of “national security”; in other countries, we have seen how cellphone networks can collapse when faced with (for example) a major earthquake (as in Pakistan in 2005).
  • The questions for NGOs are, first, whether the convenience of cellphones outweighs the risk (on balance, I would say yes) and second, what other channels are available to ensure consistent communications in the field (specifically, whether we will continue to invest in radio communications).
  • The second is that innovative uses of cellphones are few and far between. Katrin asked me for examples of cellphone use, and off the top of my head I found it difficult to point to any (particularly successful examples!). There are plenty of opportunities to use cellphones in staff tracking, logistics management, public information and so forth, but not many people taking advantage of these opportunities.
  • I suggested to Katrin that the reason for this is partly because of the way in which cellphones were introduced. Unlike satellite communications, they were easy to introduce and require no organisational technical knowledge (since all the technical work is done by external private companies). As a result, they are essentially invisible to our organisations, which means that people don’t really see them as tools for innovation, any more than they would think of a car as an opportunity in this way.
  • In addition, most innovation in this sector takes place at the field level, and there are no mechanisms for spreading these innovations through the sector. Thus a successful project in one location which uses cellphones to help beneficiaries is unlikely to be replicated in another location unless one of the staff involved in the project goes to that location.

This doesn’t mean that there aren’t any interesting examples. We came up with a few: WFP notifications to Iraqi refugees, sms hotlines for disaster victims in Indonesia and refugee connectivity in Uganda. There are a few organisations in this area – like the Ericsson Response Team – but it’s very hard to think of real innovation that’s taken root in the sector. There are a number of examples from other areas – for instance, human rights or citizen journalism, these kinds of things – but precious few from the humanitarian community. As regular readers of this blog already know, I tend to be a bit sceptical about the perceived impact of new technology, but if anybody has any other examples, both Katrin and myself would love to know about them.

Do mobile phones answer all our prayers?

I’ve written about the role that mobile telephony can play in humanitarian assistance quite a few times now, without really talking about it directly. The one line I have consistently taken is that cellphone coverage is not reliable or secure enough to be used as the primary means of communication in an insecure environment. Putting that to one side for a moment, however, it’s clear that mobile telephony really is the key communications technology for the poor – and that means it should be the key communications technology for the humanitarian community.

Now, via the NGO Security Blog, I read that UNHCR and WFP have been using SMS to notify Iraqi refugees in Syria about upcoming food distributions. A total of10,000 SMS have been sent out, which should be enough to reach the 50,000 planned beneficiaries (although it’s only a drop in the ocean if Syria’s numbers are accurate and 1 .4 million Iraqi refugees have arrived in Syria). This is fascinating stuff, and I’m interested to find out how SMS fits into their overall strategy, since it’s the first time that this has been tried.

At the same time, Jonas Landgren asks

What could it mean if future emergency response information systems would be based on the fact that mobile phones are the only information technology in common for emergency responders across all sectors in society?

and proceeds to draw on Swedish experiences to look at what the implications might be in terms of system design. Obviously Sweden is not Syria, but given the impact of mobile phones in the Arab World, the possibilities are certainly there for more creative use of SMS and other mobile formats.

Text messages are more likely to make it through a degraded or overloaded network than voice, especially if the system has been set up to prioritise emergency calls, and notifications for non-urgent events – such as upcoming food distributions, which will be announced in other places – are perfect for this kind of medium. However I hope that we’re going to start to develop more creative approaches to this – perhaps using mobile phones to enable people to register for distributions remotely – and perhaps even using their unique SIM number to identify who has received a particular distribution, instead of relying solely on ID cards or other paper documents.

p.s. Good luck defending your thesis this week, Jonas!

UPDATE: This post is cross-posted on Mobileactive, which is a very useful resource if you want to find out more about how mobile technology is being used by activists around the world..

Flood, famine and mobile phones in the Economist

Quite a long time ago, I posted the story of a starving tribesman who emailed a bunch of people to try and get assistance. The Economist has finally caught up, as it opens this article on technology in humanitarian relief with a similar story.

“MY NAME is Mohammed Sokor, writing to you from Dagahaley refugee camp in Dadaab. Dear Sir, there is an alarming issue here. People are given too few kilograms of food. You must help.”

A crumpled note, delivered to a passing rock star-turned-philanthropist? No, Mr Sokor is a much sharper communicator than that. He texted this appeal from his own mobile phone to the mobiles of two United Nations officials, in London and Nairobi. He got the numbers by surfing at an internet café at the north Kenyan camp.

The rest of the article then pretty much re-treads my blog (ahem) in an overview of some of the big issues in the sector. Unsurprisingly it focuses on the easy stuff – hardware, particularly telecoms – and misses the more interesting issues. In a single paragraph the article does identify some ways in which improved telecommunications have improved relief operations:

Now, when an emergency occurs, the first people on the ground are often computer geeks, setting up telephone networks so other aid agencies can do their stuff. Donors keep track of supplies on spreadsheets and send each other SMS messages: this road has been attacked by bandits, that village cut off by floods. Transport agencies announce helicopter flights by e-mail. Aid providers can find out where exactly on an incoming ship their medical supplies are, saving hours hanging round the docks. Aid donors find it easier to locate the victims of disaster; and victims queue as eagerly for mobile-phone access as they do for food.

As a result, the organisation of aid is changing.

Well, quite – except that the changes started ten years ago, there’s a whole new set of changes on the way, and we still haven’t solved the problems created by the last set. So what does the article say about all this?

Continue reading

Mobility in Lebanon, post-conflict

MobileActive is always a great source for news about how mobile telephony is being adopted, adapted and hacked by people around the world, across politics, development and relief work. A recent post looked at what’s happening in the latest round of the Middle East conflict, gathering together a number of different stories.

In particular they link to the site 160 characters, which has an article called Mobile Messaging Goes to War. The article sums up its position with “Mobile Telephony is a Service not a Weapon.” Many people are worried by the ‘abuse’ of mobile telephony – but mobile technology is just a tool, and talking about it in terms of use or abuse isn’t very… well, useful.

One use that isn’t mentioned is whether or how mobile technology can be used to bridget the divide between Lebanon and Israel. It’s too soon to hope for such a thing, but maybe a new initiative in the vein of Hello Peace – an sms reconciliation service or something similar? Check out the Hello Peace site – it’s a fantastic initiative.

Back to Reality: Pakistan

After enjoying the delights of Tunisia during the World Summit on the Information Society, it’s time to get back to field work. The Pakistan earthquake happened just as I arrived in the USA, where I was carrying out an assessment of ICT capacity to respond to emergencies for the Interagency Working Group (IWG). The IWG comprises CARE, Catholic Relief Services, Oxfam, International Rescue Committee, Save the Children, Mercy Corps and World Vision. Although they vary in size, this combined group ships at least 50% of the world’s non-governmental humanitarian assistance – so it’s a real challenge to work out ways that they can improve their game.

Continue reading