humanitarian.info

• Following my mini-rant about how ReliefWeb hasn’t made the most of the potential of the web, a couple of projects surface which point the way to a better future for the humanitarian community’s hub. The ReliefWeb News Monitor is JRC on the pipes again, with an aggregated feed of news stories that can be sliced for your serving pleasure; more interesting for the aid worker is the Briefing Kit, which gives you the opportunity to build your own document package by country or emergency. One of the primary uses of ReliefWeb is for pre-deployment briefing, so this is a definite value-added service.
• More MapAction… er, action, at an Alertnet-hosted workshop in London on June 4 looking at how the aid community can use maps effectively. I understand from Liesbeth that the event is fully booked, but Mapping for communications, planning and advocacy will be streamed live for those of you who can’t make it. Plus:

We want your questions. Given the rise and rise of mapping technologies, what would you like to know about how NGOs can better use geospatial tools in their work? Use the comments section below, or submit your questions using the Twitter tag #askmaps.

• In the Financial Times: Tainted data hide the cost of Africa’s upheavals. Slightly contrarian article about the use and abuse of statistics in conflict situations. The FT casts its beady eye over IRC’s DRC statistics (which always looked a bit fishy to me) and UN statistics more broadly, and who knew I’d have an ally in the FT regarding funding for government statistics offices?

The first step towards compiling an accurate picture is to make assistance to Africa’s under-funded statistics departments a priority in international aid programmes… Accurate statistics, objectively gathered and responsibly used, are as essential as compassion in tackling Africa’s plight. Tracking its crisis without reliable data is like exploring the continent without a compass.

• Amnesty rolls out the sms bad times: Guatemalan activists receive death threats by text message. Part of the ongoing debate about how technology empowers both sides in a conflict. If there are in fact two sides in any conflict like this, which I somehow doubt. There’s even more complexity at the tail end of the “Twitter Revolution” story – I had so much to write about this nonsense. Now everybody except Evgeny has forgotten it by now (because yes that is how long the web’s attention span lasts), but this article is still worth reading:

So, while the events don’t fit the Western media’s narrative of a city full of protesters converging on Twitter and almost pulling off a revolution, technology did play an indispensable role in telling the story of April 7.

• From the Just Shoot Me files, In Iraq with Web 2.0 luminaries, as if they weren’t already filled with their own self-importance. If you don’t think this entire concept is self-parody, then read this extract and see if you can spot the deliberate mistake:

The idea is to use the brains of this small collective to give ideas to Iraqi government officials, companies and users that will help it rebuild. Iraq is short on the mojo that widespread internet can bring and the fast-track economic jolt that entrepreneurs feed on. Who knows that stuff better than a contingent of internet goombahs heavy on the Google juice and includes the guy who thought up Twitter?

• MapAction and BrightEarth both feature in an article in the Independent entitled “Mapping the disaster zones” – how they think up the intensely creative titles for these articles, I just don’t know. Interesting enough, but these articles always leave me with a sense that the writer just doesn’t get it – apparently “Within 48 hours: The latest field information is combined with accurate 1:5,000,000 “base maps” to form the first complete maps of disaster-zone data”, which is news to me.

• At the bottom of the press release Intel, Grameen Announce Joint Business Venture to Fuel Social and Economic Development Opportunities Empowered by Technology, we learn that Intel have teamed up with NetHope to develop new solutions for the field, the first (and possibly last) of which is the Aid Station, a “rugged, purpose-built, low-cost technology platform suitable for use in harsh, remote locations”.

• Jon Thompson sends me links to two initiatives which mainly force me to ask the question “Why?” NGO Post and Commkit are both well-intended, but both seem to be hell-bent on reinventing the wheel. If Digg works, why not just create an NGO channel on it rather than build an entirely new NGO version of it? If you need “a humanitarian communications platform that is autonomous (works with very little infrastructure) and accessible (anyone can use it)”, then why not use the internet with Sahana running on it? OTOH, it’s standard NGO practice to reinvent the wheel, so maybe I shouldn’t be surprised – however if anybody can shed any light on either of these, I’ll be more than happy to revise my opinion.

• Development Gateway have launched two new dgCommunities – one for Disasters Prevention and Response and one for Stabilization & Reconstruction, both with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. This partnership seems to have emerged out of CSIS giving up on the idea of launching their own community, the Hub, which explains the inclusion of S&R (terminology which the US military loves and the humanitarian community does not). I’ve nothing against community sites, but I’m waiting to see one in this sector which works as a community (particularly following my own experience with AidWorkers Network).

• The OLPC XO2 is announced. Quoth OLPC news:

On top of that it seems as though a new UN Millennium Development Goal is in the works. The press-release quotes Nirj Deva, Member of the European Parliament, as saying: “One Laptop per Child and the XO laptop are crucial to the fulfillment of the proposed UN Ninth Millennium Goal: to ensure that every child between the ages of 6 and 12 has immediate access to a personal laptop computer by 2015.”

Somebody shoot me. Or better still, send me more news for this section.

As some light relief from the news from Burma and China, it looks as if the One Laptop Per Child project is falling apart under the weight of – well, mainly under the weight of Nicholas Negroponte. Ivan Krstic explains in a fascinating essay on his reasons for leaving his position as security director of OLPC:

In fact, I quit when Nicholas told me — and not just me — that learning was never part of the mission. The mission was, in his mind, always getting as many laptops as possible out there; to say anything about learning would be presumptuous, and so he doesn’t want OLPC to have a software team, a hardware team, or a deployment team going forward.

Yes, that’s right – welcome back to Magic Future Kingdom, where technology will solve everything! One thing that’s interesting is that Krstic (and I think many of the OLPC team) didn’t share this view – for them, the public mission of improving education in developing countries was what fired their hard drives up. However I’m not sure that this focus on education is any different in terms of misplaced idealism – even Krstic admits that

As far as I know, there is no real study anywhere that demonstrates constructionism works at scale. There is no documented moderate-scale constructionist learning pilot that has been convincingly successful; when Nicholas points to “decades of work by Seymour Papert, Alan Kay, and Jean Piaget”, he’s talking about theory.

I’ve never said exactly what I thought about OLPC on this blog, for three reasons. First, my opinion is irrelevant. Second, my opinion is frequently wrong. Third, everybody deserves a chance to test their idea against reality and see if it breaks. However as far as I was concerned, OLPC was broken as soon as it ran into the reality of logistics – actually distributing these laptops to their intended recipients – but nobody seemed to want to talk about this aspect of the project, as if it would somehow corrupt the purity of the vision.

Peru’s first deployment module consisted of 40 thousand laptops, to be deployed in about 570 schools across jungles, mountains, plains, and with total variance in electrical availability and uniformly no existing network infrastructure. A number of the target schools are in places requiring multiple modes of transportation to reach, and that are so remote that they’re not even serviced by the postal service. Laptop delivery was going to be performed by untrusted vendors who are in a position to steal the machines en masse. There is no easy way to collect manifests of what actually got delivered, where, and to whom… Other than the incredible Carla Gomez-Monroy who worked on setting up the pilots, there was no one hired to work on deployment while I was at OLPC, with Uruguay’s and Peru’s combined 360,000 laptop rollout in progress. [my emphasis]

What I don’t understand is that I could have told them about all these problems. Anybody with any experience working in the development sector could have told them about all these problems. Hell, anybody who’s ever been outside of the G8 countries could have probably have told them about all these problems, which raises the tricky question of – why didn’t anybody tell them? There are two possibilities. The first is that the people they asked only told them what they wanted to hear – this seems very likely, especially if they were mainly listening to governments, who don’t like to admit that they haven’t in fact been able to extend basic services to rural areas. The second is that they didn’t bother to ask anybody, which in light of Krstic’s essay seems to be equally likely – he quotes from a memo that he sent in December 2007:

We still have not a single employee focusing on deployment, helping to plan it, working with our target countries to learn what works and what doesn’t. Evidently our “deployment plan” is to send whichever hotshot superhacker we have available to each country such that he may fix any problems that arise on the spot. If that is not in fact our plan, then we have no plan at all.

To his credit, Krstic recognises that the

the last key problem, transforming laptops into learning is a non-trivial leap of logic, and one that remains inadequately explained.

What I don’t quite understand is who he thinks is going to do that explaining. It seems clear – not just from this essay, but from general observation of the way in which OLPC has been built up and the claims that it’s made – that this project was not in fact designed to meet the educational needs of poor children around the world. Instead it was about proving a series of ideological points – about private versus public sector, about Open Source software, about constructivist learning – and the impact that it’s had on the technology sector (and it has had a not insignificant impact) has been incidental to proving those points. Now, slowly but surely, each of those points has been tested against reality – and broken. At least now we know what doesn’t work – but we knew that before.

One Laptop Per Child has been a textbook example both of the worst kind of development (broadly, rich white people believe that they know what’s best for poor black people) and the most egregious kind of technotopianism (broadly, complex social problems can be solved if only we have the right technology). These two strands of thought were summed up in a comment by Guido van Rossum:

I’ve thought for a while that sending laptops to developing countries is simply the 21st century equivalent of sending bibles to the colonies.

Amen.

Stuff I should have blogged at the time:

• What if? – New York emergency housing competition results: Last September, New York City launched “What if? “, an open competition to find innovative designs for high-density emergency provisional housing for 38,000 households in the aftermath of a hurricane and flood disaster in afictional, one square mile neighbourhood of the city called Prospect Shore. Ten winning entries would get US$10k to develop their ideas further. The competition issued some useful materials about NYC’s vulnerability to hurricanes, and created a really rich scenario for designers to get stuck into. All submissions are now online, and it’s a headfunk of gorgeous design and ingenuity. The ten winning entries were announced in January, and can be viewed here . My own favourite is the gloriously mental S.C.A.F.F.O.L.D. , designed by Jay Lim.
• Intravenous Facebook : Takes all Types is a US charity which has developed a Facebook app for supporting blood donation drives. The idea is to give Facebook your blood type and zip/postcode, and Takes all Types will email you when a local blood bank needs you. What tweaks humanitarian.info’s curiousity is their claim that the app will be “a powerful way to save lives in a blood emergency”. I think that’s overcooking its potential to improve on existing systems in a meaningful way, particularly given the enduringly complicated motives of blood donors. Thanks to sociologist Richard Titmuss, it’s conventional wisdom that paying money to blood donors decreases both the quality and quantity of blood in a bank. This isn’t set in stone though. For example, blood donation schemes in parts of the Former Soviet Union have never been run on a voluntary basis, and renumeration remains necessary to sustain bloodbanks; there is also some research suggesting that non-direct rewards for donors, such as tax credits, may encourage more blood donation. I wonder if the indirect rewards gained through online networking sites can provide sufficiently compelling motives for people to do more than simply sign-up; it seems to lack a “ladder of engagement”, and asks too much of people too early.
• Church and solid state : 400,000 mosques in Malaysia are to get high speed broadband, delivered over the power lines. This “Smart Mosque” project is being delivered by Velchip Sdn Bhd, will cost US$14 billion and aims to provide affordable Internet access to 60 million people. Breathtakingly large aggregate numbers, for sure, and I leave it to better minds to look at the possible effects this may have. Out of interest, in England Anglican churches outnumber broadband exchanges by a factor of 2.88 (16,157/5,600): perhaps the Church of England should be cutting a deal with British Telecom.

There’s been frequent discussion here – and blogs like MobileActive, of course – about how cellphones can be used in humanitarian responses. It’s worth remembering, however, that technology is neutral – both “good guys” and “bad guys” use it (if you can be bothered with that way of looking at the world) – and that, in conflict situations, communications technology is seen as a legitimate target. So for all the talk of how empowering mobile technology is, we haven’t had much discussion about the other side of the coin.

This bring us neatly to an amazingly interesting post by Barnett Rubin on Informed Comment, entitled Taliban and Telecoms — Secret Negotiations Just Got Easier, and at a Price You Can Afford! Rubin is interested mainly in high-level policy issues – the post was sparked by a conference discussing political solutions in Afghanistan – but has some interesting stories about the role of mobile telecommunications in state-building. There are some interesting anecdotes about how reliant on cellphones people have become, as in the case of

a friend of mine who negotiated the release of two of his Afghan staff who had been taken hostage by Taliban in Wardak (just next to Kabul) said that it was always difficult to reach the kidnappers at night, because they moved away from the road up into the mountains where the reception was poor. Finally they had to explain to the Taliban that they needed to stay within the coverage range to reach a deal.

Coverage is not great but, according to the Afghanistan Telecom Regulatory Authority, mobile phone penetration is targeted at 10% for 2008, forecast to rise to 3% by 2013. That’s not bad, although a glance at the fixed line and internet penetration targets is quite depressing. In 2002 I had a couple of meetings with the Minister for Communications, Mohammed Masoom Stanekzai, and it doesn’t look as if the plans that we discussed back then have come very far.

Rubin publishes a letter from a Taliban military group to one of the mobile phone companies (apparently the Taliban prefer Areeba, because they have the cheapest top-up cards – good to see that they’re keeping an eye on their budget). As Rubin explains

I have been told that Taliban (or people claiming to represent them) sometimes call up mobile phone companies and claim that they are right at a tower with explosives, which they will detonate unless money is immediately transferred to their mobile phone. This is a new technology that enables migrant workers to send cash home without going through either a hawala or Western Union.

The hawala system has operated on mobile phones for quite a long time – in fact, hawaladars adopted mobile phones almost as soon as they were introduced – but it’s fascinating to see a technology which undermines the hawala grip making extortion so much easier. However it’s clear that the notewriters aren’t that worried about law enforcement catching up with them – because they provide a mobile phone number where they can be contacted.

Rubin’s concern is what the prevalence of these threats tell us about the level of Taliban control (or lack of it) across the country, and he also notes that this demonstrates that the Taliban are trying to work within the existing structures of the nascent Afghan state. However I find more interesting the way in which a new technology is being used in an entirely unexpected way. The Taliban are holding the cellphone network hostage – while at the same time requesting that their protection money be transferred through the same network.

Any lessons for the humanitarian or human rights community? Not really. We already know that cellphone networks are vulnerable in unstable environments, and we already know that technology gets used in unexpected ways by overlooked groups. However there is a significant positive in these developments. Rubin points out that in the 1990s satellite comms contributed to avoiding some conflicts (although they undoubtedly helped to co-ordinate many, many more). Cellphones are cheaper to use and easier to access, creating lines of communication did not exist before – or at least, were the monopoly of a powerful few.

Essentially, the increased penetration of cellphones creates more opportunity for dialogue and negotiation at more levels in Afghan society – even if that’s only whether they can get discount on top-up cards if they buy in bulk.

The White African faces a quandary:

Global tools that have real time read/write access are extremely powerful. Depending on ones motives, your impact can be good or bad. Even if your motives are good, your tool can be used for bad. How’s that for a quandry?

It’s certainly a quandary, but not a new one. It’s the same question that’s been asked about humanitarian aid since at least the 1970s, and has been one of the motors behind the humanitarian reform process. What’s more interesting is the assumption behind that question, an assumption that he describes quite clearly:

Just decades ago those who were not in close enough proximity to an event were unable to do much, if anything about it. Today, we can successfully effect change through digital tools and be thousands of miles away.

As I wrote in the comments, neither of these statements is quite true. Decades ago you could have joined Amnesty International campaign, or given money to a relief agency, or written to your MP; these options are still available, and will make a difference. The problem we have today is that many people feel that such actions don’t make enough of a difference – that they don’t have a big enough impact, or they don’t bring change quickly enough.

We have to start being honest, though; just because the internet works reliably and at high speeds, it doesn’t mean that humans work at similarly high speeds or with similar reliability. The impact of our actions will almost never be immediate, and will frequently lead to outcomes that we didn’t predict. Our expectations have been raised by the relentless cheerleading for the information revolution, and we need to lower those expectations or risk alienating people who want to get involved.

The real questions are the same ones that I ask myself in my own work whenever I approach a new project. What decision or action will this information inform, and who is responsible for making that decision or taking that action? The answers to those questions determine a) whether it’s worth collecting the information in the first place, and b) what we will do with the information once we’ve collected it. Unless we answer those questions clearly, and build our systems around them, we’re unlikely to effect any significant change, no matter how powerful our tools are.

(For a bit more on Ushaidi, Sanjana has a great interview with Ory Okollah, in which she explains clearly that the site has been used as an information-gathering tool, rather than a resource for conflict mitigation or resolution. Just to be clear, I think Ushaidi is absolutely worthwhile – but I’m looking forward to what comes next.)

• The Economist article Of internet cafés and power cuts was passably interesting on the subject of technology in developing countries, although it takes the usual optimistic approach that the Economist favours. The Economist picked up on this issue was the publication of this year’s Global Economic Prospects by the World Bank, with a focus on technology adoption and a barrel full of blindingly obvious conclusions.
• More interesting is the research that both of those draw on quite heavily, building a Historical Cross-Country Technology Adoption Database. You can download the database itself from that page, but the overview article Cross-Country Technology Adoption: Making the Theories Face the Facts by Diego Comin and Bart Hobijn is much more manageable. I haven’t dug into the data yet, but the initial Economist article made me suspicious – the data itself may suffer from survivor bias (e.g. the many failed technologies don’t feature), doesn’t explain disrepancies such as the dominance of VCDs in developing countries as opposed to DVDs in developed countries, and the focus on mobile phone uptake doesn’t take account for the nature of that particular technology. I’m not sure I can face the data itself, as the sun is shining.
• Eagle-eyed Declan Butler (a literal description; he’s at the cutting edge of trans-species surgery) quotes short-sighted Paul Currion in Nature magazine. Declan’s article Satellite can spot razed villages in Darfur on the fantastic work of Erik Prins for Amnesty International on monitoring burnt villages using remote sensing. Amnesty used his research as part of their campaigning back in 2004-5, but Erik has just published an article, Use of low cost Landsat ETM+ to spot burnt villages in Darfur, Sudan, in the International Journal of Remote Sensing. The research is right on the mark, although it’s unlikely that the large-scale study that he calls for in the conclusion will happen any time soon; lack of funds, lack of will.
• I’m angry with Firoz, who published his dissertation without telling me. Or maybe he did tell me and I just forgot. Anyway, my revenge for his oversight and/or my memory loss is to link to it here: The Utility of GIS Analysis in Coordinating Humanitarian Assistance. Congratulations, Firoz; now get back to work.

Cisco have done a lot of good in our sector through their support to NetHope and similar initiatives, no doubt about that. However the promo video on their Telepresence site manages to showcase the least useful way we could possibly use their technology, as well as putting the stereotypical “young white middle class aid worker” in the centre of the frame – instead of the people that we’re supposed to be helping.

UPDATE: Okay, so I got hit by the grumpy stick this morning.  On the other hand, the first draft of this post was far more vitriolic…

UPDATE 2: Also, did you catch the obscure Western reference?  This blog is in danger of becoming too much like my personal blog…

• Following the collapse of the political process in Kenya, bloggers White African and Kenyan Pundit – both of whom are worth reading, by the way – have developed a Google Maps mash-up which deals with electoral violence in the country.  Called Ushaidi (‘witness’ in Swahili, I think?), it enables people to report events either online or via SMS.  It’s not the first time something like this has been tried, but this an interesting organic attempt to pin down exactly what’s happening in the country.  As anybody working in human rights knows, gathering this sort of information is extremely difficult – particularly later on when it might be needed.  More explanation from White African in this blog post, coverage at Global Voices (with an interesting article on cyber activism in Africa) and the BBC.

• There’s been a fair amount of discussion about how the media and responders can work more effectively together in the last couple of years, and of course a whole heap of blogs and similar about how the new technology is going to change the face of disaster response, etc, etc.  So far, not much has happened, but TVE Asia and the UNDP Regional Centre in Bangkok have just published a free resource called Communicating Disasters.  It’s an interesting but disjointed read – I’m not exactly sure who it’s targeted at, to be honest…

• There was a brief flurry of blogging around Nathan Eagle’s article, The Mobile Web is NOT helping the Developing World – and what we can do about it, mainly because it burst the bubble of optimism around bringing the internet to the poorest through the Miracle of Mobile Telephony (TM).  Of course, Nathan’s position is not that it isn’t possible, just that we’re not doing it right at the moment.  Personally, I’m still waiting for some hard evidence that these efforts benefit the poor rather than the relatively well-off – but that might just be splitting hairs.

• Witness have launched The Hub, their online platform for human rights-related videos and media, after a long incubation period. Cutting through the bumf, it’s intended to connect individuals and organizations who are working on human rights around the world. It’s an interesting lunge at building global connectivity in a sector (human rights) that is notoriously factional, and the focus on media is potentially powerful – particularly new media forms, such as mobile phone content, which are incredibly powerful tools for mobilizing support. You can register at http://hub.witness.org/login.

Interesting news from the big beast that is Microsoft, particularly interesting in light of the ECB / NetHope plans to develop a global ICT training delivery mechanism for staff working in the field. This project was recently approved and we’re moving forward now with ECB funding for NetHope management.

One of the critical problems that we identified in the ECB4 Assessment was the general lack of good IT skills in the field. This was true across the board, from senior IT staff (who lacked specialised skills in areas such as VSAT installation) to junior project staff (who are often recruited in an emergency with few computer skills). The question is, how to introduce that training to them.

There are three possibilities:

1. Remote learning. Increased connectivity in the field mean that staff can access e-learning in a way that wasn’t possible a few years ago. The disadvantage here is that this method relies on staff taking the initiative in identifying and participating in training – something which doesn’t always apply in developing countries, where the education norm is rote learning, rather than personal experiment.
2. Leverage economies of scale to deliver training to groups of staff in the field. While it’s not cost-efficient to train a single staff member from a single agency in MS Word, it is possible to run 30 staff from different agencies through a course at a relatively low cost.
3. Leverage training networks to improve access to existing training in the private sector. Cisco, for example, have an international network of training academies, which could be engaged to provide low- to no-cost courses to NGOs participating in the scheme. (You can also try to use these networks to develop local capacity, training up local providers to a level adequate for our needs.)

I’ve no idea which of these is likely to yield the best results – which is why we’re designing a training mechanism which combines all three. It’s ridiculously ambitious, but entirely feasible.

(Cross posted on the ECB Team Blog.)