humanitarian.info

Those crazy jokers at the UN Joint Logistics Centre have just released version 2.0 of the UN Spatial Data Infrastructure for Transport database schema, based on feedback received since last September’s release and developed with WFP and Ithaca (good to see that partnership being productive). This version covers an XML schema, the schema documentation, template databases and emergency assessment forms. The main main changes in version 2.0 include:

1. “Light” and “Comprehensive” UNSDIT packages. The most significant change has been the packaging of a “Light” subset of the Comprehensive UNSDIT package to better match information requirements in sudden-onset emergencies.

Now this is a very smart idea indeed. When you’re doing the emergency response end, the last thing you want is to wade through a massive amount of barely-relevant data or fill out a single field in a 400-field db. A light version makes a lot of sense – I’d be interested to know what the process was for deciding what what was included and what wasn’t.

2. “Light” UNSDIT Assessment forms. The same concern guided the choice to release an assessment package narrowed to the minimal set of information requirements of a sudden onset emergency response.

An even smarter idea. This is something that should be adopted by all the clusters, not just logistics.

3. ESRI Personal Geodatabase and Shapefile template databases. UNSDIT template databases aligned to version 2.0 of the UNSDIT schema are made available through this release as ESRI Personal Geodatabase and Shapefile to better serve for partners operating within an open source environment.

And it gets smarter still!

Some additional news worth reporting: UNJLC is planning to offer a Web Mapping/Reporting and a data download service at some point, which will be a considerable step forward (and hopefully be more useful than GeoNetwork is currently – jpeg maps of goat distribution, anybody?).

So it all kicked off in Myanmar this week, except that it didn’t, because the military regime has managed to bungle the response to Cyclone Nargis. We could get into a long discussion about the whys and wherefores, and there’s some frightening talk about the “right to respond” over-riding sovereignty, but let’s stay focused on technology. At least it’s relatively non-controversial, except that it isn’t, because Myanmar is one of those places where internet access is a non-starter, where satellite telephones are essentially illegal and where the technology infrastructure (e.g. suppliers and maintenance) is close to zero. What that means is that we’re going to be extremely limited in what we can do on the ground. So what is happening?

• A Sahana instance is being set up for the use of anybody who needs it, with the support of INSTEDD and possible uptake by NetHope members.
• Direct Relief International have done up a KMZ file of health facilities in-country, based on the WHO 2002 Global Health Atlas.
• OCHA are prepping a HIC to support the existing Myanmar Information Management Unit, who have already put out some W3 maps. UPDATE: MapAction have also deployed in support of OCHA and have maps available on their website.
• UNOSAT have also got their sat on with a KMZ file of the cyclone path and the usual satellite mapping.
• Ditto ITHACA, who have released a series of satellite maps showing the impact of Nargis.
• ReliefWeb’s info stream on Cyclone Nargis is of course like drinking water from a hose, with their map filter probably most useful.
• The WorldWideHelp blog roars into action with all the news that’s fit to blog.
• A couple of the mailing list discussions that I’m on are talking about ways in which we might leverage cellphone and/or satellite phone communications if they become available, particularly for tracking relief and relief personnel.
• Digital Globe and Geo-Eye have hopped the NASA satellite for an updating KML layer on the cyclone.
• Microsoft apparently have a team on standby to deploy the refugee tracking software that was developed for Kosovo (no reference yet). Microsoft are focused on supporting the HIC, and are ready to respond to other requests from the humanitarian community.
• Telecoms sans Frontieres are also on standby out of Bangkok, waiting for access to free up.
• Also Infoworld points out that – with regards to early warning – IT didn’t fail Myanmar, people did.

I’m nowhere near being deployed for this one (particularly as the government apparently is still refusing entry to foreign aid workers), but all of this makes me feel that we’re headed in the right direction. However until the government lets agencies start doing their jobs with less restrictions on movement and communications, we’re not going to see the benefits – another example of how the technology can be rendered much less useful when the political environment isn’t supportive. I leave you with the words of Surin Pitsuwan, Secretary-General of ASEAN in his speech last Thursday:

In spite of the technology that we have, in spite of the power that we have, in spite of the network that we have, we still lose lives needlessly… So it is more than just the power of technology, it is more than just the transformation of society through technology, it is certainly a shift in paradigm here in the minds of our people and particularly our leaders. Because if you don’t have that shift, millions and billions of dollars worth of technology cannot deliver effective, timely relief to people when they need it most, because we have reservations about opening up our borders for cooperation, because we have hesitation about cooperating with the outside world, because we have mistrust of the outside world.

Well, not yet, but they will [pdf]. Janet Ginsburg explains the development of the idea of the Humanitarian Technology Review, while Bruno Giussani covers the recent TED breakfast, where Eric Rasmussen gave an update on InSTEDD.

Initially the idea of a Humanitarian Technology Review sounds like a good idea – if it’s done right. The first two questions – remember the first two questions, everybody! – are: who is the target audience, and what do you want them to do with the information you’re providing? The briefing paper I linked to above says

The Review’s readers, like the Review itself, span many niches: medical researchers, software developers, policy-makers, funders, doctors, veterinarians, communities trying to prepare for or reeling from disasters – even other media.

The one group that is noticeable by its absence is – well, me. People like me, anyway, who seem to fall under the catch-all term “practitioner”. I see doctors and veterinarians in there, but which doctors and veterinarians, exactly? I think it’s likely that I’ve misunderstood – the briefing is explicit that this is about building connections between disciplines, and it’s clearly aiming at a wider audience than the humanitarian community.

If we look at the disciplines that they’re talking about, it’s a wide selection, so it’s probably easier for me to focus on the technology examples given in the review:

• lightweight fabric + satellite technology = a cheaper portable satellite dish
• software + cell phones = real-time surveillance for bird flu
• GIS + interactive mapping = real time tracking of fires and floods
• solar panels + refrigerator = reliable field transport for vaccines
• filter + straw = a mobile water purification device
• open source water tech + microfinance = funding for small water projects
• genetic sampling + fast data analysis = identifying a pathogen in hours

I’m going to think about those examples over the next few days, but I’m struggling to see how a publication can cover all of these and still appeal to a coherent audience. That’s why communities of practice exist around epidemiology, water and sanitation, and the like – because they’re focused enough to hold peoples’ attention.

The success or failure of the HTR will be in the delivery, and on that front I’m very positive about their proposal to combine different delivery streams. At the very least, InSTEDD’s deep pockets will enable them to experiment and see what works, although I’d warn them not to expect collaboration to magically appear – two years on ECB teaches you that for nothing.

(NOTE: Full disclosure – I thought about a similar idea a few years ago, but gave it up because I didn’t think it was viable. Two attempts have been made to develop this sort of thing previously – ReliefWeb’s HIN and CMI’s PeaceIT [pdf] – but the InSTEDD concept is much wider.)

Public transport doesn’t often provide pointers for the humanitarian community. The recent cracking of the London OysterCard (following hot on the heels of the earlier crack of the Dutch transit card system) came as no surprise to digital security experts, but it should teach us fundamental lessons about information security and personal privacy issues.

Security researchers say they’ve found a way to crack the encryption used to protect a widely-used smartcard in a matter of minutes, making it possible for them to quickly and cheaply clone the cards that are used to secure office buildings and automate the collection of mass transportation fares.

No electronic identification scheme is secure. It doesn’t matter how good your technology is, any system which is built by humans can be cracked, and the only defense is to make the cost of cracking it as prohibitive as possible. (The kicker is that you never know if you’ve successfully achieved that – until somebody cracks it and it becomes embarrassingly obvious that you haven’t.) On top of that, the more complex and expensive a system is, the more difficult it is to fix it when something like this happens.

In themselves, these obstacles aren’t insurmountable – largely because they’re technical in nature – but you see the real issues when you look at how these schemes are implemented. Governmental (and intergovernmental) organisations are notorious for a) thinking that technology can fix problems which are not technical in nature (for example, running a public transport system) and b) frequently mismanaging technology projects, often with the assistance of the vendor.

In a public transport system, this is not a life-and-death issue. What if this was a tracking system for food aid, though, where RFID has begun to be introduced as the solution to our logistics inefficiencies? Or a refugee registration database in a country where human rights abuses are endemic? Or an employee identity card scheme in a country where terrorists are targeting UN and NGO offices? You start to see where this might be going…

There was also related news that MI5 have requested “full automated access” to the OysterCard database. In a liberal democracy where the rule of law holds, that might not be too worrying – but there are a number of countries in the world that don’t fit that description, and where giving access to this sort of information to the government might not be in the best interests of the beneficiaries.

The fear of cyber-warfare has climbed Whitehall’s agenda since last year’s attack on the Baltic nation of Estonia, in which Russian hackers swamped state servers with millions of electronic messages until they collapsed. The Estonian defence and foreign ministries and major banks were paralysed, while even its emergency services call system was temporarily knocked out: the attack was seen as a warning that battles once fought by invading armies or aerial bombardment could soon be replaced by virtual, but equally deadly, wars in cyberspace.

It’s only a matter of time before humanitarian organisations come under similar attack – and we’re not prepared for it in the least. None of this means that this technology shouldn’t be used – it absolutely should be. What it means is that we need to be a lot more savvy not just about the technology issues but about the entire range of processes – procurement of the system, implementation within the organisation, sensitivity to the situation (including security concerns), and so forth – in order to make sure that we’re prepared to address these situations when they arise.

Standards for data management in the sector have been a headache since the beginning. Standards are essential for sharing data between agencies, whether at HQ or field level, but the politics involved in developing them have frankly defeated most previous attempts. Recent discussions in the IASC sub-group on information management have started the ball rolling in some of the clusters, but it’s still painfully slow given that we started talking about this eight years ago.

Where there has been progress is in the development of spatial data infrastructure for the UN system, a fairly comprehensive effort overseen by the UN Geographic Information Working Group. The UN Joint Logistics Center has just released the UN Spatial Data Infrastructure for Transport database schema (UNSDI-T v1.2). With the release of the database schema, we finally have a shared resource for field implementation of logistics databases – as well the starting point of a participatory process in which other users can also take responsibility for developing the standards to meet their needs.

What does this mean in practice? For a start, agencies using this schema will be able to share data more easily, which will lead to gains in efficiency (and hopefully effectiveness). Hopefully that will translate into a more accurate picture of the situation on the ground, less duplication in data collection and better information products (particularly maps) for the whole community.

Of course, all this relies on agencies actually implementing the schema, and we’ll have to wait and see how many pick it up. I’m also interested in whether (for example) the Helios software that I blogged about last week incorporates the schema – I’m assuming that it does because if it doesn’t, then any NGO that uses it is  going to be generating data which can’t easily be shared, which will be a serious barrier to co-ordination.

(UNJLC is a a dedicated logistics capacity that is hosted by WFP but sits outside the agencies – it seems to me that this positioning has been key to their success, and should be a lesson for the rest of the UN system, but that’s another story. They also credit ITHACA with the technical aspect of generating the schema, which is another lesson in working with external actors.)

Word reaches my inbox from the Fritz Institute, who have been field-testing the Helios software program for the last two years with a few NGOs, particularly in east Africa. For those of you keeping track, Helios is the second generation of Fritz’ Humanitarian Logistics Software which was developed and implemented with IFRC.  By all accounts, the IFRC implementation was a tricky devil, and Fritz learnt a lot of hard lessons in that process. Those lessons have been put to good use, and everything I’ve heard about Helios so far has been positive.

The real question, of course, is how many NGOs will take them up on the offer – Fritz will provide a Helios license free of charge, while implementation costs will be borne by each organisation. Now this works for the big-hitter organisations such as World Vision International and Oxfam GB – who by sheer coincidence are the first two NGOs to take up the Fritz platform – but it’s a lot more difficult for smaller organisations who can’t necessarily afford those costs (particularly where they lack dedicated logistics staff).

It doesn’t matter how good your software is on its own terms – there are a lot of other factors that determine why an organisation does or doesn’t pick it up. One of the things that I think will be critical is for Fritz to encourage the development of a Helios community, where NGOs can share experiences and possibly even costs, as well as enabling better co-ordination in the field. Watch the Humanitarian Emergency and Logistics Professionals to see what sort of discussion starts to happen around Helios, if logistics is your thing.