Tag Archives: OCHA

Official UN Policy Brief on Humanitarian UAVs

The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) just published a pivotal policy document (PDF) on the use of civilian UAVs in humanitarian settings. Key excerpts from this 20-page & must-read publication are highlighted below.

ICARUS Quadcopter

  • UAVs are increasingly performing civilian tasks as the technology becomes more common. In fact, 57 countries and 270 companies were manufacturing UAVs in 2013.
  • Humanitarian organizations have started to use UAVs, including in Haiti and the Philippines, for data collection and information tasks that include real time information and situation monitoring, public information and advocacy, search and rescue, and mapping.
  • Use of UAVs raises serious practical & ethical issues that humanitarian organizations must address through transparency, community engagement, and guidelines for privacy & data security.
  • To tap into the growing interest in UAVs, particularly in technical communities, humanitarian organizations should engage in networks that promote good practices and guidance, and that can serve as a source of surge capacity. [Like the Humanitarian UAV Network].
  • Due to their affordability, ease of transport, and regulatory concerns UAVs used in humanitarian response are likely to be small or micro-UAVs of up to a few kilograms, while larger systems will remain the province of military and civil defense actors.
  • Interest is building in the use of UAVs to assist in search and rescue, particularly when equipped with infrared, or other specialty cameras. For example, the European Union is funding ICARUS, a research project to develop unmanned search and rescue tools to assist human teams. [Picture above is of UAV used by ICARUS].
  • The analysis of data from these devices ranges from straight-forward to quite technically complex. Analytical support from crowdsourcing platforms, such as Humanitarian Open Street Map’s Tasking Server or QCRI’s MicroMappers, can speed up analysis of technical data, including building damage or population estimates.
  • More research is needed on integrating aerial observation and data collection into needs and damage assessments, search and rescue, and other humanitarian functions.
  • The biggest challenges to expanding the use of UAVs are legal and regulatory. [...]. Most countries where humanitarians are working do not yet have legal frameworks, meaning that use of UAVs will probably need to be cleared on an ad hoc basis with local authorities. A particular issue is interference with traditional air traffic [...].
  • Any use of UAVs by humanitarian actors [...] requires clear policies on what information they will share or make public, how long they will store it and how they will secure it. [...]. For humanitarians operating UAVs, transparency and engagement will likely be critical for success. Ideally, communities or local authorities would be informed of the timing of flights, the purpose of the mission and the type of data being collected, with the aim of having some kind of informed consent, whether formal or informal.
  • Although UAVs are getting safer, due to parachutes, collision avoidance systems and fail-safe mechanisms, humanitarians must think seriously about liability insurance and its cost implications, particularly for mechanical failure. Due in part to these safety concerns, ultra-light UAVs, such as those under a kilogram, will tend to be more lightly regulated and therefore easier to import & operate.
  • More non-profit or volunteer groups are also emerging, such as the Humanitarian UAV Network, a global volunteer network of operators working for safe operations & standards for humanitarian uses of UAVs.
  • The pressure for humanitarians to adopt this technology [UAVs], or to provide principled justifications for why they do not, will only increase. [...]. Until UAVs are much more established in general civilian use, the risks of humanitarians using UAVs in conflict settings are greater than the benefits. The focus therefore should be developing best practices and guidelines for their use in natural disasters, slow-onset emergencies and early recovery.

Screen Shot 2014-06-24 at 2.22.05 PM

In conclusion, the UN brief offers several policy considerations:

  • Focus on using UAVs in natural disasters and avoid use in conflicts.
  • Develop a supportive legal and regulatory framework.
  • Prioritize transparency and community engagement.
  • Ensure principled partnerships.
  • Strengthen the evidence base.
  • Update response mechanisms [...] to incorporate potential use of UAVs and to support pilot projects.
  • Support networks and communities of practice. [...]. Humanitarian organizations should engage in initiatives like the Humanitarian UAV Network, that aim to develop and promote good practices and guidance and that can serve as advisors and provide surge capacity.

The Humanitarian UAV Network (UAViators) is actively engaged in pursuing these (and other) action items. The Network promotes the safe and responsible use of UAVs in non-conflict settings and is engaged in policy conversations vis-a-vis ethical, legal & regulatory frameworks for the use of UAVs in humanitarian settings.  The Network is also bringing UAV experts together with seasoned humanitarian professionals to explore how best to update formal response mechanisms. In addition, UAViators emphasizes the importance of community participation. Finally, the Network carries out research to build a more rigorous evidence base so as to better document the opportunities and challenges of UAVs in humanitarian settings.

bio

See Also:

  • Humanitarians in the Sky: Using UAVs for Disaster Response [link]
  • Live Crisis Map of UAV Videos for Disaster Response [link]
  • Humanitarian UAV Missions During Balkan Floods [link]
  • UAVs, Community Mapping & Disaster Risk Reduction in Haiti [link]
  • “TripAdvisor” for International UAV/Drone Travel [link]
  • How UAVs are Making a Difference in Disaster Response [link]
  • Humanitarians Using UAVs for Post Disaster Recovery [link]
  • Grassroots UAVs for Disaster Response [link]

Humanitarians in the Sky: Using UAVs for Disaster Response

The following is a presentation that I recently gave at the 2014 Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems Conference (RPAS 2014) held in Brussels, Belgium. The case studies on the Philippines and Haiti are also featured in my upcoming book on “Digital Humanitarians: How Big Data is Changing the Face of Humanitarian Response.” The book is slated to be published in January/February 2015.

Screen Shot 2014-06-24 at 2.20.54 PM

Good afternoon and many thanks to Peter van Blyenburgh for the kind invitation to speak on the role of UAVs in humanitarian contexts beyond the European region. I’m speaking today on behalf of the Humanitarian UAV Network, which brings together seasoned humanitarian professionals with UAV experts to facilitate the use of UAVs in humanitarian settings. I’ll be saying more about the Humanitarian UAV Network (UAViators, pronounced “way-viators”) at the end of my talk.

Screen Shot 2014-06-24 at 2.21.19 PM

The view from above is key for humanitarian response. Indeed, satellite imagery has played an important role in relief operations since Hurricane Mitch in 1998. And the Indian Ocean Tsunami was the first to be captured from space as the way was still propagating. Some 650 images were produced using data from 15 different sensors. During the immediate aftermath of the Tsunami, satellite images were used at headquarters to assess the extent of the emergency. Later, satellite images were used in the field directly, distributed by the Humanitarian Information Center (HIC) and others to support and coordinate relief efforts. 

Screen Shot 2014-06-24 at 2.21.30 PM

Satellites do present certain limitations, of course. These include cost, the time needed to acquire images, cloud cover, licensing issues and so on. In any event, two years after the Tsunami, an earlier iteration of the UN’s DRC Mission (MONUC) was supported by a European force (EUFOR), which used 4 Belgian UAVs. But I won’t be speaking about this type of UAV. For a variety of reasons, particularly affordability, ease of transport, regulatory concerns, and community engagement, UAVs used in humanitarian response are smaller systems or micro-UAVs that weigh just a few kilograms, such as one fixed-wing displayed below.

Screen Shot 2014-06-24 at 2.21.47 PM

The World Food Program’s UAVs were designed and built at the University of Torino “way back” in 2007. But they’ve been grounded until this year due to lack of legislation in Italy.

Screen Shot 2014-06-24 at 2.22.05 PM

In June 2014, the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) purchased a small quadcopter for use in humanitarian response and advocacy. Incidentally, OCHA is on the Advisory Board of the Humanitarian UAV Network, or UAViators. 

Screen Shot 2014-06-24 at 2.22.41 PM

Now, there are many uses cases for the operation of UAVs in humanitarian settings (those listed above are only a subset). All of you here at RPAS 2014 are already very familiar with these applications. So let me jump directly to real world case studies from the Philippines and Haiti.

Screen Shot 2014-06-24 at 2.23.08 PM

Typhoon Haiyan, or Yolanda as it was known locally, was the most powerful Typhoon in recorded human history to make landfall. The impact was absolutely devastated. I joined UN/OCHA in the Philippines following the Typhoon and was struck by how many UAV projects were being launched. What follows is just a few of said projects.

Screen Shot 2014-06-24 at 2.26.45 PM

Danoffice IT, a company based in Lausanne, Switzerland, used the Sky-Watch Huginn X1 Quadcopter to support the humanitarian response in Tacloban. The rotary-wing UAV was used to identify where NGOs could set up camp. Later on, the UAV was used to support a range of additional tasks such as identifying which roads were passable for transportation/logistics. The quadcopter was also flown up the coast to assess the damage from the storm surge and flooding and to determine which villages had been most affected. This served to speed up the relief efforts and made the response more targeted vis-a-vis the provision of resources and assistance. Danoffice IT is also on the Board of the Humanitarian UAV Network (UAViators).

Screen Shot 2014-06-24 at 2.27.06 PM

A second UAV project was carried out by local UAV start-up called CorePhil DSI. The team used an eBee to capture aerial imagery of downtown Tacloban, one of the areas hardest-hit by Typhoon Yolanda. They captured 22 Gigabytes of imagery and shared this with the Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team (HOT) who are also on the Board of UAViators. HOT subsequently crowdsourced the tracing of this imagery (and satellite imagery) to create the most detailed and up-to-date maps of the area. These maps were shared with and used by multiple humanitarian organizations as well as the Filipino Government.

Screen Shot 2014-06-24 at 2.27.28 PM

In a third project, the Swiss humanitarian organization Medair partnered with Drone Adventures to create a detailed set of 2D maps and 3D terrain models of the disaster-affected areas in which Medair works. These images were used to inform the humanitarian organization’s recovery and reconstruction programs. To be sure, Medair used the maps and models of Tacloban and Leyte to assist in assessing where the greatest need was and what level of assistance should be given to affected families as they continued to recover. Having these accurate aerial images of the affected areas allowed the Swiss organization to address the needs of individual households and—equally importantly—to advocate on their behalf when necessary.

Screen Shot 2014-06-24 at 3.20.08 PM

Drone Adventures also flew their fixed-wing UAVs (eBee’s) over Dulag, just north of Leyte, where more than 80% of homes and croplands were destroyed during the Typhoon. Medair is providing both materials and expertise to help build new shelters in Dulag. So the aerial imagery is proving invaluable to identify just how much material is needed and where. The captured imagery is also enabling community members themselves to better understand both where the greatest needs are an also what the potential solutions might be.

Screen Shot 2014-06-24 at 2.27.55 PM

The partners are also committed to Open Data. The imagery captured was made available online and for free, enabling community leaders and humanitarian organizations to use the information to coordinate other reconstruction efforts. In addition, Drone Adventures and Medair presented locally-printed maps to community leaders within 24 hours of flying the UAVs. Some of these maps were printed on rollable, water proof banners, which make them more durable when used in the field.

Screen Shot 2014-06-24 at 2.28.11 PM

In yet another UAV project, the local Filipino start-up SkyEye Inc partnered with the University of the Philippines in Manila to develop expendable UAVs or xUAVs. The purpose of this initiative is to empower grassroots communities to deploy their own low-cost xUAVs and thus support locally-deployed response efforts. The team has trained 4 out of 5 teams across the Philippines to locally deploy UAVs in preparation for the next Typhoon season. In so doing, they are also transferring math, science and engineering skills to local communities. It is worth noting that community perceptions of UAVs in the Philippines and elsewhere has always been very positive. Indeed, local communities perceive small UAVs as toys more than anything else.

Screen Shot 2014-06-24 at 2.28.37 PM

SkyEye worked with this group from the University of Hawaii to create disaster risk reduction models of flood-prone areas.

Screen Shot 2014-06-24 at 2.29.22 PM

Moving to Haiti, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) has partnered with Drone Adventures and other to produce accurate topographical and 3D maps of disaster prone areas in the Philippines. These aerial images have been used to inform disaster risk reduction and community resilience programs. The UAVs have also enabled IOM to assess destroyed houses and other types of damage caused by floods and droughts. In addition, UAVs have been used to monitor IDP camps, helping aid workers identify when shelters are empty and thus ready to be closed. Furthermore, the high resolution aerial imagery has been used to support a census survey of public building, shelters, hospitals as well as schools.

Screen Shot 2014-06-24 at 2.29.46 PM

After Hurricane Sandy, for example, aerial imagery enabled IOM to very rapidly assess how many houses had collapsed near Rivière Grise and how many people were affected by the flooding. The aerial imagery was also used to identify areas of standing water where mosquitos and epidemics could easily thrive. Throughout their work with UAVs, IOM has stressed that regular community engagement has been critical for the successful use of UAVs. Indeed, informing local communities of the aerial mapping projects and explaining how the collected information is to be used is imperative. Local capacity building is also paramount, which is why Drone Adventures has trained a local team of Haitians to locally deploy and maintain their own eBee UAV.

Screen Shot 2014-06-24 at 2.30.27 PM

The pictures above and below are some of the information products produced by IOM and Drone Adventures. The 3D model above was used to model flood risk in the area and to inform subsequent disaster risk reduction projects.

Screen Shot 2014-06-24 at 2.30.47 PM

Several colleagues of mine have already noted that aerial imagery presents a Big Data challenge. This means that humanitarian organizations and others will need to use advanced computing (human computing and machine computing) to make sense of Big (Aerial) Data.

Screen Shot 2014-06-24 at 2.31.54 PM

My colleagues at the European Commission’s Joint Research Center (JRC) are already beginning to apply advanced computing to automatically analyze aerial imagery. In the example from Haiti below, the JRC deployed a machine learning classifier to automatically identify rubble left over from the massive earthquake that struck Port-au-Prince in 2010. Their classifier had an impressive accuracy of 92%, “suggesting that the method in its simplest form is sufficiently reliable for rapid damage assessment.”

Screen Shot 2014-06-24 at 2.32.06 PM

Human computing (or crowdsourcing) can also be used to make sense of Big Data. My team and I at QCRI have partnered with the UN (OCHA) to create the MicroMappers platform, which is a free and open-source tool to make sense of large datasets created during disasters, like aerial data. We have access to thousands of digital volunteers who can rapidly tag and trace aerial imagery; the resulting analysis of this tagging/tracing can be used to increase the situational awareness  of humanitarian organizations in the field.

Screen Shot 2014-06-24 at 2.32.43 PM

 

Digital volunteers can trace features of interest such as shelters without roofs. Our plan is to subsequently use these traced features as training data to develop machine learning classifiers that can automatically identify these features in future aerial images. We’re also exploring the second use-case depicted below, ie, the rapid transcription of imagery, which can then be automatically geo-tagged and added to a crisis map.

Screen Shot 2014-06-24 at 2.32.55 PM

 

The increasing use of UAVs during humanitarian disasters is why UAViators, the Humanitarian UAV Network, was launched. Recall the relief operations in response to Typhoon Yolanda; an unprecedented number of UAV projects were in operation. But most operators didn’t know about each other, so they were not coordinating flights let alone sharing imagery with local communities. Since the launch of UAViators, we’ve developed the first ever Code of Conduct for the use of UAVs in humanitarian settings, which includes guidelines on data protection and privacy. We have also drafted an Operational Check-List to educate those who are new to humanitarian UAVs. We are now in the process of carrying out a comprehensive evaluation of UAV models along with cameras, sensors, payload mechanism and image processing software. The purpose of this evaluation is to identify which are the best fit for use by humanitarians in the field. Since the UN and others are looking for training and certification programs, we are actively seeking partners to provide these services.

Screen Shot 2014-06-24 at 2.34.04 PM

The above goals are all for the medium to long term. More immediately, UAViators is working to educate humanitarian organizations on both the opportunities and challenges of using UAVs in humanitarian settings. UAViators is also working to facilitate the coordinate UAV flights during major disasters, enabling operators to share their flight plans and contact details with each other via the UAViators website. We are also planning to set up an SMS service to enable direct communication between operators and others in the field during UAV flights. Lastly, we are developing an online map for operators to easily share the imagery/videos they are collecting during relief efforts.

Screen Shot 2014-06-24 at 2.34.36 PM

Data collection (imagery capture) is certainly not the only use case for UAVs in humanitarian contexts. The transportation of payloads may play an increasingly important role in the future. To be sure, my colleagues at UNICEF are actively exploring this with a number of partners in Africa.

Screen Shot 2014-06-24 at 2.34.47 PM

Other sensors also present additional opportunities for the use of UAVs in relief efforts. Sensors can be used to assess the impact of disasters on communication infrastructure, such as cell phone towers, for example. Groups are also looking into the use of UAVs to provide temporary communication infrastructure (“aerial cell phone towers”) following major disasters.

Screen Shot 2014-06-24 at 2.34.59 PM

The need for Sense and Avoid systems (a.k.a. Detection & Avoid solutions) has been highlighted in almost every other presentation given at RPAS 2014. We really need this new technology earlier rather than later (and that’s a major  understatement). At the same time, it is important to emphasize that the main added value of UAVs in humanitarian settings is to capture imagery of areas that are overlooked or ignored by mainstream humanitarian relief operations; that is, of areas that are partially or completely disconnected logistically. By definition, disaster-affected communities in these areas are likely to be more vulnerable than others in urban areas. In addition, the airspaces in these disconnected regions are not complex airspaces and thus present fewer challenges around safety and coordination, for example.

Screen Shot 2014-06-24 at 2.35.19 PM

UAVs were ready to go following the mudslides in Oso, Washington back in March of this year. The UAVs were going to be used to look for survivors but the birds were not allowed to fly. The decision to ground UAVs and bar them from supporting relief and rescue efforts will become increasingly untenable when lives are at stake. I genuinely applaud the principle of proportionality applied by the EU and respective RPAS Associations vis-a-vis risks and regulations, but there is one very important variable missing in the proportionality equation: social benefit. Indeed, the cost benefit calculus of UAV risk & regulation in the context of humanitarian use must include the expected benefit of lives saved and suffering alleviated. Let me repeat this to make sure I’m crystal clear: risks must be weighed against potential lives saved.

Screen Shot 2014-06-24 at 2.35.39 PM

At the end of the day, the humanitarian context is different from precision agriculture or other commercial applications of UAVs such as film making. The latter have no relation to the Humanitarian Imperative. Having over-regulation stand in the way of humanitarian principles will simply become untenable. At the same time, the principle of Do No Harm must absolutely be upheld, which is why it features prominently in the Humanitarian UAV Network’s Code of Conduct. In sum, like the Do No Harm principle, the cost benefit analysis of proportionality must include potential or expected benefits as part of the calculus.

Screen Shot 2014-06-24 at 2.35.56 PM

To conclude, a new (forthcoming) policy brief by the UN (OCHA) publicly calls on humanitarian organizations to support initiatives like the Humanitarian UAV Network. This is an important, public endorsement of our work thus far. But we also need support from non-humanitarian organizations like those you represent in this room. For example, we need clarity on existing legislation. Our partners like the UN need to have access to the latest laws by country to inform their use of UAVs following major disasters. We really need your help on this; and we also need your help in identifying which UAVs and related technologies are likely to be a good fit for humanitarians in the field. So if you have some ideas, then please find me during the break, I’d really like to speak with you, thank you!

bio

See Also:

  • Crisis Map of UAV/Aerial Videos for Disaster Response [link]
  • How UAVs are Making a Difference in Disaster Response [link]
  • Humanitarians Using UAVs for Post Disaster Recovery [link]
  • Grassroots UAVs for Disaster Response [link]
  • Using UAVs for Search & Rescue [link]
  • Debrief: UAV/Drone Search & Rescue Challenge [link]
  • Crowdsourcing Analysis of UAV Imagery for Search/Rescue [link]
  • Check-List for Flying UAVs in Humanitarian Settings [link]

Picture Credits:

  • Danoffice IT; Drone Adventures, SkyEye, JRC

 

Video: Humanitarian Response in 2025

I gave a talk on “The future of Humanitarian Response” at UN OCHA’s Global Humanitarian Policy Forum (#aid2025) in New York yesterday. More here for context. A similar version of the talk is available in the video presentation below.

Some of the discussions that ensued during the Forum were frustrating albeit an important reality check. Some policy makers still think that disaster response is about them and their international humanitarian organizations. They are still under the impression that aid does not arrive until they arrive. And yet, empirical research in the disaster literature points to the fact that the vast majority of survivals during disasters is the result of local agency, not external intervention.

In my talk (and video above), I note that local communities will increasingly become tech-enabled first responders, thus taking pressure off the international humanitarian system. These tech savvy local communities already exit. And they already respond to both “natural” (and manmade) disasters as noted in my talk vis-a-vis the information products produced by tech-savvy local Filipino groups. So my point about the rise of tech-enabled self-help was a more diplomatic way of conveying to traditional humanitarian groups that humanitarian response in 2025 will continue to happen with or without them; and perhaps increasingly without them.

This explains why I see OCHA’s Information Management (IM) Team increasingly taking on the role of “Information DJ”, mixing both formal and informal data sources for the purposes of both formal and informal humanitarian response. But OCHA will certainly not be the only DJ in town nor will they be invited to play at all “info events”. So the earlier they learn how to create relevant info mixes, the more likely they’ll still be DJ’ing in 2025.

Bio

MicroMappers Launched for Pakistan Earthquake Response (Updated)

Update 1: MicroMappers is now public! Anyone can join to help the efforts!
Update 2: Results of MicroMappers Response to Pakistan Earthquake [Link]

MicroMappers was not due to launch until next month but my team and I at QCRI received a time-sensitive request by colleagues at the UN to carry out an early test of the platform given yesterday’s 7.7 magnitude earthquake, which killed well over 300 and injured hundreds more in south-western Pakistan.

pakistan_quake_2013

Shortly after this request, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in Pakistan officially activated the Digital Humanitarian Network (DHN) to rapidly assess the damage and needs resulting from the earthquake. The award-winning Standby Volunteer Task Force (SBTF), a founding member of the DHN. teamed up with QCRI to use MicroMappers in response to the request by OCHA-Pakistan. This exercise, however, is purely for testing purposes only. We made this clear to our UN partners since the results may be far from optimal.

MicroMappers is simply a collection of microtasking apps (we call them Clickers) that we have customized for disaster response purposes. We just launched both the Tweet and Image Clickers to support the earthquake relief and may also launch the Tweet and Image GeoClickers as well in the next 24 hours. The TweetClicker is pictured below (click to enlarge).

MicroMappers_Pakistan1

Thanks to our partnership with GNIP, QCRI automatically collected over 35,000 tweets related to Pakistan and the Earthquake (we’re continuing to collect more in real-time). We’ve uploaded these tweets to the TweetClicker and are also filtering links to images for upload to the ImageClicker. Depending on how the initial testing goes, we may be able to invite help from the global digital village. Indeed, “crowdsourcing” is simply another way of saying “It takes a village…” In fact, that’s precisely why MicroMappers was developed, to enable anyone with an Internet connection to become a digital humanitarian volunteer. The Clicker for images is displayed below (click to enlarge).

MicroMappers_Pakistan2

Now, whether this very first test of the Clickers goes well remains to be seen. As mentioned, we weren’t planning to launch until next month. But we’ve already learned heaps from the past few hours alone. For example, while the Clickers are indeed ready and operational, our automatic pre-processing filters are not yet optimized for rapid response. The purpose of these filters is to automatically identify tweets that link to images and videos so that they can be uploaded to the Clickers directly. In addition, while our ImageClicker is operational, our VideoClicker is still under development—as is our TranslateClicker, both of which would have been useful in this response. I’m sure will encounter other issues over the next 24-36 hours. We’re keeping track of these in a shared Google Spreadsheet so we can review them next week and make sure to integrate as much of the feedback as possible before the next disaster strikes.

Incidentally, we (QCRI) also teamed up with the SBTF to test the very first version of the Artificial Intelligence for Disaster Response (AIDR) platform for about six hours. As far as we know, this test represents the first time that machine learning classifiers for disaster resposne were created on the fly using crowdsourcing. We expect to launch AIDR publicly at the 2013 CrisisMappers conference this November (ICCM 2013). We’ll be sure to share what worked and didn’t work during this first AIDR pilot test. So stay tuned for future updates via iRevolution. In the meantime, a big, big thanks to the SBTF Team for rallying so quickly and for agreeing to test the platforms! If you’re interested in becoming a digital humanitarian volunteer, simply join us here.

Bio

The First Ever Spam Filter for Disaster Response

While spam filters provide additional layers of security to websites, they can also be used to process all kinds of information. Perhaps most famously, for example, the reCAPTCHA spam filter was used to transcribe the New York Times’ entire paper-based archives. See my previous blog post to learn how this was done and how spam filters can also be used to process information for disaster response. Given the positive response I received from humanitarian colleagues who read the blog post, I teamed up with my colleagues at QCRI to create the first ever spam filter for disaster response.

During international disasters, the humanitarian community (often lead by the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, OCHA) needs to carry out rapid damage assessments. Recently, these assessments have included the analysis of pictures shared on social media following a disaster. For example, OCHA activated the Digital Humanitarian Network (DHN) to collect and quickly tag pictures that capture evidence of damage in response to Typhoon Pablo in the Philippines (as described here and TEDx talk above). Some of these pictures, which were found on Twitter, were also geo-referenced by DHN volunteers. This enabled OCHA to create (over night) the unique damage assessment map below.

Typhon PABLO_Social_Media_Mapping-OCHA_A4_Portrait_6Dec2012

OCHA intends to activate the DHN again in future disasters to replicate this type of rapid damage assessment operation. This is where spam filters come in. The DHN often needs support to quickly tag these pictures (which may number in the tens of thousands). Adding a spam filter that requires email users to tag which image captures disaster damage not only helps OCHA and other organizations carry out a rapid damage assessment, but also increases the security of email systems at the same time. And it only takes 3 seconds to use the spam filter.

OCHA reCAPTCHA

My team and I at QCRI have thus developed a spam filter plugin that can be easily added to email login pages like OCHA’s as shown above. When the Digital Humanitarian Network requires additional hands on deck to tag pictures during disasters, this plugin can simply be switched on. My team at QCRI can easily push the images to the plugin and pull data on which images have been tagged as showing disaster damage. The process for the end user couldn’t be simpler. Enter your username and password as normal and then simply select the picture below that shows disaster damage. If there are none, then simply click on “None” and then “Login”. The spam filter uses a predictive algorithm and an existing data-base of pictures as a control mechanism to ensure that the filter cannot be gamed. On that note, feel free to test the plugin here. We’d love your feedback as we continue testing.

recpatcha2

The desired outcome? Each potential disaster picture is displayed to 3 different email account users. Only if each of the 3 users tag the same picture as capturing disaster damage does that picture get automatically forwarded to members of the Digital Humanitarian Network. To tag more pictures after logging in, users are invited to do so via MicroMappers, which launches this September in partnership with OCHA. MicroMappers enables members of the public to participate in digital disaster response efforts with a simple click of the mouse.

I would ideally like to see an innovative and forward-thinking organization like OCHA pilot the plugin for a two week feasibility test. If the results are positive and promising, then I hope OCHA and other UN agencies engaged in disaster response adopt the plugin more broadly. As mentioned in my previous blog post, the UN employs well over 40,000 people around the world. Even if “only” 10% login in one day, that’s still 4,000 images effortlessly tagged for use by OCHA and others during their disaster relief operations. Again, this plugin would only be used in response to major disasters when the most help is needed. We’ll be making the code for this plugin freely available and open source.

Please do get in touch if you’d like to invite your organization to participate in this innovative humanitarian technology project. You can support disaster response efforts around the world by simply logging into your email account, web portal, or Intranet!

bio

TEDx: Microtasking for Disaster Response

My TEDx talk on Digital Humanitarians presented at TEDxTraverseCity. I’ve automatically forwarded the above video to a short 4 minute section of the talk in which I highlight how the Digital Humanitarian Network (DHN) used micro-tasking to support the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in response to Typhoon Pablo in the Philippines. See this blog post to learn more about the operation. As a result of this innovative use of micro-tasking, my team and I at QCRI are collaborating with UN OCHA colleagues to launch MicroMappers—a dedicated set of microtasking apps specifically designed for disaster response. These will go live in September 2013.


bio

 

Humanitarianism in the Network Age: Groundbreaking Study

My colleagues at the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) have just published a groundbreaking must-read study on Humanitarianism in the Network Age; an important and forward-thinking policy document on humanitarian technology and innovation. The report “imagines how a world of increasingly informed, connected and self-reliant communities will affect the delivery of humanitarian aid. Its conclusions suggest a fundamental shift in power from capital and headquarters to the people [that] aid agencies aim to assist.” The latter is an unsettling prospect for many. To be sure, Humanitarianism in the Network Age calls for “more diverse and bottom-up forms of decision-making—something that most Governments and humanitarian organizations were not designed for. Systems constructed to move information up and down hierarchies are facing a new reality where information can be generated by any-one, shared with anyone and acted by anyone.”

Screen Shot 2013-04-04 at 10.35.40 AM

The purpose of this blog post (available as a PDF) is to summarize the 120-page OCHA study. In this summary, I specifically highlight the most important insights and profound implications. I also fill what I believe are some of the report’s most important gaps. I strongly recommend reading the OCHA publication in full, but if you don’t have time to leaf through the study, reading this summary will ensure that you don’t miss a beat. Unless otherwise stated, all quotes and figures below are taken directly from the OCHA report.

All in all, this is an outstanding, accurate, radical and impressively cross-disciplinary study. In fact, what strikes me most about this report is how far we’ve come since the devastating Haiti Earthquake of 2010. Just three short years ago, speaking the word “crowdsourcing” was blasphemous, like “Voldermort” (for all you Harry Potter fans). This explains why some humanitarians called me the CrowdSorcerer at the time (thinking it was a derogatory term). CrisisMappers was only launched three months before Haiti. The Standby Volunteer Task Force (SBTF) didn’t even exist at the time and the Digital Humanitarian Network (DHN) was to be launched 2 years hence. And here we are, just three short years later, with this official, high-profile humanitarian policy document that promotes crowdsourcing, digital humanitarian response and next generation humanitarian technology. Exciting times. While great challenges remain, I dare say we’re trying our darned best to find some solutions, and this time through collaboration, CrowdSorcerers and all. The OCHA report is a testament to this collaboration.

Screen Shot 2013-04-04 at 10.43.15 AM

Summary

the Rise of big (crisis) data

Over 100 countries have more mobile phone subscriptions than they have people. One in four individuals in developing countries use the Internet. This figure will double within 20 months. About 70% of Africa’s total population are mobile subscribers. In short, “The planet has gone online, producing and sharing vast quantities of information.” Meanwhile, however, hundreds of millions of people are affected by disasters every year—more than 250 million in 2010 alone. There have been over 1 billion new mobile phone subscriptions since 2010. In other words, disaster affected communities are becoming increasingly “digital” as a result of the information revolution. These new digital technologies continue are evolving new nervous system for our planet, taking the pulse of our social, economic and political networks in real-time.

“Filipinos sent an average of 2 billion SMS messages every day in early 2012,” for example. When disaster strikes, many of these messages are likely to relay crisis information. In Japan, over half-a-million new users joined Twitter the day after the 2011 Earthquake. More than 177 million tweets about the disaster were posted that same day—that is, 2,000 tweets per second on average. Welcome to “The Rise of Big (Crisis) Data.” Meanwhile, back in the US, 80% of the American public expects emergency responders to monitor social media; and almost as many expect them to respond within three hours of posting a request on social media (1). These expectations have been shown to increase year-on year. “At the same time,” however, the OCHA report notes that “there are greater numbers of people […] who are willing and able to respond to needs.”

communities first

A few brave humanitarian organizations are embracing these changes and new realities, “reorienting their approaches around the essential objectives of helping people to help themselves.” That said, “the frontline of humanitarian action has always consisted of communities helping themselves before outside aid arrives.” What is new, however, is “affected people using technology to communicate, interact with and mobilize their social networks quicker than ever before […].” To this end, “by rethinking how aid agencies work and communicate with people in crisis, there is a chance that many more lives can be saved.” In sum, “the increased reach of communications networks and the growing network of people willing and able to help, are defining a new age—a network age—for humanitarian assistance.”

This stands in stark contrast to traditional notions of humanitarian assistance, which refer to “a small group of established international organizations, often based in and funded by high-income countries, providing help to people in a major crisis. This view is now out of date.” As my colleague Tim McNamara noted on the CrisisMappers list-serve, (cited in the OCHA report), this is “…not simply a technological shift [but] also a process of rapid decentralization of power. With extremely low barriers to entry, many new entrants are appearing in the fields of emergency and disaster response. They are ignoring the traditional hierarchies, because the new entrants perceive that there is something they can do which benefits others.” In other words, the humanitarian “world order” is shifting towards a more multipolar system. And so, while Tim was “referring to the specific case of volunteer crisis mappers […], the point holds true across all types of humanitarian work.”

Take the case of Somalia Speaks, for example. A journalist recently asked me to list the projects I am most proud of in this field. Somalia Speaks ranks very high. I originally pitched the idea to my Al-Jazeera colleagues back in September 2011; the project was launched three months later. Together with my colleagues at Souktelwe texted 5,000 Somalis across the country to ask how were personally affected by the crisis.

SomaliaSpeaksPic

As the OCHA study notes, we received over 3,000 responses, which were translated into English and geotagged by the Diaspora and subsequently added to a crisis map hosted on the Al-Jazeera website. From the OCHA report: “effective communication can also be seen as an end itself in promoting human dignity. More than 3,000 Somalis responded to the Somalia Speaks project, and they seemed to feel that speaking out was a worthwhile activity.” In sum, “The Somalia Speaks project enabled the voices of people from one of the world’s most inaccessible, conflict-ridden areas, in a language known to few outside their community, to be heard by decision makers from across the planet.” The project has since been replicated several times; see Uganda Speaks for example. The OCHA study refers to Somalia Speaks at least four times, highlighting the project as an example of networked humanitarianism.

PRIVACY, SECURITY & PROTECTION

The report also emphasizes the critical importance of data security, privacy and protection in the network age. OCHA’s honest and balanced approach to the topic is another reason why this report is so radical and forward thinking. “Concern over the protection of information and data is not a sufficient reason to avoid using new communications technologies in emergencies, but it must be taken into account. To adapt to increased ethical risks, humanitarian responders and partners need explicit guidelines and codes of conduct for managing new data sources.” This is precisely why I worked with GSMA’s Disaster Response Program to draft and publish the first ever Code of Conduct for the Use of SMS in Disaster Response. I have also provided extensive feedback to the International Committee of the Red Cross’s (ICRC) latest edition of the “Professional Standards for Protection Work,” which was just launched in Geneva this month. My colleagues Emmanuel Letouzé and Patrick Vinck also included a section on data security and ethics in our recent publication on the use of Big Data for Conflict Prevention. In addition, I have blogged about this topic quite a bit: herehere and here, for example.

crisis in decision making

“As the 2010 Haiti crisis revealed, the usefulness of new forms of information gathering is limited by the awareness of responders that new data sources exist, and their applicability to existing systems of humanitarian decision-making.” The fact of the matter is that humanitarian decision-making structures are simply not geared towards using Big Crisis Data let alone new data sources. More pointedly, however, humanitarian decision-making processes are often not based on empirical data in the first place, even when the data originate from traditional sources. As DfID notes in this 2012 strategy document, “Even when good data is available, it is not always used to inform decisions. There are a number of reasons for this, including data not being available in the right format, not widely dispersed, not easily accessible by users, not being transmitted through training and poor information management. Also, data may arrive too late to be able to influence decision-making in real time operations or may not be valued by actors who are more focused on immediate action.”

This is the classic warning-response gap, which has been discussed ad nauseum for decades in the field of famine early warning systems and conflict early warning systems. More data in no way implies action. Take the 2011 Somalia Famine, which was one of the best documented crises yet. So the famine didn’t occur because data was lacking. “Would more data have driven a better decision making process that could have averted disaster? Unfortunately, this does not appear to be the case. There had, in fact, been eleven months of escalating warnings emanating from the famine early warning systems that monitor Somalia. Somalia was, at the time, one of the most frequently surveyed countries in the world, with detailed data available on malnutrition prevalence, mortality rates, and many other indicators. The evolution of the famine was reported in almost real time, yet there was no adequate scaling up of humanitarian intervention until too late” (2).

At other times, “Information is sporadic,” which is why OCHA notes that “decisions can be made on the basis of anecdote rather than fact.” Indeed, “Media reports can significantly influence allocations, often more than directly transmitted community statements of need, because they are more widely read or better trusted.” (It is worth keeping in mind that the media makes mistakes; the New York Times alone makes over 7,000 errors every year). Furthermore, as acknowledged, by OCHA, “The evidence suggests that new information sources are no less representative or reliable than more traditional sources, which are also imperfect in crisis settings.” This is one of the most radical statements in the entire report. OCHA should be applauded for their remarkable fortitude in plunging into this rapidly shifting information landscape. Indeed, they go on to state that, “Crowdsourcing has been used to validate information, map events, translate text and integrate data useful to humanitarian decision makers.”

Screen Shot 2013-04-04 at 10.40.50 AM

The vast major of disaster datasets are not perfect, regardless of whether they are drawn from traditional or non-traditional sources. “So instead of criticizing the lack of 100% data accuracy, we need to use it as a base and ensure our Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) and community engagement pieces are strong enough to keep our programming relevant” (Bartosiak 2013). And so, perhaps the biggest impact of new technologies and recent disasters on the humanitarian sector is the self disrobing of the Emperor’s Clothes (or Data). “Analyses of emergency response during the past five years reveal that poor information management has severely hampered effective action, costing many lives.” Disasters increasingly serve as brutal audits of traditional humanitarian organizations; and the cracks are increasingly difficult to hide in an always-on social media world. The OCHA study makes clear that  decision-makers need to figure out “how to incorporate these sources into decisions.”

Fact is, “To exploit the opportunity of the network age, humanitarians must understand how to use the new range of available data sources and have the capacity to transform this data into useful information.” Furthermore, it is imperative “to ensure new partners have a better understanding of how [these] decisions are made and what information is useful to improve humanitarian action.” These new partners include the members of the Digital Humanitarian Network (DHN), for example. Finally, decision-makers also need to “invest in building analytic capacity across the entire humanitarian network.” This analytic capacity can no longer rest on manual solutions alone. The private sector already makes use of advanced computing platforms for decision-making purposes. The humanitarian industry would be well served to recognize that their problems are hardly unique. Of course, investing in greater analytic capacity is an obvious solution but many organizations are already dealing with limited budgets and facing serious capacity constraints. I provide some creative solutions to this challenge below, which I refer to as “Data Science Philanthropy“.

Commentary

Near Perfection

OCHA’s report is brilliant, honest and forward thinking. This is by far the most important official policy document yet on humanitarian technology and digital humanitarian response—and thus on the very future of humanitarian action. The study should be required reading for everyone in the humanitarian and technology communities, which is why I plan to organize a panel on the report at CrisisMappers 2013 and will refer to the strategy document in all of my forthcoming talks and many a future blog post. In the meantime, I would like to highlight and address a some of the issues that I feel need to be discussed to take this discussion further.

Ironically, some of these gaps appear to reflect a rather limited understanding of advanced computing & next generation humanitarian technology. The following topics, for example, are missing from the OCHA report: Microtasking, Sentiment Analysis and Information Forensics. In addition, the report does not relate OCHA’s important work to disaster resilience and people-centered early warning. So I’m planning to expand on the OCHA report in the technology chapter for this year’s World Disaster Report (WDR 2013). This high-profile policy document is an ideal opportunity to amplify OCHA’s radical insights and to take these to their natural and logical conclusions vis-à-vis Big (Crisis) Data. To be clear, and I must repeat this, the OCHA report is the most important forward thinking policy document yet on the future of humanitarian response. The gaps I seek to fill in no way make the previous statement any less valid. The team at OCHA should be applauded, recognized and thanked for their tremendous work on this report. So despite some of the key shortcomings described below, this policy document is by far the most honest, enlightened and refreshing look at the state of the humanitarian response today; a grounded and well-researched study that provides hope, leadership and a clear vision for the future of humanitarianism in the network age.

BIG DATA HOW

OCHA recognizes that “there is a significant opportunity to use big data to save lives,” and they also get that, “finding ways to make big data useful to humanitarian decision makers is one of the great challenges, and opportunities, of the network age.” Moreover, they realize that “While valuable information can be generated anywhere, detecting the value of a given piece of data requires analysis and understanding.” So they warn, quite rightly, that “the search for more data can obscure the need for more analysis.” To this end, they correctly conclude that “identifying the best uses of crowdsourcing and how to blend automated and crowdsourced approaches is a critical area for study.” But the report does not take these insights to their natural and logical conclusions. Nor does the report explore how to tap these new data sources let alone analyze them in real time.

Yet these Big Data challenges are hardly unique. Our problems in the humanitarian space are not that “special” or  different. OCHA rightly notes that “Understanding which bits of information are valuable to saving lives is a challenge when faced with this ocean of data.” Yes. But such challenges have been around for over a decade in other disciplines. The field of digital disease detection, for example, is years ahead when it comes to real-time analysis of crowdsourced big data, not to mention private sector companies, research institutes and even new startups whose expertise is Big Data Analytics. I can also speak to this from my own professsional experience. About a decade ago, I worked with a company specializing in conflict forecasting and early using Reuters news data (Big Data).

In sum, the OCHA report should have highlighted the fact that solutions to many of these Big Data challenges already exist, which is precisely why I joined the Qatar Computing Research Institute (QCRI). What’s more, a number of humanitarian technology projects at QCRI are already developing prototypes based on these solutions; and OCHA is actually the main partner in one such project, so it is a shame they did not get credit for this in their own report.

sentiment analysis

While I introduced the use of sentiment analysis during the Haiti Earthquake, this has yet to be replicated in other humanitarian settings. Why is sentiment analysis key to humanitarianism in the network age? The answer is simple: “Communities know best what works for them; external actors need to listen and model their response accordingly.” Indeed, “Affected people’s needs must be the starting point.” Actively listening to millions of voices is a Big Data challenge that has already been solved by the private sector. One such solution is real-time sentiment analysis to capture brand perception. This is a rapidly growing multimillion dollar market, which is why many companies like Crimson Hexagon exist. Numerous Top 500 Fortune companies have been actively using automated sentiment analysis for years now. Why? Because these advanced listening solutions enable them to better understand customer perceptions.

Screen Shot 2013-04-08 at 5.49.56 AM

In Haiti, I applied this approach to tens of thousands of text messages sent by the disaster-affected population. It allowed us to track the general mood of this population on a daily basis. This is important because sentiment analysis as a feedback loop works particularly well with Big Data, which explains why the private sector is all over it. If just one or two individuals in a community are displeased with service delivery during a disaster, they may simply be “an outlier”  or perhaps exaggerating. But if the sentiment analysis at the community level suddenly starts to dip, then this means hundreds, perhaps thousands of affected individuals are now all feeling the same way about a situation. In other words, sentiment analysis serves as a triangulating mechanism. The fact that the OCHA report makes no mention of this existing solution is unfortunate since sentiment feedback loops enable organizations to assess the impact of their interventions by capturing their clients’ perceptions.

Information forensics

“When dealing with the vast volume and complexity of information available in the network age, understanding how to assess the accuracy and utility of any data source becomes critical.” Indeed, and the BBC’s User-Generated Content (UGC) Hub has been doing just this since 2005—when Twitter didn’t even exist. The field of digital information forensics may be new to the humanitarian sector, but that doesn’t mean it is new to every other sector on the planet. Furthermore, recent research on crisis computing has revealed that the credibility of social media reporting can be modeled and even predicted. Twitter has even been called a “Truth Machine” because of the self-correcting dynamic that has been empirically observed. Finally, one of QCRI’s humanitarian technology projects, Verily, focuses precisely on the issue of verifying crowdsourced social media information from social media. And the first organization I reached out to for feedback on this project was OCHA.

microtasking

The OCHA report overlooks microtasking as well. Yes, the study does address and promote the use of crowdsourcing repeatedly, but again, this  tends to focus on the collection of information rather than the processing of said information. Microtasking applications in the humanitarian space are not totally unheard of, however. Microtasking was used to translate and geolocate tens of thousands of text messages following the Haiti Earthquake. (As the OCHA study notes, “some experts estimated that 90 per cent [of the SMS's] were ‘repetition’, or ‘white noise’, meaning useless chatter”). There have been several other high profile uses of microtasking for humanitarian operations such as this one thanks to OCHA’s leadership in response to Typhoon Pablo. In sum, microtasking has been used extensively in other sectors to manage the big data and quality control challenge for many years now. So this important human computing solution really ought to have appeared in the OCHA report along with the immense potential of microtasking humanitarian information using massive online multiplayer games (more here).

Open Data is Open Power

OCHA argues that “while information can be used by anyone, power remains concentrated in the hands of a limited number of decision makers.” So if the latter “do not use this information to make decisions in the interests of the people they serve, its value is lost.” I don’t agree that the value is lost. One of the reports’ main themes is the high-impact agency and ingenuity of disaster-affected communities. As OCHA rightly points out, “The terrain is continually shifting, and people are finding new and brilliant ways to cope with crises every day.” Openly accessible crisis information posted on social media has already been used by affected populations for almost a decade now. In other words, communities affected by crises are (quite rightly) taking matters into their own hands in today’s networked world—just like they did in the analog era of yesteryear. As noted earlier, “affected people [are] using technology to communicate, interact with and mobilize their social networks quicker than ever before […].” This explains why “the failure to share [information] is no longer a matter of institutional recalcitrance: it can cost lives.”

creative partnerships

The OCHA study emphasizes that “Humanitarian agencies can learn from other agencies, such as fire departments or militaries, on how to effectively respond to large amounts of often confusing information during a fast-moving crisis.” This is spot on. Situational awareness is first and foremost a military term. The latest Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) provides important insights into the future of humanitarian technology—see these recent developments, for example. Mean-while, the London Fire Brigade has announced plans to add Twitter as a communication channel, which means city residents will have the option of reporting a fire alert via Twitter. Moreover, the 911 service in the US (999 in the UK) is quite possibly the oldest and longest running crowdsourced emergency service in the world. So there much that humanitarian can learn from 911. But the fact of the matter is that most domestic emergency response agencies are completely unprepared to deal with the tidal wave of Big (Crisis) Data, which is precisely why the Fire Department of New York City (FDNY) and San Francisco City’s Emergency Response Team have recently reached out to me.

Screen Shot 2013-04-04 at 11.08.13 AM

But some fields are way ahead of the curve. The OCHA report should thus have pointed to crime mapping and digital disease detection since these fields have more effectively navigated the big data challenge. As for the American Red Cross’s Digital Operations Center, the main technology they are using, Radian6, has been used by private sector clients for years now. And while the latter can afford the very expensive licensing fees, it is unlikely that cash-strapped domestic emergency response officers and international humanitarian organizations will ever be able to afford these advanced solutions. This is why we need more than just “Data Philanthropy“.

We also need “Data Science Philanthropy“. As the OCHA report states, decision-makers need to “invest in building analytic capacity across the entire humanitarian network.” This is an obvious recommendation, but perhaps not particularly realistic given the limited budgets and capacity constraints in the humanitarian space. This means we need to create more partnerships with Data Science groups like DataKind, Kaggle and the University of Chicago’s Data Science for Social Good program. I’m in touch with these groups and others for this reason. I’ve also been (quietly) building a global academic network called “Data Science for Humanitarian Action” which will launch very soon. Open Source solutions are also imperative for building analytic capacity, which is why the humanitarian technology platforms being developed by QCRI will all be Open Source and freely available.

DISASTER RESILIENCE

This points to the following gap in the OCHA report: there is no reference whatsoever to resilience. While the study does recognize that collective self-help behavior is typical in disaster response and should be amplified, the report does not make the connection that this age-old mutual-aid dynamic is the humanitarian sector’s own lifeline during a major disaster. Resilience has to do with a community’s capacity for self-organization. Communication technologies increasingly play a pivotal role in self-organization. This explains why disaster preparedness and disaster risk reduction programs ought to place greater emphasis on building the capacity of at-risk communities to self-organize and mitigate the impact of disasters on their livelihoods. More about this here. Creating resilience through big data is also more academic curiosity, as explained here.

DECENTRALIZING RESPONSE

As more and more disaster-affected communities turn to social media in time of need, “Governments and responders will soon need answers to the questions: ‘Where were you? We Facebooked/tweeted/texted for help, why didn’t someone come?'” Again, customer support challenges are hardly unique to the humanitarian sector. Private sector companies have had to manage parallel problems by developing more advanced customer service platforms. Some have even turned to crowdsourcing to manage customer support. I blogged about this here to drive the point home that solutions to these humanitarian challenges already exist in other sectors.

Yes, that’s right, I am promoting the idea of crowdsourcing crisis response. Fact is, disaster response has always been crowdsourced. The real first responders are the disaster affected communities themselves. Thanks to new technologies, this crowdsourced response can be accelerated and made more efficient. And yes, there’s an app (in the making) for that: MatchApp. This too is a QCRI humanitarian technology project (in partnership with MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab). The purpose of MatchApp is to decentralize disaster response. After all, the many small needs that arise following a disaster rarely require the attention of paid and experienced emergency responders. Furthermore, as a colleague of mine at NYU shared based on her disaster efforts following Hurricane Sandy, “Solving little challenges can make the biggest differences” for disaster-affected communities.

As noted above, more and more individuals believe that emergency responders should monitor social media during disasters and respond accordingly. This is “likely to increase the pressure on humanitarian responders to define what they can and cannot provide. The extent of communities’ desires may exceed their immediate life-saving needs, raising expectations beyond those that humanitarian responders can meet. This can have dangerous consequences. Expectation management has always been important; it will become more so in the network age.”

Screen Shot 2013-04-04 at 11.20.15 AM

PEOPLE-CENTERED

“Community early warning systems (CEWS) can buy time for people to implement plans and reach safety during a crisis. The best CEWS link to external sources of assistance and include the pre-positioning of essential supplies.” At the same time, “communities do not need to wait for information to come from outside sources, […] they can monitor local hazards and vulnerabilities themselves and then shape the response.” This sense and shaping capacity builds resilience, which explains why “international humanitarian organizations must embrace the shift of warning systems to the community level, and help Governments and communities to prepare for, react and respond to emergencies using their own resources and networks.”

This is absolutely spot on and at least 7 years old as far as  UN policy goes. In 2006, the UN’s International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) published this policy document advocating for a people-centered approach to early warning and response systems. They defined the purpose of such as systems as follows:

“… to empower individuals and communities threatened by hazards to act in sufficient time and in an appropriate manner so as to reduce the possibility of personal injury, loss of life, damage to property and the environment, and loss of livelihoods.”

Unfortunately, the OCHA report does not drive these insights to their logical conclusion. Disaster-affected communities are even more ill-equipped to manage the rise of Big (Crisis) Data. Storing, let alone analyzing Big Data Analytics in real-time, is a major technical challenge. As noted here vis-à-vis Big Data Analytics on Twitter, “only corporate actors and regulators—who possess both the intellectual and financial resources to succeed in this race—can afford to participate […].” Indeed, only a handful of research institutes have the technical ability and large funding base carry out the real-time analysis of Big (Crisis) Data. My team and I at QCRI, along with colleagues at UN Global Pulse and GSMA are trying to change this. In the meantime, however, the “Big Data Divide” is already here and very real.

information > Food

“Information is not water, food or shelter; on its own, it will not save lives. But in the list of priorities, it must come shortly after these.” While I understand the logic behind this assertion, I consider it a step back, not forward from the 2005 World Disaster Report (WDR 2005), which states that “People need information as much as water, food, medicine or shelter. Information can save lives, livelihoods and resources.” In fact, OCHA’s assertion contradicts an earlier statement in the report; namely that “information in itself is a life-saving need for people in crisis. It is as important as water, food and shelter.” Fact is: without information, how does one know where/when and from whom clean water and food might be available? How does one know which shelters are open, whether they can accommodate your family and whether the road to the shelter is safe to drive on?

Screen Shot 2013-04-08 at 5.39.51 AM

OCHA writes that, “Easy access to data and analysis, through technology, can help people make better life-saving decisions for themselves and mobilize the right types of external support. This can be as simple as ensuring that people know where to go and how to get help. But to do so effectively requires a clear understanding of how information flows locally and how people make decisions.” In sum, access to information is paramount, which means that local communities should have easy access to next generation humanitarian technologies that can manage and analyze Big Crisis Data. As a seasoned humanitarian colleague recently told me, “humanitarians sometimes have a misconception that all aid and relief comes through agencies.  In fact, (especially with things such a shelter) people start to recover on their own or within their communities. Thus, information is vital in assuring that they do this safely and properly.  Think of the Haiti, build-back-better campaign and the issues with cholera outbreaks.”

Them not us

The technologies of the network age should not be restricted to empowering second- and third-level responders. Unfortunately, as OCHA rightly observes, “there is still a tendency for people removed from a crisis to decide what is best for the people living through that crisis.” Moreover, these paid responders cannot be everywhere at the same time. But the crowd is always there. And as OCHA points out, there are “growing groups of people willing able to help those in need;” groups that unlike their analog counterparts of yesteryear now operate in the “network age with its increased reach of communications networks.” So information is not simply or “primarily a tool for agencies to decide how to help people, it must be understood as a product, or service, to help affected communities determine their own priorities.” Recall the above definition of people-centered early warning. This definition does not all of a sudden become obsolete in the network age. The purpose of next generation technologies is to “empower individuals and communities threatened by hazards to act in sufficient time and in an appropriate manner so as to reduce the possibility of personal injury, loss of life, damage to property and the environment, and loss of livelihoods.”

Screen Shot 2013-04-08 at 5.36.05 AM

Digital humanitarian volunteers are also highly unprepared to deal with the rise of Big Crisis Data, even though they are at the frontlines and indeed the pioneers of digital response. This explains why the Standby Volunteer Task Force (SBTF), a network of digital volunteers that OCHA refers to half-a-dozen times throughout the report, are actively looking to becoming early adopters of next generation humanitarian technologies. Burn out is a serious issue with digital volunteers. They too require access to these next generation technologies, which is precisely why the American Red Cross equips their digital volunteers with advanced computing platforms as part of their Digital Operations Center. Unfortunately, some humanitarians still think that they can just as easily throw more (virtual) volunteers at the Big Crisis Data challenge. Not only are they terribly misguided but also insensitive, which is why, As OCHA notes, “Using new forms of data may also require empowering technical experts to overrule the decisions of their less informed superiors.” As the OCHA study concludes, “Crowdsourcing is a powerful tool, but ensuring that scarce volunteer and technical resources are properly deployed will take further research and the expansion of collaborative models, such as SBTF.”

Conclusion

So will next generation humanitarian technology solve everything? Of course not, I don’t know anyone naïve enough to make this kind of claim. (But it is a common tactic used by the ignorant to attack humanitarian innovation). I have already warned about techno-centric tendencies in the past, such as here and here (see epilogue). Furthermore, one of the principal findings from this OECD report published in 2008 is that “An external, interventionist, and state-centric approach in early warning fuels disjointed and top down responses in situations that require integrated and multilevel action.” You can throw all the advanced computing technology you want at this dysfunctional structural problem but it won’t solve a thing. The OECD thus advocates for “micro-level” responses to crises because “these kinds of responses save lives.” Preparedness is obviously central to these micro-level responses and self-organization strategies. Shockingly, however, the OCHA study reveals that, “only 3% of humanitarian aid goes to disaster prevention and preparedness,” while barely “1% of all other development assistance goes towards disaster risk reduction.” This is no way to build disaster resilience. I doubt these figures will increase substantially in the near future.

This reality makes it even more pressing to ensure that “responders listen to affected people and find ways to respond to their priorities will require a mindset change.” To be sure, “If aid organizations are willing to listen, learn and encourage innovation on the front lines, they can play a critical role in building a more inclusive and more effective humanitarian system.” This need to listen and learn is why next generation humanitarian technologies are not optional. Ensuring that first, second and third-level responders have access to next generation humanitarian technologies is critical for the purposes of self-help, mutual aid and external response.

bio