14
R. Dette
conventions to guide technology uses are increasingly considered necessary, they
are holding off (Raymond and Card 2015a; Gilman and Baker 2014; Sandvik et al.
2014). While a number of promising initiatives develop guidelines and good practice
lessons, they tend to focus on disaster settings, explicitly omit recommendations for
complex, man-made emergencies (GSMA 2012; UAViators 2015; Madianou et al.
2015). In conflict zones, aid actors are left to make up rules as they go, or forfeit opportunities by opting against technologies altogether, but these decisions are typically
not documented (Raymond et al. 2013; Steets et al. 2015). A better understanding
of the perceived and real risks entangled in the use of ICT, as outlined here, can help
inform a responsible, sustainable humanitarian technology practice that works in all
settings.
This paper draws on finding of the 3-year research project ‘Secure Access in
Volatile Environments (SAVE)’ that was undertaken by Humanitarian Outcomes
(HO) and the Global Public Policy Institute (GPPi) with funding from the UK Department for International Development (DFID). Part of the research assessed technologies that aid actors can use for monitoring and evaluation (M&E) in insecure and
hard-to-reach areas. The research was undertaken in close collaboration with NGOs
and UN agencies in Afghanistan, Somalia, South Sudan and the Syria region with the
aim to provide practical contributions. A ‘menu of technology options for monitoring’ introduces and explains select ICT tools in detail, zooming in on challenges in
order to propose effective risk mitigation strategies. The menu and this paper recognize the significant potential technologies offer to humanitarian efforts, but caution
against rushed implementation at the risk of overseeing severe challenges and limitations. A risk-aware approach to all new tools, especially those that are digital or
data-based, can help aid actors assure they ‘do no digital harm.’
2.2 Technology Advantages
ICT in insecure environments
ICT aids communication and can be used in aid efforts. It includes mobile phone,
location trackers, software, web-based platforms, digital media and more. Here, we
focus on those tools that are already widespread or easily accessible in crisis contexts
and thus ready and reliable to use even in precarious situations. The narrow focus
on insecurity and conflict settings, where information is often sensitive, makes risks
and challenges especially apparent, and can help inform mitigation and best practices
that translate to other settings.
In insecure environments, several limitations curtail the selection of ICTs that
can be used. Access restrictions, poor infrastructure, budgets constraints and high
levels of uncertainty require tools to function without constant electricity supply,
across wide distances and without advanced IT support. In close collaboration with
aid organizations and technology experts, we identified four technology types that
meet these criteria: mobile phone-based feedback mechanisms, handheld devices
R. Dette
conventions to guide technology uses are increasingly considered necessary, they
are holding off (Raymond and Card 2015a; Gilman and Baker 2014; Sandvik et al.
2014). While a number of promising initiatives develop guidelines and good practice
lessons, they tend to focus on disaster settings, explicitly omit recommendations for
complex, man-made emergencies (GSMA 2012; UAViators 2015; Madianou et al.
2015). In conflict zones, aid actors are left to make up rules as they go, or forfeit opportunities by opting against technologies altogether, but these decisions are typically
not documented (Raymond et al. 2013; Steets et al. 2015). A better understanding
of the perceived and real risks entangled in the use of ICT, as outlined here, can help
inform a responsible, sustainable humanitarian technology practice that works in all
settings.
This paper draws on finding of the 3-year research project ‘Secure Access in
Volatile Environments (SAVE)’ that was undertaken by Humanitarian Outcomes
(HO) and the Global Public Policy Institute (GPPi) with funding from the UK Department for International Development (DFID). Part of the research assessed technologies that aid actors can use for monitoring and evaluation (M&E) in insecure and
hard-to-reach areas. The research was undertaken in close collaboration with NGOs
and UN agencies in Afghanistan, Somalia, South Sudan and the Syria region with the
aim to provide practical contributions. A ‘menu of technology options for monitoring’ introduces and explains select ICT tools in detail, zooming in on challenges in
order to propose effective risk mitigation strategies. The menu and this paper recognize the significant potential technologies offer to humanitarian efforts, but caution
against rushed implementation at the risk of overseeing severe challenges and limitations. A risk-aware approach to all new tools, especially those that are digital or
data-based, can help aid actors assure they ‘do no digital harm.’
2.2 Technology Advantages
ICT in insecure environments
ICT aids communication and can be used in aid efforts. It includes mobile phone,
location trackers, software, web-based platforms, digital media and more. Here, we
focus on those tools that are already widespread or easily accessible in crisis contexts
and thus ready and reliable to use even in precarious situations. The narrow focus
on insecurity and conflict settings, where information is often sensitive, makes risks
and challenges especially apparent, and can help inform mitigation and best practices
that translate to other settings.
In insecure environments, several limitations curtail the selection of ICTs that
can be used. Access restrictions, poor infrastructure, budgets constraints and high
levels of uncertainty require tools to function without constant electricity supply,
across wide distances and without advanced IT support. In close collaboration with
aid organizations and technology experts, we identified four technology types that
meet these criteria: mobile phone-based feedback mechanisms, handheld devices