IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - September 2020 - 82

the globe are called for. Regarding the nature of such a
regulatory agency, stakeholders in our interviews generally favored that its staff members to be technical
experts, such that future regulations will be based on
technical rather than political parameters. Meanwhile,
stakeholders suggested that a national expert committee could help provide inputs to global regulation development, and that if a global consensus for airspace
regulation is sought, countries can adapt it to their particular situations and develop their own regulations
based on the knowledge and experience acquired at the
national level.
With respect to provisions and procedures, the biggest challenge seems to be how stringent compliance
and enforcement mechanisms should be, such that they
are robust while not hindering the development of the
technology or oppress its applications for social good.
There are two subdimensions to this challenge, i.e., that
of the content, and that of the process. Content-wise, in
Nepal, there already exist some regulatory guidelines.
For instance, if a drone flies over a sensitive area, such
as military installations or near airports, or flies above
300 feet beyond the-visual-line-of-sight (BVLOS), it can
be seized and its operator fined. In reality, however, as
long as no one reports it, the government can do little,
as they do not have a digital tracking system that can
monitor drone flights. This indicates how context-insensitive the provisions and procedures are, and how leftbehind regulation is compared to the pace of
technology development.
Process-wise, as shown in the case study, flight permission applications can be lengthy and complicated.
Some stakeholders raised the concern that if it continues to take 4-5 months and 6-7 agencies to get flight
permissions, then people will simply try to "cheat the
system," and the authorities would have no control over
this as, again, there is no digital monitoring system in
place. In the mapping project, if there had been a lead
agency serving as a central point of contact, it would
have considerably shortened the flight permission process. Moreover, it was envisioned that if the Ministries
could keep records of the technical specificities of existing drone use, such as ranges of frequency, it would
largely simplify the administrative procedure. Another
proposal for improving the process was the adoption of
a licensing system similar to that of automobile, allowing only certified pilots to fly a drone. Regarding sensitive areas, signal blockers were deemed useful for
restricting flights over special locations, and a buffer
zone could be put in place around airports. According
to technical experts in our interviews, these approaches
have been discussed on various occasions with government officials in Nepal. Although none of the proposals
are technically demanding or high cost, the challenge

seems to be priorities. This implies that continued effort
needs to be made to sensitize the authorities on the
need to establish regulatory provisions and procedures.

Stakeholders: Responsibility and Accountability
An additional aspect of the humanitarian use of technolog y lies with stakeholder responsibility and
accountability - not only regarding the deployment of
technologies, but also towards each other. Like regulation, the stakeholder aspect is an overarching layer situated in the background, but with a bottom-up force.
The danger of lacking a deep understanding of responsibility and accountability is that it creates a moral hazard, whereby stakeholders advocate the principle of
"Do No Harm," while potentially causing harms to those
whom they intend to protect by introducing new actors
into the space without caution [15]. Humanitarian
stakeholders should clearly define their commercial
incentives and operational priorities, meanwhile establishing ethical standards to guide and safeguard their
innovation practice [13].
In terms of the responsibility of the government, in
the context of the case study, this was somewhat ambiguous, due partially to its political priority-setting. For
example, at the national level, the National Reconstruction Authority (NRA) acted as the lead agency after the
earthquake to restore damaged houses, and conduct
research on landslides in Nepal. Yet, when X proposed
that the NRA incorporate this landslide area as one of
their research sites, the proposal was dismissed - it
was not a priority for the NRA as the houses in this area
were not already damaged. At the community level,
when X raised awareness about the increasing risks of
the landslide, some community leaders did not see the
immediate necessity for action as the landslide did not
cause loss of life - how people's lives will be affected
in the future was not seen as a priority for the present
time. While humanitarian and development actors may
assist in post-disaster reconstruction, their primary role
is to coordinate aid delivery and provide technical
expertise, rather than involving themselves in every
aspect of reconstruction. Ultimately, it should be the
local government and local communities who take
responsibility to rebuild lives. The local government
may lack resources; still, they can take the lead to
establish evidence. And once resources are available,
action plans can be implemented at the national and
local levels.
With respect to the accountability of humanitarian
organizations, the center of discussion is why they
introduce new technology in their practice in the first
place, and how to introduce it to vulnerable populations without causing harm. In the case study, the
drone was not brought to Nepal for the specific

IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE

∕

SEPTEMBER 2020

IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - September 2020

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - September 2020