IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - September 2020 - 83

purpose of mapping landslides, but with an intention of
potentially using it to assist relief work, implying a
somewhat undefined vision. Thus it begs the question
as to what exactly was the justification to use the drone
- was it because of the availability of the technology?
Was it guided by the understanding of local needs? Furthermore, after having decided to use the drone to map
the landslide, achievement of the objectives still
depended on many factors, in particular financial
resources and political will; both were obviously challenging in Nepal. This, again, invites questions regarding the rationale of the project - was it overly
ambitious, in that the intended outcome was predominantly determined by factors out of the hands of an aid
agency? Was it overly optimistic, in that both the vision
and the methodology of the project represented the
best-case scenario? These reflections point out the
importance of self-positioning of humanitarian organizations. Many aid agencies do not have the technical
capacity to operate advanced modern technologies
themselves, but they have strong relationships with the
government and the community, which is appealing to
other stakeholders as it may potentially help advance
particular interests of their own. The question, ultimately, boils down to who benefits from such endeavors, if
eventually there is no positive impact on the lives of the
affected communities?
The responsibility of stakeholders does not lie solely
on the service providers, but also on the receivers,
namely the community. In the case study, the local
community was unfamiliar with the drone technology
initially; but when it was introduced in the name of helping manage the landslide, they believed that they needed it. Yet, their fundamental need was simply to live
safely. Nepal has long been portrayed as a breeding
ground for "humanitarian experimentation" in the name
of innovation [4], [9]. The use of technology in the
humanitarian space is neither good nor bad in itself, it
depends on why and how it will be used [27], [28]. The
rationale to use technology should not be determined
from a donor perspective, whereby they experiment
with ideas and test out new tools; but from a need perspective, whereby strategies are reflective and the local
community's livelihood is catered to. This not only calls
for humanitarian organizations to care for, and advocate on behalf of, the communities, but also encourages the communities to be aware of what is at stake, take
ownership of it, and approach government authorities
proactively. Although living with hope is praiseworthy,
living on hope can be futile.
Finally, to substantively move forward in the process
of humanitarian innovation, a pragmatic tool would be
action-guiding ethical standards, e.g., on privacy, on
data management, on informed consent, on stakeholder
SEPTEMBER 2020

∕

Humanitarian technological
innovation may disrupt relations
between stakeholders, widen
inequality between those with
access and those without, and
threaten privacy.

engagement, etc. At the outset, such standards need
not be lengthy or comprehensive, and may not be
immediately enforceable or endorsed by every stakeholder involved. Nonetheless, they create thresholds,
form benchmarks, and clarify ambiguity. For instance,
case studies encompassing best practices can be an
effective instrument to educate regulators, and to help
foster regulatory frameworks that are value-sensitive
and context-specific. Similarly, multi-stakeholder consultation, including seeking expertise from outside the
country and across sectors and disciplines, can contribute to the collection of inputs from diverse perspectives.
Furthermore, local beliefs and indigenous knowledge of
the affected populations should be respected and
included in the standards, in that it is these people who
are exposed to risks, harms, and vulnerability, and
whom the humanitarian sector strives to protect. If the
stakeholder aspect is attended to, the principle of "Do
No Harm" will not be rendered a mere slogan or a moral
disguise of those who drive the humanitarian innovation enterprise.

Categories of Ethical Consideration
In this paper, an in-depth ethical analysis of a case
study of using drones to assist post-disaster humanitarian work was presented. Five categories of ethical considerations were identified and are summarized in Table 1,
along with lessons learned in relation to each theme.
While these themes do not suggest a specific order of
criticality, they are presented here with a bottom-up
logic for ease of discussion.
To conclude, from the perspective of humanitarian
action, it may seem that challenges exhibited in this
case study are merely implementation issues "typical"
to the aid sector when new technologies are deployed in
time-sensitive and resource-constrained environments.
However, from the ethical viewpoint, it is precisely this
caution-free (mis)conception about "typical" that warrants attention - the seemingly non-harmful use of

IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE

IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - September 2020

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