The document discusses the complexities and shortcomings of disaster relief efforts, emphasizing the need for critical thinking and effective engagement rather than just donations or aid. It highlights examples from past disasters, particularly the Nepal earthquake, illustrating how well-intentioned help can sometimes exacerbate problems. The author advocates for a more innovative and locally engaged approach to humanitarian aid, utilizing technology like blockchain to improve efficiency and empower local solutions.

1. GOOD
INTENTIONS AND
CRITICAL
THINKING
NEEDED
BY ROBIN LOW

2. DISASTERS EVERYWHERE
Earthquake & 2+ Hurricanes (Sept 2017)

3. MOST COMMON “HELP”
1) Facebook Likes
2) Donations
3) Volunteer
4) Virgil / Solidarity
…
Fundraising, etc.

5. DEFINE HELP
Help is any form of assistance.
-- Wikipedia

6. WHY DO WE HELP?
• Religion?
• Branding?
• Good Intentions?
• Guilt?

7. POPULAR FORM OF
HELP: DONATIONS
Individuals and business like to help by
donating money.
Some donate a certain portion of profits
while others a certain amount every regular
interval.
This is a minimal form of helping and one
of the most common form.

8. NEPAL EARTHQUAKE
(2015)
Twin Earthquakes 7.8 and 7.3 magnitude
About 9,000 people killed
650,000 families displaced
600,000 homes destroyed beyond repair

11. DONATIONS
Nepal received USD$4.1 billion from
International Communities and World
Bank.
Guess what is progress at the 1 year
anniversary?

12. REAL IMPACT IN
NEPAL IN MAY 2016
Some construction on infrastructure
started.
Some rebuilding on UNESCO sites.
Number of homes rebuilt =
0

14. OTHER PROBLEMS
• Political indecision (Nepal
Reconstruction Agency)
• Unofficial Blockade on Indian border
• PUSHING OF BLAME
• WAITING FOR HELP

15. RESULTS
• People died from exposure from
environment.
• People displaced living in tents
• Farmers living in tents on their
farms, reduced income and food.
• Jobs lost (no Fuel)
• Unequal distribution of support.

17. CASE 2: SINGAPORE
HELP IN NEPAL
Students from Singapore visited Nepal and
distributed aid.
Supported by Churches, what can go
wrong?

18. SINGAPORE HELP
Students decided not to leave Kathmandu,
and just deliver aid in Kathmandu.
They discovered bibles in blankets.
(Common practice in Relief)
They “helped” to remove it.

19. RESULTS
What do you think when a majority
Buddhist / Hindu country finds lots of
bibles in their capital?

20. MANY PEOPLE WANT TO
HELP, FEW KNOW HOW
Everyone thinks helping is easy.
Most do it out of convenience.
Does anything think about the impact of
their deeds?
Some help out of pity, and they get angry
when they see the recipients have a nice
meal or buy something nice.

21. NOT ALL DONATIONS
ARE EQUAL

22. COMMON HELP MISTAKES IN
DISASTERS
1) Bottled Water
100,000 liters of bottled water – 40,000
people a day
Cost + Logistics $300,000
Cost for NGO with Filter to purify 100,000 of
water - $300
NO PLASTIC WASTE!

23. COMMON HELP MISTAKES IN
DISASTERS
2) Canned Food
…
List goes on.

24. PUERTO RICO BOTTLE WATER

25. WHAT WE BROUGHT

26. WATER FILTERS

27. EASY INSTALLATION

28. COMMON HELP MISTAKES IN
DISASTERS
Clothes and Toys
NGOs do not have the capacity to provide
“non-essential” aid.
Most clothes and toys WILL be wasted as it
will be improperly stored and create a
health hazard.

29. COMMON HELP MISTAKES IN
DISASTERS
Many International NGOs spend in the
country the money is donated to buy
supplies, and this means that businesses
in the disaster areas are excluded.
People in charge are not on site and
bureaucracy prevents them from reacting
to changes or identifying gaps on the field.

30. CURSE OF
EXCLUSION OF
LOCALS IN
DISASTER RELIEF
AND RECOVERY

31. CAN’T HAITIANS
DRIVE?
Haiti Earthquake 2010
Food donation & delivery.
Trucks of Aid to Port-au-Prince.
5 year old saw the Dominican driver
and asked, “Can’t Hatians Drive?”

32. AID AND TRADITIONAL
NONPROFITS ARE
UNABLE TO GENERATE
SUSTAINABLE
ECONOMIC ACTIVITY.

33. Many humanitarian agencies, big aid
organizations and traditional non-
profits elect to deal with immediate
needs of displaced people during an
“emergency” period, discounting how
to integrate the survivors into existing
political and economic systems.

34. Both skilled and unskilled labor
supply go under utilized because of
policies within camps. Transforming
Survivors into refugees.

35. Is helping any help?
Not really…
At least not in the way we are doing it…

36. Often when we help…
We make life decisions for
those we are helping.

37. Often when we help…
We fail to see the whole picture
and feel content to help.

38. Often when we help…
We search the approach most efficient to
us not to those we are trying to help.

39. Often when we help…
We destroy the very same environment
we are trying to help.

40. Often when we help…
we displace local capacity.

41. Often when we help…
we measure our success by the delivery
of help or completion of actions not
actual impact.

42. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN DISASTER
STRIKES IS AN UNFORTUNATE
TWIST OF FATE.

43. WHAT HAPPENS AFTERWARDS
IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY…

44. When disaster strikes…
Some people are given a burden:
The burden of enduring the disaster
and the conditions that follow

45. When disaster strikes…
Some people are given a gift:
The gift of being spared
from disaster.

46. How can we
not use our
gift to lift the
burden of
others?

47. Disaster Response Lies…
• Only experts can help.
• You will be a burden in the field.
• We don’t need anything, we have all we need.
• Do not send clothes or food, send money.

48. We all can respond…
• And guarantee an efficient response…
• Donate Action, not money, not words…
• But how?

49. Disaster Response Basics:
You can be useful in the field if…
• Bring your own supplies and food to the field.
– Or buy them locally if possible.
• Engage the local stakeholders and work for
them, with them.
• Are connected.
• Have independent mobility.
• Listen, learn, respect.

50. Relief 2.0 (what is it?)
• A focus on running the last mile in disaster
relief
• through independent units of local
stakeholders and foreign volunteers in the field
• supported by mobile technologies and social
networks
• to fill the gaps created by bureaucracy and slow
response from top-down hierarchies.

51. Relief 2.0 (how does it work?)
• Individuals and organizations report incidents,
needs and requests from the field using their
mobile phones and the Internet.

52. Relief 2.0 (how does it work?)
• These incidents are reviewed, verified,
completed, enhanced and their information
spread to others
by individuals and groups on social networks
– Housewives, youngsters, volunteers, anyone.
until they are addressed, solved or matched
with someone who takes care of it.

53. Relief 2.0 (the last mile)
• Small independent units then complete the
cycle by actually addressing those issues and
delivering the response required and supported
by the social network.

55. When disaster strikes…
The social infrastructure remains,
people’s capacity is untouched…

56. What appears to be random or chaos
is neither…

57. There is order, social structure…

58. There is people,
like you and me, willing and able.

59. Who are the people who
survive disaster?

60. Disasters create survivors,
they don’t create refugees.
It is the conventional relief system what turns
survivors into refugees.

61. Disasters do not destroy
knowledge or capacity
Teachers are still teachers, doctors are still doctors,
nurses are still nurses, carpenters are still carpenters…

62. DANGERS OF SOCIAL
INTERVENTION
Making life decisions for those we are
helping
Is there “Over Helping?”

63. ARE YOU HELPING?
Should you do nothing?
Should you support status quo?

64. SO THEN
WHAT
CAN WE DO?

65. NEVER HELP
ENGAGE, ENABLE,
EMPOWER & CONNECT

66. POOR PEOPLE ARE
NOT STUPID

67. SOCIAL INNOVATION
The point is, everyone can contribute.
Not just with money, not just doing
little tasks with no real impact.
We have innovative ideas, knowledge
and skills to solve complex problems.
There are interesting projects near
you or you can gather friends to work
on something you care about.

68. There are so many new
problems happening
everyday.
Complaining does not solve
problems, protesting does not
solve problems.

69. There is only so much the
government or NGOs can do.
Being big and bureaucratic
allows them access to
resources, but they are slow
to respond to changes.
We need innovation and
people to take actions and
accountability.

70. The crisis is not a crisis of
resources. It is a crisis of
imagination. When the plight
of humans is approached as a
crisis of resources, the natural
response is to produce
handouts.

71. For some, it means creating
businesses that address those
needs, and developing
plausible pathways to scale
those businesses so that
solutions stretch to the scale
of the challenge.
Then it is to look at how we
can support these businesses.

72. The solutions to the problems
the world face are complex
and getting to this solutions is
not an easy task.
There is definitely a solution
out there.

73. NEW TECHNOLOGY
ON THE HORIZON

74. BLOCKCHAIN
Creating trust, but also efficiency
• Distributed power
• Partner interoperability
• Ad hoc capabilities
• Privacy

75. BLOCKCHAIN
Blockchain crowdfunding: groups can raise
money transparently for public good
projects.
Blockchain governance tools: democratize
fund allocation by allowing donors to
directly vote on how money gets spent.
Blockchain general ledger tools: show
donors where each bit of value goes,
ensuring that their votes translate into
money spent on desired initiatives.

76. BLOCKCHAIN
LIMITATIONS
Complexity: Not everyone understand
Network size: Requires a large network of
users. If a blockchain is not a robust
network with a widely distributed grid of
nodes, it becomes more difficult to reap the
full benefit.
Transaction costs, network speed:
‘Bloating' because it forces miners to
perpetually reprocess and rerecord the
information. (keeping all records)

77. BLOCKCHAIN
LIMITATIONS
Human error: The data stored on a blockchain
is not inherently trustworthy, so events need to
be recorded accurately in the first place.
Security flaw: If more than half of the
computers working as nodes to service the
network tell a lie, the lie will become the truth.
Politics: Blockchain protocols offer an
opportunity to digitize governance models,
essentially they are smart contracts which
parties need to agree on. (Still evolving as it is
a growing field)

78. P2P
P2P systems can make relief very efficient.
Maps showing locations of survivors and
their needs can be broadcasted, and
donors can come and solve those needs
and buy only things
e.g. Amazon Disaster registry

79. Perhaps this is your
PURPOSE in this world – to
solve problems, not just to
eat, sleep and work.
After all, we all live on the
same planet.