Social Innovation Camp

Chris Adams discusses the ideas for tackling social problems that were discussed at the recent Socia

On the first Friday of this month, I joined a load of other well meaning programmers, designers and social entrepreneurs at Social Innovation Camp, to see if we could apply novel uses of technology to tackle social problems.

By lunchtime the same weekend, we had split into seven teams, and each team had developed an idea into a working prototype of an online service to pitch to a funding panel that would pick the top two entrants for further development.

What kinds of problems do people set out to solve in a weekend of hacking? Lets have a look at the entrants:

Enabled by Design (the first prize winner of £2000 of project funding) helps match disabled people doing common difficult tasks with product designers to make better tools, and find investors to put them into production.

Rate my Prison (the runner up, winning £1000) sets out to make prison visits accessible to families of inmates, and improve transparency.

OntheUp helps people track their personal development over time to provide new ways of measuring the impact of social work.

CV Lifeline is aimed at skilled migrants who miss out on jobs they're qualified for, instead of languishing in low paid work because they don't know enough about how to present themselves in the UK compared to their native countries.

Stuffshare acts like an eBay of sorts, for borrowing items in trusted groups to cut down on wasteful purchasing of rarely used items like camping kits, or power tools.

The Glue sets out to help users look after older loved ones who they don't live with, and connect them with carers who can help when they can't be present, and help families stick together.

Wibi.it is a service that links real world items with relevant information on the internet to help people become active, aware customers when shopping.

I worked as part of the team with Wibi.it (formerly known as the Barcode Wikipedia). Our general idea was that if your phone could read a barcode on a product, it could be used like a hyperlink on the internet, to search online for related information to that product. We designed an application that gave your phone the ability to do this, and created a website for the online community to pool information about any product you pointed your phone camera at. This made it easier for users to make informed choices about who they spend their money with when shopping.

Of course, what constitutes an 'informed choice' varies from person to person. To some people this means ethical consumerism; tracing wine or bananas or suchlike back to their farms where they were grown. To others it's just whether amazon.co.uk is selling the same item at a lower price, or whether your friends have already bought what you're looking at. Which of these considerations takes precedence when designing a system like this?

The 'informed choices' issue highlights how the problems we're facing are changing in the field of new media. Technology is getting cheap and accessible, and the barriers for entry are so low, that we're encountering all kinds of other interesting problems that people would only really encounter in R&D labs previously.

For example, in the case of wibi.it, how exactly are you supposed to present all this information in a digestible form in a screen two inches wide? Or just how foolhardy is it to map the way we use laptops and desktops onto how we use mobile phones? When the information you can access by reading a label is potentially infinite because it links to further info, how does that change how product labeling should be regulated? What would a supermarket trip be like if we googled every other item we looked at before popping it our trolleys?

Questions like these make using new kinds of technology to tackle social issues so interesting - they force you to challenge long-held assumptions about what's possible, or even appropriate, when trying to find smart solutions to complex social problems.

Which is what we're interested in here on this blog.

Selected links about social innovation camp:

The Guardian's coverage of Social Innovation Camp

Premasagar Rose of Dharmafly's account of developing stuffshare, with a video of their presentation to the funding panel

Aleksi Aaltonen's exhaustive list of links to every video, and blog post related to social innovation camp

Yahoo Lead Developer Chris Heilmann's take on Social Innovation Camp

Enabled by Design developer Matt Collins's blog post

Getty.
Show Hide image

The Brexit Beartraps, #2: Could dropping out of the open skies agreement cancel your holiday?

Flying to Europe is about to get a lot more difficult.

So what is it this time, eh? Brexit is going to wipe out every banana planet on the entire planet? Brexit will get the Last Night of the Proms cancelled? Brexit will bring about World War Three?

To be honest, I think we’re pretty well covered already on that last score, but no, this week it’s nothing so terrifying. It’s just that Brexit might get your holiday cancelled.

What are you blithering about now?

Well, only if you want to holiday in Europe, I suppose. If you’re going to Blackpool you’ll be fine. Or Pakistan, according to some people...

You’re making this up.

I’m honestly not, though we can’t entirely rule out the possibility somebody is. Last month Michael O’Leary, the Ryanair boss who attracts headlines the way certain other things attract flies, warned that, “There is a real prospect... that there are going to be no flights between the UK and Europe for a period of weeks, months beyond March 2019... We will be cancelling people’s holidays for summer of 2019.”

He’s just trying to block Brexit, the bloody saboteur.

Well, yes, he’s been quite explicit about that, and says we should just ignore the referendum result. Honestly, he’s so Remainiac he makes me look like Dan Hannan.

But he’s not wrong that there are issues: please fasten your seatbelt, and brace yourself for some turbulence.

Not so long ago, aviation was a very national sort of a business: many of the big airports were owned by nation states, and the airline industry was dominated by the state-backed national flag carriers (British Airways, Air France and so on). Since governments set airline regulations too, that meant those airlines were given all sorts of competitive advantages in their own country, and pretty much everyone faced barriers to entry in others. 

The EU changed all that. Since 1994, the European Single Aviation Market (ESAM) has allowed free movement of people and cargo; established common rules over safety, security, the environment and so on; and ensured fair competition between European airlines. It also means that an AOC – an Air Operator Certificate, the bit of paper an airline needs to fly – from any European country would be enough to operate in all of them. 

Do we really need all these acronyms?

No, alas, we need more of them. There’s also ECAA, the European Common Aviation Area – that’s the area ESAM covers; basically, ESAM is the aviation bit of the single market, and ECAA the aviation bit of the European Economic Area, or EEA. Then there’s ESAA, the European Aviation Safety Agency, which regulates, well, you can probably guess what it regulates to be honest.

All this may sound a bit dry-

It is.

-it is a bit dry, yes. But it’s also the thing that made it much easier to travel around Europe. It made the European aviation industry much more competitive, which is where the whole cheap flights thing came from.

In a speech last December, Andrew Haines, the boss of Britain’s Civil Aviation Authority said that, since 2000, the number of destinations served from UK airports has doubled; since 1993, fares have dropped by a third. Which is brilliant.

Brexit, though, means we’re probably going to have to pull out of these arrangements.

Stop talking Britain down.

Don’t tell me, tell Brexit secretary David Davis. To monitor and enforce all these international agreements, you need an international court system. That’s the European Court of Justice, which ministers have repeatedly made clear that we’re leaving.

So: last March, when Davis was asked by a select committee whether the open skies system would persist, he replied: “One would presume that would not apply to us” – although he promised he’d fight for a successor, which is very reassuring. 

We can always holiday elsewhere. 

Perhaps you can – O’Leary also claimed (I’m still not making this up) that a senior Brexit minister had told him that lost European airline traffic could be made up for through a bilateral agreement with Pakistan. Which seems a bit optimistic to me, but what do I know.

Intercontinental flights are still likely to be more difficult, though. Since 2007, flights between Europe and the US have operated under a separate open skies agreement, and leaving the EU means we’re we’re about to fall out of that, too.  

Surely we’ll just revert to whatever rules there were before.

Apparently not. Airlines for America – a trade body for... well, you can probably guess that, too – has pointed out that, if we do, there are no historic rules to fall back on: there’s no aviation equivalent of the WTO.

The claim that flights are going to just stop is definitely a worst case scenario: in practice, we can probably negotiate a bunch of new agreements. But we’re already negotiating a lot of other things, and we’re on a deadline, so we’re tight for time.

In fact, we’re really tight for time. Airlines for America has also argued that – because so many tickets are sold a year or more in advance – airlines really need a new deal in place by March 2018, if they’re to have faith they can keep flying. So it’s asking for aviation to be prioritised in negotiations.

The only problem is, we can’t negotiate anything else until the EU decides we’ve made enough progress on the divorce bill and the rights of EU nationals. And the clock’s ticking.

This is just remoaning. Brexit will set us free.

A little bit, maybe. CAA’s Haines has also said he believes “talk of significant retrenchment is very much over-stated, and Brexit offers potential opportunities in other areas”. Falling out of Europe means falling out of European ownership rules, so itcould bring foreign capital into the UK aviation industry (assuming anyone still wants to invest, of course). It would also mean more flexibility on “slot rules”, by which airports have to hand out landing times, and which are I gather a source of some contention at the moment.

But Haines also pointed out that the UK has been one of the most influential contributors to European aviation regulations: leaving the European system will mean we lose that influence. And let’s not forget that it was European law that gave passengers the right to redress when things go wrong: if you’ve ever had a refund after long delays, you’ve got the EU to thank.

So: the planes may not stop flying. But the UK will have less influence over the future of aviation; passengers might have fewer consumer rights; and while it’s not clear that Brexit will mean vastly fewer flights, it’s hard to see how it will mean more, so between that and the slide in sterling, prices are likely to rise, too.

It’s not that Brexit is inevitably going to mean disaster. It’s just that it’ll take a lot of effort for very little obvious reward. Which is becoming something of a theme.

Still, we’ll be free of those bureaucrats at the ECJ, won’t be?

This’ll be a great comfort when we’re all holidaying in Grimsby.

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Brexit. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.