Author: Besa Shahini, Umberto Di Maggio
Date: 30-04-2026
The illicit trade is not supported by criminal groups only. It is also supported by those who do not have adequate information, tools, and institutional capabilities to understand what is going on and how to respond to it. It is true that enforcement is a must but not sufficient. It is not possible for the police and law enforcement agencies to be everywhere. When they arrive, it is already “too late”. That is where community mobilization comes into play, and digital tools are part of the “game”.
Lately, a great number of initiatives have attempted to directly engage citizens against illicit trade. Mobile applications, reporting platforms, and social media advertisements are tools which people use to verify products, flag doubtful activity, and share on the air information. Some of these tools are very simple and some of the examples are demonstrated as follows:
- In Kenya, in 2025, the Anti-Counterfeit Authority launched an app called Bleep, which enable user to verify if whether a product is original and report if meeting counterfeits Reports go directly to enforcement agencies, putting in a direct relation what a consumer notices at a market and alarm the authority to act instantly.
- There is a different problem in the Democratic Republic of Congo, but the approach is pretty much the same. Artisanal miners often face extortion and illegal taxes at mining sites. For Kufatilia, abuses can now be easily reported through a simple SMS. Initially, it was just a reporting system, but now the entire civil society is involved. The use of technology is just a supplement to the community.
- For the pharmaceutical industry, the fight against counterfeits is handled by Fight the Fakes, which is made up of patients, health workers, customs officers, and other international bodies. They use a mix of mobilization at the grassroots level and online mobilization. Technology is not the solution in and of itself, but rather the glue that holds together people who might have worked in isolation.
These are a few instances of how tech can be effective when it complements existing community efforts but not when it replaces them. An app for verification is effective only when people trust the system; a system for reporting is effective only when there is a person at the other end who answers. It is not the tool that makes a difference but the connection between the tool and its context.
The problems lie here also: Digital connectivity is not equal. In the areas of the country most affected by illicit trade, connectivity is bad, smartphones are expensive, and digital literacy is low. If a reporting app is accessible only to the well-connected, it might increase existing inequalities rather than reduce them. The communities that are most affected by illicit trade are also the least able to use the tools that are meant to assist them.
Trust is obviously one of the key points: In areas where past experiences with government institutions have been negative, not only must a reporting mechanism be well-designed, but it must be accountable as well, lest reports be lost or used for nefarious purposes. This is true across the board, i.e. without clear engagement from institutions, even well-funded reporting efforts will not be trusted in the long run.
There is a trade-off between making something visible and making it secure. Reporting against illicit actors in markets, mines, or borders is risky for individuals. Anonymity, encryption, and governance of access are not niceties, but requirements for participation.
Digital mobilization is not failing; it is simply not autonomous. Digital mobilization is good for a quick delivery of information, reaching a greater audience and linking local knowledge and beyond this mechanisms. It is not good for making up for absent institutions, broken trust, or inequality. What people need is not more apps; people need apps as part of systems in which their voices are represented.
Similarly, when people talk about artificial intelligence mobilization, artificial intelligence is not making up a new logic of mobilization; artificial intelligence is simply making existing logics of mobilization stronger or more visible. Where there is a responsive intelligence; the problem is whether the ground on which artificial intelligence is used is sufficiently solid to be effective.
In all cases and sectors, the effectiveness of mobilization depends more on the circumstances on the intensity of movement. It is a must that practitioners and people on the front lines know that, while technology is part of the challenge, trust-building and inclusion are the key to success.
NOTE: This blog post draws on a chapter the authors are co-writing for GLITSS Volume 3 (COST Action CA21113): Chapter 8, “Community Mobilization and Public Awareness,” together with Francesca Forno and Jaroslav Dvorak. It covers the work within WG3- of CA 21133.institution, artificial intelligence can assist in pattern recognition and making connections between dispersed knowledge. Where there are broken trust and inequality, artificial intelligence can make these issues worse or create oversight that is ignored. The problem is not the sophistication of artificial.
