Bridging the Digital Divide in the Developing World.
Wayne D. King
You have undoubtedly heard it said
before: The Chinese symbol for crisis is also the symbol for opportunity.
While one is tempted to scoff at
this as an overused cliché, the value of the lesson inherent in it is too
timeless to allow those of us who believe it possible to create a better world
to ever succumb to such rank cynicism.
Each generation that faces the challenges of building a better future
for our children must always see the opportunity in crisis or we will cease to
advance the cause of humanity.
Today I want to speak about a
developing crisis within the United States, its implications and its inherent
opportunities for the developing world. Specifically, I want to address the vast
number of computers surplused every year by both individuals and corporations
in the US, the environmental implications of disposal of those computers and
the opportunities for providing new life to those computers in the developing
world.
I realize fully that these remarks
will not be without controversy.
First from the camp that argues
that developing nations be provided the same technology that Americans are
accustomed to. Whether that argument is made from the standpoint of the
technophile who obsesses about compatibility and thinks that the latest bells
and whistles of cutting edge computers must be provided to NGOs in the
developing world or from the soft hearted (and sometimes soft-headed)
standpoint that it is a principle of fairness.
Second from the camp that equates
used hardware donations to developing nations as merely a sophisticated form of
illegal hazardous waste disposal.
I acknowledge this controversial
aspect to what I am about to say immediately because each viewpoint represents
significant truths that must be confronted if we are to successfully take
advantage of this opportunity.
According to a 1997 report by
Carnegie Mellon University, approximately 325 million personal computers in the
United States will have become obsolete between 1985 and 2005. Some more recent
studies place that number significantly higher. For example a National Safety
Council study predicts 300 million computers in the 4 year period from 2000 -
2004.
Let us first acknowledge that the
term obsolete is a subjective term. Those of us who work regularly in the
development field know that often what is obsolete to US or Western European
standards is quite useful in other regions of the world. The free market itself
has often proven that point as products considered "out of date" in
the US like printing presses and automobiles make their way into other nations.
When it comes to computers the
subjective nature of the term obsolete is even greater. Why? Because North
Americans and many from other developed nations as well have a unique love
affair with technology that spurs them to embrace the latest technology and spurn
anything that doesn't represent Mega-giga-cool-stuff to them. In short, most
computers are considered obsolete long before their logical life span is over
yet the EPA estimates that currently 80% of these "obsolete"
computers end up in landfills.
Congress and the Executive branch
of government have been slowly moving toward a definition of used computers in
the waste stream as a form of hazardous waste. They know that they must, but at
the same time they are paralyzed by the fear of how such a decision might
ripple through the economy and the communities that must cope with new
restrictions on disposal of these things.
At the very same time, the
developing world, already plagued with massive problems that create an income
gap - better described as a chasm - is subject to a technology gap (now
referred to as the "Digital Divide") that threatens to further
exacerbate this income chasm. For most of these countries, despite the
necessity of technology to competitiveness in the information driven world, computers
are a luxury that must be considered a low priority when compared with problems
such as AIDS, environmental degradation and poverty. Yet in many ways, access
to technology and the informational opportunities inherent, offer the
opportunity to address these other problems far more effectively.
NGOs in the developing world understand this. Businesses in the developing world understand this. Governments are too busy putting out fires - - and in still too many cases robbing the national treasury - - to pay attention.
Make no mistake about it. The
world will not be changed by governments in these countries. It will be
changed in spite of them. It will be changed because NGOs and the private
sector will create a tidal wave of public advocacy and pressure that force
government to respond and evolve.
NGOs and businesses are crying out
for the technology and the training because they realize its power to enhance
their effectiveness. Our small organization alone has over 3,000 requests for
computers and training.
Herein we have the problem and the remarkable opportunity - Millions of surplus computers, most of which are
disposed of rather than recycled - despite their usefulness. And tens of
thousands of NGOs throughout the developing world. Heroes struggling to bring
stability and economic vitality to their countries, yet without the most
powerful resource of our lifetime.
Seems like a very logical
situation…two problems that present solutions to one another by their very
existence. Yet almost nothing is being done about it.
For a few years in the early
1990's it seemed as if that might change. Organizations such as the East West
Education Development Foundation, the Lazarus Foundation and the Detweiler
Foundation arose, specifically to remanufacture computers - although mostly for
US based institutions. Today they are gone. Yet the imperative of the problems and
the obvious nature of the solution are more evident than ever.
So where is the disconnect? Why
isn't there a constant flow of surplus technology into the areas where the need
is greatest?
I suggest that there are a number
of significant barriers but there appear to be two common threads among them:
lethargy, complacency and an allegiance to the status quo within government and
the funding community; and, techno-elitism that blinds us to the opportunities
of older technology.
Lets start with the latter since
we have already mentioned it in speaking about our love affair with
Mega-giga-cool-stuff.
Despite the fact that many from
developed nations are obsessed with having the biggest and fastest computer on
their block, most NGOs and Businesses in developing nations are starting from
ground zero when it comes to technology. Just having a computer that can handle
word processing and list management is a huge step forward for them.
Furthermore, access to the Internet is not dependent upon the speed of the
computer but rather the speed of the modem and the bandwidth available. I would
submit that most NGOs and businesses in the developing world would take a giant
leap forward with even (heaven forbid!) 486 technology or the equivalent Mac
system and a reasonably fast modem.
It is probably useful at this
point to remind most people here, at least those who are older than 30, of the
learning curve for us - even in this environment of technological literacy. I
would venture to say that I was not the only one who considered throwing my
computer out the window as I struggled to learn to use the Internet and the
basics of my new computer.
Our experience is that it takes
two years of having a computer for most organizations in developing countries
to even begin to conquer the learning curve and start to realize some of the dramatic
possibilities for enhancing their effectiveness. This is particularly true
where one computer is shared by many people competing for face time. Three
years generally sees them beginning to fully utilize their current technology
and by the fourth year they have developed all the symptoms of US consumers -
longing for all the bells and whistles. This is as it should be - a natural
progression - and one that we can take advantage of. Yet this success also
creates its own unique problems. The organizations that have reached the
technophile stage are often the ones who have developed the closest relationships
with funders and policy makers. Self interest too often dictates that they
therefore become advocates of the mega-giga-cool-stuff philosophy that prevents
others from stepping onto the ladder that they have just successfully climbed.
So logically we arrive at the
second thread: Lethargy, complacency and allegiance to the status quo among
governments and funders.
As I stated previously, government
within developed countries are slow to make changes to the solid waste laws
that reflect the true nature of computer disposal. Those changes alone -
recognizing the hazardous nature of computer disposal - would force a major
change in the marketplace and create a downward pressure for recycling and
refurbishment. . . and concurrently forcefully freeing up the funding resources
for it from both private sector companies seeking responsible ways to surplus
equipment to agencies and funders providing more resources to cope with the problem.
Getting funders to respond is more
of a challenge. Too often they are so mired in the status quo that they cannot,
or will not, face the real challenges and real solutions. If the World Bank,
for example, held the Governments of developing nations, to whom they give
billions, to the same set of standards that they hold nonprofits seeking the
scant dollars that they allocate for NGOs, they would never loan a penny to
anyone. Yet if they were to make a real commitment to NGOs, they would force
the accountability to happen by creating a powerbase in each country to which
corrupt governments would be forced to respond. Let me not single out the World
Bank for criticism. Too often cronyism and patronage are just as endemic to the
major Foundation community as they are to governments. This must change if real
progress is to be made.
Here are a few suggestions for
steps that could be taken beyond those I have already addressed. They employ
both market forces and regulatory and funding forces to bridge the digital
divide by employing a theoretical ladder to the Internet and higher levels of
technology within developing nations.
1.
Establishment of
recycling centers in developing nations: utilizing current technologies for
recycling and refurbishing computers. Currently most of the remanufacturing and
recycling of surplus computers is done in the US. Support for the establishment
of refurbishing and recycling centers in regions of the developing world would
create high value added jobs, training opportunities for technicians and usable
refurbished computers.
2.
Development of Web
Based technical support systems. The Electronic Community functions as a Web
based technical support system at a basic level providing training and
information to NGO's throughout West Africa. More of this needs to be done but
we also need to move beyond it to develop the ability for most technical support
to be provided remotely. For example, the technology used by the company Webex
that allows group meetings via the Internet and most important to this concept
allows each user to access the desktop of other users demonstrates that the
technology exists already to perform most technical support remotely.
3.
Funding for Hardware:
Funders must begin to allow hardware to be included in the budget for grants.
The vast majority disallow funding for hardware. Grantees are pushed into the
uncomfortable position of either fudging their request or seeking funds
elsewhere for the hardware component. In addition, entrepreneurial mechanisms
must be established for generating more recycling/refurbishment dollars by
creating consortiums of corporations that commit both hardware and dollars to
the recycling effort. This will happen faster if government moves more quickly
to upgrade the waste classification of hardware, but should happen irrespective
of this.
There is absolutely no reason that we should not be able to make dramatic progress in bridging the digital divide within the developing world in the next 10 years. It will, however, require some fundamental changes in the way technology is viewed and the approach that the private sector and funders take to assure that our efforts are effective.
We, who are working to bridge the
digital divide, must likewise always be vigilant to assure that conscientious environmental
ethics are observed and that we do not end up providing cover for those who
would dump useless technology on the developing world. But these are
responsibilities that we are fully capable of handling. To take the easy road
of just avoiding the hard work involved is an irresponsible shirking of our
obligations and the dramatic opportunity for constructive change.
