Bridging the Digital Divide in the Developing World

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 Those of us who work regularly in the development field know that often what is obsolete to US or Western European standards is quite useful in other regions of the world.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.