Re: [GKD] Acknowledging the Digital Divide

[Refcon Standard]

I really don't understand the purpose in your response.  You talk about
hospitals, social development, etc.  I only discuss providing the
foundation, the tool necessary before activities can commence. 
Secondly, I am far less keen to impose on different cultures a single or
limited conception of social development.  I would much rather provide a
tool that allows each to participate and develop as they feel most
suitable, and to later advance as appropriate to their context.  I see
this as a basic human right.  I do not seek to forge cultures in my
vision, and have no ulterior motive.

Telecenters are fine, simply representing least effective investment. 
They serve smaller populations, and on limited geographic and time
availability.  In fact, they don't even address the need for improved
application platforms, providing services such as VoIP.  I suggest that
if they didn't employ computers, you'd receive NO funding for them
whatsoever.

I think there's another definition problem here. What is a social
divide, if not the unequitable provision of opportunity?  Telecenters,
while helping a minority, institutionalize a divide only because the
resources necessary to expend are no longer available to develop even
one, equitable, low-cost network and applications platform.

BTW, a low-cost universal network available round-the-clock would
certainly come in handy for those bereft of access to medical
assistance.

Techno-structure?  I think it a little unbalanced to blame the obvious
inappropriate relationship between government and business and, being in
a democracy, turn around and speak of social development.  Are you not
also responsible?  I urge you seek cure for your own ills first.  Tell
the government there needs to be more than a half-dozen webs residing on
the Internet, and one should be low-cost, universal and provide access
to basic communication applications.

The plain fact is that the money exists to end the digital divide, and
has always existed.  It is being spent less effectively, in a manner
that will not resolve the digital divide, but develop a political
constituency.  Our civil watchdogs are being paid off. This is not a
mystery but plainly evident for anyone who understands the technologies
involved.

Its great to talk of social development.  It's important.  But at this
time it, like telecenters, tends to deflect the sad truth that we are
not fulfilling our real responsibilities.  Funding, like technology, is
not the goal.  Both rely on the methods in which they're deployed.  I
suggest we know this already.

Alan Levy
Mexico, D.F.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   


<< Michel J. Menou wrote: 
  
>> My true goal is to achieve universal access to IP
>> communications. It is possible, if sufficient 
>> political will is created. This requires voices, 
>> nothing more.
  
> Fine but this is not the only fundamental issue in
> development.
  
> The digital divide solely exists due to a
> surprising few reasons.
  
> While Mr. Levy's presentation of the vicious logic of
> telecom "markets" is quite appropriate, the digital
> divide is of limited concern if not considered as part
> of the overall social divide. It does not matter much
> to be able to call emergency assistance if one cannot
> pay for the treatment in the hospital and have to.
  
 
 
>> [More ominously, one might conclude government does 
>> understand this, and is willing to sacrifice 
>> generations to gain tighter control over
>> communications, and a subsequent power to 
>> participate in determining who in the future will 
>> own the small number of large content producers. 
>> This creates franchises (ie. Disney) and also
>> generates taxes from worldwide sources.]
  
> This, and all the demonstration that preceded is
> certainly part of the picture. But "government" should
> be considered here a shorthand for "techno-structure"
> so much governments and big business have incestuous
> relations at this time. However, it is unlikely that
> change could occur in any area, much less the telecom
> one, as long as the overall premises and foundations
> of social "order" will remain unchanged.
  
 
 
>> Sadly, no one believes a minimum degree of access
>> to communications, to basic information-exchange, 
>> should be considered a basic human right. Sadly, no 
>> one recognizes the cost for failing to share 
>> equitably such right. Sadly, no one has made proper 
>> use of their $5.00 calculator.
  
> Well, Mr. Levy may feel lonely but there are plenty
> of people and organizations who did and act about
> these issues. Not least the "telecentres" which he
> said in another message, if I got it correctly, are
> not appropriate. They may not be from his perspective
> of universal individual access to telecoms. But true
> telecentres do not seek to provide acces to telecoms,
> they seek to support social transformation efforts by
> the communities themselves, using telecom facilities
> whenever they can be of help. >>




***GKD is an 

[GKD] Directory of Rural Technologies

[Frederick Noronha]

TECHNOLOGY FOR THE RURAL MILLIONS... IF ONLY IT CAN GET TO THEM

By Frederick Noronha

This is a story of the ingenuity of the common man and woman. From
across the fields and villages of the India, and scientific labs, a
whole range of technologies have emerged to make rural life a little
less difficult. But can this vital information reach out to those who
actually need it?

NIRD, the Hyderabad-based National Institute of Rural Development, has
recently released a 'Directory of Rural Technologies'.

It offers dozens of useful solutions -- from technologies for the
blacksmith, to brick-making ideas, ferro cement roofing channels,
pollution control systems for lime kilns, indigo dye extraction methods,
bio-fertilisers and vermicomposting, crop improvement schemes,
energy-harnessing ideas, farm machinery and many others.

There are ideas aplenty. It's part of NIRD's task, and the institute has
the job of training, research, action research and consultancy for rural
development. If such information reaches the right quarters -- and with
communication roadblocks of all sorts, this is a big 'if' -- then the
NIRD could come closer to its goal of "improving the economic and social
well-being of people in rural areas on a sustainable basis".

This directory's editors say it was a "herculean task" to collect data
on available technologies in a "limited period of time". Its pages
contain information relevant to artisans (a technology package for
blacksmiths), for those in building and construction (brick-skeletons,
flooring tiles from waste gypsum, improved storage systems for onions),
ceramic products, chemicals, compost and fertiliser, crop improvement,
mushroom cultivation, energy, food products, machinery, pesticides,
tissue culture and even what is called knowledge technology.

For rural artisans, there's a 'technology package' for blacksmiths. It
seeks to help a rural artisan to produce standard raw material of the
desired carbon level, and to standards. To do so, he has to follow apt
forging and heat treatment schedules. This technology has flow out of
the work of the National Metallurgical Laboratory in Jamshedpur, the
Science and Society Division of the Department of Science and Technology
in New Delhi, and the Centre for Technology and Development, from that
city.

For those into building and construction, there are construction
techniques in brick masonry. No special equipment is required, and the
technology is being done free of cost.  This is suitable for building
single-storey low-cost buildings in rural areas.

There are other solutions too. Black soils have an inherent 'expansive
nature", which leads to poor quality building bricks. But such clay can
be processed to yield good quality common bricks. Nodules are wet-seived
from the clay mass, and fine-grained siliceous material is added in
optimum proportions, to tackle the situation. This technology comes from
the Central Building Research Institute, at Roorkee in Uttar Pradesh.

For an investment of Rs 200,000, it is possible to set up a unit to make
1200 compressed-earth blocks a day. Likewise, there is also technology
available for a 'concrete block maker'. This costs a million rupees for
someone wanting to go into production of these block-makers, while the
cost of each block-maker would be around Rs 75,000. It uses a stationary
block-maker, working on the pressure vibration technique for the
consolidation of concrete.

Ferro cement roofing channels, flooring tiles made from waste gypsum,
grouted reinforced brick masonry, gravitational settling-chamber for
pollution control in fixed chimney brick kilns, improved ventilated
storage structure for onions, and construction techniques for 'instant
shelters' in case of natural disasters are some other solutions. For
instance, instant shelters can be put up in 5-20 minutes, and are
constructed of triangular frames of pipes, joined with special joints
for   a component that can be folded as one triangular bundle.

Low-cost latrines from India have been commercialised, and are being
adopted by the United Nations Development Programme. To contact the
Roorkee institute, check out its website at www.cbri.org or write to the
Central Building Research Institute via [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Micro-concrete roofing tiles come in a variety of designs for farm and
country houses, bungalows, verandas and pavillions. These are durable,
low-cost and cooler than asbestos-cement sheets in a tropical country
like India.

Rural technologies worked on in India also offer solutions for ceramic
products -- low-cost stoneware and glazed terracotta products, for
instance.

Chemical solutions range from carboxy methyl starch (used as domestic
laundry starch, thickener in textile printing pasters, etc), cold-water
soluble starch, low-cost disposable diapers and sanitary napkins (from
waste industrial fibres and flexible polythelene sheets), eco-friendly
handmade paper, faster indigo dye extraction, processes to clean silver
articles

[GKD] CONF: Promoting Community Radios in the Horn of Africa

[ephrem tadesse]

A three-day symposium on "Promoting Community Radios in the Horn of
Africa" will take place in Addis Ababa from January 9 to 11. It aims at
introducing and discussing the concepts and practices of community
radios and their relevance to the Horn of Africa.  The intent is to
build on what is happening in areas of social development in the Horn
and to reflect on the relevance of community radios in advancing social
development initiatives.  This will be accompanied by relevant
experiences elsewhere in Africa that could provide learning
opportunities to the Horn.  The symposium is expected to generate
interest for community radio initiatives among civil society
organizations and support from public governing structures in the Horn.

Participants of the Symposium on "Promoting Community Radios in the Horn
of Africa" will include:

*  Community based organizations and local NGOs engaged in community
mobilization and social development initiatives.

*  Community and non-governmental organizations (both local and
international) already engaged or interested in participatory and social
development media;

*  Local and national government representatives;

*  People representing the national and regional radios;

*  Community-oriented radio projects and stations;

*  Donors; and,

*  People from private sector.

The symposium is organized by the Horn of Africa Capacity Building
Program (HOACBP). HOACBP is a development fund financed by the
Government of Canada through the Canadian International Development
Agency (CIDA) and managed by Oxfam Canada and Oxfam Quebec. The mandate
of the Program is to promote the principles of equity and participatory
development throughout the Horn. It supports governmental and
non-governmental organizations and initiatives that provide
opportunities for learning process in participation.  To this end HOACBP
provides funding to civil society organizations and public governing
structures that are engaged in areas of information/communication,
non-formal education, justice and gender. 


Ephrem Tadesse
Program Officer 
Horn of Africa Capacity Building Program 
Oxfam Canada 

  


***GKD is an initiative of the Global Knowledge Partnership***
To post a message, send it to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. In the 1st line of the message type:
subscribe gkd OR type: unsubscribe gkd
Archives of previous GKD messages can be found at:

Re: [GKD] Acknowledging the Digital Divide

[Msgrieco]

Access to services and the resources necessary for enjoying full
participation in social, economic and civil life is the issue.
Information technology is a tool for access and may increasingly become
a mode of service  delivery.  Addressing the digitial divide can assist
in the mounting of  cohesive complaint about inequities - the new
distributed technologies can  enable communities, end users, the
by-passed to register their complaints in their own voices rather than
relying on spokespersons who are often seduced  by the power and
endowments of established interests.

Direct voicing gets increasingly important as institutions such as the
World  Bank are in external and internal crisis about the muzzling of
their own experts when those experts reach views based on evidence which
are not compatible with the centres of power.  The recent world bank
staff association newsletter makes clear how far such processes have
gone inside the Bank.  It is important for those of us who have
contributed to this list (and there has been a large constituency of
opinion which advises us not to) in the hope of a more even and open
exchange between professional international experts and the community of
experts who experience life at the  hard and poorly resourced end.

At one level, if world bank personnel are not free to speak openly in
the press (within the normal reasonable rules of discretion) then it is
clear that they are not able to contribute to this list or any other
open new information technology tool for discourse.

At another level, the Bank shoots itself in the foot - having been a
world leader in setting up important discourse space it reverts to the
old controlling forms of a print technology world. It has failed in its
analysis of the opportunities offered by the new distributed
technologies for power equalisation in favour of the poor and for a
better functioning global system. Whatever the Bank decides upon with
its ethics committees (the practices of which look decidedly unethical
to me at least on the account as  given by the World Bank Staff
Association newsletter), its new investigatory  departments and its
overcontrolling external relations department, the truths  of
development experience clearly do not remain its hands.  Using
technology  to mount a view from the experience of the many is now
possible.

Michel is right it is not just a matter of the digitial divide, it is a
far greater institutional challenge but resolving the digital divide can
put pressure on institutions and the current evidence is that the
international institutions will clearly benefit (though they may not
believe it right now)  from the exercise of this pressure.

It would be useful to this list if the World Bank President would
explain the  new policies which now hold between world bank staff and
the outside development world of clients, critics and experts.  Why has
everything suddenly been challenged through a very few voices in an
institution of 10,000?  Should we continue to give the World Bank the
benefit of trying to learn together and share our experiences or should
we who contribute to this list begin a shadow knowledge location on the
web which systematically addresses the same issues and reveals the
healthy divergences of opinion which are currently suppressed.

Has anybody else come across these issues (please request the newsletter
from the world bank staff association)- should we open a discussion site
which systematically looks at the consequence of muzzling expert opinion
through external relations, a department which is not obliged to have
any professional training in the topics under discussion.  To use the
language of Chris Carter at Leicester University, the web creates the
viability of 'public intellectuals' where the constraints are no longer
institutional. Perhaps the role of the public intellectual in the
present is to create the opportunities for direct voicing as a way of
influencing access to services:  but access to services must always be
the touch stone.


Margaret Grieco, 
Professor of Transport and Society
Napier University
Edinburgh




***GKD is an initiative of the Global Knowledge Partnership***
To post a message, send it to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. In the 1st line of the message type:
subscribe gkd OR type: unsubscribe gkd
Archives of previous GKD messages can be found at: