I am sure almost everyone has heard of Mr. Negroponte’s 2005 proposition of the One Laptop Per Child Program (OLPC).

However, I know in the International Development sector there has been heated debate over whether or not this program is actually focusing on the right aspects of education, and whether or not it has been a success at all.

A Wall Street Journal Article recently slammed the project, basically outlining that the project has failed to reach its target numbers and has turned into a competitive, battle of the “computer companies” project.

To be honest, I haven’t been following this story in great detail, but I have tried my best to outline what seems to be the general development arguments for and against this project. In my opinion the outcome is that this project is nowhere near perfect, an perhaps could learn a lot from other international development organizations!

Photo by: topgold

So, what is the problem?

Firstly, the Wall Street Journal Article quotes Nicholas Negroponte as stating that “My goal is not selling laptops. OLPC is not in the laptop business. It’s in the education business.” However, further in the article it outlines the means by which Negroponte has attempted to prevent Intel to stop producing their competitive low-cost computer model. This seems very contradictory to me. If he does not care who makes the computers, all he cares about are the people getting them, then what difference does it make if they are his or somebody elses? I think it is pretty clear that he is happy to hand out these low-cost computers, just as long as they are his own.

Moreover, the cost of each computer was meant to be $100, and in 2008 they still haven’t met that target, with them selling anywhere between $188 plus shipping to $300. Therfore, many of the nations that agreed to purchase computers through this project have not been able to do so, as he has not met the price promised.

So why bother with OLPC at all then?

Because the idea comes from great origins. In many parts of the world, the ability for a child to go to school is entirely dependent upon their transportation. Often the closest schoolhouses are miles from a childs place of residence. Furthermore, the cost of text books for a child in a developing country every year can also be costly. In addition, it can be argued that children in these parts of the world don’t always follow the strict 9 to 5 schedule that we do, education timings revolve around the need for them to help work in the local agricultural setting.

Therefore, by providing children with cheaper laptops that are more durable, students avoid the travel costs, the purchasing of textbook costs (many books can be read online), and they gain the flexibility to study when they want, wherever they want. It is a great concept to bridge the gap between developed and developing nations, however it has not seemed to be very effective.

I believe this is because there was not much foresight involved in the planning of this project. Foresight is one of the most important factors to consider when working on implementing development projects, especially in areas where the economic resources are scarce. It is more than just a matter of simply giving a village a technology and expecting them to run with it.

What has been sucessful about the project then?

It could be argued that by initiating the project to begin with, and that by creating the competition between companies to create low-cost computers for these parts of the world, that OLPC has actually raised awareness of the potential of the market of underpriviliged children, thus opening these companies up to an opportunity to create unique projects that can work for them.

I believe that any improvement in terms of simply increasing access to education in these regions is benefitial.

In addition, I would argue against the negative press about Mr Negroponte using open-source software. I think it is great that he is not giving the authority to any one software company, and instead is implementing software that is free and accesible. Plus, from personal experience software such as the Linux platform is much easier to modify in order to create a software system that works for each individual’s personal technology needs. But hey, I guess that is just my opinion.

Overall..

It seems to me that this initially altruistic effort has been turned into a competition of the technology giants. This is why I feel it is critical to understand what you are going into before launching products like this. If not planned properly the outcomes can be horrendous and further damage the lives of many who already do not have much.

Perhaps the focus needs to be re-established here: looking at what is best for the children who will have access to such a product and how to get them the most out of such an experience.

—–

 Here is another article discussing the politics around the issue. There seems to be a lot of media circulating that is commenting on this project, it really has made heads turn!

 

 

So here is a cool new technology.

Play pumps.

 

Basically, a merry go round that the kiddies can play on, and as they use it, the energy they generate purifies and pumps water for the community it is placed in.

 

 

The website explains:

“Access to clean drinking water is critical for human survival and is an essential ingredient for improving the lives of those living in poverty in developing countries.  And yet:

• More than one billion people worldwide do not have access to clean water. 
• Water-related diseases are the leading cause of death in the world, taking the lives of 6,000 people a day, and are responsible for 80 percent of all sickness in the world.
• 40 billion hours are lost annually to hauling water, a chore primarily undertaken by women and girls.

All this can change:
A life-changing and life-saving invention – the PlayPump® water system – can provide easy access to clean drinking water, bring joy to children, and lead to improvements in health, education, gender equality, and economic development. 

The PlayPump systems are innovative, sustainable, patented water pumps powered by children at play.  Installed near schools, the PlayPump system doubles as a water pump and a merry-go-round for children.

The PlayPump system also provides one of the only ways to reach rural and peri-urban communities with potentially life saving public health messages.”

Sounds like a pretty decent idea.

 

All the facts listed about water are true, and access to clean drinking water and water sanitation is one of the Millennium Development Goals.

 

However, I am going to be my cynical self and say that perhaps we should look at some of the problems that can arise from installing such a system. I think on face value this seems to be a great product, it is cute, productive, and seems relatively easy to use.

 

But, the World Bank mentions that the best way to encourage water sanitation in rural communities is through implementation along with education. I checked out the Play Pump site and couldn’t find anything about supplemental programs that would educate the community of the importance of clean drinking water. I agree with the World Bank, if people are going to adopt a new practice, they need to have incentive to do that, and there will be no incentive if they don’t have any education on the product.

 

Moreover, these pumps cost around $7000 US. Meaning, these are systems that are donated, as no rural community in a developing nation can afford to install these pumps. The problem I see with doing this is that when people do not pay for their own good, they don’t relate to ownership and have no pride in the product. Chances are if they get it for free they won’t use it, as they don’t feel they are wasting hard earned money if they don’t.

 

I also checked this out on EWB in terms of the success rate. Apparently one of the Overseas Volunteers saw one of them when she was in Zambia, however there were no children on it, just a woman pushing it…thus making it appear that they are not horribly popular with the children.

 

The image of children playing on the swings as happy music plays in the background  sounds eerily reminiscent of the same kinds of images that Always keeps showing us on tv with their feminine hygiene products. It just kind of seems like a product that people can donate money to to make themselves feel better, with not many real world benefits.

 

On that note, a few engineers have also commented that this is not the most efficient way of pumping water. So is it important to implement a cute product that “kind of” works, or one that’s not as much fun, but creates more impact?

 

 

Here is the link for my EWB Chapter’s newsletter. This was our first issue and we are looking forward to the next which will be coming up soon.

Feel free to send me feedback and comments about the articles inside!

Enjoy!

…I just realised, in the NY Times article that I mentioned, they discussed programs in Mexico in which they encouraged tourists not to pay for the tour but rather to help the village that they visit, to volunteer.

I would argue that when doing this we have to be VERY careful, as we risk doing what food aid does, creating a dependence upon foreign aid in a small community. If the tourists were conducting educational activities or something similar I can see it as being benefitial. However, simply handing out food is actually helping the problem in the long run rather than imporving it.

Often in development people forget to think long term. But the dependence that a small community could begin to have on a company that provided these services could be detrimental to the entire slum. It reduces incentive for the community to fend for themselves and grow their own crops etc. After all, why would you bother if you knew someone was going to make you sandwhiches every day anyway?

Just an afterthought I had after writing the last post!

Here is the link to another article that discusses Slum Tourism.

Seems like everyone is finding this a hot topic!

Photo by: Sung Sook

 Photo by: Laertes 

I came across an article that I found indeed very startling. This New York Times article discusses a fairly new phenomenon…that of Slum Tours.

Yes, that is right. Instead of hitting the white beaches and drinking rum in an inner tube, people are flocking in large numbers to visit slums in developing nations. In fact, tour groups are actually having trouble coping with the demand.

The point of the tours is to give tourists a bit of perspective, show them the culture, and “real” environment of a country, and to perhaps let them take away something more than the “lobster lunch catermaran tour” that you usually pay for when in these parts of the world.

However, the conflict comes when people begin to point out that perhaps, more than anything else, this is voyeurism, and a way for priviliged people to further exploit those who are already being exploited. Do the people in these slums really want the Hawaiin shirt, sandal clad tourists poking around and taking their photographs? Are we treating these communities like safaris?

I know I have visited slums. I was in Delhi in 2002 and went in to visit a slum and educate women in the shanty about contraceptives. But I think that is where the difference lies. I wasn’t going in there to take some pretty “National Geographic” looking photos to hang in my living room. Rather, I was working on a development project and was there to work. I just happened to get a tour on the way.

This is precicely what Eric Weiner discusses. He even presents a few circumstances in which the tours are run on the basis by which the tourists don’t pay but rather volunteer. This, in my mind, seems more sensible.

So, are slum tours raising development awareness? Or are they purely voyeuristic, and a ploy to keep our kids eating their veggies once they get back home?

After my interview with Georges, I decided to check out the websites that were around discussing Fair Trade. In fact, there are a lot!  I actually learned a lot from speaking to him, and after sitting and “googling” for a good few hours afterwards, there is definitely a lot of information to be found on Fair Trade and the issues that surround it. In fact, there are a few good documentaries that have come out discussing the benefits as well.

What I found particularly interesting was the Supply Chain Model, which basically explains the process that TransFair Canada uses to demonstrate how they maintain the products that fall under their Fair Trade logo.

I tried to include a Fair Trade supply chain model, which I took from the TransFair Canada website, but had a little trouble inserting it. So, you can read more about the Model and how it works here.

I think it’s all pretty clear. Although Georges convinced me of all things Fair Trade, I do advise you read the article I mentioned in Part 2 by Marc Sidwell. I think one of the most pertinent things Georges mentioned was that in order to make good decisions about Fair Trade, it is essential to be aware, to collect all the facts, and then decide.

However, Sidwell’s article discusses some of the potential downfalls to Fair Trade. In my opinion, Fair Trade is a step up from they system we have now. How do you think we can make it even more effective?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How can a consumer know that the product they are using is really Fair Trade?

Look for the Transfair logo.

 

 

There are quite a few Fair Trade logos out there. Do they all essentially mean the same thing?

In Canada, you will most often find the Transfair logo, however sometimes the international Fair Trade logo is seen in stores. Within the next year, all Fair Trade logos (in Canada and internationally) will adopt the current international Fair Trade logo.

 

 

What are some products that consumers can easily switch to Fair Trade with?  

Coffee, cocoa, tea, rice, sugar, quinoa, bananas, wine, flowers, sports balls, cosmetics made with shea butter, and cotton.

 

 

Finally, on a personal note, what will you take away with you most after you leave Montreal and your Engineers Without Borders experience? What have you personally found most rewarding?

Through EWB Concordia I was introduced to what I believe is my life passion, international development. I think the chapter has shaped my university life and will shape the rest of my life much more than I would have predicted. 

 

 

Photo by: rudolph_schuba

In order to better understand the previously mentioned principles, I decided to interview Georges Mikhael, the Vice President of Engineers Without Borders at Concordia University in Montreal. Since EWB initiated a movement to increase awareness of Fair Trade, Mikhael seemed like the perfect candidate to let us in on the benefits that Fair Trade promises.

 

Georges, after my brief introduction on Fair Trade, why do you think an organization like Engineers Without Borders chooses to promote Fair Trade? What benefit does it have to those countries that EWB focuses upon?

There are two main reasons EWB Canada promotes Fair Trade: it benefits the small-scale farmers with whom we work with and for, and it can be an effective vehicle for public engagement. Fair Trade is a simple concept that requires behavioural change, can be easily monitored and directly empowers vulnerable communities overseas.For Fair Trade Certified producers, the stakeholders we work directly with while overseas, it represents a substantial upside in terms of price stability and premium, and some benefits around employment and environmental practices. Fair Trade also represents the opportunity to access health care and education for the families which produce these products.

Furthermore, we believe that the vast majority of non-certified growers are simply unaffected by Fair Trade. This is because the Fair Trade market is a very small share of the market, and because it is a differentiated product from the rest of the market.

The Adam Smith Institute recently published an article that discussed many of the downfalls of Fair Trade. In particular, they focused on its ability to distort the market and they also argue that the percentage that the farmers involved receive is minimal. What are your feelings on these types of critiques?

Marc Sindwell brings up some good points in his 30 page report on Fair Trade, however I personally disagree with some of the ideas he discusses. In general, he advocates replacing the Fair Trade system with a Free Trade system.

Since the end of World War II, free trade markets have been tried and implemented in many developed and developing countries. The result has nearly always been positive for large business, but negative for small scale businesses. Just recently we see that the champion of Free Trade, the USA, has been considering revisiting the North American Free Trade Agreeement (NAFTA). NAFTA has been negatively affecting low-skilled, low-paid American workers and small businesses.

The damage Free Trade has caused those in developing countries is much more profound. Fair Trade was put into effect to essentially distort the unfair markets which currently exist. The markets that sell coffee at a price lower than what it costs the average farmer to grow. This undercutting of prices is mainly due to large-scale farming and tough negotiations by large companies like Tim Hortons and Starbucks. Fair Trade is not a perfect system, however it provides an alternative to Free Trade and gives small-scale farmers in developing countries a chance to incrementally increase their income.

So, what would be your advice to those who are skeptical about using Fair Trade products?

The best way to make a decision about whether or not to buy a product is to do the research and offer your opinion. There are some good arguments for both sides of the argument, and offering criticism helps improve the way Fair Trade certification is applied.

 

 

Photo by: Delgoff.

The term “Fair Trade”, according to Canada’s TransFair website, can almost be described as a business model.

It prides itself on a system that focuses primarily on transperency, respect and a constant dialogue. It essentially offers trading conditions that are more profitable for the producers and workers in developing nations.  The system is constantly kept in check by rigorously auditing and certifying, along with constant monitoring of those companies involved.

The International Fair Trade System is arranged in a way that ensures farmers and workers fair compensation for their labor and products and environmental practices that are sustainable. Moreover, with the presence of Fair Trade, social services in the local areas that participate are improved, resulting in an investment in the local economic infrastructure.

Basically, Fair trade promises better working conditions, sustainability in these local environments, better prices and fairer terms of trade for those in developing nations. This is done by ensuring that companies pay above the market prices, thus confronting the unfair advantages that can be seen in conventional trading.

Fair Trade makes an attempt to eliminate the discrimination of the poor and the weak. Rather, it gives them more power, and better means to control their trading, eventually leading to a better quality of life.