For more general kiwanja.net news, check out the News page. An RSS feed of this Blog is available along with a recently compiled collection of favourite entries (pictured - PDF, 1.5Mb)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 2006

Skyping: An anthropology..?

How intrusive do you feel when you ring someone up on Skype? Or, like me, do you fire up a chat screen and tentatively say 'Hi' instead? What is it about actually phoning someone on their computer? I mean, how is it different to calling them on their landline, or mobile? Is a Skype chat, or MSN chat for that matter, the PC equivalent of sending a text message? What's wrong with a virtual nudge?

I for one feel a bit rude if I just randomly phone someone on Skype, even though they've agreed to share their contact details with me. Maybe it's because I know they may be working. But is that any worse than phoning them on their mobile? They could be out, or watching a film, or eating - disturbing is disturbing, whatever the circumstances and whatever tool you use.

A few other Skype-type things that I wonder about when I have nothing better to do, or when I can't sleep at night:

How do you politely end a call which isn't costing anybody anything?

Is it insecurity which drives people to display the number of contacts they have?

Is there any logic behind profile photos (or distorted human/animal-spliced images - you know who you are, Justin). What does this say about people? And should we avoid sharing our contact details with them?

How, why, when and how often are people drifting around on-line in 'invisible' mode? And should we be worried?

What do most of the little messages mean which people choose to display next to their contact names? (And don't ask me what mine means, either)

When people say they're Busy or Away, are they really? And if so, what are they doing, exactly?

Would anyone at Skype HQ be willing to give me money to find answers to these questions? I have many others if they're interested.

On the plus side, though, at least someone being off-Skype doesn't raise suspicion. Switch off your mobile phone at your peril...

TOP

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22, 2006

Who you lookin' at?

You know how it is. You take a shortcut and end up further away from your destination than you would have been had you stuck to your original route. But sometimes it pays off.

Although it's hard to believe that I hadn't seen these before - for those who know the area, Cambridge (UK!) is pretty flat - I bumped into these little beauties taking a short cut to a little village where I live. It's unusual to see such contrasting technologies literally side-by-side.

Unless, of course, the windmill happens to be powering the mast. Now, that would be neat.

TOP

SATURDAY, MARCH 18, 2006

It's in the equation, stupid

Everyone has their own particular take on what's happening to our planet. On the one hand some will have good, solid scientific evidence to back up their viewpoint, and on the other people will just 'think what they think'. But how big is the gulf between the two?

Take bushmeat as an example, and in particular the hunting of primates. The bloke down the pub - assuming he has an interest in this kind of thing - may argue that it should simply 'stop', that it's wrong, that these things are endangered and they should be better protected, better respected, and it's awful that such wonderful creatures are being killed at all, and then for good measure throw in something about Dian Fossey. If you're lucky you may hear arguments about providing local people with alternatives, or better engaging local communities in conservation efforts, or the lack of economic opportunity for some of the poorest people in the world. The fact is that very few of us really understand what's going on, and even fewer of us have any answers.

Alarmingly, in 96% of protected areas with primates the populations are in decline. That's very nearly all of them, without stating the obvious. And a lot of money is being spent. But what on? Again, ask most people what they think - if you think their viewpoint matters - and you'd probably get park rangers, education programmes, rehabilitation centres, lobbying and so on.
 

Sure, a lot of money is being spent on these things. But it's also being spent on stuff like this. This little beauty apparently helps us calculate the impact of infrastructure development (such as roads) on primate populations. Believe me, I would explain it, but I don't understand it.

The point is, this is the kind of work going on out there. Some very clever person will no doubt shoot my argument down in a matter of seconds, but I struggle with stuff like this. I'm sure the equation has some use, but has knowing this actually helped protect any primate populations? The latest population stats don't look good, to be fair. Could the money have been better spent on more 'direct' conservation - the kind of stuff that our mate down the pub talks about? Maybe, but what does he know about primate conservation, eh?

I wonder...

TOP

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2006

Throwing 'precaution' to the wind

Over 150 years in the making, global warming - a theory first aired by a Swedish scientist back in the 1890's - is well underway. In the midst of all the argument and bickering, one thing is clear. The planet is getting warmer, and getting warmer rather quickly. Two degrees is apparently the 'critical point' where irreversible damage will take place. The problem is that predicted rises fluctuate wildly between 1.4 and 5.8 degrees centigrade. We could be in a spot of bother.

While scientists do agree that the earth is warming up, they disagree on why. Some say it's down to human activity, others that it's a natural planetary cycle. Funny, because the facts do seem to speak for themselves. Since the industrial revolution, and the start of our addiction to burning fossil fuels, temperatures have soared in relative terms. And these are actual temperatures - real measurements - so are in theory undisputed.

Is now really the best time to dilly-dally around? If human activity is potentially the cause then why wait for conclusive proof, which will probably never come? Or, if it does, too late? True, we won't end our reliance on fossil fuels overnight, but it's clearly unhealthy economically - if not environmentally - so where's the logic in simply continuing the debate at the expense of taking action? What happened to 'erring on the side of caution'? Fine, let's make a real effort to reduce greenhouse emissions, and if it turns out not to be the cause of global warming, then we can just start burning again. Nothing lost, surely? But certainly all to gain.

A couple of years ago some colleagues of mine at Fauna & Flora International were working on the interestingly titled 'Precautionary Principle'. It really makes quite a lot of sense.

Precaution – the "precautionary principle" or "precautionary approach" – is a response to uncertainty, in the face of risks to health or the environment. In general, it involves acting to avoid serious or irreversible potential harm, despite lack of scientific certainty as to the likelihood, magnitude, or causation of that harm

It makes so much sense, why can't we apply it to climate change? Perhaps it's a little too obvious. Perhaps another 20 years of research is in order...

TOP

MONDAY, MARCH 13, 2006

Sustainability: Who's the Daddy?

No doubt one of the most commonly used words in the non-profit sector (sometimes innocently lumped together with other words to make beauties such as sustainable development), sustainability is an interesting concept. It's perhaps also not a million miles off holding some kind of 'holy grail' status, too. Built into nearly every project proposal by default, it remains elusive most of the time. So what's the big deal?

Donors like to think that their money - and sometimes effort - are going to last way beyond the project cycle (to coin another phrase). In other words, when the money runs out they like to think that things aren't going to come crashing down. This is kind-of sensible, I'd say. The trouble is, it's proving rather tricky.

For a start, projects are often funded for fairly short periods of time - up to five years if you're lucky but often two or three (many smaller projects, of course, run for much less). This isn't long if you're hoping to create a long-lasting, positive change. Through my own experiences getting muddy on projects, or studying the subject from the comfort of a university campus, this leaves only a limited number of options. Two of they key ones must be:

Create a business model: If you need to make money to keep the project going, then you're open to market forces. People will only buy crap products "because they're ethical" for a while, and before they realise that they're perhaps just that - crap products. Zillions of small businesses around the world fail without having the complexity of being part of a conservation and development project, so achieving financial sustainability is a real challenge. Sadly there aren't that many success stories.

Factor yourself out of the project: Rather controversial for many larger NGOs, although some actively pursue it. Some research would be nice. Anyway, whether or not a project needs to become 'commercial' (see above) keeping costs down is vital if it's to have any chance of survival. This could mean local staff, local salaries, local overheads, little or no 'head office' consultation fees, or people flying left-right-and-centre around the world for no apparent reason, and so on. Maybe the best projects create the desired change, and when the experts have long packed their bags and left it's able to continue running on a shoestring.

Gerald Durrell had the right idea when he said that his dream was to shut down his zoo in Jersey. Of course, he'd then have to go and find something else to do, but that didn't matter. It would have meant he'd succeeded in his mission to save endangered species, and that was all that mattered to him.

Trying to unite profit and social venture - which I think includes conservation and development projects - doesn't only worry or challenge me. Plenty of other people are already writing and blogging about it. Let's hope the debate reaches a useful conclusion. A few more positive outcomes would certainly help us along.

Just paying lip service to the 's' word doesn't really get us anywhere in the long run.

TOP

SATURDAY, MARCH 11, 2006

The return of the Dark Continent

For centuries Africa was known as the Dark Continent. It was place of mystery, exotic animals, vast wilderness, all manner of beasts, evil spirits, disease, cannibals and pretty much anything else you'd care to imagine. You just have to take a look at this 1838 map to see how little was known of the interior. Although of course it wasn't that bad (not in every case, anyway) it's something of a shame that so few places hold such mystery any more. The world has been pretty much explored and explained (and in some cases exploited) and that's the end of that. Shame the wonderfully named Mountains of the Moon never existed.

Today the words Dark Continent mean something quite different. Over 150 years may have passed since the map was drawn - it's now been pretty-much filled in - but once the sun sets it's time to turn back the clock.

Africa at night. Use a little imagination, and the mystery returns...

TOP

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2006

Phones4All?

According to a GSM Association spokesman quoted on the BBC Online website today, "The mobile phone is the only viable technology that can bridge the digital divide". This is quite a bold statement in a debate which has been running for a fair old time. It goes along the lines that by putting something digital – a mobile phone in this case – into the hands of the worlds poor you can economically empower them, among other things. If it were only this simple.

It goes without saying that the mobile phone is revolutionising the way Africans talk to each other. Often described as a "leapfrogging technology" the mobile is bringing communications to areas which have never seen, and in many cases would never be likely to see, traditional landlines. And once these phones are unleashed on a population it's true that quite amazing things happen. Budding entrepreneurs quickly spring up providing battery charging services, others sell carry cases, chunks of call time, car chargers, replacement covers and top-up cards (a huge percentage of third world customers use the 'Pay-as-you-go' service due to a lack of credit history, a bank account or even an address). One of the more remarkable examples of entrepreneurship is the building of tall wooden towers which users climb, for a fee of course, before making their call in areas with a bad signal. Who'd have thought of that?

During field-based research for a report I co-authored a couple of years ago, we called this "organic growth", the secondary effect of the mobile revolution. At that time the knock-on effect of providing mobile coverage to a population wasn't really appreciated, but sometime later Vodafone showed they had their eye on the ball when they published a comprehensive study of the socio-economic impact of mobile phones. It's well worth a look.

As far as economic empowerment goes, it is true that some will benefit. But many others will be left behind. Being able to send a text or make a phone call alone isn't going to drag everyone out of poverty. The mobile phone as a political empowerment tool though? Well, that's another matter. Voting in elections with your mobile? Being done. Spreading a political message? Being done. Campaigning? Being done. Political activism? Being done. Quite clearly the more phones out there equals more opportunity.

It's perhaps no coincidence that many developing countries are struggling with the democratic model, and perhaps no coincidence that in a fair few dictatorial regimes reign 'supreme'. (Is Thabo Mbeki the only African leader not trying to change his country's Constitution to stand for a third term?!). In places where free speech can land you in a whole load of trouble, mobile technology can give people a voice (or text, as the case may be). And an anonymous one at that. And this should not be underestimated.

The GSM Association can certainly do their bit. But let's not get carried away. Unleashing 12 million $30 handsets into developing countries may grab the headlines, but a handset alone isn't going to solve the complex problems that many of these people face on a daily basis.

TOP

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2006

Whatever happened to all the white wristbands?

Let's hope that recent reports of the demise of the Make Poverty History campaign are unfounded. Mobilising the masses last summer (okay, via the biggest free pop concerts ever staged, but does that matter?) was certainly a remarkable achievement. But people - and perhaps more to the point, the press - have very short memories.

Apparently there were 8,000,000 white bands in 2005. With Africa once again off the international agenda - no surprise there, then - now is the time for some of those eight million to show that it's not off theirs.

TOP

SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2006

Standing up for the small guy (Part 1)

Picture this:  The writer of a zulu tune written in 1939 dies in poverty 20 years later. His song goes on to become one of the most popular tunes in Africa, and is recognised the world over. Ownership of the copyright ends up in American hands, and finds its way into a film which becomes a worldwide hit. The film makes tens of millions of dollars, and is then turned into a successful stage musical - a few more million in the bank and counting. The song reportedly makes $15 million but the family of the writer get $15,000. As Rolf Harris would say, can you guess what it is yet?

Now, I'm no expert in copyright law, although apparently it should have reverted back to the family of the deceased 25 years after his death, so that would be 1987. Something somewhere seems to have been overlooked, but the family eventually sued and won an 'undisclosed' out-of-court settlement. Another case of the multinational/big corporate beating the small guy with a stick?

Ethics are a wonderful thing, and many people don't argue against them particularly. Unless they get in the way of making a few quid, that is. Ask a hundred people on the street what they think and I bet most would side with the small guy, but they don't have their finger in this particular financial pie. Ask a hundred shareholders - of Disney in this case, if you were wondering - and I suspect you'll get slightly different results. The trouble is that exploitation of this kind is probably taking place all the time, but we never get to hear about it. I bet there are a lot of really pissed-off people out there...

But what happens when one of the stars of a film, or book, or song can't speak for itself? I'm thinking wildlife - whales, dolphins, gorillas, lions and all manner of worldly creatures. There's also a very compelling ethical/financial issue here. It's ironic that most of the 'wildlife stars' in these productions happen to either sit on, or uncomfortably near, the 'critically endangered' or 'critically threatened' list. How much of the hundreds of millions (even billions?) of dollars made from films such as The Lion King, King Kong and Free Willy been donated to the conservation of these very species? I'd like to do a little more research on that one.

Musically speaking, Michael Jackson's epic 'Earth Song' from 1996 - "What have we done to the world, Look what we've done" - takes us through almost everyone's top 10 favourite animals ("What about elephants, What about crying whales" and so on) and drives home their destruction and death. Not knowing how much money was made globally by this massive hit, again it would be a very interesting exercise to find out how much was donated to causes trying to save those very elephants and whales. I'll happily stand corrected, but again would be very surprised if it were much, if anything at all.

Wouldn't it be great if there was a law which made it compulsory to donate a certain percentage of income (and not just a token amount, either) to the preservation of any species which take a central role in your song, film, photograph or book? After all if lions, gorillas, whales, ants and so on didn't exist then we wouldn't be able to enjoy watching films about them, whether they're turned into rampaging 30 foot monsters with attitude, changed into cartoon figures or kept in their natural form.

Unless something gives the only place future generations will be able to see these magnificent creatures will be in dusty film archives - or at best a zoo - and that would not only be a real shame but an ecological and environmental disaster.

TOP

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2006

To try, or not to try - is that the question?

Something I really liked from an article by Ariel Leve in the Sunday Times last week: 

People love to say: "It's better to have tried and failed". But what's wrong with not trying? Not trying means you don't have to live with the bitterness and frustration of failing. Even better, not trying means that trying is always in the future - something to look forward to.

When I think about all the things I haven't tried, I'm grateful. I haven't tried crack cocaine or bungee jumping or firing an AK-47. I haven't tried kissing in a gondola or eating a blueberry bagel. I haven't tried having the mumps, either.

Why would I want to try new things when I'm having more than enough trouble getting by with what I've got? 

Quite.

TOP

THURSDAY, MARCH 02, 2006

Are we really so utterly and completely powerless?

Let me just start off by saying that I'm not one of these people who sees Africa as a desperate, struggling land full of death, famine, disease and misery with little or no hope for the future. There's plenty of negativity surrounding the continent already. My outlook is much more positive, but there are times when we need to face up to what is happening. One of those times is now... [End]

So, you want to be able top pop down the local supermarket and grab yourself those avocados, strawberries, starfruit, bananas, pineapples, kiwis, cherries, papayas, mangos or lychees any time of year whenever it takes your fancy. And you'll happily grab that bunch of flowers - flown in especially from Kenya for your convenience the night before - on your way out - along with some of that lovely Ugandan coffee. Isn't it all so wonderful?

You're happy that you live in the age of globalisation where so much of what the world has to offer is so conveniently delivered directly to your doorstep. And, thanks to the hard-nosed negotiators and the shear power of the multinationals who fight so hard on your behalf, it's all available at such an amazingly low price. How on earth do they do it?

Globalisation may bring all manner of exotic produce to our shores, but it also carries with it huge amounts of responsibility. A globalised world is a smaller world. News reaches our TV screens in a matter of minutes and not days. Events thousands of miles away push up the price of petrol at our local garage. A stock market crash leads to a global recession and mass unemployment, and Bert down the road - who knows nothing about the intricacies of global economics, and doesn't particularly care - loses his job and maybe his home. An attack on a pipeline in Georgia pushes up the price of gas, and suddenly elderly people find themselves unable to keep warm in the winter.

Events far, far away suddenly feel much closer to home.

At the same time what we decide to purchase in our shops, and how we choose to live our lives, has direct impact on people living on the 'other' side of the world. Governments - who we vote in - give unfair (and in some cases downright illegal) subsidies which 'help' push third world farmers out of business. Carbon emissions drive global warming, drowning small island communities, causing drought and floods and reeking havoc with the weather across the globe. Small-scale coffee growers live at the mercy of people they've never met getting together and deciding where to set wholesale coffee prices.

Things aren't right in the global order, but often things just tick along and people don't really pay much attention. A few thousand people die here or there, a drought occurs here or there, a war is fought here or there... As long as they can get their starfruit, why should they care?

Famine once again grips parts of Africa. Tens of millions of people are on the edge. Aid workers don't even want to think what might happen if the rains fail again this spring. The international community once again drags its heals - this famine was hardly unexpected. Out of a requested $138 million, agencies are still over $100 million short. Can this really all be happening again?

As a citizen of the global community, I feel totally powerless to all of this. It's all too easy to point the finger at national governments. After all, this has to be someone's fault, doesn't it? But the reality is that not all the money - or will - in the world can make it rain.

But why do the majority of people appear to continually 'accept' what's happening and merrily get on with their lives regardless? Is is because they don't care, or simply don't know what's happening? Or is it because, like me, they haven't got a bloody clue what they can do about it? Can someone please tell me what I can do about it? It's at times like these that I can really relate to the activist/protest mentality.

If we want to live in a globalised world and reap all the benefits that it brings, then we also need to learn to take the rough with the smooth and take our fair share of responsibility for what goes on in it. That means compassionately and ethically, as well as economically.

And that goes for when it doesn't directly effect us, too. We're either a citizen of the global community or we're not.

TOP

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2006

Customer? Care!

At a recent 'Technologies for Conservation and Development' (t4cd) Conference I attended in Cambridge, I asked the delegates what I thought was an important yet often under-asked question - where and who were our 'customers'? The conference was concentrating on the use of technology in global conservation and development work, and there was an interesting mix of technical and conservation people. Having them all in the same room for a couple of days was certainly a unique experience, and something which most of us agreed should happen more often.

For those who don't know the focus of my work, my key area of interest is making technology work for the NGO community, mainly those working on the ground in places such as Africa. The reasoning for this is simple – although I can hardly class myself as a conservationist or a development practitioner, I have spent a bit of time working on various projects on the continent and take a keen personal as well as professional interest. Not only seeing, but experiencing over the years the wide range of basic problems that ICTs could easily help solve out there has got me wondering why more isn't being done, and if it is why we don't hear that much about it.

I have always believed that I'm never going to save a species from extinction, or a tropical forest from becoming a palm oil plantation. But what I can do is support someone who can. It is the same with technology. Alone it won't achieve much, but if applied appropriately it has absolute potential to positively assist worthy conservation and development causes. It is its ability to empower individuals and groups at all levels – international, national and local – that makes the potential impact so exciting. Hearing of a small NGO in South America using simple text messaging to mobilise local communities against illegal logging is no less inspiring than hearing about the international effort to create complex early warning systems, and may in fact be more so. The problem, as far as I see it, is that too much focus is put at the top-level. As a good friend Simon Hicks once put it, we mustn't forget the foot soldiers, the guys on the ground eating and breathing conservation day after day.

Here's an interesting one for you: While much of the international donor community commit to helping those in extreme poverty – defined (by someone - always wondered who) as having an income of less than $1 a day – significant numbers of local people employed through internationally-funded community projects get somewhere around just that - $1 a day, or its equivalent. If anyone can explain this, please let me know. (Okay, I know it's a complex subject - point me to the debate).

When you look at the philanthropic actions of many of the bigger technology companies, most of the focus remains at the higher end of the spectrum, the larger, expensive, complex, sexy stuff that looks good in the Corporate Social Responsibility Yearbook. You could point to many reasons for this, including prestige (bigger project means bigger headlines). The fact of the matter is that much more can be done with your dollar if you spend it on the ground. There's nothing new there. But that's not to say the global monitoring systems, big fat databases and biodiversity analytical tools aren’t useful – they are – but useful to different sets of people.

There are, it goes without saying, problems when you start spending your money on the ground – accountability is one – but this also applies when you give millions of dollars to third world governments. It can still vanish, and it often does. Just in much larger quantities.

When small, tightly run local NGOs struggle to raise a few hundred pounds to equip their rangers with HF radios, or mobile phones, you can see the problem. We managed to re-build an education centre in Nigeria during my time there. The impact was immense – no more cancelled lessons in the rainy season (leaking raffia roof, muddy floor), no more re-doing posters which were regularly blown away or trashed in flash storms, a place to have meetings, for the staff to go, proper electrically wired plugs and lights (done by me, so maybe not so proper). And the cost? A mere £200 (or $300 if you want to talk 'real' money).

So, who are we doing what we're doing for? And why? Even worse - are we doing it for ourselves? Who is the 'customer'? Who will benefit most from the work we do, the systems we create, the hardware we build? I notice a slightly worrying trend of projects being run for projects-sake, of people doing things because 'they' want to, or because 'it will be interesting' or because they want to be first to something. Where does the need lie in these scenario's?

A lot of current talk is of broadband- server-intensive applications, ones which would only serve the top of the conservation practitioner pyramid. Don't get me wrong, many other people have the same view. But what do we do about it? How do we shift the mindset?

Finding out what the real conservation need is, and where it is, is absolutely vital. How we join the dots, and help make this happen, is the challenge. Thankfully there are enough people out there trying. As for the success stories, since we're often talking small-scale, very little news gets out except on a local level. "Hey, Wayas has got a camera phone and can collect actual evidence of illegal logging activities. What if we could give our tiger patrol teams some?".

This lack of news isn't necessarily a problem – it's still a success story and, after all, some of the foot soldiers will have slightly easier lives because of it. But, by knowing about it we could maybe replicate it and help our entire army?

Then you'd be talking...

TOP