Hope and Hype in Myanmar: Preventing Downstream Consequences Today
Greetings from Myanmar! After 50 years of isolation the country is now at a pivotal moment in time, entering a new era of international relations, development, and potential progress. In November 2010, Aung San Suu Kyi was released from house arrest, laying the foundation for political changes. Following Parliament’s 2011 selection of U Thein Sein as president, the country has begun to open up and ushered in myriad reforms. In May 2012, the Obama administration lifted most prohibitions on Americans doing business in Myanmar, marking a new era of diplomatic relations with the United States.
This transition is critical at a critical time. Myanmar is a poor and under-developed country of around 55 million people (the last official census was 31 years ago). While good data and statistics are hard to come by, per capita GDP is estimated at $1,300 ranking Myanmar 206 out of 226 countries. Only about 26 percent of the population had access to electricity in 2011, compared to 100 percent in Malaysia and 90 percent or more in the Philippines and Vietnam. And according to the World Bank, life expectancy in Myanmar is only 65 years old.i
In contrast to these statistics, the resiliency, character, and generosity of the Myanmar people really stand out. They have raised families, built businesses, and cared for their communities under dire circumstances. Crime is among the lowest in the world, and I feel much safer in Yangon than Palo Alto. Throughout my travels to over 25 countries I’ve never felt so much awe and admiration for the population’s collective tenacity and achievement.
So I am optimistic about many of the changes underway, and the potential for Myanmar’s future. However, in countless meetings with entrepreneurs, government officials, aid organizations, investors, and factory owners, and through my everyday life experiences here, questions about the long term ramifications of such rapid growth keep emerging in my mind.
In the short term, unprecedented aid dollars and resources are flowing into the country with some organizations’ staff count going from 1 to 20 in a matter of months. “Connectivity” is a hot topic as plans are discussed to reach Myanmar with the technologies of the 21st century. The president’s office aims to boost small business development, and joint partnerships have been signed between the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Union of Myanmar Federation for Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
These efforts are well-intentioned and needed. However, the long-term consequences of such rapid “improvements” aren’t being discussed in the conversations I’m hearing with anything near the vigor that is needed. Failing to invest the financial, intellectual and human capital resources now to plan for the downstream consequences is, well, short-sighted. It is not rocket science to connect the dots between today’s actions and tomorrow’s consequences. Let me share a few photos to illustrate.
Mobile and technology surge
What we are shown and want to see:
Mobile technology bringing information access to the poor
What we are not shown and need to see:
Piles and piles of electronic waste
Technology’s ability to catalyze growth tops everyone’s list as we talk about change in Myanmar. Only 0.03 out of 100 people have broadband internet subscriptions, compared to about eight in Malaysia. In 2011, Myanmar had the second lowest cell phone penetration in the world, just above North Korea.ii The opportunity is clear, and in January President Thein Sein announced the goal of 80 percent penetration for mobile phones by 2015.
The U.N. Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) cites numerous ways that mobile technologies can help alleviate poverty and improve livelihoods in the developing world. It’s obvious that cell phones facilitate communication in places where built infrastructure lags, and users gain access to information that can help them better understand local markets, connect with health care providers, and make more informed decisions. And mobile phones also provide new business opportunities – like selling SIM cards or access to power to charge devices. We have all seen the pictures of farmers getting a better price for their crop because of the information they can access with their mobile phones, or promotions about young mothers getting medical information via SMS. As a country like Myanmar emerges from decades of isolation, science, technology and innovation will be necessary to its advancement.iii
However, with all that “progress” comes waste – really toxic electronic waste. Everyone wants to get technology in the hands of the people. Companies are eager to get a piece of what had been an off-limits market. Aid organizations are keen on bridging the digital divide. And government is welcoming the investment. But I hear almost no one asking where these gadgets will end up at the end of their lifespans.
Myanmar’s isolation has largely spared it from piles of electronic waste that leach into groundwater and create other public health problems. As the country moves into the digital, wireless, internet era we can anticipate such dilemmas and be proactive in planning rather than deal with waste as an afterthought. And as CSI has advocated since its inception, it will take all sectors working collaboratively to address such a “toxic” problem.
Industry and the Urbanization of Poverty
What we are shown and want to see:
good jobs, in a clean and safe environment
What we are not shown and need to see:
Slums with lack of energy, sanitation and education
Industrial development in the country appears to be on a similar path primarily due to sector isolation coupled with short-term modes of execution. Hence, conversations may be happening at a policy level, but few actors on the ground appear to be paying attention. This area is ripe for change, no doubt. No country in the world has achieved sustained economic development without urbanization, as people move from rural, agricultural work toward the opportunities provided by cities, a pattern that has helped to create a middle class for emerging economies. I’ve heard from optimistic entrepreneurs here about their plans to produce new products, employ Myanmar’s people, and catalyze economic growth as they set up factories near Myanmar’s largest cities.
But as these factories attract migrant workers from the countryside, Myanmar’s growing cities are not equipped with the public services, infrastructure, and housing that will be needed to accommodate all those who will come. According to U.N. Habitat’s Global Report on Human Settlements, in the “least developed countries” about 78 percent of urban residents are slum dwellers. But as countries become more wealthy slums don’t just go away. The problems that emerge — sanitation overload, energy shortages, lack of clean water, and poor public health — linger unless leaders get ahead of the problem with proactive housing and planning policies.
In Myanmar’s development push, the onus is on its government, involved multilaterals and NGOs, and the businesses rushing to be a part of the country’s evolution to anticipate such demographic changes. Currently, the conversation has been raised at the national level regarding housing. However, at a recent convening in Nay Pyi Taw, few were there to represent the private sector. And it is business that will bring the jobs. With more cross sector collaboration and a longer-term view of migration, employment, and urban planning, the settlements that evolve can be better equipped to meet the needs of their residents. We have learned so much about clean water, waste management, small scale energy, and focused health interventions — isn’t now the time to put this knowledge into action before the needs drastically outpace the supply?iv i
Myanmar is a complex country, economic development is messy, and human nature is hindered by its natural inclination to react to the here and now. Planning for what we cannot see does not come easily. So where does that leave us in trying to mitigate a problem before it starts and grows?
As a first step we need to consciously challenge ourselves to think about the unintended consequences waiting downstream of actions taken today. We are all part of the problem — individuals, the public, and institutions who want quick, concrete, measurable results. The prevention of undesired consequences is difficult to measure. Drawing clear lines of causality can be even harder. It will always be easier to document and quantify the impact of a cell phone placed in the hands of a farmer who then accessed crop prices and was therefore able to by-pass the middle man, sell high, and increase his family’s immediate income than to measure the impact of that phone as it deteriorates in a landfill outside the city. But in the end, both are part of the phone’s life cycle and important to the story of technology and progress in Myanmar.
Once we take the first step by thinking more long-term, we then need to adapt our ways of intervening. As Myanmar’s government negotiates a time of exciting but perilous transition, it has a tough job ahead. It must respond to the immediate demands of its diverse people, who want and expect change today. And consider the role of foreign aid on the topic of technology. Most aid projects run for one to three years. Such a time horizon drives funding to quickly get mobile technology into the hands of those in need. Logic models are complete, impact is measured by counting those who receive and use the technology, and high fives are given from funders to local actors for a job well done. This short-sightedness goes for business also; we are victims of the market’s relentless measure of quarterly results. And then five or ten years down the road the problem of electronic waste will surface as a separate problem, governments will scramble to calm public fears about toxic waste, businesses will provide charitable funding to appease their stakeholders, and social entrepreneurs will seek funding for their work to clean up the mess.
We can do better. We can look beyond the hype, and hold onto the hope of what Myanmar can become. Despite the constraints of political cycles, quarterly earnings reports, grant timeframes, and human nature’s desire for immediate gratification, we have evidence and examples that can prevent downstream consequences if we ask questions and stand up for a longer term set of priorities.
Why not plan, fund and begin implementation of more holistic multi-sector solutions now?
iThe World Bank. [Data file].
Retrieved from The World Bank.
iiZayar Oo, Min. (2013 Jan 19). Myanmar Aims to Improve Lives, Modernize with New Reforms. Reuters.
Retrieved from Reuters.
iiiUnited Nations Conference on Trade and Development. (2007 July 08). Reduce Poverty by Narrowing Technology Gap, UNCTAD’s Lease Developed Countries Report 2007 Urges.
Retrieved from United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
ivUnited Nations Millenium Project. Slumdwellers.
Retrieved from United Nations Millenium Project.