DISEÑO CURRICULAR

The survey collected information on indicators that monitor progress on the spread and use of new technologies in the society, with particular reference to information and communication technologies, notably: (1) access to telephones, both fixed and cellular (MDG 8, Target 18, indicator 47); and (2) access to and use of personal computers and internet (indicator 48).

These indicators are important because effective communication in the modern world is intimately tied to the current information age and globalization. Socio- economic development depends on access to and use of this technology and therefore the infrastructure to support it and human capital training to apply it. Telephones and personal computers allow people to exchange experiences and learn from each other, as well as get access to information, enabling higher returns on investments in both human and physical capital. Information and communications technologies can also contribute to make governments more efficient as well as transparent, reducing corruption and leading to better governance. In addition, these technologies can help people even in remote rural areas find out about market conditions, weather, prices and transportation options so, that they can, for example, make it possible to choose more profitable agricultural commodities to produce and sell their products at fairer prices. Computers and the internet also overcome traditional barriers to access to information and even lack of access to books, journals and many other documents for education and acquisition of skills and technology online, opening the door wide to e-learning.

10.2.1. Access to telephones

For many years, people in Ecuador have had trouble obtaining telephones for their homes and offices, due to the inefficient government telephone monopoly and were put on long waiting lists for years. Some made special payments to move ahead of the queue. Therefore —as in many other developing countries— the arrival of cellular phones, even if excessively expensive to use per minute, has represented a major advance in people’s ability to communicate quickly, so cell phones have swept the country. This has all occurred very recently. Access to cell phones was not even asked about in the last census of population in 2001 and Ecuador has no goals for cell phone coverage in its discussion of Goal 8, Target 18, indicator 47, where only fixed phones are mentioned. Thus it is noted that conventional, fixed telephone coverage of households was only 20% in

1995. No data were provided for a more recent year, nor was a goal set for 2015 (Ecuador, 2005).

In terms of cellular telephones, CEPAR found that already in 2004, 31% of all households in Ecuador had cell phones (40% in urban areas and even as high as 18% in rural areas). This was already virtually identical to the coverage of fixed telephones, which in 2004 was 32% nationally, being 45% in urban areas and 12% in rural areas (CEPAR, 2005). There is no doubt that by 2006 cell phone coverage has now significantly surpassed fixed telephone coverage.

The published data of CEPAR do not permit determining what percentage of households has either conventional or cellular telephones, just the percentages having each one. In the case of the present survey, Table 10.4 shows that the coverage of conventional, fixed telephones of Colombian immigrant households is very low, with only 8.2% having one in the house overall. Telephone coverage is even lower for refugee and mixed households, at 4% and 3%, respectively, compared to 12% for other Colombian migrant households. And the latter is still well below the 32% figure for 2004 found in ENDEMAIN. The data on access to cell phones are much more interesting and are presented for the survey population at the household level in table 10.4. The first thing to note is that the overall coverage of cell phones is 38%, or higher than the 31% figure found by CEPAR for Ecuadorians in 2004. Nonetheless, this does not mean that Colombian immigrants, including refugees, have greater access to cell phones than Ecuadorians, given the two year difference in data collection and the ongoing increase in cell phone usage. Rather it is likely that the two are quite similar. More germane to the focus of the present report is that the data in Table 10.4 show that for refugee/asylum seeker households, the prevalence of cell phone usage is actually slightly higher than it is for mixed or non-refugee households, being 41% for refugee households versus about 37% for the other two. When we look at the data for urban and rural areas, however, we see that this difference is entirely due to a significant differential in urban but not rural areas. Thus over half of the refugee households in urban areas have cell phones (56%), compared to 37% and 47% for mixed and non-refugee households, respectively. Perhaps these urban refugee households feel they need to be able to communicate quickly with each other and with others, due to feelings of insecurity and their own past exposure to violence. Thus those in refugee households who can afford it tend to get cell phones in urban areas. Phones are also useful, of course, in looking for work.

92

Ch

ap

ter 10

Table 10.4. Access to technology of households by refugee status and urban-rural residence (% that have)

Urban Rural Total

Type of technology Refugees/asylum

seekers Mixed Other Total

Refugees/asylum

seekers Mixed Other Total

Refugees/asylum

seekers Mixed Other Total

Fixed telephone 4.1 3.1 11.9 8.2

Cell phone 56.0 37.1 47.2 47.6 30.1 37.5 28.3 30,8 40.7 37.4 36.8 37.9

Computer 0.0 5.7 13.6 9.0 1.4 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.8 2.9 6.5 4.2

Uses interneta _{17.3 -- 24.0 20.6 8.5 -- 4.4 6.6 11.8 n.a. 12.4 12.1}

It is interesting that refugees have somewhat higher overall levels of education and use of cell phones than the other migrants from Colombia and at the same time are much more likely to be unemployed or, if employed, to be in low-status occupations, resulting in lower household incomes. This may be associated with a higher level of unfulfilled aspirations and hence frustration among those in refugee households, which could be alleviated by facilitating their ability to get work. This is a matter to be returned to in considering the policy implications of this report, and is accordingly mentioned in the Executive Summary.

10.2.2. Access to personal computers and internet

Again, Ecuador does not have any explicit goals for either computers or internet usage by 2015 in its MDG report, but it does mention internet usage, noting the rapidly growing increase from being used by 0.3 persons per 1000 in 1998 to 14.5 per 1000, or about 1.5%, in 2004. Computers are a luxury that most low- income households can ill afford, least of all those who have had to flee, leaving their homes and most possessions behind. But in the modern world, computers are increasingly not just a luxury but a necessity, a necessity in the education of children and adults, in seeking work and in many kinds of work, as well as in communicating via the internet with family, friends and others in Ecuador, Colombia and globally. In the study of CEPAR, 11% of the households in Ecuador reported having a computer in 2004, 16% urban, 4% rural (and as high as 27% in Quito).

In the survey here on Colombian migrants, on the other hand, almost no refugee or mixed households reported having a computer, although 6.5% of non-refugee households had one. The overall coverage is 4%, or well below the 11% level for Ecuadorian households. It is not surprising that virtually all these computers are in urban households, with 6% of mixed and 14% of non-refugee households (the latter probably being about the same as the national average for Ecuador by 2006) having them. Overall, less than 1% of refugee households, 2% of mixed households and 6.5% of other households have computers.

The lack of access to computers is an area where refugee households are handicapped in terms of their ability to function and compete in modern society. Given the rapid pace of technological advance in computers and the ongoing replacement of computers with newer ones, it is an open question what happens to the older computers. Might it be possible for government agencies, NGOs and/or ACNUR to develop programmes to collect and recycle older computers

94 Chapter 10

being replaced by donating them to poorer households in Ecuador, including refugee households?

Of course, it is not necessary to actually have a computer in the home to have access to internet. Some people have access from their place of work and indeed most of Ecuador, not just in Quito, is blanketed with internet cafes, more than most countries of Latin America. And the cost of using a computer is generally $1 per hour or less in the internet cafes. The last row in table 10.4 shows use of the internet, which was collected in the survey at the individual level, that is, from the individual questionnaire rather than the household questionnaire administered to the household head or proxy, and hence includes usage by the person at home or away from home. The data collected show that, overall, internet usage is about the same for the two types of persons, being 11.8% and 12.4%, respectively, for refugees/asylum seekers and other migrants. Usage is slightly higher for refugees than non-refugees in rural areas and lower in urban areas. Overall, usage is much higher in urban areas, at 20.6% vs. 6.6%, as is to be expected. The main conclusion from these data is that the lack of a computer in the home does not lead to any significant disadvantage in the use of the internet on the part of refugees/asylum seekers.