Preface

Development and technology landscapes are being rapidly transformed, providing a good opportunity to take stock of what is working and also to explore emerging technology and organisational options that could enable ICT to serve poor and under-served communities more effectively. In the context of this report, current developments raise an interesting question: In many developed countries, community networks and cooperatives played a key role in bringing telephony to rural and under-served communities; has their time come and gone in light of the increasing role of the private sector? Or does the low cost access offered by mobile telephony and wireless technologies allow for new community-based configurations to emerge, to be responsive to the broader development needs of the communities concerned and to operate sustainably, whether as community-based networks or small and medium scale enterprises?

The Cooperative/Community-owned Infrastructure Difference

While access to ICT is indeed expanding rapidly and dynamically on a market-driven basis, many areas – particularly rural and poor urban –  often remain under-served. There are a variety of reasons for this including that they do not meet a for-profit calculus, the sheer scale of the “universal access” challenge (ITU estimates that  800,000 villages, 30% of all villages worldwide, lack even basic telephony services), and the difficulties of roll-out in poor and sparsely populated regions through more conventional means. The research undertaken in the context of this report and its attendant case studies suggests that there is an important role for community-based infrastructure and access options.

Not only are community-owned infrastructure and networks able to draw on community resources and labour and hence be sustainable and expand in contexts where the market might fear to tread, but more importantly, such networks have a stake in the continued development of the community. The case study of Poland points to the catalytic development impact and the spin-off activities that were sparked by the cooperatives which continued to re-invest in the community: “the cooperative approach helps solve development problems. As a direct result, WIST and Tyczyn communities have launched new initiatives such as environment friendly production, recreation centres and socially important services. Unemployment in these regions has significantly decreased due to creation of new businesses and new jobs.” A similar point was made in 2003 in the USA by the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association which in its book The Cooperative Promise: A Community and Economic Development Guidebook for Electric Cooperatives points out: “A cooperative’s first responsibility is providing reliable electricity. But community and economic development are necessary to preserve and expand the existing residential and business base and … attract new economic activity.”

The Development Imperative

If this is indeed the case, current ICT-for-Development and broader development strategies and financing mechanisms will need to be adapted. Not only will it be important to undertake ‘strategic zoning’ and provide incentives to serve poor-under developed areas,  but ICT policies will need to go further and to be open to doing so by allowing for a variety of options. Ideally they will not only  adopt standards of technology neutrality but also operator neutrality – with a view to allowing communities to avail of options and to bid for public financing, where offered, to serve themselves. It also means that addressing the last-inch or last mile would have to be seen as being important for the broader development agenda.

Given the uneasy – or should we say relatively unexplored – relationship that often exists between the technology, ICT for development, and broader development communities, the communication and development needs of the poor are often viewed as a second order priority best left to the market without the need to explore roles for the community or public sector. At the same time, scarce public resources are expended on ‘development activities’ that are often visualized as though taking place in a world that has not changed. New – and potentially more effective – ways to address the needs of the poor, enhance learning, deliver healthcare and catalyze economic activity in under-developed regions could be facilitated by the deployment of ICT for development. While the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals and Universal Access are both on the development agendas of countries, attempts to explore their inter-relationships are currently in their infancy.

However, it is becoming clear that achieving the MDGs will “require rising above current growth rates, ensuring that the gains are more equitably distributed and substantially accelerating investments in healthcare, education and physical infrastructure – particularly in the poorer and underserved areas” (Nishimoto and Lal, 2005). These are all areas where the deployment of ICT can be both strategic and helpful. It can assist in managing logistics and monitoring the impact of expanded distribution of life-saving drugs even in poor and under-served communities and assist in addressing capacity gaps created in the wake of the HIV/AIDS pandemic. It can help to scale up the delivery of educational content and teacher training, making learning more interactive and powerful for poor children, and potentially offer them a path of upward mobility in an age where knowledge of ICT is becoming a necessity. It can help to enhance the delivery of rural extension, financial and business support services without which sustainable agriculture, job creation and entrepreneurial activities would be that much more difficult. If such a deployment of ICT is to take place in the service of the MDGs and poverty reduction, it must ensure that the last inch and local level are addressed with the same degree of importance as the macro and national levels. Without this, local communities will be unable to catalyze development activities, and their voices will be less likely to be heard in the distant places where policies are made. In this task, the role of community networks and community-owned infrastructure remains vital.