These eight years have been roughly condensed in an interview that Martin Konzett, Florian Sturm and Anders Bolin (all of them from ICT4D.at) made to me during the Cooperation 2.0 event in Gijón this month.

Here it is:

By the way, the array of interviews that the ICT4D.at collective have in their YouTube channel is really impressive and it’s surely to become the most complete collection of videos of ICT4D people available. Worth visiting it.

Participative conclusions

(unsorted contributions from the audience)

• Need for applied research on ITC4D processes, modelling and scaling
• Need for collaborative work among inst.
• Nothing about us without us
• Technological determinism: Mobiles are hammers and everything looks like a nail
• Richness on diversity of views
• Need for R&D agenda with South as shaper and agent
• Development 1st, ICT as resources and tools
• Don´t forget the users, they’re also stakeholders in ICT-based solutions
• Multi-stakeholder approach
• Spanish Coop to draw on available expertise for advice
• Next stage on ICT4D: focus on KM, agenda transformation, along with dev agenda too… towards a Development 2.0?
• Debate on ICT4D largely over, but still there underneath. More evidence, models?
• Build awareness
• Empower Southern actors for ICT4D innovation
• Scale of problems are huge, but analysis helps to disaggregate in order to facilitate interventions.
• Don’t discard pilots yet
• ICTs can even serve as a stimulus for self-esteem in gaining more capacity by people
• This presents a significant opportunity
• Incorporate socio-emotional factors in ICT4D -related work
• Knowledge and experience-based approaches, understanding models, process (the how’s?)
• Then assess those kinds of resulting projects programmes to see how relevant such models/processes
• Adequate KM is very important, hard to truly know what´s going on, but rigorous methods, evidence-based needed
• Demand-driven projects interventions – do users have an input?
• Detect real problems, then elaborate joint solutions
• ICT4D is not new, there is considerable work already and learning; beneficiaries also present practices themselves (thanks for ICTs…?)
• Capacity development

Debate

(unsorted ramblings)

Vikas Nath: Wake up call that ICT4D have to focus on the “D”.

Merryl Ford: how do we know how, when and where we succeeded? How do we build the agenda? How do we reach the stage to collaborate in building together the agenda?

Anriette Esterhuysen: Development is continuous, and there are new challenges and everywhere, not only in developing countries or during crises. We need knowledge management, to keep learnings in mind. And look to small initiatives with small but really effective impact.

Najat Rochdi: Development 2.0 implies a huge shift, bringing in a new concept of multilateralism. We need to bring new stakeholders in.

Ismael Peña-López: What or who are development institutions? In a world 2.0 where everyone participates, institutions are in dire crisis of identity. We should bring in not only development institutions, governments or communities to whom we address development actions, but also the citizens that can enable them in the developed world by means of ICTs. Development 2.0 is not about institutions, it’s about people in both developing and developed countries.

Anriette Esterhuysen: Significant gaps in access to infrastructure makes it still difficult to link micro-to-micro levels of development cooperation. Notwithstanding, people are driven by commitment and come together to run projects. We have to let them build these projects on their own. To promote smooth evolution of projects instead of leaping from one to the other.

Vikas Nath: Cooperation has to balance powers, and be made from an even and empowered point of view. Countries have to enter the cooperation landscape in a position of strength. Cooperation 2.0 is the solution to balance powers. But we’re not seeing it: giving aid is somehow legitimizing donor countries to intervene at their own will in developing countries. And we have to end that.

Najat Rochdi: Cooperation 2.0 towards co-development.

Ismael Peña-López: we have to be able to list an inventory of all the resources available (funding, natural resources, human resources, knowledge), see who’s got what, and engage in a conversation on how to better allocate and exchange these resources. ICT4D are surely about knowledge management and the transmission of knowledge, not the transmission of “atoms”. And, the more countries specialize, the more likely we are to find ICT4D is the leading issue in Development Cooperation in general, as it is knowledge unbalance what really makes development differences dire (let aside humanitarian aid for emergencies).

Round table: Innovative Uses of Mobile ICTs for Development

Merryl Ford, Emerging Innovations Group of the Meraka Institute of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR).

Mobile voice Wikipedia (MobiLed: you send an SMS to the mobile Wikipedia with the name of an article, and a voice reads you the whole article on your mobile phone.

Remote tutors that, through SMS, help kids in their Maths homework.

We have to de-skill the process of mobile application creation, thus why at Meraka they’re creating open source platforms for people to code mobile applications without much knowledge on developing applications.

Kentaro Toyama, Microsoft Research India (MSR India)

(disclaimer: he’s going to play the devil’s advocate)

The focus on putting development first, and then technology. If we speak about “M4D”, we’re putting technology first. Unless you have a strong interest in mobile phones (e.g. you’re working for Nokia) you should focus on what’s available, not just on a specific technology. Development is about human and institution capacity.

On the other hand, there’s also even more simple and broadly accepted technology than mobiles: television, community radio… so we should also focus in these if our arguments are cost, simplicity, broad usage and so.

There’s hype around M4D as there was hype about telecentres 15 years ago. It just does not make sense to fund projects that explicitly (ex ante) have to be run by mobile phones. And this happens. And this is hype.

Oleg Petrov, e-Development Thematic Group of World Bank

(in kindest answer to Toyama) The mobile phone is the new sibling, the new tool in the development toolbox. Enthusiasm vs. hype. It’s just enthusiasm, and other technologies, just like siblings, are “jealous” of the newcomer. But it’s a powerful tool indeed. We have not for forget about everything but mobile phones, but as a new tool, it deserves special exploration to determine its real potential and weaknesses.

The World Bank has plenty of projects that follow this excitement to test M4D: for health, for education, etc. We need a community of practice, ways to test this technology. Raise awareness and also move forward in the next direction of building toolkits, making it simple.

If you just look at the human side of development, you’re likely to miss (or not be up-to-date) state-of-the-art technological developments that might give you hints or ideas on how to solve human problems.

Jan Blom, Nokia Research Center – India

Anecdote: 6 months ago, a cab driver in Bangalore, using the mobile phone to SMS and as a GPS, but knowing nothing about what e-mail was. So: M4D is absolutely real.

There’s a dire lack of public information available (sometimes it does not even exist). M4D can focus on making this public information available, in providing location based services. There is much utility in taking local data, uploading to a central server, and publish it online (like Ushahidi does).

Stéphane Boyera, Device Independence Working Group of W3C

(also answering Toyama) It’s not that it’s a hype, it’s that technologists are approaching development in their daily lives, which is new and it’s great. Of course, when coming from the Development Cooperation field one must focus on humans, but the thing is that techies are approaching humans through tecnology, and the specific technology of their specific fields.

Q & A

Najat Rochdi: we have to know all the technologies available to be able to make the best decisions.

Stijn Vander Krogt: what is the role of governments in M4D? Isn’t it to analyse all that’s out there? Petrov: absolutely, this is one of the key roles of the World Bank, to provide advice on what can be used to solve any kind of problem. Thus why organizations have to know, and raise awareness, of the different applications of tools for human development.

Manuel Acevedo: What do we do when some laptops are really cheap and simple, and some mobile phones become increasingly complex and expensive? Thus, our task is to inform people of all the options available. Can we build multidisciplinary teams (as in research) at the government level? Can we build multi-institutional approaches in ICT4D?

Q: are we confusing needs for development? Are we artificially generating needs for gadgets? Aren’t we trying not to develop rural areas, but the broaden the target market of telcos?

Mobile Phone for Human Development?
Stéphane Boyera, Device Independence Working Group of W3C

More than 4,000,000,000 mobiles phones today, circa 80% people covered by mobile phones: a revolution. Mobile phones are changing the way people work, communicate, live. But there is still is no evidence on the impact on development besides person to person communication.

Nevertheless, mobiles have changed the landscape in the developing world: access to education, to health, to agricultural informtion…

Problems/barriers:

• Connectivity: bandwidth and devices
• Information availability: Relevant and useful services
• Information availability: Affordable, accessible and usable services

Notwithstanding, mobile phones solve — or minimize — hardware and connectivity issues in relationship with computers and Internet access, so it is easier to focus in services (instead of hardware), thus why we find more and more applications for mobiles phones in developing countries. In this same train of thought, mobile phones enable a bottom-up approach in designing mobile phone based projects.

Reasons to promote mobile for development (M4D):

• Scalability
• Open to entrepreneurship and local innovation capturing
• Putting governments out of the critical path
• Putting pressure for more transparent accountable Governance

Challenges and barriers

• Capacity building, curriculum and degree at universities
• Availability of software and tools, free or open source, easy to use
• Awareness, as the major point to be solved in the nearest future
• Accessibility, of both services and content
• Availability of services, including localization of such services, adapted to local languages and culture
• Information literacy

The mobile phone is the swiss army knife: it’s got plenty of tools and fits in your pocket. SMS, the flagship of mobile tools, has easy setup, is tied to plenty of services, has free reception, is available on all phones.

Mobile phones, and besides voice, have also data access, web access…

Voice, that seems underrated, is actually one of the easiest “technologies” to use, included illiterate people. But there are few services that rely on voice. So more research and investment should be put on voice.

Next steps?

• Community building around the creation of services and content, to do research on M4D
• Understanding the needs, issues and challenges in the field
• Identifying and bridging challenges to lower access barriers
• Solving the empowerment challenges: lowering development and deployment barriers, and building capacities

Buts

• Constrained device
• Mobile networks still very expensive
• Maybe other approaches (e.g. low-cost laptops) can better fit some purposes better than mobile phones

We have to move from the proof of concept to real, broad and successful implementation stories.

Some links:

• Digital World Forum
• Web Foundation
• W2X workshop on M4DE

Q & A

Stijn Vander Krogt & Anriette Esterhuysen: Internet link is still a need. We should combine, do not substitute, PCs and Internet access with mobiles.

Anriette Esterhuysen: what’s the importance of open standards for mobile phones? Q: Of course they are crucial.

From one unit to another.University. Open Source and Cooperation
Santiago Palacios Navarro, Universidad del País Vasco

There’s no intensive use of free software neither in development cooperation institutions nor in developing countries. Its use would help to cut down on costs and spare money for other things.

Examples of easy to use applications to be implemented in development cooperation: Moodle, Joomla, WordPress and Public Knowledge Project.

University Observatory for Development Cooperation (OCUD): Results of the 1ª Phase.

Nuria Castejón Silvo. Conferencia de Rectores de las Universidades Españolas

Goals of the OCUD: promote quality in university development cooperation.

It’s a portal with information about best practices, materials… in the field of University Development Cooperation.

There is a participative section where universities publish their development cooperation activities. It manages institutions, people and projects.

Monitoring Information Systems
Jon Legarrea Oteiza. Universidad Pública de Navarra.

End of degree projects within the Degree in Computer Science, helping the Red Cross to manage and share information between staff, volunteers, expatriates, etc. Worsened by the fact that in many places connectivity is expensive or inexistent.

System to transmit information, sending smallest packages, and with nodes of the network that can either operate isolated or networked when connected one to the other or to a central server.

End of Degree Projects and other ways of integrating Cooperation for Development in Universities
Sandra Pérez Martínez. Ingeniería Sin Fronteras-Asturias.

Project in Tindouf (Argelia, refugee camp for saharaui people). The project is a diagnosis of communication systems in refugee camps.

Also projects about technology transfer on water management.

Try and combine both technologies: radio communication between water management installations.

Same between health institutions to detect needs for pharmaceuticals.

Communications are done by using radio taxis.

Conclusions: awareness raising at the university, useful knowledge transfer and a platform to boost nonprofit activity in the developing cooperation sector. Technolgy can be reused, saving duplication of efforts, wasting resources, saving time, going straight to the technology that has been already tested.

Research for Development at Microsoft Research India
Kentaro Toyama. Microsoft Reserarch India

Microsoft Research India is a computer science research lab focused in technology for emerging markets.

They promote the ICTD Conference.

Methodology:

• Immersion: ethnography; qualitative social science
• Design: iterated prototyping; design, engineering
• Evaluation: randomized control trial; economics
• Implementation: partnership; political science (this point relating implementation usually transferred to partners)

Is technology always worth it? It depends: if the increase of productivity is smaller than the cost of technology (applied to achieve this increase of productivity), then, the cost-benefit analysis results in negative returns, even if productivity increased. Microfinance in developing countries seems to be a clear example of this, at least at the front-end (though further research is needed because in some cases it might pay back).

Examples:

• Microfinance and Technology: raise of productivity by adding technology. Might not be cost-effective.
• MultiPoint in Education: increasing education quality with several kids using same PC and by means of multipoint devices (i.e. each child their own mouse to interact with the screen). No significant impact on education
• Digital Green for knowledge transmission in the field of agriculture: storyboarding with video. Results: 7 times more adoptions of new techniques, 10 times more cost-effective.

Key lessons

• Development first, then technology. The goal is not to close the digital divide, but to achieve a development goal.
• Expend time with communities, not with “experts”.
• Multidisciplinary of teams, not individuals.
• Quality through great people, not processes
• Sustainability is case-by-case, there’s no magic bullet. And sustainable models are often very different among them.
• Impact as the goal, ideology has to be set aside

Notwithstanding, there are three counterexamples (e.g. the mobile phones) for the first three dots in this list!

Q & A

Q: Why should Microsoft invest in basic research of this kind? A: Knowledge is created, even if (in principle) roughly related with your direct interests. It’s good for the morale of the company and their workers. Being concerned about the future of the World makes you aware of the future of your own company. And, sometimes, Microsoft (Microsoft-not-research) is up to do the follow up and scaling of a prototype or pilot project.

Q: is research tied to business models? A: no, it’s basic research bound to find impact. Implementation (and their related business models) come after. But if the impact is positive, and there’s a justification to go on with implementation, business models will come.

Q: How are research projects chosen? A: It’s up to the researcher. There’s an abolute trust on their criterion.

How do we go forward in the field of ICT4D R+D+i?

Florencio Ceballos, telecentre.org

• ICT4D are a clear niche that can grow outside the circuit of development issues
• Capacity building happens locally, and this means building confidence, trust.
• Institutional independence has to be promoted to enable real capacity building.
• Focus on networking: promoting open networks for capacity exchange

It’s not as much as how you design agendas, but how you make them evolve, how to shift the paradigm. And this shift of paradigm is towards openness.

Caroline Figueres, International Institute for Communication and Development

There is a need for a research to ground some “evidences”, and showcase successes in the field of ICT4D under the rigour of scientific analysis.

People in the South should be put in the agenda of ICT4D research, as most of the output is targetted to developing countries.

Co-creation (e.g. in the sense of Don Tapscott’s Wikinomics) is a very powerful concept. Capacity building can be enabled this way by means of knowledge workers co-creating together.

Kentaro Toyama, Microsoft Research India (MSR India)

How to do formal research in ICT4D? Several steps:

1. Immersion. Ethnography
2. Design, involving people, where technology is just one component and a cost-effective one
3. Evaluation, including finding statistical significance on the impact of a specific project or action

It’s a good idea to break the link between funding and the research agenda. The researcher should be able to pursue their own interests and not be tied (or upset) to the need for funding.

Experience in research might be as important as (or even more) than experience in development. Accuracy of the scientific process is crucial.

Andrés Martínez, EHAS Foundation.

Evidence has to be demonstrated to convince policy-makers and funding institutions that some actions are to be taken and deserve being supported (politically or economically).

• Research is needed in the impact of ICTs in welfare, health, education
• But also, research is needed on how to provide appropriate and cost-effective infrastructures, as most communities just do not have access to either hardware or connectivity
• Sometimes the context is unknown. Thus, research should focus not only on the impact of a specific project, but on what the context (sociocultural, health, education, economic) is.
• Research on services.
• How to measure empowerment and mainstreaming of technologies in specific communities and sectors (e.g. the Health sector)

The only way to promote research in the field of Development and ICT4D is to foster publication of research results in indexed publications. Despite the interest of the topic, if the work is “well done”, then it can be published. It is highly relevant to find the problem you want to deal with your research, more important than finding “the” solution.

And diffussion is absolutely worth doing it. On the one hand, results of the projects and the research undertaken. On the other hand, not only information about the results, but knowledge transfer through assistance, direct training, formal education, especially to achieve multiplier effects.

Merryl Ford, Emerging Innovations Group of the Meraka Institute of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR).

There’s sometimes resilience to empowerment. Capacity building is not only about specific (digital) skills, but also about changing mindsets.

• Slogan on disabilities in SouthAfrica: Nothing about us, without us. We need to make sure that we don’t do things “for” people but “with” people. Africa should take ownership of its development agenda.
• Interventions should be simple
• The cellphone is the PC of Africa
• Sustainability, replication, massification. A pilot needs to be scaled at any stage.

Q & A

Q: research on impact… is a real need or an imposed “need” of the inner structure of development cooperation, projects, agencies and so? Ceballos: The need to measure impact is real. Many policies are put into practice based on intuition, on vision. So we do need to evaluate these policies to support or reject such intuitions. Martínez: short-run projects are difficult to analyze accurately, as there’s no time to do it properly. A solution would be that everyone involved in the projects collected data and helped to analyze it.

Q: How do we cope about the cost of maintenance of cellphones in rural areas? A: There are alternatives (e.g. via radio) that do not charge per call… but the maintenance of the whole network does have a cost. Certainly, it’s not a matter of absolute costs, but a matter of cost-benefit analysis, seeing whether the project is worth running it and find out how to support the overall costs.

Q: How do we put social research together with tecnology research in development related research? A: The problems that research has to face have to be far ahead enough. And they require plenty of time. In this sense, everyone involved in ICT4D should be in a same conversation, to gather all sensibilities and be able to look far in the horizon.

Round Table: Mul-stakeholder networks and Multi-network actors in Development

What are the key factors that made a network successful?

Stephane Boyera, Device Independence Working Group of W3C

At the W3C more than one hundred working groups in the last 15 years, issued 70 standards. How could this be made possible?

• It’s a multi-stakeholder forum
• Powers are evenly distributed along the components of the network
• Having standards is a key thing for success
• A focussed programme. Working groups have limited lives (12 to 18 months) and expected results to be issued at the end of it
• Members are fully committed. And if they are not, they just cannot participate
• There are tools to support international, distributed work
• Don’t put value on the network, but on the network’s goals, do not promote the Internet bubble, don’t move away from the goal

Caroline Figueres, Global Knowledge Partnership

• Have to review on a regular basis the purpose of the network, so that it adapts to the changing needs and goals of the members.
• Win-win perspective: a good balance of what members bring in and what they get from the network
• Have to be clear about what is your motivation in being part of a network – and cope with other members’ motivations
• Based on trust (might take years to achieve an optimum trust level)
• The network is not there for the benefit of the chairman but for the benefit of the members. It should promote everybody
• Gender balanced

Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications

• Diversity seen as a strength, not as a weakness
• Flexibility
• Regular contact
• Distributed “ownership” of the network and its outputs
• Manage delivery
• Get critical feedback
• The personal dimension: institutions but also human beings (with their daily human problems) have to be represented in the network
• Branding, indentity
• The network should provide more than what individuals face daily
• Learning space, exchange as equals
• Gender issues are really important for both the inner performance and public outcome of the network

Oleg Petrov, e-Development Thematic Group of World Bank

• Don’t take sharing for granted
• ICTs are great, but they have to be used in an innovative way, try and rethink completely the way things are being done
• Don’t take ICTs for granted either

Discussion

Vikas Nath: what’s exactly the role of the private sector in multi-stakeholder partnerships? Why is their participation so important? Figueres: people from the private sector is more solution oriented. There’s a confusion between what the real needs are and what you think their needs are. The private sector is a powerful informing agent to identify the real needs and bridge them with policy.

Vikas Nath: how to tell back to the society at large what is not working in a network (not only sharing good outcomes)? Petrov: things get wrong if you take things for granted, as knowledge sharing or knowledge management. And knowledge management has to be linked to operations, to task managers.

Manuel Acevedo: how to avoid “network fatigue”? how does knowledge absorbtion (vs. just generating knowlegde fluxes) happens? Esterhuysen: to recover from network fatigue, one can “retreat to the boundaries of the network” and people respect this. And even people retreating back to work again at the local level. Knowledge absorption is about knowledge management, repeating concepts, going back over same topics again and again… Boyera: networks limited in time and tied to achieving specific goals is a way to avoid network burnout. There’s no sense preserving a network that serves no purpose.

(My personal opinion on the previous topic: do we really need knowledge absorbtion? If we just don’t memorize everything we write down, why not use the network as a permanent extension of our cognitive resources? as another way to fix memory. I see networks of people, experts, institutions as just part of the cognitive and knowledge storage resources we have at hand: our brain, libraries, hard drives…)

Q: how to know not people but what (interests) they represent? How to encourage exchange? Boyera: it’s better to have leading networks for specific topics. If working groups work in related or overlapping domains, coordination and cooperation between networks is the way to proceed.

Development Cooperation Agencies or Cooperation Networks?
Vikas Nath, Head of Media and Communications in South Centre Inter-Governmental Organization.

It’s important to be part of the solution, not part of the problem: institutions have to learn, and to innovate.

Different kinds of aid: ideological aid, commercial aid, environmental aid, solidarity aid, humanitarian aid, development projects… Thus, depending on your government’s priorities, you’re likely to find your national development cooperation agency to foster one or another kind of aid. And this shapes too the tools you’re to use to implant your aid programmes and projects.

But we’re at a critical juncture: food crisis, financial crisis, energy crisis, environmental crisis… Things have changed, the Old World Order is weakening… but a New World Order has not fully formed. What to do?

Solutions:

• Best-Shot Method: GPS, cure for AIDS
• Weakest Link: stopping being part of the problem and begin to be part of the solution: cure for Polio
• Aggregation Method: joint effort to find solutions

Networked cooperation is a must. Critical mass is required to find difficult solutions. And the cost of inaction is higher than the cost of networking, even if the cost of networking or consensus achievement might be seen as high.

But, besides Humanitarian Aid, which is quite coordinated, rest of kinds of aid are not networked, specially development projects.

We can find, nevertheless, some initiatives to bring people together around the Millennium Development Goals, Climate Change, Extreme Poverty Alleviation, the Digital Divide.

In the field of tools, the landscape is more optimistic. Initiatives like the Global Development Network, the Global Knowledge Partnership, Solution Exchange, or INSouth are good examples of networking strategies to share resources, efforts and so.

New Diplomacy or Diplomacy 2.0: shift from North-South networks towards South-South or North-South-South.

Julius Nyerere: If you cannot share your wealth, share your poverty. e.g. Venezuela gives oil to Cuba in exchange of physicists. You have to understand you’re part of the problem and try to be part of the solution by glimpsing alternative views.

We need, in development cooperation, a change of paradigm, the like of scientific revolutions that bring paradigm shifts.

Development Cooperation is no longer a foreign affair, but an inter-agency affair.

Q & A

Q: What’s the role of the Web 2.0? A: Important that more information circulates South-North, and not opposite. It’s about enabling participation of all parties.

Q: How is going to change international cooperation in the framework of a financial crisis? A: There is going to be a wash up of inefficient measures and cooperation channels and, on the other hand, we will be able to find solutions out of the usual lines of cooperation, with new models coming up (e.g. Venezuela’s or China’s). The chinese concept of crisis: crisis as a thread but also as a opportunity.

A: How can we force a shift of paradigm at the social (not at the scientific) level? Q: We have to find spaces in out networks to accomodate the different points of view.

Q: Networks are great… if you’re part of them. What happens if you’re out of the network? Can you afford being put outside of everything? A: Don’t think there’s a way too look at things in a separate way. They’re all interlinked, so the network is the only approach. Of course, network exclusion is a risk and we have to be aware of it.

Q: How the entrance of big foundations and philantropists (e.g. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) in the development cooperation landscape has changed the whole system? A: It’s a good step forward towards multi-stakeholder partnerships. Putting the private sector in the equation is one of the keys for sustainability.

GONG Project.
Jorge Martín. CENATIC

The CENATIC observatory monitors the development of the Information Society in Spain and makes proposals to foster it. One of its outputs is the GONG project, a software for NGO management.

It’s free software and, of course, relies heavily on existing software, but with a huge effort to integrate all previously existing solutions.

The project is not only software: a virtual community has been created to support and provide support about GONG. This community shares good practices, troubleshooting, etc.

The software is thought to be managed from wherever (runs on a web browser) and using hardware NGOs already have, both at headquarters or on the field. The great thing is that it is possible to work offline and then import all update data to the online platform.

• Demo site

It’s an impressive project and covers a historically demanded need.

Using web 2.0 in ICT4D organizations
Florian Sturm. ICT4D.at

ICT4D.at: raise awareness about ICT4D, inform about news, projects, run own projects…

Work only with web 2.0 tools in the cloud, coding anything at all. Mainly use of WordPress and Mediawiki. These are used for the institutional site.

Intensive use also of social networks like Facebook, XING, twitter, LinkedIn or Orkut. Through social networks you can directly address people anytime.

Content sharing platforms: Flickr, Youtube, Slideshare

Tools for analyzing: Feedburner, Google Analytics

Other: Delicious, Digg, Paypal

Not much effort to set up, enhanced reach of information, easy approach to a large user base, reused content (CC-licensed)… though not everythign works.

Q & A

Q: what are the criteria to choose one social networking site or another one? A: Already existing networks is a good place to start.

CEDUCAR network, a horizontal cooperation model through ICTs
Fernando Fajardo, AECID/CECC-SICA

To leverage the Central America education system.

By using Joomla, virtual communities have been built for educators to network and meet each other. A Moodle paltform has also been set up to train trainers/educators in ICTs for education.

Besides technology (FLOSS), all content is also licensed freely (CC). This way, there’s not only a platform but a course bank to be used in any educational initiative.

One of the strengths of this project is that is regional: there’s eight countries (+ Spain) in Central America and the Caribbean taking part in it. It’s also multi-stakeholder: NGOs, universities, enterprises, national agencies…

Digital Democratization in Guatemala
Ramon Bartomeus, Iwith.org

It’s a coordination project: each organization does their own projects, but in the same place (i.e. Guatemala) so it makes a lot of sense to coordinate some resources, findings, problems…

Learnings:

• Communities do not come after technology, but the opposite
• Find who the early adopters are and rely on them
• Begin with simple, successful things. Do not deploy the whole set of things

Viva, the voice of the people
Arturo Enzo, Viva

Public radio, set on telecenters, and used by citizens to ask their governments for several civic issues.

Telecenters are placed in several places, including jails, where they have weekly broadcasts.

But the problem of the digital divide remains. Why did not the project improved this issue? You don’t teach guitar without the instrument. If people just have computers an hour a day (or an hour a week), people are not empowered at all. So, the project succeeded in digital literacy, but not in bridging the digital divide.

But, notwithstanding, it is a seed for a change of reality.

Towards a World network for digital solidarity
Najet Teutit. Deputy Director of World Digital Solidarity Agency.

Digital solidarity is a grassroots initiative to bridge digital development.

The Digital Solidarity Agency provide expertise, monitoring and promote catalyst actions within the digital solidarity world.

The “1% digital solidarity” principle: a new tax on public ICT markets. Not widely implemented: european regulatory framework of ICTs difficult to change, recent initiative, etc.

Lyon Declaration for Digital Solidarity: call to federate joint action in the ICT sector, with two main outcomes:

• a world forum for digital solidarity, with a european digital solidarity key actors network (EDSKAN) and Web2solidarite
• build a virtual micro-finance platform to raise funds and loan money for digital solidarity projects

Round Table
Alexander Widmer, Responsible for the support of Swiss Agency for Development Operational Divisions; Eduardo Sanchez, NGO for Development Association Secretary; Carmen Rodriguez Arteaga, Head of Planning Service. Ministry of Foreing Affairs and Cooperation; Anriette Esterhuysen. Executive Director of the Association for Progressive Communications

General issues that came up at the round table:

Knowledge management

• Coordination
• Building from existing experience
• Share best practices
• Share worst practices

Design of policies

• Capacity building before network building
• Human network building before technological network building
• Coherence of all policies
• Specialization, then coordination: we have to focus on our expertise

Community building

• Empowering people at the local level
• Coherence in ICT4D: government is a key issue, so ICT4D to improve government quality (transparency, accountability) should be added in our ICT4D plans

Innovating in ICT for Human Development
John Dryden, Ex-Deputy Director Science, Technology and Industry. OECD

Main learnings from the OECD in the field of ICT4D:

OECD’s findings on the benefits of ICTs do not carry over easily to developiong countries.

• Global initiatives in “ICT4D” have been long on discussion and short on action
• ICT mainstreaming is indispensible to achieveing MDGs
• ICT mainstreaming is implicit rather than explicit in the push for “aid effectiveness”
• The conjuncture is very poor so current prospects do not appear good but there are a few developments that create opportunities both for development co-operation and for ICTs to enhance its quality and effectiveness

ICT in Development Cooperation institutions vs. ICT4D

ICTs in development cooperation

• ICT aids management and delivery of development assistance
• ICT “mainstreamed” as part of development assistance: ICTs integrated on what institutions “deliver”

ICT4D

• All of the above, plus ICT productgion and use to achieve economic growth, development and social welfare.

The Seoul Declaration, 2008

• Facilitate the convergence of digital networks, devices and services
• Foster creativity in development, use and application of the Internet
• Strengthen confidence and security
• Ensure the Internet Economy is truly global

For developing countries, this means

• more access to Internet and related ICTs
• competition
• use by all communities: local content and language, inclusion
• energy efficiency

Against the Solow Paradox: there is now evidence on the economic impacts of ICTs:

• macro-economic evidence on the role of ICT investment in capital deepening
• sectoral analysis showing the contribution of (a) ICT-producing sectors and (b) ICT-using sectors to productivity growth
• detailed firm-level analysis demonstrating the wide-ranging impacts of ICTs in productivity

Problems to implant ICTs in developing countries:

• Barriers of entry and different people needs
• The relationship between ICT investments and economic growth in OECD countries is complex and uncertain,highly dependent on complementary factors, many of which less apparent in developing countries: power supply, maintenance, skills and literacy, the degree to which society is networked, the extent to which its economy is reliant on services, etc.

The Genoa Plan of Action

• development of national e-strategies
• improve connectivity, increase access, lower costs
• enhance human capacity development, knowledge creation and sharing
• Foster enterprise, jobs and entrepreneurship

Mainstreaming ICTs

UN ICT Task Force Mainstreaming ICTs for the achievement of the MDGs: ICTs as an “enabler” of development, not a production sector

ICTs should be able to enable donnor coordination: need analysis, non-duplication of efforts and projects, etc.

Debate

Caroline Figueres: is effectiveness only top-down? aren’t we seeing bottom-up effectiveness? A: Yes, of course.

Innovating in the Use of ICT for Human Development: the Key in the Transition to a New Phase in ICT4D
Najat Rochdi, Deputy Director in charge of Policy, Communication and Operation at the UNDP Liaison Office in Geneva

The goal: achieve the Millennium Development Goals. Can we do it the proper way?

What’s the connection between ICTs and poverty alleviation? What does it really mean ICT4D?

And it’s not about the poorest ones only: the crisis that began in 2008 — and it’s absolutely blasting in 2009 — is also about how ICTs can contribute to alleviate its effects. Access should be able to enable people to progress. But access is unevenly distributed.

The private sector has lead innovations in the ICT field. The development sector should also be reached by such innovation processes: new ideas and new applications of old ideas. We need to leverage knowledge. We have to shape the changes, not be shaped by the changes.

A new digital aid is coming, based on the citizen, on the individual, empowered by the web 2.0 and the upcoming web 3.0.

Web 2.0, added to text messaging, is opening a new landscape of participation and democracy. The web 2.0 and mobile technologies do not only increase development by empowerment, but also create new markets that make it sustainable.

Sharing is the key to ICT4D success: share methodologies and instruments, best practices, research, data, etc.

But there’s urgency in pursuing these goals and putting hands to work in ICT4D related issues. And commitment is needed too. The resources, the human capital, the technology… everything is out there, but we need to bring it to the ones that need it, and we need to do it with a broad political support.

Take hold of the future or the future will take hold of you.

Debate

Q: how do we know we’re really addressing the real needs? A: It’s a collective responsibility. We have to abandon the idea that development agencies and organizations know everything, and that there’s so much to learn from local communities, that we have to engage them in the making of the projects.

Caroline Figueres: Participation and communication is already happening on the field. The problem is that is not being known elsewhere. We have to make it sure everything is well known.

Q: What happens when there’s no infrastructure? A: Mobile technologies seem to be helping in the infrastructures issue. On the other hand, it’s important to catalyse the demand, so that the private sector sees there’s a niche, a need to be covered that can report benefits. A holistic, multi-stakeholder approach is what has to be solved beforehand.

Q: Why is there not an international political commitment to apply the same energies to poverty alleviation than to the financial crisis? A:

Manuel Acevedo: Next step? A: We need scalable initiatives. To do so, from the beginning a quantitative approach has to be made so that sustainability can be (sort of) calculated and know that there is a potentially high probability of success. We do not use to document projects, to see whether we can share outcomes and learnings, specially methodologies. We have to end up with experimentation, and go to the field scientifically prepared. We have to innovate (i.e. apply tested things), do not experiment.

Anriette Esterhuysen: (re: Caroline Figueres) it’s not already happening. There is no continuity, hence there is no scalability. On the other hand, there’s lack of capacity and ability to communicate knowledge. And, in this time of crisis, what will happen to ICT4D projects and institutions? A: ICT4D is not marketing issue you can cut down to reduce costs. Is a matter of international survival, so commitment will (hopefully) stand. The private sector is playing a most important role in developing countries and is there to stay, it’s boosting and changing a mindset change.