|
As
the UN-convened World Summit on the Information Society ends, there are still
too many pilots hovering around, looking for landing space.
No,
they are not trying to bring in late arriving summiteers to the Tunisian
capital, which has hosted thousands to talk about the future of our information
society and networked world.
In
fact, it is uncertain when—or whether—some of these pilots will ever touch
the ground. For they are the creations of development donors or well-meaning
civil society groups, many completely detached from the real world.
Are
Pilot Projects Helping Development?
Thousands
of ‘pilot projects’ have been seeded all over the developing world during
the past few years to find out if information and communications technologies (ICTs)
can foster development. Among these are attempts to put computers in
underprivileged schools, provide internet access to the poor, or bring
‘community radio’ to villages.
The
development community, ever anxious to coin more jargon and acronyms, now has a
collective name for these efforts: ICT4D (ICT for development).
Of
course, there is nothing wrong in trying out new ways of improving lives and
livelihoods. Every possible tool must be employed in the global battle against
poverty. If technologies can offer part of the solution, we should indeed
welcome it.
But
the enormous development challenges we face, captured in recent years by the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), are not going to benefit from what I call
‘forever-pilots’: projects that remain externally supported for years or
decades, and never seem to stand on their own.
It
is also strange how the generic ideas behind these pilots are not imitated, in a
world that is quick to emulate—even pirate or plagiarize—good ideas.
Here
in Tunis, where a massive ICT4D exhibition ran parallel to the official,
inter-governmental meeting, project proponents from UN agencies, civil society
and the private sector have spent much time, effort and money in promoting their
pet pilots.
Phrases
like ‘up-scaling’ and ‘ensuring sustainability’ have been tossed about
over endless cups of coffee. But these are precisely what the forever-pilots
fail to accomplish.
One
much hyped project comes from my own country, Sri Lanka: the Kotmale Internet
radio project. Established in 1999, it used a “community radio” service, a
rural broadcast from the fully state-owned radio network, to bring the World
Wide Web slightly closer to its listeners.
Surfing
the web was not a practical option in the Kotmale valley, some 250 km (155.3
mi.) away from the capital. So a daily two-hour interactive radio program
enabled listeners to request (by live telephone or by post) information on any
topic. Radio presenters sourced it from various websites and summarized on air
in the local language, Sinhala.
This
helped to overcome the twin problems of Internet access and English proficiency.
For a while, the station also provided free Internet access at two public
libraries and at the station itself. The capital and running costs were covered
by donors.
The
project appealed to communications researchers and journalists all in search of
a “good story”. Never mind the project was government-driven, and rarely
provided information of economic or social value. In reality, the community had
no say in either management or content development. Nestled in the scenic
Kotmale valley, the pilot project had all the ‘sexy’ trappings for the
development community.
But
when the donors finally wearied of funding, everything came to a standstill.
Amazingly, however, the project lives on in development textbooks and websites,
and is still cited widely as a South Asian ‘success’.
If
it was such a success, why didn’t it spawn similar efforts in Sri Lanka or
elsewhere? The rural and urban information needs are vast and remain unmet.
Joining
Kotmale are a large number of other ‘small-is-beautiful’ ICT4D initiatives
across Africa, Asia Pacific and Latin America. The tele-centre fever that is
currently sweeping the developing world is only the latest wave. Tax payers in
the North keep these numerous projects on life support, believing the hype that
it really helps the poor.
Fighting
Illusions
If
some people want to believe in myths, that’s a personal choice. But projects
like Kotmale do great harm by distracting funding agencies, distorting
investment priorities and creating an illusion of accomplishment. Murali
Shanmugavelan, a researcher with Panos London, calls these initiatives ‘donor
mistresses’.
I
see them as ‘picture postcard opportunities’ for roving development workers.
There is a seductive allure in images of school children playing with a
computer, a Buddhist monk using a mobile phone, or tribal people trying out a
palm-top. They lull us into believing that we are fixing the world’s ills with
geeky gadgets.
Ten
years after the Internet went public and a dozen years into mobile telephony,
some continued to advocate more pilots in Tunis. We were told that pilots would
first test the ground, assess the limits of the possible, or ‘demonstrate’ a
concept before rolling it out.
With
only 10 years left to meet the globally agreed development targets of MDGs, how
much longer can we keep studying problems or piloting at the fringes?
Investing
disproportionately and endlessly in scattered ‘pilots’ will not bridge the
digital divide or reduce global poverty. These pilots, and their jet setting
proponents, look at problems from 30,000 feet above the ground, and create small
islands of prosperity amidst much deprivation. They should be irrigating the
whole vast desert, not keep watering the few donor-pampered oases.
Development
donors looking for a bigger bang for their increasingly limited buck should put
more money in regulatory and structural reforms that have tangible downstream
returns. For example, telecom reform in Sri Lanka during the 1990s brought
mobile phones within reach of most people. When they were first introduced 15
years ago, mobiles were over-priced and over-rated. Today, they make up over
half of the country’s 2.5 million phone connections, and have revolutionized
how people work and conduct business.
Two
years ago, as part of a nine-country Asia Pacific study on how ICTs are
influencing human development, I was desperately looking for examples of any
communications technology that has directly benefited the poor. The
market-driven mobile phone phenomenon stood out amidst many donor-driven
‘pilot’ projects that had either collapsed or never delivered the promise.
Investing
To Make a Difference
These
misdirected pilots only give ICTs a bad name. Yet many of these technologies
hold untapped potential to make good development better. When applied correctly,
ICTs—from phones, radio and television to computers and internet—can also
liberate millions of people from ignorance, ill-health and unemployment. I
didn’t hear that message loud and clear in Tunis. Or maybe it was lost in the
self-congratulatory cacophony.
Every
big UN summit generates its share of hype, and WSIS has been no exception. Tunis
brought back memories from three years ago, when I attended the World Summit on
Sustainable Development. Held at the other end of the African continent, in
Johannesburg, South Africa, it had a similar deluge of pilots. The richest
square mile of Africa, where that Summit was held, probably held the world’s
highest concentration of development hype and rhetoric for a few days. It will
be interesting to go back and see how many of those pilot projects, all trying
to save the planet, have been able to save themselves.
The
Tunis Kram Centre, venue of WSIS, must have had the highest concentration of
laptops and mobile phones in Africa for the week. It was also drowning in
everything e- (electronic) from e-readiness studies to e-development plans, and
from e-commerce strategies to e-waste management plans, there was a downpour of
it everywhere.
‘Forever
pilots’ were lurking among all this, looking for landing pads. They would
happily settle for a few sympathetic listeners, or some more funding to keep
them going for as long as they can.
If
governments, UN agencies and donors don’t move on from this basic level and
begin investing in what really makes a difference, it’s not the pilots who
will soon crash land.
It
will be all of us.
*
Nalaka Gunawardene is Director of the non-profit media organization TVE
Asia Pacific (www.tveap.org), and a commentator on
ICTs and development. The views expressed in this essay are entirely his own.
Your e-mails will be forwarded to him by contacting the editor at: ScienceTech@islam-online.net
|