Ethan Zuckerman gave the keynote speech on the final day of the Web2forDev conference, held at FAO in Rome, 24^th-27^th September 2007. Ethan is the co-founder of Global Voices, the world’s largest aggregator of media in the South. The Global Voices Forum brings together bloggers from around the globe.

Here are some quotes from that speech today:

Zuckerman on our new interest in old technology:

‘Email preceded the Internet… blogs are ten years old, and Wikis have been around since 1995… If most of this stuff is twenty years old, why are we talking about it now? Because it’s not about the tools, it’s about the people.’

‘The reason that it matters now is that we are experiencing a seismic shift – it’s about who can be brought together with these tools.’

Zuckerman on mobile phones:

‘When we think about participatory web, it’s not about laptops and high bandwidth… it’s about mobile phones. There are 3 billion handsets worldwide, and its estimated 80-90% of people in the developing world can access a mobile phone if they need to. This is a level of penetration of technology that changes the rules of the game. We need to broaden our thinking beyond the Web.’

‘For example, Interactive Radio for Justice gives people, particularly women, the opportunity to send questions via SMS to very powerful people. No, it’s not Flickr; no, it doesn’t have tags, but it’s back-and-forth participatory, it’s appropriate to the people it’s trying to reach.’

Zuckerman on Wikipedia:

‘Get smart about Wikipedia. It’s the ninth most popular site in the entire world. This it literally the biggest bang for the buck you can do.’

Zuckerman on why you should blog:
‘Think about who you’re trying to reach and how… if someone just signs a petition and says, “this is important to me”, it’s not enough. We’re looking for participation here… This is the reason to blog: links. Blogs are full of links and Google loves links – the more links you have, the higher up the search engine results you’ll appear. It makes sense to look at this as an eco-system approach. You have to link to figure out how to participate.’

Participatory Web for Development is circling the point in a spiral formation of Web 2fordev. This was noted in a key note address delivered by Association for Progressive Communications (APC) Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director at the opening of the conference on Web2fordev at the Food Agriculture Organisation (FAO) in Rome, Italy which started today and will end on September 28.

She also observed that mainstreaming of Information Communication Technologies (ICTs) in development was a victory for many of the people who have embraced technology but as with gender mainstreaming, there was a risk that it can be mainstreamed to the extent of being marginalised.

Anriette observed that basic challenges remain in the words of one of the contributors to the Web2fordev d-group discussion that took place before the conference: “As soon as a few rural communities begin understanding the basics of the internet and world wide web, a new tools box with new knowledge emerge. It’s like running a race in which there is no finishing line. If you are a participant in this you can’t help but feeling a sense of fatigue,” Charles Dhewa wrote.

She noticed that in her experience working with online databases and email systems in the late 80s the term ICT4D did not exist. APC, which emerged at the same time, called itself a ‘network’, supporting ‘global computer communications for environment, human rights, development and peace’

She added that even the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Networking Programme, which, like APC, and a partnership built early pre-public internet e-mail networks for Universities and development NGOs did not use the term.

She said that the term was associated with the telecom boom of the 1990s, the telecom policy reform process: privatisation, liberalisation, opening of markets to international operators.

“It was this time that various ‘high-level’ initiatives and new buzz-words emerged… the Digital Opportunities Task Force, the United Nations Information Communication Technologies (UN ICT) Task Force, and, the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS),” Anriette said.

She however noticed that there were Pros and Cons to people’s approach to technology. The tendency to technology-driven hype, notions of “leap-frogging over development challenges.”

She explained that this often diverted attention from investment in more traditional and not mutually exclusive information and communications infrastructure such as libraries, community media, and the people and skills needed to maintain such infrastructure.

She observed that this was in many ways ‘disconnected’ from development. ICT4D experts rarely had experience in development work and many development people were skeptical, even suspicious, of ICT4D efforts.

On the Prons, Anriette says it put the lack of access and infrastructure on the development agenda, and the growing gap between those with access to ICTs and those without and also raised awareness of how not addressing this gap could deepen existing social and economic divides as more and more transactions, decisions took place.

She also noticed that it focused attention on the need for ICT skills and capacity development, but… there was a hidden ‘con’ in this observing the puritanical approach.

“The standard ICT4D approach to capacity building in the use of ICTs in developing countries was quite puritanical,” she said. This she explains was not surprising. “Development is serious work, poverty is real, people’s lives and livelihoods are at risk but, it produced an approach to ICT appropriation and skill development which unintentionally contributed to maintaining the digital divide.”

Anritte explained that for many people from the developing countries, in places like South Africa, Kenya, Ghana with relatively good access, their first introductions to ICTs was through some very ambitious ICT4D project, where, with limited resources and access they had to demonstrate the ‘impact of ICTs on poverty alleviation’. Every project was a pilot, with an uncertain future. Not exactly an environment that was conducive to creative learning.

In contrast, she said people in the developed World appropriated ICTs in more ‘selfish’ ways. Personal, private e-mail, Computer games and in a few years, online shopping and dating, music and TV downloads. She observed that these online actions were still not possible for many people in the developing world because even there is access, there is lack of bandwidth.

But, in the developed world children and teenagers had the opportunity and freedom to explore technology in ways that produced a generation of creative geeks; the geeks behind the development of Web 2.0 and social networking platforms.

Today she noticed that the hype is over following increased access has increased, and new solutions are emerging: mobile phones as handheld internet devices, fuel cells, more effective solar technology, and computers that consume less energy.

She added that there has been a shift away from approaching at ICT4D as a stand alone sector and that a more mature approach has evolved, with the use of ICTs being integrated into development work e.g. in the agricultural sector. “This event, the stories and experience that you will share, will illustrate this.”

By Brenda Zulu

Hey Folks. Here are some interesting information and discussions that are going on in the English web2fordev Dgroup which should not be held back from the broader audience. Have some insides into web 2.0 and low bandwidth! Cheers Anja.

Steve Cisler:

I’m running an online project called KnowledeX whose members include social entrepreneurs around the world. It runs on JotSpot a full-featured wiki now owned by Google. I have a number of participants in Africa who have some difficulty connecting. I think the problems that arise are not just due to local low bandwidth (or electricity problems) but the number of hops from the user in Northern Nigeria and the server in California. He reported a two hour wait to get on, but later it dropped to a mere then minutes–more than most of us would wait, I think. If there is a lot of negotiation between the user and the site, common to apps written in Ajax, I think that the online experience will be frustrating for some. This may limit the usefulness of some of the more promising apps. And that does not include large files of video or static images, both of which can be a barrier.

Tobias Eigen:

Hi Steve. [..] I agree very much with your assessment, and really from my point of view the answer is the same as it has always been. When developing Internet tools and services for people in “low-bandwidth countries” it is important to offer a range of options for participating that include offline tools and “low bandwidth” access to content. If we do, in the end everyone will benefit - even those in rich countries with always on internet connections.

Web 2.0 encourages developers and providers of services to rely on “web applications” and to create “rich internet applications” using AJAX etc. It’s great to use java to avoid making people install software on their computers in order to participate - and to make it easier to upgrade applications iteratively. Here’s a good link to Youtube video explaining the technical background.

This is all well and good, but in the process we shouldn’t forget those that need the service and don’t have fast or reliable internet connections, and we shouldn’t assume that we all will always have access to the Internet. [..] The answers for providing many options for participating in Web 2.0 sites seem to be in RSS feeds and “open APIs”. Feeds allow us to subscribe to websites via a number of means including email and newsreaders, which both can be downloaded using offline tools. [..]

“Low bandwidth” pages are also facilitated by Web 2.0, and are being rapidly developed mainly because people in rich countries want to access the same information on their mobile phones. Part of the opportunity of web2fordev I think will be to inquire into the barriers that people (and in particular civil society organizations) in low bandwidth countries still face to making the most of their limited Internet connectivity, and to investigate how they can harness Web 2.0 technology to overcome those barriers.

If you have read this far, then you might be interested in learning more about Kabissa’s “African Web 2.0 Ambassadors” proposal which we pitched at the Netsquared conference last month.

Steve Cisler:

Tobias, Many thanks for a very informative post. That explained a lot and makes it seem like the barriers are not as great as I had imagined, though I have had an experience with a whiteboard/conferencing system called ‘elluminate’ where the participant in Ecuador had to spend a long time just downloading the java file over a slow line but was able to make use of the advanced features once installed.

Tobias Eigen:

Hi Steve. [..] Strictly speaking, though, the most powerful benefits of Web 2.0 for our purposes seem to be more in asynchronous communications - where people communicate and collaborate by posting content to websites and are reading it and using it in creative ways. They can do this on their own time and in a combination of online/offline strategies.
Synchronous communications with tools like elluminate, skype, text messaging, SMS, VOIP etc etc are a different beast altogether and the frustrations of low bandwidth are more painfully apparent to everyone involved!
However sometimes they do seem to be merging into Web 2.0, resulting in meaningful opportunities. Take for example the recent integration of Skype and Evoca.

Recently I met Toni Eliasz from Ungana-Afrika in Pretoria. We discussed over web2.0 in the context of development. His thoughts were interesting on that of the potential and challenges of the collaborative web, given his experiences in South Africa and the region. Ungana is a NGO which devotes its work to find solutions for the capacity crisis.

A ‘capacity crisis’ is a mild expression to describe the skill levels and understanding of information and communications technologies (ICTs) within non-profits and small-to-medium enterprises in Africa. It will take a decade before the young, technologically literate generation can address these challenges.”

No surprise Toni highlighted first, challenges regarding web2.0 for rural development:

• The general problems of connectivity, such as the lack or high price for access. For example, a 3 GB ADSL connection costs up to a hundred dollars in South Africa, which is 15 times the price compared to Germany.
• Web2.0 requires often bandwidth or instant access for videos, podcasts or tools such as google docs.
• Before investing time and resources into web2.0, there is a question to be answered, ‘How do these tools benefit local communities and how can they contribute to development?’
• The computer and its appliances are complex and often need to be demystified for beginners, and like everywhere else, training is needed and that can also take quite some time.
• To use web2.0 tools such as wiki, blogs etc., requires well written documentation and training.
• The lack of technical expertise, which is often required, is currently very expensive and very limited outside of urban areas.
• Like many other ICT4D projects, the question for sustainability is important and yet not proven for concepts based on these new tools.

For Toni many challenges have to be overcome first before web2.0 can be adapted in rural communities or small organizations. I stated that there are examples such as the the Nata Village Blog, which shows how communities communicate their messages and interact with a worldwide audience. However, we both agreed, that it is the know-how, which at this stage it is mostly limited to intermediate organizations, who nevertheless have already a real benefit from the opportunities to interact and collaborate over the web. Ungana is on the APC network and will be sharing documented work experiences and toolkits, especially from their eRider project, to local technology service providers and networks to make quality support and capacity-building programs a reality.

We both agreed, in terms of connectivity, that the mobile phone is very promising. Whereas widely distributed and affordable Internet access will still take many years to arrive in Africa, first, interesting applications to link the mobile phone and web have to be offered. In South Africa for example Mixit is a big web driven mobile chatting portal. It got so far over 4 million subscribers. Toni concluded that ideas and its implementation have to be localized. As an example, two weeks ago a workshop in Kenya launched the development of a mobile advocacy toolkit, which is focusing on the needs of the organizations from the developing world. Homegrown approaches, which emphasizes the
sustainable need, are decisive.

As part of a research conducted by GINKS (www.ginks.org) in Ghana, a web-based tool (Ekumfi Atakwaa Information Kiosk) was developed to stream videos on Agricultural practices online for women farmers in a small community in the Central Region of Ghana called Ekumfi Atakwaa. These women have very little or no formal education, and are mostly peasant farmers. As part of the research project, an information center was set up at the village. This center has about 10 networked computers with an installed VSAT for internet connection. The software is currently streaming the video on the LAN. It would have been interesting having it on the internet for it to benefit more people but the general connectivity issue………….. We tried it in the initial stages but it took almost forever to upload the videos unto the server (These were very big video files). Althouth we installed a VSAT for the center and we are paying for a 128 kbps (shared) bandwidth, the speeds are just too bad. (General Service Conditions by ISPs in the developing world).

It will be interesting to use Web 2.0 tools to capture these videos for a wider dissemination. Let me confess that we have not tried that yet. My concern however is still the problem of the usefulness of online content for the rural folk. Although we have trained these women to use the tool themselves, and are using it effectively, they are most impatient with the loading time (20 - 30 sec). They prefer to play the videos on a DVD player because that one plays almost instantly. I wonder if they will be patient enough to wait for the long download times associated with links in out part of the world. One sometimes have to click the refresh button a number of times to get a full download.

As I said earlier, I have had just a little experience with the Web 2.0 tools, but I am aware of its power. What I will like to people to devote some efforts to, in its development is the issue of low bandwidths in developing countries. There are arguements that the target is for Web 2.0 is not “a direct access of the poor to the new technology“. I agree with the assertion that it should be seen as a framework of the service landscape in rural areas in general. My concern once again is that these service providers and informediaries, like myself, who will access these tools for the benefit of the rural poor themselves have to contend with the low bandwidths. It is therefore my opinion that these tools are developed such that they are accessible to us, “The World’s Poor”, it terms of its use of resources like bandwidth and computer resources. My understanding of the world’s poor is not the uneducated, simple, rural people but people like us who work as intermediaries, and informadiaries, trying to make life a little confortable for our unfortunate brothers and sisters “down there“. I believe sincerely that where all have failed, ICT has the capacity to save them.

Cheers
Eddie