Crossposted from crisscrossed.net

Thanks to Tom L. and Peter Ballantayne for their very interesting remarks on my post “an overview of blogging for development.” Peter argued that there are a lot different blogs in development aid or international cooperation out there and “must be loads more, just not very visible.” And Tom had a great point:

What’s probably as important as noting the existence of the blogs themselves is tracking the development of the aid-development blogosphere, examining the connections (strength, regularity, theme) between blogs and seeing if there are purposive and deliberate communities building out there. Not many groups are actually taking aggregation a step further and building connections and seeking to create value to the profession from the new-found willingness to share online.

I agree with Peter that there is probably much more of it out there, but I criticize that in most cases it is not linked and therefore has no networks. And as Tom rightly points out, there is little knowledge sharing and discourse between different bloggers, different organizations. I give you three examples how different the approaches are and what is behind them. I analyzed all three blogs with technorati.com and aiderss.com to find out about their network and discussions.

Blog World Hunger
This blog is from the International Food Policy Research Institute. They also presented their web2.0 approach on the web2fordev conference. They have been experimenting with blogs internally for knowledge sharing for already some years. This internal blogging seemed to me quite vibrant since it involves a lot of staff. However, when you look at the external blog, you have a complete contrast. Six posts and seven comments in 2007. I wonder why they even use a blog and not a normal website. In Technorati, it has 9 blog reactions in 2007 (other blogs linking to it), and in del.icio.us it has been bookmarked only one time (from me!).
Certainly not a blog to network nor discuss the issue of world hunger with a broader community. For example it does not link to any other blog. It seems to be a place to just drop various documents and articles.

The following two blogs are very different in which one is grassroot driven and the other from the World Bank.

William Kamkwamba’s Malawi Windmill Blog
This is a blog about William Kamkwamba, the 19-year-old self-taught engineer who built a windmill power system for his family’s home in Malawi. His story was broadcasted at the TEDGlobal 2007 in Tanzania. (Check out all the other great presentations). His blog, which started back in June, got over 222 blog reactions according to Technorati. It has been commented 52 times and it has been bookmarked 48 times in del.icio.us. No doubt that that blog is a great storyteller and invites to read and interact. It also clearly is meant to support William in his eduction. Furthermore, it has been nicely embedded into the wider blogosphere and the result is remarkable. It has big attention.

End poverty in South Asia
This is a blog run by the Shanta Devarajan, the Chief Economist of the South Asia Region at the World Bank. His statement “End poverty in one generation. It can be done in one generation” makes the goal clear. It is quite an offensive approach for an organization such as the world bank in my opinion. This has triggered already 49 comments two 12 posts since it started in September, and it has aroused over 20 blog reactions so far. Similar to William’s blog and in contrast to the world hunger blog, it gives a personal perspective, and evokes feedback. However, I am curious to see how an organization such as the world bank will keep such an open discourse and how it can contribute:

This is why I am starting this blog. To contribute to the debate (sometimes, to start one) with ideas, analysis and evidence so that South Asians—and people who care about South Asia—can have a dialogue on these critically important issues, so that together we can end poverty in South Asia. (Shanta Devarajan)

In conclusion, I think blogs are used in more and more different ways. However, blogs are often not part of networks nor refer to each other. The communication is a one way street or the discourse is not happening in a social network of blogs. And interestingly there is still a wide gap between the many piles of documents for development themes and the few pioneers tempting to have a two way conversation about development.

“We need to come up with a description of what is understood by Web2forDev.” This comment was placed on the Democracy Board – an area outside the main Red Room where conference goers can write suggestions, make comments, share feelings and contribute ideas. The person who posted this particular suggestion was only putting on paper what many people outside the conference halls, in the coffee rooms and around the canteen have been asking themselves, and each other, over these past few days: just what is this Web2forDev thing?In true democratic style the people were given a voice and this is what a few conference citizens had to say:“To me Web 2.0 is a great tool for advocacy and promoting our struggle.”

Kado Muir of the Ngalia people in Western Australia “Web 2.0 is basically some of the newer tools that we’ve had to adapt to using to try and bring back the language. It’s using the internet and using computers as best we can to extend the voice out to the community and people who really need it.”

Tim Kulchyski, Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group,
Canada“It means you can communicate with each other and exchange information. It’s not spreading information it’s sharing it. That’s why I’m here.”

Wilma Roem, ILEA, the
Netherlands “I see it as a chance to bring agricultural researchers together to work on a problem and to share their experiences and possibly even to disseminate ideas and practices that could better serve the farmers of the world.”

Zaid Abdul-Hadi, head of Computer and Biometric Services Unit of ICARDA, Syria “Web 2.0 gives our experts a space to collaborate and share resources and blogs provide a good feedback mechanism for us, although the question remains for those who cannot yet access them. The other dimension is content development. This is something I’m very passionate about. I’m really interested to see how we can use these tools to develop relevant local content.”

Rachael Kadama,
I-Network, Uganda “I believe it’s been part of a larger cultural shift from people being consumers to being active participants. It’s about changing the experience of how we interact with the information we consume.”

Bryan Cheung, chief executive officer of Liferay, USA “For me it means being able to communicate with the extension officers in all the countries and how they would be able to send and upload information, in that way we both learn from each other.”

Ajnu Mango, Information officer, at the Land Resources division of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Fiji “It’s more interactive. Web 1.0 was static information, administered by someone else but web 2.0 allows users to interact with others to share information.”

Makelesi Gonelevi, information officer, at the Land Resources Division of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Fiji There are certainly several common themes – sharing, interacting, communicating – but it seems to be difficult to come up with a single definition. And maybe that’s the point. Maybe that’s even the great strength of Web 2.0. It means different things to different people, and that’s how I would like to describe it. It’s about adapting the internet and making it work for you. It’s about giving information you think others can use and taking only the information you need. And for me, personally, it’s this ability that makes web 2.0 perfect for development.

At the Web2forDev conference, everyone has been saying that it’s not about the technology – it’s about the people. It’s about what people can do with the technology – and what ‘mash-ups’ of tools and approaches are appropriate and really working.

I came to this conference to find people who are really doing participatory web – not just using the technology, but facilitating real empowerment and positive change. Our plan at IIED is to co-publish with CTA a special issue of the Participatory Learning and Action series on participatory web for development – so I needed to find real examples.

Well, yesterday I was lucky enough to see Ednah Karamagi give her presentation, Enhancing Knowledge Sharing in the Rural Community through Adoption of Web 2.0 tools.  

I felt like I had found a magic bean.  Ednah works for a Ugandan NGO, Busoga Rural Open Source & Development (BROSDI). It’s a not-for-profit organisation that works with government and civil society in improving rural livelihoods. Within BROSDI is a project called Collecting and Exchanging of Local Agriculture Content (CELAC).                       

Both BROSDI and CELAC project make extensive use of Web 2.0 approaches. But it’s a real combination of Web 2.0 and grassroots participation. For example, CELAC is almost entirely populated with locally generated content. As Ednah says, ‘We are sharing information from our great grandfathers that we are losing in our generation.’  

Essentially, it’s a great combination of the online – Blogs, Google Maps, Wikis, online documentation, chatrooms – and the offline – a weekly mobile phone SMS farmers’ information service, village knowledge brokers, monthly farmer forum meetings, village meetings, radio, and hard copy documentation. They are even developing an e-learning tool for primary school children. 

Ednah is candid about the challenges they face. ‘The Internet is expensive, and needs power,’ she says. ‘It’s a problem in a country where access to electricity is intermittent.’ There is also the issue that people need to change their attitudes towards sharing information, rather than ‘hoarding’ it. And sometimes the technology doesn’t work – and is abandoned. ‘We did have a Wiki,’ Ednah says. ‘But the staff rejected it, as it was too complicated. But we plan to have a new Wiki for developing training material so that we can all comment and add to it.’ 

Ednah was a real inspiration. There was a long list of real life examples – not just the different technologies – but how the technology has made a real, positive change to people’s lives. My favourite was Cissy and her turkey farm. Ednah told us, ‘She learnt how to rear turkeys on SMS!’

This morning, I overheard Dr Hansjorg Neun of CTA talking to Ednah Karamagi. He asked Ednah, ‘Why do you think you have been so successful?’

Ednah’s reply was, ‘You have to use as many methods as you can to reach your community.’

Well, BROSDI are doing that in style. Let’s hope they continue to get the support they need to keep this pioneering organisation going from strength to strength.    

Report back on: Agric Market Information Systems 2.0: Making it private, profitable and peer2peer – a presentation by Mark Davies, Tradenet.biz

 ‘Why source your maize from many small local producers in Africa, when with just one phone call it can all be shipped from Argentina?’ 

OK: I’ve paraphrased Mark Davies here. But I think it sums up two things: why Tradenet.biz was needed – and what it is beginning to change.  

Farmers need prices in order to compete in the open market. Product developer Davies realised that he could meet a real need. ‘Market information is complicated and frustrating – it’s extremely complex data,’ Davies says. ‘I realised that here was a great business opportunity to work in an area that I thought was interesting.’

A couple of years ago, he began working on Tradenet.biz, an information portal for African agricultural markets. Paying, registered users input and update agricultural market information into an online customised database: off-lorry prices, farm gate prices, market place prices, wholesale prices. In turn, users can request information relevant to them, which is then sent out to them in a text message.

‘These are real-time SMS uploads from the markets,’ explains Mark. And it means that the information is accessed by mobile phone – and not through an unreliable and costly Internet connection. 

TradeNet.biz is currently operating in 13 African countries. There are 439 commodities online. So far, there have been 650,000 price uploads. There are more than 5,000 registered users.

But the real evolution came when TradeNet.biz moved from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 based on an innovative peer2peer process.

‘The first version was a classic, top-down and centrally managed model,’ Davies says. ‘Was the data really accurate or relevant? What we needed to understand was the market itself, not just the NGOs’ needs.’ 

Davies realised that the people with the best data were the buyers, the sellers, and the producers – those in the market place themselves. ‘We needed to refocus,’ he says. ‘We had to get the participants to upload this data themselves.’

One important feature of TradeNet is that it’s not all virtual. A key factor in its success has been the establishment of permanent TradeNet.biz kiosks in market places. These kiosks act as information points – and the kiosk workers can also act as translators, greatly reducing the problem of the language barrier. In future, Davies says, these kiosks could create real opportunities for entrepreneurs, opening new kiosk franchises in villages. 

Despite initial reluctance, people are really beginning to see the value of what TradeNet has to offer. ‘It’s a powerful analytical tool,’ Davies says. ‘For the first time, we are able to get views of markets across countries, and we can begin to see the price differentials. But we’re really just beginning – we’re only three years into a five-year research and development phase.’  

There is anecdotal evidence that it’s working. Davies mentions that one trader in Nigeria commented:

‘You have turned our local market into an international market.’

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

(cross posting from internet.artizans blog)

Shaking the hype out of Web 2.0

A big shout out to the organisers of the Web2forDev conference in Rome. They’re shaking the hype out of web 2.0 and wrestling it in to relevance for the world’s poorest and most marginalised.

Connectivity, Innovation, Censorship

If I’d had a chance to contribute to the conference, I’d have stepped back from the real issue of rural connectivity and looked at the less examined issues of innovation and censorship - the good and bad futures for the social web in the developing world.

The dark side of web 2.0

The bad news first - as soon as social media starts to make a real social difference it will be subject to some form of repression by those who favour the status quo. The downside for web 2.0 is that, under the wrong circumstances, its social networking side could become an engine for privacy invasion and surveillance. We must learn from places where social media survives and thrives in the face of corruption, military might, and the intimidation of opponents. Embedding human rights in social media requires eCampaigning for Internet Freedom.

Innovation - the disruptive fruit of participation

The real powerhouse of web 2.0 for dev will be innovation, the disruptive fruit of all architectures of participation. Charlie Leadbeater’s book We-think starts with the example of the Barefoot College before going on to show how examples like Wikipedia are the herald of a new era of mass collaborative innovation. His wide global analysis of the new era mashes silicon valley with social innovation - as he says about a peer-to-peer AIDS support network “Low-cost, self-organising networks might be the height of organisational fashion on the US west cost but they are a matter of life-and-death in places like Mbuya Parish, Kampala“.

Web2forDev HowTo

So where do we find guiding values for the development potential of web2.0? If I’d been at the web2fordev conference I’d have plagiarised the Res Publica Report ‘Prospects for e-Advocacy in the Global South’ and proposed this set:

• Work within Movements: Working within a movement means that all the talent of the various members can be brought to bear in creating solutions and the lines of communications within the network can be used to quickly disseminate new methods.
• Worship the Power of the Network: Through networks we aggregate our knowledge, amassing insight that is greater than the sum of its parts.
• Bring Technologists and Advocates Together: Innovative solutions emerge when technologists collaborate with advocates, working on a specific campaign problem or network goal.
• Build Innovation Systems: Rather than think of innovations as pieces of hardware or even creative ideas, it is better to think in terms of “innovation systems,” combinations of hardware, social structures, and economic models that solve social problems.
• Promote Independence not Dependence: Seek to empower, and explicitly address sustainability.
• Engage with Youth: In almost all societies, young people are most likely to adopt new ICT methods. They are more familiar with ICT because it has been present for most of their lives.
• Cultivate the Fringe: The boldest new ideas often come from far outside the
  mainstream.

I applaud the organisers and participants at the web2fordev conference for their global fusion of social media and social impact. The scale of that impact will depend on how well mass creativity can challenge the status quo. As the APC’s Anriette Esterhuysen says “The key is NOT to think of social networking tools (or Web 2.0) as a completely new set of tools/applications. … but as representing significant changes to power structures that characterise the creation and use of content on the internet“.

Interview with Jon Corbett, Steering Committee, Web2forDev Conference, Rome, 25th September 2007

On my second day at the conference venue here at FAO in Rome, I feel that I am delving a little deeper into how – and whether – Web 2.0 is actually participatory. But I still want to investigate this further: exactly how are the Web 2.0 community of practice integrating participatory approaches to development with ‘participatory’ web?

I wanted to get to grips with some comments I had heard about Web 2.0 since I had arrived in Rome. First, I wanted I wanted to question Steering Committee member Jon Corbett about what the differences are between ICTs (Information and Communication Technologies) and Web 2.0, with its plethora of applications such as blogging, vblogging, audioblogging, wikis, and social bookmarking.

According to Corbett, Web 2.0 is still a form of ICT – ICT is just an umbrella term, which covers all forms of digital information technologies. ‘But,’ Corbett argues, ‘Web 2.0 is markedly different from other ICTs. It doesn’t just solicit; it thrives on the participation of people. It’s what fundamentally makes it different. Web 2.0 wouldn’t exist if it weren’t populated by people using it.’

But perhaps more importantly, I also wanted to probe deeper into a comment Corbett made on Sunday, before the conference.

‘Web 2.0 is parallel to participatory development,’ Corbett had stated. ‘It’s about empowering people to take a role, it’s about citizen media.’ So I asked him today, why do you describe it as parallel to participatory development?

‘Ah, it’s not exactly parallel,’ he says, and goes on to explain. ‘I’ve been working with digital information technology with indigenous communities since 1995. In the past, it was different. All the content was produced with communities, but there was a steep learning curve in terms of the technology. But with Web 2.0, it simplifies how people interact – and it thrives on people contributing knowledge, and hence the comparison to participatory development.’

Essentially, what Corbett argues is that Web 2.0 requires the active participation of people in creating the content online – unlike in the past, when technical experts traditionally drove the uses of ICTs, in both the set-up and populating with content.

‘The technical experts were essentially the gatekeepers of the technology,’ Corbett says. ‘But Web 2.0 now offers opportunities for communities to interact with the technology – anyone can create content, you don’t have to be an expert.’

So is this why he describes it as parallel to participatory development? ‘Yes, as it’s about direct engagement, not about being represented by experts,’ says Corbett.

But, I argue, what about those without the time, access or inclination to take part in Web 2.0 for development?

‘There will still be a lot of people who are passive recipients rather than active participants,’ agrees Corbett, ‘But you could argue that this is the same as any other form of development today. The main difference is that Web 2.0 invites everyone to participate – and there’s no requirement any longer for it to be expert driven.’

‘It’s about early adopters,’ Corbett continues. ‘Early adopters of the technologies and applications get on board – just look at the people who are attending this conference. People like Ethan Zuckerman with Global Voices , or Kado Muir [who is presenting a session at Web2forDev on the ‘Outback Movement for Cultural Survival Using Web 2.0: An Aboriginal Case Study’]. These people have already identified that their communities, or the communities they work with, can benefit from Web 2.0.’  

It’s good to know that there are real examples of participatory development integrated with Web 2.0 applications out there, within this community of practice. I feel that I am a little closer to understanding this ‘mash-up’ of participatory approaches and ‘participatory web’. But I still have more questions to ask….

Interview with Christian Kreutz, GTZ, Web2forDev Conference, Rome 24^th February 2007.  

Monday was a preliminary workshop day, prior to the start of the main Web2forDev conference in Rome. Participants were introduced to various web-based applications that are part of the Web 2.0. One of the presentations was about blogging. 

Presenter Christian Kreutz, of GTZ in Germany, described blogging as a very powerful communication tool: blogging is ‘a two-way conversation…’ – a great way of creating ‘virtual meeting spaces’ and sharing ‘first hand experience of what is going on in the field’. But perhaps not everyone agrees. Andrew Keen once referred to the emerging Web 2.0 – and phenomena such as blogging – as the latest and greatest ‘seduction’.[1] He argues that it will drown out traditional media and the ‘authoritative voice’, plunging us into a ‘nightmare of over-abundance’ of information and authors. However, Christian argues that ‘many blogs are covering niche topics that traditional media might not otherwise cover. The traditional media already rely a lot on blogs to get information from places such as Iraq or Lebanon.’ 

Yet according to Christian, there is still a general misunderstanding of what blogging is – and what it is useful for. So I asked him, how do we – the users – know what information is accurate or important to us? And, given that anyone can blog – to give opinion, fact or perspectives – how can we know or even define what is useful and relevant?  

‘It takes time to write, time to read and time to digest blogs. But, Web 2.0 applications can also bring you to blogs – there are blogging hubs that gather information so that you can follow up on your own chosen theme… and interesting new technologies like RSS feeds mean that you can see how popular different blogs are. And out of these numbers we can see what people jump on.’ To put it simply, these RSS applications are capable of generating qualitative information and statistics, and so monitoring how popular different blogs are. And Christian’s argument is that the more people read or respond to different posts in blogs, the more ‘authoritative’ the information contained in those posts can be said to be. But is the majority voice synonymous with quality? 

Blogs are now increasingly being used by intermediate development organisations, which are using them as a strategic organisational tool to share information and knowledge. So how are these organisations accountable to the people that they are apparently representing on these blogs?  

Interestingly, Christian commented that in his opinion, blogging ‘is still completely underestimated by the development scene’. Whilst he agrees that there is a lot of information generated, which is not necessarily accurate or useful, he also argues that the essence of blogging is that it creates a two-way conversation, which in turn creates its own feedback loops. The theory is that these feedback loops circulate between people at the grassroots, intermediate development organisations, donor organisations, IFIs and policy makers. He believes that this will be profoundly important in the development sector, creating a monitoring and evaluation system which will in turn push for better practice. ‘If a project isn’t working, people will write about it from the field.’

 Web 2.0 protagonists passionately believe that applications like blogging will open up a whole new era of openness and accountability in development. These all-important feedback loops will ensure greater accountability, transparency and representation, from the grassroots to the policy makers. 

Is blogging open to abuse? ‘Yes,’ says Christian candidly. ‘But it’s an open, cultural conversation. I’m amazed how well it works in many different contexts.’ He agrees that blogging can be very political, and also very partisan. However, he also argues that it’s not all about blogging. Face-to-face meetings are still fundamentally important – and what use is your blog if no-one knows it exists? ‘Just to have a blog alone, that isn’t the thing. You have to do something more to be a network. You have to interact, to make your blog known, and to convince other organisations to join in – it’s an overlap – many things have to come together.’ 

But perhaps his main message is that it is a low-cost, easy to implement technology that gets results. There are still clear disadvantages to the South, for example with connectivity. And more time is needed to develop capacities within organisations wanting to use blogging in their communications strategies. But while there may still be challenges to overcome, Christian’s premise is that blogging really can be a form of democratised, accountable knowledge sharing – where the majority voice can also become the authoritative voice.  

A final thought: Who is participating in the creation of ‘the majority voice’? How truly participatory is Web 2.0? What participatory processes are the Web 2.0 community of practice using? Is Participatory Web for Development a reality – on the ground as well as in cyberspace? The answers will emerge over the rest of the conference…

Charles Dhewla made a comment which raised a great discussion on dgroups.  It expands how web2.0 might even widen the gap of ICT for development. It also highlights how challenges such as connectivity, electricity or education limit very much the use of web2.0. Here are some interesting quotes from the discussion. The full contributions can be accessed here: web2fordev dgroup.

Charles Dhewla:
Web2.0 is a welcome development particularly for African countries where website developers are charging a fortune if one wants a simple website. This new technology has opened up new channels for sharing information. I have discovered that in most cases, a blog is more useful and user-friendly than most websites which are not even interactive.

However, before we are lost in the hype of Web2.0, let us not forget that in some parts of Africa, there are millions of people who are still to know what an e-mail is or visit a website. Let’s not promote new technology as if the earlier one is no longer useful. There are people still learning their ropes on conventional websites who need to be given time to absorb this knowledge. The pace at which ICTs are being developed and promoted does not take into account the rate at which people are able to absorb and use acquired knowledge and skills. If it takes years for educated people to learn and absorb internet use, how long do you think it will take illiterate communities, who are supposed to benefit? The workshop should make an effort to address this issue. Information and knowledge overload is a grim reality in most developing countries especially in Africa.

Ken Kubuga:
In parts of the world like Africa, Web2 is not exactly the problem. The problem is Internet availability and accessibility. I am sure a good number of us will feel charged about exploiting the opportunities associated with web2 tools during and after the conference and perhaps get back home to having to deal with Internet accessibility.

Steve Ciscler:
I’d like to remind people of the solution in the mid-90’s to low bandwidth and the desire to use the web: accessing it via email. There were whole manuals to do this, and I met a researcher from Guyana who did literally everything via email at 9600 bps. You can see some of the instructional texts at the bottom of this page: http://www.expita.com/ While most of us would not do this, there may be a resurgence in using these techniques from mobile phones: access the web using SMS.

Makelesi Kora-Gonelevu:
Lets not forget the Pacific where the islands are spread over vast amounts of water. The problem here too would be internet connectivity.

John Tim Denny:
On the one had we need the dreamers to come up with what it will be in the future, yet at the same time we also need some sort of bridge between what we must do now to directly assist in the most basic steps to set the stage… the step from not having electricity to Web 2.0 is like sending a man to the moon.. what is in between?

Rachael Kadama:
I would like to include another dimension to this discussion, if tomorrow we all got reasonable internet access and availability, what kind of impact to development are these tools likely to bring to us?

The availability of relevant content is what worries me and where I think the web2 tools have the opportunity to lend us a hand in developing it. whether we have no access , little access or abundance of bandwidth, people in both rural and urban areas only need this access to get some kind of content / information. We need to look into how these tools can deliver some of the lacking content or strengthen content development, communication, collaboration etc.

Tobias Eigen:
For me the most important part is that Web 2.0 helps to make the case for justifying the Internet for busy and cash strapped organizations. With a little knowhow and an hour or so of Internet connectivity, it is possible to get a professional looking blog up and running. With minimal care and feeding, that blog can be filled with compelling stories and photographs, as exemplified by some of the blogsdescribed in the comments to my blog already. Blogs are really just one example - a wide range of new “Web 2.0 hype enabled” software and services really have made it easier for African organizations to make use of the Internet once you get online.

Koin Etuati:
I think the Web 2 is ideal for us that work on gathering and sharing information on new technologies/concept - either with energy, agriculture, health etc. Because we want to use this technology to share and gather new ideas/concept with our counterparts, in the respective islands in the case of the pacific region. We put the information together, get innovative financing schemes to put this information on the ground.

Edward Addo-Dankwa:
If we are going to wait for all people to learn and be familiar with conventional things before new technologies are introduced, then we will never develop. New technologies are mostly built on the conventional ones. In fact Web 2.0 according to many people, is not new. They are the old conventional things that have been improved. They are supposed to have made it easier for people to appreciate and use those technologies better. Technology does not take into consideration individual people’s rate of learning. In fact our people don’t need to start learning from the begining.

Anke Weisheit:
Connectivity is a major challenge for economically poorer countries to access, participate in the electronic media, especially internet, and e-mail communication.
Some internet connectivity information in Uganda
1-hour internet in a cafe in
Kampala 1500UGX = 0.85USD
Mbarara 3000UGX = 1,72USD
Village 6000UGX = 3,42USD

Jonathan C Onyekwelu:
Bandwidth cost is probably the same for Africans and Europeans or Americans but the earning power is about 500 times higher in both continents than in Africa. Providing the right bandwidth that will guarantee the right internet speed will cost Africans a fortune!
It might be interesting for us to know that a lot of Universities and research institutes in Africa cannot afford the luxury of fast internet connection. In fact most have epilectic services, which is often times frustrating. You will have to wait for hours to connect and when you are finally connected, downloading data is another nightmare. If this is the case with the elites, then what will the story for rural communities for whom we are trying to evaluate the efficacy of web2fordev?

While reading a general dossier about Web 2.0 in Spore the CTA’s information bulletin I came over the short, but very interesting article “Field report from Cameroon”.

Very briefly the platform www.riddac.org is presented (which won the RFI Net Afrique price in 2006 for the best African Website). François Ossama launched RIDDAC, a network for information on sustainable development in Central Africa in 1999. He set up the website to circulate and exchange information on environmental issues.

But as he points out:

“…as time went on, we realised that a static website would not last long, since visitors who came to download a text would have no reason to come back to the site.”

The next logical step for him was to establish a blog on the website http://www.riddac.org/blogs/ . If you are going now there you will find some interesting posts about what is going on in Central Africa in the field of ICTs, development and environmental issues, legal framework discussions and much more. See for instance “Crimes contre l’environnement : La loi est dure mais il faut l’appliquer”

François also supports interested people to create their own blog and open in this way the discussion and information exchange. Unfortunately comments on the blog are very rare until now. People reading articles can vote if they found them interesting or not. Taking this as one possible indicator you can see that the site it quite frequented and also considered as informative. Just have a look and see for yourself!

The new web does not only offer a great potential for development in different domains, it also has its implications for traditional development aid, said Giulio Quaggiotto and Pierre Wielezynski in their recent article, “Development 2.0: A New Paradigm for the Non-Profit Sector?” The authors highlight different facets of web2.0 (e.g. free development data, the long tail and collective intelligence) and how it has already changed the nonprofit sector.

In my opinion, particular NGOs and new webbased actors redefine development and challenge traditional development agencies, such is the example of Kiva with its microfinance approach. “Kiva lets you connect with and loan money to unique small businesses in the developing world.” Starting from $25 everybody can contribute to a small microcredit loan. A lender give funding without interest rates and with a minimum of administration costs. The benifitor invests the money in its own little business, pays back over a certain period of time and informs the lender directly about the progresses via email. Run by a small team in San Francico, Kiva cooperates with local NGOs. Interview and podcast with the founder of kiva.org.

Another example is Globalgiving, which lets potential recipients post ideas on the website to seek funders. This plattform founded by former Worldbank staff brings together “givers” and “project leaders” to realize projects worldwide. Globalgiving is basically a marketplace for development aid which builds a network between social entrepreneurs, development organizations and donors, and leads to “community driven social change”. Every project can be followed over its different stages and enables direct feedback.

These are only two examples of new websites which still have to prove their results. Kiva for instance is criticized for giving loans without interest rates. From my point of view, there will be other more inspiring networks that users can build up themeselves to cooperate with projects on a peer2per basis, which are driven through the open source philosophy. “These new collaborations will not only serve commercial interests, they will help people do public-spirited things like cure genetic diseases, predict global climate change”, argue Dan Tapscott and Anthony Williams in their book wikinomics.

What is your opinion? Do the platforms above present a better approach for development aid? Can the collaborative web create new modes for development?

Net2Con: Surfing the rolling cloud of connectivity: ICT and the developing world

Partha Sarker has inspriring thoughts in his presentation about web2.0 for development:

Does web 2.0 is completely irrelevant to the majority of the world ? No! Both have common underlying principles- sharing, collaboration, harnessing collective intelligence, peer to peer communication etc..

Podcast from this presentation
Presentation for download

Internationalization of the Social Web: An Interview with Teresa Crawford
Crawford’s view on the web2.0 for civil society and activism.

Everything You Need to Know About Web 2.0
A nice collection around the buzzword and what it means.

The Power of the Social Web for African Civil Society
A listing about the promises and pitfalls of web2.0.

Development 2.0: A New Paradigm for the Non-Profit Sector?
Very interesting article about web.2.0 and its implication on development aid.

I was curious when an article titled Web 2.0 can benefit the world’s poor appeared on Scidev.net. The authors Waleed al-Shobakky and Jack Imsdahl see in new web applications, such as Google docs, a great potential for developing countries. They write, “Web 2.0 can help these students create documents, track their families’ or villages’ business affairs in spreadsheets and save and store data online. Users only need access to the Internet to benefit from these applications.”

No doubt these applications will change the old concept of purchasing software for each computer. But what is the real benefit of having documents online? I think these applications have great potential to collaborate. But the article doesn’t stress enough the “capacity crisis” that developing countries are facing in the context of information and communication technologies. In Africa problems of simple training to use computers, affordable access, and having enough bandwidth, need to be solved. Furthermore, these online applications need instant access to the Internet which is only available to a minority.

A more helpful approach is open office, so people can work without an Internet connection. Another one is Jahazi, which has developed a USB flash stick full of applications. Also, Google wants to bridge this connectivity challenge with its latest tool called Gear, which will allow to work with online content while being offline.

But what strikes me the most about the article is that it leaves out the biggest opportunities about web2.0 and development. The potential lies in its users and what they do with these tools to communicate, share knowledge and create social media. New social networks are established online, which facilitate interaction and collaboration in an unprecedented way. Blogs, wikis or free sources are the drivers of web2.0.

The authors see language as an obstacle, but on the contrary, I believe that web2.0 with its open source dimension offers software in all kinds of languages (e.g. wordpress and drupal). This is a key factor to create own communities in local or regional contexts (e.g. the union of the Urban Poor from Indonesia, Afrigator, Egypt blog review). However, to which extent this can benefit the poor, will be further discussed on the web2fordev conference.

Crossposted: www.crisscrossed.net